Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg

October 2

French and Arabic names

Is Lebanon the only country whose Christians have French name first and then Arabic name last? yes or No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.131.219 (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The answer is clearly no, because there are Christian Arabs in many other countries, including France. Also, it depends what you mean by 'French names'. There's a surprisingly big Christian minority in several Arab countries you don't mention, such as Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinian Territories, including some with origins in Lebanon. Xn4 05:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The answer to any question of the form, "Is [SOME COUNTRY] the only one with [CITIZENS WITH SOME QUALITY]?" is almost always going to be "no". Only today I learned that a 300-lb ethnically Chinese man was a powerful political sheriff of a Louisiana parish for 30 years. Who knew! --Sean 17:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Prisoner Execution

Is there some kind of law that states that condemned cannot be executed if unhealthy or injured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.57.68.59 (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Laws vary by country (and sometimes smaller government units). Where did you have in mind? Rmhermen 05:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, capital punishment has been abandoned in civilzed societies. However, during executions in the USA, medical personnel make sure to sterilize the patch of skin where the lethal injection is set to insure that the prisoner does not catch any disease while dying. Asav 22:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to say which country you have in mind, but I've never heard of such a law in any part of the English-speaking world. However, while we had capital punishment in the British Isles, the law did protect pregnant women from being executed. There's a famous case of two women in the early eighteenth century, Mary Read and Anne Bonny, who were among a pirate crew who were all sentenced to be hanged, and they said "My lord, we plead our bellies" and got off. Xn4 05:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Got off"? I thought the execution was just postponed - which may end up in the sentence being commuted, or the woman absconding, I suppose. When a convicted woman claimed that they were of pregnant to avoid the gallows (see "Pleading the belly"), the truth of the claim was determined by a Jury of Matrons. Prisons were poorly regulated at the time, so convicted women could often fall pregnant between conviction and execution, until the Murder Act 1752 mandated execution within 2 days after sentence. -- !! ?? 14:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the reprieve was normally only until the child was born. According to Anne Bonny, Mary Read later died of a fever, possibly in childbirth, but "there is no historical record of Bonny's release or of her execution." Somehow, she disappears. Xn4 22:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

PS - I suspect you're thinking of the fact that in many countries a defendant can be found to be "unfit to stand trial", so even if he has committed a capital offense he won't get to the point of being convicted. For instance, in 1998 Augusto Pinochet was arrested in the UK on a Spanish warrant for the murder of Spanish citizens while he was president of Chile, and a few days later he was also charged with torture and kidnapping. He was released in 2000 on medical grounds, so there was no trial. Xn4 05:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, I remember hearing of a U.S. case where the accused was found guilty but not given the death penalty because of their age/health. It was thought that if sentenced to death that the condemned would ask for an appeal and use up more time and resources of the courts. Though if simply sentenced to life imprisonment, the case would simply be closed and the criminal would die relatively shortly of natural causes while in prison. I don't remember where or when this was, I have no sources but my own memory. Dismas|^(talk) 05:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In the USA one has to have some degree of mental competence to be executed according to the US Supreme Court or various state laws. So there have been inmates who intentionally do not take psychiatric medication and Supreme Court cases about the legality of forcible administration of medication in order for them to be executable. Don't have the time or more precise recollection to give citations.John Z 07:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In most countries (yes?) the law holds that people should not be executed. Period. DirkvdM 08:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly capital punishment has been abolished in almost all European countries, due mostly to standards set by the Council of Europe. But in that, Europe is quite different from the world beyond. Xn4 08:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Europe is certainly not exceptional as regards abolishing the death penalty. According to our article on use of capital punishment by nation, 50 of the 90 countries that have completely abolised the death penalty lie outside of Europe. These countries include South Africa, Hong Kong, Phillipines, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. And our capital punishment article says that over 90% of the executions carried out in 2006 took place in the following 6 countries: China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan, and the United States. Gandalf61 08:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That map in Use of capital punishment by nation does show that Europe is quite different from the world beyond. Xn4 21:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Only because of it's concentration of right-thinking countries. The majority of the 90 countries that have completely abolised the death penalty still lie outside of Europe.Gandalf61 14:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

See also this map. DirkvdM 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I counted 66/207 who fall under "Legal Form of Punishment" (mauve). Presuming the map is accurate, you could probably say most countries don't have the death penalty in common practice. However I don't know about "the law holds that people should not be executed". I would say it's probably not accurate. Considering that there are a lot of orange countries (who's law doesn't say people can't be exectured but in practice people aren't executed) I would say it's a very close call. Indeed that statement implies we should only count blue countries/"Abolished for all crimes" IMHO since even if a country only allows executions for extremely exceptional crimes like crimes during war time, clearly their law doesn't say people can't be executed. So I would say it's almost definitely not accurate. If one considers the worlds population, then most people by far live in countries where people can be and are executed (considering all top 4 are mauve and also of the top 15 world population, only 5 Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Philippines, Germany don't so you already have 56.5% of the world's population). Of course, there is a big difference between India's use and China's use of the death penalty considering mauve countries for example and I don't think it's just because of the level of crime in these countries. Also, according to capital punishment the ratio of support/oppose in popular opinion worldwide is 52%/39%. I personally have doubts about the reliability of these numbers (it's a Gallup poll and they often publish worldwide numbers but for something as polarising as the death penalty I think these numbers would be a rough estimates at best). If anything I suspect there may be higher support. Considering developing countries particularly, I would suspect that there is a large problem gauging support in rural areas but I also suspect that they tend to have higher levels of support and I wonder how well this was accounted for. All in all, I would say a majority of people support the death penalty to some degree. But no one ever said the majority is always right Nil Einne 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I see now [1] has countries listed and numbers. It lists 64 retionists so maybe I counted wrong. However it seems to be missing 10 countries anyway since our total is 207 theirs is 197. In any case, 90/197 or 100/207 (assuming the 10 they're missing are abolitionist for all crimes which is unlikely anyway IMHO), it's not a majority of countries that have 'law holds that people should not be executed'. Also I'm not sure if I'd agree with all of AI's 'abolitionist in practice' classifications either. See the Talk:Use of capital punishment by nation for specific comments on Swaziland which I noticed while looking into this. I didn't look into many other countries so there could be more Nil Einne 23:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

British Empire

Was the British Empire 'a good thing.'Captain Beaky 05:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Depending on your point of view, the answer could be either yes or no. Your question is too ambiguous to answer succinctly. Is this a homework question? If that is the case then your teacher most likely wants the answer stated from a certain point of view or even wants your view on it. If this is the case, the article on the British Empire would probably be of help to you. Dismas|^(talk) 05:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those questions which asks us for an opinion rather than for hard facts. And I think your question really comes down to this: 'Objectively, did the British Empire do more good than harm?' Unfortunately, most opinions will be subjective.

The main reasons why the British went out into the wide world were (1) that there was money to be made out of trading overseas; and (2) that there were new lands to settle. Religious minorities, men and women out of work, adventurers, younger sons with no inheritance, people running away from the law, and many other kinds of people, went out permanently to find new land and a new life, often to escape a hard one at home, or else they went out to do money-making or imperial things and later to come home. Some flourished, some failed, but on the whole the Empire was seen (subjectively, of course) as a good thing from Britain's point of view, a source of strength and pride. It made the United Kingdom into a Great Power, with command of the seas, leaving it generally safe within its own shores: the Pax Britannica, which had much wider benefits. The Empire also gave an impetus to every kind of art and science.

The British didn't set out to rule vast areas of the world as an idealistic enterprise, although they often persuaded themselves that to spread Christianity, science, medicine, economic development, and so forth, was a noble thing. Often, when settling new lands, they found they belonged to someone else already, and where that was the case people who were dispossessed were often monstrously treated. If you were at the sharp end of it, the British Empire could (subjectively) be a terrible thing. It's arguable that it brought more peace and prosperity than it brought war and poverty, that it was 'the policeman of the world', but it had bad impacts on individuals. In the 18th century, the British were a major force in the slave trade, and few people in the world now see colonialism in a positive light.

Your problem is to balance vast interests against each other, which in itself calls for the judgement of Solomon, and also perhaps to ask what might have been if there had been no Britain and no British Empire. Generally speaking, I suppose, the impetus of European expansion was so great that the other European powers would have filled the gap and taken the parts of the world that the British in fact took. If the great wars of the 20th century were all but inevitable, might they have gone the other way, and (in the end) would it have mattered if they had? Anyway, all this ground can't be covered in an essay. Xn4 07:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• For Britain,yes; for the countries involved? probably no.--hotclaws 09:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're an untermenschen or reasonably civilised (or both), you'd probably think it was a pretty good thing, if badly flawed. --Dweller 11:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I suspect most people now frown on colonialism, but those were different times. The British Empire brought oppression and lack of self determination, but even advanced Britain itself was undemocratic, and most of the countries it conquered would have had oppresive rule anyway, even if under a leader of their own nationality. And the alternative was not freedom, but colonisation by another power. Half the battle for empire was to avoid the French or Spanish getting one either. Notice the French involvement in the American war of Independence, and the battle over Canada. Although the slave trade and imperial ambitions can be linked, to a certain extent, Britain outlawed the slave trade in 1807, I think only Denmark did this earlier. The Victorian British empire (as opposed to the earlier one based mainly in America) in Africa, India etc came later than this. And the all powerful British navy did much to stop other countries continuing to trade slaves, so a British Empire could have been seen as atleast the lesser of two evils. Resources were stolen, but also much infrastructure was developed. Would there even be an India without the railways the British built? So in conclusion, I think it was a good thing, with bad effects on individuals, but very much of its time I don't think a return to it would be possible or desirable. However we could do without some of the post-colonial guilt which is allowing for one the terrible starvation in Zimbabwe, for fear of being seen as imperialists. Cyta 13:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Most English colonies prospered after independence, such as the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong (semi-independence), and (somewhat) India, with some exceptions, such as Zimbabwe. This is not true of most former French colonies (Haiti, Vietnam, etc.) and most former Spanish colonies (most of South and Central America). Former British colonies also tend to be more politically stable. So, from the economic and political POV, British colonialism can be seen as beneficial in the long term. StuRat 17:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with many that this is too broad a question to be answered in any resonable way. I personally believe colonialism was wrong so from this point of view the British empire was not a good thing. However as large scale colonists go, I agree with StuRat that the British was probably the best of the lot. I'm a Malaysian and I studied Malaysian history in school and parts of Malaysia was colonised by multiple parties including the Portugese followed by the Dutch and then the British and the Japanese during WW2 (after that back to the British obviously). (Obviously my views may be biased by this) I've also some knowledge from various sources of the history of other countries particularly Malaysia's neighbours (which is important since there was obviously a change in attitude of colonists as time progressed). (Further back, some people argue that earlier foreign parties like Parameswa who founded the Malacca Sultanate can be called a colonist but that's rather complicated IMHO and somewhat against the point here). Amongst other things, the British tended to encourage the participation of the local people in lower levels of civil service and government, sometimes even maintaing a semblence of the existing structures (e.g. a resident 'advisor' who gave the sultan 'advice' on matters affecting the British. If the sultan wasn't happy about this there would always be other ones willing, divide and rule although that tactic itself has often left some rather nasty divisions). Indirect rule covers the British government of many of their colonies and contrasts it to others to some extent. They were also perhaps were better at controlling the work of missionaries+respecting the beliefs of the locals and educating the native population (in stuff other then religion I mean) to some degree (which of course meant that they had a fair amount of control of what the people learnt). These factors helped reduce strife and rebellion and therefore helped greatly in forming and keeping the British empire together. So ultimately they were the better colonists because they were the smarter colonists and hence the British empire was so successful. (Of course many of them did to some degree believe they had a noble mission to better their world and did think they were helping the native population and in a number of ways they obviously were even if many of their beliefs and some of their actions may seem offensive nowadays). Back to the topic, all of these things ultimately meant that when their colonies achieved independence even if it had not been their intention for a lot of the time, they were better prepared then other colonies. I think also the British were better generally in managing the transition from colony to independent country whereas others were more cut and run (for a variety of reasons). It surely helped too that for the later part when many of the colonies were achieving independence they were probably more stable then most other colonies. Obviously these things are difficult to analyse. For example, it's perhaps not entirely the Dutch's fault that Indonesia achieved independence directly after WW2 after being occupied by Japan whereas Malaysia had a transition period. Edit: I didn't mean to suggest that the only reason the British were successful was because they generally ran their colonies in a smarter way Nil Einne 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I can shed some light on the independence of Indonesia. The Dutch government had started around 1900 with a paternalistic policy to educate the natives of the Dutch East Indies towards a greater degree of self-rule and autonomy (all within the Kingdom, obviously), known as Ethical Politics (Ethische Politiek in Dutch). This was part of a mission civilisatrice that was commonplace in that period. See for instance the liberal and the socialist movements of the time, or the anti-alcohol movement. Part of the Ethical Politics was for instance the establishment of universities. Many prominent people in the independence movement were educated at these universities, like the first president of Indonesia Sukarno for instance. The creation of this policy occurred at the same time as the unification of what we now know as Indonesia under Dutch rule; Aceh was the last area to be conquered, between 1898 and 1904. This also coincided with the birth of a Javanese nationalism in the first decade of the 20th century, with Budi Utomo. Anti-Dutch sentiments on other islands in the archipelago stimulated the spread of this nationalism. They were further fuelled by the Japanese, between 1942 and 1945, who put natives in important positions of government in the archipelago, and who put the Dutch people in the archipelago in concentration camps.

