Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

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

Welcome to the humanities reference desk. Want a faster answer? Main page: Help searching Wikipedia     How can I get my question answered? Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right). Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question. Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when. Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here. Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context. Note: We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice. We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point. We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need. Ready? Ask a new question! After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. How do I answer a question? Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

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

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.

thx Bobble hobble dobble

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 Spartan 00:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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 ny156uk 00:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Muse 00:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Girls love insincerity! Here's my contribution. Use it as you see fit:

My dear little Vicki I think you're just kicky

To rhyme is so tricky When you're just a thicky

So don't say I'm icky Or I make you sicky

If I give you a hickie Or just a small licky.

Hmmm. Or maybe you could just memorize She Walks in Beauty instead. Of course, memorizing that took me quite a while, but your younger braincells might make short work of it. Matt Deres 00:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. Esskater11 04:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to claims someone else's amateur work as you own, you could always use this. Rockpocket 07:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Oh my Victoria

How I adore yuh

Come my dear Vicky

Please don't be tricky

Look at me Vi,

I'm down on one knee

Look into my blue eyes

And see my poetic lies!"

Well, what did you really expect. Richard Avery 16:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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)--Eriastrum 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If it needn't be passed off as original, you might find some inspiration in the lyrics of Tiny Tim. -- Deborahjay 23:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Steewi 00:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

Although it would be a whole lot better if the last line rhymed at all. --Monorail Cat 01:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Potato and France

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.

Was it a tight balance of the 2 reasons or did one lead the trend to the other? --76.214.203.95 11:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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 18^th 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". Keria 12:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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? 86.148.38.116 14:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

See Roman Catholicism in Great Britain. Mary I of England briefly reintroduced Catholicism, but a combination of Elizabeth's want of power, independence from Rome, and wars with the Catholic French and Spanish made the religion deeply unpopular in her court, leading to the passage of the Elizabethan Religious Settlement - attending Anglican services became compulsory (although a blind eye was turned to Catholics who publicly pretended to be Anglican, heresy (as defined by the Revival of the Heresy Acts) ceased to be a crime, and the fine was 12 pence per week - relatively minor compared to the death penalty that awaited Catholics by the end of her reign). Probably the last straw was the Rising of the North (and in particular, Pope Pius V's support of the revolution through the Regnans in Excelsis), which made the term "Catholic" effectively synonymous with "traitor" in Britain. The few people who remained Catholic went underground; the proliferation of so-called "priest holes" in Nicholas Owen's stately homes is testament to this, as is the sheer list of Catholic martyrs of the English Reformation, including the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales and the Eighty-five martyrs of England and Wales. Laïka 14:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Muse 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

An enjoyable film, despite its complete disregard for historical or geographical accuracy. What can you do but admire the chutzpah when Eilean Donan appears with a caption saying "Fotheringay Castle"? Gdr 12:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ratification of international treaties by France

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. --Edcolins 15:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I reworded the article for now, to avoid the problem. See also Talk:London Agreement (2000)#Ratification by France, not yet?. Ideas are still welcome. --Edcolins 19:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

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)

Claim fair use of what? -- kainaw™ 18:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, images--193.120.116.179 18:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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.  --Lambiam 19:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Switzerland military

I'm told that all Swiss citizens must serve one year in the military before going to college. Is this true? Thank you, wsc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.109.242 (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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.[1] 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.  --Lambiam 18:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no connection whatsoever between military service and the access to higher education in Switzerland. Sandstein 20:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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@rēino 20:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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. Sandstein 20:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Wrad 20:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A small Swiss force did go abroad not so many months ago, y'know, though I gather there was an apology the next morning. (A patrol invaded Liechtenstein by mistake, in the dark iirc.) —Tamfang (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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!83.148.88.37 19:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Saudade7 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

We have in fact an article on Harold Pinter's Nobel Lecture: Art, Truth & Politics. The text of the speech itself can be found here.  --Lambiam 20:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The article referred to by the questioner is - US says it has right to kidnap British citizens 86.21.74.40 23:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 polo 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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 polo 17:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

<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. -- Mwalcoff 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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:

• sucide rates
• dirty water
• drugs
• gangs or violent crimes

thank you for your time (Deathmouse 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

Try Ontario Minamata disease for your second topic. Matt Deres 22:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest using Google and typing into the search box each of the topics you have listed above, plus the term "First Nations", the Canadian term for Canada's aboriginal peoples. Marco polo 17:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Victimization and offending among the Aboriginal population in Canada (a Statistics Canada report) states that Aboriginal Canadians are roughly 10 times more likely to be accused of murder than a non-indigenous Canadian, and that nine-tenths of Aboriginal people in Canadian prisons require treatment for substance abuse (although it neglects to provide a comparable figure with non-Aboriginal people). Laïka 19:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Franco and the fugitives

Is it true that General Franco provided a refuge for fleeing Nazis after World War Two?217.43.9.186 20:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Muse 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Baghdad in Afghanistan?

Is there a place called Baghdad in Afghanistan? It seems there is according to [2]. I could not find it myself. If it exists, is it notable enough to have its own article? Baghdad, Afghanistan

Thank you for reading.

Regards, --Kushal^t 20:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Kushal^t 21:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, there is such a place: [3], [4]. 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.  --Lambiam 21:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

Thank you all very much. (Further comments are always welcome.) --Kushal^t 21:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Bishop 06:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There are also, apparently, Baghdads in Egypt, Iran and Pakistan,[5] while the NGA NGS also lists a Baghdad in Syria.  --Lambiam 08:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So a typo actually helped me learn something. Great! --Kushal^t 22:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

December 3

findings map that shows northern european tribes reach into england and ireland

hi...

looking for map that details by language, years etc, how european tribes went into england/ireland/iceland.

not so much war maps.

all help appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.248.161 (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Scotland! Here are a few links to maps relating to the British Isles: MIGRATION & Early Inhabitants of the British Isles, Image:Karte völkerwanderung.jpg, Image:Folkevandringene.jpg. None of these shows the earliest mesolithic and neolithic settlements, of which little is known, nor the Celtic invasion (see Brythons), and the 9th century Viking expansion (see Danelaw). If the Romans may be considered a tribe (although not Northern European): they also invaded Great Britain, and there is of course the Norman conquest. For Iceland you just need another arrow from Danmark + Norway for the Vikings who colonized the island. The years and languages you can find (if not given on the maps) in our articles by following the links given here and further links in the articles.  --Lambiam 13:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 Will 06:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Not quite a contemporary of George III (1738–1820), but Ludwig II of Bavaria (1845–1886) is, according to our article, perhaps best known today as the "Mad King".  --Lambiam 08:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(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. -- JackofOz 08:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Blacketer 11:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Queen Mary of England had several false pregnancies which some scholars attribute to mental illness. Probably not the same thing as George, though. Wrad 16:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Muse 00:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Saukkomies 15:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Juana la Loca! Corvus cornix_talk 00:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My nomination is King Lear. Xn4 01:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My goodness: I had no idea that George III was so long lived! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! I seem to have missed the "living around the same time". Ah, well, George no doubt saw Lear on stage. Xn4 02:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

He acted the part, if you remember this Clio the Muse (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Slightly off tune, I can't help adding the famous comment of King George II in the late 1750s when someone told him General James Wolfe was mad - "Mad, is he? Then I wish he would bite some others of my generals." Xn4 06:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo

Please explain the roots of the Kosovo problem217.43.9.32 10:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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.  --Lambiam 12:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Saukkomies 15:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Xn4 02:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Xn4. I agree with you that Albanians have been in Kosovo for a long long time. Some times in the past there were more Albanians in Kosovo than Serbs, and at other times there were more Serbs than Albanians. It seems to go back and forth quite a lot - especially in the past 100 years or so. This is all treated much more thoroughly than my very brief cursory explanation has done in the wiki article about Kosovo. The part I was highlighting about the events that took place in World War II was meant to give an explanation as to why this problem sort of sprung up so dramatically right after Tito's regeime ended. I really didn't intend to mean that the resettlements during WWII were the only times that there were shifts in the Albanian and Serbian populations in Kosovo, even though I see that one could interpret it that way. At any rate, thanks again for clarifying this. Saukkomies 18:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Ireland from a historical point of view

How does Seamus Heaney present Ireland from a historical point of view in his poems? Weasly 13:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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.  --Lambiam 15:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Weasly 14:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

He oft used Ireland's history to give commentary and draw parallels on The Troubles. Think outside the box 15:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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. 62.249.220.179 17:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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. – Kaihsu 15:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Incase you haven't tried here, here is a link to the wiki-quote for Keynes (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes). I have to say i'm not really a Keynesian so don't know much of his quotes, but here's some quotes and one with Keynes in (http://www.sharemarketbasics.com/STOCKQUOTES/stock-quote-collection.htm). Unfortunately I think none of them are quite what you were looking for. ny156uk 17:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Swiss wars

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? Wrad 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Yes, Switzerland has not had any external armed conflicts after the Napoleonic Wars, in which it took part as the Helvetic Republic, although more as a battleground than as an active combatant. See Switzerland in the Napoleonic era. The Swiss did, though, shoot down 11 intruding German aircraft in World War II and interned several Allied aircraft; see Switzerland during the World Wars#World War II. Sandstein 23:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) — PS: See also Me 109#Combat service with Switzerland. Sandstein 23:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Muse 00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Is one reason other countries have avoided provoking Switzerland into a declaration of war (at least since 1891) the fear of their knives? Edison 03:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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? ---Sluzzelin talk 12:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

While Switzerland has long been neutral, Swiss mercenaries have absorbed the more warlike of the land's manhood. SaundersW 14:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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 [6], [7], [8], [9])

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). Sandstein 18:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandstein, for such a full and informative response. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Taifa and Almoravids

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 Yazid 19:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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.  --Lambiam 20:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Muse 01:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Almoravids ever alleged the taifa kings to be "heterodox"; they simply accused them of being lax in their conformity to the Shari'a in practice, and more importantly, putting their personal interests ahead of what they believed were the interests of Muslims as a whole. The allegations of hedonism simply lent support to the allegation that no proper defense of Islam could be expected from such rulers and that they therefore had to be removed. -- Slacker (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

Thanks,

76.171.0.33 21:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Noah Barron Graduate Student, University of Southern California

Reading comprehension - Harry Potter

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, Deborahjay 23:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Steewi 00:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

amazon.com lists each book's reading level. I'm not sure I agree with them. -Arch dude 01:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

I'm not sure I can add much to that, and don't know if you're still reading, but kids younger than 10 (even 6year olds) seem to have found Harry Potter fairly easy going. Remember that the overall style must be a part of this - not only are the sentences short and basic, but there is absolutely no ambiguity about character or motive, apart from a few quirky characters like Snape, and the fact that the bad guys are inevitably concealed until the end. 203.221.127.62 (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Bielle 00:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Sorry, Steewi, but Carol of the Bells/Shchedrik Щедрик is written in a minor key.Thomprod (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Carol of the Bells is in a minor key. However, I can think of a great deal of music from Eastern Europe that is in a major key. One of the greatest composers in the history of orchestral composing wrote many of his masterpieces in major keys: Dmitri Shostakovich. Festive Overture, the finale from the Firebird, Rite of Spring... All of them are written in a major key for a good majority of the piece.

Picking a folk song at random -- basically the first one I thought of -- how about the one that Stravinsky used in the Fourth Tableau of Petrouchka, the Wet-Nurses' Dance (it is based on "Down the Petersky Road", which Stravinsky sets in an unambiguous F major). This particular song was arranged by Tchaikovsky as well as Balakirev and Rimsky-Korsakov, and puts in an appearance in Tolstoy's War and Peace as well. Can't think of any specifically major key Christmas music offhand though. Antandrus (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

Thanks :) --Monorail Cat 01:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Cat 01:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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! ---Sluzzelin talk 01:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

George Sand

Somebody asked me about George Sand and they want me to know why she used a man's name, George, for what reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.250 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Cat 02:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(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. -- JackofOz 02:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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-huh 04:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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. --Wetman 09:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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". Saudade7 01:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Akokisa, aka "Arkokisa" ? Pfly 04:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Saint and the Holy Spirit

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.63.215.27.178 03:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Catholic, but there aren't that many books written by Saints, so my off-the-cuff guess would be either Saint Augustine or Saint Thomas Aquinas. Saint Augustine wrote the following books: On Christian Doctrine, Confessions, The City of God, and Enchiridion. Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote way too many books to list here, but you may view them at the Works by Thomas Aquinas wiki page. My guess, after looking these over, would be either Augustine's Confessions, or Aquinas' Summa Theologica. But again, this is just a stab in the dark... Saukkomies 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

More likely St. Teresa's Autobiography or St. John of the Cross's Dark Night of the Soul, I'd think. But really, the only way to be sure is to ask your priest again, saying you didn't write it down and would like the name of the book again. - Nunh-huh 04:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of Emily Dickinson Poem

What is this poem by Emily Dickinson saying?

1751

There comes an hour when begging stops,

When the long interceding lips

Perceive their prayer is vain.

"Thou shalt not" is a kinder sword

Than from a disappointing God

"Disciple, call again."

66.81.158.150 05:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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. SaundersW 09:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Cat 09:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[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. Gdr 12:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"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. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 06:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte Zolotow worked at Harper & Row and HarperCollins publishing for a good part of her career. "A Charlotte Zolotow Book" was her publishing imprint; that would imply that she was the publisher at Harper in charge of Dragon of the Lost Sea. - Nunh-huh 07:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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? Plekhanov 06:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Such "compare and contrast" questions have so often proved to be homework subjects that Reference desk volunteers are sometimes shy to answer them. --Wetman 09:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Why war?

Why did Germany declare war on the United States in December 1941 when it was under no obligation to do so?

Desire for world domination I guess--88.111.25.42 09:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Gandalf61 10:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Saukkomies 14:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Edison 18:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

first generation entrepreneurs

Who is called a "first generation entrepreneur"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.216.62 (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Jpeob 11:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Cat 09:47, 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...

Sorry about that, everyone! Not intentional vandalism, I promise! --Monorail Cat 09:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Cat 09:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Assurance

Please explain the concept of assurance on the Anglo-Scottish borders in the sixteenth century? How did this work in practice? Donald Paterson 09:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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:

• LacusCurtius • Valerius Maximus — Liber IV
• bibliotheca Augustana
• Itinera Electronica
• Itinera Electronica
• Valeri Maximi

Thanks - --Doug ^talk 11:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Doug. I can find nothing. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Alexsander Eiduk

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 right 13:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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 [10] SaundersW (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Echoes of Candide -

“ 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. ”

But the irony is lacking. Xn4 04:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That's another stub, Aleksandr Eiduk. Thanks, Clio! Sandstein (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain this video?

