Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 1

analogue for folk etymology?

What is it called when people make up false origins for obscure customs and traditions, in a manner analogous to a folk etymology? Thanks. --Allen (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In a slightly more organised form it might be called pseudohistory... FiggyBee (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

...or it could be called, April Fool -- 71.100.11.124 (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

All customs and traditions are contrived and modern, so I guess it would be called folk etymology. Ninebucks (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in cargo cultism. --Sean 16:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses! It sounds like there's just no such word. Someone should make one up. Ninebucks, what do you mean when you say all customs and traditions are contrived and modern? --Allen (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What firearms were used in the American Civil War?

I can't seem to find an article discussing the various types of muskets and rifles used in the American Civil War, if such an article exists. I know that the Minie rifle was the predominant weapon for both sides (although the CSA more of a mix, right?) -- but I seem to recall reading somewhere that by the end of the war, the Union had started using some kind of semi-automatic rifle, which gave them a considerable advantage. Is this the case? What kind of evolution of the standard infantry firearm was there over the course of the war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.209.220 (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe these links will be helpful: Category:American Civil War rifles linking to sixteen models. Category:American Civil War weapons lists revolvers, pistols and guns as well. And there's a list of weapons in the American Civil War ---Sluzzelin talk 06:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Shan Yu

I was just wondering if anybody knew what the villain in Mulan, his sword, is? what kind is it? I think its cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwking (talk • contribs) 05:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a type of flame-bladed sword and it's even mentioned in that article. I don't know whether it is based on a real sword wielded by the Huns or whether it's a Disney fantasy all the way. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How to word a disability examination of a knee?

I am a healthcare professional and was asked by one of my patients to examine his knee which had been damaged while in the service and he had been awarded a 10% disability in 1990. However as he has gotten older, the knee is giving him more and more trouble and range of motion is limited much more than in 1990 and he wants to get another ruling on his disability to encompass the increasing disability. I am not quite sure how to word the exam to show the disability board that his knee is indeed limited in motion and contractured severely. Please help me find the correct terminology in describing the limited motion of this man's knee so that he will get a fair review of his disability.

Thanks for your help in advance,

Sincerely,

Nina Ravey (email address redacted to prevent spam)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nravey (talk • contribs) 06:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that if you are a healthcare professional you are unable to describe a disability but maybe it's outside your usual area. The knee functions in two directions, so it may have limited flexion or limited extension. This is usually referred to in degrees, so a knee with only 130 degrees of extension will remain pretty bent, it should open out to about 180 degrees. The other aspects of the knee to be considered is lateral stability, it should not have any significant sideways movement. As well, the knee should be checked for forward/backward stability. The head of the tibia when pulled forward or pushed back should not move relative to the lower femoral extremity with the patient sitting and knee half bent. The physical appearance of the knee may be useful to describe if it is swollen or deformed in some way and finally you should record any pain the person feels either when subjected to reasonable examination pressure or when standing and using the joint. Richard Avery (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You might find this link helpful. [1] Richard Avery (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely, this would be the field of some branch of orthopedics? Richard's answers look as if they should give the pointers you need. I would make the uneducated suggestion that, should this fall outside the scope of your education, someone else ought to study the patient and word their review. 81.93.102.185 (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing concept of the child

I am trying to draw up a time line of how our ideas and how we think about children children has changed over time from the middle ages/medieval times and I need some help! All i know is the generalised perception which has changed from children being objects to now beig the subject of our attention.

If you could help me out that will be great thank you xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.18.239 (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know when we ever thought of children as mere objects... Dismas|^(talk) 10:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In the Medeival times children were viewed as being dispensable, not important etc, can you help me with my question now please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.18.239 (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not true...as far as I am aware, in agrarian cultures, children are very important, as they will help work the land, and take care of their parents when the parents are too old. That was as true in the middle ages as it is now. For nobility, children were important to carry on the family name - for some people having a child was extremely important, at least a male child! But surely in some places at some times for some people, children were dispensable and unimportant - which is also true today. Since the child death rate was so high, it is sometimes claimed that parents remained detached from their children until it was obvious they would survive, which could take a few years. I'm not sure how accurate that is - the human instinct to care for a child must override that, I would think. Have you looked at http://historymedren.about.com/od/medievalchildren/Medieval_Children.htm this webpage from about.com? You should probably also look at the book "Medieval Children" by Nicholas Orme. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Adam. That was my point. Children have been valuable for all time, as far as I know. Granted, parents may wait till the child is older to really count on it being a productive part of the family/tribe but it was still a blow to the family if they perished. Dismas|^(talk) 12:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I really hope the anon comes back with a source for his second assertion above. That would make interesting reading. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Can i just say having read through this how rude you all are in your replies when someone clearly needs your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.18.239 (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We are helping! I even gave you a link and a book. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And you can help us by telling us the basis on which you say that children in medieval times were viewed as unimportant. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a large and interesting literate on the history of childhood, but unfortunately this area is a rather specialized and not-well-known academic discipline and so Wikipedia offers up nothing on it. Google "history of childhood" and you'll find lots of syllabi for university courses on the subject with lots of possible reading. From what I understand, most of the change is not in the value of children but the expectations of childhood safety, the definitions of "childhood" itself (e.g. what would have one time been legally an adult is still a child today), and the partitioning of other life-stages relative to childhood (e.g. the idea of the category of "adolescence" as a transition period from child to adult). Like much of the history of psychology and history of medicine, a base tenet of this approach is to not assume that the current categories we use for such things have been set in stone (or nature, to be more specific), that they are human constructions that change with culture and context, and that the idea of reading evolutionary history through the lens of modern notions of families and children is rather silly. Anyway, it's not a subject I know a lot about, but it is interesting. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Our article at childhood is very short but the bibliography is extensive. Captain RefDesk is correct about university syllabi, but be aware that some of the courses may be entitled "history of the family" or somesuch. Also note the inherent ambiguity of the word "child", e.g. the importance of having children. The English language uses the word for both "minors" and "progeny", and the two are not the same. Good luck, and please feel free to contribute to the childhood article. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is helpful – the OP seems to be asking why children were important as labour but not as vulnerable humans with rights. (This lack of status also applied to adults who were not of the privileged classes.) When the Victorian era created the idea of childhood and the Factory Act helped, it's in the context of human rights being an evolving thing anyway, gradually incorporating more minorities as awareness and lobbying grew. You could point to Dr Spock in the 50's as advocating permissiveness that lead to the shift in power between parents and children. As offspring of the Me Generation (people born from the 1970's on) another kind of importance has been constructed for children as consumers with their own buying power, peer pressure systems and their power to pressure parents to buy. There's a book, Generation Me and other good links online. Unfortunately the impulse to exploit children for economic reasons has raised its ugly head yet again. In China, there's the Little Emperor Syndrome. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

82.0, I must say I'm really quite baffled why you should conclude that the early responses you received to your question, particularly from Adam, were in any way 'rude.' I rather suspect it is because the answers simply do not fit the preconceptions so obviously contained in the form of your question. Forgive me for being so blunt, but the notion that children in the Middle Ages were perceived as 'objects' is really dreadfully old-fashioned, utterly out of step with contemporary thinking on the topic. And the literature on this area is huge. You would have to go back almost fifty years to find a view anywhere close to yours, to the work of Philippe Ariès, the French Medievalist, who in his Centuries of Childhood argued that childhood was not a distinct cultural period until the 16th or 17th centuries, and that the Middle Ages lacked any such concept. But even Ariès would have baulked at the suggestion of children as objects.

I am reluctant, I confess, to proceed any further, in the expectation that I, too, will be dismissed as 'rude.' However, I take the view that answers here are of interest to the general community, not just those who post the questions; so, on that basis I will now proceed to address the issue in the politest and most objective way I can.

People are always people, and there is no reason to suppose that Medieval parents did not treat their little ones with as much love and affection as those today. Of course, there are always exceptions, and people were more subject to the vagaries of circumstances, particularly economic circumstances, in the past than they are in modern societies; at least in the developed world. However, Medieval sources provide plenty of evidence that attitudes towards childhood have varied remarkably little over time, although, of course, there was a much greater emphasis on corporal punishment in the past. Allowing for all due differences in lifestyle and culture, Medieval children grew up in much the same way as children today.

Let's begin by looking at the very first stages of life. Writing in the thirteenth century, Bartholomew of England observed "The mother loves her own child most tenderly, embraces and kisses it, nurses and cares for it most solicitously." About the same time, Philip of Navara said;

God gave children three gifts: to love and recognise the person who nurses him at her breast; to show 'joy and love' to those who play with him; and to inspire love and tenderness in those who rear him, of which the last is the most important, for 'without this, they will be so dirty and annoying in infancy and so naughty and capricious that it is hardly worth nurturing them through childhood'.

In Montaillou, his seminal study of life in a French village, Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie documents the affectionate interplay between parents and babies, including adults enjoying the sensation of a baby’s skin against there own. In the circumstances of the day, given the low level of medical knowledge, and the general problems caused by hygiene and the transmission of disease, a great many babies and young children died, but again there is ample evidence that these losses were felt severely.

Medieval adults, moreover, had a clear concept of childhood as a distinct phase of life. They believed, in other words, that children progressed through a series of stages, the so-called 'ages of man', each with its own specific features. This was recognised also by both the church and the state: children below the 'age of majority', generally reckoned in the high Middle Ages as between 12 and 14, were not expected to undertake the same religious and legal obligations as adults. When they committed sins, or breached the code of law, they were generally treated with greater leniency than adults.

When children took ill there is again ample evidence that parents did everything in their power to deal with the problem. In some cases this involved, often at considerable expense, trips to sacred shrines, to pray for divine intervention. At Canterbury in the late twelfth century we hear, for example, of one Guibert of Thanet bringing his crippled daughter to the shrine of Thomas Becket, the two walking the whole way, the little girl supporting herself on a staff. Another man came from Folkestone on horseback with his seven-year-old daughter, who could not feed herself because of crippled fingers. Many other parents made the same journey, inspired by stories of St. Thomas' miraculous cures.

Children were also expected to have their own society, with codes of conduct developed in interaction with their fellows. In 1398, the English writer John Trevisa observed that the young "love talkings and counsels of such children as they are, and foresake and avoid the company of the old." The important point here is that children were given the liberty to develop their own unique customs and culture, and there is a lot of recorded detail, concerning the games, rhymes and songs of the time. Play is also well-recorded. In the fifteenth century, the poet John Lydgate mentions running, leaping, singing, dancing, wrestling, climbing trees to steal fruit, football, chess and many other such games. The paintings of Brueghel the Elder give depictions of some of these activities. Similar depictions are to be found in marginal illustrations of the fourteenth century Romance of Alexander, which also show children on hobby horses and playing blind man's buff.

There were also toy manufacturers who catered specifically for children. In the London of 1300 boys could buy model knights and other such toys. These, I think it worth stressing, were not hand made, but cast in moulds, and therefore mass produced. Miniature domestic items were also produced for girls; plates, bowls, jugs and the like. Children's literature, moreover, can be traced as far back as the reign of Richard II.

Education was also important for Medieval parents, and there were a great many schools, though these benefited boys more than girls, who trended to receive what education they had at home from their mothers. The curriculum may have been more limited than today, but masters were no less keen for their charges to develop their imaginations, and pupils were encouraged to write about the things that they liked in their notebooks. A number of these survive after 1400, with scraps of songs and riddles.

Yes, life may have been different. Yes, there were risks. But children were still children; subjects, not objects.

If you are truly interested in this there is an ample literature. Beyond the work of Nicholas Orme-to which Adam has referred you-I would mention Childhood in the Middle Ages by S Sharar; Childhood in Anglo-Saxon England by S Crawford; The Ties that Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England by B. Hanawalt; and The Rescue of the Innocents: Endangered Children in Medieval Miracles by R. C. Finucane. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict: it seems I have clashed with Clio. But here it is, anyway):

The notion that we are somehow superior to cultures and people from the past is prevalent amongst the public and, unfortunately, also occurs amongst academics as well, and gives rise to all sorts of nonsense. That medieval people did not love or treasure their children is just another of those myths. It was given credence by Philippe Ariès in his 1960 book Centuries of Childhood, with the outrageous statement that "in medieval society, the idea of childhood did not exist". This was taken up by other scholars, it seems almost uncritically, and regurgitated ever since. For example, Barbara Tuchman (relying heavily on Aries) echoed similar thoughts in her history A Distant Mirror (1978), and said: "Of all the characteristics in which the medieval age differs from the modern, none is so striking as the comparative absence of interest in children." (p. 49) This whole myth has been thoroughly debunked by recent scholars, such as Nicholas Orme, who have carried out rigorous studies of primary sources (of which there are many dealing with children). There is little evidence to support such a view as Aries’s; most suggests the opposite.

Medieval people […] had concepts of what childhood was, and when it began and ended. The arrival of children in the world was a notable event, and their upbringing and education were taken seriously. The Church and common (secular) law regarded children as equal to adults for some purposes. Equally, both branches of authority accepted that children were not yet adults and required separate treatment. Adults provided culture for children by means of toys, games, literature, but children created their own as well. (Orme, pp. 5-6

Orme concludes that there have been bad parents and good parents in all periods, and medieval children were "ourselves, five hundred or a thousand years ago." Do read Orme, he is fascinating. But there are also other good histories by Shulamith Shahar (Childhood in the Middle Ages) and Sally Crawford (Childhood in Anglo-Saxon England). Gwinva (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Another example of children acting the same as children today is from William of Tyre - when the future King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem was a child, he and his friends were pinching each other to see who could withstand the most pain. Sounds like a typical day of high school, doesn't it? (Baldwin, by the way, didn't feel anything at all, which William unfortunately recognized as a sign of leprosy.) (And my apologies for once again using an example from the crusades!) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk)

The Curse of the Pharaohs

The article Curse of the Pharaohs states that "A study showed that of the 58 people who were present when the [Tutankhamun] tomb and sarcophagus were opened, only eight died within a dozen years." This assertion is not sourced, but the article goes on to cite an article on Howard Carter which states that "Twelve members of the original group that had been present at the opening of the tomb died within the next seven years", which is obviously inconsistent with the Wikipedia article. Is there any reliable data on how many actually there were in the group, and how many of them died within 7/10/12 years? Many thanks. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I found this mention of James Randi looking at actuarial tables[2]; and [3]] puts it at between 11 and 21 people dying, then I saw your word "reliable". What the heck, here it is anyway. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Disarmament in Afghanistan

How can this goal be accomplished and what are some of the possible solutions? Yellowhighlight (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the goal of ISAF isn't really disarmament; The ISAF wants to arm the Afghan government forces while keeping arms out of the hands of the Taliban or their sympathisers. The issue is complex and debatable. See a review of Quick Impact Projects here [4], for an example of the actual complexity not often elaborated upon in mainstream media. Vance.mcpherson (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How quickly can a team of doctors or forensic pathologists examine a fresh massacre site for signs of rape and mutilations?

This may be a strange question, but nevertheless. In country "A" on September 3 and during the following few days there were some massacres in and around a city that was behind the front lines. Number of victims perhaps 300 - 400. The site of the massacres was shortly thereafter overrun by troops from country "B", who discovered the massacre. The International Red Cross sent a committee consisting of doctors from neutral countries to investigate, which they did on September 26. They concluded that many of the victims of the massacre had been raped and horribly mutilated before death. My question is this, how easy is it to determine such matters? could the rapes and mutilations have been faked given that apparently the investigation only lasted one day, i.e. can the investigation have been thorough enough to give a verdict regarding the mutilations of many of the victims? It has been claimed by a person from side "A" that the bodies could have been mutilated after death by representatives of side "B" to make side "A" look even worse. Is it enough to superficially examine the body to determine if a rape or other mutilation was faked, or do you have to do a in depth investigation. Is one day enough for determining the truthfullness of rapes and mutilations in a massacre of this size? For those curious the source is this, and the discussion that prompted the question is here, but it would be good if you could answer first.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 16:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think telling post mortem from premortem wounds is (at least nowadays) usually fairly easy presuming the corpses are still resonaby intact, as such you could probably tell whether someone was mutilated postmortem or premorterm fairly fast and it wouldn't be hard to tell if someone was mutilated particularly if we are talking about multiple and severe mutilations. As for rape, since I think it's reasonable to presume there very fairly brutal rapes and since it's unlikely that many of the victims had engaged in rough sex recently, I think it would be fairly easy to tell that a rape had likely occured. So I would say it would be fairly easy for a team of say 10 doctors to conclude that rapes and mutilations and that these had occured pre mortem. Note that unless for some reason absolute numbers are vital, even if it's true that some examinations may have been mishandled, I find it hard to believe multiple people would would have come to the same conclusion for multiple corpses and every single one of them was wrong. In other words, at worst the numbers (both of victims and perhaps of severity) may be slightly exagaturated but the main conclusion would probably still be correct. Of course a longer investigation would be ideal (and may be necessary for a court case), but in war, sadly more time is usually a luxury. Presuming these doctors were really neutral and had never cast doubt on their conclusions, I would find it hard to question their conclusions, especially based on the claims of one potentially biased alleged witness Nil Einne (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Answers to the above should be qualified with specific context (Talk:Bloody Sunday (1939)) - i.e. that the scene of the alleged crime, and the investigations, would be controlled and overseen by Nazi Germany, who had a vested interested in exaggerating, if not outright manufacturing, of such evidence.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tsar Nicholas

the communists took decision to place the tsar on trial. why instead was he murdered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by V N Rosenfeld (talk • contribs) 19:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Trotsky, Sverdlov told him that Lenin and his immediate entourage had decided to "execute" the imperial family because "We... shouldn't leave the Whites a living banner to rally around under the present difficult circumstances". Of course, it suited Lenin to pretend publicly that the Ural Regional Soviet had taken the decision. Why wasn't the Tsar put on trial? Essentially because the case against him was so weak. There was less potential danger for the cause of the Bolsheviks in isolating him and (in the end) murdering him. Xn4 00:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting question, V N, which reveals much about the inner workings of the Bolshevik Party at the time. The official story given out was that the task had been delegated to the Ural Soviet, though the murder of the Tsaritsa Alexandra and the five children was kept secret for over a year after the event. Anyway, I've copied below a previous answer I gave to a related question, which provides some background detail. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is still not been proved conclusively just how the decision to kill the family was arrived at; if it was central, or if it was local; and, if central, who exactly was involved. However, I can offer you a reasonable amount of circumstantial evidence that points quite firmly at Moscow.

For the Ural Soviet the presence of the royal family at Yekaterinburg was a growing concern, especially as the Czech Legion and other White forces approaching the town from the east. Rather than risk moving them they decided on execution, though they were unwilling to act without the approval the Council of Commissars in Moscow. Ivan Goloschekin, a member of the Ural Soviet who also happened to be a friend of Yakov Sverdlov, a close political associate of Lenin, was sent to Moscow to take soundings on the matter. He was told by Sverdlov that the government was still considering putting Nicholas on trial, an idea favoured by Trotsky. However, the steady advance of the Whites towards Yekaterinburg changed this, and Goloschekin was able to return with the news that Moscow had delegated the whole business to the Ural Soviet.

With Lenin's permission Sverdlov formally announced the death of Nicholas at a meeting of the Executive Council on 18 July 1918. Nothing was said of the fate of the Empress Alexandra and the five children, though an official statement was issued that they had all been moved. However, both Lenin and Sverdlov knew that they were all dead. They had been so advised by telegram from Yekaterinburg. The statement was a lie.

A year passed before the government admitted that they had all been shot, though the Social Revolutionaries were blamed. However, the real link between Moscow and the Urals was later made clear in a conversation between Sverdlov and Trotsky. Trotsky reports this in his memoirs thus;

"My next visit to Moscow took place after the fall of Yekaterinburg. Talking to Sverdlov, I asked in passing: 'Oh, yes, and where is the Tsar?

'It's all over,' he answered. 'He has been shot.'

'And where is the family?'

'And the family along with him.'

'All of them?', I asked, apparently with a touch of surprise.

'All of them,' replied Sverdlov. 'What about it?' He was waiting to see my reaction, I made no reply.

'And who made the decision?', I asked.

'We decided it here. Ilych [Lenin] believed that we shouldn't leave the Whites a live banner to rally round, especially under the present difficult circumstances.'

I did not ask any further questions and considered the matter closed. Actually, the decision was not only expedient but necessary. The severity of the summary justice showed the world that we would continue to fight mercilessly, stopping at nothing. The execution of the Tsar's family was needed not only in order to frighten, horrify, and dishearten the enemy, but also in order to shake up our own ranks to show that there was no turning back, that ahead lay only complete victory or complete ruin...This Lenin sensed well."

Sverdlov was certainly implicated in the murder of the entire family. It is difficult to accept that he would not have cleared this with Lenin, who, in my estimation, is guilty by association. He certainly deserves part of the 'credit' for this atrocity. Clio the Muse 00:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I wrote this I now have sufficient leads to conclude that there was something else at work, an indication that the Tsar and his family were early victims of the forms of struggle that were to become commonplace among the Bolsheviks in years to come. Although approved by the Central Committee the projected trial of the Tsar was very much Trotsky's favoured project, one where he would have appeared as prosecutor-in-chief. It would have added greatly to his prestige, and Sverdlov knew this. You see, the ideological struggles of the pre-Revolution days were about to give way to struggles over power. Sverdlov understood this in the way that Trotsky did not; and it was Sverdlov-in collaboration with the Ural Soviet-who did his best to undermine the projected trial.

