Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

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

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

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

October 22

Religion and Excuses

I once heard that if a person were to skip school/work and they said it was "for religious reasons", then the teacher/boss has to accept that and ask no questions (this is in the United States). Is there any truth to this? Could one (hypothetically) abuse this system and get of the hook for skipping 3 weeks of work for staying home and praying to His Great Holiness if they claimed it was a religious sacrament? 67.165.190.246 01:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't have to accept it and ask no questions. And no, doing it for your own silly reasons is not going to get any sympathy from anyone. Basically if you felt you were being legitimately discriminated against you'd have to take up with an administrator or an agency of the government or with a judge in court. And none of those are going to take more than 5 minutes to evaluate an obviously B.S. claim. Anyway, the most relevant law is Religious Freedom Restoration Act, from what I can tell. That article has links to a number of related articles. There are certain things an employer is not allowed to ask about (e.g. about your sexuality), but as far as I know none of the restrictions have anything to do with you claiming time off for any purpose. --24.147.86.187 01:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

US employers don't have to do any such thing. I've seen many people unable to keep their beliefs because of their jobs. I think what you're referring to is the fact that you can't be fired or hired for your religious beliefs alone. Wrad 02:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and as long as the questions are couched in a religion-neutral way, it is perfectly legal to use criteria that would disqualify employees with certain beliefs or practices. For example, "Do you have a problem working Saturdays?" is fine. Now, I do believe you could win a suit if you could show that the Saturday-availability criterion intended religious discrimination rather than having a justifiable reason. Wareh 02:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Some workplaces would allow you to exchange the traditional (i.e. Christian) holidays for those of your religion, but there is no obligation to do so, and taking time off for your religious holidays would be taken out of your recreation leave. Doing so for a ficticious religion or even a legitimate but uncommon religion is likely to cause suspicion. If you're caught abusing the regulations in this way (i.e. taking a holiday for to worship your non-existant cat because you have a hangover) leaves you open to disciplinary action (loss of pay, suspension, being fired).130.56.65.24 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"A fictitious religion". As opposed to all the provably true ones? --Psud 16:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is no longer good law. The Supreme Court invalidated it in City of Boerne v. Flores (Government may deny, so long as it has a rational basis in doing so, a permit to expand a church where local zoning ordinance restricted such expansion.) The RFRA tried to overrule Employment Division v. Smith (Government may restrict, so long as it has a rational basis for doing so, the use of peyote, even when consumed for religion-related purposes). Smith is still controlling law today. It overruled Sherbert v. Verner (Government can't deny, without a compelling reason, unemployment compensation to a woman who was fired because she refused to work on the Sabbath). Jordan 03:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanotto (talk • contribs)

Virginia elections.

How is it possible to you to say that a specific person is running against and incumbent US Congressman from the 6th congressional district of Virginia in the 08 Congressional Election? You state that a specific democrat is running against a Republican. You cannot make that statement at this time. Candidates to run int this Election can NOT file until January of 08. Someone may have announced that they are running but they cannot assume that they will be on the ballot. They must either circulate petitions and turn them in to SBE after the start of the 08 year. Also political parties may decide how they intend to nominate persons to represent their party in this race. I believe your information is flawed by assuming that this person will by a candidate. Other people could come forward to challenge someone who has announced his candidacy and their could be independents who file by the appropriate deadline by circulating petitions. A more accurate statement would be that someone (a democrat) has announced that he intends to run. Please check the Va. Election code which is 24.2 or the Virginia Constitution which clarifies the procedures for becoming a candidate and the deadlines that are in this portion of the Code of Virginia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.12.80.193 (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I corrected Virginia's 6th congressional district to state that Sam Rasoul "is seeking the democratic nomination to challenge Goodlatte." I see that the page Sam Rasoul was deleted as a vanity article, so there could be some undue promotion going on here. If the primary election is contested, please do add the names of other candidates. (Anyone can edit Wikipedia by clicking on the "edit this page" tab at the top of each article.) Wareh 02:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of saying

what is the meaning and origin of "you shoot the queen's arrows, you wear the queen's scarlet"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susyq123 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the source, but I'd guess that the person saying this is implying that the arrows that they are using and the (scarlet) clothing they are wearing are supplied by the Queen. This means that there is also an obligation of loyalty to the Queen because of the Queen supplying the goods that they're using. What's the context of the saying? Is it from a book? 130.56.65.24 02:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"We wear the Queen's scarlet" is attributed to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, when a contingent of U.S. Cavalry escorted a band of disaffected Cree who had fled to U.S. territory back to the border in 1885— and were astonished to find just four Mounties waiting to escort the Cree back to their reservation lands in Canada: "Where's your regiment?" the American officer asked. "We're all here," a young officer responded. "You see, we wear the Queen's scarlet." The anecdote is quoted in Daniel Francis, The Imaginary Indian: The Image of the Indian in Canadian Culture 1992, p. 72. --Wetman 07:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what the "queen's arrows" are - which queen? when? arrows? - but the "queen's scarlet" is presumably an allusion to the red coat of the British Army and Queen Victoria (also works for Queen Elizabeth II, of course) - and not the Redcoats at Butlins, say! -- !! ?? 11:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Which Queen? Isn't the answer to that question obvious? The saying is in English, therefore the queen is obviously the British queen. - Fipher

Gustav Mahler. . . Violin Concert?

Is there actually now a Mahler Violin Concerto (!), or is this a joke of some sort? --S.dedalus 03:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I'd never heard of any Mahler concerto. This website seems kosher, although I must say for an "editor-in-chief" to make so many bad spelling mistakes does not bode well for his credibility. (Deryck Cook > Cooke, Wilhelm Mengelberg > Willem, virtuostic > virtuosic, piannisimo > pianissimo, attaca > attacca, preemting > pre-empting). Deryck Cooke has been dead since 1976, so I'm very surprised this realisation of his hasn't come to light till now, or even been mentioned anywhere afaik. They say the score was kept in top secret, but surely some other Mahler researchers would have been aware of any attempt he may have made to write a violin concerto. If it is a hoax, it's quite an elaborate one. A photo of the CD cover is provided, for example, and it's in the usual DG style. If it's legit, I am much intrigued, and can't wait to hear this. Thanks for drawing it to our attention, S.dedalus.

Oh, I must make this disclaimer: "Right now I half-expect Jack's beanstalk to pop up in my garden" does not mean it had anything to do with me! -- JackofOz 04:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The "scanned original score" is riddled with spelling mistakes as well. The title Konzert für Violin und grosser Orchester (Solist-Partitur) should be Konzert für Violine und großes Orchester (Solopartitur) or (Solistenpartitur). Violin fora see it as a hoax as well. See violinist.com, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the more I look at this the more things look funny; sounds like it’s a hoax unfortunately. I just noticed that the piece is supposedly in F sharp minor, the hardest possible minor key on the violin. (No open strings correspond to tonic or dominant, and since the lowest sting is G scales go very high on the instrument.) The copyright also says “Derek Lim, completely responsible person” :-) Still, a very good photo job on that Deutsche Grammophon picture! --S.dedalus 21:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I was really hoping for some new Mahler! I guess if it really was true, it would have made headlines in the Mahler world 18 months ago. I liked the quip: "I especially enjoy his somewhat exhausting sonata number three in E-flat minor, subtitiled, "Bombastic Reflections on the Death of Children," especially when played in a hushed and sinister manner suggesting bathos, pathos and sort of transcendent nobility." I wonder what long-forgotten masterpiece will be "unearthed" next - Brahms' opera? Schubert's clarinet concerto? Puccini's harpsichord sonata? Chopin's symphony? I can't wait. -- JackofOz 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to dispel any remaining doubts, scroll right to the bottom and check the date that the article was written. If even that isn't enough, check the Internet Archive version of the page from 1999. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was also hoping for a new violin concerto in the repertoire. I guess us violinist have enough concertos as it is though. :-) By the way, there doesn’t seem to be a List of compositions by Gustav Mahler article yet as there is with most other major composers. Anybody want to collaborate on it? --S.dedalus 04:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What day is it?

Have there ever been any significant breaks in the cycle of the days of the week? Cases where two large groups of people following the Jewish seven-day calendar met and couldn't agree on what day of the week it was? --67.185.172.158 04:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

From Claus Tøndering 's Calendar FAQ: "There is no record of the 7-day week cycle ever having been broken. Calendar changes and reform have never interrupted the 7-day cycles. It is very likely that the week cycles have run uninterrupted at least since the days of Moses (c. 1400 BC), possibly even longer. Some sources claim that the ancient Jews used a calendar in which an extra Sabbath was occasionally introduced. But this is probably not true." - Nunh-huh 04:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not Jewish, but some local jurisdictions have dropped days from the calendar in order to correct errors. From International Date Line:

• The Philippines was on the east side of the date line until 1844, though decidedly on the west side of the line today. As a Spanish colony, its most important communication was originally with Acapulco in Mexico. At 00:00 in London, Great Britain, 17:20 in Acapulco was about 08:04 in Manila. A 9 hour, 16 minute difference, Manila ran nearly a half-day behind Acapulco. During the 1840s, trade interests turned to China, the Dutch East Indies and adjacent areas, and the Philippines was changed to the west side of the date line. Monday, 30 December 1844 (ending up as a 365-day year) was followed by Wednesday, 1 January 1845. -- JackofOz 05:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Other places that have skipped or repeated a day of the week in order to change to the other side of the Date Line include Alaska, parts of Kiribati, and Kwajalein. There are not examples of "correcting an error", though. --Anon, 23:45 UTC, Tuesday, October 23, 2007.

I celebrate the subtle way you corrected "my" error, Anon. Thanks. -- JackofOz 00:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been documented occasions, notably in World War Two, where groups of fleeing Jews came close to, or crossed the International Date Line, with drastic implications for their religious practice. To confuse matters further, there is no universal agreement among halachists on the location of the dateline and strong arguments exist for dissenting from the use of the IDL. I know that this was on occasion "resolved" by the doubters needing to keep 2 days Sabbath... and fasting 48 hours (+1=49) for Yom Kippur. Rather them than me. --Dweller 09:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Male-female sex ratio using Social Networking Sites

I would like to know the male-female sex ratio of users on social networking websites..like facebook,orkut,myspace,etc Any sources/resources/stubs that will help me to find it ? Thanks Ritesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.248.121 (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're happy with self-declared gender (and I doubt you'll get anything better), then you can get this within Facebook, at least on for individual networks. If there are stats for the whole thing, I haven't found them yet. Algebraist 13:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Giulio Genoino

what part he play in neapolitan rising in 1647? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.78.9 (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Giulio Genoino, the 'mind of Masaniello', was a key figure in the 7 July, 1647 popular insurrection against spanish authority in Naples. A priest, lawyer, and academic, Genoino had for three decades attempted to influence constitutional change to involve the Third Estate in the government of the city. Despite being a representative of Spain to Naples, he was accused of spreading sedition and instigating riots during unrest in 1585 and 1620. After periods of imprisonment and exile, and then in his 80's, he returned to Naples and began advising the fisherman and smuggler Tommaso Aniello—later know as Masaniello—a popular figure among the city's populace. Genoino was the real power behind the popular movement, and supplied the directionless and illiterate Masaniello with advice and a coherent policy. Following the uprising of 7 July, and the assassination of Masaniello on 16 July, the Viceroy attempted to restore order by handing governance of the city to Genoino. He was unable to resist the extremest demands of the populace, and following a second revolution in August Genoino was exiled and the Neapolitan Republic proclaimed.

References

• (July 1997) "July 7th, 1647: Masaniello's Naples Revolt against Spain." History Today. '47
• Calabria, Antonio (1990) Good Government in Spanish Naples. p. 254. OCLC 19815217
• Kamen, Henry (1971) The Iron Century: Social Change in Europe, 1550-1660. p. 362-3. OCLC 278868

—Preceding unsigned comment added by EricR (talk • contribs)

Bravo, Eric. Since that included the references upon which it was based, I just turned it into the article Giulio Genoino. Wareh 21:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Winter War

What did the Brits do to help Finland in the war against Russia and should they have done more? Irishbard 12:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See Winter War#foreign support. No. Algebraist 13:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Just imaigine what would have happened if the British and French had managed to send an expeditionary force to Finland, having first obtained permission from Norway and Sweden for the transit of troops and supplies. For a start they would have ended up at war with both Hitler and Stalin at the same time, which could only have strengthened the Nazi-Soviet Pact still further. Western Europe would have been even more exposed than it already was, and Hitler would would have a perfectly valid excuse for attacking the Scandinavian countries, almost certainly cutting lengthy lines of communication, catching the Allies in the rear as they faced the Soviets in the front. The best assessment of the 'Artic gamble' is that of A G Mazour, who in Finland Between East and West emphasises the importance of the Finnish decision in March 1940 to make peace with Stalin, rather than request help from the West:

On March 1, 1940, Finland, stood before a great decision: to ally herself with the West or to succumb to the East. As the small nation analysed all the possible hardships each choce entailed, it decided to take the humble road to Moscow instead of the westward road. By taking it Finland at least spared her neighbour Sweden from being drawn into the conflict. And who can tell? Perhaps by the same token Finland averted a Soviet-German military alliance, surely a contribution for which the Western Allies could be grateful.

Absolutely! But in the long run Finnish tenacity did have important consequences for the whole course of the Second World War. The poor performance of the Red Army caused Hitler to make some serious miscalculations, one of the most significant factors in the planning of Operation Barbarossa Clio the Muse 00:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that the Finnish decision meant that after Germany attacked the USSR, that country as a result became one of the allies and consequently Finland unintentionally became one of the axis power (an 'ally' of Germany). If the British had attacked the USSR before that, that would have made it weirder still - they would have been fighting an ally and consequently become one of the axis powers too, despite being attacked by Germany. I wonder what historians would have made of that. Would they have branded GB an extraneous power or something? DirkvdM 17:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I can untangle some of that, for the benefit of the viewers, you understand. First of all, although the Finns accepted some military assistance from the Germans, they always maintained that in the Continuation War they were fighting their own limited parallel conflict, refusing to join in wider operations, like the offensive against Leningrad. They did not join the Tripartite Pact and were not therefore part of the Axis. The British never had any intention of 'attacking' the USSR: the aim was to assist the Finns in their own defence. There is no evidence that the British or the French ever planned to declare war. It would have been quite possible to engage in major military operations without such a declaration, just as the Soviets and the Japanese had shown on the borders of Manchuria. In any case, the Allies would have been caught between a Russian hammer and a German anvil, which would have driven them out of Scandinavia, in much the same fashion as they were by the Germans alone in the Norwegian Campaign of 1940. 'Being at war with Russia', I stress again, would not automatically make a country an Axis power. There are no conceivable circumstances in which Britain would have taken the positive step of making peace with Germany-the main enemy-to join the Tripartite Pact. The suggestion is quite ludicrous. What is likely to have happened is that, assuming a state of semi-belligerency, Britain and Russia would have set aside mutual grievances to fight against a common enemy. Clio the Muse 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, having a common enemy doesn't necessarily make allies. But it would have created an awkward situation. Note that there is a section Axis powers#Finland, although it starts by saying Finland wasn't an axis power. But then goes on to say in what ways Finland and Germany cooperated. Also note that the map at the top of that article first shows Finland as neutral, then as an axis power and then, towards the end of the war, as one of the Allies. I suppose an important factor here is that, afaik, Finland has long gone its own way and stayed neutral since WWII. So it's likely they wouldn't have taken sides in WWII either, had they not been forced to. They were fighting their own war, just cooperating with whoever happened to be their enemy's enemy. DirkvdM 08:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Armada

How important was the English victory as an event in European history? 86.151.241.81 16:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Protestantism would have been curtailed in England, I don't know how it would have applied to the continent. Corvus cornix 18:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See Spanish_Armada#Consequences? Exxolon 19:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It showed that Spain was not invincible, encouraging the Protestant factions in the Netherlands and France to continue with their struggle. If the Spanish had won it is difficult to see, with Philip II in control of England, the North Sea and the Channel, how the Dutch coould have maintained their independence, or how Henry IV could have emerged as king of France. Henry brought the Wars of Religion to an end, which had kept France weak in the face of Habsburg power in Spain and the Empire. France was now set to emerge as a serious rival to Spain, which was to do much to contribute to that country's ensuing political and military decline. The Armada crisis also ended the alienation between England and Scotland, occasioned by the execution in 1587 of Mary Queen of Scots. James VI, wary of the greater danger, assured Elizabeth of his support in the dangerous summer of 1588, thus moving the countries further forward on the path of eventual dynastic union. As far as James was concerned the victory of his cousin was a victory for "the Ile of Britain." Perhaps, in the deepest sense, the defeat of the Armada gave shape to a new and lasting identity, at once Protestant and British. For the subsequent course of European history that is perhaps the greatest consequence of all. Clio the Muse 00:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It also cost Spain. There were costs in terms of ships, men, arms and bullion. Also, as Charles V found out to his cost, it cost in terms of attention-span. The Spanish empire was so vast and administrative processes were so cumbersome, it was difficult for the King to multitask appropriately. Paying attention to a crisis that ends in failure was therefore all the more galling and costly. Finally, it reduced the impact of the threat Elizabeth felt from excommunication, as the most likely executor of the penalties of that punishment had been stymied. --Dweller 11:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the effect it would have had on the Netherlands. The fact that the English won in one fell swoop meant they could build up strength against the new major opponent, the Netherlands - see Anglo-Dutch Wars. If the Spanish would have won the sea battle, the two would probably have had to fight a land war after that, which would have weakened them both. In the meantime, the Netherlands would, at least at first, not have been affected and been able to build up strength. Then again, if Spain would have won eventually, then it would have been a bigger single force, so the Dutch would have needed that strength. But more importantly, Philip II was a religious fanatic, who may have been much more eager to attack the Netherlands. It's risky to speculate about such details because it's all much too intricate, but I suppose the biggest effect was that an old power had not only lost a major battle, but also face, which gave others more courage and gave room for new powers to arise. I wonder now, was this the decisive factor in the decline of Spain, or was it a symptom of something that was already happening for some time? DirkvdM 18:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Attitudes to slavery

This year marks the two hundredth anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in the British empire. In the eighteenth century slavery had been such an essential part of the economy. I was wondering when and under what circumstances opinion turned against the trade. Brodieset 18:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was formed in 1787, but the Quakers had been campaigning against the slave trade since at least the early 1700s if not earlier. There was little moral argument for slavery - it was just more profitable than alternative investments: ship owners could make handsome profits from the three legs of the triangular trade, and so were rather keen to keep the trade running; not to mention the operators of collateral businesses, such as the manufacturers of tools and equipment for use by the slaves on the plantations.

Perhaps we can stir in the pot factors including the court cases, like the Somersett's Case and the Zong; the loss of the American colonies (and the encouragement of the Black Loyalists to fight for the British); and the active campaigning of the Committee, and people like William Wilberforce, Granville Sharp and Thomas Clarkson; slave narratives and other books, like those of Ukawsaw Gronniosaw and Olaudah Equiano; the Haitian Revolution; and images like the Wedgwood image of the slave saying "Am I not a Man and a Brother?", and the cross-sections of slave ships.

But I'm not sure that slavery was "essential" - the economy carried on after abolition of the trade much as it did before. Of course, the Slave Trade Act 1807 only abolished the trade - the slaves had to wait another 26 years for the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, and until 1838 for full abolition.