I saw this on The Daily Show and I don't know what to make of it. --Ouzo 14:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you go and check Mike Gravel's home page? Keria 14:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't find anything useful. Just a forum and a link to his youtube profile. There were a couple videos referencing the rock-tossing one, but nothing that actually explains it. However, google found this video of Gravel explaining it --Ouzo 15:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Avery 15:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

See Mike Gravel Explains "The Rock" video on YouTube.  --Lambiam 23:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Need a German type name for a German shepard puppy

Can you suggest some possible names for a new puppy, that would be easily pronounable in English? Thanks.--Christie the puppy lover 14:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"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 | Talk 14:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fritz and Hansel are both archetypal German names. DuncanHill 14:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Blondi" comes to mind... Skarioffszky 14:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Call it Orpheus because for sure it will Offenbach (boom! boom!)Richard Avery 15:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(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? ---Sluzzelin talk 15:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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 polo 21:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For a male dog, the nickname for Wolfgang, Wolfi (VOHL fee), could also be cute. Marco polo 21:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Depending on personality, Blitz. ◄Zahakiel► 21:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Lovely names, Marco, but surely "Ursula" is "little bear"? SaundersW (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Xn4 00:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Saudade7 01:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Xn4's Goethe fits that description, and so would Bismarck, if you pick his first name Otto! Other famous German two-syllablers ending in a vowel: Else, Hannah, or Hella for females. Hugo, Willy, or Udo for males. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

I like Schatzi. It's related to the word for "treasure", and it has a kind of doggy feel to it. It also meets the 2-syllable-vowel-ending criterion mentioned above. (It's a pity your dog isn't a black cat; if it were, I have the perfect name - Figaro.) -- JackofOz (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.

Hope that helps. Pastordavid 16:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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". Bielle 17:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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) Wrad 17:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Saukkomies 18:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

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. Pastordavid 19:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

As the original poster, I must say thank you for some very interesting perspectives! Not least the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As a first time user of Wikipedia I'm impressed, what a great tool. For the last poster, another interesting point of view which would certainly make sense. God in His infinite wisdom knows anyway if you'd have believed given the chance. A get out clause for the unfortunate! Rather suggests our destiny is predetermined though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.224.59.218 (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My non-orthodox take on "Nobody comes to the Father but through me" would be similar to that of 63.3. If we take the metaphor of Jesus as the gate, we can say that all non-Christians are outside the wall and only though some kind of explicit conversion can they come inside (get into the Kingdom of Heaven, come to the Father, whatever). Or we can say that if we find somebody who is not explicitly Christian, who may be not of any formal faith or of some other faith, whose life and being have an authenticity that we can only understand as being heavenly, then we have to accept that they have come in through the gate that is Christ, whatever name they may know it by. In other words, certain Christians interpret the verse as exclusive, and others as inclusive. SaundersW (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I can see what you're saying now. Wrad (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. Saukkomies 19:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. Saukkomies 02:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for your reply, Clio. I appreciate the commentary from someone who has some deep knowledge of the subject. It seems to me that there were two major influences in the Civil Wars - that of the likes of Pym and Hampden, and that of the Levellers, Ranters and Diggers. The former seem to have been primarily from the emerging Middle Class, and the latter from the displaced and landless poor. So perhaps my mistake in analyzing this is to try to make a broad statement that a particular event marked the turning point of the revolution, when there were more than just one movements going on within the New Model Army, Parliament and the general population of England in the 1640s. I do think that it would be a mistake to completely discount the influence of the more radical elements of the Civil Wars such as the Diggers. Though their numbers were small, they had a very strong influence that rippled across Europe for many years after. Indeed, there still are people today who look to the Diggers for inspiration. However, I do agree that most of the Members of Parliament were indeed NOT social revolutionaries. Saukkomies 04:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hanafuda cards

Why don't hanafuda cards have indices? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.202.44 (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(Assuming you are asking why there are no numbers or other values indicated on the cards) The Hanafuda article's history section mentions the "cat and mouse" game between the Tokugawa shogunate and its illegally gambling subjects. New cards with different artful designs were constantly created, and numbers or letters might have made it easier for the authorities to recognize them as playing cards. The article also implies that they don't have numbers because they don't need them: "the main purpose is to associate images". ---Sluzzelin talk 13:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Western playing cards don't need numbers either (just count the spots), but they have them anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.43.64.40 (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hindus wearing Karakul caps

Why some Hindus all of sudden started wearing the karakul caps like Natwar K. Singh?

Well, the The Indian National Interests article "Whose cap is it anyway?", blames it on "extemely (sic) cold weather in Kabul and northern Pakistan", though "an eagle-eyed Reuters correspondent" saw Natwar Singh's Karakul (hat) as a symbolic gesture, according to the same article. The link to the Reuters article is dead, unfortunately. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

It may be Bridle Path-Sunnybrook-York Mills which has the highest concentration of Afghans? Xn4 00:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

December 5

Somalia Arab League?

How Somalia is an Arab nation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.251 (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Xn4 00:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 . Saukkomies 02:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

However, it's still true that the great majority of Somalis are simply not Arabs in any meaningful sense of the word "Arab", so that Somalia's membership in the Arab League is something of an anomaly. Many non-Arab Muslims in many parts of the world recite daily Islamic prayers in Arabic, but that doesn't make you an Arab, any more than celebrating the Mass in Latin makes you a citizen of Rome... AnonMoos (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Arabic is more widespread in Somalia than people here seem to think.-- Slacker (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of church/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)

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.

We should not be surprised that there is an article on school prayer. The U.S. section seems quite factual, including the first challenges in 1890. And to clarify, prayer is not forbidden in state schools; it is the appearance of state sponsored religion that violates separation of church and state. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes i was talking about the Unites States education system, specifically, are they allowed to hand out papers referring to 'Jesus', 'Lord', or 'God Almighty'? wildboyz_211 (talk)

The constitutional principle involved is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which forbids government institutions from establishing a preference for one religion over another. In your example, it would violate the Establishment Clause if a public school were to endorse Christian teachings about Jesus, "the Lord", or "God Almighty", to present those teachings as fact, or to ask for the blessing of those Christian figures for a school event, since that would involve an implicit endorsement. Such an endorsement would show a preference for Christianity over other religions. Now, the Constitution does not forbid private or religious schools from endorsing or preferring a given religion's teachings. So it is acceptable for a private Christian school to hold school prayers to "God Almighty" or to ask for Jesus' blessing. It is also acceptable for individual students at a public school to do this, as long as other students are not required or in any way encouraged to participate. In general, such prayer cannot be led by a teacher during the class period in a public school, since the teacher is an employee in a position of authority, and having the teacher lead the prayer would amount to the school's endorsement of the practice. Finally, there would be no problem with the study in a public school of papers referring to Christian figures such as "Jesus", "Lord", or "God Almighty" so long as those papers were studied critically as part of a course on comparative religions or perhaps as part of a course on history or literature. The requirement would be that these religious writings not be presented as revealed truth but as objects for critical academic study. Again in a private school, there would be no such requirement, and religious writings could be presented as revealed truth. Marco polo (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this was exactly what i was looking for, my sister is in the 2nd grade, shes doing a play, and in the play she has something to say referring to Jesus, the Lord, and God Almighty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildboyz 211 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.) Xn4 01:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds familiar to me, tho' not, I suspect, from an obituary, rather from someone writing about an obituary (a meta-obituary?). DuncanHill (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A possible writer is Auberon Waugh, who knew Driberg well and was in some way related to him. Xn4 01:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Could it be Francis Wheen? DuncanHill (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess it could be Wheen, and Waugh's a strong possibility too. I do read lots of obituaries, but can't remember ever reading Driberg's (he died years before I'd ever actually heard of him). It might have been in something like "The <name> Book of Obituaries" - the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, the Times and other papers have published their choice selections of obits, although I've never purchased or borrowed such a book. It's possible I saw one in a bookshop and started leafing through it, as one does, and chanced upon this quote. I browse through so many books this way without actually buying them (it's my primary source of knowledge, after all; Wikipedia would be immensely poorer without it) that I can't possibly remember all of them. Thanks for the thoughts so far and if anybody has any further ideas, please let me know. In the meantime I'll be goin' a-Wheenin' and a-Waughin'. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Article about the Mongol Invasion of Persia is needed

Can someone write about the Mongol Invasion of Persia exclusively? Only about the invasion of Persia. Thanks. Sonic99 (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sonic99, why don't you have a go yourself? I will be happy to help and advise you in any way I can. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...maybe I'll take a go at it later. bibliomaniac15 04:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that Sonic already added the appropriate link on Mongol invasions, but I suppose a good starting point would be Battle of Baghdad (1258), as Baghdad was in Persia at the time. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Was Baghdad the captial city of the Persia during the Mongol Invasion? No, I think someone should write about the Mongol Invasion of Persia. Go ahead, bibliomaniac15. Sonic99 (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Movie Based on Tolstoy Book

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)

I answered the same question here. Oda Mari (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Urban Warfare in world war one

How was Urban warfare conducted in wworld war one? `Esskater11 16:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, there were no urban battles in World War One. Random Nonsense (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There were towns which changed hands numerous times in a few days. The house to house fighting would probably count as "urban warfare". Rifles, pistols, grenades, hand-to-hand fighting, bayonets, blood, guts. Edison (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Add artillery bombardments on top of that. I've found a couple photos of American infantry (1 and 2) involved in house to house fighting in French towns with artillery damage quite evident. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 20:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I didnt know weather or not they did en mass charges still or did more squad based tactics like in world war two. Esskater11 01:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Divorce in the UK

If i wanted to divorce my partner, but i couldn't afford spousal support, or wouldn't want to lose my house, what would my options be in the UK; please take into consideration that my spouse does not pay any bills in the household. --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We cannot offer legal advice, but there are probably several options. And bear in mind that lots of people have gone through a similar process. I suggest you contact your local Citizens Advice Bureau so that you can talk the problems through in detail, free and in confidence.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I will give you some legal advice. In case of divorce courts look at a number of factors to determine how alimony and marital property should be distributed between a husband and wife. Factors courts might look at include as to whether favor one spouce or the other include need. If one party would be in more financial need they will be favored in the property distribution. A party would seen as in more financial need if he had less earning power, traning or were out of the work force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.239.144 (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Near death experiences and heaven

Are there any articles, or reports on near death experiences and visions of heaven? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Near death experience is an obvious one. Do you have a search box on the left side of your screen? It's often useful for such things. Friday (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Julian of Norwich was a medieval anchorite who had a near death experience which she later wrote about. She claims to have seen God and had several questions about life answered in her experience. It's pretty interesting. Wrad (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is exactly what you're looking for, but this "Time" article, [11], discusses the phenomenon and includes discussion suggesting that common features of NDEs may be somewhat culture specific. Azi Like a Fox (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Government

I'm trying to improve the article on Government. I want to add something about the origin of government, but my searches on "Government" in Google (and in my local library's catalog) return too many unrelated searches (thousands). I don't know where to begin searching for something like this. It seems that no one knows exactly when the first government formed within humanity--that's okay with me, but I'm looking for well-researched information containing the best guess possible of when, where, how and why the first government formed. Please help me.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

One problem with this is the definition of "government". Is a tribal leader, his guards, and his advisers considered a government? Can a King - all by himself - be considered a government? All in all, this reminds me of a joke I heard in anthropology: Put three people in a room together. Two will ally to oppress the third. Then, one of the two will take credit for keeping the third in order and govern the other two. Suddenly, you have upper, middle, and lower class. -- kainaw™ 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly government, in the broadest and most basic sense, long preceded recorded history, so we cannot know where or when it originated. Primatology offers evidence that social orders and relations of dominance akin to government exist in related primate species and thus, to some extent, government may predate the emergence of Homo sapiens, and it may have arisen as a way of regulating what may be innate striving for dominance and recognition of hierarchy. That said, important aspects of modern governments have known historical origins. See our article on Bureaucracy, for example, for a history of bureaucratic practice. Marco polo (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look at Bureaucracy right now.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You might try looking into philosophy. Since no one really knows where Governments came from, there are mostly just a lot of theories. Hobbes argues that governments evolved because people realized that chaos and lack of order increased the probability of their dying a horrible death. In the medieval period, it was argued that Kings were chosen by God, and that that was the way it had always been. It all depends on who you ask, since no one really knows and there are no records. Wrad (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wrad. I just checked out of the library with a book about Thomas Hobbes .--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The article could use links to some of the earliest known governments (civilizations), such as that of Sumer, Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley Civilization. Currently, the earliest mention is of the Code of Hammurabi, although the Code of Ur-Nammu predates it by centuries. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--that's how I should have approached this--to try to find out when and where government becomes visible to history.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

T. Roosevelt letter to Edwin Arlington Robinson

I saw a PBS video biography on Teddy Roosevelt which ended with the following from a letter he wrote to the poet Robinson.

"There is not one among us in whom a devil does not dwell; at sometime, on some point, that devil masters each of us; he who has never failed has never been tempted; but the man who does in the end conquer, who does painfully retrace the steps of his slipping, why he shows that he has been tried in the fire and not found wanting. It is not having been in the Dark House, but having left it, that counts."

I have not found any reference to the letter itself or the context in which T.R was using it.

ken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.83.4.153 (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I used Google to search for the phrase "among us in whom a devil does not dwell" and got 48 hits. According to this site, that was Theodore Roosevelt to Edwin Arlington Robinson, March 27, 1916. Letters of Theodore Roosevelt (Harvard, Cambridge, 1951-54), 8, 1024. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is very much in the spirit of that other Roosevelt quote: "Far better it is to dare mighty things - even though checked by failure - than to take rank with those poor souls who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in that grey twilight which knows neither victory nor defeat". -- JackofOz (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

SS recruitment

What was the criterion for selection and membership of the German SS?86.151.242.37 (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not see this information in Schutzstaffel. If a reference is found here, it should be added to the article. -- kainaw™ 20:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The article on the German Wikipedia has this (my translation):

While [the SS] until then had consisted of a small group of a few hundred men within the SA, it would be developed according to Himmler['s plans] into the fight troupes of the Nazi party, "a National-Socialist soldier's order of men, proven Nordic, each of whom unconditionally obeys every command that comes from the Führer." He developed the SS at the same time into an "elite" and a mass organization.