When Japan was defeated in August 1945, there was a small Dutch fleet in the area, who tried to stop the rebellion, with the help of the US, the UK and Australia. These efforts were hampered by the fact that there was still barely a Dutch government in the Netherlands, let alone a colonial administration in the Dutch East Indies. The US and Australia withdrew their support for the Netherlands, and when the US threatened to stop Marshall aid to the Netherlands in 1949, the Dutch government had no choice but to accept the independence of Indonesia. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Cyta-and with Niall Ferguson- that it is indeed time to stop saying sorry for the Empire! Was it a good thing? Yes, it was. Was it a bad thing? Yes, it was. The answer obtained really depends on your point of departure, but no historical question can ever really be answered in absolute terms. In the end nothing became the empire, perhaps, like the leaving of it, all conducted in such a unfussy English fashion, with few of the horrors that accompanied the French wars in Vietnam and Algeria. So, apart from the common law, the administration, the railways, the shared language, a belief in freedom and fair-play, a sense of belonging to a greater communty and a greater world, what did the Empire ever do for us? Well, quite a lot, actually. Clio the Muse 02:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the UK was not forcibly ejected like the French (Palestine could be a counter-example - although not a colony, it had been under British control for a couple of decades), and many of the transitions to democracy were peaceful and successful - particularly in the White Commonwealth - if we ignore the loss of the US - and in Asia and the Caribbean. But the speed with which Britain abandonded its colonies, and lack of support for the newly independent states afterwards, does the UK little credit. And it was not all sweetness and light - the thousands to die in the over-quick Partition of India; EOKA in Cyprus; the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya; racist regimes in South Africa and Southern Rhodesia; the Malayan Emergency; the Aden Emergency; Biafra; the decaying infrastructure and non-democratic regimes which blight much of Africa today. Some of the problems were not of Britain's making, but it shares some of the blame for not laying the foundataions for success. -- !! ?? 11:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes-the debit sheet; I suppose somebody had to produce that! I'm puzzled by the reference to Palestine, though. Colony or mandate it really makes no difference: the British decided to end control of their own volition, much as they did in India; they were certainly not forcibly ejected. Anyway, in any realistic scrutiny of the end of Empire one has to take into consideration the circumstances of Britain at the end of the Second World War; morally among the victors, but in economic terms almost among the defeated. Certainly a lengthy transistion to Indian independence may have been desirable-assuming the Indians themselves would have wished for such a thing-but the simple fact is that Britain had either the economic means nor the political will to hold on. Attempts to control inter-communal violence-which was widespread well before the partition-would have required huge numbers of extra troops, delayed demobilisation, and ever increasing expenditure. For a war-weary and bankrupt country this was quite simply the impossible option. I completely fail to see how the British could have stopped the violence in India, just as I fail to see what responsibility they had for the terrorism, and the gratuitous violence, practiced by EOKA and the Mau-Mau movement. Also, I have to say that the logic behind your 'grouping of incidents' escapes me, assuming there is a logic. There were many failings in decolonialisation, yes, but not surely the Malay Emergeny, which saw the defeat of an ugly and brutal Communist insurgency and the eventual emergence, at one and the same time, of an independent and democratic Malaysia. Again, what responsibility the British had for the racist regime in South Africa-or Rhodesia-completely escapes me. Boer racism in South Africa went before the British, just as it came after them. And as far as African dictatorship is concerned, that is the responsibility of the Africans, of the Wa-benzi, and not the British. Colonialism has for so many incompetent regimes become a crutch to explain their failure, their corruption, their lack of accountability. Colonialism did not destroy Zimbabwe; Robert Mugabe did. Biafra? I rather thought that was an Nigerian affair. Oh, but let's just keep it simple, shall we: the British are to blame for everything, having an Empire and not having an Empire; for what came before, and what came after. History does not move on; it only marks time. Clio the Muse 23:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Palestine: yes, the British "voluntarily" decided to terminate their mandate in 1948. I am sure the continuing violence from Irgun and others had nothing to do with their decision.

India: I think it is generally accepted that the loss of life in the immediate aftermath of the partitiion of India could have been reduced if (a) it was not so rushes and (b) the British armed forces had been more involved in trying to stop the ethic violence. But, as the anon mentions below, it would have cost more and taken longer, and the Beitish wanted out.

Mau-Mau, etc: my point was really that the end of Empire was not just British troops marching reluctantly on to cruise liners as the natives waved their handkerchiefs and dabbed their tear-stained faces, thanking their lucky stars for the roads, and railways, and schools, and hospitals, and well-oiled machinery of civil democracy that the British were leaving behind. Plenty of people wanted them out right now, and in many cases the British were only too glad to oblige. The reasons and methods and results were different in different places, but the legacy remains, for good or ill. -- !! ?? 23:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde: "Children begin by loving their parents; after a time they judge them; rarely, if ever, do they forgive them." Xn4 23:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Clio the Muse 23:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? 80.254.147.52 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That is what I was alluding to, yes. Clio the Muse 23:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it was a waste of money; the profits accrued from the Empire were less than what was needed to pay for the defence of it (and by the way the UK paid for the defence of the Dominions and the Dominions didn't and they still put up tariffs against UK exports). The British thought too much of a "civilising mission" than in enhancing national wealth and therefore power. It is also interesting to note that "in the history of British imperialism economists have hitherto figured chiefly as skeptics—brakes on the chariot of expansion, critics who would sacrifice the imperial to the cosmopolitan ideal...considered the value of the existing empire and the wisdom of expansion from the standpoint of national wealth".[2]--Johnbull 23:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Poland and the Holocaust

Further to a question that appeared here a few days ago and would be interested to know something of post-war views of the Holocaust in Poland, particularly in the light of that country's former tradition of anti-semitism.Captain Beaky 05:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "tradition of anti-Semitism" in a country that Jews regarded as a "Jewish paradise" and a new Promised Land for centuries, but anyway, have you tried History of Jews in Poland and Jewish Polish history during the 1900s in particular for a start? — Kpalion^(talk) 08:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As the former of those articles makes clear, oddly, despite the fact that there was something of a golden age of Jewish culture and learning in Poland before WWI, there was a substantial and distinctive tradition of Polish anti-semitism. --Dweller 11:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Cf: History_of_Jews_in_Poland#The_Cossack_uprising_and_the_Deluge, History_of_Jews_in_Poland#Pogroms, History_of_Jews_in_Poland#Growing_anti-Semitism. There's also the extraordinary 1946 (yup, post WWII) Kielce pogrom. --Dweller 11:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

All countries that had Jews, also had antisemites, so I don't think you can talk of an antisemitic tradition. And even if you could, then it's nothing specifically Polish, that's my point. Anyway, the question about views of the Holocaust in Communist Poland is a perfectly valid one. I would say that, generally, the Nazi German genocide was viewed as a terrible atrocity, but from the Polish point of view, the mass killing of Jews was not much different than the mass killing Poles. In other words, Jews were just one of many groups targeted by the Nazis. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not all countries had pogroms, and certainly not into the twentieth century, much less the postwar period. --24.147.86.187 12:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not all countries had Jews. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're basically denying that Poland had a notable history of anti-Semitism, including pogroms well into the 20th century and even after World War II? You're basically trying to assert that the history of Polish anti-semitism is no more virulent in the immediate pre-WWII period than any other country with Jews? I mean, give me a break. I don't think Poland was exceptionally more anti-Semitic than Russia or Germany, but that doesn't put it in very good company, as both of those countries had virulent and violent anti-Semitism. Other countries indeed have their own out-group troubles—the treatment of African-Americans in the United States, for example, was horrific until the end of the 1960s—but pretending that Poland didn't have a specific and particularly violent manifestation of anti-Semitism is ludicrious. --24.147.86.187 13:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Compared with efforts to exterminate Jews by ancient Egyptians (Exodus), Babylonians (Babylonian captivity), Persians (Esther), Romans (Jewish-Roman wars), exploitations and expulsions by medieval England (Statute of the Jewry), France, Spain, Portugal and various German states, Russian progroms of the 19th century, not to mention the Final Solution carried out by the Germans, I do think Polish antisemitism was really rather mild. I'm not saying it didn't exist, but hey, if Poland was such a terrible place for Jews to live in, why did it have the world's largest Jewish population prior to WW2? — Kpalion^(talk) 17:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Institute for Jewish Policy Research, a UK academic think-tank, maintains a website called "Xenophobia and antisemitism today", which is an attempt to contextualise and update on modern antisemitic trends. Their current (!! it's dated 1996!!) report on Poland can be found here. It's instructive both in answer to the original question and the issue of Polish antisemitism that's been discussed so far. --Dweller 13:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a little more recent report here. Still, it's six years old. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw a TV documentary on Jews returning to Poland after WW2, both to live and just to visit. In both cases they seemed quite unwelcome. I don't attribute this to traditional anti-Semitism, however, but to more practical reasons:

1) Some blamed the Jews for bringing about the Nazi occupation, thinking it's only purpose was to hunt down Jews.

2) Jews reminded them of a time they would rather forget.

3) Some were living in houses and holding property formerly owned by Jews, and didn't want to give it back.

4) The presence of Jews made retaliation against Polish collaborators more likely.

So, overall, the Poles just wanted to pretend the War had never happened and get on with life, and having Jews around made that difficult. StuRat 17:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I would never say that Poles are anywhere close to pretending the war had never happened. The part about Jewish claims for property restitution is most plausible. One thing is bugging me though: if a Pole says that Poland is not a right place for Jews to live in, they'll be labelled as an antisemite. But there are also many Jews in the US, Israel and elsewhere who say Poland is a cursed land and after the Holocaust, no Jew should ever set their foot in that country, let alone live there, and if there are any Jews still living in Poland, they must be out of their minds. Are those people antisemites too? — Kpalion^(talk) 18:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear, dear, Kpalion; I'm really quite surprised. No, sorry; that is not quite right; I am totally surprised. Yes, I admire your patriotism; I, too, am a patriot. We all have a responsibility to our nation and to our people; but we have an even greater responsibility to the truth. Now, I have no desire to get into a battle with you, and I am truly sorry to have to say this, but some of the things you have written here are not just misleading; they are grossly misleading. It does no good at all to try to score points by some ill-conceived attempt to place a nation further down the 'table of infamy', as you have in contending that Polish anti-semitism was 'mild' compared with others. What is infinitely worse is your suggestion that Poland was some kind of 'Jewish paradise'. I personally find this unbelievably crass. I had to read what you had written twice, because I simply could not absorb it the first time around.