See this lecture earlier this year. -- !! ?? 19:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There is another dimension here to do with the actual location of slavery and the slave trade, activities both remote from British shores and thus removed from popular consciousness. This changed after the conclusion in 1763 of the Seven Years' War, when ever increasing numbers of enslaved men and women began to appear in London, brought there by their owners. The immediacy was shocking enough, but it also raised questions about the validity of the institution in a country where there was no slave law. It lead directly to Somersett v Steuart in 1772, when Granville Sharp argued before Lord Mansfield at the Court of King's Bench that slaveholding in England was a violation of the Common Law. To ship slave law into the country would, as Sharp put it, make England "as base, wicked, and tyrannical as our colonies." Mansfield, in finding for the plaintiff, effectively curtailed the liberties of the slave owners. Though evading the more general question about the legality of slavery as such, he had, in effect, encouraged the view that the practice was "repugnant to English laws", as one slaveholder expressed it.

There was an acute irony at work here; for the Mansfield decision defined Britain as a 'land of liberty', not long before the slave-owning American colonies began to object to being subordinated to the 'tyranny' of Parliament. "Why", Samuel Johnson asked, "do we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of Negroes?" In the ideological debates between the two sides, slavery became a political issue in a way that it had never been in the past, with the Americans insisting that if there were slaves in the colonies it was because British traders had put them there. Pratically speaking, of course, it was all posturing, and neither side took any meaningful steps to address the issues raised; but it still drew attention to slavery as a moral problem; that slavery was a vice and that opposition to slavery was a virtue.

Before the American Revolution, the British Empire was little more than a commercial opportunity; afterwards it started the process of rebirth as a kind of moral mission, where rule should be exercised, as Edmund Burke put it, "for the benefit of the governed as well as the governors." Evangelicals within the Church of England pressed for the proper pastoral care of slaves within the Empire, just as officers returning from the war urged the government to give support and assistance to the escaped American slaves who had fought with the British Army. It was now that the Quakers, who had always disliked slavery, but had not challenged the existence of the institution, began to press for abolition. Boyed up by the conviction that the British people now considered slavery as a national embarrasement, the movement moved forward, gathering support and momentum along the way. By the early 1790s the consumption of West Indian Sugar, the chief product of slavery, was plummeting, showing that abolition had indeed become the cause of the nation. Clio the Muse 02:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Church of England owned slaves, of course.

The website of the recent exhibition at Westminster Hall includes a cartoon by Gillray from 1792, satirising the "Anti-Saccharrites". Sales of sugar fell by a third, but the trade remained profitable until the end. -- 10:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have often wondered how important slavery was to the economy. The countries that abolished it flourished afterwards, didn't they? So maybe there was some realisation that it was not as profitable as it seems. Slaves are not free, but have to be kept healthy and strong so they can work hard. By contrast, a worker in a capitalist society (as appeared in the 19th century, after the abolishing of slavery) may be free in name, but can be exploited to a much higher degree. Of course, this contradicts what I just said about keeping workers healthy and strong. Am I missing something here? DirkvdM 18:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Dirk; but-hey-what's new!? Sorry, I could not resist that. So, now free labour is subject to a higher degree of exploitation than that of the slaves! Well, you are consistent, I suppose. I was rather under the impression that slavery was nothing but exploitation; that it is defined, it might be said, as exploitation in its purest form. Have you by chance been reading Uncle Robin in His Cabin in Virginia, and Tom without One in Boston, one of the many southern literary responses to Harriet Beecher Stowe? No? Well, it contrasts the condition of the happy black living under the security of slavery with that of his poor cousin living with the insecurity of free market capitalism. It's truly enlightening. Were the slaves healthy? Well, putting to one side the pneumonia, the typhus, the cholera, the lock-jaw, the tuberculosis, the intestinal worms, the rotting teeth, the malaria, and the many other trivial ailments that were endemic in slave cabins, yes, I suppose the slaves were healthy. I suppose also that the four out of a hundred who made it to the age of sixty must have been extraordinarily healthy. I remember some quotations from Ken Burns' superlative TV documentary, The Civil War, which I thought summed up the position of black people under ante-bellum slavery rather well; one from a white Mississippian, who said "I'd rather be dead than be a nigger on one of those big plantations"; one from a free black, who wrote "No day ever dawns for the slave, nor is it looked for. For the slave it is all night; all night forever." They obviously failed to recognise how healthy it all was! Clio the Muse 00:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read those books, but I do read Wikipedia. :) From the slavery article: "In times of dire need such as famine, people have offered themselves into slavery not for a purchase price, but merely so that their new master would feed and take care of them." According to the economics section (an interesting read), a slave in 1850 cost about 38,000 US$ in today's currency equivalent, so it was a huge investment. (Of course, as the slave became older, he also became less valuable, I suppose.) It also says the slave/paid worker choice has in part to do with the price of land versus labour. And in America, land was more plentiful than in England, so that may have been a factor in the abolition movement in England. DirkvdM 08:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

George Fitzhugh was the most thorough and systematic and quasi-"scientific" advocate of the position that many southern slaves were better off than many northern workers. AnonMoos 09:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Which, if true, still says nothing until you know the condition of the northern workers. DirkvdM 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hearing my native language spoken abroad

I have experienced this countless times. Every time I'm abroad, I have no problems hearing my native language (Finnish) spoken by coincidence when I'm at my destination. In faraway places (outside Sweden and Estonia, where every Finn goes at least once per year), it's actually refreshing. But when I'm coming back home, hearing Finnish spoken annoys and irritates me. I take great relief whenever I hear a fellow passenger speaking a foreign language. When I'm back in Finland, it's business as usual, and Finnish doesn't annoy me any more. Can anyone explain why this is so? JIP | Talk 19:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is really a psychological question. My native language is American English, which has a rather different relationship to the world than Finnish, of course. Still, I experience something like what you are describing. After I've spent some time in a place where I don't hear many Americans, I have an unpleasant feeling suddenly being surrounded by Americans in the departure lounge or on the flight home. The unpleasant feeling goes away more or less after I get off the plane. Personally, I enjoy being a foreigner (for a few weeks or months, anyway) and being exposed to different ways of being and talking, and there is something deeply disappointing about being part of the herd again. Marco polo 01:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of the irritation could arise from the knowledge that your trip is now truly over and you are headed back to real life. I have had similar feelings on my return journey, but not when the trip was one for business. Bielle 01:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Australians are often informed by Americans that we sound like cockneys. We of course don't believe this, because as far as we're concerned cockney-speak is significantly different from Oz-speak. Yet, many Australians have remarked that on returning home after a few months or more overseas where they haven't been mingling with other Australians, their first impression on hearing Australians speak is that it's a lot more cockney-like than they had previously been prepared to accept. But they soon get over it and get on with their richly rewarding lives. -- JackofOz 13:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a place where most people are native English speakers is not a good place to ask this, because they hear all sorts of variations of their language when traveling, so the experience will be quite different for them. Having said that, I'm Dutch and I have traveled a lot, but alas I can't relate to what you say. Maybe it's because I generally travel for about half a year. When I get home it's more like an odd culture shock. But I don't find it annoying. Actually, once when I had been away for a whole year and returned because I started to become homesick, I sat in the metro station and wasn't aware that I was smiling, but also staring at a couple, happy to see some Dutch people again, upon which the guy gave me a look of 'what are you looking at?". I was instantly cured. DirkvdM 19:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Finnish is just an irritating language? :) kiddingggggg DirkvdM 19:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean, JIP. I've experienced the same thing, but I never realized it till now. I'd always thought that it was just that Americans in general are ignorant assholes and their talk was harsh and pointless. Now I think it's that when I was abroad I could tune out the foreign talk, especially if it was in a language I don't know at all, and let the alien intonations register more as music than speech. --Milkbreath 00:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Trouble with US colonies

Which of America's new colonies gave the U.S. the greatest amount of trouble to control, and how did this struggle affect the political debate about whether a republic like the U.S. should have them
THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnl1101 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, we don't really offer homework answers here, and the likelihood is that your teacher probably has specific (assigned) readings in mind when they gave you the question. So why don't you look over your assigned reading that might pertain to this topic, and then come back if you have more specific questions about it. --24.147.86.187 00:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the Philippine-American War and take it from there. Clio the Muse 00:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

See also Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy , War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and Iraq War. Edison 02:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Colonies? Oh dear! Clio the Muse 02:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq have every been a colony of the United States of America, and currently the U.S. government has not publicly expressed any desire for colonization, and so neither of these cases should have anything to do with this question. -Fipher

October 23

Here is a silly question

If Muslims astronauts establishes a moon base on the surface of the moon. How do they determine as to when the holy month of Ramadan begins? I don't suppose they can stick their head out and look for a sign of a new moon. 202.168.50.40 03:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, presumably they would call someone on Earth and ask – also, they could just do as the Koran says: "And whosoever of you is present, let him fast the month, and whosoever of you is sick or on a journey, let him fast the same number of other days. Allah desireth for you ease; He desireth not hardship for you; and He desireth that ye should complete the period..." That is, they could just pick a month to fast in and Allah would be happy with that. And He's not too much of a stickler about the direction in which you say your prayers, either, it's the thought and effort that count. (Some people of cours disagree and insist on silly extremes of precision.)--Rallette 08:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny question. If they're smart enough to have a moon base, they're smart enough to figure out when Ramadan is without the moon's help. Wrad 16:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

One would assume that they would simply use the declaration of a sighting of the new moon by the authorities in Mecca, which some earthbound Muslims do anyways. It's also worth noting that the first official guidelines for Muslims in space during Ramadan have just been issued, prompted by the launch of Malaysia's first astronaut at the end of the recently concluded lholy month. See Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor#Spaceflight and religion for a fairly good overview and references to external links, though I imagine that someone will start the article Guidelines for Performing Islamic Rites at the International Space Station at some point. - BanyanTree 22:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Damn, Rallette, you spoiled my fun. I wanted to ask "on their way to the Moon, if the space vehicle is over Mecca at prayer time, would they have to stand on their heads?" Alas, I have the answer now. Ignorance can be much more fun than knowledge. DirkvdM 09:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've always enjoyed the idea that a Muslim near Fangataufa Tematangi in the South Pacific could turn any way s/he wishes and still be pointing the shortest route to Mecca. :) --Sean 19:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Iranian Numerology

I don't know if anyone can help me with this but I'm stumped so here it goes.

A friend of mine recently returned from a stay in Iran, while there she purchased a ring for me. It is inscribed with Eastern Arabic Numerals on the topside and Koranic caligraphy on the bottom. She said it is some sort of traditional numerology but is unaware what purpose it serves. The numbers are, as best as I can make out, reading from right to left:687 2468 8642 4286 6824 . Anybody have an idea?

150.108.160.114 05:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Arabic (and Hebrew) numbers are read from left to right. One of the groups is almost certainly in reference to the Islamic associations of 786 (number) (see also Abjad numerals), while the other groups seem to be permutations of the even digits. AnonMoos 13:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you get really technical, Arabic numbers aren't read left to right, they're read right to left, sort of. When they read 25, they read it like "five and twenty", in the end, though, the number is the same. 325, though, is read "three hundred and five and twenty". They used to only read right to left on all numbers, no matter how big, but now that's changed a bit: now only the last two digits are. Still, in western eyes, it makes no difference. Wrad 15:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that in Dutch and German, numbers are read out in that way too, except with one less 'and'; three hundred five and twenty. DirkvdM 09:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Hindu-"Arabic" numerals have been consistently written with the most-significant digit on the left over the last 1,500 years or so, regardless of the direction of writing of the surrounding script (left-to-right or right-to-left), and regardless of whether the vocabulary of a particular language places the tens word before the units word, or the units words before the tens word (when numbers are read aloud in full). Less than two hundred years ago, English often placed the units word before the tens word (at least when reporting ages: "He is five-and-twenty", etc.), but such variations never affected the way that Hindu-Arabic numerals were written down by English speakers... AnonMoos 17:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Influence of abolition

I read with great interest the answer to yesterday's question on the slave trade, which prompted one of my own. How important was the British decision to end the trade in 1807 for the rest of the world? Stockmann 05:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it brought international focus to the whole issue. Britain was not the first country to abolish the trade: the Danish had in 1792, though this was of limited significance. The French went further, abolishing slavery outright in 1794, though later subject to partial reversal. During the course if the Napoleonic Wars the British seized slavers, thus serving their strategic aims, their commercial interests and the wider moral purpose. It was after the war that the real test came. Britain exercised what pressure it could on clients and protégés, including the Dutch, the Portuguese and the French Bourbons, as well as the emerging countries in Latin America. There was also direct action against the Barbary States of North Africa, ancient centres of slaving. It was a slow process of persuasion, policing and pressure that brought a gradual shift in attitudes across the globe. Clio the Muse 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Clio. Stockmann 07:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way the U.S. constitution in 1789 had a provision preventing Congress from passing a law banning the slave trade before 1808. AnonMoos 09:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Denikin's Moscow Offensive

I'm doing some background research on aspects of the Russian Civil War, and have been browsing through some of your pages on the subject, unfortunately not quite as complete as I would have wished! Nothing is perfect, I suppose. What I am looking for in particular is for some more detail on the course of Anton Denikin's Moscow offensive of 1919. Thanks for any help you can offer. Zinoviev4 08:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are two standard references for you to get hold of. Xn4 15:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Lehovich, Dimitry V: White Against Red: the Life of General Anton Denikin (New York, 1974)
2. Kenez, Peter: Civil War in South Russia 1917-1920: The defeat of the Whites (Berkeley, 1972)

P.S. For a short overview, see the article Anton Denikin at 1911encyclopedia.org. Xn4 15:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would, in addition to the above suggestions by Xn4, recommend Ewan Mawdsley's The Russian Civil War (Edinburgh, 1997), specifically Part 2-1919:the Year of the Whites (pp. 115-194). It was in Tsaritsyn in July, 1919 that Denikin issued Order No. 08878-the Moscow Directive, outlining the future projected strategy of the Volunteer Army. The offensive, which began later that season with great promise, was ro fail because of numerical weakness, poor organisation and lack of mass appeal. Clio the Muse 02:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

humanities

HOW DO WE WRITE AN ABSTRACT FOR AN AN ARTICLE OR A SEMINAR PAPER? SOMENZÁ61.2.183.171 10:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not in all caps. Skarioffszky 11:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The abstract is summary of the paper. It should stand on its own, be really short and concise, stating what the paper is about and what the results are. It should be an advertisement for the paper that makes the reader want to read the whole thing. Make sure that you state clearly, as soon as possible (ideally in the very first sentence) what the problem or issue is addressed by the paper. Also make clear (very briefly!), if it isn't completely and totally obvious, why that is an important problem or interesting issue. Then give your main results (if they are improvements on earlier results, make clear how they improve them), and your main conclusions: for example, if it isn't completely and totally obvious, why your results should make us happy, or what we can do with them we couldn't do before, or what we know now we didn't know, or why this means we need to do more research.  --Lambiam 15:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Roman salute

Was the Roman Salute compulsory in Mussolini's Italy? 86.147.190.207 11:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was some moves after Achille Starace was appointed Secretary of the National Fascist Party in 1931 to make Italians more militant by, amongst other things, making the Roman salute the compulsory form of greeting. Mere hand shaking was denounced as effete and foreign. The Roman style was also, so it was said, healthier. The Fascist press noted how much better it would be if politicians, like the American President, Herbert Hoover, who had to shake so many hands, threw up their arm in the Roman salute instead! (Just imagine Dubya!) Starace, in justifying the measure, urged all Fascists to lead by example 'among their family and in public.' "It cannot be said", he wrote, "that the Roman salute is being imposed out of false showmanship since it has not been dreamed up coldly by someone sitting at a desk or consulting books. Rather the salute has returned [from Roman times] spontaneously, as a logical necessity in our epoch of squdrism." I have no idea if it caught on. Ah, well, Me ne frego! Clio the Muse 00:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

James I of Scotland and Pope Eugenius IV

You are my last hope! I know this is probably a really, really obscure request but I urgently need to know the date of Pope Eugenius' letter to James I (r. 1406-1437) appointing a nuncio to the Scottish court, together with the name of the nuncio in question. I trust you good people, so I hope this is not too much to ask. 193.130.15.240 13:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Dictionary of National Biography (3rd Google hit for "eugenius james nuncio") indicates the nuncio was William Croyser, Archdeacon of Teviotdale, and that this happened in or soon after 1429. Wareh

If you look in the Calendar of Papal Registers-Papal Letters, vol. VIII, 1427-1447, ed. J. A. Twemlow, 1909, you will find a letter from Eugenius IV to James I dated July 1436 (p. 229-no precise date is given). The legate in question is Anthony, Bishop of Urbino. There seems to have been some delay in giving decision on this matter, and more than one request, for the letter says;

"The Pope was unable to do so quickly, on account of his attention being distracted by divers hindrances and the badness of the times."

This clearly supersedes any earlier missive, but for further clarification on the matter I would suggest that you consult James I King of Scots by A. A. M. Duncan (Glasgow, 1984) or James I, King of Scots, 1394-1437 by E. W. M. Balfour-Melville (London, 1936). Clio the Muse 23:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, man. 193.130.15.240 12:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ecna or Ecne

In the context of Irish foklore who or what is Ecne or Ecna? Irishbard 13:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

He was the god of knowledge, one of the Tuatha Dé Danann. See here. Xn4 16:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've created a new stub, Ecne. Xn4 16:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

National Vocational Competition

I came across a mention of this in an old account of life in Nazi Germany. Any idea what it is?