The elitist nature [of the SS] showed itself in the biological-racial and ideological criteria that had to be satisfied to be able to belong to the SS. As a "tribal community", the SS was meant to present an embodiment of the Nazi master race ideology, and, as "guardians of the purity of blood", was intended to develop into the germinating cell of Nordic racial domination. The selection criteria were therefore not limited to the candidate himself; also the wives of SS members were examined as to their "racial purity".

 --Lambiam 23:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, in theory. But then you have to wonder about the this: not much in the way of German blood there. Likewise this and this. The Waffen SS was also the main "consumer" of Volksdeutsche recruits, most of whom were less German than Abraham Lincoln was English. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

When Himmler suceeded Erhard Heiden as Reichsführer SS in January 1929 he quickly established strict criteria for recruitment. Men had to be at least 1.7m tall and of the correct racial stock. All applications had to be accompanied by a photograph, to be examined by racial experts at headquarters. A grading system was established dividing candidates into five types;

• 1. Pure Nordic.
• 2. Predominantly Nordic.
• 3. Light Alpine, with Dinaric (Mediterranean) additions.
• 4. Predominantly eastern.
• 5 Mongrels of non-European origin.

Only those placed in the first three groups were considered for membership. Further examination would follow, in which those selected would be graded on a scale of one to nine for their physical attributes. Those placed on four and above were admitted without further question, while those rated seven or below were rejected. Those placed at five and six were admitted if their enthusiasm made up for any perceived physical deficiencies.

Himmler had a preference for recruiting from the countryside, the home of the true Aryans, as he saw it, rather than the racially mixed cities. For him the SS was the new Teutonic Order, with overtures of Arthurian mysticism. In a speech of 1934 he described his elite as "a knightly order, from which one cannot withdraw, to which one is recruited by blood and within which one remains with body and soul so long as one lives on this earth." It is ironic, as Angus points out, that the Waffen SS at least was to end as one of the most ethnically diverse and polyglot formations in German history. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Indemnity payments during the Russian Civil War

Hey, Clio, thanks a million for that invaluable information on Alexsandr Eiduk! I hate to push my luck but I have one more question connected with the period of early Bolshevik rule in Russia, and if anyone can help it's almost certain to be you. I have some information that during the Civil War when the Communists occupied an area they levied indemnity payments on the local bourgeoise. Do you know anything about this and can you point me in the direction of some specific references, oh mighty Spirit of History? Fred said right (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Two for the price of one? Do I get a prize?! The book you should consult is Front Lines in the Civil War: Political Parties and Social Movements in Russia by V. Brovkin (Princetown, 1994). On page 98 he mentions that when the Red Army took control of Kharkov, Kiev and Odessa in 1919 an indemnity was levied on the bourgeoisie in each city, 500 million roubles in Odessa alone. You will also find mention of this figure in Cursed Days, Ivan Bunin's Civil War diary (London, 2000, p. 89). Clio the Muse (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Beowulf

I'm currently most of the way through Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf. I'm wondering: what exactly makes Beowulf a classic? What makes it a great poem? Is it just that there aren't many other examples of poetry from that era, period? (I also recently saw the recent film version of the poem, which is nice to see in Imax 3D, but again nothing really special.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The initial interest in the poem after its re-discovery was primarily philological. It is the longest surviving poem in Anglo-Saxon, and to students of that language it is therefore an essential text. But for a passionate defence of its value as a work of literature, you should read J. R. R. Tolkien's 1936 lecture "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics", where he says:

It glimpses the cosmic and moves with the thought of all men concerning the fate of human life and efforts; it stands amid but above the petty wars of princes, and surpasses the dates and limits of historical periods, however important. At the beginning, and during its process, and most of all at the end, we look down as if from a visionary height upon the house of man in the valley of the world. A light starts — lixte se leoma ofer landa fela — and there is a sound of music; but the outer darkness and its hostile offering lie in wait for the torches to fail and voices to cease.

For me, the interest in the poem is that it opens a window onto the world of the Anglo-Saxons, showing their obsession with honor, gift-giving, heirlooms, fealty, life, death, and fate (a world that was vanishing when the Beowulf poet began to write). Gdr 21:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Like Gdr says, its place was somewhat guaranteed, regardless of quality, because it is the longest surviving piece of poetry written in Anglo-Saxon. Anything of that magnitude would be regarded this way. It does have some other features, based on its representation of the Anglo-Saxon style of the epic genre, and its (idealised) representation of Anglo-Saxon culture. It's also interesting that it shows an overlay of Christian mythology on top of an otherwise pagan story.

The movie is a modern reinterpretation of the story, which, you will probably have realised by now, is quite different to that of the text. Take the movie with more than a pinch of salt; perhaps a handful, regardless of its quality or lack thereof. Steewi (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree that it deviates from the text a lot, but I'd have to admit that I expected it to be a lot worse. It was closer than I thought it would be and carried themes introduced by modern analysts of the poem, such as the question of who the real monster is, Beowulf or Grendel. Wrad (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In historical terms Beowulf is indeed a text of unparalleled importance, quite apart from its literary merits. But even so I still believe there are passages of depth and beauty, including my personal favourite;

Our eternal Lord grants some men wisdom, some wealth, makes others great. The world is God's, He allows a man to grow famous, and his family rich, gives him land and towns to rule and delight in ... and who in human unwisdom, in the middle of such power, remembers that it will all end, and too soon? Clio the Muse (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, some of the best early-medieval English poetry has to do with fate. Wrad (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Any early work is "classic" by definition. Later works, no matter how brilliant or innovative, are presumed to have benefited from the earlier work. Consider the argument the "Shakespeare is all chliches." Wel sure, but somebody had to write them first. Beowulf was the first work to which we have access that presents these motifs. -Arch dude (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

One child policy and Islam

I was wondering if Islam is in anyway inherently opposed to the idea of a one child policy imposed by the state? --Seans Potato Business 21:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they are, but I don't know the specifics. From what I've learned they want to spread Islam any way they can, including having kids. I don't know how unique that is, though. Most any culture or religion would be opposed to such a policy, with only a few exceptions. Wrad (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

They don't even have a one wife policy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trojan mouse (talk • contribs) 23:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Tanks

In what way did the advent of the tank in World War One affect thinking about the future nature of war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.80.248 (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fairly extensively. Take a look at the articles on J.F.C. Fuller and Basil Liddell-Hart, two early theorists of armoured warfare, for a start. The Battle of Cambrai (1917) is a good early example of what tanks got people thinking about. - Eron^Talk 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The tank, at least the concept of the tank, affected thinking about warfare well before its advent at the Somme and Cambrai. As early as 1903 H G Wells published his essay, The Land Ironclads, in the Strand Magazine. Their function, as imagined by Wells, was in the transportation firepower, with little of the mobility and independent tactical function later conceived by Fuller and others.

Essentially the armoured fighting vehicle was a solution to the problem to modern warfare, where mass citizen armies faced one another, balanced by numbers and armaments, allowing conflict to degenerate into a simple state of siege, where one side struggled to gain advantage over the other. The actual course of the First World War was brilliantly prediced by Ivan Bloch, a Polish banker, at the turn of the nineteenth century in Is War Now Impossible? In this he argued that conflict between industrial powers, one balanced against the other, would inevitably degenerate into attrition and trench warfare, with famine and revolution following on in style of the apocalypse. It was Fuller in publications like Plan 1919 who argued that the tank would restore mobility to warfare. By this there would be no longer any need for the massive firepower-accompanied by horrendous casualties-on which the generals had attempted to achieve breakthroughs in the course of the First World War. Instead, mobile formations would be able to strike at the rear, the most vulnerable point of any army, where command centres and the like were situated.

I suppose if Bloch's vision had remained in place-if warfare between between modern nations had an inevitable outcome in famine and revolution-governments would have been unlikely to pursue it as 'politics by other means.' The tank gave warfare a new acceptability. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It affected war heavily after WW1, but ironically, today it's seen by some as becoming increasingly obsolete, mostly because their armor can be defeated by a single missile like Hellfire missiles. I don't think it's the end of tanks though. There is still research into better armor, and active protection systems. Missiles can be defeated by laser defense systems. Work is still early, but any tank fielding such a system has a decisive advantage. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to further embellish on the already wonderful responses to this question. Between the wars (during the 1920s and 1930s), the major powers of the world had markedly differing reactions to the concept of placing a lot of their nations' resources into building up a powerful tank corps. Several military leaders around the world pushed for the development of a strong armoured force, however the results varied dramatically from one country to the next. Here are some of the results of this:

• Germany was the most successful (at first) at envisioning the potential of the tank. It is said that the losers of a war are usually the ones that learn the most from it. Such was the case with Germany after losing WWI. The British had used tanks against the Germans in a couple of the battles toward the end of WWI, and the Germans felt that they had been caught off guard by this and wanted to catch up. After WWI, the German government set up 57 military committees that were to study everything about the strategies and tactics that happened in WWI, and made some recommendations for what to do in the future. One of the most important of these recommendations was to build up a highly trained tank corps that could implement a newly created form of war that became known as the Blitzkrieg. As a result of this, when WWII began Germany was very well prepared to test their newly developed tank units in the field, to astounding results.

• France decided to place most of its military resources on building up a huge wall between itself and Germany, and neglected other areas, including building up a tank corps. The result was that they were completely unprepared for the German Blitzkrieg and its heavy use of tanks and other mechanized military unites, which basically went around France's Maginot Line defensive wall and descended on Paris. It took the Germans just two months from start to finish to defeat France, due largely to their use of tanks.

• Although Britain had basically invented the tank, they did not realize the best way to use it until after WWII started. I should say that the British military in general did not, since there were individuals in the British Army that did understand the best way to use tanks, which is to amass them and use them as the primary offensive units to punch through enemy lines. What the British (and French) kept coming back to the idea of using the tanks to support the infantry - thus dispersing the tanks instead of amassing them - and making it so that the infantry, not tanks, took the role as primary offensive units. However, once things got really underway in WWII, the British played "catch-up", and by the time of the battles in Northern Africa, British General Montgomery was able to score some solid victories against the famous tank German commander Irwin Rommel.

• After WWI the US basically took the posture of an ostriche with its head in the sand. So little was spent on developing the American military between WWI and WWII, that even IF the US had focused its resources on developing offensive tank divisions, they would have still been very weak and small. They US placed its emphasis on using its tanks to be part of larger fighting groups that included aircraft, infantry, and supply trucks. The US wanted to avoid tank-on-tank battles, so they developed weaker tanks than the Germans had. In practice this system did not work very well. The fact that it worked at all was due to the one thing that the US had going for it: good leadership, especially that of Generals Patton and Bradley, who were able to adjust battlefield tactics during the course of the war to make the most out of the not-so-good situation.

• And then there are the Russians. Russia learned how powerful and effective armoured vehicles were during its Civil War that took place immediately after WWI, and began a program to develop the best and biggest tank army in the world. At the outset of WWII, Russia had more tanks than all the rest of the world combined, and moreover, they were probably the best tanks, too. They incorporated innovative designs, and were designed to operate over muddy ground, which there was a lot of in Russia. As a result of this, the Russian tank divisions were able to outperform the Germans - something that none of the other of Germany's enemies really had been able to consistently accomplish. The biggest problem, however, that the Russians faced was an almost complete lack of leadership, due to Stalin's purge of the Red Army just prior to WWII. So, although they outgunned the Germans, they didn't have the leadership to really take advantage of their superior tank divisions until later on in the war as leaders emerged from combat experience and were promoted.

Hope that helps. This is all much better discussed in the wiki articles on Armored warfare and History of the tank. Saukkomies 16:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Another thing the US had going for it in World War II: numbers. For every tank, tank destroyer, or armored assault gun the Germans were able to build, the US was able to field six Sherman tanks. --Carnildo (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is true, but only after the US had geared itself up to warfare production after Pearl Harbor. The original question was what had been done in the years between WWI and WWII with tank development, and in that regard the US was probably the least prepared of any of the major powers, including the Japanese. Saukkomies 00:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Leprosy in Europe

Two questions. Is it true that leprosy came to Europe at the time of the crusades? How were lepers treated and perceived in medieval Europe? Pope Hilarious (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(1) No, leprosy was well established in Europe long before the Crusades. There were leper colonies in France as early as the 7th century, in Switzerland in the 8th century, and in England (at Canterbury) in the late 11th century. However, leprosy was more common in the near East, so it's no mystery that the number of sufferers in Europe was going up sharply around the time of the Crusades.

(2)You may find the article here at the Catholic Encyclopedia helpful.

Xn4 00:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, Your Holiness, here is a passage from a decree issued by King Rothar of Lombardy in 643AD, "If a man become a leper...and is expelled from his city or dwelling, let him not donate his possessions to anyone. For on the very day he is expelled, he is considered dead." So, as you can see, and as Xn4 has confirmed, leprosy was present in Europe well before the Crusades. As for your second question, Rothar's decree also supplies part of the answer: lepers were ostracised, in the manner prescribed in the Book of Leviticus. They were forced to live outwith the limits of the town; to wear a long robe of a distinctive colour marked by the letter 'L'; and they had to signal their approach by ringing a bell and shouting, 'Unclean, unclean.' In the sixth century the church placed them under the care of local bishops. The whole process of church supervision was later formalised by the Third Lateran Council. Those who were suspected of having contracted the disease were to be examined by their local priest or magistrate. If they were found to be infected they were ritually seperated from the rest of the community by an act of symbolic burial, the separatio leprosorum. By this the leper stood before the open grave, his or her head covered by a black cloth. He or she was then declared 'Dead to the world, reborn to God.' Once this was complete, the wretched individual in question was led in procession to his or her place of exile.