Now, I know you are knowledgeable about Polish history-probably more so than I-, and I have been pleased to accept a correction from you over a past error in terminology. So, I know that you are as aware as I am that Jewish people did not settle in Poland in such large numbers because it was a 'paradise', but because they were, first of all, forced eastwards by the kingdoms of the west, and second, because they were forced westwards by the kingdom of the east. The old Russian Empire, in other words, only allowed Jewish people to live in the Pale of Settlement, the border regions of Poland, Lithuania, Belorussia and the Ukraine. You are also fully aware, I am quite sure, that anti-semitism was on the rise during the time of the Second Polish Republic, especially in the period leading up to the outbreak of the Second World War. Discrimination also had the effect of reducing the living standards of the community in the 'Jewish paradise', to the point where it was amongst the lowest in the world. During the occupation the Germans were actively assisted by many Polish anti-semites, and some incidents, most notably the Jedwabne pogrom, were the responsibility of Poles alone. The violence did not stop even after the war ended. As far as I am aware the Kielce pogrom remains the worst post-Holocaust outrage in all of Europe.

I am truly sorry for having to write in such a fashion, first, because it takes me far away from the point of the original question; second, and more important, because It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to launch such a broadside against a useful contributer as you clearly are. Please understand that none of this is an attack on you personally, but on a misreading of history, a misreading which I do not believe is worthy of you. I deeply regret having to be so woundingly direct. Clio the Muse 23:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between "I don't want to live there" and "I don't want you to live here." - Eron ^Talk 18:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is. But what I described above is a situation where some Poles are telling Jews they don't want them to live in Poland, and some Jews telling other Jews they don't want them to live in Poland. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to the original question (after an edit conflict), the post-war views (I assume this means the official stance of the Communist authorities) on Holocaust. I just had a look into the Wielka Encyklopedia Powszechna PWN, a large Polish encyclopedia published in 1962-70. There's actually nothing between Holmes, Oliver and Holocene. There is a long article about "Hitlerite camps" though. The word "Jews" appears for the first time down in the fourth paragraph. Here's the fragment (my translation):

All types of Hitlerite camps, regardless of their names, carried out, with various intencity and in various scope, three basic tasks: terror, exploitation of workforce, and physical extermination of [entire] nations, mostly Slavic, and among them especially Poles and nationalities of the USSR, as well as Jews and persons deemed Jewish by the Nuremberg Laws.

The 16th paragraph concentrates on the extermination of Poles; the 17th – of Soviet PoWs; and the 18th – of Jews. The last two sentences of that paragraph say:

The tragic fate of the Jewish community – Polish citizens – are an integral part of the history and tragedy of the Polish state. Many thousands of Gypsies also perished in Hitlerite camps.

I hope it gives you an idea of what the official view was. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

All that now follows is addressed to the original questioner.

This is a difficult question, Captain Beaky, because it raises all sorts of complicated issues: that of Polish people towards the Jewish community in their midst, and that the post-war Communist authorities towards the political significance of the Holocaust. The official investigation into the Holocaust began with the setting up of a commission to gather evidence of war crimes, which included the Jewish Historical Institute (JHI), a body of independent historians. This was a time when Poland was not yet fully controlled by the Communists, so some degree of openness and objectivity was still possible. Things changed from 1948 onwards. In 1950 the JHI was placed under the control of the Ministry of Education, with all inquiry not approved of by the Party coming to an end. The new line was to stress the passive response of the Jews to the Nazis, while minimising Polish anti-semitism and collaboration. It was said that the western emphasis on the persecution of the Jews had only obscured the persecution of the Poles. The official attitude towards the Jews was further modified by the emergence of the state of Israel. Now anti-semitism was replaced by anti-Zionism; but both still drew on the traditional streotype of the greedy, manipulative and exploitative Jew.

After Wladyslaw Gomulka came to power, following the 'Polish October' of 1956, old forms of Polish nationalism received at least a partial rehabilitation. This was accompanied by old anti-semitism wearing new clothes. Jewish people were removed from their positions in both the army and the civil service, while at the same time an active press campaign was launched against all of those associated with the former Stalinist regime. The particular Jewish suffering associated with the Holocaust slipped even further into the background.

The political struggles of the 1960s saw the emergence of even more strident forms of anti-Jewish nationalism, most associated with the group around Mieczyslaw Moczar, notorious both for his xenophobia and his anti-semitism. After the victory of Israel in the Six Day War of 1967 the position for Poland's dwindling Jewish minority became steadily worse, with all sorts of people being attacked for 'Zionist sympathies', whether they had them or not. The whole programme embraced Holocaust history. Any and every attempt to define this as a uniquely Jewish event was denounced as 'part of a chauvinist Zionist propaganda plot to justify the existence of Israel and turn the world against Communism.' It was, so it was said, a new 'Jewish world conspiracy.' In 1968 all the records of the JHI were taken over by the government. Subsequent to this a conference was held to 'rebut the slanderous campaign of lies in the West...especially with reference to the accusations about the alleged participation of Poles in the annihilation of the Jewish population.' By now the JHI had all but ceased to exist.

The fall of Communism has been accompanied by a new openness; a willingness, at least by some, to confront unncomfortable truths; issues like the Jedwabne pogrom and other matters touching on the relations between the Jewish and Catholic communities during the Holocaust. Clio the Muse 00:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed. Thanks.Captain Beaky 05:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Masked Balls

Can anyone please account for the popularity of masked balls in eighteenth century England? Mr. Crook 07:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe kings masked their balls because they were the nation's greatest assets - the means to produce a new king. Probably not what you were asking about, though. DirkvdM 08:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tricky to answer that. How can you account for any vogue? Personally, (using more modern cultural idioms) I can't think of any excuse for teddyboy sideburns, the funky chicken, Crocs or (ugh) men wearing flared trousers. --Dweller 08:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't believe Teddyboy is a redlink. Ref Desk strikes again. --Dweller 08:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

<oh I'm so embarrassed... there's an article at Teddy boy --Dweller 08:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)>

A licence to misbehave and flirt more than would be deemed socially acceptable at that time perhaps? Lanfear's Bane 11:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We can speculate. Lanfear's Bane's suggestion is a good one. It will also have provided an edge of excitement and glamour (the masks/costumes were often extremely ornate). --Dweller 11:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe in the days before dental hygeine and proper make up it was just more pleasant for everyone involved. I wonder if everyone really knew who the others were, or whether it was a key-ring style gamble who you ended up with at the end of the night? Cyta 13:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is pure speculation, but weren't protocol and rules of hierarchy especially stringent at that time? Masked balls would have provided an excuse to break them, since one could claim not to know whom one was addressing. It offered the titillating prospect of flirtations with others or much higher or lower rank. For monarchs and their families it might have offered a refreshing opportunity to interact with others like a normal human being instead of a demi-god. Marco polo 15:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Masked balls? I simply love masked balls, both exciting and dangerous! They were certainly a great favourite in the eighteenth century, precisely because of the challenge they offered to the accepted conventions of the day. Their popularity was even the occasion for a minor 'moral panic', with The Spectator announcing in an issue of 1711 that "Fishes are caught with Hooks, Birds are ensnared with Nets, but Virgins with Masquerades." So, there you have it!

They only really began to catch on in England in the early 1700s, in imitation of the Italian fashion. The earliest were in fact advertsised as 'in the Venetian manner.' The first large-scale public masquerade was that organised by James Heiddeger in London's Haymarket in 1708. From that point forward they became the new fashion. In 1717 Alexander Pope wrote a letter to a female acquaintance, which serves to sum up just how central a part the season they had become, "For news in London, I'll sum up in short; we have masquerades at the thetare in the Haymarket, of Mr Heideeker's institution." And Marco is quite right in his suggestion that these events allowed for otherwise unacceptable degrees of familiarity between the classes, from the highest to the lowest, as we know from the correspondence of Horace Walpole-"On Monday there was a subscription masquerade. The King was well disguised in an old fashioned English habit, and much pleased with somebody who desired him to hold their cup as they were drinking tea." Dear old Georgie was so fond of these events that he even appointed Heiddeger Master of Revels in 1728.

As for the element of sexual release, well consider this from an issue of the Town and Country Magazine in 1770, describing an event at Carlisle House. A young woman was in attendance, "Wearing a double mask, one side a decriped old woman, the other a young girl; the mask curtsied both ways, so that it was for some time difficult to discover which was the real front; on being asked by a Domino whether he should take her before or behind, the mask replied, which way you please sir, for it will come to the same thing in the end." In general, it was a moment of liberation for woman, allowing them not just to shed the conventions of the day, but also some of the accepted forms of clothing, corsets most notably. One maid of honour to the Queen attended an event dressed as Iphigenia, causing Walpole to observe that "Miss Chudleigh was Ipigenia but so naked she could have been taken for Andromeda."

Given all of this, it is hardly surprising that such events were so popular. The real question is surely why did they decline? Clio the Muse 00:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Such larks they had!Edison 05:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

They did-and they do! Clio the Muse 22:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

as a member can i ask for compansation to the society chairman/secretry/committee members for threatning me for expelltion from society as i have kept a licence dog breed pamlelin

i live in india maharashtra pune in an co operative housing society and i owe my flat and as a member can i ask for compansation to the society chairman/secretry/committee members for threatning me for expellsion from society as i have kept a licence dog breed pamelin khaanchandani enterprises--220.224.11.45 08:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot give legal advice. You should consult a lawyer.  --Lambiam 11:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

People in a variety of places and situations "can ask for" a wide variety of things, but they don't necessarily get what they ask for. ([3]) Edison —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Find the right lawyer. If you can't or won't see a lawyer, then at least ask for copies of all of the relevant documents and read them carefully. Those will include the constitution and all rules for tenants of the Housing Society and the minutes of any of its meetings which took decisions affecting you, plus of course your tenancy agreement, if you have one. At your local library, you may be able to find some books on housing law, but it should do you more good to find the right lawyer. You may also be able to find other tenants in the same position as yourself who can give you useful information and who may be willing to share legal expenses. It's nearly always better to focus on the matters actually in dispute and not on minor issues to do with compensation for hurt feelings, but that's up to you. However, it's important to understand the processes which are going on. There may be appeals and delays you can make use of. Xn4 05:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Economics

What are the economic laws,and in how many groups are they categorized?Georgekalusanga 10:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC) What is the fundamental laws of social development,and in which law does that development takes place?Georgekalusanga 10:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this a homework question? You can look at Category:Economics laws, which are some but not all laws that have been formulated by economists. Many theories (see Category:Economic theories) claim their own set of laws, and it is hard to find two economists who agree. Anyone can try to categorize the laws in as many groups as they want; if this is a homework question the answer is probably in your textbook or course notes; for the course given next door the answer would be different. The same holds for "the fundamental laws of social development".  --Lambiam 11:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Knights Templar