Look like it's to do with the Hitler Youth see http://ww.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=National+Vocational+Competition+nazi&meta=87.102.7.135 18:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This surely has to be the Reichsberufswettkampf-National Vocational Competition-an annual competition for manual workers on their understanding of their work and its connection with the Nazi way of life. The idea was to demonstrate the loyalty of workers to the regime. Introduced in 1933, it was extended in 1938 to include virtually all forms of employment, as well as students. The winners were presented to Robert Ley, head of the German Labour Front, and to Hitler in person. Clio the Muse 23:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hanlon's Law

This is a follow-up to an earlier discussion on the 15th October 2007 vis à vis malice as opposed to stupidity in the direction of people's conduct or pronouncements. There's an entry for Hanlon's Law but who was the Hanlon that coined it? Any ideas Jatrius 14:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you have a look at Hanlon's Law? According to the article a certain Robert J. Hanlon submitted it for a book compilation of various jokes related to Murphy's law; see also this external link from the article.  --Lambiam 16:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did and all the article stated was the maxim itself rather than any reference to Mr Hanlon himself. A search of Hanlon brought up several alternatives, mostly sportsmen but none were credited with the coinage. Hence my posting. Strange. Be that as it may, thanks for the reponse. Jatrius 16:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Jatrius, did you look at the blog link above? It is pretty explicit about who Hanlon was. He was just some guy who sent in the offer. He apparently died relatively young and is otherwise not terribly notable. --24.147.86.187 01:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Some say "Robert Hanlon" is a corruption of Robert A. Heinlein. —Tamfang 18:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fernão Mendes Pinto

He was elected mamposteiro(deputy) of São Lázaro e Albergaria. Is this a village, a church or what?--Tresckow 17:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Many things have been named after São Lázaro. Do you have any context such as when and where this happened?  --Lambiam 17:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Portugal, the late 16th century. In context with abovementioned guy.--Tresckow 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There's someone on the German Wikipedia who uses that exact phrase... oh, wait - that's you. Okay, back to the drawing board. Lambiam wasn't kidding when he said that a lot of things were named for São Lázaro. It turns out there are many, many places, buildings, etc. so named. The Portuguese Wikipedia redirects "São Lázaro" to Lázaro, which doesn't shed any light on place names. I found that the Raio Palace (scroll down to #5) in Braga, Portugal is named after a Viscount of São Lázaro, indicating that São Lázaro was probably a place. The Portuguese WP disambiguates Albergaria, but I think the proper one would be Albergaria-a-Velha, a distrito in Portugal which happens to be near Braga. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that "São Lázaro e Albergaria" is (or was) a place within the distrito of Albergaria. I wish I could be more specific, but the only webpage that Google returns for that phrase is your German WP page. There are no other references to it. 152.16.59.190 04:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort I hoped some Potuguese would be able to give a precise answer. However I think you are right. Most likely it is a village around Braga. Thanks again.--Tresckow 10:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

MBA

What are the conditions related to decision making? How it affects various types of decision making? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaya Mishra (talk • contribs) 17:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The page Decision making may be helpful. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Low Equity

Hi there, I am a father with a high school education, working as a taxi cab driver. I have 2 two children, 6 and 4 years-old. I want to know is that what are the monthly payments to the City Of Toronto, Government Of Ontario and Government of Canada and what are the social programs provided by the City Of Toronto, Government of Ontario and Government of Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.152 (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

See the answer above to an almost identical question posed on this Ref Desk a week ago on October 16th (#13). I certainly have no more information on the topic for you. Bielle 00:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your local members of the provincial and federal parliaments may be able to direct you to the social-services people you need to talk to. -- Mwalcoff 01:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

October 24

$3000 in 1849

How much is the equivalent of $3000 (USD) in 1849 worth today? Obviously such historical calculations are going to be pretty imprecise, but if I could just have some sort of barometer, even in the terms of the 19th century (e.g. "a year's pay for someone of profession X", or "the cost of X number of horses" or whatever), it would be great. I'm just looking for the right order of magnitude here. --24.147.86.187 03:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• See The Inflation Calculator which can handle such calculations for any year from 1800 to 2006. "What cost $3000 in 1849 would cost $67483.88 in 2006." --Metropolitan90 04:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Related question: Is a barometer really that imprecise? Why do people refer to it metaphorically as if it's a very imprecise guage? --ffroth 05:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because they tend to get less precise over time. DirkvdM 09:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A barometer can accurately measure atmospheric pressure at any given instant, but it is the change in measurements that is used in predictions. When used metaphorically, it is used to mean something that indicates changes - "a barometer of public opinion." This should be on the Language Desk, but I couldn't tell where that was with only colors to guide me. --LarryMac | Talk 14:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Coincidentally, for another thread I just now read in the slavery article that 1000 US$ in 1850 (close enough) is 38,000 US$ in present equivalent currency. So that would then be 114,000 US$, almost twice what that inflation calculator says. I suppose it's very difficult to compare. Probably depends on what you want to buy. DirkvdM 09:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Precisely - given its name, I suspect the calculator only adjusts for inflation. To get a better feel for the value of money, you also need to take into account the cost of living (that is, how much it costs to maintaing a similar standard of living). -- !! ?? 11:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. But those figures help me a bit. My figuring is that it was in the range of at least $100,000 today, but just wanted to make sure I wasn't totally in the wrong ballpark. That's close enough for my purposes. Thanks a bunch; I was having trouble finding historical converters that went back to the 19th century, but I obviously wasn't searching with the right terms. --24.147.86.187 12:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tumbo, 3rd son of Shiva

I am looking for information on a Rom God (gypsy) called 'Tumbo'. I was told that the name means 'stupid' and that his incarnation is elicited by seducing the village 'idiot' during a specific time and in public. The child resulting is the incarnation of this God. In the DIVINE world, he is supposedly the third son of Shiva. Can anyone direct me to source information?BrianzXz 05:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Does this help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix (talk • contribs) 21:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Help with an origami envelope

I have to make a guess as to whether this is the right desk to ask at, because the nice pictures with subcategory captions in the main reference desk page have been removed and replaced with a pretty ugly looking sidebar. Anyway, here goes.

I'm trying to fold this envelope, but I'm having a lot of trouble going from steps 7-9, mainly with doing step 8; I have no clue at all what step 8 is asking me to do. Can anyone help on this?

lvlarx 07:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why you posted this on the Humanities page...

However I hope this helps. I have folded the envelope and wonder if you proceeded right from step 5. You fold the triangle down on the _.._.._ line and tuck in the squares at the sides like gussets.

Then at step 8 you take the two points at the bottom and fold them up so their edges lie along the sides of the envelope. The tips of the crane's beak and tail are the two points that lie together at the bottom at step 8. The little strips of the reverse colur are flipped over when you fold.

It's hard to explain: I hope the pictures help! SaundersW 14:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

---

This diagram, with a slightly different start, might help. This close-up of the finished product might help you figure out some of the folds. I couldn't find anything else online that might help with the folding process. 152.16.188.107 06:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

taxes for international travelers

I saw that you have to pay taxes only if you live more than 185 days in a country. But what happens if you live in three countries about 100 days in each? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tax laws vary from country to country; there is certainly no international law such as the 185-day thing. In your three-country example, it may well be the case that country A requires you to pay no tax, B requires a pro-rated tax, and C requires a full year's tax. — Lomn 14:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tax law does vary, but, assuming that you live in three countries with a 185-day tax free law, you would, in theory, avoid paying tax. You do have to be quite careful in doing such things, because if you're living off business income from one of those countries, or something similar, you may have to pay tax on it, regardless of your time in the country. There are some regulations to restrict the ways that you can do these things. You would have to consult a financial advisor in each of the proposed countries to be assured that it is legal/possible. Steewi 01:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't work in the UK, for example, where they also treat you as resident if you stay over 91 days a year over a period of years. Wouldn't work for US citizens, either, who remain subject to US tax laws even if their tax residence is elsewhere. AndyJones 09:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

kabballa

Resolved

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#keira_knightley.'s_religion

Is this really a religion - without starting a debate can someone with some knowledge of these things explain - ie clarify what it means when someone is described as a kabballist - (is the word related to 'cobblers' - joke?).87.102.94.157 12:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For instance can a jew be a kabbalist - would this be recognised as a sect of judaism by other jews - or not/what?87.102.94.157 13:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We have an article on kaballah that may help. Kaballah has quite a long history before it became the new Scientology. Friday (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering what a 'typical jew' (I think I mean proscribed jewish response - or whatever the equivalent is - can't think of the word) would think of a non-jew decribing themself as a kabbalist - disbelief, anger, curiosity, happiness?87.102.94.157 13:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Kabballa is not a religion. It's a mystical area of study within Judaism. Traditionally, people had to be extremely knowledgable, married and 40+ (ie studious, mature and worldly wise) before they were allowed to study Kabballa's secrets. I've heard the analogy of Kaballa being like the roof on the house; trying to put the roof on (study it) before digging foundations and building strong walls (getting a good basis of study in more conventional Jewish learning) is doomed (at best) to being a waste of time. --Dweller 14:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, going back as far as the middle ages, the Christians (and others) appropriated kabbalistic teachings and symbolism. So you can't call it exclusively "Jewish" anymore (altho I've no doubt there are Jews who would dispute this.) The top of the article even links to other articles on non-Jewish kabbalah. Friday (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Kabbalah is Jewish mysticism. Christians have "appropriated" elements, which then however cease to be "Kabbalah", but instead qualify as Renaissance magic. dab (𒁳) 14:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Renaissance magic from which another question arises - see below Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#spatula/scapula87.102.94.157 14:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - reminds me of 'new-agers' in the 80's all reading about Hinduism..87.102.94.157 14:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarfiy, it's not a religion; it's a way of perceiving the world, the universe and God. Its deepest secrets can supposedly unlock the barriers between the "natural" and the "supernatural", which is one reason why down the centuries, it's attracted magical quackery and charlatans, as well as well-intentioned, sincere devotees. --Dweller 16:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a practicing (Qabalist/kabalist/cabalist). Yes, Jewish tradition incorporates Qabala, and as a matter of fact a popular Sidur is "Tehillat HaShem" which relies on Qabalistic theory as developed by the "Zohar" (Book of Splendor). The Zohar was apparently written in about the 11th or 12th centuries and describes specific spiritual practices which are congruous to Jewish beliefs but are not prevalent in common Jewish practice. While Qabala is Mystical Judaism, it's departure from common traditions could be interpreted as a unique religion. The first written Qabalistic treatise is credited to the first century CE and is called "Sepher Yetzira" (Book of Formation). This book decribes 32 paths of widom or intelligence which create a map from the human mind to the throne of GOD, and formulate a tool for identifying phenomina in the observable and invisible universe. The secrets of the Qabala are encoded into the first four books of the Torah, but are withheld from Deuteronomy. The system is creditied to Moses who was learned in ancient Jewish mysticism, called Merkevah, Egyptian mysticism, and Zoroastrianism as learned from his father-in-law, a 'priest of fire' (see: Zarathustra). Christian mystics adopted the system after the 12th century, however "Renaissance Magick" is a bit broad since it contains other elements other than Qabala. Christian adaptation of Qabalistic material would be better pursued under the heading of ROSICRUCIANISM. (Source material: Christian Rosenkreutz, Fama Fraternitatis, Templars, Masons)BrianzXz 21:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish people hearing about Madonna studying Kabbalah have the same eyes-rolling reaction as a Buddhist monk from Thailand must have when hearing about Jack Kerouac's interest in Zen. -- Mwalcoff 23:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Schattendorf Incident

What was the Shattendorf Incident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qurious Cat (talk • contribs) 12:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The shooting of two people, one of them an eight-year-old child, in a demonstration in Schattendorf in 1927. See Austrian Civil War, third paragraph of that section.--Rallette 13:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

see here: The Schattendorf led to the July Revolt of 1927. The incident itself is also mentioned.--85.180.47.137 15:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So would someone (anons can't do this) like to create Schattendorf Incident, and I guess also Schattendorf incident, as redirects to one of the above pages? --Anonymous, 22:00 UTC, October 24, 2007.

Thanks, that's better. --Anon, 01:59 UTC, Oct. 26.

Oleksh Rozumovsky

In the context of Ukranian history who was Oleksh Rozumovsky? S S Septimus 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

could this be Alexey Razumovsky?87.102.94.157 13:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

editing an entry

Hi, I'm trying to make a few changes to the entry on me (Sidney Wade) but when I hit the "edit" button on the biographical section, what comes up is the "Work" section for editing. How do I gain entry to the biographical page to edit it? Thanks, SidneyWadeSidneywade 14:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit link you are hitting (indeed the only "section edit" link on the page) is for the Work section. You would need to use the "edit this page" link at the top. However, it is very much frowned upon to edit one's own entry. If there are factual discrepancies, you might want to post an entry on the Talk page and request that somebody verify and make the changes. --LarryMac | Talk 14:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The section edit links identify the section by sequence number, not name. When you click on the link and it brings up the wrong section, that means that you were looking at an out-of-date copy of the page: someone has edited it to add or delete a section, which changes the numbering. So you need to do whatever you do in your browser to ignore any caching and force the loading of a new copy of the page. (In Firefox on Linux, View->Reload or control-R.) Then the numbering will be correct and the section edit link will do what you expect.

This happens most frequently on pages that are frequently edited, like the reference desks. --Anonymous, 22:07 UTC, October 24, 2007.

Happens on some static pages, too. Pages with many images are usually the culprits. Hover over the link to see what section it applies to. BTW, the Wikipedia cabal "frowns on" many things. Just go for it! —Nricardo 04:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

spatula/scapula

From the page Renaissance magic - a link to Spatulamancy - divination using shoulder blades..

I'm aware of the term scapulimancy - (looks like a redirect or merge is in order..)

But.. Is the term Spatulamancy even correct? eymology of spatula says 'spoon' - is this a spelling mistake, or is the term in proper use?87.102.94.157 14:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Spatulamancy is indeed divination through the shoulder blades of an animal. Etymologically Spatula comes from the Latin feminine for Shoulder-blade.

Scapulimancy is divination by means of the cracks made in a shoulder-blade when it is put in a fire.

A small difference but an important one. (Still begs the question how you read such dividations...) Lord Foppington 16:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmmh the article scapulimancy makes the distinction between pyroltic scapulimancy and just plain old scapulimancy.. I'm in no position to make changes here..

The interpretation of pyroltic scapulimancy is well describe by the way - try oracle bone, as for the other.. no idea.87.102.94.157 19:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds not unlike extispicy, but rather less messy! Xn4 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Confederate armory

Can anyone tell me anymore about the confederate armory in Richmaond? 86.148.38.68 15:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The subject is from an early enough era that Google book search allows you to view the full text of a number of vintage books which discuss this armory. See "A Short History of the Confederate States of America" (1890) By Jefferson Davis, page 119[1]. The establishment of the armory is discussed in "The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union" ... By John Sheldon Moodey et al pages 491-492 [2]. See also "Jefferson Davis, Ex-president of the Confederate States of America" By Varina Davis, page 374 [3] . The machinery came in large part from the arsenal at Harper's Ferry which was burned by the federal government, as related in "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" By Jefferson Davis, page 317 [4]. The burning of the Richmond armory when the city was facing capture is related in "History of the United States of America Under the Constitution" By James Schouler page 606 [5]. A good overall discussion is in The ordnance of the Confederacy" chapter in "The Photographic History of the Civil War in Ten Volumes By Francis Trevelyan Miller, Robert Sampson Lanier" [6]. There is a tabulation of all armaments issued from the armory. There is also the interesting calculation that it took, on average, more than a man's weight in bullets to kill each soldier slain. There is a photo of the armory after its burning on page 307 [7]. You can find other facts about it in other books from Google books. A visit to a library will add more recent coverage from civil war histories. Edison 15:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A legal question

What is the difference between mens rea and specific intent? I am writing an article called Settled insanity and am getting confused. Thanks! --Mattisse 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As mens rea says, is one of the two required elements that need to be proven in common law jurisductions to establish that a criminal offence has been committed. It is the mental element ("guilty mind") - the other required element is the "guilty act" (actus reus).

The level of mental volition required varies from crime to crime - it is often broken down into could be intention (i.e. intending to do something wrong - compare malice aforethought), knowledge (of what you are doing), recklessness (as to whether you are doing something wrong) and negligence (that is, breaching a duty of care - sometimes limited to gross negligence).

Specific intent is a special sort of mental element required for certain crimes in certain jurisductions (as opposed to a "basic intent"). Intent here just means the mens rea required for the crime in question - it does not necessarily mean intention (although that may be the level of the "specific intent" required).

"Specific intent" can also mean a specific intention (i.e. the intention to do something in particular); or an intention in addition to some other mental element; or a state of mind that can be negatived by voluntary intoxication (i.e. the fact that you are drunk can be taken into account in working out whether you have the necessary mens rea, as opposed to a "basic intent" that cannot be negatived by intoxication, even if the mens rea is not actually present). I presume this is what you are thinking of, in the context of settled insanity? -- !! ?? 18:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. I will have to think about what you said so I can grasp it! Thanks! --Mattisse 22:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Motorway cult

Is there such a thing as a cult or religion that worships motorways or roads? Keria 18:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mankind? DirkvdM 19:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to see long flat surfaces as gods, though I rather think the modern world would quickly collapse into barbarity without them. However, in the UK we have a revivalist body, the Campaign for Better Transport (better known as Transport 2000), which believes zealously in railways. I've noticed that as the religion of global warming gathers pace, the demonization of the car is beginning to cross the Atlantic. Xn4 20:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Some people might feel that NASCAR and other motorsport fans could be so described, but as for specific organized worship of roadways themselves, I doubt it. Also, be careful of describing anthropogenic climate change as "religion", lest you anger the all-mighty prophet: Al Gore, Inventor of the Internets...and because by so describing climate predictions backed up by numerous peer-reviewed studies and relying on this thing we call science you insult religion. Now then, I believe I was in the middle of selling you some carbon credits and beachfront property in Arizona. Interested? 38.112.225.84 23:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And Gore even got a Nobel Prize for his little film. Scientists the world over make this impressive report, for which they justly receive the Nobel Prize, and then he makes a flawed documentary about it and gets to share the stage with them. Worse even, the media put the spotlight on him as if the IPCC didn't matter. They're the ones who did all the work. DirkvdM 07:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's little hope of angering the mighty prophet Al Gore, but ever since climate predictions began they have always been backed up by any number of peer-reviewed studies. Oddly enough, we have no record of these climatologists ever getting it right. Our global cooling article reveals that temperatures were falling around the world from the 1940s to the 1970s, leading to predictions of a new ice age. Alas, like the equally inconvenient medieval warm period, that fails to help the current theories of global warming caused by industrial emissions. So perhaps there is an insult to religion in comparing it unjustly with climatology. Xn4 05:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What, you expect scientists in this difficult field to always get every detail right? The main prediction was that climate change would take place and that globally there would be warming. Which is exactly what has been happening for the last decades, the last decade even so severely that we need only a very limited number of measurements (we only get one per year) to have (as good as) certainty that the Earth is warming up. Statistically, that is quite impressive to say the least considering the chaotic system that's being researched. So it's happening at an incredible speed. And still you claim that the prediction has not come true? What planet are you from? DirkvdM 07:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I know it's shocking that science has self-correcting mechanisms and is subject to changes based on new technology and evidence, but there it is. Also, I fail to see how noting past variability in the paleoclimate record, accounting of course for sensitivity to both known and unknown events, automatically invalidates concern about current anthropegenic forcing caused by significant CO2 emissions. All the science is rarely ever "in" but the overwhelming consensus is that the globe is warming. It's undoubtedly true that the models do not have a perfect representation of the climate. All models are wrong, but some are useful. Existing models have reasonable skill in forecasting observables such as global temperatures over multidecadal timescales, when fed modern instrumental forcing data. If you don't buy all the predictions, fine, nothing wrong with a healthy dose of skepticism, but that skepticism should be tempered by a firm grasp of the relevant science and dismissing people's concern over disruptive and preventable change based on the 1970's "global cooling" strawman is asinine. However, this is not the place to discuss this, so I'll refrain. 38.112.225.84 15:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Los Angeles? --24.147.86.187 23:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we're addressing this in the wrong place, but the climatologists' change of tune (from predicting a new ice age to predicting cataclysmic global warming) isn't based on "self-correcting mechanisms... new technology and evidence", it's based on a real change of direction. Between the 1940s and the 1970s the world was getting cooler, and now it's getting warmer again. If the biggest factor in climate change is human CO2 emissions, then there are some mysteries still to be explained. Many of the scientists stress lack of certainty about the causes of global warming, and I gather there's a strong case for a lot more research into the historical variations in solar radiation. (Isn't it odd how heretical it is to say these things, nowadays?) Xn4 00:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest burning you at the stake for your heresy but the resulting pollution and particulates would conflict with my environmentalism...ah well, guess you're off the hook for now. A final point: I think there is often some conflation between what scientists are actually "saying" and what the media "reports"; driven as they are by sensationalism and being generally dismal in accurately reporting and covering current climate related issues. Disclaimer: I've never even seen An Inconvenient Truth and am too much of a progeny-less fatalist to be too invested in the issue. :) 38.112.225.84 14:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You're spot on with "...some conflation between what scientists are actually saying and what the media reports". What gets into the news is the spin of non-experts on the scientists' research, and not least the spin of politicians who see the thing in political terms. Xn4 22:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have seen it and was just irritated by exactly the sort of inaccuracy that you mention. That opens the road for criticism, which will make people mistrust the poor scientists who had nothing to do with it. DirkvdM 18:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't play the martyr and use argumentation instead. After all, this is science we're dealing with here.