Take a look again at the exchange reported by Trotsky in his Memoirs-it shows his surprise and Sverdlov's gleeful defiance. It's almost as if he is inviting Trotsky to object, which clearly he could not do. He had been outmaneuvered, decisively so, and his subsequent gloss was little more than a feeble attempt to make the best of the situation. In this, Sverdlov, the administrator, represented the Party, the old Bolshevik core, against the mercurial Trotsky, the former Menshevik. Sverdlov died in 1919, but the challenge to Trotsky was soon to be taken up by an even more formidable opponent Clio the Muse (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Jefferson in Boston?

Did Thomas Jefferson ever visit Boston? If so, when, for how long, for what purposes...i.e., anything anyone can tell me. Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.29.113 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Traveling to take up his duties in France, Jefferson arrived in Boston 18 June, 1784. There he found Abigail Adams was then thirty-six hours from sailing, though he wished to accompany her on the crossing he was unable to make preparations in time. Jefferson could find no other ship bound for France, and considered returning to New York to take passage on the French packet sailing 15 July. Nathaniel Tracy of Newburyport, a merchant and financier of the Revolution, convinced him to sail aboard Ceres, bound for London 3 July.

Jefferson spent three days in Boston before traveling to Salem, Ipswich, Marblehead, Newbury, Portsmouth, and Exeter. He was back in Boston on the 26th, where he sold his horse, "Assurcagoa" to a Neil Jameson for £30. He purchased four dozen bottles of hock, apples, oranges, bedding, a chamber pot, and a table and chair. He paid a Colonel Ingersoll £22/17 for lodging during the stay in Boston, which ended at 4 o'clock the morning of 5 July when Ceres sailed under the command of a Captain St. Barbe. Kimball, M. G. (1947). Jefferson, war and peace, 1776 to 1784. New York: Coward-McCann. pp. 360-2. OCLC 425098. As far as i can tell, this was Jefferson's first, and maybe only, visit to Boston.—eric 05:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Jefferson penned a letter to Elbridge Gerry before he sailed, which may describe the stay in more detail, but i'm unable to find a copy.—eric 05:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if that was Thomas Ingersoll? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hebraisms, the New Testament and the Book of Mormon

Your Hebraism article states that the New Testament may have been originally written in Hebrew, rather than Greek. Is this view commonly held?

The article also suggests that there are "numerous" Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon. Does any research who is not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints subscribe to this view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.38.85 (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that any serious modern scholar believes that the new Testament was originally written in Hebrew; however, some believe that there may have been an early "Sayings Document" of quotations from Jesus, written in the Aramaic language. AnonMoos (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me if this is true?

Move to miscellaneous.

Usage of Nazi-era sources by postwar German historians

In a recent discussion (at Talk:Bloody Sunday (1939)) an issue has arose - how reliable is modern German historiography (unfortunately we are still missing an article on this general subject) in relation to usage of Nazi-era sources (reports of Nazi officials, eyewitnesses, etc.). Are there any works that discuss this issue? Are there any German (or non-German) historians who have been criticized for reliance on Nazi sources (other than the notorious case of David Irving)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is, I admit, a while since I studied this area of German history, Piotrus, but I am not mindful of any German historians, those worthy, that is, of the label of historian, who were in any way guilty of misusing the sources. In studying this period the sources left by the Nazis are invaluable because of the circumstances in which they were made available. The Third Reich was a state torn up by the roots, so the documents left reveal almost everything about the inner workings of the whole apparatus, including the kind of things normally kept secret for some time after, or never revealed at all. It reveals, in other words, the kind of things that even in the democratic societies of today, with degrees of freedom of information, are still held for prolonged periods from public scrutiny.

Of course, any historian-as I feel sure you are aware-has to enter into a critical relationship with the sources; questioning, interrogating and cross-referencing at every stage. Someone who attempted to build a superstructure on a foundation of fragments would be quickly exposed as unscholarly, even potentially fraudulent. Even David Irving for all his faults, does not, so far as I am aware, invent documents and sources; he simply constructs a burden of interpretation which they do not support. More than that, his chief fault is one of scholarly bad-faith, a deliberate obfuscation of how the Nazi state worked as a whole , which he himself understands, but misleads others in his pursuit of a political agenda. Mainstream German scholarship, represented by the likes of Karl Dietrich Bracher and Joachim Fest, is in no way guilty of these forms of corruption. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Woman on the stage in Germany

Women first appeared on the stage in England in 1660, but when did they first do so in Germany? Actor has no information on this issue for European countries other than England. Luwilt (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the earliest recorded German actress on the public stage was the wife of Johann Velthen (or Veltheim). He had formed a company of actors from among the students of the University of Leipzig in about 1669, and he employed his wife and other women for performances in the 1680s. After Velthen's death in 1693, his widow took over the company, so she was also the first German woman to be a theatrical manager. Xn4 23:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

P. S. - The Restoration is remembered as the time when women first appeared on English stages in public, but it seems some women had begun to appear in private performances a little earlier. For instance, according to Samuel Pepys, a Mrs Coleman played in The Siege of Rhodes when it was first performed in a private theatre at William Davenant's Rutland House in 1656. Davenant had to get permission for this performance from Cromwell, whose government had banned all drama and closed the public theatres. Xn4 23:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Though she spoke Dutch, Ariana Nozeman performed in Germany before the 1660s.

Until 1990, only women who were unmarried and younger than 35 were allowed to participate for one of the few and minor female parts in the Oberammergauer Passionsspiele, but I don't know whether any women already participated in 1634.

Anyway, I believe Xn4 is correct. This book examines the history of women in German traveling theatres from 1670 to 1760. The review site says there were no women in German troupes until 1654 (without mentioning the first one's name), but the actresses caught up quickly: As Xn4 mentioned, Catharina Elisabeth Velthen was also the first female "Prinzipal" (director of a traveling company or "Deutsche Wanderbühne"), and after years of seeing men interpret women's parts, she turned the tables and became a pioneer of the breeches role as well.

Velthen doesn't have an article on any Wikipedia, unfortunately, but German Wikipedia has one on Friederike Caroline Neuber (1697 - 1760), another early German actress with a remarkable biography. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

martinique 1762

who were the french regerment based their before the british attacked it 1762 ? 217.171.129.79 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot say which particular regiment, or regiments, the French deployed, but the total defensive force amounted to 1200 regulars (probably a mixed formation), 7000 locally recruited militia, and 4000 privateers or mercenaries. You might wish to consult the article on the British expedition against Martinique. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Concept of the Devil

Does Islam have a concept of the Devil, Satan, or Beelzebub like Judaism and Christianity or supposedly only one of God? In other words, while I know that for a Christan killing one's self for any purpose, especially as a means of killing others, would be deemed an act on behalf of or in the spirit of the Devil rather than an act on behalf of or in the spirit of God. 71.100.173.69 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

See the article on Iblis ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why then do we not hear Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden decried as agents of Iblis by the Muslim World? 71.100.173.69 (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever heard anyone decried as agients of Iblis? I don't think Muslims necessarily think in the same way about this as Christians may. Someone may be bad or even evil, without having to be though of as agents of Iblis. Perhaps on the metaphorical sense, you could say based on their beliefs that's what they effectively are but it doesn't mean they think of it in that way. And most of the Muslim world does say Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are bad and un-Islamic. Nil Einne (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides, try this Google search. --Allen (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see Shaitan. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2

Law factors

What factors would a defense lawyer consider in challenging the legality of a confession? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 00:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "the legality of a confession" is an odd one. In most places, a supposed confession can't itself be called lawful or unlawful. You may mean its admissibility (the points to be taken on that vary a lot from one legal system to another) and its value as evidence (ditto). Sadly, even in countries which pride themselves on their respect for the rule of law, many 'confessions' are obtained under duress or at a time when the person confessing a crime is confused or sleep-deprived or sick (physically or mentally), has been denied relevant information (such as being put on notice that he or she may have committed a crime), and so forth. All of the circumstances of a supposed confession and of the state of mind of the person making it need to be gone through carefully. Xn4 00:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying to identify a painting

I have a photograph of a room which has a painting hanging on the wall. Actually, it is a poster print of a painting, leading me to believe that the painting is well-known. I wonder whether anyone might recognise or be able to identify the painting (or even just the artist); if so, I would much appreciate it. The photo is here. Thanks greatly in advance! Heather (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a Matisse. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's Matisse's Seated Odalisque, at the Baltimore Museum of Art. See this page, about halfway down. Deor (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: According to our article Cone sisters, the full (English) name of the painting is Seated Odalisque, Left Knee Bent, Ornamental Background and Checkerboard. Deor (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow; thanks so much! I really appreciate it! Heather (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The word "odalisque" is an interesting one. In modern English it has overtones of loucheness, but literally it means a virgin slave, usually within a harem. (French it is much the same.) In the nineteenth century art movement of Orientalism, odalisques were a popular subject: see here and a detailed list here. Context is all! BrainyBabe (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dunbar Robbery Page, Cite Help!

Hey, first time using the Reference Desk. The Dunbar Robbery Page, Dunbar Armored robbery, doesn't have a SINGLE source! Not one! I've been trying to find some for quite a while now, and amazingly I've been rather disapointed. I've been given this: http://www.answers.com/topic/dunbar-armored-robbery?cat=entertainment , but if you look carefully, its citing WIKIPEDIA! Thats been it. Can anyone help me find a source for this thing? Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paladin Hammer (talk • contribs) 02:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This would seem to be one reliable source for the contents of the article. Others can be found by Googling for "Dunbar Armored" + "Allen Pace". I'm not sure, however, that the current title of the article is the most felicitous possible one, since the company in question seems to have been robbed at least two other times. Deor (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Deor! I'll post a question on the pages discussion about the name. Paladin Hammer (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

British Navy and Spanish Civil War

Why did they play a role in it as we can appreciate in the Battle of Cape Palos?--85.180.13.67 (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The main role was enforcing a rather problematic arms embargo. AnonMoos (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The article only mentions the British Navy as rescuing survivors and being attacked while transferring those survivors to a Spanish ship. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I know what the article mentions. however there seems to have been a larger involvement of british navy ships patrolling around spain. why? there mustve been decisions about this.--85.180.28.58 (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The official British and French policy was one of non-intervention, nominally favouring neither side, though the Royal Navy continued to patrol Spanish waters, generally aiding the Nationalists, where and when this was possible. Have a look at Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War, particularly the section headed Arms Embargo and the Non-Intervention Committee. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Rules of being a good Muslim

A week or so ago I was listening to a show on NPR, I've forgotten which one, and they were talking to a bunch of American men who were converting/had converted to Islam. They were talking about the changes in the men's lives and how it was different from their previous life and such. Two examples that they mentioned were not being able to have a dog as a pet since dogs are seen as unclean or something like that and not being able to do anything more than glance at attractive women. I had never heard of these particular requirements of the faith. So can someone point me to a list or something of the ilk that explains other sorts of nuances like this? Not that I'm thinking of converting... I couldn't follow those first two, let alone more!  :-) Dismas|^(talk) 04:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Five Pillars of Islam? x42bn6 Talk Mess 05:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, nevermind... It's right there in front of my face basically. Just go to any of the pages about Islam and the template on the right has links to culture sorts of articles about the faith. Dismas|^(talk) 05:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

IANA Imam or any sort of learned person but AFAIK you may keep dogs for protection or e.g. a guide dog if you're blind, but not as pets as they are considered unclean. As far as looking at women, you are allowed one glance (you cannot help if your eyes are drawn to the person) but to continue to look/leer is not permitted. Islam values modesty very highly, hence the strict dress code for men and women. Zunaid©® 05:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

For exploring this kind of issues our article on Ahkam, which is about what you should and should not do, is a good entry point. Keep in mind though that there is no central authority in Islam, and accordingly different Muslims have different interpretations of various issues, and cultural views on propriety in man–woman relations are often given an unwarranted religious justification. Like in Judaism there are extremely rigid and literally-minded interpretations and fairly liberal ones. Also, apart from the interpretations, not all Muslims are equally punctual and strict in applying all rules, just as many Catholics routinely skip the Sunday mass, but new converts can be expected to be scrupulous about petty things. There is a hierarchy ranging from wajib (an obligation for a Muslim) to haraam (prohibited). Adultery is haraam, and even coveting thy neighbour's wife, something that is also illegal in other Abrahamic religions. But belly dancing is an art that is highly appreciated in the Muslim heartlands, and it is not only ugly hags that perform, nor are the dancers covered in burqas. Next to the wajib–haraam scale there is the issue that certain obligatory acts (such as praying) require a Muslim to be clean, and that it is forbidden to eat unclean things (see Halal). What touches a dog becomes unclean and must be thoroughly washed to become clean again (see Unclean_animals#Dogs). That does not keep many people in Turkey, almost all of who are Muslims, from having pet dogs.  --Lambiam 08:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember seeing a documentary about (the ppl of) Iran. One the many things mentioned is that many ppl in Teheran have dogs and that they like them. However this fact supposedly is never mentioned in Iranian newspapers because dogs are "unclean". I think that it is the same in all muslim countries. But seriously, the only single important rule in the "do and don't department" is the following: Don't get caught. Flamarande (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that the "don't get caught" rule applies to religious beliefs as much as with laws, rules, etc. Presumably the people keeping dogs and liking them must feel that at least it is not bad enough to condemn them to hell, even if it is frowned upon. I know Muslims in the UK who drink alcohol with a similar attitude, it is not enough to get them condemned and the pleasure it gives outweighs the disapproval. One guy I know tries to balance good and bad, if he comes out to the pub he will visit the mosque the next day to pray. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the law seems only to apply to doing things in public. Once in private or behind closed doors the laws no longer apply. This is quite evident regarding homosexuality. 71.100.173.69 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, that can't possibly be true, 71. The government has said there are no homosexuals in Iran. And they would know about things like that ............................................. wouldn't they? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No homosexuals or homosexuality allowed in public is what the government means. They turn a blind eye to anything in private. The idea is that the law is not broken unless breaking it becomes known to the public. 71.100.173.69 (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

From our article on Homosexuality and Islam:

Islamic views on homosexuality are as varied as those of most other major religions and have changed throughout history.

 --Lambiam 06:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Stuka effectiveness

Just how effective was the Stuka dive bomber as a weapon of war? I've heard conflicting stories. Brewer Droop (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Junkers Ju 87? Quick answer: they were very effective initially, when the Germans had air superiority, as they did during the Fall of France and the early stages of the war in the east, but "the Stuka suffered from low speed and poor maneuverability, with little defensive armament, making it highly vulnerable to enemy fighters." Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Brewer Droop, I, quite frankly, would ignore the statement in the Wikipedia article that the Stuka was ever an effective weapon of war, a contention that does little more than demonstrate the long reach of German propaganda. Its banshee-like wailing may have caused terror; but as a precision instrument it was a dismal failure. During the Polish campaign, for example, the German 10th Army had no less than 114 Stukas and 20 elderly Henschel 123 biplanes; but it was the performance of the Henschels that most impressed the British military observers.

In the French campaign the Stukas are supposed to have shattered the enemy defensive positions along the River Meuse; but the bombing, in fact, had little impact. In the end Erwin Rommel's Ghost Division was able to force a crossing with virtually no air support. Stukas accounted for less than 100 tons of the 550 tons dropped on French lines during the attack. It was also during this campaign that the Stukas showed just how vulnerable to fighter interception, twelve being downed in one day in May by five American built Curtis Hawk 75 fighters in the French air force. In the Dunkirk campaign the Stuka attacks were directed against British shipping; but the most serious damage was caused by Junker 88s. To cap all this, in the very early stages of the Battle of Britain the Stuka was shown to be a dismal failure, and was soon withdrawn. Operation Barbarossa did little to revive their fading reputation. Once again, as in the Polish campaign, the old Henschels proved to be much more effective, flying three times as many missions per plane as the Stuka. Myths die hard. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Female Pilots

Did the RAF have any female pilots in the Second World War? Brewer Droop (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There was the Women's Auxiliary Air Force, but they apparently didn't go into combat. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The WAAF didn't fly either. The Air Transport Auxiliary did - they ferried planes (including combat planes) from one place to another, 'behind the lines', and they included women pilots, but they weren't part of the RAF. So technically the answer to the question is "no". There were women pilots, and there were women in the Air Force, but there were no women RAF pilots. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The British Government didn't order gender equality among RAF pilots until the early 1990s. See Malcolm Rifkind's speech in 1993 for reference: "Since the last RAF debate, all aircrew roles have been opened to women, including those on fast jets. Two female pilots and nine female navigators have entered squadron service. A further 29 female pilots and 13 female navigators are undergoing training."

The RAF's own history site features the milestone: "1991 – Flight Lieutenant Jo Salter became the RAF’s first female pilot. Flight Lieutenant Jo Salter became the first female fast-jet pilot in 1994. Since then, many female pilots have followed in her footsteps." ---Sluzzelin talk 14:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth is spot on. In WWII, so far as I know, the Red Air Force was the only one to routinely have women flying as combat pilots. Indeed, the first-ever female combat pilot was probably a Russian, but that was in the First World War.

Princess Evgenia M[?]vna Shakhovskaia (Evgenia Shakhovskaia) volunteered to fly with the Imperial Russian Air Service in August 1914. She was accepted, commissioned as an ensign (2nd lieutenant) and probably flew combat missions as a reconnaissance pilot in the 1st Air Detachment, attached to the Northwest Front. Shakovskaia had an interesting life. She was later arrested on charges of treason and sentenced to death. The Tsar commuted the sentence to perpetual imprisonment in a convent. She was killed in the Civil War in a rather bizarre episode: she shot one of her Bolshevik colleagues, perhaps in while under the influence of narcotics, and was shot in return by another colleague. Oh! Those crazy Russians!

Another early female military flier was Liubov A[?]vna Golanchikova (Liubov Golanchikova), an actress (stage name Molly More). She learned to fly in 1911. During the war she flew mainly as a test pilot. During the Civil War she mainly served as an instructor for the Red Air Fleet, but did fly some combat missions.

Another competitor would be Elena P[?]vna Samsonova (Elena Samsonova), who raced cars before the war. She served with the Imperial Russian Army as a volunteer nurse and then driver. Having learned to fly before the war, she volunteered for the IRAS and flew reconnaissance missions for the 9th Army. Her commanding officer removed her from flying duties after a short time. Under the Provisional Government, she returned to flying reconnaissance and artillery spotting missions as an observer rather than a pilot.

Next in the list, Princess Sophia A[?]vna Dolgorukaia (Sofia Dolgorukaia). Another motor racer, Dolgorukaia almost inevitably learned to fly as well. She didn't join up until 1917 when the Provisional Government started recruiting women. My book says "Little is known of her military flying career.

Finally we have the first woman combat pilot to be wounded in action. Middle class, from Kiev, rather than a princess or society figure, Nadezhda Degtereva joined up in 1914, aged 17; she is said to have had a friend take the medical for her to disguise her sex. During the fighting in Galicia in 1915, Degtereva, flying a reconnaissance mission, was attacked by Austro-Hungarian fighters and hit more than once. She managed to get her plane back to base, but in hospital her secret was discovered. She was promoted to the rank of sergeant and sent the Caucausus Front. That's all I can find.

Apart from Degtereva, all of these women had learned to fly before the war. Indeed, only two Russian women who held pilot's licenses seem not to have flown with the military in some capacity. The exceptions were Lidia Zvereva, first Russian female pilot, was part owner of a busy aircraft factory. It seems possible, but I do not know for sure, that the third Russian female pilot, Evdokia Anatra, was a relation of Artur Antonovich Anatra, owner of the Anatra aircraft company. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

For Russian female aviators in the Second World War see the Night Witches. They scared the hell out of the Germans! Clio the Muse (talk)

Wood and canvas bi-planes – they must have had no nerves! Julia Rossi (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

How is this more stressful than the RAF's (to go back to the original question) Fairey Swordfish -the Stringbags of legend- pilots, who flew wood and canvas biplanes in combat at night, but also added to that carrier-launched, over water navigation, and, sometimes, when the weather permitted, carrier landings? Also WW2, and the heros of Matapan, Taranto, and the Bismarck? Of course, they were so slow that it was difficult to have a fatal crash. -SandyJax (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Football (soccer) Clubs in world stock markets.

Which Fooball Clubs are currently in world stock markets? Is there any way to find or create a complete list? Tcalika (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Tcalika

This has a list of English clubs that are, but it's from 2005. This says Sporting and Porto are listed in Portugal. Recury (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are Americans worried of recession?