Your article on the Knights Templar asserts that their downfall was largely due to the greed of Philip IV. Was it is simple as that? 81.156.0.118 11:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that and you're slightly unfair on our article. There had always been resentment and envy of the Templars' wealth, but also of their power and influence, in the Holy Land and also all over the Christian world. Their communities were closed and secretive and made kings nervous, being effectively kingdoms within kingdoms. When the reputation of their military prowess took a serious knock with the reverses in the Holy Land, there was a crack into which Philip drove a coach and horses. It's significant that it was the French king taking the lead - France's medieval history can be simplified as a theme of the kings asserting control over the country they nominally ruled, in the face of difficulties of geography and particularism and immensely powerful local barons. (Interesting parallel with the Albigensian Crusade here). You also have to ask yourself "why the Templars?", not, say, the Hospitallers instead or as well. This is complex indeed, but note that some contemporary chroniclers express (within the constraits of the genre) mildly surprised at The Suppression, but hardly outraged. The Templars were widely disliked, in a way that the Hospitallers were not. Hope that's a help - it's a big subject and even before all the Dan Brown / Holy Grail nonsense, it's been a subject for many authors to investigate in detail. --Dweller 11:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I had similar questions about the Templars, and found the article here equally lacking. Not through lack of effort so much as lack of space and appropriate explination which really requires a full text. You can't just skip to the end without fully understanding the beginning and various middles of the Crusades. I approached a professor of history at KU that specializes in Middle Ages' history, and he suggested this book. I finished reading it about a month ago and I was very satisfied with the presentation of the knowledge. It's a broad topic and you really need to get all of the facts and theories of facts to understand Philip IV's role, which was largely tied with Pope Clement V. So, no, it wasn't as simple as you first stated. It's vastly more complicated. Good luck! Beekone 14:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The book Beekone is suggesting, I think, is Jonathan Riley-Smith , The Crusades: A Short History.--Wetman 23:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And for the Templars specifically, the best place to look is "The New Knighthood" by Malcolm Barber. Adam Bishop 01:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The real point, I think, to hold in mind with regard to the Templars and the other military orders of the day is that they had, by the time of Philip the Fair, been 'weighed in the balance and found wanting.' Philip was the first to accuse the Templars as being practitioners of magic, sodomy and other sexual vices, though this was really no more than a standard charge leveled against all heretics at the time; he was even to make similar accusations against the Pope himself! The wealth of the Templars was certainly a temptation. Far more important, though, was the fact that they had, by 1307, really served their purpose. Moreover, while Philip's accusations are clearly ludicrous, the Templars had been guilty of some long-standing abuses, abuses that were widely recognised, and resented. For one thing they had legal privileges not granted to others; and for another they were wealthy, though they continully pleaded poverty. Matthew Paris, the chronicler, noted in 1245 that "The Templars and Hospitallers receive so much income from the whole of Christendom, and, only for defending the Holy Land, swallow down such great revenues as if they sink them into the gulf of the abyss."

The greatest offence of the military orders, though, was that of pride. Jealous of one another, it was thought that their chief energies were expended in mutual hostilities, rather than against the Saracens. In Renart le Nouvel, a satire of 1289, Jacquemart Gelee, makes fun of the competion between the Templars and the Hospitallers in trying to recruit Renart the Fox. More seriously, Pope Nicholas IV suggested that their quarrels had contributed to the fall of Acre in 1291, the last fragment of the Holy Land still in the hands of the Crusaders. Some even went so far as to suggest that the military orders were unwilling to fight the Saracens because they were secretly in alliance with them.

So, by the time that Philip decided to act in 1307 the orders were no longer highly regarded, with few powerful friends. So, why the Templars and not the Hospitallers? Quite simply because they had long promoted themselves as the greatest of the orders, the first in the ranks of the defence of Christendom. But in the accounts of the fall of Acre it is they who come off worst, more interested in saving their treasure than in fighting the enemy. Their fall was the price of wealth; it was also the price of failure. Clio the Muse 01:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

India and the railways

In the British Empire thread above a contributer has touched on the importance of the railways for the Indian Raj. This is a fascinating subject for me and I've been browsing through the pages you have on the Indian railway system, which has only left me hungry for more! the History of rail transport in India is a reasonable start, though it loses steam very quickly! What I need to know is how the system was conceived and used by the British and how it was perceived by the Indians themselves? Thanks, all you clever people. Irishbard 16:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The rail system was conceived by the British mainly as a way to increase the colony's economic potential and thereby to increase their own revenues from the colony. By linking up the interior with the great port cities of Bombay, Calcutta, Karachi, and Madras, the railways made it possible to vastly increase India's exports of cotton, tea, opium, and other commodities. The railways were designed to pay for themselves through freight and passenger bookings. To promote passenger travel, the British were careful to connect the leading destinations for pilgrims, such as Benares, to the rail network. Finally, the British promoted railways as a source of income for British steel and engineering firms. This was particularly important during the Long Depression, which was partly a consequence of the most lucrative rail lines in Britain and Europe already having been built. Railway-building in India helped to sustain the British industrial economy. Probably equally important, the railway system facilitated the movement of troops around India, a vital concern after the Indian Rebellion of 1857, or, as the British called it, the Sepoy Mutiny. As for Indian perceptions, I know little. Probably perceptions varied depending on whether you were a peasant farmer who now faced a national rather than a local market or a merchant who enjoyed both greater opportunities and challenges. Railways also must have eroded the power of local potentates and elites by making their regions more dependent on national markets. Pilgrims may have rejoiced in the ease with which they could now reach holy places. Marco polo 20:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Irishbard. According to the article the system originated in 1832 and did not lose steam until 1985 :-) -Arch dude 23:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

India has indeed cut out steam on its main lines, but (as in the UK) there are still some lines which have steam locomotives running on them. See, for instance, our article Fairy Queen, which is about the world's oldest locomotive still in service. Xn4 02:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I can give you one small aspect of railway construction in India that had a deliberate political intent, Irishbard, perhaps not as well recognised as it should be. When Edward I completed his conquest of Wales in the late thirteenth century he set about bulding some magnificent castles, as symbols of English power, yes, but also as a way of impressing and intimidating the natives. Now, by the time of the Raj the day of the castle was long over, but there were other routes to the 'architecture of power', none better than the railway station! Consider Bombay's Victoria Station or Calcutta's Howdath; or Madras with its clock tower in the form of Big Ben; or Lahore, which must, in its sheer fortress-like magnificence, have had the same effect on the Indians as Caernorfon on the Welsh!

Seriously now, I agree that the greatest benefit of the British railway system to the Indians was to create, in its unifying effect, new forms of national consciousness. It gave people, in other words, a proper idea of their country for the first time; of its range, of its variety and of its majesty. Not, I assure you, a condescending 'imperialist' view, but one that I heard expressed by a former associate of Ghandi in a documentary on the history of India, recently screened in England by the BBC. Clio the Muse 02:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It was me who made the comment originally, and I was referring to a comment I had heard this year in a discussion of the 50th anniversary of Indian independence and partition. India was not one country before the arrival of the British, and would likely have not been able to be one country, of such vast size, without a huge and efficient transport system. I should in reply to the previous question also mentioned the civil service, another British institution which allowed a reasonably stable handover of power and governance of a sub-continent. Luckily, as always, Clio was on hand to correct my omission. Cyta 07:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Word

word for high standards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.188.55 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

this might be a good place to start, under the synonym's category. I would try "demanding" or possibly "exacting" or "strict" depending on the context. Then again, there's nothing wrong with "high standards." --Ybbor^Talk 02:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A slightly more "coloured" word for it might be "elitist". SaundersW 08:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the entire comment from the original poster could be taken as praise for Wikipedia rather than a question. Edison 13:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"high-maintenence" Beekone 14:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

High-end. Keria 12:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

History Writer Adrienne Koch

I recently finished a book called "Jefferson & Madison: The Great Collaboration" by Adrienne Koch, which was very interesting. I've been trying to find out information about the author and I can't seem to locate anything. I can find that she's authored other books that are available on Amazon.com and I can find random scholarly essays she's written but I can't find anything out as far as biographical information, degrees, etc. If anybody could provide me with biographical information on her or a link to where I can do the reading on her myself I would be most grateful. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.144.36 (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Some information from Historical News and Notices in Journal of Southern History (vol. 38, No 1, February, 1972): Adrienne Koch's bachelor's degree was from New York University, and her master's and doctorate were from Columbia. She was professor of history at the University of Maryland and before that taught at Tulane, Berkeley, and the University of Michigan. She died in New York on August 21, 1971, at the age of fifty-eight. Xn4 00:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And see new stub Adrienne Koch. Xn4 04:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

October 3

The success of Harry Potter

I have never read a book of the series nor seen a movie and I'm curious. Why do you think Harry Potter has been so successful? --Taraborn 00:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read one of the books (with just a little skipping in places) and also watched a movie based on another. What struck me was that Rowling's work is surprisingly old-fashioned, reworking many of the most popular themes of our juvenile fantasy since the 1890s. There are the magical adventures of E. Nesbit, the wizardry of Ursula K. LeGuin, the boarding school thrills and spills of Enid Blyton, the whimsical seriousness and the capable animals of C. S. Lewis, and something of the mean streak of Roald Dahl. There are definitely reminders of the amiable eccentricity of T. H. White, here and there. Clearly, it all works very well for children, and we know they love fantasy, magic and escapism. And why shouldn't they? Xn4 01:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think (note disclaimer) that it is a combination of timing, style, good management and marketing. Timing, because there was a niche in the market that Rowling filled at the right time. Style, because the writing style, while not of a high literary quality is entirely appropriate to the target age group, as are the plot devices and themes. Good management, because the publisher and other managers picked up the beginnings of a cult (rather than occult) following of the first couple of books and made sure that they were exploited (although not necessarily in a bad way). Marketing, because the publicity and media following the release of the third book onward drummed up further media interest and thus public interest from that. You might also be able to say that the controversy over the role of magic and potential occult uses of the novels, especially in conservative Christian areas further encouraged people to become involved in the Harry Potter universe. Steewi 04:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As a writer, Rowling has some excellent skill when it comes to plot. Her storylines are simultaneously suspenseful and complex. Wrad 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on who you ask. My friends are polarized between the best book in the world to the worst rubbish in the dustbin. bibliomaniac15 04:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As a thirtysomething old guy, I'm far from the target audience but when my wife convinced me to read the first book, I was pretty well hooked. I tore through the rest of them. I'd agree that the storylines are complex. She draws on events and characters from different places within the universe that keeps the reader entertained. There are many instances of a Chekhov's gun that aren't as blatant as those devices normally are. Something that you've written off as just a bit of fluff will turn out to be crucial to the story much later on. Plus in many places the writing is such that scenes don't drag on longer than they need to. Dan Brown has been criticized for his use of very short chapters, some consisting of less than a page, to create suspense but Rowling's chapters are lengthy and she's still able to keep a suspenseful tale going. Dismas|^(talk) 04:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Also depends on which book you read, too. The first books are less complex and the language is simpler. This may turn people off. Wrad 04:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Having read none of the books and seen only the first of the films, and not being inspired to get further involved in Harry Potterism, I can't really answer. But it's interesting how the word "cult" (see Seewi's comments above) has taken on two opposing meanings (amongst the many others it has). An obscure book or film that a quite small group of people are passionate about is said to have a "cult following". But that expression is also applied to things like Harry Potter that have huge international followings among children and adults alike. For some reason it's never applied to people like Shakespeare, Beethoven, the Beatles, U2, Picasso or van Gogh, whose popularity is as vast as Harry's. -- JackofOz 05:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think "fad" is a better word than "cult" for the sudden mass-following. Children are especially prone to follow fads. Hula hoops, Frisbees, yo-yos, and pet rocks have all inspired fads among children, meaning you are "cool" if you have the item in question, and not if you don't. The only other group I know of so inspired to following fads is those who follow "high fashion", and just must have the "latest" designer clothes, purses, shoes, jewelry, etc. (with last year's "must-haves" consigned to the trash bin). Why do some items inspire fads while others don't ? If I knew that I could make millions. I suspect there is a substantial random element involved. StuRat 16:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC) StuRat 16:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• In the marketing department, the playing up of the "single mother makes good" angle was very canny, and I think important in the early days. --Sean 13:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the first few replies pretty much covered most of the ground, although I'd also add that the popularity was partly maintained and built on by the books 'growing up' with the main character (and the original target audience). So people (mostly children) who were suckered in by the first few, more childish, books found that there were more complex thoughts and views in the later books, keeping them interested. Plus, by the end, I was desperate to know what was going to happen to the characters I'd grown up with... Also, the books have that 'something for all the family' quality, as found in many successful films. They have various plots, themes, characters and details which have meanings and resonances for different people. So, they are all quite readable for an average 11 year old (although I wouldn't recommend they read the last few books, they could), but have many elements that will engage older readers. For example, the 'Protect and Survive'-type things in the 6th book, which additionally resonanted with the more recent British government booklets released around the same time as the book. But these things will only have added to and maintained a popularity that probably first built up for reasons given above by others. And Jack, I wouldn't judge the books by the films. I personally hate the films :) Skittle 00:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The more recent booklets I was thinking of were Preparing for Emergencies. Skittle 00:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably because it's target audience can identify with Harry Potter. He is a kid, bullied at school, mistreated by his family. Suddenly his wishes come true, and he enters a fantasy land. While it is exciting at first, he realizes the great responsibility that comes with freedom. This can be compared with entering adulthood. In fact, I consider the whole series to be a sort of "guide" for transition into adulthood, especially when you consider the fantasy tone of the first one versus the cold magick of the last one. Loss of imagination is a common theme in the transition to adulthood (consider the also successful cartoon series The Fairly Odd Parents which contains the same theme.) And of course since pretty much everyone either has made or will make or is making the transition to adulthood, its appeal is very broad.--Mostargue 01:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Homosexual Unions

i just want to know if you can list any other sort of common ground over the debate of homosexual unions/marriages other than love, better for economy, fundamental right of being an american....