Anthropogenic global warming is something that has been researched and affirmed by the vast majority of the world's scientific community - see IPCC's fourth assessment report, which also addresses the variation in solar radiation (it's a minor factor compared to CO2 and methane). Afaik there was never such an in-depth research into that ice age theory. The fact that there is a theory that may explain something doesn't mean the theory is correct - it has to be tested first. The global cooling is something that was observed and for which some possible explanations (theories) were suggested. Global warming is something that was predicted and then observed. Quite a different thing. This is a theoretician's wet dream - you predict something and hey presto it happens. It means you've got a very strong case. But it isn't proof yet. So after that, the biggest scientific collaboration ever was started, which led to four reports over 15 years. Can you point to anything anywhere near that having been done for the global cooling theory? DirkvdM 10:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing "ice age theory" with what you call "global cooling theory", Dirk. Global cooling is an undisputed part of the historical record. It was happening, most recently for about thirty years, and isn't happening now. It's a factor in understanding and explaining climate change. Xn4 21:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That goes against what the global cooling article says. It says it's a mere hypothesis (not a theory, sorry, I also used the wrong word) and that there was never any significant scientific support. Let me restate what you don't seem to get. That hypothesis was based on observations. Global warming was first predicted and then observed. Something very essentially different because it gave huge credibility to the theory. DirkvdM 09:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Alas, Dirk, our global cooling article has been infected by the search for clever formulas of words to conceal the truth. It might not matter much if only Wikipedia editors indulged in misleading us in such ways, but the IPCC does it too, and Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth takes the tendency to new heights (or depths), as confirmed by a recent judgement of Mr Justice Burton in the English High Court, which identifies nine significant errors in the film. As of today, the Wikipedia global cooling article says, "In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945." For "estimates", please read "measurements": we needed no "estimates" for the previous thirty years when we had reliable and comprehensive world-wide recorded measurements. The same article says a little later "By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s, the temperature trend had stopped going down..." Remarkable, isn't it, that this article can concede that "the temperature trend" had been "going down" (in fact, it had been doing so for some thirty years), and yet in the same sentence it can refer to "the idea of global cooling", rather than "the fact of global cooling"? There is a word for this kind of writing, but I'll let it hang in the air. Xn4 23:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone disagrees with you, including the largest collection of scientists that ever cooperated on a single subject, yet you are sure they are all wrong and you're right. Isn't there a word for that?

As for Gore's little film, see my comments above. "For 'estimates' read 'measurements'". Of course, what do you think the estimates were based on? And, sigh, once again, indeed, the measurements came first. It was an hypothesis. Global warming is a confirmed theory - the predictions preceded the measurements. This all-important distinction seems to be beyond your grasp.

And then you question the wording in a Wikipedia article. Try the real thing instead. I don't expect you to read the thousands of pages of the full IPCC report, but at least read the summary. Then come back again. Stop dabbling in pseudo-science. DirkvdM 08:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

To assume that those who disagree with you must, ipso facto, be ignorant, doesn't help you, Dirk. If you'll study the history of the world's climate (as well as the present climate change forecasts, which you're well informed on), you'll find that global cooling, as part of the cycle of climate change, is a fact and not an hypothesis. You'll also find that the period from the 1940s to the 1970s was a time of falling temperatures. We need to understand that, not go into denial about it. Do also read my previous post. Xn4 22:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

... disagree with the vast majority of the world's scientific community ... You can' read, can't you? DirkvdM 14:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

On this point the disagreement with the scientific community is yours. Your second remark will get no reply. Xn4 18:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be rude but this is disapointing. Keria 23:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Cargo cult is the closest thing to what you’re thinking of. --S.dedalus 00:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

We did wander spectacularly off the point of your question. Please forgive my asking, but is there a reason to believe there's a cult or religion that worships roads? Xn4 00:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It was more of a hunch than anything well thought out really. Seeing the amount of time some people spent on the road in their daily pilgrimages, how there is so much of a car cult, of having a car makes a lot of people feel good, how aggressive they can get when an alien approaches their praying vessel, how they sometimes approach a near-trans state at the wheel, the hypnotic zooming scenery of the highway mass and how all the commuters get united in their voyage all in the same direction, all this made me think of a religion and I was wondering if there might be some proper road aficionados who would have taken it to that next level. It also evoqued Will Self’s latest Book of Dave and one of his earlier short story about a drug-induced quasi-mystic experience at the wheel of a Volvo. It made me think of Botton’s aesthetic of the motorway service station (although I haven’t read it). So I wondered if there might be a cult, religion or philosophy of the road and motorway (which really doesn’t have to do with polluting since the road is only a flat surface and the pollution is very contingent, there might soon be tons of vehicles that don’t exhale CO2 or we could go back to the animal cart). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keria (talk • contribs) 14:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? 38.112.225.84 19:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you be satisfied with a patron saint/god of roads? —Tamfang 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I have your line of thought, Tamfang... are you onto the goddess Asphalta, a winner in the Create-a-Goddess competition at goddessgift.com ? Xn4 23:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Montrose's Highland War

Please account for the rapid success of the Marquis of Montrose in the Highland war of 1644 to 1645 and the ultimate reasons for his downfall.

Is it right to say, as some sources have, that Alisdair MacColla, Montrose's second in command, was a brave but stupid man? Was he negligent in failing to defend the passes into Kintyre in the campaign of 1647? Thanks. Donald Paterson 18:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Donald, Montrose had, at the core of his army, a regiment of professional Irish musketeers, superb soldiers brought to Scotland by Alasdair MacColla in the summer of 1644. Beyond that he had the support of the anti-Campbell clans, headed by the MacDonalds, who provided a source of continual recruitment of men who, while not subject to the discipline of regular soldiers, were long-practiced in the arts of war. To the east he also had the support of the royalist Gordon clan, who provided almost all of his cavalry. So, a hard core of trained troops, supplemented by tough and adaptable irregulars, both of horse and foot, made for a formidable combination. This was a time, moreover, when the Scottish army was in England, fully engaged in the Civil Wars as allies of Parliament. The forces raised to meet Montrose in the field were simply not adequate to the task: Lowland troops with little in the way of military training, hastily raised, and just as hastily destroyed, at Tippermuir and Aberdeen. The Scottish government responded slowly to the crisis, and though it brought troops back from England, they did not come in sufficient numbers and were given too many tasks, often divided in the face of the enemy. The mixture of regular forces and local levies also continued to be a serious weak spot, the occasion for further defeats at Inverlochy, Auldearn, Alford.

It might be said that the chief reason for Montrose's downfall was also the chief factor in his success: the reliance on irregular Highland clansmen, who concentrated and dispersed at will. The royal army was also fighting two wars at the same time: Montrose's war on behalf of the King, and the MacDonalds war against the Campbells. For a time the two elements came together; but after the battle of Kilsyth, and the occupation of Glasgow, they came apart, never to be welded together again. Montrose, with a greatly reduced force, pressed on towards the Borders, while MacColla and the clansmen returned to the hills. But there is another factor accounting for Montrose's final downfall, one that is not often given proper consideration: he was an intuitive rather than a disciplined commander; and when it came to the importance of military intelligence, his intuition was simply not enough. Often he simply did not know where the enemy was, which brought him close to disaster on several occasions. At Philiphaugh in September 1645 he was caught napping-literally-by a large force of Covenanter cavalry. The magic was gone. It would not return.

The myth that Alasdair MacColla was 'brave but dim'-and it is a myth-is largley the work of George Wishart, Montrose's pastor, who later compiled a memoir, De Rebus, celebrating the one and denigrating the other. MacColla was not perhaps a great commander, but he had proved himself in both Ireland and Scotland. He was skilled enough to lead his own lengthy campaign in the western Highlands from 1645 to 1647. In the end he failed because the force at his disposal was not strong enough to cover all eventualities. He was caught in an impossible position, having to defend the long Kintyre Peninsula against a threat from both land and sea. The passes into Kintyre were defended; they were simply not defended, nor could they be defended, in sufficient strength. Clio the Muse 22:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for such such a great answer, Clio the Muse. Are there some books that you could recommend on this? Sorry to be a nuisance. Donald Paterson 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Donald. Go for Montrose by E. Cowan, Highland Warrior: Alasdair MacColla and the Civil Wars by D. Stevenson and A Land Afflicted: Scotland and the Covenanter Wars by R. C. Paterson. All good stuff! Clio the Muse 02:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Purges

Heh, I really enjoyed the-lengthy-response to my question on life in Stalin's Russia, so i would like to get the ball rolling with another. What were the main factors determining the shape and progress of the Great Purge. and does the whole thing stand comparison with Mao's Cultural Revolution? Come on now, guys! Mr. Crook 19:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you writing a book? Bielle 20:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There is lots of useful information available in the two articles you linked to; all the answers you need will likely be found there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is an apt an interesting parallel between two sets of political events, seemingly so different, but aimed at at the same purpose; namely of eliminination of all obstacles on the path of supreme power. In the Purges the whole tone was set by the trial of Georgy Pyatakov, the former supporter of Trotsky and member of the Left Opposition, and the leading representative of what might be referred to as new forms of Soviet managerialism. It was this class, represented at all levels of the state apparatus, from local Soviets up to the Central Committiee, that was the object of Stalin's 'Cultural Revolution', as he, Vyacheslav Molotov and Nikolai Yezhov, head of the NKVD, hinted in speeches from February 1937 onwards. The theme was consistent: there were 'wreckers', unnamed and unspecified, who were to be found everywhere, in every branch of the economy and society, overlooked by complacent Communists. Most worrying of all, for the majority, compliant and conformist, was the suggestion that not all werckers were to be found among the ranks of the former Opposition.

Once on his feet Moloch began to feed, and to feed on the apparatus of the state itself; where 'enemies of the people' were discovered at all levels, and in all areas. The whole thing was quite subtle, in that the press campaign was essentially directed against a privileged elite, long a source of resentment among ordinary people, but one beyond criticism. Now they knew who the 'bullies' were, the people who had made their lives intolerable; now they could hate and be free in their expressions of hatred; against the old bosses, whose power had supported a lifestyle of dachas, banquets, cars, expensive clothes and luxury goods. There was no need for a Chinese-style Red Guard; the people themselves channeled all the hatred that was necessary against targets that were acceptable. The whole atmosphere of the times, known generally as 'the year 1937', even when it gave way to 1938, was anti-elitist, anti-specialist, anti-managerial, the very same things that were later to be features of Mao's Cultural Revolution. In October of the year '37 Stalin proposed a toast to the 'little people'; for "Leaders come and go, but the people remain. Only the people are eternal." But the people were only there as stage extras, to serve a greater purpose; and the purpose was Stalin's; and the purpose was Mao's. Political power comes not from the barrel of a gun; it comes from fear; it comes from hate. Clio the Muse 00:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

America and Americas

Would it be true to say that the United States has traditionally viewed the emergence of nationalism in Latin America as a threat to its own political and cultural dominance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLostPrince (talk • contribs) 20:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is certainly a defendable thesis. 38.112.225.84 22:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast... I think the U.S. certainly welcomed the independence movements of the early 19th century. The Monroe Doctrine, as later interpreted, seemed to say that Latin American independence from European powers allowed the U.S. to dominate Latin America. -- Mwalcoff 23:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a long standing tendency in the United States to equate its system of government as better, purer, more moral than almost any other. Nowhere is this more evident in the realationship to Latin America; nowhere more so that in the attitude towards Cuba. You see, the problem with Cuba is not so much that it is Communist, though that is bad enough, but that it 'broke ranks'; it developed a national alternative to the American model, casting off the suffocating blanket of the Monroe Doctrine. How else is one to explain the hostility, the prolonged and unreasonable embargo? How else is one to explain the resentment towards Cuba, a country with whom the United States has never been at war, and the friendship towards Vietnam, Communism and Conflict notwithstanding? It was all part of a process encapsulated in the words of Woodrow Wilson wnen he said in realtion to the US's most immediate Latin neighbouur "I will teach those Mexicans to elect good men."

The assumption of the Monroe doctrine was that America was the voice of, well, America; of the whole of the Western Hemisphere. Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and before then Juan Peron, were actors who had been historically miscast; on the wrong stage, playing the wrong parts. American policy was based on a failure to undersatnd that other people, other nations, may have a different set of priorities, a different set of values and a different set of aims. For Cuba, so long the subject of oppressive forms of imperialism, so long the plaything of the Platt amendment, the truly important thing is national self-worth, defined in distance from the United States. It is not Communism, a shabby and failed experiment, that has kept Castro afloat for so long; it is nationalism born of a deep-rooted sense of resentment; resentment against the arrogance and condescension of the northern neighbout.

At its worst this arrogance was most acutely expressed in the power of American mult-nationals, not just in Cuba but across the Continent, a power often greater than that of the national parliaments. The United States before and after 1945 freely criticised imperialism across the globe, while attempting to maintain its own suffocating hold on the Monroe Protectorate. Latin American nationalism, wherever it is found, and whither of the left or of the right, was almost bound to define itself in distance from the United States. Washington was simply unable to accept that resentment of its policies had local causes; it came rather, from 'outside forces'; first from Nazism and then from Communism, attempting an ideological breach of the Monroe Curtain. The fact that Argentina refused to break diplomatic relations with Germany in 1941, perfectly proper for a country determined to maintain both its independence and its neutrality, was not a sign of the vigour of its politics, of its rights to self-determination, but evidence that it was a Nazi satellite. Castro did not come on the stage as fully formed Communist, but as the leader of a peasant revolt against an unpopular and American and mafia sponsored dictator. Perceived as a tool of Communist conspiracy he became a tool of Communist conspiracy. He was placed beyond the limits of the legitimate. The problems will only end when the Americas, all of the Americas, find their own freedom in their own way. It cannot and should not be imported. Clio the Muse 01:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Monroe Curtain. Now why don't we have an article on that? DirkvdM 08:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Attendees of the Roman Colloseum

Did people in the Roman Colloseum do "The Wave"? Or, to put it another way, what is the history of the coordination of movement among thousands to create a kind of mass art or dance? Wrad 20:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Audience wave says it was invented in the 1980s. That said, the Colloseum is still standing, so presumably The Wave could be performed there. --Sean 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thumbs up or thumbs down; a sort of wave, I suppose! Clio the Muse 01:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that I've heard that it wasn't done like that. Can't remember what was done, but I remember thinking "how are people going to distinguish between those two signs at a large distance?". I suppose there will have been accompanying exclamations (like 'boo' or 'hurrah'), which were the clearest sign of the 'will of the people'. DirkvdM 09:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

According to QI it was simply the other way around.Thumbs down meant 'swords down', and thumbs up meant death. risk 14:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the crowd waved scarves for mercy. 207.38.231.19 00:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but you see, Dirk, only one thumb counted, and that could be clearly seen from the arena. Caligula once gave the thumbs down when the crowd gave the thumbs up. Clio the Muse 02:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but how could he know what the crowd was saying? DirkvdM 10:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

He could hardly avoid it! The imperial box stood towards the front of the arena, surrounded on all sides by the other specators, many of whom could be seen and all of whom could be heard. Clio the Muse 00:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my point. He could hear all, but only see part of them. And in the Colosseum (not surprisingly big, considering the name :) ) I imagine he could only see a small fraction of the people well enough for this. DirkvdM 09:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What came to be called the Colosseum began life as the Flavian Amphitheatre. It's believed the name Colosseum was given to a colossal statue of Nero which stood alongside, and that the statue then gave its name to the amphitheatre. Xn4 01:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Single parent

Hi there, I am a single parent with high school education, driving as a taxi cab driver and have two kids, 6 and 4 years old. I need to know what are monthly payments to the City of Toronto local government, provincial Government of Ontario and federal government of Canada? and what are the social programs that are provided by the City of Toronto local government, provincial Government of Ontario and federal Government of Canada for me and my children? Please I need the answers immediately that way I can support my children easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.54 (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You have asked this question at least twice before. Please go back and see my answer to it from yesterday. -- Mwalcoff 23:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have gone to the Ministry of Community and Social Services for the Province of Ontario's website. The contact information for the Toronto Region is:

Address

477 Mount Pleasant Road, 3rd floor

Toronto, Ontario M7A 1G1

Phone

Tel.: (416) 325-0500

If you call the main number, someone will be able to direct you to the proper places to find answers to your questions. We cannot do so here on Wikipedia Bielle 00:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Single parent

I am a single parent(widow-my wife died) from Bangladesh and I have a high school education, as you know my English is bad and I have two kids, one is 6 and other is 4. I need to know some things: what monthly payments to the local government of Toronto, government of Ontario and government to Canada and what are these social programs, i hear and who provides them? local government of Toronto, Ontario or Canada? what are these social programs name? Please, I need the answers now. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.54 (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition to all the other suggestions in the numerous forms of this question you have asked, there is also the Bangladeshi-Canadian Community Services group, located around Dawes Road and the Danforth in the east end. Their website is [8] and their telephone mumber is 416.699.4474. Someone there may have the information you need, or know how to access it, and they will also be able to help you with any language problems. Bielle 01:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter the Great

Did Peter the Great have any ambassadors to the court of King Louis 14th? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.54 (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I am not certain, it seems unlikely that Peter sent ambassadors to Louis XIV. The culture and conventions of diplomacy were not yet well established in Russia during Peter's reign. Peter's major diplomatic venture, the Grand Embassy of Peter I, purposely avoided France because of France's traditional alliance with the Ottoman Empire, Russia's foe. If I am wrong, I hope that I will be corrected. Marco polo 01:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not wrong! Besides embassies at this time, Russian embassies in particular, were usually appointed for a particular purpose, and in a peripatetic form. A permanent diplomatic presence was still something of a rarity. Clio the Muse 01:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

October 25

Fleetwood Mac Everywhere song

The fleetwood mac music video for their song everywhere is said to be based on a real life event, can somebody shed any light onto what this event was, thanks --Hadseys 00:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It was based on a poem, The Highwayman. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{Articles touched by my noodly appendage} 00:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Divorce in Protestant Christianity vs. The Christian Bible

I've been reading the Christian Bible over the last little while and was surprised by many things. One in particular I found striking.

As can be expected from all sacred texts, the Christian Bible has its share of ambiguity: What is the role of Gentiles vis-a-vis early Christian Jews? Who is ultimately responsible for Jesus' crucifixion? The Romans? The Jews? What about the Eucharist? Was the bread and wine REALLY Jesus' body and blood as some contend? Was it transformed in some sort of supernatural way as others do? Or as others believe, was it mere symbolism?

It's no surprise that the Bible abounds with endless ambiguity.

However one of the most unambiguous of positions taken by the Christian Bible is Jesus' position on divorce. In each Gospel, in clear and in no uncertain terms, Jesus firmly states that Divorce is a sin in that it (almost) inevitably culminates in what Jesus considers to be adultery; that is, marriage is the permanent bonding between husband and wife, and should they divorce and find other mates, their relationship with those other mates would be no less than the committing of adultery against the first.