Sometimes action taken by state authorities could be far more ferocious, as lepers were natural scapegoats, much like the Jewish community at the time. In 1318 Philip V of France charged lepers with being in league with the Saracens and of poisoning wells. They were ordered to be burned alive, along with the Jews, who allegedly gave them counsel and comfort. Interestingly enough the disease was believed to be a punishment for sexual depravity, the AIDS of the Middle Ages. The rate of reported infection seems to have declined in the sixteenth century, though by that time syphilis had taken its place as the most fearsome disease connected with sex. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In the crusader states themselves, though, leprosy, being more common, was treated far differently. There was an Order of St. Lazarus set up to house lepers, and there was even a beloved leper king, Baldwin IV of Jerusalem. I seem to recall hearing about a whole order of leper knights but I am probably misremembering facts about the Order of Lazarus. One detrimental aspect of being a leper in the crusader states springs to mind - if you sold someone a leprous slave, you would have to buy him (or her) back. I've never read anything (at least from crusaders) that connected it to sex though, that's interesting. I don't know if the incidence of leprosy in Europe increased after the crusades, and I don't think that it would have, since it's not the most infectious of diseases, is it? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing you have to be careful about though, is that many skin diseases and afflictions were grouped under the term 'leprosy'. Random Nonsense (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, Random! Some of the remains of people from Medieval Europe who were buried in leper colonies (and who were presumed to have had leprosy) indicate that instead of leprosy many people had psoriasis. Ironically, one of the modern treatments for psoriasis is exposure to ultraviolet rays, such as one would get from exposing bare skin to the sun's rays. However, the standard practice in Europe for anyone who was considered to have leprosy was to force them to cover their entire bodies with huge robes, thus preventing anyone from seeing their misshapen visages. The result was that instead of being able to have healthy exposure to the sun's rays, these poor misdiagnosed people would end up creating conditions that would worsen the disease. Saukkomies 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

military as an alternative to prison

In the past, you could sign up as an alternative to prison, but when did this practice end? And did it have a specific name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trojan mouse (talk • contribs) 23:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In what national location was this true? It may currently be true in a number of nations or states. In which one do you have an interest? Bielle (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are looking for info on the United Kingdom, I believe the practice ended with the end of National service, as parliament decided that it was an insult and a detriment to an entirely volunteer army to equate it with prison. --Chrisfow (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In many jurisdictions in the US, a particular judge may decide that a young man who has committed a minor crime would do better in the military than in prison, and will "suggest" that they go and enlist rather than send them to prison. It isn't a sentence, but it has the effect of one. Corvus cornix_talk 18:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Tkachyov and Lenin

Would it be true to say that Pytor Tkachyov, the Russian populist, was a more important influence on Lenin than Karl Marx? Zinoviev4 (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but his forname is actually Pyotr. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on him at present, though there's a draft in Vecrumba's userspace, with a couple of external links. Algebraist 23:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In theoretical terms, probably not; in terms of political organisation, almost certainly. P. N. Tkachyov or Tkachev was the most 'Jacobin' among the Populists, just as Lenin was to be the most 'Jacobin' among the Marxists. He was also an economic materialist, the intellectual link between Chernyshevsky, another of Lenin's favourite writers, and the Bolshevik movement. Just as Lenin was to do later in his ferocious debates with the Mensheviks and others, Tkachyov rejected the mass party, calling instead for a the training of a revolutionary elite. He was to write in the 1870s "The question 'What is to be done?' should no longer concern us. It has long been resolved. Make the Revolution!" Although Lenin denounced his conspiratorial politics in public he read all of his published works, and, from 1903 onwards, was to create a party very much along the lines advocated by the Populist, one of revolutionary Jacobinism in action. You will find more on this, Zinoviev, in Petr Tkachev: The Critic as Jacobin by Deborah Hardy (Seattle, 1977). Clio the Muse (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

December 6

Gabroo

What does "Gabroo" mean in Punjabi and Persian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.28 (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Google implies that it is a song style--88.111.25.42 (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Um...in Punjabi,"Gabroo" means a young man, full of youth and somehow handsome as well.--Mike robert (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A name from Beckett/Berio

At a key point in the "In ruhig fliessender Bewegung” movement of Luciano Berio’s Sinfonia the narrator proclaims “and the name of Miakovsky hangs on the clean air!” (The name maybe spelled differently, I haven’t looked in the score.) According to our article the words are from Samuel Beckett’s, The Unnamable. Does anybody know who “Miakovsky” is or why Berio chose to use this as a climactic exclamation in the movement. (Thanks for your help; I really must read The Unnamable sometime!) --S.dedalus (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mayakovsky, no? Perhaps he liked futurism. On second thoughts, it sounds like a phrase from some piece of Soviet propaganda, extolling the artistic triumphs brought forth by the Proletarian revolution. "Mayakovsky is still the best and the most talented poet of our Soviet epoch. Indifference to his cultural heritage is a crime." So said the Kremlin mountaineer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

According to a couple references i've found, the middle movement is a collage of Unnamable and musical in-jokes—maybe Nikolai Myaskovsky?—eric 02:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Does any work by Marx or Lenin desribe Communist society?

I know both Marx and Lenin were sceptical of any description of communism since they were against utopianism but is there any work by Marx, Engles or Lenin that goes into the "most" detail about their conception of communist society? I have read that Marx's concept of an ideal man was of the DaVinvi type, not concerned with labor but spending nearly all time in public life.

Also have any of the scientific claims of Dialectical Materialism concerning atoms, physics, chemistry, evolution and early man been proven wrong by modern science? --Gosplan (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In relation to your first question, Gosplan, hardly at all, quite frankly. Marx is at his most whimsical, I suppose, in The German Ideology, with some further hints on future society in the Critique of the Gotha Programme. Lenin? Well, there is always State and Revolution, with speculations and theories that fell dead from the pen. On your second point I am not competent to talk about Dialectical Materialism, in the form outlined by Engels in Anti-Duhring, in relation to modern scientific techniques. To my untutored eye I will say it all looks so terribly old-fashioned. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any scientific claims that are specific enough to be "proven wrong". It is really more philosophy than science. You could say that space is a counterexample to the law of Dialectical materialism that states that everything in existence is a unity of opposites, inasmuch as there is no such thing as anti-space, but that is not a particularly modern insight. While Lenin found it necessary to disown the tenet of the indestructibility of matter in view of the developments of physics, Engels had referred to this in the Anti-Dühring as one of diese alten, weltbekannten Tatsachen ("these old facts, known the world over") – hardly a specific claim of Dialectical Materialism, but merely reflecting the received wisdom of the science of physics of his days. For the early, pre-historical development of society – not really the province of Dialectical materialism – the problem is that we still don't know (and never may know) enough to prove or disprove Marx' (theoretically falsifiable) theories – but many modern non-Marxist writers appear to consider his speculations to be at least as plausible as any other theories.  --Lambiam 15:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Cold Chills / "Heilige Schauer" or "Holy Shiver" in German Romanticism

Hello, I am trying to start work on a page for Cold Chills or "holy shivers" I was informed that Kant did some writing on this topic. Would anyone happen to know what book it was in or where I might find some other info? Thanks--DatDoo (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am just bringing this over from the Science Desk, because it helps to clarify what the OP is searching for. I think personally that "Cold Chills" is a bit of a misnomer:

...Not talking about the medical condition but about what the German Romantics (poets, philosophers, biologists etc.) called the "Heilige Schauer" or "Holy Shiver". I wonder if we already have a page on it...Nope - so it is free for you to build/write! Immanuel Kant, Johann Gottfried Herder, Friedrich Schiller, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Wilhelm von Humboldt, even Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel all wrote things but you will probably need to read some German. Good luck. (By the way, if you Google it, the first hit where the guy is relating it to only courage in battle and sports...he's wrong. It's more subtle that that. It's about the Sublime). Saudade7 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have no problem changing the name of the page to "Holy Shiver". Where I am from cold chills has a similar meaning.--DatDoo (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Kalizi, Assyria

High I am trying to put some info on nl:wiki about the provincial capitals of the Assyrian empire. Kalizi is mentioned a number of times in the eponyms and I found a reference on astrological documents from there, but no clue where this city was. Anybody? nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf 75.178.179.208 (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Other sources (for example here) call this city Kilizi. Apparently it was near Arbil. It is mentioned in the German Wikipedia (de:Asarhaddon) and the Spanish Wikipedia (es:Asurnasirpal II), but does not appear to have an article anywhere.  --Lambiam 15:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like some identify it with Kilis in Turkey. [12] --Cam (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sign languages

The article on sign languages is somehow poor. Can someone out there tell me how many sign languages are. How easy is the communication between the two. The best options would be a map where all sign languages are displayed.217.168.3.246 (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool idea. Try List of sign languages. Wrad (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The intelligibility between sign languages isn't as good as one might think. Although many of the signs are guessable to an extent, there's not enough to work a good conversation. Some are more intelligible than others, such as Australian Sign Language (Auslan) and British Sign Language, because Auslan was based off British Sign Language and both use the same two-handed finger-spelling. But American Sign language (ASL) was based off French and Irish sign languages and uses a one-handed finger alphabet. I have heard of a set of conventions for international communication between sign languages, but I don't know any details. Steewi (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah. There it is - International Sign, also called Gestuno. Steewi (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that International Sign is not intrinsically understandable to signers; although kept simple, it has to be learned like any other sign language, just like Esperanto has to be learned.  --Lambiam 15:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Famous last words

At the end Kant seemingly said 'Enough!'. Are there any more famous last lines I could add to my collection? Major Barbara (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The list of last words which previously resided in Wikipedia has been stolen by Wikiquotes: you can see it here. "Famous last words" are notoriously unreliable, of course, but are no less amusing for being fictitious. - Nunh-huh 07:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention there of my favourite, the alleged last words of William Pitt the Younger-"I think I could eat one of Bellamy's veal pies." Sourced or not, it's still good! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Or even sauced or not... :) DuncanHill (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The ultimate in product placement! Skittle (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Having worked in Bognor Regis, I can understand George V's decision to die upon being told he would soon be well enough to go there. DuncanHill (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What about John Sedgwick, during the American Civil War? "I'm ashamed of you, dodging that way. They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..." Right in the middle of the word "distance", he was shot in the head and died. Aecis^Brievenbus 02:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Nero: "What an artist dies in me!"

King Henry VIII: "All is lost. Monks, monks, monks!"

Queen Elizabeth I: "All my possessions for a moment of time!

King Charles II: "Let not poor Nelly starve."

King Louis XVIII of France: "A king should die on his feet."

Dominique Bouhours, a French critic and grammarian: "Je vais ou je vas mourir, l'un et l'autre se dit ou se disent." (I am going to, or else about to, die; the one and the other is or are correct.")

Oscar Wilde, a month before he died in the Hôtel d'Alsace, Paris: "My wallpaper and I are fighting a duel to the death. One or other of us has to go" (from Frank Harris's Oscar Wilde: His Life and Confessions, 1930, p. 572).

Lawrence Oates: "I am just going outside and may be some time."

Saki (November 1916, in the Great War, just before being killed by a sniper in the dark): "Put that bloody cigarette out!"

Anna Pavlova: "Get my swan costume ready!"

Xn4 03:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Then again, Oscar Wilde was notorious for saying a lot of things... :) bibliomaniac15 03:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Marie Antoinette: “Pardonnez-moi, monsieur. Je ne l'ai pas fait exprès.” (Pardon me, sir. I did not do it on purpose.) After stepping on the foot of her executioner as she approached the guillotine.
  
• Humphrey Bogart: “I should never have switched from Scotch to Martinis.”
  
• Robert Erskine Childers “Take a step forward lads - it'll be easier that way.” (spoken by Childer as he faced the firing squad―a perfect combination of bravado and insolence.)
  
• Christine Chubbuck “In keeping with Channel 40's policy of bringing you the latest in blood and guts and in living color, you are going to see another first -- attempted suicide.” (On live TV―This is just really sad.)
  
• Bing Crosby: “That was a great game of golf, fellers.”
  
• James Dean: “That guy's got to stop… He'll see us.” (seconds before his fatal car accident.)
  
• William Erskine: “Now why did I do that?” (after jumping from a window)
  
• James French. “Hey, fellas! How about this for a headline for tomorrow's paper? 'French Fries'!” (To members of the press before his execution by electric chair.)
  
• Charles Gussman “...and now for a final word from our sponsor...”
  
• Alfred Jarry: “I am dying. Please…bring me a toothpick.”
  
• Terry Kath : “Don't worry…it's not loaded…”
  
• George Bernard Shaw: “Dying is easy, comedy is hard”
  
• Domonic Willard “Why, yes, a bulletproof vest.” (Just before his death by firing squad, Willard was asked if he had any last requests.)
  

--S.dedalus (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And there are a few more here, [13] Richard Avery (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Goethe: "Mehr Licht!" ("More light!") And Augustus (alleged): "Acta est fabula, plaudite!" ("The play is finished; applaud!") Wareh (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I read that some famous religious figure of the past was on his deathbed and heard the people around whispering about his imminent demise. One said "His feet are still warm. No one dies with warm feet" whereupon the churchman said "Jan Hus did" and expired.(Hus was burned at the stake in 1415). Not a clue who the churchman was, but I'm thinking someone of the generation of John Wesley. Edison (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

According to this article, it was said by John Holmes. When the nurse felt his feet to see if they were still warm, she explained that noone dies with warm feet. Holmes allegedly said "John Rogers did", and died. John Rogers was burned at the stake in 1555. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Tudor poor

what were the main causes of poverty and unemployment in Tudor England? An overview and some refernces for further research would be helpful. Sincerely, Craig Clarke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.9.25 (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You could start with the Elizabethan Poor Law (1601) (and original text, although modernized). There were two types of poor people, those who were able to work and those who were not. The reasons for their poverty include age, incapacitating disease or injury, being an orphan with no family support, lack of employment (even then there was no such thing as full employment), or, sometimes, some people just didn't feel like working. It's not all that different from poverty today, really. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Tudor attempts to tackle the problem go all the way back to the reign of Henry VII. In 1495 Parliament passed a statute ordering officials to seize "All such vagabonds, idle and suspected persons living suspiciously and then so taken and set in stocks, there to remain by the space of three days and three nights to have none other sustenance but bread and water, and there after the said three days and three nights, to be had out and set at large and then to be commanded to avoid the town." No remedy to the problem of poverty was offered by this; it was merely swept from sight, or moved from town to town. There was no distinction made, moreover, between real vagrants and the jobeless; both were simply catagorised as 'sturdy beggers', to be punished and moved on.

In 1530, during the reign of Henry VIII, a proclamation was issued, describing idleness as the 'mother and root of all vices', ordering that whipping should replace the stocks as the punishment for vagabonds. This change was confirmed in statute the following year, with one important change: a distinction was made between the 'impotent poor' and the sturdy beggar, giving the old, the sick and the disabled licence to beg. Still no provision was made, though, for the healthy man simply unable to find work. All able-bodied unemployed were put into the same category. Those unable to find work had a stark choice: starve or break the law.