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.89.209.193 (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the right to be an American. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Without formal union between same-sex partners, many benefits-- such as inheritance, 'widow' pensions, healthcare -- are unavailable. It better serves the community to have such benefits available, in the same way as for heterosexual partners. Rhinoracer —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The strongest legal argument, IMHO, is that homosexuals are denied "equal protection under the law", in that they are not allowed to marry the person of their choice and thus gain the same social and economic benefits, such as a lower tax rate. I would also think this could be argued by those who choose to remain single. Both cases seem similar to the school desegregation argument. Once "separate but equal" was proven unworkable because the facilities were not equal, that policy was struck down. Government could possibly do an end-run around this argument for gay marriage by eliminating all preferential benefits for married couples, but that would mean even more major changes to society than gay marriages would. Another option is to allow gay marriages, for all pratical purposes, but just call them "civil unions". StuRat 15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by common ground? Do you mean common ground between proponents and opponents of such unions? I think the main common ground is that they agree on many arguments for the value of marriage as an institution. For example, marriage allows people to support each other materially and emotionally, it allows people to meet sexual needs in a way that offers a minimum threat to public health and social harmony, it allows people to grow emotionally and to support each other's growth, and it provides a stable and supportive environment for childrearing. Both opponents and proponents of gay marriage agree on these things. Where they disagree is that opponents feel that gay marriage would somehow threaten the institution of marriage, whereas proponents of gay marriage do not see such a threat. Marco polo 14:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't agree that opponents agree on many of those points, based on the bizarre rhetoric used by the organization that campaigned against same-sex marriage here in Virginia last year. Much of their time was spent crying "think of the children!" when, in fact, nobody is asking for children to get married. --LarryMac | Talk 14:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I, personally, am part of a long-term homosexual union that my government refuses to recognize. I agree with LarryMac that arguments against gay marriage are illogical. However, I was trying to answer the questioner's ambiguous question about "common ground" in a neutral tone. Marco polo 17:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to maintain the neutral tone, "opponents" say to think about the children because they believe that children should be raised with both a mother and a father figure. --JDitto 22:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Although given the practicalities that is more of a question of gay adoption than gay marriage. There are also of course religious arguments against it. Marriage was originally a religious institution, albeit now with legal recognition, and most religions are against homosexuality. But then I guess atheists like me can get married in registry offices or whatever. But if we say 'one man, one woman' is not the only acceptable form of marriage, where next? 'One man, two women' (sounds good, eh?). 'One Man and His Dog'? Maybe these will be the next equal rights movements, we already have some crazy ones! Cyta 07:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

what is this about "mother and father figure". why not father and mother figure. Or mother and father. All very strsange. - Kittybrewster ☎ 02:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan

Was Pakistan created to be a secular state? Is it now secular? - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Pakistan and History of Pakistan? It seems clear from those articles (and I have no reason to doubt them) that, although the division between largely-Muslim Pakistan and largely-Hindu-and-Sikh India was drawn on religious grounds, both states were originally founded on a secular ideal. However, Pakistan became an Islamic republic in 1956, and the central place of Islam in constitutional terms was further entrenched by Zia-ul-Haq - see Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization.

More recently, Pervez Musharraf is reported as having said that Pakistan was meant to be an Islamic republic and is certainly not a secular state.[4]

It may be interesting to contrast other explicitly secular but largely Islamic states, such as Turkey. -- !! ?? 10:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Even before the partition there was a general hope/fear that Pakistan would not be secular. Secularism was, and remains, a central tenet of the Indian National Congress, and pre-partition they continually argued that there was no reason for the Muslim League to even exist, because Congress represented Muslims, too. Even those people who didn't fear that Pakistan would implement sharia did fear that non-Muslims would face legalized discrimination. The main reason for the Sikhistan revolts, in fact, was the fear that Sikhs would become second-class citizens twice over after any religion-based Partition that only divided India into 2 parts. --M@rēino 22:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nazi social policy

I am looking for some material on socail policy in Nazi Germany. I do not mean racial policy, or policies for the mentally impared, but how the state dealt with wider problems of crime and social order, how it dealt with problem groups, the so called asocials like alcoholics and other supposed deviants. I know a lot of these people eventually went to concentration camps. Was no alternative method ever tried?81.151.4.111 12:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring allowed for the sterilization of alcoholics as well as the mentally impaired. --24.147.86.187 13:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In Nazi Germany, being labeled insane, an addict, criminal, etc., had more to do with your ethnicity, religion, and political views than whether you really were any of those things. High Nazi party officials with such problem, like Göring (see Hermann_Göring#Exile_and_addiction), had them covered up, while "undesirables" were often falsely labeled with such problems, in the early stages, to justify imprisonment, sterilization, and "euthanasia". StuRat 15:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was a policy specifically directed at a various 'deviant' categories, anything from one-parent families, to the 'work-shy', to homosexuals, to prostitites and many other considered to be socially undesirable. Nazi policy in this area was not entirely novel, as there had been calls during the Weimar Reublic for a more rational approach to the whole question of eugenics, caused by fears over the decline in the 'quality' of the German peopulation, as well as the decline in its quantity. In 1932 a draft sterilisation law was even put forward by the Prussian Health Council, allowing for the voluntary sterilisation of the 'hereditary-ill', though nothing came of this.

When the Nazis came to power they introduced, in addition to the law on the hereditary diseased, the Law Against Dangerous Habitual Criminals, aimed specifically at the asocial, who could be kept in permanent detention if they had two or more convictions. This was supplemented by active campaigns against tramps (hobos), vagrants and beggars. In a seven-day period in September 1933, known as 'Beggars Week', some 10,000 people were taken into custody, though most were soon released because of lack of prison space. Measures became progressively more harsh. The homeless were obliged to carry Vagrants' Registration Books, which recorded their movements. If they did not have such a book they could be imprisoned as 'disorderly wanderers.'

One of the more ambitious schemes to deal with problem families was set up in Bremen in October 1936, a project know as Hashude, effectively a closed colony of undesirables. The aim was to turn them into valuable members of the community by a mixture of education and surveillance. This entailed work and surveillance for the men; observation and control for the women; and training and supervision for the children. In essence it was a kind of half-way stage between a municipal housing project and a concentration camp, a modern version of the English workhouse of the nineteenth century. It was also a kind of laboratory, intended to see if people could be engineered, away from the bad and towards the good. Those who showed improvement would be released back into the general community; those who did not would be sent on to concentration camps.

In the end the scheme only ran for four years, until the summer of 1940, by which time it was concluded that it had been too expensive. Besides, those who believed in the possibility of reform went against the prevailing trend in Nazi eugenics, which insisted that asocial characteristics were hereditary and irreversable. Even before Hashude closed Himmler was advancing more radical solutions to the whole anti-social problem. In December 1937 he ordered various catagories of asocials to be rounded up, including beggars, alcoholics and prostitutes, most of whom were sent to Flossenburg and later to Mauthausen. A further wave of arrests followed in June 1938 with the 'Reich Campaign Against the Work-Shy', which netted some 11,000 people, again sent to concentration camps. Most of them died. Clio the Muse 02:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Campaign against the Work Shy? That's one way to cut unemployment I guess. And more effective than ASBOs. Cyta 07:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out Richard Grunberger's A Social History of the Third Reich. It's just been republished. A very interesting book. Jooler 07:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Due diligence phase of a takeover?

So I was reading the "due diligence" section of the takeover article. What, if any, safeguards are in place to prevent a company from proceeding through the due diligence phase, and then backing out of the merger and using that newly gained information to eliminate that company as a competitor? I think this might have been a subject of a Dilbert cartoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.209.45.88 (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

King of sex

What impact, if any, did Charles II's various sexual liasons have on reputation and standing the Stuart monarchy? MindyE 16:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(This is a holding reply, pending the arrival of our resident Muse.) It's easy to forget that it was completely normal for kings to have mistresses, not just in the seventeenth century but at all times before and since then. Indeed, it's been said of King George VI (20th century) that he was the first English king (other than those who died in childhood) not to have mistresses. However, Charles II ('the Merry Monarch') chose some unusual girl-friends and was more generous than most English kings with money and honours for his illegitimate offspring, so British tax-payers (a minority of the population, but everyone of any consequence) didn't like the idea that the high cost of Charles's many mistresses and their children fell on them. There were at least thirteen such children, by Lucy Walter, Elizabeth Killigrew, Catherine Pegge, Barbara Villiers, Nell Gwynne, Louise de Kéroualle and Moll Davis, so many English families descend from Charles II. Significantly, Charles had no legitimate children, and Parliament and the country at large became worried about the lack of a protestant heir to the throne. After his death, his eldest acknowledged bastard son the Duke of Monmouth made an unsuccessful challenge for the throne, claiming that his parents had been secretly married, and for a time the failure of the Monmouth rebellion strengthened the position of Charles's Catholic successor, James II. For what it's worth, I'd say the reputation and standing of the Stuart kings suffered from so many real political problems that Charles's bed-hopping was far from being the greatest of them. Perhaps its most significant impact came in the context of the succession to the throne, which mattered because the throne had enormous real power and patronage in the 17th century. People well remembered the terrible upheavals of the Civil War and its aftermath. Xn4 22:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A superb reply, holding or not!

I can tell you this much, Mindy; Charles carnal appetites impacted on popular consciousness at the time, with far greater consequence than any caused by past royal misconduct. In the course of research I carried out on this period I came across some truly hilarious-and unpublished-satires, one in which the king is depicted running around the streets of London-'Mercy, help!' the king cried, 'What is wrong, your Majesty; have the Dutch invaded?' 'No; for the love of God, fetch me a midwife.'

Politically speaking, though, the impact of Charles' affairs was far from amusing, because of the circumstances of the time and the nature of the reign. Charles had no legitimate offspring, but many bastards. Normally this would not have been any great problem, as no illegitimate son would have expected to succeed. It became a problem when Charles' designated heir, his brother James, Duke of York converted to Catholicism, and those opposed to him awakened the ambitions of the vain and mercurial James, Duke of Monmouth, the bastard-in-chief.

Beyond this Charles' affairs did indeed have consequences for the well-being of his dynasty, for the simple reason that he quite often allowed sexual attraction to translate directly into political power. Barbara Villiers was to be the first and greatest example of the 'political mistress' and the 'mistress of politics', far more powerful in every way than Charles own queen, Catherine of Braganza. Her influence was such that she created her own political circle at court, interfered constantly in matters of state; so powerful that she was even courted by foreign ambassadors. Charles was frightened of her, frightened of her temper. In one of his diary enties Samuel Pepys noted "...the king doth mind nothing but pleasures and hates the very sight or thought of business...my Lady Castlemaine [Villiers] rules him...She hath all the tricks..." This liaison was in many ways to set the tone for Restoration politics, secret and manipulative, one that inevitably produced an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust. Villiers, in the style of Salome, even managed to engineer the downfall of one of Charles' ablest and longest-serving advisors, Edward Hyde, 1st earl of Clarendon, whose head was effectively presented to her on a plate.