What I don't understand, then, is how Protestantism managed to find a way around what would appear to be one of the clearest and least ambiguous of Jesus' teachings.

I'm hesitant to ask this other favour, but I must. I would greatly prefer to get a wide spectrum of opinion and conjecture as to the many possible answers to this question, and as such I would humbly request that Clio the Muse take a pass on this one, and leave this question for other editors to reflect upon. Serinmort 06:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark and Luke are unambiguous that any remarriage after divorce is adultery (Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18), but Matthew allows a little leeway on the grounds of cheating (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9), and I don't think there's any reference to divorce in John, so it's simply not true that divorce is unambiguously disallowed in each gospel. How protestants, or any other believers, rationalise the discrepancy is a matter for them, but I don't see it as a problem for any but the strictest literal fundamentalist. --Nicknack009 07:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I realize that the method of rationalizing anything is a matter for those doing the rationalizing. Still, all rationalizations have at least some surface logic to them. Even the most heinous of crimes are committed with at least the thinnest veneer of rationality. Take perhaps the worst of all, Nazism. Even the Nazis clothed their absurd racial philosophies with scientific pretense. Not to compare the two in the slightest, but the Protestant Reformation was certainly not without rationale, and when it comes to Divorce, I'm not really concerned with the validity/invalidity of that rationale, only the substance of it. It's true that Matthew allows a little leeway on the grounds of cheating, yet from what I understand of Protestant Divorce, cheating isn't a pre-requisite for Divorce. (I confess I haven't gotten to John yet...I suppose I was being a bit too presumptuous there :). Still, in the case of, say, domestic abuse, no Minister would deny a Protestant Divorce to a battered wife despite Mark, Luke and even Matthew. And if Divorce isn't mentioned at all in John, I can't see how anyone with the least bit of rationality could take that ommission and stretch it so far so as to say that the entire Bible now condones Divorce, despite the previous three Gospels.

I'm neither Protestant nor Catholic, and I'm not taking sides here. As I said, sacred texts like the Torah, the Christian Bible or the Koran abound with ambiguity. Yet having read a bit of all three, I'm hard pressed to find any teaching in any three of these texts to be as unambiguous as the Christian Bible's position on divorce. I don't know any Protestant Ministers personally, and so I've come here to see if any of you could tell me, based on actually experience or conjecture, just how a Protestant Minister would respond when asked why, according to his faith, and despite Biblical accounts of Jesus' condemnation of Divorce as a sin akin to adultery, Divorce just isn't any sort of sin at all, and no obstacle to being a good Christian. Serinmort 11:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a fascinating departure from the Jewish attitude to divorce - that is, it may be a (far from ideal) necessity for all sorts of reasons. I wasn't aware that Jesus had preached against divorce. Do any of the Gospels cite Jesus' rationale, explaining this difference? --Dweller 12:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Gospels don't seem to condemn divorce so much as remarriage, although that's a bit of an academic distinction as a divorce that doesn't allow you to remarry isn't really much of a divorce. I suspect the answer your looking for is that theology doesn't usually start with the Bible and work out a position from there, it more often takes a position and then tries to use the Bible to back it up - which it usually can, if it ignores the bits of the Bible that say the opposite. And a good thing too - allowing divorce, like not stoning disobedient children to death, is sensible and humane. My opinion on the protestant reformation is that it was less a theological dispute than a war of independence in disguise. Organised religion is always politics. For a lot of the Middle Ages the Catholic Church was pretty much the Roman Empire in drag, and countries that wanted to be politically independent seized on Luther et al as their excuse to break away. If the issue was sola scriptura rather than political autonomy, I don't think it would have been so bloody. In England, of course, the disguise was weaker than elsewhere, and the excuse was (to bring us back on topic) a divorce. --Nicknack009 17:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a divorce, heaven forfend, but an annulment! Here in Sweden (the eastern part of which is now Finland) it was more about money – the king wanted to get his hands on church property and tithes. Anyway, I looked this divorce matter up on the Church's website (Finnish Evangelical Lutheran) and it seems they don't really have much of a theological argument in favour of allowing divorce, they just accept it as a fact of life that divorces happen and try not to alienate their paying members by making any kind of fuss. Rather unimpressive, theologically. --Rallette

Perhaps theologically unimpressive, but as Nicknack pointed out, all things considered, it's a good thing for certain of the harshest of canon to be relaxed in order to be more humane. Still, I can't avoid imagining the gargantuan hypocrisy of a divorced and remarried Minister preaching about how gays are destined for hell, the Jews killed Jesus, and even going waaaaay back to Genesis and the story of Noah's son Ham, purported to be the ancestor of the "Black Race", who, because he accidentally saw his dad Noah drunk and naked, was punished by God and all his progeny to be a slave to his his brothers Shem and Japheth in perpetuity due to some comparatively cryptic language in Genesis 9:20-25. They've relaxed the rules against divorce, if only they'd prioritize and give the whole "Christ-Killer", "Gays destined for eternal damnation", and "Blacks punished by God to be slaves to Whites". Thankfully, fewer and fewer hold such astonishingly hypocritical beliefs, yet not too long ago it was quite the norm. (I realize I'm soapboxing here a bit so I'll stop). But that, in a sense, is the essense of my question. Even what I consider the most abomidable of abomidable institutions, the institution of Slavery, whereby one human being OWNS another was rationalized as being in keeping with the values of the Christian Bible. If they found a Biblical passage to rationalize Slavery, I have no doubt that there must be, at the very least, some token Biblical rationale more forgiving of Divorce.

I can't possibly imagine Luther or Calvin simply and without any further explanation just lifting the ban on Divorce "because they felt like it". After all, a key aspect of Protestantism was its emphasis on allowing the masses access to the Bible (by translating it into the vernacular), and removing the intermediary that is the Priest so that they can construct for themselves a more personal, more direct, more informed, and I would say more intellectual examination of their faith. The relaxing of the prohibition on Divorce just strikes me as the exact opposite of everything Protestantism stood for: Following the word of Jesus rather than those of the paternalistic Priests and the often corrupt Pope who would literally "sell" free passes to sin to the wealthier classes in the form of indulgences. I'll stop ranting now, except to say that waiving the prohibition of Divorce just seems to go against the grain of everything I know about the Protestant Reformation. Rather, I would have imagined the Catholics to be far more likely to reverse the prohibition through the simple issuance of a papal bull. Now with the Pope being infallible, (and, once again, often corrupt) and the flock never having even read the Bible in a language they can understand, I would have imagined that the whole thing would have gone over a great deal more easily within Catholicism.

But again, is anyone aware of ANY prominent (or for that matter even unknown) Minister who might have explained how his faith had led him to conclude that Divorce is OK? I appreciate the cynics among you, you've probably got it down better than any of the rest of us. I'm just hoping to get a non-cynical view from a sincere Protestant adherent, as I've no doubt that there are plenty sincere and intelligent people of faith among us. Serinmort 07:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Luther explains the restricted set of circumstances in which he would allow divorce in On the Estate of Marriage (see Part Two). I suppose it does amount to "lifting the ban," if you mean "ban" strictly as a total prohibition. But I think you would probably consider Luther's scriptural arguments for those exceptions more earnestly careful of scripture, and less casuistic, than the kind of arguments contemporary Protestants must use to justify a much more permissive attitude (a lazy Googling turned up this essay, which may serve as an example). It is true that many Protestants of Luther's age (say, William Tyndale, who expressed himself on the subject of Henry VIII's divorce) took a much stricter line and saw such dissolutions as Luther allowed as grave sins. After writing the preceding, I notice this article (cf. another article), which I think you will find very interesting. One point it emphasizes is the Protestant reclassification of marriage from the category of sacrament (this is the real break with Catholic doctrine, and it's not scripturally outrageous) to the category of an ordinance like other ordinances. This would seem to be the basis of Calvin's willingness to put adultery and desertion in the balance with divorce (there are historical monographs on marriage in Calvin's Geneva, if you need to know more: ISBN 067400521X [review], ISBN 0802848036). Surely Luther and Calvin are not even close to approving of divorced preachers. Wareh 02:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wareh! Now that's exactly what I was looking for!

And to Dweller: Though as Jews we may be noted for our tendency to be well educated and for excelling in so many other intellectual pursuits, one enormous exception tends to be our ignorance with regards to non-Jewish, and in particular Christian theology.

Though not based on Jewish Law proper, but rather upon the evolution of Jewish cultural norms as they developed in the Common Era, we seem to have developed a tendency to not only disagree with, or even reject Christianity from a theological standpoint, but to go so far as to shun it; a position I've always taken great issue with.

Certain Christian rituals and traditions which in no way violate any Jewish Law are often treated as if they were sacrelege; for example I wouldn't dare let my father see me "crossing myself" (Is that what it's called? When one reproduces the sign of the cross on one's body, lifting the hand to one's forehead, down to one's navel, and then too each shoulder?) he'd absolutely flip out, despite the fact that I would in no way be violating Jewish Law. I've even heard that there was a time when synagogues would frequently make use of pipe-organs and choirs, that is until it became a "Christian thing", and was therefore abandoned by Jews.

Unfortunately, though I reject it, a bit of my father's almost superstitious aversion to all things Christian has rubbed off on me, to the extent that I'd feel uncomfortable going out to a bookstore and buying a copy of the New Testament to proudly display on my bookshelf. Fortunately, however, I just recently came across a group of Gideons handing out little paperback Bibles and I seized on the opportunity to take one. Still, many friends and family members see it as rather odd for me to actually be interested in reading the thing.

Though Jewish and true to my faith, I've always been fascinated by Christianity, (and more recently, Islam as well) for purely intellectual reasons.

I'm doing some seriously rambling here, but to get to my point, most Jews seem to be seriously misinformed about what Christianity is all about. Dweller seems to be displaying the same misconception of Christianity as I always had; that is, that Christianity differs from Judaism little more than by the fact that Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah as prophesized in the Book of Isaiah whereas Jews do not.

In fact, as I've recently learned, it's far more than that. A great part of Jesus' teachings consists of a complete repudiation of Jewish Law. For example, I always simply thought that for some reason, Christians celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday, whereas Jews do on Saturday. I hadn't realized that Jesus indeed recognized Saturday as the Sabbath Day (Matthew 12:1-12, Mark 2:23-3:5, Luke 6:1-10, John 7:22-23), yet disagreed with supposed Jewish Laws concerning how it should be observed. I say supposed, because in the first three cases Jesus heals on the Sabbath, which for some reason was considered forbidden. This could not be a more innacurate representation of Jewish Law. From what I was always taught, it is not only permissible to break the Sabbath for health reasons, indeed it is commanded that a Jew enthusiastically break the Sabbath when serious health matters are concerned.

With regard to Jewish dietary law, though outlined quite clearly in Deuteronomy 14:3-21 that certain animals are forbidden for consumption, Matthew 15:11 is quite telling of the manner with which Jesus rejects Jewish Law: "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man." Hello bacon!

Sorry for the rambling. I'll shut up now. Serinmort 09:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicknack says it's not divorce that's the problem, it's remarriage. Why? I believe Christianity regards marriage as a sacrament, so wouldn't you want people to be back within that sacrament? Finally, does the Gospel aversion to remarriage apply equally to widows/widowers? --Dweller 10:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just commenting on what the passages from the gospels say - if you divorce and marry again, you're committing adultery, the implication being, if you divorce and stay single, that's okay. I have read that the very early (Roman) Christians were very keen on total celibacy, and that married people who converted were expected to abandon their marriages or at least the marriage bed.

Serinmort, as an atheist with a protestant Christian background, I think Christians are just as ignorant about Judaism. It seems to me that what Christianity repudiates is not Jewish law, but a caricature of Jewish law - as befits a religion that I think was probably originally a Greco-Roman cult based on exotic, and imperfectly understood, Judean material (like Mithraism was a Greco-Roman cult based on exotic Persian material), rather than an offshoot of Judaism per se. But that's probably soapbox territory. --Nicknack009 16:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on the soapbox comment. I'm sensitive to beliefs that differ from my own and as such I fear that some of my comments could potentially be rather insulting to certain Christians. If that is so I apologize. I'm not here to preach, just to discuss and learn. (Nicknack, let's be careful not to gang up on all those sincere and faithful Christians out there! No sarcasm intended.)

I'm just curious though, when you speak of Christianity repudiating a charicature of Jewish Law, are you speaking of contemporary Christianity and Judaism or the Christianity and Judaism that Jesus was purported by the Bible to have respectively preached and repudiated? Serinmort 17:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Both, really. The example you quote of healing on the Sabbath, for one. For the other, the churches I attended as a youth preached that, under Jewish law (the Old Covenant), the only way to be saved was to obey every rule in the Bible to the letter with no slip-ups, which God only told us to do to show it couldn't be done, thus demonstrating the need for Jesus's redeeming sacrifice. --Nicknack009 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well there's certainly no ambiguity about the fact that pork is indeed unkosher, and that Matthew 15:11 is a repudiation of a bona fide Jewish Law, not a charicaturization. But that tends to be one of the few exceptions to the rule. For the most part, you're absolutely correct. In fact I was completely unaware (ignorant?) of the particular Christian teaching concerning Judaism you brought up; the teaching that according to Judaism, humanity's inevitable fallibility unavoidably leads to its inevitable damnation. As a Jew I find that notion not only untrue, but extremely foreign as well. The Christian concepts of damnation and hell simply don't even exist in Judaism. On the contrary, all of humanity inevitably ends up in Olam Haba, the Jewish variant of "heaven" or "paradise".

Rabbinical scholars contend that upon death, the soul of every human spends a period of time in what is known as Gehinom, very roughly comparable to the Christian notion of purgatory, for a period no greater than one year, to answer for one's sins during one's lifetime. The more righteous the person lived his/her life, the shorter the period. Gehinom should not be confused with the Christian concept of Hell. It is not a place of suffering and torture; rather, more like a court for one to answer for the life s/he led.

According to our teaching, Jews are actually given a rougher time and held to a far higher standard of righteousness. Far less is required of Gentiles, or more appropriately "Noachides". While Jews are required to abide by 613 rules, Noachides are only held to the Seven Laws of Noah. Indeed, Christians are highly regarded for their monotheistic beliefs, and enter "Heaven" as Righteous Gentiles.

I'm nonetheless very conscious of the condescension and even insult a Gentile must experience upon basically being told: "Don't worry, since you're not Jewish, far less is expected of you. You'll get into heaven in no time. Us Jews though, we'll have a much rougher time because so much more is expected of us."

I know I'd feel incredibly demeaned to hear that. So much so that perhaps I'd grow to hate those "elitist snobs" who apparently don't believe I'm capable of living up to their standards. I recognize the hurt this can inflict on one's self-esteem, despite whatever guarantee of heaven I might get in return. "They can take their heaven and go fuck themselves. I'd rather be a first-class citizen of Hell than a second-class citizen of Heaven." It's a dilemma my conscience has struggled with a great deal. Serinmort 00:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I sort of know what you mean about feeling demeaned - I have a friend who's a catholic who gets quite upset that her protestant friends think she's going to hell - but my attitude is, if someone's religious beliefs make them believe strange things about what's going to happen to me when I die, that's their own problem and I'm not going to worry about it. As for your dilemma bout being "a first class citizen of Hell than a second-class citizen of Heaven", that reminds me of a thought that occurred to me while I was still (just about) a Christian. If to make us fallible and then condemn us to eternal torment by default for our fallibility is, as it appears, unjust, and an important part of Jesus' message is passive resistance to shame the oppressor ("turn the other cheek"), then if I believe in the afterlife set-up proposed and want to follow Jesus' teaching and example, then I must enter hell willingly. In the end, though, I concluded that Christianity, or certainly the brand of Christianity I was attempting to follow, put so many arbitrary constraints on a supposedly all-powerful and all-benevolent god's ability to forgive that it was nonsensical, and eventually came to the conclusions about the origins of Christianity that I mentioned above. --Nicknack009 09:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a fascinating exchange we're having here. Unfortunately I'm having a lot of difficulty trying to understand your last post. Could you perhaps "dumb it down" a notch for this ignorant Jew to understand? :) I'm genuinely interested in what you're trying to say, I just can't follow it the way you phrased it. Serinmort 12:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Liberals versus Tories

Was the political struggle over the Third Reform Act in 1884 a foretaste of of later battles between the Liberals in the Commons and the Tories in the Lords? 217.42.103.165 07:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly was! Joseph Chamberlain, the great Birmingham radical, described the Lords' intransigence over the extension of the franchise in the Reform Bill as 'the Peers versus the People.' With the possibility of a dissolution of parliament, and a huge demonstration in Hyde Park in July, organised by the Liberal radicals, it was the political harbinger of the much more famous battle in 1910 over the People's Budget. But under pressure from Queen Victoria, amongst others, Lord Salisbury, the Tory leader, decided to reach a compromise with the government of William Ewart Gladstone, allowing the bill to pass, along with the Redistribution of Seats Act, which addressed some of his concerns over electoral bias. The extension of the franchise was a significant step in the democritisation of England, which meant that the question of the power invested in the unelected House of Lords would one day have to be addressed and settled. Clio the Muse 02:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Bess Meyerson

How about a page on this fascinating woman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.113.54 (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you perhaps thinking of Bess Myerson? If you're thinking of someone else, you can request the article at Wikipedia:Requested articles. - BanyanTree 11:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have added a redirect from Bess Meyerson, since the spelling of her last name is a little unusual. --Sean 13:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Black heads of state

Excluding hereditary monarchs and tribal leaders, who was the first black head of state? 80.254.147.52 10:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "black", "state" and "head of state"? By excluding hereditary monarchs and tribal leaders, are you limiting yourself to modern nation states? Does the person have to be elected?