There is some evidence of more enlightened attitudes beginning to develop. In 1535 a bill was drawn up calling for the creation of a system of public works to deal with the problem of unemployment, to be funded by a tax on income and capital. Though supported by the king it was savaged in Parliament. An act was passed in 1536, placing responsibility for the elderly and infirm with the parish or municipal authorities, though provision was reliant on voluntary donations.

For the able-bodied poor things became even tougher during the reign of Edward VI, when a bill was passed in 1547 subjecting vagrants to some of the more extreme provisions of the criminal law. Two years servitude and branding with a 'V' was the penalty for a first offence; death for a second. It was simply too severe to serve its purpose, as Justices of the Peace were reluctant to apply the full penalty of the law. There is no evidence at all that the act was ever enforced before it was repealed in 1550.

Although the government of Elizabeth was also inclined to severity, passing an act in 1572 calling for offenders to be bored through the ear for a first offence and hanging for persistent beggers. But this act also made, for the first time, a clear distinction between the 'professional begger' and those unemployed through no fault of their own. For these people some provision was eventually made in the Elizabethan Poor Law.

For references, Craig, you could try one or more of the following;

A.L. Beier, Masterless Men: The Vagrancy Problem in England, 1560-1640 (1985) A.L. Beier,The Problem of the Poor in Tudor and Stuart England (1983) N Fellows, Disorder & Rebellion in Tudor England (2001) Steve Hindle, The State and Social Change in Early Modern England (2000) John F Pound, Poverty and Vagrancy in Tudor England (1971) Paul Slack, From Reformation to Improvement: Public Welfare in Early Modern England (1998) Paul Slack, Poverty and Policy in Tudor England (1988) Penry Williams, The Tudor Regime (1979) Clio the Muse (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Serving military officer should hold a political office. Any supporter?

Untill what extend you agreed that Serving military officer should hold a political office?203.102.255.222 (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that you, General Musharraf? Sadly, the examples we have, both now and in the recent past, do not inspire much confidence in soldier politicians, at least in a senior role. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The most prominent counterexample I can think of is de Gaulle, whose exact legal status from 1940 to 1945 was very murky (commander of the Free French forces? Leader of the government in exile) but probably counts. Shimgray | talk | 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

stamps -- north rhodesia, pre-independence

I am trying to identify a stamp that I only have a photo of. The stamp shows an Austen Healey (British)automobile and the script "K500" and "Zambia."

I have searched all through Wikipedia and the internet with no results...any ideas? Many thanks!

Ke498rr (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Zambia is the post-independence name of Northern Rhodesia. The Zambian currency is the Kwacha, abbreviated K.

According to this link [14] it is a 1998 "Exotic Cars of Yesterday" 500 Kwacha issued by Zambia. DuncanHill (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance, Duncan...I tried the link with no success..any ideas on wher to find the current value of this stamp? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ke498rr (talk • contribs) 14:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have found the stamp on ebay for about US$14. Hope this link works! [15]. DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You can find out more about the car here - Austin-Healey Sprite. DuncanHill (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

yes, I followed the ebay link, thanks so much agai! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ke498rr (talk • contribs) 16:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's quite alright - we aim to please! DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

War spy doll maker

I am looking for the name of a woman war spy, i believe from germany during WWII, she was also a doll maker, and her first name starts with a V. I heard the name on antiques roadshow years ago, but now can't find anything, any ideas?149.164.12.86 (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly a spy, and I am unaware if she made dolls, but Violette Szabo begins with a V. DuncanHill (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Also not from Germany. But she was a woman during WWII, those parts fits. Velvalee Dickinson, an American spy for Japan during WWII, based in New York City, was known as the "Doll Woman". She operated a doll shop, and sent steganographic intelligence information masquerading as doll-related business messages.  --Lambiam 17:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Generation Y

Is my sister (born in '95) part of the same generation as me (born in '92)? Some sources give the end date of Gen Y as early as 1994 and some as late as 2000. What is the generally agreed on end date for Generation Y and the starting date for the next generation? (Generation Z?) --Candy-Panda (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone really use these terms? 64.236.80.62 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been (jokingly) accused of being in generation Z. I had not thought anyone used such terms seriously, but we do have an article Generation Y. Algebraist 17:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously people really use these terms - the original poster did, after all. However, people seem to mean different things when they use them. I hesitate a bit to link to our article on Generation Y, as the number of tags at the top suggest it is less than authoritative. It proposes 1981 to 1995 as the boundaries, which would make 1996 the start date for the next generation. Generational boundaries are always a little fuzzy though - for example, some definitions call me (1966) a boomer and some Gen X. I think they also tend to shift depending on where people are born, as demographic trends vary globally.

Personally, I think the 1981 to 1995 dates "feel" right, as they basically represent a post-PC / pre-Internet world. But I'm not a professional demographer. List of generations has some other proposed start and end dates. - Eron^Talk 17:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Having been involved in the writing that article a little, I'm aware that those dates are disputed. Generations aren't ever clearly defined until they're about to die off, but you can depend on that being roughly correct. Also, Generation Y has been called The Millenials or The Internet Generation (some don't like to be given a name relating them so directly to Generation X). Wrad (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it, then, an American thing? I have never heard anyone using such phrases as Generation Jones or Echo Boomers, for example. Most of the stuff in those articles seems very much on the cusp of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. 64.236.80.62 (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is an "American thing" or not. I know that living in America, and being an American, the terms "Generation X", "Generation Y" etc are pretty commonly accepted and part of the normal parlance of everyday speech. However, I cannot speak for whether these terms are used in other parts of the world or not. As per being on the cusp of Wikipedia's nobability guidelines, I would say that they are quite within the lines - not at all on the cusp. Saukkomies 00:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Muhammed

I was wondering why, in Islam, you can't name a teddy bear Muhammad, but you can name a person Muhammad? --Ouzo (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See here. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ouzo (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To sum it up, it's basically a Sudanese, conservative thing, and not an Islamic thing. Most Muslims could care less what you name your teddy. Wrad (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I heard a Sudanese diplomat on the radio the other day, who was clearly embarrassed by the affair, but he pointed out that the teddy bear is a western cultural thing that other cultures don't have or necessarily understand. In most cultures a bear is not a sweet, cuddly child's toy, but an aggressive wild animal, and in that context it's not too hard to understand why someone might regard it as disrespectful to call one after his favourite religious figure. Thankfully, we don't have laws that put people in jail for being disrespectful to religious figures, but unfortunately the Sudanese do. It'd be nice if they took cultural misunderstanding into account though. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

rectangle flag of nepal

Does this [16] really exist? is it someone's imagination? was it created in school in a day? Is it a new variant? If you know anything about it please let me know. thanks --Kushal^t 17:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for formatting the picture. --Kushal^t 17:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's close to a proposal made here, but that's the closest I can find on Google. Algebraist 18:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again! So, I gather, the removal of this image is on Nepal is justified because there is no (as the blog says) official decision or discussion on it.

If something emerges or if you find something on this, please let me know. either here or on my talk page. thanks--Kushal^t 18:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fernão Mendes Pinto

Is he still remembered in Portugal, if so by which means. And how is he regarded in Portugal as national writer more important or equal to Camoes and the Lusiads? Finally, is it true to say that his Pilgrimage is Portugal`s, internationaly, most successfull book?--85.180.60.248 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

computer questions

Moved to computing desk

Syphilus in Europe

In my previous question on leprosy in Europe Clio the Muse mentioned that by the sixteenth century it had been surpased in the scale of dread by syphilus. I would be interested to know how the advent of this disease was perceived at the time? Thanks again. Pope Hilarious (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Our syphilis article has a small amount of material in its history section. Rmhermen (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In essence the disease was 'distanced', much like AIDS-the 'Gay Plague-when it first appeared in the 1980s. For a long time it had no generally recognised name at all. The English called it the 'French disease'; the French called it the 'Neapolitan disease'; the Neapolitans called it the 'Spanish disease'; the Portuguese called it the 'Castilian disease'; and the Turks, not surprisingly, called it the 'Christian disease'! Dr Ruy Diaz de Isla, the Spaniard who was among the first to treat it, called it 'the Serpent of Hispaniola', being the first to recognise that it had originated in the New World, brought back to Europe by the crew of the Nina. It first became endemic in 1494, during the invasion of Italy by Charles VIII of France. From there his mercenary army carried it to all parts of Europe. In 1495 the Emperor Maximilian issued a decree against 'the Evil Pox', taken to be God's punishment for blasphemy. Voltaire was later to write of Charles' Italian adventure, "France did not lose all she had won. She kept the pox." It was Girolamo Fracastoro, an Italian poet, who gave the ailment its abiding name, when he composed some verses about a shepherd struck down by the French disease. The shepherd's name was Syphilis. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I should add, for lovers of trivia, that treatment in the early days called for amputation of the perceived source of the problem. I won't dwell on this for fear of upseting the males among you. Suffice to say it would have been possible to build a mountain with them in the sixteenth century! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Another common treatment was sitting in a fog of mercury vapours. Toxic, but apparently with some therapeutic properties, iirc. And more importantly it gave us the wonderful phrase "One night with Venus; a lifetime with mercury." Matt Deres (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Really great replies here :) --Taraborn (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Nationalist objectives

At the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War did the Nationalist have any clear political objectives beyond defeating the republic? 81.152.105.176 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, 81.152, it is important to understand the historic role of the Spanish military, which since the early nineteenth century was to protect Spain from its 'internal' as well as its external enemies. This dual role was incorporated in the constitution of 1812, the very first in Spanish history. It was also incorporated into the army's own constitution in 1878, and remained in place in 1936. In the course of the nineteenth century the military got into the habit of intervening in civilian politics by means of pronunciamientos. These declarations were liberal in nature, intended as a defence of the state and constitution against the Carlists, the chief internal enemy.

By 1936 the army had come to see itself as the guardian of the national tradition, of the integrity of Spain itself. However, by this time, the enemy was no longer on the right, but the left; the forces of socialism and liberal democracy that were threatening, in the army's estimation, to tear Spain apart. After the assasination of Calvo Sotelo, the right-wing political leader, the army issued a new pronunciamento, intending, as they put it, 'to restore the principles of authority' against the defenders of the Republic, who were to be tried by military tribunals for 'the crime of rebellion.' History, and reality, was being made to stand upside down.

It is difficult to determine if the generals had any clear political objectives to begin with, beyond 'restoring order.' Emilio Mola, the chief architect of the rising, seems to have envisaged a temporary military dictatorship, intended to eliminate the Marxist 'danger.' What tends to be overlooked is that the Nationalists, in much the same fashion as the Republicans, were an unstable coalition of forces, who could not agree on common political objectives. Some were monarchists; some were not. Even the monarchists were divided between Carlists and supporters of the exiled Alfonso XIII. In the end, after the death of Mola, Francisco Franco emerged as the military and political head of the rebellion, the one way of unifying disparate forces. What he created in the course of the war was the Estado campamental-the battlefied state. And so it became, and so it remained; after victory, and in to the peace; all the way to the Caudillo's death in 1975. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Relient K and homosexuality

Does anyone know if the Christian rock band Relient K has made any public statements about homosexuality? Thanks 216.159.75.146 (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not crost post. If a differnt person there is already a disscusion on the Entertainment section. Esskater11 22:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

They're a Christian rock band?! Oh shit I used to like a couple of their songs... --Candy-Panda (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Executions in the Past

Why were these accompanied by such gross levels of brutality, thinking specifically of hanging, drawing and quartering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qurious Cat (talk • contribs) 20:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hanging, drawing, and quartering was made specifically made to be painful, as punishment of the criminal and to set an example for the people who would come to watch. Paragon12321 (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And they were real crowd pleasers. - Nunh-huh 22:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And what is considered brutal today was, historically, perhaps not considered so. Remember ethics & morals etc. change with the times - though of course torture and inhumane executions still exist across the world today. ny156uk (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Many of the Dominicans of Spain thought of severe punishment and torture as a way of cleansing the sin out of the person. They did it for the person's own good, in their view, so that they'd have an easier time in the hereafter. Wrad (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is, of course, undeniable that the public tolerance and acceptance of cruelty, obvious and terrible forms of pain, was far higher in the past than it is today. Even so there were certain forms of punishment, including the one you allude to, that were extraordinary and meant to be extraordinary, reserved for high treason, the most heinous crime of all. In this context suffering was meant to have a didactic purpose, directed as much at the audience as the recipient. Where the treason was most aggravated was in the assassination, or the attempted assassination, of the reigning monarch, which gave the crime the equivalency of parricide. Here I am thinking of the execution of Robert Damiens in 1757 for the attempted assassination of Louis XV. For his action he was condemned 'to make honourable amends' with his body, the details of which are explored in all of their horror by Michel Foucault in Discipline and Punish Clio the Muse (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the common practice (promoted by the Church) of burning heretics, either dead or alive. In an age which believed in the literal truth of the resurrection of the dead, this was really the last word in destroying your enemies. Xn4 01:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So they really thought that burning prevented a bodily resurrection? Fascinating... Is that why the church exhumed and burned John Wycliff's body? Wrad (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The noted historian Barbara Tuchman discussed this very issue in her very wonderful book A Distant Mirror, which covers the history of England and France during the 14th Century (a very bloody period of time, by the way). She posed the theory that much of the extremely brutal violence of the Middle Ages was perhaps due to the young mean age of the population. She cited some studies about how younger people tend to be more violent from one society to the next, and because in the Middle Ages there were so many more young people as a percentage of the population (due to much shorter life expectancies), that the result was that there was a lot more violence as a matter of publicly accepted behavior than we are accustomed to today. It is a theory, but an intriguing one... Saukkomies 00:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

December 7

Jesus as a given name

The Gillian Gibbons case has got me wondering why the name Jesus is quite common in Hispanic countries (eg. Jesus Lopez-Cobos), but it's considered quite offensive elsewhere in the Christian world to name a child Jesus, and it virtually never happens (there are probably a few odd exceptions, but they are most definitely exceptions). What makes the Hispanic countries different?

Another issue: In Matthew 1:21-23, the angel appeared to Joseph and said:

• "... fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife ... and she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus ... now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying 'Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel'".

So, how can a child the angel demanded be named Jesus be a fulfilment of a prophecy that said the child would be called Immanuel? I've checked out various discussions on the web, but nothing I've found so far helps.