Even if there is a recession, America's per capita GDP would be around $45k. There are many countries where GDP/C is $2000. Why Americans are worried? Maybe you Americans know why whereas I don't know because I am not there. Can anyone say why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.118.254 (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Recessions are characterised by unemployment and downwards pressure on wages. It is no consolation to someone who cannot pay his/her mortgage, that the average PCGDP is $45k, or that the PCGDP in another country is $2k. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Lots of psychological experiments show people dislike losing stuff more than they like gaining stuff. Losing some of that great wealth will hurt, even if (from a wider perspective) they're still very well off. So it appears while money won't make you happy, losing money will make you sad - it's human nature. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We're not worried about starving to death, if that's what you're asking. But people are worried about losing their jobs and their houses, which can happen. And if you lose your job in the US, you often lose your health insurance as well, which can have disastrous consequences that people in countries with state health care don't worry about. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

On a different note, in countries where GDP per capita is close to $2000, people can often rely on extended family members (brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins) for help if they lose their jobs. In the United States, most people are not really prepared to give food or shelter to relatives for more than maybe a few days. In an extreme situation, a person might turn to his or her parents, if they are still alive, but this is not expected, it is socially embarassing or even shameful, and it is very stressful for everyone involved. So the prospect of losing your income may be more alarming in the United States than in a poorer country. Marco polo (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Large investments make the situation even worse when there's a recession. Suppose the stocks decrease in value. A person who went into debt to buy stocks, if he loses his job, will lose more than the income. He'll also lose income from the stock market, and he'll have to pay back the debt with interest.

Also think about the situation this way. A person in extreme poverty (with less than a US dollar per day of income) will be overjoyed to have an annual income of $2000. He or she will not remain depressed because the average US citizen income is twenty times higher. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

People who have something hate losing it, they don't care about other people, they just want what they want, which is as much money as they can get. Not all people, but quite a lot. And I'm sure I remember the PCGDP in Tanzania was $38 last time I checked. Something like that. Although I suspect that comes from most people there just owning a patch of land and growing food on it and not bothering with money.HS7 (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So it seems I was wrong about tanzania somehow. Or GDPs have changed a lot in the last few years. Anyway, there are lots of places though where people hardly earn any money. Not that it's really relevent to this question. HS7 (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Differences in income and costs shed further light on this situation. While per capita GDP in the United States is close to $45,000, the median household income in the United States is not much greater than this number. (The per capita GDP is much higher than per capita median household income because a small minority of households receive a large percentage of total income in the United States.) Half of all households have incomes lower than $48,000. Many have incomes substantially lower than this. Meanwhile, expenses in the United States are very high compared to those in a country with a per capita GDP of $2,000. For example, typical monthly housing costs range from $1,000 to $3,000. In California, New York and some other places, $5,000 per month in rent or mortgage cost is fairly common. Most families spend several hundred dollars per month on food. Because there is little public transportation and most jobs are located far from affordable housing, car ownership is a necessity in most parts of the United States. Car payments plus insurance, fuel, and maintenance easily add up to $500 or more a month. This does not include the cost of clothing, medical care, and other necessities. So, many Americans' expenses are so great that they are able to save little. Therefore, when an American loses a job, he or she faces very high expenses while trying to find another job in a tight job market, and possibly little or no savings to meet those expenses. Marco polo (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fascist style

We now associate fascism with a particular type of extreme right wing, racist and nationalist politics. But that wasn't always the case. In the early days fascism, as conceived by Mussolini, was really something quite different. I'm trying to determine what gave Italian fascism it's particular character, in what ways it mutated and evolved. To put this another way, I'm trying to determine if there was a specific fascist style. Can you offer some views? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.8.81 (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Italian fascism had a number of interesting and not entirely expected cultural origins. It was rooted deeply in philosophy, in particular the works of Giovanni Gentile, and even in various art movements, like futurism, along with the more traditional origins in political thought (e.g. the corporatists). I would probably argue that you are looking for Fascism before it really gained a lot of power; any ideological system can have wonderful nuances and associations before it really gets down to trying to make the trains run on time, at which point things flatten out a lot. As an analog, the Marxist musings of Lenin, Trotsky, etc. before the revolution of 1917 are much more interesting and sophisticated (on the whole) than the reality of the early Soviet state. Real politics "flattens" ideology as it is mediated from the realm of thoughts and words into the area of policies, institutions, and, to put it bluntly, power, much less all the contingencies of the time (it is easy to talk about redistribution of wealth when you are in exile; it is a lot harder when you are in the middle of a civil war). --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have said, 217.43, that the chief advantage of Fasci italiani di combattimento in 1919 was that it was tied to no philosophy and no ideology whatsoever; that it was, in other words, organised opportunism. This, above all, was the Fascist style. It took the shape of a chameleon, able to change colours in accordance with the political climate. Unlike the socialists, the communists, the liberals and the conservatives the movement carried nothing, no system of beliefs or organisational structure, which would prevent its rapid mutations. Fascism, above all, was a mood, one of discontent, that could combine the arditi, who simple longed for action for the sake of action, and comic-opera revolutionaries like the Futurist Marinetti, who saw politics as an escape from cultural boredom.

This was transformismo politics, one that could, in theory have taken the movement to the left, if that is where the advantage lay. But in the end the advantage, the prospects for growth, advancement and power, were on the right, in the defense of Italy against Bolshevism. The appeal to the working-class, the direction of leftwards Fascism, had failed miserably in the elections of 1919. In the end Mussolini, in alliance with conservative rural Fascists like Roberto Farinacci, took advantage of the fear among the middle-class and the peasantry of a socialist revolution. It was Fascist anti-socialism that created a mass movement, and ensured thereafter that it would always be a philosophy of the right. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, I think I would disagree. I think it is easy to see Fascism as opportunistic but that doesn't mean it didn't have ideology. The ideology was rather simple, of course: the state was the supreme unit of social action, and the state's will over the collective was imperative. Simple Hobbesianism taken to the extreme, if you want to look at it that way. But that's not a lack of philosophy or a lack of ideology, though it is easy in our current world to see it that way since we generally do take the state as the principle political actor (and not the Volk, as the Nazis had it, or the Class, as the Marxists had it). In a sense, Fascism looks philosophically base to us primarily because many of the philosophical arguments are not too different than the ones we use unconsciously today. (Hence one professor I had—a total loon, I must say—argued that in the end, Gentile was right in his descriptive account of how history/society/etc. worked.) --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I stand by what I wrote: early Fascism owed nothing to ideas and everything to action. The intellectual baggage all comes later. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okhrana

how effective was Okhrana? —Preceding unsigned comment added by V N Rosenfeld (talk • contribs) 15:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

For a start, see Okhrana. There isn't really an answer to "How effective was the Okhrana?" - any more than there would be a simple answer to "How effective is the CIA?" If you judge by how feared it was, it was certainly seen as effective by those on the receiving end of it. It had some failures, especially in more challenging tasks. Just how good it was all depended on how good the personnel were. If you read Russian, there's a site here you may find helpful. Xn4 17:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Okhrana, V N Rosenfeld, was generally held to be the most effective secret service of the day, so much so that Lenin later used it as a model for the Cheka. I can give you one example of their efficiency, which has some contemporary relevance. In 1909 they discovered that the terrorist Social Revolutionaries were actively planning to fly a plane loaded with dynamite into the Winter Palace. In response the Okhrana ordered that all flights be monitored, and a watch kept on all those learning to fly as well as members of private aero-clubs. As one author has rightly said "It is a mark of the Okhrana's excellence that in 1909 it was imaginative enough to envisage a crime that was beyond the scope of the FBI and the CIA in the twenty-first century". Clio the Muse (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes... but I'd be interested to know exactly how many aeroplanes there were in Russia in 1909, Clio! FiggyBee (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha! I think, dear Figgy, that the important variable here is not the number of planes but the number of oddballs and eccentrics who suddenly expressed some interest in learning to fly! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Easy enough to build your own aeroplane in 1909. The likes of Maxim Arturovitch Pyatnitski - then only nine I believe - would have had no trouble. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Okhrana had penetrated most revolutionary and dissident groups. It was even active in London's Eastend. Manya Shochat had to kill one who gained entry to her Odessa hideout and discovered the stash of arms. AllenHansen (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Collier's June 8, 1956 George Barkentin's model.

George Barkentin, fabulous photographer ran an amateur beauty contest on a golf course near Jacksonville, Florida, and photographed a number of women who showed up, including students, housewives, and secretaries. The photo shoot was for these women to model swim wear. Included in the article was a photograph of two women taken in Palm Springs, California, however, one of whom was on the cover of the magazine with no accreditation given. Does anyone know who the girl on the cover is? Was she a professional model, or simply a girl next dor like the other girls in the shoot?

Thanks,

D. Kastin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.91.204 (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Medical Records release - State of Michigan

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice. --FiggyBee (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the original question: Is it illegal in the State of Michigan for a Doctor who is in possession of another Doctor's patient records to forward them onto a 3rd Doctor even when the patient has provided written authorization to do soSue2313 (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's an answer which gives no legal advice: Sue, you'll be interested in this .pdf file which covers your rights to medical records under HIPAA and Michigan laws.

See? There's no need to remove such a question. Reference desks routinely refer people to resources which can help them, without themselves applying the medical or legal information in the resource to a specific situation. By such an approach, no medical or legal advice is given. - Nunh-huh 05:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why no slave revolt in the United States?

In the nineteenth century there were major slave rebellions in Brazil, Haiti, Jamaica and other places but not in the southern United States. Why should this have been so? Also, I would like to know in what way the existence of slavery hightened sectional tensions, beyond the obvious problems caused by the admission of new states and the westward expansion of the union? Thank you. TheLostPrince (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, there were several slave rebellions in the southern United States, as our article shows. Among the most noted were those led by Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey. Among factors other than westward expansion that raised sectional tensions were Southern resentment of Northern Abolitionism and resentment among laborers in the North over having to compete (to some extent) in a national labor market against unpaid slaves. Southerners were particularly incensed at the efforts of Northern Abolitionists to bring slaves to freedom, for example through the Underground Railroad, while Northerners were angered by Southern claims, backed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, that slaves retained their status as property even in Northern states that had abolished slavery. Marco polo (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In Haiti and Jamaica the blacks were the huge majority of the population, so the chances of success must have looked better, and indeed actually were better. A slave rebellion in the Southern U.S. was doomed unless poor whites abandoned their alliance with the planters, which they never came close to doing. (Though they should have done, as slavery was against their interests too - that's why "white trash" is associated with the south, rather than say New England). Luwilt (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's one opinion on the matter:

• "In the present state of things in the United States, I do not think a general, or even a very extensive slave insurrection is possible. The indispensable concert of action cannot be attained. The slaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. The explosive materials are everywhere in parcels; but there neither are, nor can be supplied, the indispensable connecting trains. Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave revolution in Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring under peculiar circumstances. The gunpowder plot of British history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. In that case, only about twenty were admitted to the secret; and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the natural results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I think, can happen in this country for a long time. Whoever much fears, or much hopes for such an event, will be alike disappointed." -- Abraham Lincoln, Cooper Union speech, February 27, 1860.

AnonMoos (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Marco is right, there were slave rebellions in the United States, but nothing on the scale of the Bahia Risings in Brazil, the Haitian Revolution and the Baptist War in Jamaica. The reasons why the risings in the United States were weak and sporadic is simple enough: neither demographics nor geography favoured anything more serious.

In Haiti, for example, the slave outnumbered the free population by a huge factor of eleven to one. Plantations here were the homes of hundreds of slaves, who could conspire and organise in the way their North American cousins could not. By 1860, in the southern United States, slaves accounted for less than four million of the nine million inhabitants. There were few plantations, moreover, with more than thirty slaves. The population was also relatively stable, made up of family groups who had much more to lose from insurrection. This was aided by the fact that even before the abolition of the Atlantic Slave Trade in 1807 imports of fresh slaves was in marked decline, unlike, say, Brazil.

Looking at the geographical perspective, there were few areas in the American south that could support large communities of Maroon runaways, unlike Jamaica and Brazil, where remote areas were effectively turned into guerilla bases. One has to consider also the far higher density of white people in the American south, and the existence of a transport system that allowed the rapid concentration of militia forces whenever danger threatened. There were some small Maroon communities, but they were quickly detected and destroyed. The best option for the runaway was to take refuge with pre-existing independent communities of natives. Some did indeed flee to the territories controlled by the Seminole Indians, taking part in the two Seminole Wars against the United States.

So, in short, in face of a well-armed militia, an organised system of slave patrols, an efficient road and rail network, and the absence of suitable areas in which slaves could congregate in any numbers, it is really no surprise that slave risings were small, un-coordinated and ineffective in the United States.

Now, turning to your second question, Lost Prince, slavery was an issue that was bound to introduce all sorts of tensions, threatening both the stability and the integrity of the young Union. It was an issue that the North, much as it would like to, simply could not ignore. When Andrew Jackson began the aforementioned Seminole Wars, her gave priority to the destruction of a fort held by the Maroons and the 'return of the negroes to their rightful owners.' For many in the North it looked as if the campaign in Florida was being fought specifically in the slave holding interest. Joshua Giddings, a leading abolitionist from Ohio, was later to describe Jackson's war as 'the first slave catching expedition undertaken by the Federal Government.'

Beyond that, slavery offered a challenge to notions of American liberty, in more ways than the obvious one. The existence of fugitive slaves in the north, where individual state law was based on a presupposition of freedom, created clear political and legal contradictions. When the southern states later seceded from the Union the chief motivation was held to be the defence of State's Rights. But the irony is that it was the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850, guaranteeing the return of runaways by the Federal Government, which effectively undermined the very things that the northern states considered most important; namely state sovereignty, habeas corpus and due legal process. In other words, Federal action on behalf of southern slavers made it clear that, while an individual state may be free, it was still part of a Union that was not. Increasingly the Fugitive Slave legislation was challenged in northern courts, and some states, notably Vermont, defied Federal law by passing 'personal liberty laws', which protected free blacks and obstructed the return of fugitives. In 1854 it took as many as 1000 armed police, militia and marines, supported by artillery, to escort Anthony Burns to Boston harbour, where a ship waited to carry him back to slavery through a hostile crowd of 20,000 sullen Northerners.

This was indeed a house that could not stand. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio explains it brilliantly as usual. The Southern slave-owning population included militia members and the legal system of patrollers which could usually detect and suppress any large slave rebellion. Laws against mass assembly and literacy by slaves impeded communication and organization. Small-scale slave rebellions were ubiquitous, in response to treatment even more degrading and inhuman than was typical of the antebellum Southern US, from as simple a thing as failing to understand and follow instructions for doing some undesired task, or breaking an expensive piece of equipment, leaving a gate open so cattle got where they weren't supposed to be, or poisoning the food, or stealing something of value, or setting the house on fire, to running away. Edison (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

French thinker: lost name

I'm looking for a French thinker (to use a vague term) of which I remember the following:

• Modern (18th century - 20th century, though before world war II). I am actually quite certain that it's a 19th century one, but not 100%...
• French
• Contributions to political philosophical field of conservatism or early socialism, or catholic politics.
• One part of the name starts with an A (one title, first name, middle name, last name), and the name has some accents, which is probably why my Googling doesn't turn up much.
• Is often compared to another philosopher of the same time whose last name starts with an M.

I read a book on this a while back, but lost it. Lists of philosophers and categories of French people don't seem to help. User:Krator (t c) 22:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Louis Pierre Althusser was a 20th Century French marxist, not sure if he really fits your criteria of conservatism though. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

18th C. D'Alembert had close ties to the Baron D'Holbach who wrote under the pseudonyme of Mirabeau but they would be more in the atheist field. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

why we should accept the guy s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madia usman (talk • contribs) 23:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

18th-19th century, conservative, catholic made me think of Joseph de Maistre for the Mr. M "another philosopher." Drawing a blank on Monsieur A.John Z (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Krator; I simply cannot get a proper purchase on this with the information given. It could be virtually anyone, from Alexis de Tocqueville to August Comte! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I found out who it was by stumbling upon the name by accident: Abbé Sieyès. User:Krator (t c) 08:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

April 3

Antonin Dolohov

Moved to Entertainment Desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

yinyang symbol

my question regards the yin yang symbol. i don't think anyone has a proper explanation for the the dark dot in the white sphere. of the cirlce. i do believe the correct symbol does not have the dark dot just the white dot in the dark. of this i am certain. Richard Star Mountain (E-Mail removed for security purposes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.132.132 (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay, thanks for telling us what you're certain of. So what's the question? Yin and yang#Taijitu might be of interest. FiggyBee (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

about the Hashsashin...

i wanted to know more information on the techniques, origin, and usage of the martial art used by the Hashsashin. it states that the assassins used a martial art that incorporates strikes and grappling techniques. The information is rather vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.231.207 (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What states that? The Assassins weren't particularly crafty, their technique mostly consisted of walking up to someone and stabbing him, and promptly getting caught and executed afterwards. Sometimes they got away in the ensuing panic and confusion; sometimes the sources do not say what happened to them; sometimes they were not acting secretly at all and were just carrying out the wishes of some political leader or other. They have a strange mystique that comes from the idea that they may have been drugged, but what the drug was, if anything, no one knows (it may have been plain old alcohol); and that some of them (but not all of them) lived in impenetrable fortress (Alamut), which turned out to be penetrable after all when the Mongols razed it to the ground. But the image of them in the game Assassin's Creed, if that's what you have in mind, is not accurate. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I see our hashshashin article says "For unarmed combat, the Hashshashin practiced a fighting style called Janna which incorporates striking techniques, grappling and low kicks." Well, my first thought is that "janna" means "conceal" or "hide", which makes sense here. I'll see what else I can find. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Groundhog day quote

Resolved

I saw this quote from the character Rita in Groundhog Day (film) and wonder where it's really from:
The wretch, concentered all in self;
living shall forfeit fair renown,
and doubly dying shall go down,
to the vile depths from whence he sprung,
unwept, unhonored, and unsung.
Anyone? (If this is the right desk) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The Lay of the Last Minstrel by Sir Walter Scott. FiggyBee (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fast! Thanks figgybee. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No probs. I see we even got a tick. :O FiggyBee (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Tito as dictator

Your article on Tito says that his rule in Yugoslavia had several characteristics of dictatorship 'though it fell short on that common in other communist states.' What does this mean exactly? Was it dictatorship or not? Was Titoism any different from other kinds of communism, other than wearing a nationalist face? Stefan Dusan (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What makes you suppose that dictatorship is a Boolean condition - that you either are or are not a dictator? Meanwhile I do agree the article could provide more information on the differences between Yugoslavia and other Comecon states. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, it was a dictatorship alright, Stefan, just as brutal as any of the other Communist regimes of the day. If fact, if you examine that period of Yugoslav history just after Tito's split with the rest of the Soviet Bloc, then it is really difficult to conclude that what was at work was anything other than Stalinism without Stalin. In 1949 the Communist leadership began the forced collectivisation of agriculture. Those who resisted were branded as 'kulaks', in echo of the mass Soviet collectivisation from 1928 onwards. Just as in Russia, agricultural production levels fell as a consequence of the huge disruption entailed, and the general decline in peasant productivity. The most significant resistance came in Bosnia in May 1950, where some Serbs and Croats joined in an uprising initiated by the Muslim farmers. Several hundred peasants were killed before the rising was suppressed.

The split with the Soviets also entailed a huge increase in the state security apparatus, which put the membership of the Yugoslav Communist Party under scrutiny, as well as the general population. In all some 16,000 alleged Soviet sympathisers were arrested, many of whom ended up in the concentration camp on Goli otok and elsewhere. Tito's terror was later brilliantly depicted in Emir Kusturica's damming film of 1987, Otac na službenom putu (Father's Away on a Business Trip). The dreadful conditions suffered by the prisoners even shocked Milovan Djilas, then a government minister, in a visit he made to Goli otok in 1951.