Villiers had been bad, but her eventual replacement, Louise de Keroualle was, if anything, even worse; for she was little better than a French agent, put in Charles' bed by his cousin, Louis XIV. Her rise coincides with the secret Treaty of Dover, by which Charles promised to convert to Catholicism in return for a French subsidy. It was not long after this, with the steadying influence of Clarendon gone, that a new mood of parliamentary suspicion emerged; suspicion of the throne, suspicion of Catholicism, and suspicion of Keroualle, or 'dearest Fubs', as Charles liked to call her. Fubs conspired against all those in the court opposed to the French connection, including Lord Halifax. With the onset of the anti-Catholic crisis of the late 1670s, known as the Popish Plot, a document circulated specifically aimed at Fubs, with the title Articles of High Treason and other High Crimes. Parliament began to investigate the matter but Charles promptly ordered a dissolution.

So, yes, Charles' extra-marital relationships did weaken the authority and the majesty of the crown. It was of no matter when his lovers were, like Nell Gwynn, women of little consequence or influence. It most assuredly did matter when it came to intelligent and the strong-willed individuals, like Villiers and Keroualle. It was all to be part of government by intrigue and cabal; government, in other words, without responsibility. For many, moreover-setting the politics to one side-it made the monarchy look ridiculous, which allows me to finish with some verses drawn yet another anonymous satire;

As Nero once, with harp in hand survyed

His flaming Rome, and as that burned, he played,

So our great prince, when the Dutch fleet arrived,

Saw his ships burned and, as they burned, he swived.

So kind was he in our extremist need,

He would those flames extinguish with his seed. Clio the Muse 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Charles follows the dour Interregnum and its kingdom of "saints." Charles's licentiousness is somewhat overstated, and the liberties of his court were similarly high profile. Why would Charles be so publicly lecherous? Why would his courtiers be publishing their sexually frank verses? While these were undoubted personal choices, one must remember that the king is not a private person. Every part of him was a public officer, and the king's love of love was at least partly a public demonstration of how different he was from the Puritans. Being bawdy was a way to say, very clearly, "I will have nothing to do with those men in black."

Therefore, we must read his sexuality partially as political theater. It's true that he had no legitimate heirs and that the Monmouth situation made life complex, but we can see in the events surrounding his death a swing of the political pendulum. Charles was carefully unlaced and just as carefully not a dour, dark reader, as the "Jesuits" were supposed to be. His sexuality was a clear statement that he was not a Puritan and not a Catholic, not a ranter and not a plotter. This was a very wise (and no doubt pleasurable) statement to make.

Attacks on "immorality" were attacks on the anti-Puritan forces. Therefore, his licentiousness was an excuse for the Puritan forces to reassert themselves. Was the Stuart monarchy tarred with the brush of sexual impiety? Well, considering Charles's grandfather's homosexual alliance, Charles's father's possibly same-sex alliance, James II's apparent probity (only a mistress, after all), and the fact that Parliament stuck with the Stuarts when they went to Mary and William, and then Anne (none of whom can be accused of randiness), I should say not. Utgard Loki 14:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

An interesting argument, Utgard Loki, though not one that would, I think stand up to that much scrutiny. There was certainly a reaction after the Restoration against the joylessness of the Protectorate, and the censorious rule of the Major-Generals, though whether Charles would have seen his sexual pastimes as a kind of deliberate public spectacle is, to say the least, a highly dubious contention. Indeed, he had himself been brought up in a somewhat 'puritanical' manner, in the court of his conventional and straight-laced father; it was only after he was allowed his own separate establishment in the West Country during the latter part of the Civil War that the more licentious parts of his character were able to find free expression. The idea that he developed his sexual activity as a kind of 'political theatre' is, quite frankly, absurd. After the Restoration puritanism was a spent force politically and Charles would have no need to turn his life into a self-conscious and ludricous ideological riposte!

Your statement is strong on generality and weak on evidence. First, the idea that Puritanism was a spent force flies in the face of all primary evidence. Have you even engaged with the primary sources Christopher Hill mangles? Puritanism remained not only powerful, but grew in power during the Restoration. It was ridiculed, of course, but the battle was ever on, and it was one that the high church definitively lost and one that the low church definitively won.

The king's body was always the nation, and kings had always had their dalliances and mistresses, but they were most emphatically not public. Imagine the sorts of celebratory witticisms made by Rochester. In any other regime, they would have resulted in a beheading, but with Charles they won favor. Why? Why would the King's own propagandist, John Dryden, joke that, like David, he spread his "maker's" face about? Why would this publicity of the king's affairs not only be tolerated, but encouraged? Tell me that this is just because Charles didn't mind, please. I dare you to suggest that Charles was so inept that this just escaped his notice.

Charles knew full well what he was doing, and what he was doing was opposing the Puritans. He had personal reasons for this, of course. However, he was no Duke of Wharton. He was an extremely shrewd balancer of the public's mood and the throne's needs. He could simultaneously promote the "stock jobbers" because he needed their money and yet inform them that they would not be allowed to legislate their narrow morality on the people. Utgard Loki 16:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Charles was not the greatest of royal libertines; that honour belongs to Henry I, his distant anscestor, who had some twenty-five illegitimate children. Also, while it is quite correct that most royal activities, even the most private, tended to come under some form of open scrutiny, the public arena traditionally was highly circumscribed, which was not the case in the late seventeenth century, with the explosive growth in printing and pamphleteering. I can assure you that the kind of material in circulation during the later part of Charles' reign, some examples of which I have given in the above, was highly damaging, both for him personally and for the standing of the monarchy, not just among the 'men in black', whoever they are meant to be. Anyway, this is slightly beside the point, for as I tried to argue, the real damage was not so much that Charles had mistresses, but that that love, in some important and damaging cases, had a tendency to translate into undue political power and influence.

That's rather odd. Henry I is ancient and absolutely not germane to any discussion of the early modern monarchy of England. Charles II had to deal with Parliament in a way that none of his ancestors did. He was dependent upon it and its Puritans. His love was rather unimportant. Compared to Gaveston and Buckingham, Nellie and Portland were nothing. No eyebrows were raised over them. No one was deposed over them. Monmouth was a significant problem, of course, but this had to do with the lack of ... of... love, perhaps, toward Catherine. However, Charles loving women doesn't seem to have set anyone aback. Utgard Loki 16:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are not, perhaps, that well acquainted with the life of James, Duke of York? He was as Catholic and licentious as Charles was Protestant and licentious! James had not one but a string of mistresses. You will note, if you care to read the Wikipedia page, that he was reputed to be the 'most unguarded ogler of his time.' He was forever seducing the ladies-in-waiting of his first wife, Anne Hyde. I do not know to which particular mistress you refer as 'the only one', though most likely you have either Catherine Sedley or Arabella Churchill in mind, the latter I suspect. Was his life, too, a reaction a against the 'men in black', puritans and Jesuits?

Indeed, I'm quite well aware of James, but to say that he was Catholic is absolutely unsupportable. He was likely Catholic. His mistress to wife was Catholic, and that was the end of him. As for "ogling," that is absolutely unimportant. So is the ruination of maids. None of that was meaningful in terms of royal negotiations with dissenters. On the other hand, Charles's failure to move definitively against Dissenters and inability to sway the nation away from Puritainism was the end for James. Anti-Catholicism and Puritanism were near allies. Utgard Loki 16:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Now for your remaing conjectures. All we know about James I is that he had male favourites. Beyond that we cannot go, and no serious historian, who expected to remain a serious historian, would suggest that he was a practicing homosexual; that is the prerogative of Wikipedia! I am not saying that he was not; I am saying there is absolutely no evidence of sexual impropriety, which, if monarchy is as public as you say, can hardly have escaped notice. It is, in other words, unkown and unknowable; and whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. What is true of James is even truer of Charles I.

Finally, Parliament 'went with the Stuarts', in the persons of William, Mary and Anne, because they were Protestant, and because they could easily be fitted in to the legitimate and accepted succession. But at the same time it reacted against the 'traditional' Stuart political style; against caballing; against court intrigue; against the use and abuse of prerogative powers; against the disregard of Parliament; and against the emergence of policy solely through secret counsels. After the Glorious Revolution no future English monarch would ever again rule in the same fashion as Charles and James. Bedchamber politics was a thing of the past. Clio the Muse 23:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes; now I think I understand. Let me wish you all the best....Utgard Loki. Clio the Muse 22:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Christmas battle?

Does anyone have a clue what the Christmas battle was and where it was fought? All I know for certain is that it took place on the eastern front during the first world war. 217.43.14.251 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a Christmas truce of 1914, on the Western front. Our article mentions a similar truce on the Eastern front in 1916. Not sure if it relates in any way to the battle you mention. - Nunh-huh 18:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There were two battles in Latvia which were given this name, one at Christmas 1916 (Old Style) between the German Army and Latvian riflemen (who were then forces of the Russian Empire) and another during the Second World War. The first of these battles was a local operation, separate from other offensives, in which the Latvian Rifles had the official aim of gaining 'Machine-Gun Hill', a German base in sand dunes near the river Lielupe, with the ultimate aim of freeing Courland and Zemgallia of German occupation. This battle began on 23 December (according to the old Russian calendar) and lasted for three weeks. Although not very famous, it was later seen as significant as it led to recriminations on the Russian side which helped the Bolsheviks. A later battle in Latvia, the third Battle of Courland (23 to 31 December 1944) is also called the 'Christmas Battle'. I guess there must be other instances, as any fighting around Christmas would be likely to have the word 'Christmas' attached to it by somebody. The Xn4 21:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Christmas Battle does indeed refer to the minor Russian counter-offensive in Courland in the early weeks of 1917, one of the last prior to the February Revolution. The units involved were mostly of Latvian origin, part of the II and VI Siberian Corps. Some 30,000 men were deployed, in an operation with the ambitious aim of freeing that part of Latvia occupied by the Germans. Operations began on 5 January (New Style), with the two Latvian brigades now united in the VIth Siberian Corps. Machine-Gun Hill was taken on the third day of the offensive, though with heavy casualties amongst the Latvians, not properly supported by the rest of the Siberian Corps. On the Latvian right the 3rd Siberian Division failed to reach its objectives, while the division on the left simply refused to leave the trenches. Because of the large number of dead the battle passed into Latvian foklore as the 'Blizzard of Souls.' Latvian loyalty to the Imperial regime was badly shaken, especially when rumours began to circulate that the Grand Duke Nicholas had said 'I spit upon your Courland.' Latvian units were later to be prominent in their support for the Bolsheviks. Clio the Muse 00:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here in America, it's still being fought!! 38.112.225.84 14:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought of Washington's crossing of the Delaware on December 25, 1776. His subsequent victory renewed hope in the struggle for U.S. independence. But the crossing was not complete until 3 am on December 26, so I guess if anything it would be called a "Boxing Day Battle." The Battle of the Bulge started December 16, 1944, but was going strong in Bastogne on December 25, 1944. Edison 06:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The question relates to the First World War, Edison, so neither of these examples would apply. However, that is by the way. I have a question for you. You are, I think, American? I was under the impression that Boxing Day was one of those English mysteries unknown to the Yanks! Clio the Muse 23:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

LA Gear

What is the ticker symbol of ACl International? And, on LA Gear, is it ACL or ACI?§§§ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.101.109 (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ships vs. Submarines

Say what? According to the article Naval Ram, it says that battleships have only defeated submarines in one occasion (last paragraph). So I fixed it to say that this was the only battleship victory against a submarine in World War I. My request is for someone to verify this. Please? --JDitto 22:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Battleships are built for long range fighting (up to 26 miles (42 km) away); destroyers were designed for close combat against submarines. For instance, the destroyer, HMS Garry, rammed U-18 in World War I. Also the article is about ramming, it does not address submarines that battleships may have sunk using their guns. Rmhermen 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are you changing something when you don't know if it's true or not? I haven't found any other instance (yet) of a battleship ramming a sub. Clarityfiend 19:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

October 4

Tron riot

Wot, no Tron riot? -- !! ?? 22:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What was the Tron riot? SeanScotland 05:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Google knows something. Algebraist 15:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is your Tron Riot!