I also note that Emmanuel (in various spellings) is relatively common as a given name (relative to Jesus, that is), albeit mainly amongst Jewish families, rather than Christian ones - but Emmanuel Lewis might be an exception. Why is it OK in principle for Christian families to name their kids Emmanuel, but not Jesus, if the two names supposedly mean the same thing? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it really offensive, or just unfashionable? I've never heard, for example, of anyone being upset by James Jesus Angleton's name. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

More generally, I think there's ample evidence to show that religion isn't the only consideration people use when choosing religious names for children. Names like Ezekiel and Josiah have fallen out of favour over the years, whereas Noah and Ruth seem to be very popular recently, and surely the change is entirely cultural and not theological. So I'd posit that Anglos don't call their kids Jesus much is culture, habit, and fashion. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As to the calling him Jesus in order to fulfill a prophecy that he should be called Immanuel, I think Sportin' Life got it more or less right. DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Part one - I don't know why the taboo (really a taboo?) in non-hispanic culture came up, although I suspect it's for similar reasons to the Gibbons affair. I *do* know that many people named Jesús are given a combination name, do distinguish them from other people with a similar name (like Marcelo, Mario, ...). Girls can be called Jesús when combined with María as María Jesús. María Juan is another popular name.

Part two - Immanuel is the Hebrew for 'God-with-us': Ima' - with; -nu - pronominal clitic 'us'; 'el - god (note miniscule g). I understood that interpretation to be that people called him 'god-with-us', but that wasn't his name, as such. A number of the prophetic fulfillments in Matthew are perhaps a bit of a stretch. There isn't really a taboo on it, because it's not his usual name, I suppose. No one prays to Immanuel; it just turns up occasionally in some hymns. -- Steewi (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Jesus is actually an English variant of Yeshua (roughly), which has also carried into English as Joshua, so the name isn't really that uncommon, it has just varied a lot over the years.

The word Immanuel actually means, "God with us", so, the fact that Christ is born will indeed fulfill that prophecy, since in the Christian sense, Christ is God on earth with us in the flesh. Christ has many names, Jesus and Immanuel being only two. Wrad (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers, folks. A few thoughts about the offensive thing: that's what I (as a Catholic-raised child) was taught; but it may just have been my parents' particluar spin on it - they were very easily offended. All the same, if I told my family and friends that I was naming my new-born son Egbert Murgatroyd, there'd be more than a few raised eyebrows, and they'd ask me if I was sure that's what I wanted, given the extreme unfashionability of those names - but at the end of the day they'd demur. However, if I announced his first name was to be Jesus, their eyebrows would hit the ceiling and I'm sure they'd disagree violently and insist I choose a more suitable name. Friendships have been destroyed for less. Re James Jesus Angleton, had there been any offence at his being so named (I don't know if history records this or not), the reaction would not have been directed at him as the recipient of the name, but at his parents for giving it to him. Jesus was his middle name, and middle names are not usually used. I suspect that he used both names precisely because the middle one was Jesus (in accordance with the old tradition that if you have such a name you may as well flaunt it). In other words, if his middle name had been Harold, he probably wouldn't have been known as James Harold Angleton but plain old James Angleton. We'll never know, of course. In any case, he's one of those rare exceptions I referred to earlier. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

UK Scale in Maps

Just looking at some maps of europe etc and I just don't know about the Uk...It always seems to look huge next to Europe yet from the list we're 79th in the world, half the size of France and only 2/3s the size of Germany yet on most maps I see it looks bigger than Germany (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Area_by_country.PNG) is it just an illusion in my head? I understand that on some maps things aren't proportional/to scale but just wondered whether there's something more to it than this. It's probably just me mistaking things. ny156uk (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Partly is surely, as you say, the distortion due to the map projection (Mercator projection, for example, is still used; it stretches the UK a fair amount). Secondly your eye might be taking in the whole of the British Isles and chunking them as a one-er, so the psychological size of Britain might be boosted both by Ireland and the Irish Sea. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Many maps make countries larger the closer to the poles they are. Wrad (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

With unfortunate effects for the Poles. DuncanHill (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As I think Finlay McWalter said above, part of it may be that the island of Britain has a very complex indented coastline. It is probably easy to mentally "fill-in" the indents, making it seem larger. Another possibility is that cartographers intentionally "fill it in" to some degree. On the map posted above you can see that small islands around the world have been enlarged so as to be more visible. It could be that the mapmaker colored Britain's outline with the same color as the "fill" because otherwise it might look too thin and disjoint (note that the peninsula of Cornwall (whatever it's real name is) is only a pixel or so wide). I'm not sure if that's the case on this map, but it is not uncommon in cartography to intentionally displace and distort features in order to make maps easier to read and understand. Finally, it could also be a case of a tall and narrow object looking larger compared to a wide and short one. To my eye, on this map, Germany is clearly larger than Britain. But then, I failed a 2nd grade test by judging a tall and narrow shape as being bigger than a shorter wide one -- and I never forgot! Pfly (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

One Spartan

According to Battle of Thermopylae, 299 Spartans died out of 300. Who was this one Spartan that survived? S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 00:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Aristodemus. He was too ill to fight and was sent home by Leonidas. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks.

However, I also notice on Aristodemus that Pantites also survived, but hung himself of shame later. Shouldn't the article be changed to 298 Spartan deaths in battle? S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 01:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

On the basis of that information you would be justified in making the change if you wish to do so. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Utter frivolity, but whenever "One Spartan" pops up on my watchlist, I keep thinking "One poor Spartan didn't have a fox"... DuncanHill (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've always believed this was the origin of the unfortunate Noaks in Zuleika Dobson, the only man in the University who didn't follow the example of the Duke of Dorset and drown himself for the love of Zuleika. Noaks, too, ends up dead, though it's not clear whether he followed the example of Pantites or just tripped. Xn4 01:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Weird historical coincidences

A couple of people I went to college with are now somewhat notorious for completely different reasons, and people in the future may find it interesting that they were classmates. That got me thinking: In what other cases have two historically notable people that you wouldn't expect to cross paths wound up doing so? For example, it's said that when Mary Todd Lincoln tried to throw herself off the upper deck of a ship in a suicide attempt, Sarah Bernhardt, who happened to be on the same ship, caught her. Then there's the odd coincidence that baseball star Reggie Jackson and Israeli national hero Yonatan Netanyahu were high-school classmates in Philadelphia.

Any other examples? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Irony: When Napoleon's mother was pregnant with him, the French attacked Corsica, where she lived, and she actually got involved in the fighting. So the first battle that Napoleon was "involved" in was against the French. Wrad (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ludwig Wittgenstein and Adolf Hitler attended the same school, though not in the same class. DuncanHill (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't help asking - who did you go to college with, Mwalcoff? DuncanHill (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, there's only so much personal information I'm willing to discuss in a place where it's saved forever until you die! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have some bad news.... it's not erased when you die... - Nunh-huh 03:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Mary Todd Lincoln, her and Abe's son Robert Todd Lincoln was present not only at Abe's assassination, but also at those of the next 2 victims, Garfield and McKinley. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Now if I was in the Secret Service, I'd want to ask him a few questions! DuncanHill (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

After Kurt Cobain escaped from his final rehab in LA he took a flight home to Seattle. By coincidence, seated beside him has former Guns'N'Roses member (and fellow on-again-off-again heroinista) Izzy Stradlin; if I remember rightly this was the last substantive conversation Cobain had with anyone. There's no reason to believe Stradlin (who was clean by that time) had any detrimental effect (he says the two chatted amiably), but perhaps if the divine coincidence factory had chosen to put Sister Wendy there instead of Izzy, perhaps things might have worked out differently. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Several signers of the Declaration of Independence, including Jefferson and Adams, died on July 4, the day the document is recognized as being signed. Wrad (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

More than that, Adams and Jefferson died on exactly the same day, 4 July 1826. James Monroe died 5 years later, 4 July 1831, and Calvin Cooldge was born 4 July 1872. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Enoch Powell was taught by A. E. Housman. Xn4 02:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Violet Jessop survived the sinkings of both the Titanic (as a stewardess for the White Star Line) and its sister ship the Britannic (as a military nurse). She also worked on the third sister ship, the Olympic, and apparently was on board when it suffered a collision; but as a White Star employee that part would not be much of a coincidence. --Anonymous, 02:40 UTC, December 7, 2007.

Here's a couple of college roommates: Al Gore and Tommy Lee Jones (Harvard University); and tech billionaire Jim Balsillie and bestselling author Malcolm Gladwell (University of Toronto). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one, perhaps someone can enlighten me. I've heard that during World War I Vladimir Lenin lived in Zurich, "across the street" or very near to Cabaret Voltaire. Somewhere I read that Lenin wrote the Communist Manifesto while the sounds of the Dada Manifesto, as realized at Cabaret Voltaire, wafted through his window. Looking into it quickly right now, I'm not sure what the "Communist Manifesto" would be, perhaps State and Revolution? In any case, this always struck me as one of the weirdest juxtapositions of historical events. Does anyone know if it is true? Pfly (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

See Travesties by Tom Stoppard. (The Communist Manifesto is by Marx and Engels.) 64.236.80.62 (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm intrigued that Alan Greenspan and Miles Davis both attended Juilliard School of Music in 1944, though it's doubtful they knew each other. Miles rarely attended classes, and became one of the most influential musicians of the second half of the 20th century, while Greenspan supposedly was more duteous, but abandoned his musical career and became one of the most influential people of the late 20th and early 21st century. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Joe Satriani taught Kirk Hammett aswell as a few others to play guitar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that a famous guitarist taught another famous guitarist to play the guitar? What a weird historical coincidence that is. 64.236.80.62 (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. Civil War's first battle was the First Battle of Bull Run, fought on the farm of Wilmer McLean in Manassas, Virginia. The surrender of Robert E. Lee to U.S. Grant took place almost four years later in the home of the same Mr. McLean, but he had moved to Appomattox, Virginia, 200 km away. Edison (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst not exactly as entertaining as the above (some great answers by the way) searching through the 'famous almuni' list of universities will doubtlessly bring up odd-pairings that graduated/attended uni the same year/s. ny156uk (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Dutch cyclist Michael Boogerd and Wimbledon champion Richard Krajicek were class mates at an elementary school in The Hague in the 1970s and early 1980s. Ruud van Nistelrooy and Patrick Kluivert were born on the same day. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Evanston Township High School, is located in Evanston, Illinois, the suburb that lies directly north of the city of Chicago, and is home to the prestigious Northwestern University campus. There must be something in the water, because from the years passing from 1968 through 1992 this four-year high school had at least one future famous person in attendance, sometimes more. Here is a list of the school's famous alumni, along with the years they graduated:

• Emery Moorehead (1972),
• Michael Madsen (1976),
• Joan Cusack (1980),
• Jeremy Piven (1983),
• John Cusack (1984),
• Jeffrey Lieber (1987),
• Ajay Naidu (1990),
• Alicia Goranson (1992)

-- Saukkomies 01:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Shipping drama set in Bermuda

Could somebody tell me th name of a British television drama that aired in the eghties that was about shipping in Bermuda? thanks --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 01:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a series called Triangle, but Bermuda it wasn't. DuncanHill (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean The Onedin Line? Bielle (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Art of Lighting

1.Whats the branches of "Art of Lighting" and whats the main styles and the fundamental differences between them? 2.Is there perfect and good references in this art? Flakture (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it not be nicer if posters said please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.28.68 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And if volunteers didn't bite.

See Lighting, Lighting designer, Stage lighting, and Three-point lighting. I don't know what book to recommend, but the external links at the bottom of the "Lighting" article might steer you to one. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Dutyless Daughters

In the English revolution of 1688 both Mary and Anne sided against their father, King James. Had they no family feeling or loyalty? 81.156.7.147 (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a rhetorical question. Wrad (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to put this into a nutshell, but here goes... James had infuriated almost all of the constituencies he needed to survive, especially after the failure of Monmouth's Rebellion. You refer to the Glorious Revolution as "the English revolution", but that rather conceals the fact that it was more of a Dutch invasion (at the invitation of some key people) than a home-grown rebellion. The invasion was led by Mary's husband William of Orange, and Mary both supported it and accompanied William to England. She had to make a stark choice between her husband and her father, and she naturally chose her husband. Anne, on the other hand, reserved her position until it was clear that almost no one of any significance was willing to rally around James. She wasn't the first to abandon him, and losing her support helped James to understand that the game was up. Xn4 02:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they were more faithful to their country than to their father. DuncanHill (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you have to remember that Mary and her sister Anne were brought up, on the insistence of their uncle, Charles, as Protestants, which put them at variance with their father over the most fundamental issue of the day. Second, the relationship between father and daughters was never particularly close: more one of bare filial duty, than anything more solid. After her marriage Mary's first loyalty was to her husband, William; her second loyalty to her faith, and only her third loyalty to her father. Anne, for all her shallow-mindedness, was committed to the Church of England, which her father gave every apperance of subverting. In 1688 she became one of the firmest believers in the 'warming-pan myth', the contention that her half-brother, James was a changling, intended to secure a permanent Catholic succession. She was later to apologise to her father in writing for the part she had played in the Glorious Revolution, but held to the warming-pan story right to the end, even after it had served its purpose and been abandoned by all others. An act of self-deception and bad-faith perhaps, but one which safeguarded her against any residual feelings of guilt Clio the Muse (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Caligula's horse

Did Caligulaa really make his horse a member of the senate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.191.227 (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly although it is disputed, see Caligula#Scandals and Incitatus (the horse) for more on this. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Suetonius says in The Lives of the Twelve Caesars - "Caligula... used to send his soldiers on the day before the games and order silence in the neighbourhood, to prevent the horse Incitatus from being disturbed. Besides a stall of marble, a manger of ivory, purple blankets and a collar of precious stones, he even gave this horse a house, a troop of slaves and furniture, for the more elegant entertainment of the guests invited in his name; and it is also said that he planned to make him consul." (from the translation by J. C. Rolfe in the Loeb Classical Library bilingual text, 1913, p. 489) Xn4 02:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Be careful of possible exaggeration! Both Seutonius and Cassius Dio refer to Caligula's fondness for Incitatus, but both are hostile to the memory of the Emperor. The pen, after all, is more cutting than the sword. God give us all the blessing of a sympathetic biographer! Clio the Muse (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Leopold III