As the state of siege became less intense after the death of Stalin conditions began to improve somewhat throughout both the economy and society in general, with a move away from collectivisation and a new stress on workers self-management, which, in the end, served to distinguish Titoism from the forms of state-centralism practiced among the Comecon countries. To some extent this was an inevitable consequence of the forms of western aid upon which Tito became more reliant after 1948. But as the puppet-master and dictator, Tito was no less vigilant, and no less brutal, than any other in the Communist Bloc. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Muse. Please help below. Stefan Dusan (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

FINANCIAL MARKETS

name a few private sector bonds name public sector bonds what are the differences09:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

For the differences, see our articles Government bonds, Sovereign bonds, and Municipal bonds, which cover various kinds of public-sector bonds; and Corporate bonds, which covers private-sector bonds. As for "naming" the bonds, bonds themselves don't really have names (typically they have serial numbers), though they may be referred to using the name of the bond's issuer. Virtually all government entities with taxing power (and some without) issue bonds, and virtually every major corporation issues bonds, so the list is almost endless. Marco polo (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Some government bonds have fun or interesting names. British have Gilts and War Loans for example. Germany has Bund and Bobl and Schatze which all sound hilarious to me! Also don't some US Bonds have funny nicknames? --90.203.189.60 (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You're possibly thinking of Sallie Mae, Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae and Freddie Mac. Gandalf61 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

division of indian states

sir i'd like to know about the history of the formation of indian states.i came to know that after india's independence in 1947,indian states were formed on linguistic basis.plz tell.59.95.68.202 (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at our articles on States and territories of India, Political integration of India and States Reorganisation Act. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

obamas speeches

i have been trying to access senator barack obama speeches but i seem not to find them anywhere,can you please assist me with the website adress i will most certainly appreciate davis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.120.202 (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean as text or as audio/video? There are some videos here. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You may also be interested to know we even have a whole article on A More Perfect Union...--Cameron (t|p|c) 12:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Or you could try WikiSource http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Barack_Obama Dismas|^(talk) 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Spanish empire and the abolition of slavery

Thank you for the excellent answers to my question on slave revolts and the United States. I would now like to know, please, how the Spanish responded to the growing pressure for the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade, given how imoprtant slavery was to the economic strength of their empire in the early nineteenth century? TheLostPrince (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There was some limited attempt to improve the condition of the slaves within the Empire; to make the condition of slavery itself, if you like, slightly more 'morally' acceptable. The government of Charles III introduced a new slave code: the Código Negro Español, based on precedents extracted from previous legislation on the Indies. Masters were now obliged to instruct their slaves in the Catholic religion, not just to baptize them. They were to be fed, moreover, according to standards fixed by a specially designated 'protector of slaves.' Those who abused their slaves were to be fined, or even risk outright confiscation of their human property. There were to be only 270 working days in the year, the rest given over to holidays and fiestas. Of course, theory was one thing; practice quite another. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Meiji Revolution

what exactly happened in the Meiji Revolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.169.47.22 (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read our article Meiji Restoration? Take a look and let us know if you have any questions. Marco polo (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Japan gave up feudalism - samurai, shoguns, nobleman, and an Emperor - and started their own industrial revolution. So basically this time frame saw a shift away from small internal wars and power struggles to external affairs, like World War II. The weapon of choice became the rifle (later battleships, airplanes etc.) rather than the katana. Vranak (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Vranak's answer is partly correct but partly misleading. Our article should make this clear, but in case you are tempted to skip it and rely on what you are told here, the key changes during the Meiji Restoration were FROM 1) enforced external isolation and 2) a system of feudal power led by a shogun and a samurai military elite TO 3) an eagerness to learn from and compete with Western powers and 4) a system of institutional power. The effort to learn from and compete with the west took place in many spheres, including the economic and technological, and so it sparked an industrial revolution in Japan. In fact, the Japanese did not give up their emperor; they still have one today. The term "Meiji Restoration" in fact refers to the supposed restoration of the emperor to a position of primacy (thereby displacing the shogun), although in practice the emperor remained little more than a figurehead. The Meiji Restoration preceded and should not be confused with Japan's subsequent period of imperialism, which brought it into conflict with foreign powers and culminated in the disaster of World War II. Marco polo (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This man knows his Japanese history! Yes, Marco; you are absolutely right. I would hope that the questioner would have the good sense to read the article you have linked, but in any case you have highlighted the main features of the whole process.

I would just like to add that the Tokugawa Shogunate, established in the early seventeenth century, had brought Japan a period of prolonged peace after the anarchy of the Warring States. During the time of the Shogunate the Emperors had always been present, though rather shadowy figures in the political background. With the retirement of Tokugawa Yoshinobu, the last Shogun, and the subsequent 'Restoration'-a somewhat misleading term-of the Emperor Meiji, rule by one man was effectively replaced by the rule of a modernising oligarchy. You are right to say that the Emperor himself enjoyed, in practical terms, little more power than he had under the Shogunate; though, in a number of important respects, he moved to the centre of the whole constitutional and government process, an altogether more important influence and symbol that before. I would also like to stress that the suggestion there was some kind continuum between the 1868 Restoration and Japanese aggression in World War Two is bizarre and muddle-headed nonsense! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Churchill's warnings

why did people in 1930s Britain, particularly in his own party, not take Churchill's warnings about Germany seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.39.231 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they though Chamberlain was doing a great job of ensuring "peace in our time" by appeasing Hitler. Chamberlain's apologists still have praise for him, as in the Wikipedia article. By not building modern fighter planes and by not spending for massive rearmament, government spending could be kept lower. Taking warnings seriously would have meant higher taxes and lower domestic spending. Edison (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting question, 86.148, which actually raises a whole series of side issues. However, I will try to confine myself to the basic facts.

To begin with it might surprise you to know, particularly if you are mindful of his later reputation, that Winston Churchill was not a figure who inspired a great deal of confidence within the Conservative Party in the 1930s. He was not, if I can put in these terms, 'one of us', having a reputation of changing parties to suit his mood, which meant that his power base was relatively weak. More than that, he had a reputation of being a maverick and a lover of unorthodox schemes; a man whose judgment was not entirely 'sound'. Even his skill as a speaker could not make up for the lack of confidence in him, widely shared among the Parliamentary Party. His rhetoric, often of a 'maximalist' nature, full of exaggeration and alarm, only served to increase the distrust in which he was held. For example, in March 1933 Herbert Samuel observed;

Churchill makes many brilliant speeches on all subjects, but that is no reason why we should necessarily accept his political judgment. On the contrary, the brilliance of his speeches only makes the errors of his judgment the more conspicuous...I feel inclined to say of him what Bagehot wrote of another very distinguished Parliamentarian [Disraeli]: 'His chaff is excellent, but the wheat is poor stuff.

It did not help his standing among his Parliamentary colleagues that he fell out with Stanley Baldwin, the Tory leader, over the issue of Dominion status for India. His hostility to any concession to the movement for Indian independence occupied his energies for a good bit of the early 1930s, just as his warnings over German rearmament were to do in the later part of the decade; and he dealt with both issues with equal degrees of rhetorical fire; equally unrestrained and equally alarmist. He dismissed the Indian Nationalist leaders as 'evil and malignant Brahmins', with their 'itching fingers stretching and scratching at the vast pillage of a derelict Empire." Striking Phrases, yes; but all this exaggeration and hyperbole over an Act that went nowhere near meeting the demands of Gandhi and the Congress Party. Quite frankly, by the time the Act was passed in 1935, people were bored with Churchill and his unrestrained alarmism.

So, given this background, it comes as no great surprise, that when the siren started to call out over Germany he was largely ignored. On this greater issue people simply did not want to listen because few in the mid-1930s wished to entertain the possibility of another world war. Almost everyone-on the left and the right-wanted to reach some accommodation with Germany, to meet the country's just and reasonable demands, a policy later condemned by the label of appeasement. But at the time it was immensely popular. Besides, Churchill's warnings were not about the danger to peace offered by the growth of Fascism; they were, rather, a nationalist warning about the possible revival of German power, a quite different thing altogether.

You see, Churchill, in the shape of Cassandra, seemed not just unnecessarily alarmist: he was just so terribly old-fashioned, representing the mindset of a different age. Leo Amery talked of him as a 'mid-Victorian', but I would go one step further, taking him right back to the eighteenth century, to the age of John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough or William Pitt the Elder. As they saw France so Churchill saw Germany. It was this that people could not take seriously, especially when you consider his views on the aggressions perpetrated by Germany's present and future partners.

If Churchill’s warning about the new forms of imperialist aggression had been comprehensive they might have commanded greater moral authority. But they were not. He effectively condoned Japanese aggression in Manchuria; he approved of Mussolini, and his view of Italian aggression in Abyssinia was far from heroic; and he approved of Franco. His position on these issues served to divorce him from those who were beginning to see in the world situation a clash not of power, but of ideologies. This was something beyond Churchill's comprehension, allowing him to praise Mussolini as a 'great man' as late as October 1937, by which time he and Hitler had crated the Axis.

So, given all this, it is really no great surprise he was not taken seriously. In the end history proved him to be right in one respect at least; and that is really only because Hitler decided to wear the wig of Louis XIV. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There was a profound pacifist mood, a total dread of war, amongst British people in the 1930s which led people to favour concession after concession in the hope, born out of fear, that it would placate Hitler and avert war. I think Clio the Muse touched on a very important factor why Churchill's warnings were dismissed in the 1930s. Most people now viewed foreign policy in moral terms, in terms of 'fairness' rather than what was in Britain's national interest, although some people were more passionate in this than others. For example when Germany remilitarised the Rhineland–which removed from potential Allied control the vital Ruhr economic area–most people in Britain did not see this as a danger to be parried but almost fell over themselves to excuse it as a reasonable act (it was compared to Britain reoccupying Portsmouth). The same thing happened with German rearmament. When debating German rearmament in 1935 Clement Attlee demanded to know why no-one spoke of French rearmament: this was another case of not thinking in terms of British interests (France posed no threat to Britain and was much weaker than Germany) but of trying to be 'fair'. Of course this view is still around: look at how many people get angry at the 'hypocrisy' of the West in possessing nuclear weapons but trying to stop Iran from having them (the same disregard of national interest prevails amongst these people). Also, Germany was widely felt to have been unjustly treated by the Versailles Treaty (which in truth was very mild to Germany) and therefore many people welcomed Germany becoming more powerful even though this was detrimental to Britain. In this atmosphere then Churchill's rational warnings of the German peril to Britain were not likely to be heeded.--Johnbull (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In Clio's fine and scholarly analysis, she said "a policy later condemned by the label of appeasement." I believe that appeasement was the actual term Chamberlain and others used in the prewar period, not merely a derogatory label applied later. Google News Archive [5] for 1930-1940 seems to bear this out. "In his radio broadcast last night from London Prime Minister Chamberlain sought to dispose of the criticism that his policy of appeasement with the dictatorships of Europe is based in any way on admiration of their methods or a desire to have England follow their example." New York Times Dec 14, 1938, for example, or "Britain's Cabinet Refuses Pledge to Central Europe; Chamberlain's Program of 'Appeasement' Wins General Support-'Democratic Front' Will Be Rejected in Statement Tomorrow." New York Times March 23, 1938. "LONDON, Dec. 3.--Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain has shown again this week that there is a stubborn side to his nature. Rebuffs and humiliations from abroad have not been enough to make him abandon his policy of "appeasement" which he believes still provides the..." New York Times Dec 4, 1938. Clio doubtless has better sources, perhaps to see if "appeasement " was the term Chamberlain used in his speeches and papers, to supplement the US news reports of his activities, and if it was the term Churchill used at the time and criticized. Edison (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be interesting but not surprising to find that the word appeasement gained a negative connotation only after 1938. The original meaning of the word is "pacification or relief"—both appealing concepts. Marco polo (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Edison; you are absolutely right. My meaning was unclear. The emphasis should have been placed on the retrospective condemnation. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

More about naturist children

Thanks for answering my question about naturist children. Now I have a further question: At which age do parents stop automatically taking their children to naturist events and consider their own ideas about it? At which age do the children start going to go to naturist events on their own initiative? JIP | Talk 17:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the child and the parents. There is no specific year when that change has to happen for everyone.HS7 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

asbestos pipe

...moved to science desk 71.100.173.69 (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Pop/Rock without the lead guitar

Are there any well-known pop/rock songs (or bands or genres) that don't use lead guitars? e.g. drums+bass or drums+bass+vocals or (at a push) drums+bass+keyboards?

(Posting to Humanities not Entertainment because I always find I get better music theory answers here!) AndyJones (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking about lead guitar or just any guitar? Tons of stuff doesn't have guitar leads. A smaller amount has no guitar at all. Friday (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What I assume you mean by "lead guitar" became popular in the 80's when every pop rock song had to have a guitar solo. Previous to those glam rock days, it was common for rock songs to be constructed from the 2-lyrics, a bridge, and a closing lyric formula. The bridge (which glam rock replaced with the guitar solo) was often a lyric or chorus in a different chord - not a guitar solo. Sometimes they got rather creative. In "A Day in the Life", the bridge is an entirely different song shoved in to good effect. So, I feel you are really asking: "Are there any well-known pop/rock songs (or bands) from the 80's that didn't have a guitar solo in nearly every song?" -- kainaw™ 19:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

For specific examples, hardly any of the old Ramones stuff has guitar leads, but the songs are dominated by heavy rhythm guitar. Many of the punksters who followed in their footsteps also kept things stripped-down. Friday (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head - Emerson Lake and Palmer famously consisted of keyboards, bass and drums. The newest CD from Joe Jackson has no guitar, just piano, bass and drums (although it's probably not "well-known"). Most of the tracks from 808 State do not use any guitar. Maybe some of Ben Folds' stuff? --LarryMac | Talk 19:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of Morphine's songs used only sax, bass, and drums--occasional guitar. --ShelfSkewed Talk 20:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, excellent answers, very quickly. Let me absorb that lot before I get overwhelmed! AndyJones (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Try also Death From Above 1979, who just used bass and drums when they were around. Phileas (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And then there's the piano rock article. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 23:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Soft Cell hotclaws 23:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of The White Stripes' songs, like Fell In Love With a Girl, have only rhythm guitar and drums. (I suppose that accounts for the majority of their songs before they got famous and could afford overdubs). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Dresden Dolls typically only use drums-piano. But I wouldn't call it pop. It's quite alternative. 130.56.65.25 (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Another example popped into my head last night (apparently the RD part of my brain never sleeps). Although failing on the "rock" part of the original question, I think that some songs performed by the Vince Guaraldi Trio were quite popular, at least in the States. --LarryMac | Talk 14:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

British officer shakos, Peninsular War

I've seen a number of drawings and recreations of British Army uniforms from the Peninsular War, but I have not yet worked out how an officer's shako differed from other soldiers. Were there markings, plumes, braidings or insignia on the shakos to distinguish rank? A study of drawings in Osprey Guides (for example) yields some differences across regiments and periods (such as shape of plume or regimental badges) but I fail to see if these apply to rank. Putting it simply, can we tell if he's an ensign, major, colonel (etc) by looking at his shako? Gwinva (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot give you a definite answer, Gwinva, but I have a feeling that the officer's shako had different coloured braiding or cord to distinguish it from other ranks, besides being of better quality. I cannot say for certain if they were further distinguished by seniority. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fletcher, I., & Younghusband, W. (1994). Wellington's foot guards. Elite series, 52. London: Osprey. pp. 24-7. OCLC 30777940 may help, here's a google preview link: [6].

...in 1812 officers of all regiments of the Army were expected to wear the 'stove-pipe' shako,already worn by other ranks and Light Infantry officers. Introduced in 1806, the shako was cylindrical in shape and made of strong felt...Officers wore cut feather plumes on their shakos whilst other ranks wore wollen tufts...

Another change came about in 1812 with the introduction of the 'Waterloo' or 'Belgic' shako. This was made of strong felt for other ranks, coarse beaver for sergeants and fine beaver—with a taller false front to give the impression of height—for officers. A festoon of white worsted chain and tassels was fixed across the front for other ranks, of gold cord for sergeants and of mixed gold and crimson chain cord and tassels for officers...the Foot Guards wore brass plates adorned with their own regimental badge. Officers' shako plates were gilt and had enamelled centres. Although the 'Waterloo' shako saw service during the Waterloo campaign, there is little evidence to suggest that it was worn by rank and file in the Peninsula, other than by drafts that came out late in the war. Officers, however, may have worn it...

—eric 00:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but it's only muddied the waters further for me. This Osprey guide (Wellington's Peninsula Regiments (2): The Light Infantry, by Mike Chappell) shows a rather plain shako with horsehair plume for an officer: [7]; google books does not show the plates, but the cover shows (L-R) corporal, 51st foot; subaltern 51st; field officer, 68th (mounted); bugler, 68th. Note that the subaltern is the only one to have braiding; the field officer wears a plain shako, similar to that of a subaltern in other illustrations (unfortunately not on google). The back cover is not clear, but studying a close up in the book, it is seen that the privates have feather-looking plumes, and the mounted officer a "Christmas tree" plume. It's not important; it just bothered me because I couldn't figure out the pattern. Perhaps there isn't one. Gwinva (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

History of Thos. Farrington's Regiment contains the text of the General Order of 24 February, 1800 which required the shako for infantry regiments. Field, staff, and battalion company officers were to still wear hats, along with grenadier officers when not on parade. Light company officers were to wear caps "similar" to those of the privates. (p. 246) The General Order of 20 October, 1806 is described on page 261: officers caps had a festoon of crimson and gold with tassels, privates and non-commissioned officers white worsted, and green for light infantry.

The Vein Openers were with Wellington 1808-1811.—eric 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

world war I

could you help me? i need to know what steps were taken after wwI to keep peace in the world. thanks mp4.224.117.167 (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest reading Aftermath of World War I and League of Nations. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You might also cast the net a little wider by looking at the Washington Naval Treaty, the London Naval Treaty, the Kellog Briand Pact and the World Disarmament Conference. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Enlightened by the references above, you may also wonder why these peaceful steps goosemarched straight into WWII. Hindsight is a good, though infrequently employed teacher. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would agree with that, Cookatoo. Hindsight as a teacher is ever present, though the lessons are always stale. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My theory is that Hindsight applied for the job in history, but didn't get it. And when it queried it's equal opportunity standing, was told the position was defunct. Hindsight can be seen in the streets carrying a placard saying, Oh, I get it now. ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

CAN YOU HELP ME WITH A SONNET?????

by help i mean do one for me in the next ten minutes if possible. PLEASE, its a life or death situation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.157.21.71 (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Is somebody holding a gun to your head saying "A sonnet or your life"? Yeah, happens to me all the time. Wikipedia does not do peoples homework...--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know anybody, who can knit a Bonnet. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Pinch one from Petracha,John Milton or the Bard / Edward de Vere (Good morning, Jack). Even from Robert Frost, Rainer Maria Rilke or Seamus Heaney.

Looking at our article on sonnet is all you need to knit one for yourself and save your life...--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's afternoon here now, but hi anyway, Cookatoo.ergo.Zoom. It's good to see not everyone believes the impossible is impossible to believe.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The first step is deciding what to write it about. Sonnets should be about something. Once you decide that, and whether you're going to do the 4-4-4-2 kind of the other kind, and pick your rhyme scheme, and choose a couple of conceits to develop, then the sonnet pretty much writes itself. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A man with a gun to my head wants a sonnet
And if I don't write one he'll blow me away
I better start writing. I'd better get on it
If I want to live till the end of the day.
Poetry's tricky. Perhaps I should steal one.
From Milton or Shakespeare, Frost or de Vere
But maybe the man with the gun wants a real one
By me, and not copied from somewhere like here.
So maybe it's best if I do my own writing
Not ask other people to do it for me.
I'll do it myself. It's kind of exciting
Not knowing a word of my poem-to-be.
He looks impatient. Time's running out fast.

Each word, each line, each breath may be my last.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.148.158 (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 

Nice, but much past our poor questioner's deadline. Still, it's there and ready for the next desperate student. --LarryMac | Talk 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Applause (clap clap clap). And with a message, too. Do sonnets have a message or is this a new genre as well? Julia Rossi (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Dom

Please, who in the English Civil War was known as Black Dom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archie Gabriel (talk • contribs) 21:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Archie, I think you must mean Black Tom. In which case the person you are looking for is Sir Thomas Fairfax, the first commander-in-chief of the New Model Army. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Law disclosure

Of what value is disclosure to the defence in a criminal trial? When I mean defence, I mean defence lawyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 22:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Preservation of the accused's right to a fair trial. --Nricardo (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the basic argument is: How can the accused defend themselves if they don't know what they're defending against? -- Kesh (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with prostitution?

We buy daily services from people that possibly hate their jobs, we always have to spend money for relationships (gifts, going out, etc). What makes prostitution different from other activities? Isn't our whole life actually trading for something? Mr.K. (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In order to answer your question, that would require us to agree with your question. Neal (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC).