It refers to an out-break of public disorder in the neighbourhood of the Tron Church on Edinburgh's High Street, during the New Year celebrations of 1811/12. Amongs the croweds of revelers there were gangs of organised thieves. To aid their activities, they chased off the watchmen, the only effective police force of the day, one of whom, Dougall Campbell, was murdered. As a consequence of the 'moral panic' that followed the local authority strengthened the watch and decided to take ever more severe action against 'juvenile delinquents', including a group known as the 'Keelie Gang from the slum areas of the Canongate, who had armed themsleves with sticks on the evening of 31 December. A number were arrested on the night, and a reward subsequently offered for the apprehension of the remainder. In all, some sixty-eight arrests were made, of youths between the ages of twelve and twenty. Some were hanged, others transported. The youngest to be hanged, sixteen-year-old Hugh Mackintosh, was also given over for anatomical dissection to Edinbutgh University's Medical Faculty. As a result of the riot the Edinburgh Police Act of 1812 was introduced, allowing for a unified response to problems of public order, and to reassure citizens, afraid to go out at night. Clio the Muse 01:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Norwegian Dialects

In http://books.google.com/books?id=CPX2xgmVe9IC&pg=PA335&lpg=PA335&dq=%22middle+norwegian%22&source=web&ots=IJVj3Zzc-U&sig=_uSbhtzkjboI_XuW9brgk7eGau8#PPA337,M1, it says "Runic writing survived into the 18th c. in archaic communities such as Oppdal (and the neighbouring region in Sweden)....". I was wondering which are the other archaic communities and where is other "...neighbouring region in Sweden"? Thanks.24.70.95.203 05:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Franco from the Canaries

Who arranged to bring Franco from the Canary Islands in 1936 prior to the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryinggame (talk • contribs) 05:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

He arranged it himself, by agreement with Emilio Mola, José Sanjurjo, and their fellow rebels, soon to be called the Nationalists, soon after he finally came down on their side. They offered him command of the Spanish Army of Africa and planned their military coup for 18 July. Franco then chartered a private plane in England. Government forces killed the opposition leader José Calvo Sotelo on 13 July, and the African Army mutinied on the 17th, a day ahead of schedule. Franco flew to Tetuan in Spanish Morocco on the 18th and took command on the 19th. As some forces (including much of the Navy) stayed loyal to the Republican government, the planned coup turned into the Spanish Civil War.Xn4 06:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The de Havilland Dragon Rapide has includes informations about this event. See the Spanish version of this article for more.--Tresckow 10:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, 'Miss Canary Islands', as he was referred to by some of his fellow conspirators, did not in fact arrange for his flight, yet another sign of his hesitancy at the time. Transport was, in fact, arranged for him by the Marques de Luca de Tena, owner of the right-wing ABC newspaper, with money provided by the millionaire businessman Juan March. It was de Tena who phoned Luis Bolin, his correspondent in England, instructing him to charter the plane. Bolin contacted Olley Air Services at Croydon. He also obtained the services of two Englishmen, Major Hugh Pollard, formerly of Military Intelligence, and Captain William Henry Bebb, a former RAF pilot, who flew the plane to Casablanca. Franco still had not made up his mind at this time. It was only after the assassination in Madrid of Jose Calvo Sotelo, leader of the Spanish monarchists, that he finally decided to act. The Dragon Rapide took off on 18 July, bound for Tetuan in Morocco, with Franco disguised as a diplomat. He shaved off his moustache for the occasion, causing Queipo de Llano, a leading rival, to remark that this was the only thing he ever sacrificed for Spain! Anyway, no British aircraft; no British officers; no Civil War. If only it were that simple! Clio the Muse 02:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I must bow to Clio's command of Franco. Xn4 02:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! Clio the Muse 22:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, Clio, it's just as well you were there to straighten it out. Let's hope it teaches me not to rely on doubtful sources... Xn4 23:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Franco and the rebellion

By what process did Franco emerge as head of the military rebellion? Cryinggame 06:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

He was chosen as commander-in-chief and head of government by the military junta in September 1936. There was a vacancy because the rebels' intended leader, José Sanjurjo, had been killed in an air crash on 20 July. The choice was influenced by Franco's excellent relationship with Hitler, who was providing him with military support. See Francisco Franco for more. Xn4 07:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that also Emilio Mola also opened way for Franco´s carreer by crashing with an airplane.--Tresckow 10:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mola was a rival and commanded the Army of the North. His air crash was in June, 1937, several months after the junta chose Franco as commander-in-chief. Xn4 16:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

true. But still Mola was a figuer head of the nationalists and a possible rival for Franco.--Tresckow 17:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Of the two Mola was certainly the more intelligent, and by far the most politically astute. By 1937 the rivalry between the two was becoming quite pronounced. The outcome of any direct clash is difficult to predict, though I think it worth noting that Mola enjoyed the confidence of the Germans in the way that Franco did not. His death in July removed an inconvenient obstacle. Hitler is later reported to have said, "The real tragedy for Spain was the death of Mola; there was the real brain; the real leader...Franco came to the top like Pontius Pilate in the Creed." Clio the Muse 02:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

First Battle of St Albans

Should this battle of 1455 really be regarded as the start of the Wars of the Roses? Janesimon 07:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting, perhaps, that this was a one-off battle, and the Wars of the Roses-proper started with the Battle of Blore Heath in 1459, or at some later point? Or that there was period of tension between supporters of York and of Lancaster well before 1455 which should count as the early stages of the war? -- !! ?? 22:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say not. It shifted the balance of power for a time. Even so, the lines of combat had not been firmly drawn and there were serious attempts afterwards to prevent the country descending into a general civil war. Despite the deaths at St. Albans, both parties were reconciled one to the other by 1458, albeit temporarily. The First Battle of Saint Albans, moreover, did not challenge Henry VI's right to the throne, no more than that Battle of Radcot Bridge did that of Richard II in 1387. Just as then the 'rebels' claimed to be acting in the greater good of the king, ridding him of 'evil counsel'. The dynastic war could not, and did not, begin until a rival claimed the throne, and that did not happen until 1460, when Richard, Duke of York finally showed his hand. Clio the Muse 02:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Types of Colony

Discussing the British Empire above, I wondered about names for the different types of colony. For example America, Australia, Canada etc where settlers effectively replaced the indigenous population, compared with Ghana, Nigeria, Pakistan etc where there was only a small ruling class. There seems a major difference in discussing independence between the two cases, I am sure there must be technical terms? Cyta 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"America" wasn't a colony. Each of the thirteen colonies was a distinct political structure, and each had its own colonial charter and form of government. Maryland, for example, was privately owned and run by the Baltimores. Pennsylvania had a charter from the King and pretty much ran its own affairs, with a royal governor oversseeing and interfering in things. Corvus cornix 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The areas of the later British Empire which had a European majority (Canada, Newfoundland, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand) achieved self-government in the nineteenth century or in the early twentieth century as Dominions. They had a high degree of independence in their internal affairs and gained effective independence by the Statute of Westminster (1931). The Dominion of Newfoundland gave up its self-governing status in 1934 and became a province of Canada in 1949, in strange circumstances. Xn4 01:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It really was a patchwork, Cyta, of differing types of authority; of the higher, the lower and the in-between; of dominions, territories, crown protectorates; some with varying degrees of local administration; others directly administered from London; still others held by lease from adjacent powers. There was even a condominium. We use the term British Empire for convenience, but strictly speaking only India was truly an Empire with an Emperor. And before that it was little more than a commercial opportunity! Clio the Muse 02:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Australia wasn't a colony, either. It was 6 self-governing colonies, which federated in 1901. The former colonies became the 6 states of Australia. -- JackofOz 04:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all, I guess my question was oversimplistic. Cyta 07:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Your question was fine, but was not answered. There's a tendency to reply to simple questions with unrelated, pedantic answers, e.g. "'America' wasn't a colony." I plead guilty to the occasional pedantry too. ;-)

You're right, at the basic level there were two fundamentally different kinds of colonies: those primarily of settlers and those primarily of indigenes. Increasingly the first is called (I think primarily by leftist advocates of postcolonial theory) a "settler society" to distinguish it from the second. Wikipedia has a (somewhat crappy) article on the first, settler colonialism. —Kevin Myers 15:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried searching for settler colony and it redirected to settler, rather than settler colonialism which seems strange. Don't know how to fix it though. Cyta 09:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

accounting terminology

Here is where I get confused with bookkeeping or accounting terminology. Suppose I am paid a salary and income taxes, etc. are deducted so that what I receive is net income. Now I go to the store and buy ingredients to make a cake to sell at the flea market. The ingredients cost IC and my other expenses like travel, electicity, etc. cost TC plus my time which is say W. Now I sell the cake and it renders a net income of NI which I also keep such that I have both wages W and NI. Are both W and NI considered gross taxable income? Is there a definition for these terms that can be easily applied to such complcated situations? Clem 08:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the terminology that you are discussing is not universal accounting terminology, but terminology specific to the tax code of the United States (or perhaps some other jurisdiction). Here is how this works in the United States. Your salary, net tax-exempt deductions, such as payments into a 401(k) plan, but not net income tax deductions, is one component of your gross taxable income. (The income tax deductions are subtracted from your total tax to determine your tax payment (or refund) due, but they don't affect your taxable income.) For some people, net salary or wages are the only component of gross taxable income. However, other possible components include interest, dividends, capital gains, and self-employment income. (Now, there may be a threshhold below which you are not required to declare self-employment income. If you sold just one cake all year, you might be below that threshhold. But there may not be any minimum, and you might technically be required to declare even minuscule self-employment income. I don't know the law on this, and you should consult a qualified accountant or tax lawyer if you are concerned about it.) Your income from the sale of that cake at the flea market counts as self-employment income. Taxable self-employment income consists of total sales minus business expenses. So you would take NI and subtract IC and TC (both of which constitute business expenses) to determine your self-employment income. "W" does not come into play because it isn't income, or an actual payment. In effect, your W is NI-(IC+TC). If the amount produced by NI-(IC+TC) is less than you would want in wages, then you should give up baking cakes for the flea market and find a more lucrative line of work. But this amount would still count as self-employment income and would have to be included in your gross taxable income (though I think that you might be able to deduct a portion of your self-employment tax from your gross taxable income for income tax purposes). Marco polo 16:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so as far as taxes are concerned then I can forget about paying myself wages and should just settle for the profit instead. If I hire my neighbor's daughter to bake the cake her wages will become part of TC so the cost of labor to bake the cake just gets deducted from my profit instead of being added to my income. The only other thing then I am confussed about is whether IC or TC can be deducted the next year. In other words if its January and I purchased the cake mix in December of last year then can it be added to IC? Clem 22:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Inventor of the balance sheet

who is the inventor of balance sheet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.236.99 (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Luca Pacioli, I should imagine. Corvus cornix 21:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See Double-entry_accounting_system#History. --24.147.86.187 22:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Lord Haw Haw

Can the execution of William Joyce be justified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.78.131 (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it can. It's possible to justify anything - but not necessarily to everyone's satisfaction. -- JackofOz 10:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't assume the questioner is an idiot just because his question is rather vague. Questioners in the Reference Desk shouldn't feel like facing the wish-granting gorilla hand of The Simpsons.