How far was Leopold III of Belgium to blame for his own misfortunes? Polly Kettle (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Leopold III of Belgium undoubtedly made many blunders. Some of them could, perhaps, be compared to those of the writer P. G. Wodehouse, who on a smaller scale incited similar fury over his conduct during the Second World War. Leopold's decision to remain in Belgium in 1940 after the German occupation wasn't fatal to him, but it inevitably made his position a very equivocal one. (The British royal family, planning what to do in the event of a successful German invasion of the UK, took the opposite view and intended to withdraw to the safety of Canada). Leopold's rejection of the Belgian government-in-exile (and his later repudiation of decisions it made, including the signing of treaties) created great tensions between him and the politicians. His secret marriage had already undermined his position. The long Regency after the liberation of Belgium (which Leopold foolishly referred to as the country's occupation by Allied forces) gave him a chance to build bridges which he could have done more to seize. In the aftermath of the war, Leopold was accused of treason, and a commission of inquiry was set up which in 1946 reported and found no evidence of treason, but many Belgians were left with the feeling that there was 'no smoke without fire'. Perhaps Leopold's greatest mistake, though, was to believe he could be a credible king of Belgium after securing only a narrow majority in the national referendum of 1950 to decide his future as king. More than forty per cent of the Belgians who voted, but a clear majority of those in Wallonia, one of Belgium's two provinces, had voted against him. His return very nearly prompted a civil war, and when demonstrators began to die in clashes with the police he threw in the towel. Altogether, his career as king shows us the real weakness of the position of a constitutional monarch in the modern world. Xn4 03:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you might consider the example set by Albert in 1914 with that of Leopold in 1940; the determination of the first and the weakness and vacillation of the second. When Leopold was faced with the certainty of a German invasion he simple chose to ignore it. For once a cliché would seem to be justified; he effectively put his head in the sand like an ostrich. Having made no preparations, and refusing to co-operate with the British and French, Leopold virtually ensured that his country would be overrun. In 1914 Belgian resistance contributed greatly to the survival of the Allied cause. In 1940 Leopold, believing in defeat, made sure of defeat. Contrary to the advice of his Prime Minister, he moved his army to a position where it could be dealt with the Germans in detail, isolated from Allied support. Even so, in the face of defeat, he could have gone to England with his government, standing as a symbol of resistance to his people in the same fashion as Wilhelmina of the Netherlands did to the Dutch. He did not. Not a traitor king, as was once argued; but not much on an inspiration either. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking for the title and artist of a French painting

Can anyone help me find this painting? Facts: The painting is located in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and was painted by a french artist. Educated guesses: XIX Century Neoclassical (at first I though it was done by Ingres) or maybe Romantic. The painting's theme is the Massacre of the Innocents, almost certainly. There is a weeping mother on the right foreground and the pursuit and killing of children is depicted on the left background. Sorry for being so vague. --78.24.136.36 (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not Poussin's Abduction of the Sabine Women [17], I don't suppose? 64.236.80.62 (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How about François-Joseph Navez' version of The massacre of the innocents?[18] Lupo 15:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Lupo, that's the painting I was looking for. I was very impressed by the painting when I first saw it but I couldn't remember the artist's name. Thanks again. --217.125.184.187 (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Impact of Terrorism

Is there any comparison to be drawn between the practices of present day terrorism and the campaign of the anarchists and others the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? Did the terrorists themselves employ similar techniques and practices? Were state responses similar in the past to those of the presemt day? I hope this is not too ambitious? Thanks for any help you can offer. Brodieset (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say you have the makings of a pretty good thesis there, Brodieset. Compare the assassination of the very important 19th Century leader Czar Alexander II of Russia on March 13th, 1881 with that of modern day bomb-wielding terrorists. His assassination was by no means an isolated rare event, either. I think you could make a very clear connection between those 19th Century bomb throwers and the ones we have today. -- Saukkomies 01:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If I try to conjure up an archetypal terrorist the figure that immediately comes to mind is that of Souvarine in Emile Zola's Germinal; single-minded, determined, amoral and utterly, utterly ruthless. We sometimes forget that people like this, though a tiny minority, once figured high in the consciousness of the world; from the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881 to that of Franz Ferdinand in 1914. Those who fell victim to the anarchists in particular included President Carnot of France in 1894; Empress Elizabeth of Austria in 1898; Umberto I, King of Italy, in 1900; and President McKinley of the United States in 1901. They all fell victim of what was called 'the propaganda of the deed', the belief tht political homicide carried a message to the widest possible audience far beyond its particular significance.

Unlike al-Queda the anarchists tended, in the main, to be selective in their targets, aiming at the leading representatives of the bourgeois state, though not always. In Barcelona, a city notorious for bomb outrages, the victims of the 'propaganda of the deed' were ordinary people. In 1894 Emile Henry threw a bomb into the Terminus Cafe in Paris, killing two people. During his trial he told the court that "there are no innocents", a Souvarine-like sentiment that might serve as the leitmotiv of terror murder, both then and now.

So, yes, a comparison can be drawn between old-fashioned anarchists and modern day Islamists; both share a belief in the efficacy of death in achieving their political ends, unrestrained by any moral considerations of right and wrong. But perhaps the most important comparison lies in the area of perceived impact; of what might be called the amplification of results. Here what matters is not the death of a single individual, no matter how important, or the murder of a large group of people, no matter how outrageous. What matters is how the 'enemy' reacts. The intention in this regard is to produce, if anything, an over-reaction, which feeds back into, and inflames, the original grievance. Otto von Bismarck, to take but one example of this process, introduced oppressive anti-socialist measures in 1878 following the attempted asassination of Kaiser Wilhelm I, in blunt-hammer strategy that made enemies of a whole section of the German community who in no way sympathised with the act. A bomb attack on a Corpus Christi procession in Barcelona in 1896 led the the arrest and torture of hundreds of dissidents, innocent and guilty alike. Over the world, from Chicago to Paris, anarchist attacks were the overture to increasing levels of repression, so much so that some were even convinced that the terrorists were acting as agents of the state.

In the end the 'propaganda of the deed' was defeated not by extraordinary state action but by new forms of awareness within the anarchist movement itself. Influential figures like Peter Kropotkin of Russia argued that it only brought isolation and repression. It is only to be hoped that our present-day equivalent will pass into history, much like the cloaked and hated figure of a bygone age, armed with his hissing bomb. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Wouldn't the lack of "super weapons" capable of killing thousands have forced the Anarchists to be more selective, as you say? In other words, people have to use what they have on hand, like it or not. Wrad (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There were certainly fears, Wrad, that the anarchists would use any means at their disposal, no matter how horrific. I would draw to your attention E. D. Fawcett's novel of 1893, Hartmann, the Anarchist; or the Doom of a Great City, which envisaged the destruction of London from the air. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A good deal of the response to the initial question has been accurate, however, I find five points of contention I must address.

So, yes, a comparison can be drawn between old-fashioned anarchists and modern day Islamists; both share a belief in the efficacy of death in achieving their political ends, unrestrained by any moral considerations of right and wrong.

This is first point is a gross misrepresentation of anarchist thought and practice in regards to Propaganda of the deed. By observing the list of of events associated with the philosophy, it is plane to see that the vast majority were not random or indiscriminate in their targets. Although a few individuals did take part in attacks against "masses," the predominate assumption was that the anarchists performed these acts not on behalf of, but as members of, the civilian population. To that end, the majority of these attacks were pin-point in their precision, utilizing knifes and single shot revolvers, or when explosives were employed, in closed areas where only wealthy politicians/elites would be injured. There was an obvious ethical agenda at work. Perceived innocents were to be spared at all costs, even if the attacking anarchist could be placed at greater risk. Note that a fair many of the anarchists whom used knifes and guns were easily captured. This was an understood risk, but one accepted as the price for avoiding "innocent" bloodshed.

But perhaps the most important comparison lies in the area of perceived impact; of what might be called the amplification of results.... What matters is how the 'enemy' reacts. The intention in this regard is to produce, if anything, an over-reaction, which feeds back into, and inflames, the original grievance.

This largely misses the point of Propagand of the Deed, as outlined within political tracts of the day. Although this is no doubt what modern islamic terrorists hope for in their attacks, anarchists saw this as only a secondary aspect of their actions. The primary goal of these symbolic murders was to display to the masses that the state apparatus was not as invincible as it was believed. The Japanese anarchists who attempted to assassinate the Emperor did not do so because they hoped the government would clamp down on their activities, and that this would display the viciousness of the state.

Rather, they did so because contemporary social, religious, and cultural beliefs held the Emperor to be a literal god, and peasants were unwilling to challenge the power of the state with that superstition ever present. It was hoped that the death of the Emperor would be a single stepping stone towards busting the myth of the divine right of the rulering class. A similar situation existed throughout the world during this period, and the same results were hoped for elsewhere.

Over the world, from Chicago to Paris, anarchist attacks were the overture to increasing levels of repression, so much so that some were even convinced that the terrorists were acting as agents of the state.

This was not entirely an unsubstantiated belief. Governments at the time are now known to have used provacateurs to implicate anarchists in such activities. The actions of Dmitry Bogrov were highly suspect, and it is widely believed that he was never an anarchist at all, and that his act of assassination was a cover on the part of conservative elements. Several examples of government falsified terrorism in the modern era occurred in Europe, during the mid 70s to early 80s, as part of a Strategy of tension.

:Interesting. Wouldn't the lack of "super weapons" capable of killing thousands have forced the Anarchists to be more selective, as you say? In other words, people have to use what they have on hand, like it or not. Wrad (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There were certainly fears, Wrad, that the anarchists would use any means at their disposal, no matter how horrific. I would draw to your attention E. D. Fawcett's novel of 1893, Hartmann, the Anarchist; or the Doom of a Great City, which envisaged the destruction of London from the air. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, there was no real threat that anarchists would use weapons of mass destruction, even if they had access to them. Dynamite was widely available, but was often ignored in favor of more precise weapons. The point was not to kill at random. The point was to create symbolic deeds which would act as pro-revolutionary propaganda. You don't start a revolution by killing potential recruits. But it is correct to say that there were fears that anarchists would resort to widespread murder, but this was largely a reflection of anti-anarchist propaganda.

The novel you reference, Hartmann, the Anarchist; or the Doom of a Great City, is no different. Many novelists included anti-anarchist caricatures in their stories as propaganda. One good example would be the play Paul Kauvar; or, Anarchy, by Steele MacKaye, who was explicit in his intentions to create the play as propaganda. Another, perhaps even laughable example, was a film entitled The Ariel Anarchists, which depicted a gang of dirty, cowardly, bearded "bomb throwers" constructing an airplane which they then used to drop bombs on churches and government buildings. Filmed when aviation was still in its infancy, it can be compared to a sensationalist sci-fi thriller, playing on the fears masses had of the new technology of flight, as much as on the fears the ruling class had of the anarchists.

And finally, though your post largely paints a picture of the "amoral, ruthless" anarchists as the monstrous caricatures Joseph Conrad was so fond of placing in his stories, it should be noted that the anarchists were not always despised. When Samuel Schwartzbard, known as Shalom, assassinated General Simon Petliura in revenge for the killing of sixty thousand Jews -- most of Shalom's family included -- he was caught and placed on trial. It only lasted eight days, at the end of which he was acquitted.--Cast (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You might also look at Wall Street bombing, which was an anarchist attack from 1920 that looks a lot like "modern" terrorism (vehicle bomb against a "soft" target of a civilian econoic sector). --76.171.172.201 (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Clio, thank you for such an outstanding response. I'm stunned! Brodieset (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Historians and travellers from antiquity

Could you recommend books by BCE people who wrote about history and people who wrote about their travels? I know there are, for example, a few antic greek historians and travellers (some going to Scotland or Asia) and I even believe we have a list of them on WP (I can't find it), could you recommend some of these old texts (reedited today),? The more the better! Thank you. Keria (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd start with Herodotus. It's much later, but Ibn Battuta's writings might also interest you. Matt Deres (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Could I ask if there is any particular English translation of Herodotus anyone would recommend? I see there is about half a dozen different versions of his Histories. Keria (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Herodotus is one of those great writers who survives translation very well, so I wouldn't worry about going wrong. If you like tons of ancillary material, with lots of footnotes and maps, and you don't mind a real doorstop of a heavy hardcover book, The Landmark Herodotus (ISBN 0375421092) has just been published. Robin Waterfield's translation (Oxford World's Classics, ISBN 0192824252) is good, and the 150 pp. of notes in the back are good. That said, neither of these is ideal for what I personally imagine as the needs of a first-time reader: a little bit of truly necessary explanation, right there on the page in sparing footnotes. Herodotus is a great storyteller & literary artist and should simply be read cover-to-cover first. The edition I read cover-to-cover that fits the bill is the translation by David Grene (Univ. of Chicago Press, ISBN 0226327728); if you appreciate annotation you might find it too sparing in this edition. A nice compact hardcover edition with a bit more in the way of footnotes is George Rawlinson's classic Victorian translation, nicely presented in the Everyman's Library (ISBN 0375400613, some more discursive footnotes). Avoid the Norton Critical Edition: it's abridged. The Penguin edition (ISBN 0140449086) probably beats Grene for page-turning readability (Grene is concerned to capture the quirkiness of Herodotus' language), but it uses endnotes instead of footnotes. You can sample all of these online to get a sense of a style you'll enjoy; almost all can be browsed with Amazon's Reader. If I haven't helped you narrow the list of a half dozen editions you already knew of, my apologies. To summarize, I think the first-time reader might want to choose from among Grene (sparing footnotes), Rawlinson/Everyman's (all the pros and cons of Victorian English, more extensive footnotes), and Penguin or Oxford (the most readable of all, both with very extensive endnotes). For one more possibility, the Macaulay/Lateiner version published by Barnes & Noble, see here. Wareh (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

1st century CE, but Josephus is well worth a gander. DuncanHill (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Xenophon's Anabasis, it is really quite fascinating. I would also recommend Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, Polybios, Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico and Tacitus' Germania - all make for wonderful reading. You might have a look at our article on Ancient literature, although it admittedly leaves a bit to be desired (and Roman historiography is even a redlink, I'm afraid). -- Ferkelparade π 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Keria: I read the Penguin edition of Herodotus and can recommend it as readable. SaundersW (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