Plus, when you buy a bag of crisps from a shop, the chances are quite low that the person selling you the crisps is effectively enslaved and unable to leave the shop or choose not to sell you the crisps. They are unlikely to have been smuggled into the country on false pretences, had their documents taken from them, and then been forced to sell crisps for fear of being turned over to the police (having been told horror stories of what the authorities will do if they find them). They are unlikely to be selling crisps to buy drugs for their underage body. They are unlikely to have run away from home at a young age (often to escape a crisp-demanding situation) and been led into retail when at their most vulnerable, developing emotional and financial ties to their abusive manager. And they are unlikely to catch anything serious from you. Prostitution is not the same as working at a checkout. Why this should be is a different question. Skittle (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's illegal to sell drugs not approved by the FDA (in America) because they could get you sick or kill you. Same thing goes with prostitutes. Ever heard of STDs? Only difference is, prostitutes aren't illegal in America. Restricted a bit, but not illegal. And I doubt it's because of STDs. Wrad (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, prostitution is flatly illegal in most of the US. There are very few places where it's legal. -- Kesh (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's partly a health matter, and partly societal. The health matter can at least be partly mitigated through regulation. The social issues, however, run much deeper. As some others have pointed out, prostitution can be used as a form of slavery, or at least indentured servitude. Provided that is not the case, however, we still have the social stigma against people who are "too loose" in many Western societies. Especially here in the US, sex is still often treated as "dirty," and publically providing sex draws a backlash from the average citizen. -- Kesh (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding to Kesh's point about illegality, decriminalisation may apply. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

News stories have covered the commonality of the people who prepare food for you in some Chinese restaurants in the US being slaves in the sense they were smuggled illegally in to the US and must "work off" their passage and sleep in imprisoned condition, literally locked in and guarded. Many other people are wage slaves in the sense they hate their job and their boss and are trapped in the rat race/salt mine by the need to keep that job because they can't get a better one or because they fear losing health benefits, however dangerous or degrading the work. Edison (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Part of the point is that many people think that not everything should be traded for money. In most places it's considered immoral to trade your children for money. If a politician trades his political support for money that's seen as bad. Many people think sex is one of those things that shouldn't be a commodity. And that's in addition to all the excellent points raised by the editors above. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of postitutes are proud to be doing their job and wouldn't change it for another, this I guess, more in countries where it is regulated and more safe. All the arguments appart from DJ Clayworth's (although the comparision between selling children and selling sex would be hard to uphold) have to do with the conditions in which it is practiced but not much with the fundamentals of the castigation of prostitution. My guess would be that monotheistic religions which form a great part of our culture and have a great influence in our morals tend to frown on purely carnal relations. I only know of the christian idea that one should look for spiritual pleasures (if any pleasure at all) and not pleasures of the body. Too bad they haven't found a way to use both grey matter and pink parts pleasure as as a way to the stars - maybe tantric practices come closer to uniting these. That would seem to make sense if you favor a social organization based around the family to ,even in a very openly sexual society, promote sex for free rather than as a financial agreement. As you pointed out ... we're all whores, maybe just not as literaly as the blowjob for money type. I guess we aren't that removed from our bonobo cousins who, amongst many other sexual practice use sex as favor/payment for food. There are quite a few books on the self-styled 'whore culture'. The only one I ever read is Shannon Bell's Whore Carnival which as a non-practicionner did leave me with a queezy feeling. However much one puts it in a favorable light there always seem to be something seedy (sorry) about the practice. I live in a country where you can phone a prostitute to come to your place and spend an hour for 5 U$ (and I guess as far as world economy goes that's still in the higher range) so if it's that easy, it doesn't look like there is any way to erradicate the practice. I wonder about cultures that if not actively encouraged the practice might have viewed the trade it as a useful part of society. Maybe the lupanares of Pompei and Herculanum are witness to that? 200.127.59.151 (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I happen to know a person who has chosen prostitution as a career and is quite happy with his choice. Marco polo (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's mainly a matter of human dignity. Owning slaves is now regarded as degrading to both slave and owner. Why is prostitution any different? Selling your body for money, does this not strike you as odious? Or buying a prostitute -- how is that going to make you a better man? Better to spend your money on some therapy, a good book, some good food, or even just burn it. Vranak (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing that we're on shaky grounds and have altogether left behind us rational arguments: what about considering prostitution as one of the most beautiful job on earth, selling love or pleasure, indiscriminatly as long as there is a wallet (or a state subsidy such as in some scandinavian countries). Selling intimacy doesn't seem that bad if you consider that at most whores sell a bit of their affection more usually just a service (they don't lease all rights to their body). Even if they 'sold their body', wouldn't they come out better than the person who sold his brain all day to an soulless corporation? Agreed that the trade is a dangerous one and that it is usually (but certainly not always) as a last resort that women and men have gone into prostitution it seems that pointing the finger will only make the situation worse. Maybe making the conditions in which the trade is performed more secure (such as with licences, designated house of practice, controls) would help eradicate human trafficking, improve health conditions, prevent abuse, better wages, etc. It reminds me of Simenon and his '10,000' women most of them whores. I remember reading that he claimed to have had a close, kind and sincere relation with almost all of them involving as much affection as sex. Ok, I'm playing devil's advocate. To live in a world where everybody get his share of fulfilled sexual desire would be amazing. I'm not quite sure it is possible. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if they 'sold their body', wouldn't they come out better than the person who sold his brain all day to an soulless corporation?

You get to the crux of the matter right there 200.127. You can always say that selling your body for money is no worse than selling your time to a corporation. Of course they're both bad. As someone who has the luxury of living with their parents and doesn't work, I can afford to make snide remarks about wage slavery and the like. The bottom line is that everyone wants to live, so everyone must eat, so everyone needs to make money (unless they pull a Chris McCandless and end up starving in the wilderness. So really, there is no argument against prostitution, I concede. Perhaps the one clear knock against it is that nobody aspires to be a prostitute (do they?). They might like to be pilots, carpenters, librarians, football players, judges, but never a prostitute. Surely this is a telling fact no matter what sort of sophisticated arguments you make that it is a 'beautiful' profession. It is crude and gross. But there is much that is crude and gross in the world. So it fits right in – for the time being. I suspect the number of prostitutes in the year 3000 will be less than 3000. Vranak (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A matter of human dignity? Please don't make me laugh. How about of simple (and honest :) human hypocrisy excused by/based upon religious reasons? A Prostitute doesn't "sell her body", she provides a service for which she is paid for. There are a lot of countries where prostitution is legal (the article seems to be quite adequate). If legal prostitution is properly regulated (no slavery, obligatory condoms, regular STD tests, etc) it will in fact diminish 'all the horrible side-effects' mentioned above. Flamarande (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A whore does of course sell her body. I needn't argue, it is a fact as plain as day. Vranak (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

...said the whoremonger. Sounds like you need to laugh. Tell me something, do you have a daughter? How much would you advise mine to charge? (I'm being pointy to illustrate that this has degenerated into a newsgroup-style free-for-all.) --Milkbreath (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Look pal, I don't have a daughter but if I had one and if she was working in the "horizontal department" I would prefer that she 'worked' in a legal, safe, and regulated enviroment instead of the streets (but I think that I will rather bet in a good education). I would advise you daughter to charge as much as possible in the same conditions. Prostitution is simply the 'oldest profession of the world' and no laws are going to stop it. Regulation of prostitution works in many countries. Flamarande (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's worth pointing out for those with sufficient wit to understand simple English usage that a prostitute does not 'sell' his or her body, in the fashion of a slave. In such arrangements the said item is rented. Clio the Muse (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Does not the lady in question contaminate at very least her memories, sense of integrity, and sense of self-worth by engaging in prostitution? As I see it, the act is selling and not mere rental if any harm is done in the process. I.e. an amnesiac whore who always uses protection is alright in my books, but everyone has memories so she is a theoretical niceity only. Vranak (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A slave also doesn't sale his or her body: he or she is sold by someone else. The body is rented in the case of prostitution only if the prostitute does it independently. In the cases where a person is rented/sold we are talking about slave trade, but I suppose the questioner was asking about independent prostitutes trading directly with johns and not through pimps.

I personally believe that it should be a crime to offer any person money for sex, since it could exploit a vulnerability of this person (drug abuse, poverty, ...) and will look much more like a rape than like a commercial transaction. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also add (for those with the wit to understand, Clio) that the phrase selling her body is plainly a use of metaphorical language. The body is not of course sold like ham hock at a butcher's, but as there is some cost to the prostitute in allowing her body to be used for money the phrase is useful and has been retained over the years. Vranak (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Although, interestingly, the term "rent boy" has arrived. Even more interestingly, we don't generally use the parallel formation "rent girl" for a female prostitute (although Google has some examples). -- JackofOz (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

April 4

fraud and copyright

Over on Wikisource, a sister project, a false start at putting the Dossiers Secrets online (s:Dossiers secrets d'Henri Lobineau) has me wondering ... if a document is purported to be of a certain date that would put it out of copyright, by way of fraud, does the author regain the copyright after the mystery has been unravelled and the fraudster has been identified?

In order to host these documents on the English Wikipedia and English Wikisource, only the US law is involved. In order to host them on Commons, both the US and French laws come into play. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an assumption here in the use of the term "regain" that the author at some point lost the copyright. I don't see a legal basis for that, though.  --Lambiam 20:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal and science

Does the Wall Street Journal have a science editor? If not, have they ever? --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This recent text suggest that Jerry E. Bishop, winner of the Science writing award in 1990, was the WSJ's last science editor, and he left "A Black Hole In The WSJ" since his retirement in 1996. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Why is she a candidate for US president? The US isn't supposed to have a female president. 58.168.128.66 (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't? Where is this rule, please? Julia Rossi (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps by inductive logic, since all Presidents have been white men. Previous results would seem to favor a rich old white protestant male in a contest against an opponent lacking any of those characteristics. Being tall and having a full head of hair have also been characteristics of winners in general in Presidential elections. Hillary seems to have ample hair, money, age, and to be a protestant. Edison (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Two of the United States Constitution list only three qualifications for President: being a natural-born citizen, being at least thirty-five years old and being an inhabitant of the United States for at least fourteen years. Even though all previous US Presidents have been male, there is no law requiring this trend to continue. Thomprod (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget that Hillary Clinton is not the first or only female candidate, though no woman has come this close before. Victoria Woodhull was the first female presidential candidate in the 1872 elections, though she wouldn't have been eligible because of her age (see above) not because of her gender! Carol Moseley Braun, Cathy Gordon Brown, Elaine Brown, Shirley Chisholm, Elizabeth Dole, Marsha Feinland, Lenora Fulani, Linda Jenness, Gloria La Riva, Belva Ann Lockwood, Ellen McCormack, Charlene Mitchell, Evelyn Reed, Patricia Schroeder, and Margaret Chase Smith would not all have entered the race if the U.S. wasn't "supposed to have a female president". Democratic candidate Walter Mondale wouldn't have chosen Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate in 1984, if she couldn't have also become president. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The IP address has been blocked for vandalism.[8]  --Lambiam 20:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[9] - Akamad (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Tito and the crisis of 1956

What role did Tito play? How did he view the uprising in Hungary and Soviet action there? Was he opposed?Stefan Dusan (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not an expert on this, but from what I can gather, Tito may have been ambivalent about the uprising, but he ended up supporting the Soviet action. Here are a couple of references: [10] [11] Hopefully Clio will come to the rescue with a nuanced explanation of Tito's position. Marco polo (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

She can but try!

It might be possible to argue, Stefan, that Tito shared some indirect responsibility for the events that lead to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the subsequent Soviet reaction. After the death of Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev began a charm offensive, attempting to win Yugoslavia back into the Soviet bloc. He held talks with Tito in Belgrade in May 1955, blaming Lavrenti Beria for the hard-line policy adopted in 1948. Tito rejected this, emphasising the attitude of Stalin. But much more crucially he told Khrushchev that it would be easier to convince the Yugoslavs that Soviet policy had really changed if Stalin and Stalinism were publicly repudiated. I have little doubt that such action was already in Khrushchev’s mind, but the timing of his famous speech at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in February 1956 was in part due to Yugoslav pressure.

It was in consequence of this that Stalinism began to lose its icy hold of parts of the Soviet imperium. In Hungary Imre Nagy advocated a more liberal policy in opposition to Mátyás Rákosi, the hard-line premier. Again Tito played a part, urging Khrushchev to get rid of Rákosi, who was duly replaced by Erno Gero. Under pressure from Tito, Gero announced that László Rajk, a leading Hungarian Communist executed in 1949 as a Titoist spy, had been wrongly convicted. The memorial meeting held in his memory in Budapest in late October 1956 turned into a full-scale anti-Russian and anti-Communist riot. In the political avalanche that followed Gero gave way to Nagy. Tito sent a note of support, but warned him not to allow the situation to slip into 'counter-revolution.'

Tito continued to believe that that the Hungarian emergency would never have arisen but for the brutal incompetence of Stalin and Rákosi, but agreed with Khrushchev at a secret meeting in early November that the country was indeed in the grip of a 'counter-revolution', which, if allowed to proceed, would destroy Socialism throughout Eastern Europe. In these circumstances the Soviets had no choice but to send in the Red Army. It was on Tito's suggestion, moreover, that Khrushchev decided to replace Nagy with János Kádár, who had formerly been imprisoned by Rákosi as a 'Titoist.'

Khrushchev was pleased by the outcome of the this meeting, expecting the same kind of opposition to Soviet intervention as expressed by Gomulka and the Polish Communists;

But we were pleasantly surprised. Tito said we were absolutely right and that we should send our soldiers into action as quickly as possible. He said we had an obligation to help Hungary crush the counter-revolution...We had been ready for resistance, but instead we received his whole-hearted support. I would even say he went further that we did in urging a speedy and decisive resolution of the problem.

After the suppression of the Hungarian patriots Tito gave a speech at the military college in Pula, in which he said that people had been so enraged by the Stalinists that the right-wing supporters of Admiral Horthy, the pre-war dictator of Hungary, were able to take advantage of the situation:

The justified uprising against the Rákosi clique turned into an insurrection against Socialism and the Soviet Union, and the Communists who found themselves in the ranks of the rebels saw that their objective, whether they wanted it or not, was no longer the fight for Socialism but for a return of the old order after the reaction had taken things in hand. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are great. Stefan Dusan (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

So are you! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Islam and terrorism

Were the Hashashin the world's first terrorists? Is terrorism, then, an integeral part of the Islamic world view? No polemic, no soap-boxing, no trolling. I think this is a valid set of questions and I am genuinely interested in some dispassionate answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.0.128 (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I do recall in an episode of West Wing that they mentioned them as one of the earliest terrorist groups. But if we go by this definition of terrorism [12]: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives," then I imagine that terrorism has been around for a few millenia, long before the Hashashins. - Akamad (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The earliest example mentioned in our history of terrorism article is the Sicarii zealots who were reisiting the Roman occupation of Judea. That article also sagely notes that "underground resistance groups are often branded terrorists by the authorities they oppose". It lists numerous historical examples of what we would now call terrorism, including the Gunpowder Plot, the Sons of Liberty, John Brown, the Ku Klux Klan and the Suffragette movement. Very few of these examples have any connection with the Muslim world. Based on the evidence in this article, a dispassionate conclusion would be that terrorism is an integral part of the Western world view. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Hashshashin are one of the oldest group of people that I know of that used acts of terrorism as an identity. They are not, in any way, the first terrorists. Formed in 1090, they simply didn't exists for the many earlier years in which groups would perform "hit and run" attacks on enemies. However, they are not in any way an integral part of the Islamic world view. They are a small offshoot of Islam. To put in perspective, the KKK claims to Christian. Does that mean that white supremacy is an integral part of Christianity? Of course not. You cannot judge a large group of people by the actions of a minority. The problem we have is that the American media has not interest in interviewing the millions of people in the Islamic world who condemn terrorism. They only want to show us the small group that applaud it. -- kainaw™ 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read a book about Muhammad and how he preached, converted, and united the Arab tribes. I remember that during a battle over a certain water well he was telling his warriors that if they died for Islam they would go immediately to heaven. A warrior asked if this was really so easy, and Muhammad answered affirmatively. The warrior immediately charged the enemy and died (anyone's guess if he went to heaven or not). And to be honest Muhammad united the Arab tribes by converting them but also using military might, force, and simple violence and No, he wasn't a pacifist. Some British historian commented that "Islam came with a sword" (later Christianity is also guilty of that, but I don't recall Jesus or even Buddha advocating violence). Flamarande (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Although ironically during WWII most of the involved were christian people. Not only that but catholics kill catholics and protestants killing protestants on both sides. Sorry had to add that! --Cameron (t|p|c) 21:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

From our article on the Crusades: "In 1063, Pope Alexander II had given his blessing to Iberian Christians in their wars against the Muslims, granting both a papal standard (the vexillum sancti Petri) and an indulgence to those who were killed in battle ... Most <crusaders> believed that by retaking Jerusalem they would go straight to heaven after death". The history of militant Christianity, from the Crusades through the Inquisition to The Troubles, is sadly as full of dubious motivations and flimsy rationalisations of violence as that of any other ideology. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

BAH! I think we can all agree that all violence (wars, massacres, forced coversions, etc) committed by Christians was done despite (and even against) the words and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (love thy enemy). However AFAIK Muhammad in fact preached war against Non-believers (you will go to heaven if you fight for Islam). Flamarande (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what your point is, Flamarande. Islam is not the only religion whose founder was not a pacifist - some of the founders of Sikhism, for example, were equally militant. And many religions have been used to justify ends that were far from the intentions of their founding fathers - the Shinto religion, for example, was used to justify Japanese militarism in the first half of the 20th century. One could conceivably argue that all acts or violence, agression or intolerance are morally wrong, even if they appear to be justified by religious beliefs - is that perhaps your point ? Gandalf61 (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

81.156, on a point of information the Hashashins were not the first group in the Islamic world to make use of terror as a political weapon; they were predated by several hundred years by the Kharijites, a movement which is almost as old as Islam itself. It was they who were responsible for the assassination of the Caliph Ali in 661AD, and caused severe problems for centuries thereafter. These 'withdrawers', former supporters of Ali, took a particularly strict interpretation of Islam, considering those who did not support their position to be worse than infidels, and thus deserving of death. Recognising only the first two caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar, they offered a challenge to all subsequent 'usurpers.'

The 'prophet armed' is, of course, part of Islamic tradition. A militant defence of the faith had to be grafted on to Christianity by St. Augustine of Hippo, amongst others, in the notion of the just war. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The definition of terrorism is an amorphous one. Perhaps you should be more specific. Do you mean bombing of civilians? Radical Zionists did this in Israel long before the Muslims did, and it had been practiced by anarchists long before that. Do you mean suicide bombing? That came about only in the last two decades and can hardly be thought of as an integral part of Islam (and was a tactic originated by radical Hindus). Do you just mean violence, including towards civilians? It's no more a part of Islam than it is a part of Christianity; which is to say, it has been a common tactic throughout human history, the sort of thing that everyone justifies as righteous when done in desperate times and deplores whenever they're on the other side of it. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to Clio - explicit military imagery has, of course, also been part of Christian tradition, from the New Testament (in the Armor of God, for example) through to the present day, in denominations such as the Salvation Army and interdenominational organisations such as the Boys' Brigade/Girls' Brigade. Sadly, Christian pacifism has always been a minority position within all branches of Christianity, with only a small number of denominations (the peace churches) officially embracing absolute pacificism. The idea that Christ Himself was an absolute pacificist is plausible, but very few of His followers have conformed to that particular aspect of His teachings. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The God of the New Testament may have come with armour, but never with a sword. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We have an article even on that! Adam Bishop (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And the main point here is that His followers often came with a sword, and although that may have been an over-zealous misinterpretation of His will, that is of no comfort to their victims. Those of us in the Western world are in no position to take the moral high grounds and criticise the founders and followers of other religions for not being pacificists when the history of our own mainstream religion is so steeped in bloodshed and violence. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, Gandalf; very noble, very commendable, and utterly and fatuously beside the point! Please forgive me for being so woundingly blunt. I try to avoid polemics here, confining myself to matters of fact, or to constructing interpretations based on fact. But as your remarks are addressed to me, I have no choice but to accept the challenge. Please have the goodness to read again what I wrote. I do not believe that I am in any way traducing or caricaturing Islam in saying that it is born of a militant tradition. It came, so to speak, sword in hand; Christianity did not. This is not to say that Christians have been less bloodthirsty than any other religion, which is manifestly untrue. Nevertheless, Christian militancy could not be justified by reference to the Gospels. It could only achieve retrospective moral and theological validation in the Augustinian concept of the just war. Please do note the stress here. It might very well be argued, if one were of a mind to do so, that such rationalisations, not supported by sacred text, place Christianity in a far more hypocritical light than Islam. And, oh, I never take the 'moral high ground', having no idea of its location. Ha! Ha! Ha! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Foch quote

While attending a lecture today, the speaker presented a slide which said "the airplane has no military value" and he attributed this as a quote from Marshall Foch 1910. Is this an accurate quote? I find it hard to believe given his position in the French Military as his anaylsis of military history.24.224.215.10 (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Corpen

The quote "Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value" is attributed to him. I'm uncertain of the provenance. I think he was professor of strategy at the Ecole Superiure de Guerre at the time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And French military incompetence in WWI and WWII is simply undeniable. It went as far as the French Army Mutinies (1917). Flamarande (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would deny it. The French fought with incredible tenacity in the Great War, the incompetence of Robert Nivelle notwithstanding. In 1940 there was no country in the world, of similar size and military capacity, that could have withstood the kind of offensive mounted by the Germans. The Soviet Union was able to do so in 1941 because it had the space to absorb the shock of the Blitzkrieg. I know the quotation about airplanes is attributed to Ferdinand Foch, but I would be interested to know the exact context of his remark. Armies had been using observation balloons as far back as the American Civil War. So, airplanes clearly did have some military value. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You would deny it? Well I vaguely recall that French officers commented "that this new weapon (machine-gun) would have no major impact upon warfare" (said before the WWI). The French army had to be rescued by the British in the WWI, and the French army nearly mutinied (so much for their incredible tenacity). In WWII France was conquered in a couple of weeks despite the French and the British army having more tanks and more men in continental Europe than the whole German Wehrmacht. In fact AFAIK the French commander-in-chief was directing the French army from a beautiful French castle without a single telephon, thereby ensuring that all reports had to be brought to him (I might be mistaken here). The French officers were simply incompetent. Flamarande (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would deny it. I cannot comment on your vague recollection about French officers and the machine-gun, but I imagine that it would be possible to find such an attitude on all sides prior to 1914. Experience is a great teacher. I am not quite sure what you mean in saying that the 'French Army had to be rescued by the British in WWI.' In any case it is quite, quite wrong. In 1914 the British only deployed four divisions on the Western Front, compared with five French armies. The decisive action in out-maneuvering the Germans, both in the First Battle of the Marne and in the subsequent Race to the Sea, was undertaken by the French. Parts of the French army did mutiny, for reasons that you may understand if you care to read about the Nivelle Offensive and the Second Battle of the Aisne, but even at the height of their 'strike'-a better word than mutiny in this context-they made sure that the front against the Germans was held. French soldiers continued to display tremendous tenacity-and I make absolutely no apology for using that word-after the events of June 1917, playing a crucial part in the Hundred Days Offensive and other actions. Your comment about French officers, moreover, is, quite simply, an ignorant generalisation. Might I suggest that you do just a little bit more research, Flamarande, before making blanket and ill-informed statements? It might help you to understand the experience and mentality of the French soldier in the Great War just a little better if you read Under Fire by Henri Barbusse.