Would you count someone like the Roman emperor Septimius Severus? Or Alara of Nubia (the first king in his dynasty and hence - one assumes - did not inherit the throne)? Or Toussaint Louverture? -- !! ?? 11:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Toussaint Louverture is the closest of those three to what I meant, yes - modern nation-state, and not ruled by a monarch. I am aware that the Caesars were "hereditary" only in a rather tenuous sense, but I wouldn't really consider berbers to be black anyway, so I don't think Septimius Severus cuts it. Since you raised the issue, yes - let's define it as an elected leader. 80.254.147.52 11:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Having been born in Africa doesn't necessarily make you black, any more than having the name of Scipio Africanus does. See Race and ancient Egypt. Corvus cornix 21:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, define "black". Septimius Severus is generally considered to have at least some Berber ancestry (our article says that he "came from a distinguished and wealthy local berber family"), but that may not be sufficiently "black" for you, I suppose. I guess there is no guarantee that a King of Nubia is "black" too (or, indeed, that at least one Pharaohs is not black, for some value of "black"). Shrug. -- !! ?? 23:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Joseph Jenkins Roberts was elected President of Liberia in 1847. --Sean 13:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If Norman Schwarzkopf became U.S. President, would he be called the "Blackhead of State"? :) -- JackofOz 00:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

taxes for international travelers

If you live more than 183 days in one place, you pay taxes there, but where do you pay taxes if you live about 120 days in three different countries?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.233.33 (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been asked before (see above). The rules for tax residence differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction - some tax their citizens, whether they are resident or not; some may continue to consider you to be resident, even if you only visit foe 120 days; some may tax you pro rata, or only on income earned during your visits. See also tax exile and perpetual traveler; the cruise ship The World is an example of a way of trying to avoid being resident anywhere in particular. -- !! ?? 10:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

pentecostal

its sort of a riddle,an ancient expression with pentecostal origin.what is it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.202.195.74 (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Happy Shavuot? Really, I think you'll need to give us a bit more information. --Dweller 12:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Lloyd George Protest

Today Prince Charles will unveil a new statue in front of the Houses of Parliament of David Lloyd George, a former British prime minister and war leader. The Daily Mail, in reporting this, says that the honour has been condemned by some left wing pundits and anti war campaigners, including Harold Pinter and John Pilger, who intend to protest at the event, because Lloyd George talked of of "reserving the right to bomb niggers". While he was still prime minister britain bombed insurgents in Iraq and other such places. Did he use those words and is the protest then justified? Qurious Cat 11:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, man, I'm sorry for posting this twice, but you've got a SERIOUS problem. For a start its really, really slow and each time I got an error message. It was only when I checked did I see that that my question had appeared. I see from the above that others are having the same problem. What's wrong? Qurious Cat 11:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the double posts. You're right, editing Wikipedia is terribly slow these last few days. I once even lost an edit, so I advise you write in a text editor or something first and then copy that here, in case something goes wrong. And then when you get an error message or it's terribly slow, open the page in a new window (top left of the page) and you might see your edit has already come through. If you want to help prevent this, you might give a donation. The conspirationist part of my brain even suspect that it's done deliberately to give people an incentive to donate. :) DirkvdM 11:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You can also simply right-click and copy your edit to your clipboard as I always do. Just in case something goes wrong, all you have to do is refresh the browser, right-click again and paste. Dirk's just being overly European about the whole thing with his complicated method. It may be less efficient, but then again, if it wasn't for people like him, the text editor he's speaking of would be without work and unemployed. :-) Serinmort 12:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I always have an editor window open for the various things I am working on, sort of like a Wikipedia sandbox. Concerning efficiency, in the Netherlands it is standard to work 32 hours per week. In the US that's about 50% more (58 hours per week - is that about correct?). But the GDP per capita is in the US only about 12% higher. So now who's less efficient? DirkvdM 10:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried googling that? I don't know about the reliability of those sources, but there are 20 hits. There's one link to Wikiquote talk page, where there is a short discussion on this. And David Lloyd George#Later political career (1922-1945) also mentions it. It appears to be genuine. DirkvdM 11:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It was 1934, for goodness sake! As the man said, the past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.

According to nigger, In the United Kingdom, "nigger" is now established as a derogatory and often "criminal" word, but as recently as the 1950s it was widely regarded as acceptable in Britain for black people to be referred to as niggers. Modern sensitivities about racism and policital correctness in thought and word and deed were some way off in the 1930s - I dare say that you will find an awful lot of people using the "n-word" in those days, if you look hard enough. And are we sure he said "nigger" and not "negro"? -- !! ?? 12:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely the problem is not George's use of the word 'nigger' for the subject peoples of the British Empire but rather his insistence on Britain's to indiscriminately slaughter those peoples if it found it expedient? This was, after all, back in the days when deliberate targetting of civilians was widely considered an outrage. Algebraist 13:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would make the same point: that was then; this is now. The protest about the statue is motivated by the current British government's overseas entanglements, and has little to do with Lloyd George (the only Welshman to become British Prime Minister; Prime Minister at the end of the First World War; proponent of the People's Budget). Heaven knows, he was no saint - as the affair of Maundy Gregory shows; but then there are statues to all sorts of dubious figures in London - perhaps a better place to start would be Bomber Harris. -- !! ?? 14:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the letter from Pinter and Pilger in the Daily Telegraph. Lloyd George does not happen to be one of my political heroes, but I felt moved enough, had I been in London, to have trotted along to Westminster to pay my respects to the old goat! The protest is ridiculous, a way of reappraising the past in the light of contemporary concerns. If we are to vet our statesmen for the things they said during their lives and times, then take down every statue in London, every statue in Washington, every statue across the world, to be replaced by-what else?-momuments to Pinter and Pilger! Lloyd George was one of the most significant figures in British history, the founder, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the Welfare State, including, for the first time, provision for the elderly in the form of old-age pensions. Himself at one time an anti-war protestor, he went on to be a superlative Minister of Munitions and an inspiring Prime Minister during the Great War.

As for the remark in question, I wonder if the two Ps have even bothered to consider the context, or, indeed, the meaning and significance of the phrase in question. It was recorded in 1934 in the diary of Frances Stevenson, his second wife, the only source we have for these words. Lloyd George, of course, had been out of power for twelve yeras, and not in a position to bomb 'niggers', or anyone else for that matter. It has been taken by some, clearly those with less subtle intellects than Pinter and Pilger, to be an ironic reflection on the stand of the British government during the disarmament talks sponsored by the League of Nations in 1932. The German delegates had called for an end of aerial bombardment during conflicts, but Britain argued that this option should be retained. I personally welcome the Welshman to the pantheon, and will go along to give him a passing nod this weekend! Clio the Muse 01:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

On the British bombing of Iraq in the 1920s, I seem to remember that one target was Kurdish rebels who were out for independence, and Winston Churchill, the Colonial Secretary at the time, was the most gung-ho member of the British cabinet. He made an infamous remark supporting the use of poison gas against "uncivilized tribes" which was far more extreme than anything Lloyd George said. So if LG is to be pulled down, Churchill should go first.

On nigger, I know one or two old people (white people, that is) in the UK who still use it without any self-consciousness, but they are over eighty. I've also heard much younger black people using it. The title of Agatha Christie's book Ten Little Niggers (UK title) wasn't changed in the UK until 1985. When I was a child, I learnt the jingle from other children Eenie, meenie, minie, mo, catch a nigger by his toe, if he hollers, let him go, eenie, meenie, minie, mo, and remember not knowing at the time that nigger was supposed to be a bad word, except that if you used it around grown ups, some of them disapproved of it. I haven't heard that jingle for a few years, I suppose it's died out, now. Anyway, I support the point that one really mustn't moralize about people's use of words in a different age. The world moves on. Xn4 01:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The "catch a tiger" substitute (mentioned at Eeny, meeny, miny, moe) is still common in the U.S. It's the only version I heard growing up in the American South in the 1970's and 1980's; I only learned what it replaced through a more or less adult conversation like this one. Wareh 13:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I always heard it as 'catch a tinker' and 'if it squeals' not hollers. But then I suppose that is offensive to either Irish Travellers or travelling salesman. And the tigers one is clearly incitement to animal cruelty. Although I'd like to see someone try catching a tiger by the toe (perhaps a travelling insurance salesman?). On the original question, I understand there are people who get offended by everything, but to read Pilger et al's letter made me laugh (bombed Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, coincidence they chose to highlight those three?). Anyway I could rant on all day. Cyta 15:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Czar Nicholas in London

I hear Czar Nichlas I visit London in 1844. What is known of visit and purpose? S S Septimus 13:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Following the signing of the London Straits Convention, Nicholas visited Vienna and Berlin in 1841 and London in 1844 to persuade those governments that "the downfall of Turkey was imminent" telling the British Government "In my Cabinet there are two opinions about Turkey: one is that she is dying; the other is that she is already dead". See [9], ultimately these events led to the Crimean War, see also [10]. Foxhill 23:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

An interesting and largely forgotten story, a pity, really, for Queen Victoria made some remarkably insightful observations about Nicholas in correspondence with her uncle, Leopold, King of the Belgians.

Anyway, the whole thing came about in a fashion unique to Nicholas. He governed Russia in the manner of a military command, whose subordinates had always to be on the alert for the sudden appearance of the commander-in-chief. He saw no reason why he should not conduct state visits in the same precipitate style. He was also motivated, in part, by fear of assassination, a prospect that had haunted him ever since the suppression of the Polish uprising in 1831. On a visit to Prussia in 1834 he even wrote to his son and heir, the Grand Duke Alexander, with a testament full of advice on how to govern Russia in the event of his death. He was less apprehensive in 1844 though all those connected with the visit, apart from Victoria, her chief ministers, and the Russian ambassador, were only told to expect a 'Count Orlov'.

The said 'Count' arrive at Woolich on 1 June, with the minimum possible notice. Accompanied by Prince Albert and Robert Peel, the Prime Minister, he visited Viotoria and Buckingham Palace and then at Windsor. Victoria later recorded her impressions in a letter to Leopold;

He is certainly a very striking man; his profile is beautiful, and his manners most dignified and graceful; extremly civil-quite alarmingly so, as he is full of attentions and politeness. Bur the expression in his eyes is formidable, and unlike anything I ever saw before. He gives me and Albert the impression of a man who is not happy, and on whom the weight of his immense power and position weighs heavily and painfully; he seldom smiles, and when he does his expression is not a happy one.

The visit itself, of just over a week, was largely trouble-free, though there was a small demonstration at Ascot, where he attended the races with the Queen, when leaflets were handed out among the crowds, describing him as a greater tyrant than either Caligula or Nero. Victoria was in continual anxiety that anti-Russian feeling would lead to an assassination attempt. However, the only incident of any note was when a Polish emigre who tried to bribe a footman to allow him entry to Windsor Castle when the Tsar was in residence. Generally, the Nicholas left a good impression among the people invited to the functions he attended. After he left on 9 June Victoria recorded her final impressions;

He is stern amd severe, with fixed principles of duty which nothing on earth will make him change; very clever I do not think him and his mind is an uncivilized one; his education has been neglected; politics and military concerns are the only things he takes great interest in; the arts and all softer occupatiosn he is insensible to, but he is sincere, I am certain, sincere even in his most despotic acts, from a sense that that is the only way to govern.

As Foxhill says, the chief, indeed, the only purpse of the visit, was political; even the socialising was political. Nicholas hoped to establish a firm understanding with the British on the Eastern question, the issues arising from the continuing decay of the moribund Ottoman Empire. There was some basis for his optimism: both powers were concerned by the ambitions of the French July Monarchy, particularly in relation to Egypt. At Windsor Nicholas had openly said "I highly prize England; but for the French choose to say about me, I care not at all-I spit upon it." But in the end the visit only deepened mutual misunderstandings: Nicholas thought that he had obtained the friendship of Victoria and agreement with her government; for the British it had only been an 'exchange of views' on matters of mutual interest, from which no firm bond had emerged. Much suspicion of Russian motives still remained. Clio the Muse 00:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Deja vu dreams?

This should possibly be at the Science desk, but I find Humanities always garners more numerous and interesting responses, so here goes: what's the term for those dreams you get where you picture a scene, then days/weeks/months later you experience the exact scene as in your dream (often accompanied by the immediate realisation that you've dreamt the exact scene before)? More importantly, what causes them and have they been studied in any great detail? What does it imply about the nature of time? Zunaid©® 13:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually tried to study this. I'd dream of a situation weeks before hand, then I find myself reliving it and I actually be able to know what was going to happen next; only a few seconds then my prediction would go wrong - like I'd seen some sort of alternate situation that was close to the one I was in but the outcome would be different. Anyway, I recorded these occurrences over a few months and tried to see if there was a pattern (correlation between moon phases, temperature, weather etc), but there was none. I think they still call it Deja vu (french for already seen), just over a longer period of time. Think outside the box 14:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Recurring dream --Dweller 15:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not a recurring dream, this is many different, unconnected dreams that later actually happen in reality. Think outside the box 15:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not a recurring dream. Its a bit eerie, like a fore-telling almost. Hmmm, I can't recall having deja vu's that deviated from the dream, they seem to be pretty exact in my case. They are generally about very mundane things e.g. I once dreamt of a driving past a roadside scene with trees along one side and a signpost and farmstall on the side of the road. Months later we went on holiday and we drove along a stretch of road with exactly the scene I had pictured. I seem to have abstracted it one layer further though: sometimes in the dream itself the dream-me realises that he's seen this scene before, then when I relive it for real, I not only realise that I've seen this before, but I realise that I realised that I had seen this before. Weird. I haven't had such dreams in a couple of years now, I wonder if it goes away after a few years or a certain age? There must surely be research out there, and probably a good few theories too. Anyone else experienced this? Can we push to win the refdesk thread of the week award? :P Zunaid©® 15:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought I was unusual for having these. I guess Tyler Durden was right and I'm not a snowflake... Dismas|^(talk) 10:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me try a somewhat scientific (statistical) approach nevertheless. After you've had a dream, how many situations do you find yourself in over the next few months (say 100 days)? Depends on what you call a situation, but let's say 10,000 (100 situations per day). Now how many dreams have you had in your life? Let's say 1 per day over 30 years. (Notice I'm using very conservative estimates.) That would be 10,000. So there are 100 million possible dream/situation combinations. Now comes the tricky bit. How many possible situations are there? Again, it depends on what you call a situation, but if there are less than 100 million then pure coincidence is a sufficient explanation (assuming this happened to you once). If there are more, it could still be coincidence, but the chances decrease as the number rises. Let's say there are 10 billion possible situations, then the chances are 1%. Small, but still possible. You need to come with something better than that to support any new theory about the nature of time.

Of course, there are many more situations of the magnitude of driving past trees, a farmstall and a signpost (how many of those are there?), but that means you have to adapt the numbers on both sides of the equation, so the result is still the same. And you say it happened more than once, so you need to adapt for that too. But I just wanted to hand you the basic reasoning. Working the actual numbers here is impossible because they are not available. Which is why you can't draw any conclusions. (Conclusions based on lack of knowledge would bring you dangerously close to religion.)

For a more everyday illustration, long time ago, when my father bought a new car I noticed there were lots of those cars around. They appeared to have come out of nowhere. Of course they had 'always' been there, but there was no reason for me to notice them (very un-boyish, I was not 'into' cars at all).

But maybe a better approach is this: you see what you expect to see. That's how your mind works. This is needed for everyday 'survival' - if you fully analyse everything then you won't get anything done. So your mind makes shortcuts. So if two things are sufficiently similar then you (for the moment) assume they are the same. And a remembrance of a dream is a vague recollection at best, so it's easy to make links when you're open to the possibility.

I'm not saying that there is nothing out of the ordinary at work here. It's just that when I can explain it with something ordinary, then that makes more sense. DirkvdM 11:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I realize that it's not something that seems normal to everyone and that the more scientific among us will try to find a scientific explanation including figuring out rough statistical odds. But when I have these dreams, the reoccurence in real life includes the exact dialogue of the dream, hand movements, people's reactions, etc. They aren't simply everyday things. Dismas|^(talk) 11:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What Dismas said. It's not about statistical odds or human beings trying to make a vague recollection fit into a pattern (as we are wont to do). It is EXACT, even the deja vu-within-deja vu that I get is exactly as it occurred in the dream. That roadside farmstall scene was exact to the last detail. Dusty gravel along the sides, a stand of trees on the right (not e.g. a row of trees along the road), the farmstall, the sign, everything...and so too have been the other dreams (which for the life of me I can't recall now, years later. I should have kept a journal). I've spoken to quite a few different people and they have these same dreams, so it doesn't seem like a rare phenomenon. Zunaid©® 12:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

INFO: Googling for "deja vu dreams" brings up this page which briefly mentions the phenomenon and calls it precognitive dreams, and apparently between 18 and 38% of people have had them. Googling for "precognitive dreams" brings up a WHOLE lot more. Have to go, I'll catch up with this on Monday. Zunaid©® 12:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You would certainly get less interesting answers on the science desk. Your dreams say nothing about the nature of time, but they say plenty about the nature of the human mind. Precognition is impossible (don't say that nothing is impossible, because then it is possible that some things are impossible), so whatever is happening as regards your dreams, it isn't that you're seeing into the future. If we reject the mystical explanation, what's left is psychology and biology and philosophy.

A human thought, or dream, is the most ephemeral and insubstantial thing in the universe, and the universe is made of nothing but human thoughts and dreams. I half remember a story where someone asked the wise old man when the universe will end, and he answered "When I die." We half remember everything, but especially dreams. It's not surprising that the hints and images and latent suggestions in our dreams conform to our waking reality, because our waking reality is a dream (that's an epistomological statement, not a mystical one) and our lives are a half-remembered dream. The box we think within is our skull, and there's no getting outside it.

"Deja vu dream" is an appropriate name, because the same force is at work in both. We extrapolate, we fill in the gaps. We see what we want to see, and only what we want to see, because we can't see anything else. We impose order on the chaotic world, bravely, futilely. We believe what we know, and our delusions are our certainties. --Milkbreath 12:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A problem with taking this to the science desk is that hard proof that such dreams exist is hard to come by. In order to prove it, a person must have a dream, write it down in detail, ensure everyone else reads what they wrote, and then wait to see if what they wrote actually happens, and then convince everyone that what happened would have happened even if they weren't waiting for it to happen. I unwittingly did something similar. Shortly after High School, Danzig released their first album. I was listening to it with a friend. That night, I had a dream about visiting a record store I've never seen with some guy I've never seen. I flipped through the CDs and found a Danzig CD, "Lucifuge" and asked the guy I didn't know if he'd listened to it. The next day, I detailed the dream to my friend and he said I was being stupid. Danzig only has one CD and it isn't named Lucifuge. A few years later, after joining the Marines, I was in a record store in Los Angeles with another Marine that I knew and I flipped through the CDs and found "Lucifuge". I asked him if he'd listened to it and suddenly remembered the previous dream. I called my friend to ask if he remembered me telling him about it and he said that he didn't remember me every mentioning anything about a dream about a Danzig CD. Now, when I relate this to someone, there is no proof of the dream. I could just be making the whole thing up. So, you can see that you must document the dreams in detail in such a way that others are certain that you wrote down the dream before the event happened. Then, with proof, there may be interest in scientific study. My opinion... we have dreams in which we relive an event from our past. Why not have dreams in which we relive an even from our future? Time is basically the same in both directions. So, don't be bothered by dreams about the future. Be worried when they stop - because it may mean that there's no future to dream about. -- kainaw™ 13:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! You guys are like the "precogs" from Minority Report (film). All I have to say is, you better hope the U.S. Government isn't reading this, or you'll soon find yourself kidnapped and hooked up to elaborate machinery, being used to predict future terrorist attacks. Be careful. 38.112.225.84 14:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I already am on file with the government for several reasons (no, none of them are nefarious) so I don't really care much anymore about what they investigate. "It's not paranoia if you know they're watching". Dismas|^(talk) 16:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Kainaw, that's exactly the kind of thing I'm thinking of. It seems so mundane at the time yet when it happens it is exact to the last detail. p.s. I've already dreamt of my death, twice. The one is unlikely as I was in a platform game ;) but the other is a distinct possibility. It gives me the chills because it seems plausible and seemed very "real" in my dream. But I have had dreams after that one, just not recently. Anyway, home time :) catch up on Monday (unless I get shot while hiking). Zunaid©® 14:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This happens to me often in conversation - I'll be with a group of people and then realise I've dreamed this before. I can never speak, always just know what people will say before they say it. I tried writing my dreams down and it succeeded once. I dreamt I was walking back to the dressing room after a Gaelic football match, and my friend say "What did you think of my contribution?" and I said "yeah, very good". I wrote this down. About 2 weeks later, this friend turned up ages late to a game and only played about 2 minutes at the end. As we walked back to the dressing rooms I gradually tuned into the fact that I'd heard this conversation, and that my friend's next line was ... the breath caught in my throat and he said "What did you think of my contribution?" and I gulped "yeah, very good". All true. EamonnPKeane 15:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the monks

What happened to the monks and nuns after Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.15.240 (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most of the institutions dissolved by Henry had less than a dozen monks or nuns in residence. Even the largest had barely fifty. In 1536, when the Dissolution began, there were only 12,000 monks and nuns in all, a population that had been in rapid decline for some time. Henry, contrary to popular perceptions, was not completely oblivious to public opinion. He knew the measure would be unpopular and took steps to appease hs critics. It is true that most clerical land went to the government, but a proportion was handed over to the Court of Augmentation. The income generated was used to fund schools and colleges, thus taking up the educational function once practiced by the religious houses. It also paid pensions to the evicted monks and nuns, at such a rate as to enable them to live a modest rural lifestyle. Only a few monks opposed closure to such a degree that violence had to be used against them. Most accepted the pensions and lived their lives out in peace. One abbot in Shropshire even bought his old monastic lands, declared himself a Protestant, beginning to live as the local squire! Clio the Muse 23:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As a small illustration of Clio's comments, I've done some work on the Augustinian priory at Beeston Regis, Norfolk. The last Prior, Richard Hudson, and his four canons all subscribed to the Act of Supremacy 1534 and were granted pensions. Hudson himself became Rector of Newton Flotman. Xn4 00:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Truckle/trundle bed (history of)

Dictionary.com's "word of the day" on 10/12/07 was truckle. Within the explanation of its origin, it was stated that a trundle bed was the smaller bed of the pupil, stored under that of the master's. Is this related to the practice of having a boy sleep in the locked room of a single man to serve as watch-dog? I remember seeing in the film version of The Decameron such a situation. Also, wasn't there a murder of a political figure in the Middle Ages that was witnessed by the boy unbeknownst to the assassin? Was this a practice in Scotland during the time of MacBeth? LShecut2nd 14:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a quote in the diary of Samuel Pepys' diary from the 1st May 1662 - "To bed all alone, and my Will in the truckle bed" - which supports that having a boy Valet sleep on a truckle bed was common in the 17th Century. (Will Hewer is the servant Samuel mentions in the extract by the way).