From the above, I obviously second the recommendation of Herodotus. If you go on to Thucydides (less of a traveler, much more sober and dense, but surely the greatest ancient historian) and aren't sure you want to digest the whole thing the first time, I highly recommend Paul Woodruff's abridgment, Thucydides: On Justice, Power, and Human Nature (ISBN 0872201686). Generally I hate the idea of abridgments but in this case I really think devouring this 200-page book in its entirety (including the introduction) is the best introduction to Thucydides the thinker. (I could recommend complete translations of Thucydides, but I'd have to know more about what you really want from a translation: the Landmark tome vs. Hobbes' wonderful and accurate 17th-century English vs. Lattimore's incredibly literal and difficult version vs. Rex Warner's readable but loose Penguin, for example.) Wareh (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Although he is not quite BCE, I just can't help but recommend Tacitus (ca. 56 – ca. 117). He is so READABLE, and his narrative of his travels in Germania are absolutely fantastic! It is so fascinating to compare what he says about the ancient wild Germans with their modern day descendants, with whom they have so much in common. His book, appropriately called Germania, can be read for free online at this site: http://www.northvegr.org/lore/tacitus/ -- Saukkomies 01:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A word of caution... No doubt modern Germans (like the English, another nation largely descended from these 'ancient wild Germans') do indeed have much in common with their remote ancestors. Since the Middle Ages, though, the Germans (like the English) have been one of the most civilized peoples of the world, and in almost all fields (including philosophy, science, music, literature, medicine, religion, and so forth) it's hard to imagine the world we have now coming about without them... Xn4 03:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Xn4, if anything I would say that if you read Tacitus' Germania, that you'll come away from it with a very different impression than that he is painting the Germans as being "wild" or barbaric. Tacitus seems to genuinely respect the Germans' society, and tried to convince Romans to be more like them, not the other way around! Saukkomies 04:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As so often with Tacitus his writings are really intended as a mirror held up to Rome. I'm sure modern day Germans have many of the qualities of simplicity and bravery admired by Tacitus in the Germania; but, in common with all other advanced nations, it is reasonably sure that they have few of the ancient Roman virtues that the author attempted to idealise. Clio the Muse (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Tacitus had an axe to grind when he was writing his book Germania. He was a moralist, and was using the Germans' reported high values of morality to try to persuade the Romans to return to the values that their ancestors were supposed to have had back in the glory days of the founding of the Republic. However, given that, this does not necessarily negate what Tacitus is saying about them. From what we can see those societies that have been primarily influenced by the Germanic people living in Magna Germania did have some very markedly strong social norms in regards to monogomous marriage, an emphasis on the worth of the individual, personal loyalty, etc. I know you'll probably want to have this all down in writing, Clio, but please be patient for a day or two, since I'm a bit busy right now. However, there has been some extensive study done on this subject - the social norms that are shared by the Germanic people. Don't get me wrong - I'm no Germanic supremacist, or anything like that - to me one set of social norms is just as valid as any other. However, comparing the ancient German society that Tacitus writes about with the modern German society is quite surprisingly similar in many substantial ways. It is interesting to note, for instance, the similarities between the maps of the ancient Roman Empire and a modern map of Europe that shows where the majority of people are either Catholic or Protestant. There really is a difference between the two societies that come down through the centuries from either Rome or from German influence. Saukkomies 04:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A few names of possible interest. I'm unsure on sources for these, but perhaps the pages will have leads: Harkhuf, an ancient Egyptian traveller of the 23rd century BCE; Story of Wenamun, another ancient Egyptian travelling story, perhaps a bit garbled over time; Pytheas, whose tale is told by Strabo, Pliny, and perhaps in other fragments; Hanno the Navigator and Himilco the Navigator, Carthaginians both; perhaps too obvious, but how about Alexander the Great? From China there is Zhang Qian and Gan Ying, among others. Finally, another Greek, Agatharchides. Sorry I can't say much about these people -- I don't know much about them myself. But maybe those pages will be useful. Pfly (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Christmas Pudding

Does that odd confection, the British Christmas Pudding, have a history? Friedrich James (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Try Christmas Pudding Thomprod (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page does not do our wonderful pudding nearly enough justice! Although it took its final form in Victorian times the pudding's origins can be traced all the way back to the 1420s, to two sources. It emerged not as a confection or a dessert at all, but as a way of preserving meat at the end of the season. Because of shortages of fodder all surplus livestock was slaughtered in the Autumn. The meat was then kept in a pastry case along with dried fruits, acting as a preservative. The resultant large 'mince pies' could then be used to feed hosts of people, particularly at the festive season. The chief ancestor of the modern pudding, however, was the pottage, a meat and vegtable concoction originating in Roman times. This was prepared in a large cauldron, the ingredients being slow cooked, with dried fruits, sugar and spices added.

The earliest reference we have to the 'standing pottage' dates to 1420, a dish of preserved veal, mutton or chicken, thickened with bread, reddened with sandlewood and full of currants. By the time of Elizabeth I prunes were added to this basic concoction. This became so popular that the dish was know from this point forward as Plum Pottage.

By the eighteenth century, as techniques for meat preserving improved, the savoury element of both the mince pie and the plum pottage diminished as the sweet content increased. The mince pie kept its name though the pottage was increasingly referred to as plumb pudding. Although the latter was always a celebratory dish it was originally eaten at the Harvest Festival, not Christmas. It is not until the 1830s that the cannon-ball of flour, fruits, , suet, sugar and spices, all topped with holly makes a definite apperance, more and more assocaited with Christmas. As far as I can tell it was Eliza Acton who first referred to it as Christmas Pudding in her cookbook. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a section based on the above text to the article. Thanks! Sandstein (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Economics book

Could you recommend me economics books? Currently I know almost nothing, but I'd like to learn (so introductory books are welcome too). --Taraborn (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Start with The Wealth of Nations, and The Marx-Engels Reader (ed. Tucker, ISBN 039309040X). Twentieth-century classics include The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money and more titles if you happen to be interested in the economic history and ideas of any given time or place. Wareh (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

From the above suggested, I second The Wealth of Nations. You may find it quite amusing. The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money is a classic, but if you want my opinion, it's terribly obscure for someone untrained in Macroeconomics. Well, my bet is that it's obscure for everyone :D.

Take into account that the previous list doesn't contain handbooks of theory. If you are looking for introductory books on Economic Theory, something like Economics, by Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus is a good start.

After you read something like this, you may want to see (if you are still interested :P) more specific material on Micro or Macroeconomics. Good luck! Pallida  Mors 22:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A good introductory book is New Ideas from Dead Economists Wrad (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Taraborn (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

For something lighter, accessible to someone who knows "almost nothing", I recommend Paul Krugman's The Accidental Theorist. His essay "Four Percent Follies" is the most amusing thing I ever read on monetary policy. 82.169.148.34 (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also the "Worldly Philosophers"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

More music like this?

Here is a link to a music clip (it's quiet so you'll need to turn up the volume (sorry) - can someone suggest a genre? It's taken from a movie so there's other stuff going on as well but it's easy enough to filter out in your head. If you were trying to hunt down music with similar slow pacing/melancholic tones, what would you do? --Seans Potato Business 22:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hum... I guess to label it rock is a good start. Maybe someone else suggests a more specific tag for it. Considering the guitar in the foreground, if you specially like this piece, you may also be interested in some blues.

Somehow, it remained me a bit of "What God wants, part 3", one of my favorite tracks of Amused to Death by Roger Waters. (Did I follow the citing style convention? I never remember how to do it... :(). Anyway, that song has a mind-blowing, melancholic guitar solo from Jeff Beck. I suggest listening to it. Pallida  Mors 22:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It reminds me of the music in Twin Peaks. David Lynch wrote that with Angelo Badalamenti. I've never heard Badalamenti's work outside of movies, but the descriptions of it in the links on his Wikipedia page sound about right. Some of the soundtrack to The Crow is similar, too. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe ambient music? SaundersW (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say minimal electronic with a bit of post rock there at the end... sounds maybe like Sigur Rós, Brian Eno...could also be Portishead and Massive Attack. Then why not Röyksopp, The Postal Service,...Mogwai (band)?. Anyway, the list is endless. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What movie is this from? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange days, about 13 minutes in. --Seans Potato Business 10:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

See Strange_Days_(film)#Soundtrack. Consult Last.fm for genres. — Adriaan (T★C) 11:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

December 8

Ghost story

Can anyone help me with the name and author of a ghost story? It's set in England in the twentieth century (I think) about a man searching for a buried crown watched over by a ghostly guardian. I saw a version on DVD a year or two ago. It's really good. Zan Zee (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The movie is "A Warning to the Curious" (1972), and it is based on M. R. James story A Warning to the Curious and Other Ghost Stories (1925) -Yamanbaiia (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you enjoyed A Warning to the Curious try Oh, Whistle, and I'll Come to You, My Lad or Count Magnus-really scary stuff! James, as far as I am concerned, is the best writer of supernatural fiction in the English language. Clio the Muse (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Church's position on the undead?

I'm somewhat aware that the RCC believes that humans can be and occasionally are possessed by demons and occasionally authorizes its priests to carry out exorcisms (after running rigorous checks to rule out mental illness, physical causes etc.). Just as a matter of interest - where does the Church officially stand on the walking undead, i.e. a human who has (apparently) physically died and his/her corpse has (apparently) risen as a zombie, vampire, revenant or similar?

Apologies if this is a silly question - no offence is intended to anyone. I have recently been watching the (most excellent) Hellsing anime series, which features a Catholic priest who specializes in 'laying the undead to rest' (against their will most of the time, as it goes) by way of solid silver bayonets bathed in holy water. Just wondering as to the reality of the situation. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a silly question at all - in the Roman Catholic Church, exorcism is governed by canon law. See especially Exorcism/Roman Catholicism. Possession by demons has biblical authority, but I'm not aware that any mainstream Church believes in the existence of the undead, in the voodoo sense that you mean. Xn4 01:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, mainstream Churches (and Roman Catholicism is not hardly the exception) have had a rich and interesting tradition of writings on the undead. Check out the Montague Summers article here for a starting-point. And yes, the entry does call him "eccentric," but a) he was and is pretty widely read, and b) I'm not sure to what extent a 19th century English author and clergyman wouldn't be considered eccentric in this day and age :) If you're really interested in this topic I can give you some more data, but see what you can find by following the links on that page. ◄Zahakiel► 05:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Romanticism:music

I know it may sound like homework, but it is not. What were the major works of Beethoven, Schubert, Berlioz, Verdi, Liszt, Brahms, Chopin and Wagner? Please, answer with one or more major works of each composer. No argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.245 (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously Beethoven's Symphonies would be near the top. Wrad (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I know this sounds like a snarky response, but it is not. Why not just look at the articles we have for those gentlemen? Each one discusses the artist's music. Surely that would be faster and a more complete answer than asking here? Matt Deres (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but all those letters!--Tresckow (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If just one "major work" is to be mentioned, Beethoven's Ninth Symphony has got to be it. I'm not that familiar with Berlioz, but Symphonie fantastique is the piece that comes to mind first. Verdi wrote a huge number of operas still famous today. So I don't know, how about La traviata? I know less about Liszt and couldn't name much of his music beyond the Transcendental Etudes. Does solo piano music count as a "major work"? I mean, "major" in terms of scale and instrumentation/production, or major in terms of influence and fame? For Brahms, I don't know if there is a definitive major work, but I'm a fan of Ein deutsches Requiem. Chopin? Again with solo piano pieces, but his Études are quite famous at least. Wagner? Come on! How could it not be Der Ring des Nibelungen? Pfly (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The “major works” of a composer would depend on how you define major. Do you mean the largest pieces? The most popular pieces? The most historically influential pieces? I agree with Pfly mostly. The most popular piece by Liszt is probably Totentanz. Although Der Ring des Nibelungen is probably the largest work (okay, cycle) by Richard Wagner Tristan und Isolde is more historically important. For Verdi I would go with Aida or Falstaff, but La traviata is quit important as well. Schubert is almost impossible to pin down to a single piece. I would say it’s probably a tie between his Unfinished symphony and his two great song cycles: Die schöne Müllerin and Winterreise.

It would help if we know why you are asking. Do you want to know where to start listening to these composers for instance? Hope this helps. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the USA equivalent of the UK Companies House

217.168.3.246 (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Business registration is a function of the individual states, see for example California Secretary of State business search and Florida Department of State Division of Corporations. -- Arwel (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

English Inn Signs

During a recent trip to London I noticed huge range of signs with the names of bars and a picture with it. Does anyone know the origins of this practice and explain the meaning of some? Thank you very much. K Limura (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

See Pub names; the idea dates back to the middle ages, when only a few people could read. As a result, most pubs were named after heraldic symbols or well known objects and people. For example, the pub name "Red Lion" (one of the most common in Britain) is taken from the red lion of the Scottish coat of arms, "The Plough" was often used in rural areas because even the illiterate farmers would be able to recognise a painting of a plough, while "The King's Head" is common because almost everyone could recognise a picture of the king. Some pub names are chosen as a kind of rebus - a riddle where pictures are used instead of words. For example, a pub with the odd-sounding name "Goat and Compasses" was acutally chosen because it sounded like "God encompasseth us", while Elephant and Castle is believed to have come from "la Infanta del Castile" (the child of Castile). Nowadays the idea is kept largely for tradition; there are pubs that are little more than dank concrete boxes, built in the 1970s, but with the signage of an 18th Century rural tavern! Laïka 11:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In context Infanta means "princess"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

F. Saunders

Do you know anything about F. Saunders (sorry, dont know her first name) a woman who I think served in the Greek military during the First World War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.190.54 (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mazarin and Machiavelli

Thinking of the career of Cardinal Mazarin would it be right to view him as a disciple of Machiavelli, a statesman first and a churchman second? Indeed, did he have any obvious spiritual values? H W Waidson (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The Two Tenors

I recently signed up for Sing Live, and one of the questions in the online form was whether I was a first tenor or a second tenor. Our tenor article mentions no such distinction. Googling "first tenor" and "second tenor" led me to this page, but that's not very informative either. How do I tell whether I'm a first or a second?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

While it is possible they are using some special distinction, it seems much more likely they have two tenor parts, one higher than the other, and want you to choose which you'll sing. These decisions are much easier if you've had a look at the parts and know their ranges, but if you generally find you can sing higher than the average tenor, you're a first tenor. If you generally find it hard to sing as high as the average tenor, you're a second tenor. If you're not sure, or think you have a fairly average range, you'll just have to pick. What's your range? Skittle (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

German invasion of Russia

Would it be true to say that the failure of the Ribbentrop Molotov talks in November 1940 was instrumental in the German decision to go to war with Russia the following summer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.85.250 (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Business research in the US, starting with owner name.

If I want to know what companies a specific person has registered in the US and considering that there is no central registry of companies in the US - like pointed at my previous [question | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#What_is_the_USA_equivalent_of_the_UK_Companies_House], how should I proceed? Should I search every registry of every US state?217.168.1.86 (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)