The defeat of 1940 was due to the Blitzkrieg tactics employed by the Germans. As I have said, there was no country in the world of similar size and military capacity that could have resisted such tactics; even the Russians almost gave way in 1941. The important point is not that the French had more men and tanks but how these forces were organised. The Germans had their armour concentrated in panzer divisions, which, closely supported by infantry and air attacks, cut easily through the enemy defences. The French armour-like the Russian armour in 1941-was too widely scattered among the whole army, intended as a defensive support, rather than a cutting-edge offensive weapon. Again,-and with all due respect-you really need to deepen your knowledge and your understanding of these issues. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio, first of all I already knew (and know) how the much fewer German tanks were much better organized and employed during the invasion of France (I own and have read the book Panzer Leader, but I don't claim to have studied it exaustably). Don't assume merely because I don't give a long explaination like you do that I'm ignorant of such matters. Don't focus yourself upon 1914 (the beginning of WWI). How about all the other years? All the British reinforcements were vital for the Allied war effort. Without it the French would have lost the war. In the last great offensives the French army was being pushed way back and was in real danger of losing its physical connection to the British lines.

Basicly you are explaining in a very detailed fashion how and why the French (and the British) failed to oppose the German Wehrmacht in WWII upon the Battle of France. Explaining why they failed doesn't excuse the failure itself. Fact is that they had failed to understand that the nature of warfare had changed. While certain German officers (like Guderian among others, and certain American officers like Patton) had read and studied books (written by Liddel Hart, a British officer, and others) with new ideas on how to employ tanks French and British officers (the second would learn from their mistakes afterwards) were largely expecting a repetition of WWI warfare. Trenches, barbwire, large and costly infantry offensives supported by tanks, the whole muddy nightmare.

Therefore the French built and expanded the Maginot line on the German border and expected that the German offensives would come from the north through Belgium and the Netherlands. Then they (and the British) would move their best units to the north waiting for the Germans and believing that they would just counter the old Shlieffen plan. They were decieved by the advance of the Germans and then surprised by the Manstein Plan which called for a quick offensive through the Ardennes, catching the best allied armies between two German armies. The allies had to retreat towards the UK through Dunekerk.

Military officers (and generals) who don't understand how the enemy fights, and fail to understand how to use their equipment (tanks and airplanes), to adapt themselves to new tactics, and to discard old strategies are best described in one word: incompetents. Flamarande (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right: I do not see much point continuing this exchange either, Flamarande. I could challenge each of your latest points in detail, but what purpose would be served? I will say, though, that France was on the winning side in both the First and Second World Wars as part of a grand alliance, with each of the elements playing a vital part. My sole object in beginning this debate was to challenge your contention that French incompetence in the wars was 'undeniable', an invitation to a bogus consensus. Now you, and the rest of the Reference Desk Community, know that it is deniable. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Airplanes were developing rapidly at the time. The first well-attended demonstration of a reasonably practical airplane was only in 1908. If Foch did say that in 1910, he might well have been correct or nearly so for the planes he had seen or heard about up to then, and nevertheless wrong for the planes of 1914. --Anonymous, 23:24 UTC, April 4, 2008.

Who was the father of science fiction?

Moved question here from wikipedia help desk on behalf of 59.93.74.65. --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The most common answer to this question is Jules Verne, the second-most common answer is H. G. Wells. These answers make sense if you accept that "SF proper requires a consciousness of the scientific outlook", and that "a cognitive, scientific way of looking at the world did not emerge until the 17th century, and did not percolate into society at large until the 19th century" (Peter Nicholls, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction) ---Sluzzelin talk 17:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the most common answer I've heard is Mary Shelley, who wrote Frankenstein, often called the first sci-fi novel. It was published a full ten years before Jules Verne was even born, and about 50 years before wells. She wrote at the very beginning of the 17th century, at a time when science was just beginning to make discoveries many saw as frightening, and her book has been emulated in many form of science fiction even to the present day. Shelley is not a man, so she would have to be called the "Mother of science fiction". Other authors who reflected on the day's science at this time include Lord Byron, whose poem "Darkness" is about a world where the sun burns out. All of these authors wrote much earlier than Verne or Wells, and are equally as famous, if not more. Wrad (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Finding the source of a literary genre is rarely an exact science, though. See History of science fiction. Wrad (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(After e.c.) Well, I thought the querent was looking for an absolute crossword-puzzle-type answer; an author who was first to specialize in and establish this genre, but of course there are many possible precursors. See history of science fiction. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I get carried away when talking about literature :) . Wrad (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To carry us away is one of science fiction's duties! After having read these appetizers I have decided to look for Somnium, Other Worlds (see below), The Blazing World, and also The Last Man when I get one of these. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that there's no single right answer to this. There's a reason why the Hugo award is named after Hugo Gernsback rather than any of those earlier and more literary authors. And hey, look what it says in the first paragraph of his article. --Anonymous, 23:27 UTC, April 4, 2008.

I would nominate Cyrano de Bergerac. From our article:

Bergerac's most prominent work, now known as Other Worlds, is a collection of stories describing journeys to the Moon and Sun. The methods of space travel he described are inventive, often ingenious, and sometimes rooted in science. It should be noted, however, that Bergerac's primary purpose in writing those early science fiction novels was to criticize subtly the anthropocentric view of our place in creation, as well as the social injustices of the 17th century.

Highly recommended, definitely more in the social or soft SF than hard category. To go to the moon, very simple: trap dew in an inverted vase or carafe, attach the carafes around your belt and when it evaporates in the morning, pjiuuu jetpack. Beats any meta-protonic drive. For earlier see Ancient astronaut theories? Keria (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The stormy averter of evil, the gracious protector of oaths, fathered all such fictions. I have spoken. Olympian Zeus (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

All hail to Thee, great Storm Father! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The term 'Science Fiction' dates back to 1851; see Brian Aldiss's masterly critical history of S.F., "Trillion Year Spree". Rhinoracer (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I just point out that Mary Shelley was writing at the beginning of the 19th not the 17th Century, Frankenstein was published in 1818. Lord Foppington (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Matthias Daniel Pöppelmann or Matthäus Daniel Pöppelmann

Are these two people the same? They both were alive in the same time period and I'm wondering if one was just an anglicization of the name. Eóin (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It is the same person. Matthäus is the correct spelling. This site, for instance, confirms that Matthäus Daniel Pöppelmann contributed significantly to the Saxon Axis, along with Joachim Daniel Jauch, Johann Christoph Naumann, and later also Carl Friedrich Pöppelmann, one of Matthäus Daniel's notable sons. The other famous son was the painter Johann Adolph Pöppelmann. The Matthias Daniel Pöppelmann article should be redirected or merged. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've merged Matthias Daniel Pöppelmann into Matthäus Daniel Pöppelmann. Xn4 20:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Apparently Matthes Daniel Pöppelmann can be found occasionally too. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. ~ Eóin (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

historical misconceptions

HI, reading the above thread on medieval childhood reminded me of the subject of historical misconceptions. There is also a book out by an academic called Flat Earth, claiming that, despite the popular wisdom, very few medieval people really thought the earth was flat. Can anyone tell me of any other current misconceptions about earlier times in history, especially on a similar scale to our delusions about flat-earth beliefs? I'm also interested in misconceptions that have been held at earlier times, that people have wised up to, for example any myth that might have been prevalent a century or so ago, even if it has disappeared from the popular imagination today. 203.221.126.95 (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The article on scientific mythology has a number of these sorts of things (some better cited than others). --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Vikings and their horned helmets is always a popular myth. A good one from the past week is that L'Osservatore Romano seems to be under the impression that this year is "the first time in history" that Catholicism has not been the most populous religion. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answers so far. Adam, do you mean just that Vikings never wore horned helmets? Thanks in advance. 143.238.215.40 (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

On rare ceremonial occasions their priests may have worn helmets with horns on them but they looked nothing like the kind we know today. There's an article on that here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by APL (talk • contribs) 02:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems our idea of the millenial panic as the year 1000 AD approached is grossly inflated. Rhinoracer (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Some people might have been alarmed if their local monk told them that it would soon be 1,000 years after the birth (or the death) of Jesus, but at that period extremely few people frequently encountered A.D. dates as part of their ordinary daily lives, so that the widespread spontaneous "odometer" fascination of 1999 A.D. would have had no counterpart in 999 A.D... AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Where to start? There are so many! The following are all myths about the Middle Ages: women were oppressed; women had more children than now (upper classes did, for various reasons, but not lower classes); knights' armour was so heavy they had to be lifted onto a horse and couldn't move if they fell off; destriers were as big as shire horses and could only walk; swords were heavy and unwieldy; medieval men were short; bodkin arrows could pierce armour; any arrows could pierce mail; medieval people didn't wash; medicine was useless and all science superstitious nonsense; and so it goes on... Gwinva (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, questioner. I assumed you were only interested in the grand fictions. I could add many more small ones, if you are interested. And, yes, the Vikings never wore horned helmets! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone again. Clio, I'm interested in the grandest fictions that would fit reasonably into the format of an answer on this ref desk. We have some good ones above; I believe the nature of the question is such that people can try to compete (so to speak) at producing the biggest. I wouldn't expect too many like the Flat Earth one, although someone could take the opposite tack and try to convince me that the Flat Earth is no myth after all, and that they did believe in this. 203.221.127.76 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The West Wing

Move to entertainment desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is going too far, Brainy Babe. I specifically stated that it was here because I trusted the taste of people who read the reference desk, specifically the Humanities desk (though I admit I forgot to mention this bit). It is not an entertainment question, it is about the pedagogical value of the show The West Wing, although I needed to confirm the value according to dramatic criteria as well. Please folks, don't go overboard with moving questions, since they are often here for a good reason. A lot of questions could go on two or even three ref desks, so the fairest standard is simply that no one blatantly violates the purpose of each ref desk, eg asking for a track listing on a rap album on this page would be clearly asking for the question to be shifted. Thanks anyway for answers so far on the entertainment desk. 143.238.215.40 (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it have any pedagogical value? I rather thought it was emotional compensation for left-leaning television executives. After all, it seems that the only way to get a liberal-minded Democrat into the White House is in fiction! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

April 5

policy record

Our local bus service has installed multiple cameras on it buses. No one informed me or asked my opinion before the installation. I sit there with the occasional thought that I'm being watched, but I prefer the reduced commotion on the bus and fewer rowdy patrons.

Google has camera vans for Google Maps Street View that have covered about 95 percent of every street in about 30+ major cities. You can log onto Google maps and see a panoramic, 360 degree view at about 10 foot intervals from the street. The last set was taken just before I mowed the lawn in Dec 2007, but future updates are scheduled. Contracts to mount cameras on garbage trucks for twice a week updates or on mail trucks for updates once a day are planned.

Under these circumstances I have a friend from out of town who visits and rides the bus to look for places to live. He brings his camera with him to make an album to show his family no different than any tourist. At the local transit center, however, he is told he can not take pictures while standing on the transit center property because of 9/11, but it is perfectly okay for him to step over to the sidewalk and take all the pictures he wants. The transit center manager says the reason is government orders. The transit authority telephone complaint desk says it is orders from George W Bush.

Is there a record of any such policy or is the transit authority merely using 9/11 as an excuse to avoid video or photographic evidence other than its own? 71.100.173.69 (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that the President of the United States has the authority to order local transit centers not to allow the taking of pictures from transit center property. It is possible that this was a recommendation from Homeland Security.  --Lambiam 10:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Where can I find a record of any such recommendation? 71.100.173.69 (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This may be of interest: [13]. Your friend should ask the transit center manager to provide the policy in writing with a citation of the applicable law. --Nricardo (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this link. I've asked the transit authority for the information. 71.100.173.69 (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Islamic versus Jewish perception of the law

Currently the impression I have of the difference between Islamic perception of law and Jewish perception of law in general is that the Jewish perception is that in public or private the law applies whereas the Islamic perception is that the law only applies in public. Is this impression correct? 71.100.173.69 (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean religious prescriptions? Then I think that in general the impression is not correct. With Ramadan, Muslims are required to fast from sunrise to sunset, whether in public or in private. Furthermore, there is no such thing thing as the Islamic perception and the Jewish perception; some are more mainstream than others, but there are no generally recognized central authorities.

Non Aligned Movement

Whatever happened to the Non-Aligned Movement? It seems to have disappeared altogether from public view? Topseyturvey (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that its influence hinged on playing off the democratic First World and the communist Second. When the latter lost the Cold War, the U.S. no longer had a pressing need to cater to it. Non-Aligned Movement also says it fractured when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no more Cold War, no more rationale for non-alignment. However, there is still an echo of the old order, I suppose, in Hugo Chavez's invocations of 'democratic socialism' and 'anti-imperialism'. I think the delightful Senor Chavez sees himself as the new champion of the downtrodden, standing, as he does, against the advance of American-led globalisation, in a fashion that might just have been recognised by those who attended the Bandung Conference all those years ago. Ah; bless him! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nowadays the Non-Aligned Movement is effectively just another "G" grouping, like the G77 etc. etc. -- and it's far from being the most influential or successful "G" grouping either... AnonMoos (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese in East Africa

Is their any comaprison to be made between the sixteenth century Portuguese voyages to East Africa and the exploits of people like Cortes and Pizarro in the Americas? Topseyturvey (talk) 05:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A difference is that Cortez and Pizarro conducted invasions by land of large empires in a totally "New World", while the Portuguese were setting up a rival maritime trading system within an ancient pre-existing one in the Indian Ocean. A similarity, perhaps, is that both the Spanish and Portuguese would have been lost without local help. Pfly (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The other important difference was the exploits of the Conquistadors were largely free-enterprise and buccaneering, having little in the way of direct financial support from the Spanish Crown, whereas the Portuguese monarchs were closely involved from the start in the African voyages. Theirs was the pursuit of profit. Even the pirate cruises of Tristão da Cunha and Afonso de Albuquerque in 1506-7, which plundered the African coast, and ravaged northern Madagascar, had a clear commercial purpose.

It is also true that whereas Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizarro set out to establish territorial empires, this was not the Portuguese intention, at least to begin with. Given the fortunes to be made by commerce and free-booting alone, the Portuguese at first very little point in going to the expense and trouble of large-scale conquest. However, the 1560s saw a major shift in priorities, in part explained by the growing influence of the Jesuits, who believed that territorial domination was the one sure way of advancing their mission in Africa. The Portuguese crown was also impressed by the Spanish discovery of important silver deposits in Mexico. Gold was known to be mined in central Africa, and the Portuguese suspected that silver might also be present. The new conquistador spirit was also encouraged by the growing hunger for territory and office for the adventures-the fidalgo- who travelled to the existing bases in the Indian Ocean. The result of all these pressures was a series of major expeditions in both east and west Africa, comparable in every way with those of the Castilian conquerors.

In 1556 Baltasar Lobo de Sousa was made Captain-General of Madagascar, with the right to conquer and hold the islands off its coast. His grant also included the African coastline as far south as the Cape of Good Hope. Little came of this, though the crown a dispatched fresh expedition in 1569, with the aim of conquering the mines of Monomotapa. Another royal army was sent to the Congo in 1571, the same year that Paulo Dias de Novais, the Portuguese Cortes, entered into a contract for the conquest of Angola. His exploits were mirrored in the east by Francisco Barreto, 'Conqueror of the Mines' and the Pizarrro, it might be said, to Novais' Cortes, who advance with an army into the highlands of Mozambique in search of gold. It was these expeditions that laid the foundations for the lengthy Portuguese presence in both east and west Africa, though, in the end, it cost more, and produced less, than the Spanish conquests in the Americas. Clio the Muse (talk)

Cromwell and Prince Rupert

waht were the factors that made Oliver Cromwell a better commander than Prince Rupert? Why was Tom Fairfax given command of the new model army and not Cromwell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archie Gabriel (talk • contribs) 07:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What were the factors that drew you here instead of your school library for these answers? FreeMorpheme (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It would help you to understand why Oliver Cromwell was a better cavalry commander than Prince Rupert, Archie, if you examine the Battle of Edgehill, the Battle of Marston Moor and the Battle of Naseby in some detail. Rupert was a bold commander, with heaps of cavalier dash and élan; but his tactic was, in essence, one throw only. His cavalry charges carried all before them, but his squadrons lost all discipline and cohesion in the process, making further intervention impossible in battles that were far from over. Cromwell, in contrast, retained tight control over his men, enabling him at both of the latter battles to wheel round back into combat after driving off the enemy to his front.

Sir Thomas Fairfax was given command of the New Model Army because Cromwell, a Member of Parliament, was ineligible under the terms of the Self-Denying Ordinance. He was given command of the cavalry by special Parliamentary dispensation, and eventually took over full command in 1650, when Fairfax, opposed to the invasion of Scotland, resigned. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You're too nice, Clio. FreeMorpheme (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only try! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is extremely confusing

If Andrew Chan was sentenced to death, why doesn't his article say that he is dead? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 07:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Because he may not have been executed yet? People are often imprisoned ("on death row") for a long time after being sentenced to death, due to appeals and clemency procedures. Sandstein (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Bali Nine article goes into the current sentences of these defendants. Chan remains under death penalty after his appeal. Rmhermen (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

creativity

is there a significant relationship between creativity and academic achievement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.252.28 (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as a facile response, I would suspect the answer to be no, there'd be a low correlation. Academia is all writing in a particular style, following conventions, staying withing the boundaries of good sense, inquiring along certainly lines of thought that are not damaging to the Establishment. Creativity needs divine, often mad, inspiration, room to grow and breathe, and has no sacred cows, like Professor Werneke and his tenured position at $100k per annum. Vranak (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Academia is full of status loving weasels. It is much more about polishing an image. It is a social accomplishment rather than an intellectual. WikiWiking (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Social, intellectual, spiritual: all same thing (ego). Vranak (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See also similar question on the languages desk here[14]. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

the most cruel statement

which is the most cruel statement in english literature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.252.28 (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's the 'cruel to be kind' line in Hamlet that Hamlet uses to justify being horrible to Ophelia so that she won't be sad when the story comes to its murderous conclusion. Turns out he drives her to suicide by this technique, so its legitimacy is certainly in doubt. Vranak (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Thank God!" - Brenda Last's statement in Evelyn Waugh's novel, A Handful of Dust, when she realises that the 'John' who has just died is not her lover, but her son. Rhinoracer (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

...and what's that bit from George Orwell's '1984' about a boot stamping on a human face forever?

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." - Akamad (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, there's cruelty aplenty in the Jacobean plays of John Webster and of Cyril Tourneur.

Heh, I'm beginning to warm to this topic...eh... eh... Rhinoracer (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking to something modern, David Eldridge's play Festen (Celebration) has the line that makes the whole audience gasp. When the father (Helge) is accused by his son of incest, the son plaintively asks "Why? Why would you do this to your children?" And Helge answers, "Because you were good for nothing else." I can't find the source for the exact line. I did see the play at the Lyric Theatre in London about 4 years ago. That may be good enough for the Ref Desk. :-) ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Tessman to Brack, final scene of Hedda Gabler: "Shot herself in the temple! Fancy that!". Corvus cornix_talk 22:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That's easy: Pinkie's bequest to Rose in Brighton Rock. Her pain, the death of her beliefs, and her comforting delusions of love, which Graham Greene only leaves us to imagine, are just too terrible to contemplate. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of Kosovo Serbs

How serious was persecution of Kosovo Serbs by Albanians in the Second World War? Is this why Serbs fear rule by independent Kosovo? Stefan Dusan (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

After the Italian annexation of the region in 1941, Stefan, the local Albanian community was given a virtual free-hand to pursue their vendetta against the Serbs. Thousands of were killed, and Orthodox churches burnt, in a wave of serious 'ethnic cleansing'. Some 20,000 people managed to flee to Serbia itself, followed by a further 10,000 in 1944. The hostility between the Serbs and Albanians is clearly of long-standing, and obviously has a bearing on present-day attitudes. It is a pity, though, that the world seems to have lost sight of the fact that the Serbs are also victims. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ustase race policy

Did the Nazis decree the racial policy of Ustase Croatia? Stefan Dusan (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Axis powers may have brought Ante Pavelic and the Ustase to power, but they did not set the regime’s racial agenda. It was, of its own volition, the most savagely intolerant in Europe, excepting only Nazi Germany itself. Its aim was to create an ethnically pure Croatia, in which Serbs-the chief enemy-, Jews and Gypsies would have no place. On 17 April 1941, the very day that Yugoslavia surrendered, the Ustase began their attacks on the Serbs. In June Mile Budak, Pavelic's Minister of Education, announced that of Croatia's Serb population of 1.9 million one third would be deported, one third converted to Catholicism, and thus Croatianised, and one third killed. The killing was carried out by militia forces, and in places like the Jasenovac extermination camp. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Speech

What is the most moving and important political speech in history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.38.69 (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to classify any single speech as been the most important, but here are a list of some of the most important: [15]. - Akamad (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving and important are not necessarily parallel characteristics of a speech.