The earliest known use of the word "Truckle Bed" (according to the OED) comes from the statute of Magdalen College, Oxford which also agrees with your point of a pupil sleeping in the same room as a master in a smaller, lower bed.

As regard to the murder and Macbeth I don't know. But there is a line on a trunkle bed in Shakespeare: "There's his Chamber, his House, his Castle, his standing-bed and truckle-bed" (Merry Wives of Windsor IV.V.6) Lord Foppington 16:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

searching for article describing neocon 'plot' to affect a permanent Republican Presidency and Congress

Somewhere I read this article, but I've been unable to find it again. It was attributed to the American Enterprise Institute and to notable members of that organization, i.e William Kristal, Paul Wolfowitz and others. I have scanned my file of New Yorker essays, which I thought might have been the source, looked at the AEI website to see if any of their publications sounded familiar, and reviewed "Truthout" publications. Can anyone point me in another direction, or find the article? It wasn't long, just a couple of pages, if I remember correctly, and I believe I saw it within the past year.86.207.184.103 14:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's Karl Rove's dream of a "permanent Republican majority" if that's what you're referring to. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the idea but if you Google it you can find a large number of references. --24.147.86.187 15:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I assume you mean 'effect' instead of 'affect'. The latter would imply there already is such a thing. DirkvdM 11:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you looking for the Project for a New American Century? Aecis^Brievenbus 11:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The progress of "economics."

Recently the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize in Economics were announced. With due respect to the winners, my response was apathy. What difference has all the economic theories since Adam Smith really amounted to? Is the problem that the "science" is not really a science? Or, perhaps, the human factor is not a constant. We in the U.S. have been living under the "trickle down" idea where the rich are made richer so that the people beneath them will benefit. It has been more like "piss on" than trickle down. People who have played by the rules often end up in poverty, even though they have been college-educated and worked hard.Is the problem that governments follow only those economic ideas of a select few who have only their own interests in mind? "Economics" originates from "house-keeping." Yet, there were high-level economists who, a decade ago, argued that national debt was a good thing. Citizens have gone into debt in order to buy houses and cars. Is debt good for the nation but bad for the individual? Why is third-year algebra taught in high school but nary a course in personal finance? Gore Vidal once suggested that those in control want to keep the educational system right where it is, in order to easily manipulate those who have been educated enough to be good workers, but not so much as to be good thinkers. Forgive me for my rambling, but one thought led to another. I have to ask these questions,because I was educated in the Arts and Sciences, yet am unable to fathom what I see happening. LShecut2nd 15:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no answers to your questions, but you may find some meagre comfort in the fact that it's not really a proper Nobel Prize.--Rallette 18:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not referred to as "the miserable science" for nothing. Economics does lend itself to absurdity. My favorite is when Carter proposed the entirely rational policy of a gas tax that would be entirely refunded back to consumers, with the sole purpose of reducing gas consumption and dependence on foreign oil sources. (This works because consumer demand drops as the price of a good increases, regardless of the change to consumer wealth.) Then the opposition screamed, "You want to raise taxes!", and it all went away. Oh, there are some knee slappers that would make you weep. - BanyanTree 22:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear what some of the above has to do with economic science (vs economic rhetoric). But tell me, if Carter's fuel tax was to be refunded to consumers, how could it have any effect, other than to encourage people to carry more cash? Or do you mean it would be transferred to the People in general (in which case the word "refund" is a fraud)? — The epithet dismal science, by the way, originated in a diatribe of Thomas Carlyle against those who refused to consider the intangible spiritual benefits of such institutions as slavery. —Tamfang 22:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll let Robert H. Frank give details. - BanyanTree 01:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course (in a 'modern state'), in principle all taxes (minus overhead) are transferred/refunded (whatever) to the people in some way or another. Only if it were given back to the same people in the same proportions would it not be effective. DirkvdM 11:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, economic theories are pretty vague. The reason is that it is exceedingly difficult to experiment on societies, so the theories can't be verified. A good example is communism/state socialism. This turns a society completely upside down. The number of variables is staggering. Yet the number of experiments has been pathetically low (in the dozens at most). And that is probably the best argument against such experiments. Getting all the variables right would be an astonishing coincidence. Or an incredible insight. One might say economics has more to do with gut feeling than with science - but gut feeling can be a good guide. The problem is whose gut feeling to follow. The best strategy would be to keep as many things as possible equal, change just one thing and see how that works out. But that takes an enormous amount of time, and sometimes people aren't patient enough for that. Especially when they are being suppressed, as was the case with all (?) instances where state socialism arose. Actually, given the pathetic state those countries were in when state socialism was introduced, some did surprisingly well, but I suppose that has mostly to do with people wanting to build a better world for themselves, after all the misery they had been through.

But economics also works with hard numbers, expressed in money. But a major problem there is that one cannot assume the participants in a society to behave rationally. Take the free market. The basic idea is that a manufacturer who produces the better products will grow because the (rational) buyers buy his products. But then we have commercials. These are effective because people are influenced by them. But commercials are basically manufacturers saying that their products are better. Well, they would, wouldn't they? So commercials are the worst source of info on the quality of a product. Still, they work. Boy, do they work. They pretty much dominate the buying behaviour of consumers. So where's the rationality here? Still, the system has brought us an incredible amount of progress. One might argue that socialism (the state playing Robin Hood) made sure of that. Giving workers buying power gave a huge boost to the economy. At least, that makes sense to me, so one can say useful things about economy. But it's still largely a crystal ball. I'm sure there is a much better system, but how are we going to find it? Certainly not by not looking. We should just be very careful with what we try. So be conservative, but not too conservative. DirkvdM 11:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

U Boats and Ireland

Is it true that U-Boats werre refulled during World War Two in hidden coves on the west coast of the Irish Republic? 86.151.240.194 15:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This says not, although U-1206 was sunk by a lavatory.[11]

However, the British did consider using military force to gain access to the Treaty Ports, which were only handed back to Ireland in 1938; and there was Plan W if Germany invaded Ireland. -- !! ?? 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to explode myths like this, which keep surfacing, submarine-style, regardless of the facts. However, I always lead the forlorn hope, so let me try to shoot this down, once and forever!

Eamon de Valera's obduracy over British use of the Treaty Ports, which would have greatly increased the security of Atlantic conoys, was a source of considerable resentment. It is almost certain that the U-boat story was invented at this time as a way of discrediting the Irish government and their policy of strict neutrality. But the simple fact remains that in 1939 Eire had tiny stocks of the type of diesel fuel used by U-boats. More than this, the country was suffering from an acute shortage of fuels of all kinds. The suggestion that Ireland would give assistance to the Germans to sink the very ships that carried the little oil it did receive is absurd to a quite extreme degree. There is, moreover, not a trace of documentary evidence; there are no eyewitness accounts and no German sailor has ever made such a claim, though plenty have spoken of their vessels refueling in Spain, supposedly another neutral country. U-boats did operate in Irish waters-one landed a the crew of a Greek tanker they had sunk-though this was a dangerous practice, in view of the British bases in Ulster. It did not happen; it could not happen. Let the story die. Clio the Muse 23:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems incredible that the British would return the Treaty Ports in 1938 and then require them again a year later... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.41.139.85 (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Feminist critique of Sociology

I was wondering if anyone knows of any online articles or journals that talk about women being excluded from sociological theories/research or ignoring gender differences. My essay is on whether theories are neutral. --Stacey _talk 15:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Quiet, woman, can't you see the men are talking? I'm just kidding, but seriously Clio, even if she doesn't have an answer, will at least have an interesting opinion on this matter. Beekone 16:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, Beekone, for this is really quite far from my chief areas of concern in feminism: but, what the hell, I'll do my best! Stacey, your terms of reference are a little unclear to me. Are you suggesting that theoretical models themselves disallow a feminist perspective, or that there is some process of practical discrimination at work against women in the field of sociological research itself? Beyond that I really do not want to anticipate your conclusions, but it would seem obvious to me that there is no such thing as a 'neutral' theory, which always begins with a particular perspective or set of assumptions. After all, as Louis Althusser might have said, we are all guilty of a particular reading! I do not know of any online articles that might be of help, and I am reluctant to suggest a specific set of texts, because I think from a past encounter that you are a sociology student, and should be weighed down with reading lists. I can tell you, though, that I personally found Barbara Littlewood's Feminist Perspectives on Sociology (2004) quite useful, as well as Feminist Sociology: Life Histories of a Movement (1997) ed. B. Laslett and B. Thorne. I wonder if you have perhaps gone beyond these? So, off to the library! Clio the Muse 23:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm having trouble understanding the question myself so I need to see my tutor! The question is "Theories are neutral. Explore this questions from a feminist perspective." I was going to talk about how there has been a lack of research done on gender, therefore suggesting it isn't important and then talking about how when studies have been done, women have been presented in a stereotypical way. I have come across B. Thorne! I have an article from Social Problems called The Missing Feminist Revolution in Sociology, which I have so far included. --Stacey _talk 17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the idea the question is leading you towards is that sociological theories are, from a feminist criticism perspective, not nuetral. So, maybe pick a theory from sociology, ideally one that's easily susceptible to criticism from a feminist perspective and do a little deconstruction on it. Does the theory reflect patriarchal, phallocentric, male-dominated, etc. worldview/perspective/biases? If so, how? Also, if yes, why might this be (which is where you might talk about lack of gender research, or opportunities for females in the discipline, or the general insenstivity and ability to listen and communicate of men, or whatever)? From what you've conveyed that sounds to me more like what they are looking for. As for research, I suggest getting on JSTOR or equivalent, plugging in some relevant search terms, and seeing what you come up with. Finally, don't forget that an interesting and suitably narrow thesis is where it's at. Cha-ching, A+. Azi Like a Fox 18:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wife of the neurologist Dr. Moritz Benedikt

Can any user please tell me the name of the wife and the date of marriage of the Austrian neurologist Dr. Moritz Benedikt who lived between 1835-1920. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.52.239 (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See Moriz Benedikt. Xn4 00:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that article is about the journalist Moritz Benedikt, not the physician Moritz Benedikt! The German WIkipedia seems not to have an article on the neurologist. - Nunh-huh 07:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

An autobiography of Moritz Benedikt (the physician) has been scanned in by Google books: Aus meinem Leben: Erinnerungen und Erörterungen. Unfortunately, I can't find the actual name of his wife in it. They were married 20 January 1868 in his final Dozentenjahre, and she died 8 March 1905, shortly before the book was written. Therefore, he tells us, he cannot write much about her out of grief. The mention of his marriage is on page 126: "In meine letzten Dozentenjahre fällt ein glückseliges Privatereignis, meine Verlobung und meine Heirat (20. Jänner 1868). Ich habe mir ein Weib errungen, wie ein edleres und besseres nicht zu erringen war. Aber auch auf diesem Ereignisse lag ein Fluch meines Lebens; ich mußte mir mein Glück durch schwere Kämpfe und Opfer erringen. Die Geschichte meiner Verehelichung ist ein Ausschnitt aus der politisch-konfessionellen Geschichte Österreichs der damaligen Zeit . Ich habe jetzt nicht die Kraft und den Mut, diese Geschichte niederzuschreiben, da eben in den letzten Tagen (8. März 1905) mir meine edle Frau durch eine schmerzliche Krankheit entrissen wurde." You may have better luck than I did scanning for an actual name. - Nunh-huh 10:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a place on the web - which I cannot find at the moment - that permits access to the archives of various Viennese newspapers (perhaps the Weiner Zeitung?) If you could find that and look at marriages on 20 January 1868 and the days following, you might find Frau Benedikt's maiden name. - Nunh-huh 10:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we now have the right Benedikt! That should be Wiener Zeitung. And I'll give you a quick translation of the passage Nunh-huh quotes - "In my final years as a lecturer, a very happy event in my private life occurred, my engagement and marriage, which came on 20 January 1868. I gained a wife who could not have been nobler or better. But this event also laid a curse on my life: I could only attain my good fortune through heavy struggles and great sacrifices. The history of my marriage is a part of the political-religious history of Austria at that time. I do not now have the strength and courage to write down this history, at this very time when so recently (8 March 1905) my noble wife was torn from me by a painful sickness." Xn4 21:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Wiener Zeitung online archive is at <http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?aid=wrz>. Browsable, but sadly not searchable. And on browsing a bit, it seems it is easier to find what's playing at the theatre, what the atmospheric pressure is, and the current stock prices than it is to find marriages! - Nunh-huh 01:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sliding average of economic growth

Is there anything that makes it inappropriate to calculate arithmetic averages of (economic) growth? If growth is 2 % the year 2000, 3 % the year 2001 and 4 % the year 2002 the average is 3 %. The problem is obviously that 1,02*1,03*1,04 = 1,092624 and that 1,03^3 = 1,092727. (The inaccuracy gets much bigger with more variables.) Is that a problem? I am thinking of drawing a graph with a sliding average of US GDP growth over the last 200 years, to show the development over time. Is it approriate to do that from a scientific point of view? Thanks. 17:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's way wrong. What you want to do is calculate the geometric mean: ${\sqrt[{n}]{\prod _{i=1}^{n}r_{i}}}$ which will give you the number you seek. Donald Hosek 18:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

To put it another way, the average is correct if you first put everything in logarithms. —Tamfang 22:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

German short story

I'm trying to track down the name and author of a German short story set towards the end of the war. It concerns a small girl in Berlin preparing for an important celebration, a birthday or something, I can't remember exactly what, oblivious to the anxieties of the adult world. T Eulenspiegal 18:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Could this possible be Der Erstkommuniontag by Elisabeth Langgässer, from her collection Der Torso, published in 1947? It certainly fits your general description: the excitement and anticipation of a child set against the fears of the adults around her, and is set in Berlin in the final stages of the war. The event in question is, of course, not a birthday but first communion. Clio the Muse 22:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it might very well be. Thanks. T Eulenspiegal 18:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Needles

I recently came across this strange controversy: Was the rock known as Lot's Wife which might have been part of The Needles originally tall and thin or short and squat? --Filll 19:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

From the illustration in the article, it appears to have been tall and thin. Donald Hosek 16:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The controversy is based in large part on the question of the accuracy of that illustration. --Carnildo 21:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That is just it; there is another earlier illustration (see the section at the bottom of the article) that shows it as short and fat. Some claimed that all of the tall and thin illustrations were well after the collapse of this rock formation, but the one we have at the top of our article was before the putative collapse. Therefore...who knows?--Filll 21:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Republican Presidential Races

Coming from somebody who generally has to fight against Republicans, I've found something kind of puzzling. It seems like, from what little I've been able to gather about him, Ron Paul stands for things most Republicans (or conservatives or Hannity type people) have been waiting for. From news clips of debates and other things, like I recently heard some GOP forum had banned RP people, it seems like Republicans don't like Ron Paul either. Does nobody like Ron Paul, or is the US two party system not really loyal to the idea of loyal opposition anymore? I'm confused, please help. I try to be a good patriot, but sometimes it's hard to be american. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.144.36 (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr Paul didn't get the memo that such ideas as small government belong only in campaign speeches, not floor votes. —Tamfang 22:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know much about Paul (and am not a Republican) but a skim of his bio makes it look to me like alienated himself from the GOP party leadership himself — while he is aligned on many issues, he doesn't seem willing to play the political game as much as the GOP would probably like (the GOP in the last decade has rated loyalty much higher than ideological fidelity). So I wouldn't be surprised if he was marginalized for a reason relating to that, despite the obvious ludicriousness of such an approach to picking a national leader. --24.147.86.187 23:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a line late in the article Political positions of Ron Paul is quite telling: "In order to restrict the federal government to its constitutionally authorized functions, Paul takes positions that are opposed by the majority of his colleagues." His strictly Constitutionalist ideology is unlikely to go down to well with more pragmatic politicians in his party, and he is a long way across the political spectrum from those in the Democtratic party. Rockpocket 19:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

SIngle Parent

I am single parent from Bangladesh and my wife died of bone cancer in that country so I came here for my children's education. one is 6 and other is 4. I need to know something before I come to Toronto, Ontario, Canada. What are the monthly payments to the local government of Toronto, provincial government of Ontario and federal government of Canada? and what are the social programs provided by the local government of Toronto, provincial government of Ontario and federal government of Canada? Please I need the answers immediately. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.132.26 (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My condolences on your loss. When you say "monthly payments", do you mean taxes? In Canada, municipal governments only collect property taxes. If you do not own property - i.e. if you rent - then you don't pay these taxes. (Your landlord pays and they are built into your rent.) Income taxes are paid to both the provincial and federal governments. However, there is an income threshold below which people pay little or no taxes, and tax rates increase as your income increases. It is impossible to say what your tax rate would be without knowing your income. As you ask about social programs, I assume that you would have a fairly low income and so you would probably pay little tax.

There are a range of social welfare programs adminstered by the three levels of government, and it is difficult to say what you would qualify for without knowing more about your situation. You could probably start by looking for information on the web sites for the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario. Social programs in Ontario are provided through the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The City of Toronto also provides some social services.

I hope these links help. Good luck. - Eron ^Talk 01:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

October 26

Another legal question

I received a really good answer to a legal question above. Now I want to know where on Wikipedia can I find elements of a crime or some other wording that means the same thing. That phrase is in several articles I have written but I cannot find a list or and explanation to link that phrase to.