In terms of converts and considering the extent and the longevity of its effects, I would put the Sermon on the Mount as number one. Of course, it may not be a political speech in the narrow sense but it has been published (and still is) in a bestseller. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There is, as far as I am concerned, nothing to equal the simple power of the Gettysburg Address. Lincoln's beautiful words, their rhythm and their pulse, transform mere politics into poetry; into eternal values.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost any of Churchill's war time speeches would qualify.--Artjo (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

For moving speeches, David Lange's still making an impression[16] and [17] versus Jerry Falwell Oxford Union debate 1985. I liked it too, though I guess Falwell was a handy foil.Julia Rossi (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Brazil

Pardon for not asking a more pointed question; the reference desk has been so helpful I've grown to rely on a lot generally!: I'm more or less tagging along to Brazil this summer, going with my girlfriend who wants to WWOOF around the country for a month or so. I want to know if there are any particularly interesting social phenomena--forgive the awkward phrasing--taking place in Brazil now. I'm interested in social/political theory and anthropology and was looking for anything that might be relevant. I've tried searching around for things without much luck, and I don't know anyone particularly knowledgeable about Brazil, so I'd very much appreciate any advice or direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.160.116 (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The MST is the "largest social movement in Latin America". DAVID ŠENEK 14:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(1) A quick google for brazil + "social movement" gives leads for children's rights, mental health, AIDS, and hunger, as well as the landlessness mentioned above. (2) Your girlfriend's WWOOF contacts are likely to be in contact with interesting things going on. You can try approaching them before your arrival, by email, phone or letter (with international reply coupons). If you have to go via the national or regional co-ordinators, remember that they are volunteers: donations to the organisation are not likely to be refused. (3) Are there any Brazilians where you live now? If not a community centre, then perhaps a restaurant? Go there at a quiet time and explain that you are doing research and would like to talk to people who can point you in the right direction. Buy drinks. Leave flyers. (4) Find Wikipedia articles that are relevant to your quest, and portals and projects too, and look at which editors have contributed recently and knowledgeably. Leave a brief polite note on their talk page explaining what you are seeking and ask them if you might email them with a more focussed query. (5) Contact any organisations (your university, union, place of worship, service organisation, pressure group, charity, etc.) of which you are already a member and ask for their Brazilian contacts or parallel organisations. Good luck! BrainyBabe (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

British awards to French and Belgium Cities

I am seeking a list of British military decorations to French and Belgium cities in World War 1.

Note 2 in the article “Conspicuous Gallantry Cross” use to state, until I updated the article, that the award to the Royal Irish Regiment "is the first time this medal has been collectively awarded to a military unit, and only the third occasion that such a collective award has been bestowed (the others being the 1942 George Cross to Malta and the 1999 George Cross to the Royal Ulster Constabulary)". The statement that this is the third occasion that such a collective award has been bestowed ignores awards of British military decorations to French and Belgium cities in World War 1. I do not have a complete list (I would appreciate one if someone does) but Ypres and Verdun were awarded the Military Cross and Dunkirk, which was a major naval base for the British in World War 1, was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. For the Military Cross award to the City of Verdun see http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E07E0DB1F31E733A05757C1A96F9C946796D6CF Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Verb: to truffle

Is it possible to use the word "truffle" as a verb, as in: "Sean truffled down the pancakes" or similar? In my family is it well a word that we use in such a manner. ----Seans Potato Business 15:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The OED does not recognize any such definition. The verbs they mention are the ones you would expect given the root meaning of the word. I have never personally heard this "truffle" of yours, but I don't get out much these days. I also can't think of a similar word that it might be a variant of. A few synonyms are gobble, scarf, and wolf. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Another thought: the French word truffer can mean something like "to stuff", "to overfill". --Milkbreath (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of how pigs stereotypically snort and gobble and snoffle and scoff their food. Pigs are used to sniff out truffles, and even though they don't get to eat them, being highly valued commercial products reserved for humans, I can see how "truffle" might have come to mean the actions of pigs. If that applies to your family, please accept this as my inability to accept your hypothetical invitation to come over and have a meal.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Burning heretics

Why was burning introduced in England in the fifteenth century as a punishment for heresy when it had not been the practice before this?81.152.108.51 (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because Henry IV, a usurper, needed all the support he could get, especially from the church. The Church was worried by Lollardy; Henry was worried by rivalry. Thus it was that an alliance was formed between Church and State. It was through this door that De heretico comburendo made its entry into the law of England. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Eastern front in the first world war

I read in a discussion on U Tube that the eastern front in the first world war was much more mobile than in the west, and that there was no trench warfare. Is this true? Evan Bates —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan Bates (talk • contribs) 16:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The larger areas and smaller armies involved meant that any attempt to establish trench lines could be flanked. Trenches defending specific areas (like cities) or for specific battles could appear, but the years-long stalemate of the western front never developed. --Carnildo (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is wrong, Carnildo. Evan, following the Second Battle of the Masurian Lakes and the Gorlice-Tarnow Offensive in 1915, the Russians abandoned the Polish salient, establishing a front to the east with a full system of entrenchments on exactly the same basis as those in the West. And thus it was that the Eastern Front remained largely static over huge sectors, until the collapse of 1917. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

National languages in Punjab Pakistan

According to your article "Punjab(Pakistan)", it says the main languages are Urdu, Punjabi, Hindko, Saraiki, Pashto and Baloch. I read the article Hindko before and it says that two districts speak Hindko in Punjab, but what about Saraiki, Pashto and Baloch? Which districts in Punjab speak Saraki? Which districts in Punjab speak Pashto? and which districts in Punjab speak Baloch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

National languages in Balochistan Pakistan

In your article Balochistan (Paksitan), it says that the main languages are Balochi, Urdu, Pashto and Brahui, but the questions are which districts in Balochistan speak Pashto, which districts in Balochistan speak Brahui? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 19:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The articles on the specific languages (Saraiki, Pashto, Baloch and Brahui) have some information on that. Pashto has a map with distributions of the two Iranian languages, Pashto and Balochi. The article on the Baloch people includes a map showing the areas where they live. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

National languages in North-West Frontier Province

In your article North-West Frontier Province, is says the main languages are Pashto, Khowar, Urdu, Hindko and Persian. In the article Hindko, it says that six districts speak the language in N.W.F.P, but what about Khowar and Persian? Which districts speak Kowar and which districts speak Persian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

National languages in SIndh

In your articles Sindh, it says that the main languages are Urdu, Pashto, Balochi, Saraiki, and English and Sindhi. Which districts speak Pashto? Which districts speak Balochi? and which districts speak Saraiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Tahir-ul Qadri

Does anybody know if Dr.Tahir-ul Qadri ever speak Punjabi or gave a lecture in Punjabi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 19:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

All Souls

Could anyone tell me the name of the essay in which Joseph Addison, the eighteenth century English writer, says that native Americans believe that all creatures, animate and inanimate, have souls? Thank you. J T Bloom (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That is from The Spectator No.56 (Friday, 4 May, 1717) - 'The Americans believe that all Creatures have Souls, not only Men and Women, but Brutes, Vegetables, nay even the most inanimate things, as Stocks and Stones. They believe the same of all the Works of Art, as of Knives, Boats, Looking-glasses: And that as any of these things perish, their Souls go into another World, which is inhabited by the Ghosts of Men and Women. For this Reason they always place by the Corpse of their dead Friend a Bow and Arrows, that he may make use of the Souls of them in the other World, as he did of their wooden Bodies in this.' Lord Foppington (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The essay is known as The Vision of Marraton. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You can find a it here: [18] Lord Foppington (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for that information. I'm developing an interest in English essays of the eighteenth and ninetenth centuries, dealing with factual and semi-factual topics; with ideas, social practices, moods, events and cultural attitudes. Can you recommend any work along these lines after Addison? J T Bloom (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There are so many, J T. I would suggest that you have a look at the work of Charles Lamb and William Hazlitt, who happens to be my personal favourite! Reader! Have you ever seen a fight? If not, you have a pleasure to come. You do, indeed, have a pleasure to come! Clio the Muse (talk)

Armenian troubles

what was cause of Armenian troubles in 1890s in Ottoman empire and how did government in Istanbul respond? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enver M (talk • contribs) 20:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Hamidian massacres of 1894-95? Or possibly the Armenian Genocide during World War I? --D. Monack | talk 21:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Armenian diaspora, disappointed by the outcome of the Treaty of Berlin in 1878, responded by forming a variety of organisations aiming at the independence of territories in Eastern Anatolia, held by the Ottoman Empire. Two of these organisations, the Hunchak and the Dashnak, espoused violence as a means towards this end. Even Turkish reprisals were welcome as a way of securing international attention. Because of the disorders in the eastern provinces, Sultan Abdul Hamid II raised Hamidiye irregular cavalry from among the Kurds to police the area, generally adding to the murderous confusion. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Screw-guns

Rudyard Kipling's poem "Screw-Guns" is about the titular screw-guns, extremely portable artillery pieces. Does Wikipedia have articles on the actual weapons or military units involved? --Carnildo (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

RML 2.5 inch Mountain Gun.—eric 01:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a hatnote to screw gun. -Arch dude (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a social science journal for undergraduate students?

Is there a journal of the social sciences (particularly political science) that publishes undergraduate student research/papers? If one (or many) exists, how does the submission and review process work?

Thank you.

Renbelcher (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Renbelcher; I don't believe so; not in England, anyway. You should have a look at the submission process in some of the mainstream journals, usually to be found on the inside covers. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes; I should add that it is a really bad idea to send in papers cold. In the first place you should write to the commissioning editor, outlining the details of your work. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Many university undergraduate societies put out such journals. At my alma mater the undergraduate history journal was, amusingly, Clio's Scroll. There were undergrad political science journals there too, I imagine it must be pretty common elsewhere as well. If you're an undergrad now, you might consider consulting with your local university department to see if they have recommendations. That's probably the only area you're going to find journals looking for specifically undergraduate work. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is also the name of the Cambridge University History Society - 6k. She gets around, she does! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If the paper is of sufficient quality, it should (ideally) not matter to an academic journal that the author happens to be a student. In this less than ideal world mediocre papers written by an established authority are more likely to be published than papers of the same quality authored by some unknown scholar.  --Lambiam 10:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

True enough. Though if one is going to try and get undergrad work published, it is usually important to run it by a professor in the field first and let them know if your intentions. They'll be able to say what sorts of things would need to be tightened up, fleshed out, added, etc. for it to be in the running. The main problem with undergraduate work is, of course, that undergraduates are not usually indoctrinated into the corpus of "important books and ideas" in a given discipline, and thus don't know how to adequately tie in their research with a preexisting set of concerns. In my experience, even very capable undergrads (at very fancy institutions) have not really learned how to write scholarly articles by the time they graduate (indeed, even very capable graduate students—myself included—need a little bit of practice at that before getting published). --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Anglo Portuguese Alliance

Why did England and Portugal enter into a close alliance in 1386? Also is it true as your article on the Treaty of Windsor says that this is the oldest diplomatic alliance in the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by H Bishop (talk • contribs) 22:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

They had long been important trading partners and had an interest in mutual action against the Kingdom of Castile, a dangerous political rival for Portugal and the focus of the regal ambitions of John of Gaunt, brother of Edward III and uncle of Richard II. The Portuguese were also able to offer naval assistance to the English in the continuing struggles of the Hundred Year's War. It was on this basis that the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance was formed, confirmed in the Treaty of Windsor in 1386.

It would be truer to say that it is the longest lasting alliance in diplomatic history, H Bishop. The honour of being the oldest surely must go to the Auld Alliance between Scotland and France, first concluded in 1295. That particular bond was finally terminated in the sixteenth century. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

England and Portugal were also connected as far back as the 12th century, when English ships helped capture Lisbon, and an English monk became bishop of Lisbon. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

April 6

a la Victor Frankl

Inspired by Victor Frankl, A day in the life of Ivan Denisovich, and even stories of people who made photographs, kept and developed film or watercolour sketches say, throughout their time in concentration camps, how did they preserve their material against all odds? Were there cases of camp supervisors who turned a blind eye or helped them to conceal their projects or were people with a purpose just determinedly clever at it? Is there an article on wikipedia? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head (i.e. from my day job): photodocumentation by Nazi-era ghetto and camp inmates, requiring the use of a camera, was far less common than artwork in media using available tools and materials. Some of the latter were improvised (e.g. sticks of charred wood, purloined paper, etc.), others supplied by camp staff in the case of recognized artists being exploited by their captors to produce decorative works, portraits, and even counterfeiting. There were two main ways of preserving the works (other than those extant at the time of a camp's liberation): smuggling them out with a sympathetic collaborator among the captors or fellow captives who succeeded in escaping, or hiding them in structures (under floorboards, recesses in walls, etc.) or buried in the ground. A good deal of documentation has been published in English, Hebrew, and assorted European languages, though not much seems to have made it (yet) to Wikipedia. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much Deborahjay. It would be good to see it in Wikipedia – because it's a kind of hidden achievement that would have cost lives and when you see examples iin a war memorial say, it's easy to underestimate what it took for that (or those) documents to be produced and preserved. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about history.

When was the war of 1812? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.44.178 (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

About 1812 I think.--Artjo (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The War of 1812 as you might think, started in 1812 and according to our article lasted til 1815, although a peace treaty was signed in 1814. Mhicaoidh (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There were at least two big wars in 1812: Britain vs US and France vs Russia. Which one are you asking about? — Kpalion^(talk) 09:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nearly a quarter past six hotclaws 10:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ab urbe condita 2565

Armenian calendar 1261

ԹՎ ՌՄԿԱ

Bahá'í calendar -31

Berber calendar 2762

Buddhist calendar 2356

Burmese calendar 1174

Chinese calendar 4449/4509-11-28

(壬申年十一月廿八日)

Coptic calendar 1528

Ethiopian calendar 1804

Hebrew calendar 5572

Hindu calendars

- Vikram Samvat 1868

- Shaka Samvat 1735

- Kali Yuga 4914

Holocene calendar 11812

Iranian calendar 1191

Islamic calendar 1226/1227

Japanese calendar Bunka 9

(文化9年)

- Imperial Year Kōki 2472

(皇紀2472年)

Korean calendar 4145

Thai solar calendar 2355

HS7 (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Graduate school admission criteria

What criteria is admission to a graduate school based on? The prestige of your undergraduate school? Your grades? Your GRE? I’m particularly interested in music composition PhD programs in Europe and the UK. How do schools like the Conservatoire de Paris judge an American applicant? (Don’t worry; I’m planning to talk with professors and others as well. I just wanted to hear your take on it.) Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for European schools but my own experience was importance placed on how interesting, challenging and far-reaching were the ideas in my proposal. (Oh I forgot, and the first that backed me up. So, yep, grad grade as well. Another thing was that I went to the competition who quite liked the idea of the uni I was from, by reputation. Looks like it's prestige as well. But there's nothing like what you have to offer them research-wise, I naively believe.) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Russian questions

I have some questions about Russia after the revolution of 1917.

a) What were the political consequences of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk? b) Why did the Communists move the capital from Petrograd to Moscow? c) What form exactly did the railway war take? d) Why were the white armies so often violently anti-semitic? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.185.231 (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, taking them in turn, the answers to your questions are as follows;

• The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk caused serious divisions within the Bolshevik government, with Nikolai Bukharin heading the left opposition. The position taken by Lenin-that it was a necessary retreat-eventually prevailed, though, in fact, the retreat went further in more ways than he may have imagined. The acceptance of diplomatic and political reality meant the programme of world revolution lost all of its purity. Bit by bit Realpolitik would replace Revolution.

• The capital was moved to Moscow precisely because the territorial concessions of Brest-Litovsk brought the Germans dangerously close to Petrograd. This was another concession to strategic realities. Before the October Revolution the Bolsheviks had criticised the Provisional Government for considering such a move.

• The Railway or Eshelonia War is a term generally used to describe the opening stages of the Russian Civil War because there was no static front. The whole thing was fluid and mobile, the outcome of particular battles being determined by the movement of troops from here to there on the railroads.

• Well, for one thing the White Guard often-though not always-attracted those who already had some anti-Semitic inclinations, nurtured by such publications as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For another, much of the Bolshevik leadership had a Jewish background, fitting in with assumptions that the Revolution had been born of a Jewish conspiracy. The other factor is that a good many of the White troops were Cossacks, whose anti-Semitic passions went as far back as the time of the Khmelnytsky Uprising. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Accusing Kruger

What case can be made against Paul Kruger for starting the second Boer War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shako Z (talk • contribs) 13:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You should begin by analysing your pre-formed perception that "someone" "starts' a war. --Wetman (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the causes of wars are always complex, nowhere more so than with the Second Boer War, but if I were to draw up a prosecution case against Paul Kruger it would be formed as follows. His government denied basic political rights to the Uitlanders while taxing them heavily, using the money obtained to stockpile weapons of the latest design, purchased from such manufactures as Creusots and Krupps. This was not just for reasons of self-defence. In October 1899 he sent a telegram demanding the removal of British troops from the Transvaal borders within forty-eight hours, an ultimatum he knew the British would never accept. He then declared war and immediately launched offensive operations. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Portrait of a Lady

Hello, everybody. I've just finished reading Henry James "Portrait of a Lady" and am not quite sure what to make of it. Have any of you read it and what did you think? Dee Young (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like Henry James, but here goes. He's part of an artistic realism movement. His story illustrates the advantages of painting art from "reality", and how different art can be from reality at times. It's basically a disguised discussion of the philosophies behind realism. Wrad (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I read The Portrait of a Lady last year, Dee, my first serious introduction to the work of Henry James. Did I enjoy it? Well, yes, I suppose I did; I certainly admired James' craftsmanship. More to the point, did I believe it; did I believe in the people he created? Here I have more difficulty. There was something so terribly cerebral and bloodless about the whole thing. I simply cannot conceive of people like Isobel and Gilbert existing in any real sense, outwith, it might be said, ghostly forms of Platonic consciousness. They are like icebergs, drifting to no particular end. I close the book, I turn away, and they are no longer there. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Serious Question

Something I have not done any real research on until now, but what were the Jews before Exodus? In the Bible it says they all worshiped idols and a large variety of different gods, which prompted Moses to go up to the mountain and come back with the Ten Commandments. They can't have been 'Jews' as we know the term today, so was it just the name of a particular tribe living in the area (i.e. 'nationality' in modern terms) and the religion (as we know it) came about on the way out of Egypt? --ChokinBako (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

They were the Hebrews, the ancestors of the Israelites, the forerunners of the Jewish People. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did all the different names originate? And why are there no Egyptian records whatsoever of this mass exodus of slaves? --ChokinBako (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The answers to the origin of the terms are largely to be found in the links given by Captain RD.

There is very little undisputed evidence on the historical factuality of the major part of the Torah / Pentateuch. Until an Egyptologist / Biblical scholar / modern day Maimonides wanders past this question you may want to check the references above. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick glance at the above links yields a lot of information, and it might be hard to make sense of it all, so I shall attempt a summary for you, ChokinBako. Firstly, the Israelites were not idolators prior to the Exodus and Moses's ascent up Mt Sinai, which is why their construction of the golden calf was seen in such a bad light: they had wilfully turned their back on a God who had displayed his faithfulness to them. In order to understand this (and the use of the differing terms) we need to backtrack a little.

The pre-history in the early part of Genesis shows a number of faithful men interacting with God (eg Adam, Abel, Noah, Enoch). One of these is Shem, a son of Noah. God's blessing lay on Shem, and his descendents (see Gen 9:26): the Shemites or Semites. A later descendant of these, Eber, gives rise to the term "Hebrew" (ie. descendant of Eber). The story gains impetus in Gen 12 with the calling of Abraham, and the original covenant between God and man (hence Old Covenant → Old Testament in Christian thought). Basically, this covenant between God and Abraham (on behalf of his descendants) was that God would be their God, and Abraham's descendents would be His people. With the covenant comes a birth of a people, the "sons of Abraham". He was known as "Abraham the Hebrew", and thus that name is also used for the people, particularly during their exile in Egypt.

But before we get there, Abraham has a son Isaac, and Isaac two sons, Esau and Jacob (Gen 25). Jacob is given a second name: "Israel". Jacob, in turn, has twelve sons: the ancestors of the "twelve Tribes of Israel". It is the 11th son Joseph (of technicolour coat fame) who first goes to Egypt; the rest of the family join him there, and over time the family (the Hebrews/sons of Abraham/Semites) become oppressed and legislated into slavery. But God remembers his people and call them out of Egypt: we see the plagues, the first passover, and the escape through the Red Sea, into the wilderness, where the Hebrews forget God's faithfulness and provision and build themselves an idol to while away the time while Moses is climbing mountains. Moses gains the Law of God (more than just the Ten Commandments), but the relationship had been there prior to that.