For example: An ultimate issue in criminal law refers to a legal element of a crime... Thanks! --Mattisse 01:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Every crime is going to have slightly different elements, which may differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. An example is "robbery consists of [1] the taking and carrying away [2] of property of another [3] by force or fear [4] with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property." Generically, the elements usually fall into the classification of actus reus, a voluntary act or omission, and mens rea, the intent to commit (or omit) that act. Our articles at those names should suffice to further confuse you :) - Nunh-huh 10:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I guess you guys go to law school for a reason. The article I am working on is about how Rule 704(b) in the Federal Rules of Evidence is restricting forensic mental health experts from addressing "ultimate issues" which, apparently also include the "elements of a crime" besides the usual competence/sanity stuff. So you are saying, basically "it depends" on the specific case what is at issue.

I'm getting it now, I think. Thanks, --Mattisse 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Watch it with the "you guys"! :) Ultimate issue covers some of this, and you might want to take a look at the notes on 704(b). - Nunh-huh 23:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if you check the history of the ultimate issue article, you may see a familiar name appear :P GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A different path?

I was wondering if the Soviets could have taken a different path in the 1920s, if there was a realistic alternative to Stalin? Zinoviev4 05:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course there was. There are always loads of alternatives. Do you mean if Stalin's rise to power could have been stopped or what would have happened if there had been no Stalin? Or do you mean, irrespective of that, who would have been a better/realistic alternative? DirkvdM 12:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We move in ever decreasing circles! Your question, Zinoviev reminds me of a response to something similar back in May. So, here is a copy of the answer I gave then, which you, above all others, have a right to know! Clio the Muse 22:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of the many hours I spent grappling with twentieth century Russian history as an undergraduate, particularly the political struggles of the 1920s, my very favourite period, when, beneath the outward calm of the long summer of the New Economic Policy, some of the most intense and dramatic contests were being fought out within the ranks of the Communist Party. Never warming to the brilliant, but mercurial Leon Trotsky, my own personal favourite, by far, was 'the darling of the party' Nikolai Bukharin. I think I can hazard a fair guess that the professor who has set your assignment has taken the theme from Stephen Cohen's book Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: a Political Biography, 1888-1938. Consider this from the introduction to the Oxford paperback edition:

Just as there are is no historical inevitability, there are always historical alternatives. And yet when I began work on this book in the mid-1960s, the writing of Soviet history in the west as well as in the USSR, was based largely on the axiom that there had been no alternative to Stalinism. Both Western and Soviet historians adhered, though in different ways and for different reasons, to variations of this axiom. Either Stalin's policies, from the forcible collectivization of the peasantry in 1929-33 to the twenty-one year system of mass terror and prison camps, had grown inevitably from the nature of the Bolshevik Party and its revolution, or they had been necessary for the modernization of a backward peasant society. Western and Soviet scholars were captives of a historigraphy without alternatives even though the idea of a non-Stalinist alternative actually had a long tradition in Communist politics. (Oxford paperback ed., 1980 p, xv)

Cohen goes on to explore this question at length in his introduction and the rest of the book; so, your first task is to get hold of a copy at the earliest opportunity. It's a good argument and, in a sense, Bukharin and the Right Opposition was, indeed, the only real alternative to Stalin, not Trotsky, Zinoviev and the others in the Left Opposition, commonly assumed by Isaac Deutscher and others to be the antithesis of the Stalinist path. Why? Because the policies of collectivisation and industrialisation being argued for by Trotsky and his allies in the 1920s were the very things that Stalin implemented in the 1930s. Bukharin's 'socialism at a snail's pace' and co-operation with the independent peasantry, which Stalin adhered to in the mid-1920s for opportunistic reasons, did represent a real alternative, in political and economic terms, to the interpretation of Marxism most favoured by Leninism.

What you now have to ask yourself is would this path have been practicable; would it have been possible for Soviet Russia, in other words, to have continued to operate the NEP system to the eve of the Second World War? Even before the introduction of mass collectivisation, grain deliveries to the state were beginning to drop significantly, which placed the Soviet economy as a whole in a high degree of risk. Beyond that one has to consider the political hostility of the so-called kulaks to the whole Soviet system. The emphasis of the Five Year Plans, especially the second, was on military investment, which enabled the Soviets, in the end, to counter German aggression. Would this have been possible if Russia's capital programme was still moving at a snail's pace on the eve of Barbarossa?. Anyway, some food for thought. Get a hold of Cohen's book and also Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore. Taken together, these should provide sufficient information for you to produce a superb answer to your question. The very best of luck. Clio the Muse 14:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Efficiency in Europe vs the US

Dutch population pyramid
(in % of total population)

%	Male	Age	Female	%
0.36		85+		1.05
0.60		80-84		1.18
1.14		75-79		1.74
1.55		70-74		1.95
1.93		65-69		2.13
2.30		60-64		2.33
2.77		55-59		2.69
3.73		50-54		3.60
3.65		45-49		3.54
3.93		40-44		3.81
4.27		35-39		4.08
4.25		30-34		4.05
3.63		25-29		3.54
3.04		20-24		2.93
2.96		15-19		2.83
3.11		10-14		2.97
3.20		05-09		3.06
3.11		00-04		2.98
Data: International Data Base (2000)

US population pyramid

In an above thread someone accused Europeans of being inefficient. Which of course will not do. :) So how do we compare efficiencies? Let me compare GDP per capita per hour worked in the US and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands a standard working week is 32 hours. Suppose a standard working week in the US would be just over 40 hours. That would be about 30% more. But the GDP per capita in the US is only about 12% higher. Which suggests the Dutch are much more efficient. Are these numbers and reasoning correct? DirkvdM 10:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The "accusation" was an implication that the European way of solving problems tends to be solid – and thereby perhaps a bit less efficient than light-way approaches that work most of the time. But why do you equate "European – not European" with "European – US"? Also, for a comparison of productivity, one question is whether the comparison should be based on output per person in the total population (which is what you get for GDP per capita) or output per worker (which is the usual measure). The 2006 statistics of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor indicate for both measures a US output that is 19% higher, so it is not a big deal, but for comparisons between other pairs of countries this may be a major point. Another question is whether productivity is the best indicator for efficiency. Usually, efficiency means useful work per quantity of energy. Perhaps Europeans pack much more energy in an hour of work than non-Europeans.  --Lambiam 12:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't reduce it to Europe - US, but to Netherlands - US. I picked the Netherlands because that's my country and the US because there aren't that many non-European countries that have an income level comparable to Europe and I don't know what hours people make in the other countries. So I picked the examples I have most knowledge of.

Efficiency is effect per effort, and the only reliable way I can think of measuring effort is hours worked. As for 'per person' vs 'per worker', you've got a point there - it's not about the efficiency of European countries, but of Europeans. So we'd have to compare unemployment rates. According to List of countries by unemployment rate it's 4.8% for the US and 5.5% for the Netherlands, so that's no big factor. At least not considering the vague indications that I used. However, if anyone has more precise data ...

Ah, I've found it. (And it wasn't too hard to find - can't remember what I looked for the first time.) Working time#Differences among countries and recent trends. Annual working hours are 1777 in the US and 1309 in the Netherlands. So people in the US make 36% more hours than the Dutch. My estimate wasn't too far off. Combine that with the GDP per capita and you get:

US: 44,765 / 1777 = 25.2 $/hr.

Nl: 38,252 / 1309 = 29.2 $/hr.

The slight difference between the unemployment rates isn't enough to compensate. Of course I'd have to do this for all European countries and average them out and do the same for US, Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan and the like, but I can't be bothered right now. :) (it's late) Note, though, that the Western European countries are almost all at the bottom of the list (I bet Finland and Iceland would be there too if they were on the list) and that the second are all in the top. So hurrah for us relaxed and efficient North West Europeans. :) Eastern European countries are at the top, but that doesn't surprise me considering their lower incomes (money makes money, so if you have less of that you have to compensate). But Spain does surprise me. However, that county also has a lower per capita GDP than I expected. The low income and high working hours of NZ also surprises me - they're way too relaxed for that in my experience.

Another factor, of course, is natural resources, and NZ doesn't have too many of those, afaik. Factoring that in would be a lot more difficult. DirkvdM 19:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that your reasoning is flawed. You're assuming the relationship between hours worked and output is linear--an extra hour worked should result in a proportional increase in output. However, according to the Law of Diminishing Returns, an extra hour (or extra whatever) will have a diminishing effect throughout time. So, for example, whereas one extra hour worked might enable you to create two more widgets, an extra hour on top of that might only allow you to create one additional widget. In other words, the extra hour will yield a lesser and lesser result. In this case it's mostly because humans get tired and can't continuously work. So, according to the law of diminishing returns, 30% more time worked does not mean that GDP will increase by the same percentage. Therefore, your example doesn't seem to show that Dutch workers are more efficient than Americans. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatManTheory (talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You're merely giving a reason for the inefficiency. You're saying that working more hours than your body can take leads to inefficiency. But it's still inefficiency. DirkvdM 10:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Americans have more kids, and so more non-working "capitas", which skews the numbers a lot if you're looking at efficiency. Wrad 05:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added the US and the Dutch population pyramid here, and I don't see much difference. But yeah, that's a factor too. As is the 65+ age group. Alas, the two pyramids aren't quite the same. For the latter factor, note that the Dutch pyramid has one extra level, for 85+, so that should be combined with the 80-85 group before it to make them more comparable. A visually better comparison can be made by following the link under the Dutch pyramid, replacing the 'NL' in the url with 'US' and then going back and forth between those pages. Alas, the bureau hasn't standardised its figures (why not make it all percentages?), but the comparison is still easier. DirkvdM 10:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Tudor supremacy

By what political means did the Tudor's achieve dominance in England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.104.197 (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read our article on Henry VII? NB "Tudors" shouldn't have an apostrophe if you mean the plural of Tudor --Dweller 13:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's Henry VII of England. Read also Wars of the Roses, especially Wars of the Roses#Henry Tudor and the following. Corvus cornix 17:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, they came to the throne of England at just the right time. Henry VII was far from being the strongest claimant, but the fractious English nobility had bled itself close to death in the thirty years prior to his victory at Bosworth Field, allowing him to establish the monrchy on an entirely new basis, imperial, one might almost say, rather than republican. Henry, a shrewd and careful man, built up the powers of the lesser magnates, those who depended on the crown for their advancement, and loping off the heads of any remaining in the premier league who came to challenge or threaten his authority.

Henry VIII was, if anything, even more rutheless in this regard, emerging as possibly the most absolute monarch England has ever had, making changes in church and state that none of his predecessors would have dared to attempt. His actions with regard to the succession was to benefit his successors, particularly his two daughters, who might otherwise have faced a serious male contendor. In 1553, as the Tudor male line expired, the only alternative to Mary came from yet another female, Lady Jane Grey, so obviously a tool of her father-in-law's ambition that few rallied to her cause. In the end the true measure of Henry's success in reducing the English succession by several heads was fully demonstrated in 1603, at the very end of the dynasty, when the English, for the absence of an alternative, were oblighed to accept a Scotsman!

The other main factor in explaining Tudor success is that they centralised government and politics, creating a modern state apparatus in much the same fashion as Louis XI had in France. Henry VIII ended the diffusion of power, first, by absorbing Wales into England, thus seriously curbing the dangerous independence of the marcher lords; and second, in becoming King rather than Lord of Ireland. But it was the reign of Elizabeth that saw the final triumph of Tudor absolutism, with all of the leading political figures of the day owing their position and influence to the favour of the Queen, rather than to their landed estates. Altogether a remarkable transformation. Clio the Muse 23:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It also helped that Henry VII married Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV, thus coopting the strongest opposition into his family. His son Arthur, and after the death of Arthur, Henry VIII, was, in fact, the sole surviving heir of the York Dynasty as well as the nouveau riche Tudors. Corvus cornix 01:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Gardiner

What role did Stephen Gardiner play during the reign of Mary Tudor? 217.42.104.197 13:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.238.69.103 (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Check out Stephen Gardiner and let us know if you have additional queries. --Sean 15:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be appropriate to offer a word or two in Gardiner's defence, as he is most often associated with the Marian burnings. While it is true that he was an early exponent of the need for firm action against heresy, he was also among the first to see that Protestant martyrdom was politically counter-productive for the government. Even John Foxe, high among Gardiner's critics, was to write that the bishop realised "that cruelty in this case would not serve his expectation, and gave over the matter as utterly discouraged, and from that day meddled no more in such condemnations." In essence he had hoped that a few examples of frightfulness in the law would serve to 'discourage the others.' When this so clearly failed to work he attempted to persuade Mary to give up the burnings in favour of fines and civil disabilities. There is even evidence that he protected Roger Ascham, a leading Protestant intellectual and tutor to Princess Elizabeth. Clio the Muse 01:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comic Books and Law

REMOVED.

No double posting please. Lanfear's Bane | t 15:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Halévy-the politics of disillusion

I would like to know, please, in what manner the career of Daniel Halévy, a former supporter of the Dreyfus cause, can be said to illustrate the drift away from republican values during the course of the Third Republic in France? My apologies, for I do not think I have expressed my question well, though I hope it is capable of answer. Pere Duchesne 14:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Halévy is indeed an interesting case, a baromoter, one might say, of the political health of the Third Republic. He was born into a the Parisian haut-bourgeois, into a family with liberal and Orleanist traditions. The Dreyfus Affair was to be the great turning point of his life. Convinced of the officer's innocence, Halvéy started to define himself as a Socialist, though of a uniquely French variety, identifying with small producers, the artisans and the peasants, rather than the industrial proletariat. His chief political influence here was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the defender of, as Halvéy believed, of the 'old artisanal France.' He initially looked to advance the cause of the small producer through syndicalism; but by the 1930s the steady marginalisation of the traditional occupations in the face of modern economic forces turned him increasingly towards an attitude of cultural pessimism. He now saw saw some virtue in the radical right, even in people like Charles Maurras, the founder of the reactionary Action Française, and a representative of the anti-Dreyfusard tradition in French politics. Halvéy turned his talents to the production of anti-republican polemics, in books like Décadence de la liberté and La République des comités, denouncing the political style of the Republic and its alleged reliance on Masonic committees. In 1940 he was one of the first to welcome Vichy as the saviour of the old France. Clio the Muse 00:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Kent miners' strike of 1942

I'm trying to carry out some background research on the 1942 miners' strike in the English county of Kent, but so far have uncovered very little. Can anyone help? Some more background information together with published references would be really useful. Cheers, Simon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.240.136 (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You might find the following useful (all related to the Betteshanger Colliery strike of 1942) - [12] [13] [14] and [15] Foxhill 19:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Also - [16] and [17] Foxhill 19:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Troubles began in December of 1941 when sixty workers at Betteshanger Colliery, unable to negotiate a rate for working on a difficult seam, began a 'go-slow'. Management ordered them out, other workers followed in sympathy and following a ruling in favour of management by a binding arbitration tribunal on 9 January 1942 4,000 went out on strike. The strike was illegal under the 1940 Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order and it was an indictable offence to "instigate or incite… any strike among persons engaged in the performance of essential services".

The courts handed down an unexpectedly severe judgement, three local union leaders were jailed and over one thousand workers fined between £3 and £5. After protests from miners and their families, and talk of sympathy strikes elsewhere, the government and management backed down, acceded to the workers demands and released the three imprisoned leaders. The strike lasted a total of nineteen days. Morgan, D., & Evans, M. (1993). The Battle for Britain: citizenship and ideology in the Second World War. pp. 51-3. OCLC 25630471

see also: Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations 1965-68, appendix 6, pp. 340-1, and Knowles, K. G. J. C. (1952). Strikes; a study in industrial conflict, with special reference to British experience between 1911 and 1947. OCLC 21497486

There is another dimension to this issue. Many of the miners had joined the Home Guard, with collieries forming their own platoons, an important part of the county defences. The miners' platoons, moreover, were made up of fit young men, all in a reserved occupation, rather than those normally too old for service in the regular forces. This was an entirely voluntary effort on their part; for being in a reserved occupation normally exempted men even from home defence duties. So the miners had the kind of patriotic credentials that made it difficult for their opponents to denounce them, or for the government-mindful that Kent was still in the front line-to be too severe in the action taken against them. Disruption of coal production, coupled with the dislocation of local defences, was simply too much to bear. To Eric's sources I would add the following: Deal and Districts at War by David Collyer (1995); Frontline County by Andrew Roots; Kent at War by Bob Ogley; and Miners Unions and Politics, 1910-1947 ed. by Alan Campbell et al. Clio the Muse 00:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nazi studies

What is the difference between intentionalism and structuralism in the study of Hitler's Germany? Bel Carres 18:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See Functionalism versus intentionalism. Random Nonsense 18:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Assault

Hiya, about 6 years ago I was having a drinK in my local with some friends when i was ordered outside, as some one had a problem with me. Now I dont Know why, but i was unable to hit bacK, even though I was given ample oppertunity, such as "get up and fight liKe a man...ill give you a free shot...why wont you hit me?" yada yada yada, i got my arse KicKed, several of my friends were watching, I assume they did not want the same treatment, and so did not jump in, any how theyre not my friends any more. Now, what I would liKe to Know is firstly, why could I not fight bacK? As teenage boys we always used to joKe about what we would do if we got into a fight, but when it came to the crunch, i got "bitch slapped" for 2 or 3 hours, it was a whole nights entertainment for the drinKers. and no one did anything to help. So, the questions: why could I not protect my self? And also, 6 years on why i am still thinKing about it? How can I cope with this? It has changed my social life considerably, I can no longer feel comfortable in a pub or club and this irritates my friends who just dont understand. How can i picK up a girl in a club and have a meaningful relationship, if everytime i go near a pub or club i panic? Your help is greatly appreciated. ThanK you. Dough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.149.242 (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, wikipedia does not give medical advice. But perhaps fear was what prevented you from acting, and the repercussions may be why you are thinking about it still; for further advice, I'd suggest you go and see a doctor, who could refer you to a therapist. Hope you find a solution --Hadseys 21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, how ever, rather than medical advise i am more interested in the Fight or Flight response verses the Deer in the headlights phenomenon. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.149.242 (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Then we have an article that can help with that: Fight-or-flight response, note specifically the section called Negative effects of the stress response in humans. However, the relevance of this response to your particular situation can only be ascertained by a professional. Rockpocket 22:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

megans law

what exactly is megans law?

See Megan's Law. Corvus cornix 22:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

October 27

Finding visual and audio sources

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

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

Aircraft Carrier Question

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

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

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

Searching for "that" word

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about Trotsky?

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

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

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

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

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

Philip the fanatic

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

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

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

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

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

Chaucer and Hawkwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

A quick check show that Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother was descended from Lady Catherine Grey, Jane's sister.[18] There are almost certainly other connections. Rmhermen 15:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Betrayal in Spain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Race thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stocks

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

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

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

Henry IV Part II

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capital of Holy Roman Empire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Low Income and Equity

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

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

Leather reds

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ambigramic song

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

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

October 28

"Greetings"

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

The costume of a French physician in 1650

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

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

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

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

Where is the fallacy in this proof?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nazi war criminal

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

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

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

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

Black loyalists in the Bahamas

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

What is meant by the 1848 revolution of the liberals

it's a question specified in my history class

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

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

"Spanish Galleon" by Brittni

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

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

Sir Richard and Catholic Emancipation

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

Strasser and Goebbels

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