And so, the People of God move on into Canaan (interestingly, Canaan was a grandson of Noah, through Ham), where they conquer a nation and create "Israel" the country for "Israel" the people. Skipping ahead through various political activities, Israel is split into two kingdoms: Israel and Judah (after one of the sons of Abraham). Israel collapses, and Judah is left: the Jews. Judah eventually metamorphises, through various conquered and assimilated incarnations, into the Roman province of Judea, in which Jesus was born.

A rather potted history, but I hope it helps. As to your second question about historical authenticity, that opens up another large debate, which has kept academics busy for many years! If I get a chance, and no one else answers in the meantime, I will hunt out some sources for you. Gwinva (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The correct name for the above is historicised narrative. It should not be taken as history, no matter how it presents itself. The Egyptian name-element Moses, "son of" as in Thutmose, is discussed at Moses#Moses' name, but you'll have to read with critical attention (as you should always). --Wetman (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all. A lot of information there. I know about the name Moses being possibly of an Egyptian root 'msw', meaning 'born of' or 'birth', hence 'son of'. I studied Ancient Egyptian history and language, and that is why I am interested in this particular story. However, I would never call myself an Egyptologist! I don't knwo that much. :) --ChokinBako (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Build the Titanic magazine

Hey all, a magazine came out in 2001 called build the titanic. It was published by Hachette publications. At the time I was too young to build it properly, I was just wondering if anybody knew where I could get all of the issues from, that is numbers 1-100. Will the company be able to sell them to me? --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 15:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There is almost no information on the net about ordering back issues. Strange. But someone is selling all 100 issues with "only the first few ... opened" on ebay, but you'd have to pick it up from the United Kingdom. link Additionally, this site gives the publishers contact details as email: Titanic@jacklinservice.com, tel: 0870 920 1138 D0762 (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The OP lives in London, UK (not the one in Ontario), so picking the stuff up in Essex, UK (not the one in Massachusetts) may be OK :) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Beware though, it's a premium number (0870) so it'll cost you 50p a minute. Best email him. --ChokinBako (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"From his cold dead hands"

The death of Charlton Heston (famous, among other things, for claiming that the government would need to pry his right to bear arms "from my cold, dead hands") has gotten me thinking about the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and its real role in the 20th century, particularly in the interpretations about the right of the private individual to bear arms (and specifically not in reference to the question about having a well-regulated militia, etc.). I have been trying to think about ways in which the right to bear arms has really been beneficial in modern times. I admit to not being able to come up with anything plausible.

It does not seem to have guaranteed a government that respects its people. Indeed, the US government seems to have felt quite free over the last 100 years to spy on dissidents of all stripes, suspend basic concepts of justice when it saw fit, to rather explicitly undermine the intention and will of the electorate, and so forth. At one point it even saw fit to round up a large group of its people and send them to internment camps, the textbook fear of government intervention. The right to a possession of arms seems to have deterred it not one bit at any point. And even those sub-groups who did attempt to resist the government with force—here I think of the Black Panthers, the religious cultists, etc.—found nothing but more deadly force thrown at them from the other side. Whether these things were justified or not does not matter for my thinking on this, the point is that their being armed got them the opposite of leniency.

And what of crime? The US does quite poorly when it comes to crime rates, with a homicide rate some five times the level of other Western countries. Our gun possession seems not to have made criminals more wary, our streets any safer, our schools any safer. I won't bother trying to parse out whether they have made them more dangerous—there is a strong argument there—but even from the question of just making them safer, the guns don't seem to have helped. Yes, there is occasionally the story of some homeowner serving as judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to defending their property from the rare invader, but other than providing some sort of psychological benefit I don't see the free availability of arms as having much of an actual deterrent effect for crime. It seems telling to me that the areas known for high possession of weapons are also known for their high crime rates; even without getting into causality questions, I think it is clear that the presence of privately owned guns does not lower crime rates by itself, which is all I am trying to point to here.

(Of course, there is also hunting for sport and pleasure. I have nothing against it, but by itself it seems a feeble argument for free ownership of all manners of weapons.)

If not those two main things, the common arguments, then what can be said for it? I solicit your thoughts and opinions. I am not wedded to my views. And this is not meant to be a soapbox rant, and I am not trying to spark a "debate" per se. Let us proceed in the spirit of open inquiry, assuming good faith and all that—I have tried (albeit at length, I apologize) to take you through my reasoning, and I'm interested in your takes of it, whether you find it plausible. Even if you find it reprehensible, I am interested to hear specifically why. Thank you. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed soapboxing invitation to debate. See talk. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored question. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to tidy up some of the language/examples and cite more explicitly some of the things I was indicating, should anyone be confused of the sorts of things I am referring to. Hopefully this will make more clear that I am not trying to be specifically inflammatory. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's regretable, Captain, that your inquiry was removed, because I believe it raises important philosophical and moral issues, issues which can be adressed on an empirical basis. Anyway, that is how I intend to tackle the matter.

As a specialist in the political struggles of seventeenth century England, of Whigs and Tories and Revolution, I have always had a great respect for the American Constitution, particularly for the Bill of Rights, which seems to me to be a clear and rational summary of a hundred years of English thought and experience! Now, I know that the Constitution is malleable and that it has been amended from time to time; but there is, nevertheless, a tendency to treat the early parts almost as if they had been cast in tablets of stone on Mount Sinai itself. I would say that, in the context of the times, the Second Amendment, was absolutely necessary; an essential democratic right of citizens, many of whom lived, or came to live, on a dangerous frontier. But there is the rural and frontier America of the 1790s and the complex urban society of today; a society where the right to bear arms has, in many respects, turned in on itself, representing a danger to the peace, safety and well-being of most ordinary citizens.

More than that, there are issues about the kind of arms that people have a right to bear: the musket of the eighteenth century has given way to the automatic rifle; to weapons that cannot be justified for either self-defence or for hunting. It is a tragic fact that outrage after outrage has now become the weary corollary of a basic constitutional right. Is there an answer? I genuinely do not know. There are, however, powerful vested interests at work, which might very well serve to undermine the operation of democracy itself. I can offer no answers, merely lodge yet another question. Perhaps the time has come for new forms of moral authority, for a new style of leadership and direction, and-dare I say it-for a new Bill of Rights? Clio the Muse (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Cold, dead hands"? It is outrageous to make a joke here about the death of an old man. I tried to remove this abominable trolling once, but some self-appointed guardian of whatever restored it. Let's hope that Mr. Heston's family and friends never see this. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As shown in the removal of this question, it is very difficult to find a question in the barrage of inflammatory opinions. I am left simply guessing that the "question" is "What is the purpose of the right to bear arms?" That isn't specifically asked. In fact, no question is specifically asked. So, I will answer that question...

The right to bear arms is not intended as a right to carry or own weapons of any particular kind. It is a right to self-defense. There are many examples, not only in history but in the modern world, where the public does not have the right to defend itself from the government. There are also many examples in which this right is given. In many cases, it is just as poorly worded as you can see in right to bear arms. -- kainaw™ 01:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, what I've read of the American Constitution it doesn't actually expressly permit the possession of handguns for everyone. It says that "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.". This seems to me (and admittedly I'm no Constitutional lawyer, I'm not even a US citizen) to essentially say "guns aren't going to be illegal, because the police, the National Guard and the army will need them". It never expressly says "anyone can own a gun". 81.96.161.104 (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The wording of the Second Amendment is not clear, as our article explains. Some interpret the amendment to confer an individual right to bear arms; others believe that the right is only for members of a militia. While I think that the wording suggests the latter, in fact some courts in the United States have taken the former interpretation. Marco polo (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There was indeed a question, at the beginning of the questioner's last paragraph: "If not ... the common arguments, then what can be said for it?" It seems to me that very little can be said for it, except that it is a venerable tradition—perhaps a dysfunctional one, as the questioner and Clio suggest. It remains because it has become a matter of faith for its proponents, who believe that it is a safeguard against tyranny, though the questioner cites several cases that suggest otherwise. Contrary to Kainaw's suggestion, the amendment does not confer the right to defend oneself physically against the government. No such right exists, merely the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment is not a defense against charges of assaulting agents of the government such as police officers. Such assaults typically bring greater penalties in the United States than other cases of assault. Marco polo (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite a lot can be said for the right to bear (reasonable) arms. I'm not going to make the case for automatic weapons, enormous hand-cannons or RPGs, but generally the government should accept the choices of the individual. It should be difficult to get guns, illegal guns should be very heavily punished and it should be compulsory to lock the guns up, seperately from the ammunition etc etc. But people should be responsible enough to not go round killing each other. It's a very difficult question because of the obvious correlation between gun ownership and homicide/gun crime in the USA. But AFAIK the Swiss have a large number of firearms per head and very low crime rates. So there is perhaps an underlying social problem or a dangerous attitute of carelessness to the ownership of incredibly deadly weapons. Possessing a gun to hunt for sport should be perfectly legal, and there are numerous shooting events at the Olympics which suggests that shooting can be a peaceful pasttime. As horribly cliched as it is; "guns don't kill people...". ut at the same time, it takes a person to kill someone with a gun. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick question to the people who say the 2nd amendment only covers the nation guard and police. How can the constitution only grant that right to police and the national guard? you dont grant rights to part of the establishments. police and national guard aren't "the people". "The People" are ordinary citizens not groups authorized by the government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.108.39 (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an interesting essay here on claims that gun control (or religion) has killed 56 million people. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a much-debated topic as far as I'm aware. The definition of militia and the purposes for which the right to bear arms was written are contentious to say the least. But I take the view that as the police force in the modern sense didn't exist at the time and often local law enforcement may have been a town militia sort of thing, self-regulated and not really attached to the government, just set up to uphold the laws by "the People". The changes in law enforcement and the ability of a government to effectively police the population mean that perhaps the second Amendment should be interpreted more strictly. And Captain Ref Desk, I'm not denying that there were some major flaws in Bush's election to office, but he did win on the electoral college which is the system the Constituion provides for in order to represent the will of the people. Just a thought. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the 2nd had exactly zero impact upon gun control legislation in the 20th century. "No federal court in history has overturned a gun law on Second Amendment grounds." (see the fourth paragraph of this section) According to the courts, and as far as the private individual was concerned, there was no right to keep and bear arms enumerated in the Constitution. Y'all really should wait until June to talk of repealing amendments (and in Clio's case presumably reinstating a monarchy and quartering redcoats in our homes, or some such.) Captain, that looks to be a somewhat rickety soapbox you're standing on, maybe you could rephrase?—eric 03:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

no matter the outcome of that case i have strong doubts that the 2nd amendment will be repealed

america loves guns theres no doubt about that. we have more guns than any other nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.108.39 (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As Mr Heston's self-reported case of Alzheimers progressed since 2002 to its conclusion , did he maintain "hands-on" control of his firearms collection until they pried the guns from "his cold dead hands?" Edison (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Central powers and the March Revolution in Russia

How did they respond? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoodeee (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The initial response was quite cautious, as there was no indication that the Russian army was ready to give up arms. Continuing operations by the Central Powers were also made difficult by the spring thaw. Towards the end of March the German High Command announced that they were discontinuing further large-scale campaigning for the time being. However, seemingly acting on his own initiative, Alexander von Linsingen, commanding German and Austrian troops on the Stokhod River, began an attack on the Russian bridgehead in early April. The success was immediate, the Russians driven back across the river, and some 10,000 prisoners taken.

The Battle of the Stokhod Bridgehead had interesting political consequences. The Germans, fearful that the fighting spirit of the Russian soldiers might be revived, issued what was in effect an apology via the neutral press! The Moscow Soviet blamed 'traitors in high places' for the unexpected and sudden reverse, while others drew attention to the relaxation of discipline within the army. Aware of these debates and divisions the Germans realised that propaganda and subversion were going to be the most effective weapons in the east. It was with this in mind that plague bacillus was injected into the heart of Russia. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Child law

Hello, I am a university student and have a piece of Child Law coursework to complete.

The question is; 'How has the concept of the child changed over time, and how has this been reflected in Child Law?'

I have read through the Child article on wikipedia, and one of the questions below concerning the changing concept of the child, but I'm still not sure how to approach the question.

So far I have looked at the work of Aries, and criticised his approach, but I am finding it particularly hard to find journal articles or books which are really of any use, nothing seems to be concise. I am also finding it difficult to find llterature relating to how we currently view children, which I presume is as the possesser of individual rights, as rational human beings capable of decision making.

Also for the second half of the question I have no idea what to focus upon. I was thinking about focusing on Parental responsibility, inline with the idea children are vulnerable and need looking after, but aside from that I would very much appreciate some guidance.

Thank you in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.1.128 (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The link for the other ref desk exchange is[19] in case anyone's wondering. Hi 86.1.1, have you seen our article Convention on the Rights of the Child? Fwiw, the concept of the child changes as the concept of what is human changes afaik that's the background. Apart from altruism, there's group consolidation – reducing stress for children and protecting them from exploitation and hunger is likely to produce socially competent adults for any group that cares for the children among them. I guess that's the hoped-for outcome. The rise in the status of the child ideally prepares the group for a better quality of leadership and provides better functioning members, but I don't have material to point you to. I like your focus on adult responsibility to the child because even though children have rights (such as to shelter, nurture, food, clothing, education) it needs legislating for, given that laws are needed for people who wouldn't be nice to others, otherwise. I take it by the idea of "rational human beings capable of decision making", you mean "in the scope of childhood" which is still the immature, socially powerless human, preparing to be the adult who can drive, sign contracts, work for pay etc. Even though many rights are breached routinely, there is recourse when rights are enshrined in the laws and their development. As for children's competency, there's a distinction between capability and culpability and where final responsibility lies which is with the more powerful: parents, guardians or the government. The increasing regard of children as human individuals with choices rather than property or labour is tested all the time by wars, economic conditions and human nature, so Governments just have to agree to throw more resources into what children need, but politicians are not naturally long-term thinkers and require lots of lobbying or as in the case of the UN, peer pressure is applied. Apols if this is too much beside the point, cheers Julia Rossi (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Make Money off your land

What are some ways someone could make their money on their land? I prefer things that don't involve the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend planting ash trees and later selling them to make masts for tall ships. --Wetman (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends entirely on what sort of land you have, how it is developed (if at all), and where it is located. Undeveloped land can obviously be planted in trees for timber, but you won't see any money for over 10 years while the trees grow to maturity. The same land could be planted in fruit or nut trees. Again, you'd see no money for several years while the trees matured, but then you'd enjoy an annual yield (after deducting costs for labor, fertilizer, irrigation, and taxes). You could also plant the land in annual crops (also deducting costs) and, assuming the land is well managed and the weather cooperates, see a yield this coming autumn. Alternatively, you could rent the land to a tenant farmer. If your land is developed, you can rent the property to a residential or commercial tenant, depending on the type of development and its location. Marco polo (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, all of the above. Depends what type of land you have. If you don't like the internet, and it depends where you live, there's agistment, you could run chickens, grow veges or hay, store heavy machinery on it or simply lease it to other people who might want to. A leaflet or an ad in the local paper should do it. Some people sell off bits of their land (subdivision), others turn it into a waste centre depending how much land you have. If you're in a city, you can rent garages for cars on it. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You could get companies to rent space on the land, say $100 sq/yrd, and you will put a billboard/plaque on the ground facing the sky on that bit of space advertising the company. This would only be seen from the air, so would not disrupt the beauty of the countryside like standing billboards do. This is a novel idea, similar to the Million Dollar Homepage, and may attract a lot of attention, hence revenue. One more thing, I know you said that you don't want it to involve the internet, but if you did this I can guarantee you'd be all over Google Earth and Google Maps. --ChokinBako (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

April 7

Saints Lives

So, I know there are websites which collect texts, like the Internet Sacred Text Archive, Project Gutenberg, and Early Christian Writings. Is there anywhere where I could find something like these for Lives of Saints, or at least a list of Vitae and their authors? 138.192.86.254 (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Also; I know I mentioned Early Christian Writings, which has a few, but I'm looking for medieval saints, particularly the women. I have some names already, but I figure that I must be missing a lot. 138.192.86.254 (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What is this Jimi Hendrix song

what ios the title of this song Play here [http://www.last.fm/music/Jimi+Hendrix/_/House+of+the+Rising+Sun ] i know it says its "House of the Rising Sun" but i cant find anything on wikipeda about jimi writing a song called "House of the Rising Sun" nor can i find any information on what album said song is from and if its not a Hendrix song who is the performer?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.108.39 (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hendrix certainly didn't write the song; our article states that it's a traditional and oft-covered folk tune. According to LastFM, it's from an extraordinarily (and I suspect mediocre) Hendrix 2-disc compilation called A Musical Legacy. I searched for it on Amazon and a couple other places and found nothing. The most interesting thing I did find was an article discussing stating how much garbage there is floating around out there Hendrix's name on it:

"WARNING WARNING WARNING: There are lots of records with Jimi Hendrix listed on the cover that aren't Jimi Hendrix records at all. Some are recordings he played on as a sideman for Curtis Knight or Little Richard in 1964-1965, songs like "Sweet Thing," "Gloomy Monday." There are many, many songs included on these records that Hendrix doesn't appear on at all ("Odd Ball," "Whoa Ech," "Hang On Sloopy," "House Of The Rising Sun")."

I'm not sure that's the case with the recording you linked to, but you can read more about Hendrix's vast recorded oeuvre here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Try House of the Rising Sun. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus in the Bible

Whatpercentage, roughly, of the Bible is quotes of Jesus? Direct quotes of hima talking? Is there a site that has a list of verses that are Jesus rather than Paul's letters or somebody else or whatever? Do the others in the Bible ever contradict Jesus' words? Thanks a lot 81.96.161.104 (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, by Bible, you mean the New Testament, right? Since he's not mentioned ever in the Old. Neal (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

Depends on whether or not you believe that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament, as some denominations do. I'm guessing the questioner is just talking New Testament, though. 01:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay, so it's clearly not what the authors of the Old Testament thought. But more of what the readers thought. Neal (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

Or you can believe that it is what God thought... What does this have to do with the question? Wrad (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Or you can believe that's what the authors thought God thought. Nothing. Neal (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

OK, the New Testament. But I'd quite like the stats including the Old testament, too. Christians use that with as much authority, but surely the teaching of Jesus overrule what camebefore him. Is this how it's treated? How much of Christian thought is directly derived from quotes of Jesus? 81.96.161.104 (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say all of the quotes of Jesus attributes to Christian thought. Neal (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

There are fairly widely-distributed Bibles that have words directly quoted from Jesus printed in red; why not just flip through one of those editions, and see directly how much of the New Testament is printed in red? AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Even there it's not clear-cut. Many red-letter Bibles (as they're called) also print the words attributed to Jesus in Revalation in red letters. Very chancy, that. And I'm not going near the attempt of the Jesus Project to guess which recorded words were really his! -- BPMullins | Talk 03:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are 181,253 words in the NT. That's a start... Christ's teachings do overrule what came before, for most Christians. I really don't know how to answer that last question. Do you mean percentag-wise? If you believe in direct revelation from God to his prophets, then the words of the prophets are the same as the words of God himself, because they were given to the Prophets directly from God. This makes these calculations tricky. Wrad (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand it's a difficult question. The percentage thing I only meant as a rough estimate of a figure, if anyone knows. If you assume that as Jesus was the last prophet, and was God Himself, then everything he said is really the final word. If someone who via direct revelation said something which Jesus later contradicts, Jesus is right every time. Taking this view, how consistent are Protestantism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy with the direct teachings of Christ? How much of Church law was decided later, conflicts with Jesus or is based on pre-Christ direct revelation? I hope that makes sense 81.96.161.104 (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There are only four books telling specifically of Jesus' life - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - and I would say no more than a third of them are actually Jesus quotes (and I'm being generous there). There are sporadic quotes through the rest of the new testament, but not much. I would *guess* (note - guess!) that the number wold be of a 1% sort of magnitude. Steewi (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

US and free markets

The US is based on free-market principles and the overwhelming majority of politicians in America advocate free markets. How truthful is the American government to these stated economic beliefs? It seems to often advocate protectionist poices such as tariffs and obviously there's political funding from business. On a scale of 1 to 10, how free market is the US? 1 being China under Mao, and 10 being some insanely near-anarchistic libertarian skeleton government. Or even more extreme at each end, perhaps. Thanks in advance 81.96.161.104 (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Renewable energy

What countries have a very high rate of using renewable energy as a percentage of their energy consumption? 220.244.104.213 (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tibet and Palestine

Both regions have been occupied by an outside force, and their homelands have been deliberately flooded with foreigners in order to make them minorities in their own land... how come one of them is loved yet the other is hated? Why do the poor have to suffer for the rich?--Goon Noot (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Isidor?

Who is the Isidor that Goebbels was forever harping on about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes, I believe it (talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tax Question (claiming a student)

Can I claim a half time student on my taxes?

How many hours must a student have to become deductible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatdrums (talk • contribs) 05:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Chaucer and Boccacccio

What impact, if any, did Boccaccio have on Chaucer? Alisoun of Bath (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Magda Goebbels

How much did Magda Goebbels know about the crimes of the Nazi regime? Did she kill herself for fear of retribution? It seems a strange thing for her to have done considering that none of the other senior Nazi wives did so. Did she ever explain why she and Goebbels decided to kill their children?