As for the original question, I'd say absolutely, since he actively (and famously) collaborated with a foreign power that seriously threatened Britain with annihilation. --Taraborn 15:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Though it could be argued (not be me at this time, I hasten to add) that death was a disproportionate penalty for the mere broadcasting of propaganda. In addition, as William Joyce explains, his status as a Briton was in doubt; if accepted as solely a US citizen, he could not have been executed for betraying a nation not his own. Algebraist 17:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Although not, like Roger Casement, "hanged by a comma". -- !! ?? 22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

@ Taraborn: There was no assumption on my part that the questioner was an idiot. My reply was brief on 2 grounds: (a) it smelled like a homework question to me; and (b) regardless of (a), this is the sort of question that invites opinions, which we're not supposed to be dealing with. One might argue that Joyce committed treason and therefore deserved to die. One might also argue that the death penalty is abhorrent in all circumstances. Each would be valid points. We could debate it forever and get essentially nowhere. So I decided to cut to the chase. -- JackofOz 23:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me be brave for both of us, Algebraist, and say that his execution was little better than an act of judicial murder, an opinion I am quite happy to share with A. J. P. Taylor, amongst others. Even Hartley Shawcross, who successfully prosecuted Joyce, was later to write of the case "It remains in my mind the one of which I am least proud." You see, Joyce was born in New York, and therefore not a subject of the British crown; so he was in essence hanged for making a false statement on his 1933 application for a British passport, the usual penalty for which at the time was a £2.00 fine. He did not, moreover, by his words alone kill any subject of the crown, nor did he recruit for the enemy, unlike John Amery, who was also hanged for treason around the same time. In essence, Joyce was executed not for what he did but for who he was. Death, for him, was the price of fame, a point made by Mary Kenny in her excellent biography, Germany Calling. There were, after all, other broadcasters for the Nazis, including one Margaret Bothamley, over whose nationality there was absolutely no doubt, released on a suspended sentence for essentially the same offence. But Lord Haw Haw could not be allowed to escape, could he now, not when much of the British press had decided the matter prior to his trail? The whole business reminds me to some degree of George Orwell's essay Shooting an Elephant, where death is the result of the pressure of 'collective will'; where 'the state' is pushed forward by powers beyond its control. Who, after all, was Joyce that he deserved such special treatment? Was he any more than a rather pathetic individual, or, as Rebecca West put it in her trial report, "A queer little Irish peasant who had gone to some pain to make the worst of himself." Clio the Muse 00:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Not hanged by a comma"... but not much more than a comma. As Clio says, Joyce was hanged as a traitor because he held a British passport obtained by deception. The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords heard Joyce's final appeal on 10-13 December 1945 and decided against Joyce by four to one. It may not have been the finest moment of Lords Jowitt, Macmillan, Wright, and Simonds. Lord Porter gave a brave dissenting opinion. Xn4 00:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The three counts of treason Joyce was charged on read as follows:

1. William Joyce, on the 18 September 1939, and on numerous other days between 18 September 1939 and 29 May 1945 did aid and assist the enemies of the King by broadcasting to the King's subjects propaganda on behalf of the King's enemies.
2. William Joyce, on 26 September 1940, did aid and comfort the King's enemies by purporting to be naturalised as a German citizen.
3. William Joyce, on 18 September 1939 and on numerous other days between 18 September 1939 and 2 July 1940 did aid and assist the enemies of the King by broadcasting to the King's subjects propaganda on behalf of the King's enemies.

He was found not guilty on the first two counts - 2 July 1940 was the date on which his passport expired, so if it had run out a year earlier, no case to answer would have been found. Xn4 00:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hugo Pratt's album of Corto Maltese The Celtics has a great, very fictional depiction of Lord Haw Haw and his German spy wife. 81.241.103.75 08:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That's very interesting, 81.241. There is only one tinsy-wincy problem: neither, Hazel Barr, Joyce's first wife, nor Margaret Cairns White, his second, were German; nor were they spies! Clio the Muse 23:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cotton mill process

What is the different between mule spinner and bobbin winders? --125.24.176.10 11:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A mule spinner is an early type of mechanical spinner to take raw fiber (cotton, wool, etc.) and create thread (yarn) from them. The mule spinner winds the finished yarn onto a large cone, spool or bobbin. A bobbin winder takes the yarn from the spool and winds it onto a small bobbin that would fit inside a loom to create cloth. The spinning and weaving need not take place at the same factory (so a weaving factory could get it supply of yarn on large spools and wind it on their own bobbins on site). Rmhermen 14:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism then and now

Can any parallels be made with present fears about terrorism and those of a hundred years ago? Gordon Nash 12:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The article on the history of terrorism may prove useful. Remember that any parallels drawn are likely to be subjective. — Lomn 13:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

By calling them both terrorism there are of course parallels by definition. In other words, they're basically the same, because else why would you call them both terrorism? Or do you mean what was then considered terrorism as opposed to now? Anyway, I'll mention one because it goes against what a lot of people seem to think. Nowadays, people are much more mobile, so any freedom fighters (which terrorists usually are basically ) can more easily take the battle to the invaders/colonists/agressors/whatever. But in reality, most terrorist attacks are done by residents of the coutry where the attack takes place. The 2001 attack on the NY WTC and Pentagon, for example, really was an odd one out. It is much more common to attack, say, an embassy of the US because that is closer at hand and gets the message across more clearly. And the IRA did some bombings in England, but I believe most bombings were done in Ireland, despite the fact that England was really close by. DirkvdM 18:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it can! But first, can I just point out that there is a huge gap in the page on the history of terrorism: it says not a word about the impact of anarchism at the turn of the last century; not a word about the assassination of President William McKinley, Umberto I, king of Italy, and Elizabeth of Bavaria, empress of Austria.

So, you see, Gordon, what Al-Qaeda is for us, anarchism and anarchists was for people living in the late nineteeth and early twentieth centuries. You will find contemporary fears reflected in the literature of the day; from Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent to E. Douglas Fawcett's Hartmann the Anarchist, and George Glendon's The Emperor of the Air. The latter work, published in 1910, actually envisages a terrorist attack on New York from the air, by aircraft loaded with dynamite and piloted by anarchists. Consider also Emile Zola's Germinal, with the unforgettable and single-minded figure of Souvarine, who can destroy even those he loves in the pursuit of his ideal. It was a time that saw the murder of several heads of state and prominent public figures, including those I have detailed above; a time when bombs were thrown into pavement cafes, at religious processions, or into crowded theatres, as in Barcelona in November 1893.

People were worried, in essence, about the same things they are today: that an unscrupulous and amoral terrorist (or 'freedom fighter' if you prefer; the end result is just the same) would get a hold of ever more destructive weaponry and use it without scruple of conscience. It was a time also when England, yes, England, was felt by various countries to be a 'refuge for terrorists' because of its lax asylum laws. In 1898 an international conference was held in Rome to try to secure co-operation against the anarchist threat. The recommendations included tougher immigration laws and easier extradition. England attended, but effectively ignored the provisions. It was felt at the time that a more stringent policy in this area would be unpopular with an electorate, suspicion of Continental despotism. How things have changed! Clio the Muse 01:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

One thing I have wondered about for the last few years is if the death toll of terrorism has risen. If, following a standard statistical practise, we ignore the excess that the WTC/Pentagon attack was, is it much different now, compared to, say, the late 20th century or indeed a hundred years ago. I've searched for info on this, but to no avail so far. Of course, the fact that it is very difficult to define terrorism makes this difficult, but if the same definition is consistently used (and not a fabricated one to manipulate the outcome) then this shouldn't be too difficult for someone who has the relevant data (and where could those be found then?). But what I'm getting at is that probably then, as now, people's fear of terrorism was highly disproportionate to the actual death toll. The chances of getting killed by terrorism are totally negligible, especially compared to the big killer, traffic. I suppose the fear is mostly instilled by the randomness and the intentions. The idea that it could happen at any given moment, combined with the evil intentions and the notion spread by the mass media that there are such evil people around is understandably terrifying. I can't resist the temptation to point out that the best way to fight the fear of terrorism (and thereby the reasons for it) is to ignore it, or at least not give it undue attention. Alas the freedom pf the press gets in the way there. Everything good thing has its disadvantages. Of course an even better way to fight terrorism is by pulling out the occupying troops in the country of the terrorists, but this is getting to be a bit too POV. :) DirkvdM 17:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Clio. Great answer. Can you help with my new one? Gordon Nash 09:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Electoral Administration Act 2006

Is all of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 in force now? British House of Commons#Qualifications talks of "until S.17 [of the act] comes into force...". If it's not in force, when does it become so? - I ask because Emily Benn (a prospective candidate who is 18 today) would be eligible in the Next United Kingdom general election only if S.17 is in effect. Although the bill had its Royal Assent last Summer, S.17 is not one of those sections which came immediately into force: S.77(2) says such sections "...comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint." (Presumably this would mean some order by the Secretary of State for Justice) -- 217.42.190.82 15:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is in effect, see the statutory instrument here [5]. DuncanHill 15:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've amended the Act and the #Qualifications sections accordingly. -- 217.42.190.82 15:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure, it was a good question. DuncanHill 15:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Military Attire

I'm trying to find some image resources for early 20th century/late 19th century officers in the 1st King's Dragoons. Any suggestions? Clio, I'm looking at you. Thanks, guys. Beekone 15:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Beekone, we have an article at 1st King's Dragoon Guards, and I've just added external links to a picture which should help you: there's a late 19th century officer's uniform here. Don't confuse the 1st (King's) Dragoon Guards with the 1st (Royal) Regiment of Dragoons, or Royal Dragoons, now amalgamated into the Blues and Royals. Xn4 17:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to find a better explination of the style, like the regulations for their standard uniforms. I tried Google images before and was unsatisfied. All the pictures seem to show different styles and kind of anti-climactic examples. Thank you, though, Xn4. Beekone 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, life is anti-climactic. Xn4 23:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Beekone; I can really make no advance on the information that Xn4 has given you. You might get some more detailed illustrations, though, in The Thin Red Line: Uniforms of the British Army between 1751 and 1914 by D. S. V. Foster and B. Foster. Clio the Muse 02:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Beekone 14:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

biggest modern british killer

killed most people? 81.76.46.148 21:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, not quite sure how to translate that. Are you after a general cause or a specific person? If a specific person, does e have to be directly responsible for the deaths, or could, for example, the head of government be a "killer" for sending people off to war? Then there's the ambiguity introduced by the use of the word "modern". How far back do you want to go? Finally, I'm also not sure that this really falls under the auspices of the Humanities desk, but I guess I may as well try to answer as best I can. Assuming that "modern" equates to the twentieth century, health brochures, television adverts, etc, like to announce that coronary heart disease is the current "biggest killer in the UK". Though I suspect that smoking would easily take its place if you tot up the deaths caused by the habit that are attributed to its various results (cancer, heart disease, etc). As for individuals, my money'd be on either Harold Shipman (genuine serial killer) or Albert Pierrepoint (licensed "serial killer", if you want to put it in those terms). If you allow for heads of government, I suppose you'd have to say David Lloyd George for leading the country through World War I, which resulted in the deaths of more UK citizens than any other conflict of the 20th century. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, thinking about it, did more British citizens die under Asquith's leadership in WWI than Lloyd George? And since the casualties are split either way, would that push Winston Churchill into the lead? (EDIT: Looking at World War I casualties and World War II casualties, the UK figure is more than twice as high in the former, so I guess Churchill's out of the running. Though it's still pretty silly to define "killer" this way :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I do find it just a tad disturbing that Colombia and the United Kingdom take up four of the top five spots in our list of most prolific murderers by number of victims GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Bomber Harris might be notable in this regard. Edison 02:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a philosophical question to be answered here. The questioner might want to know what British person, without legal authorization, with his own hands (or with close up weapons) killed the most people. This removes soldiers, the generals who commanded them, the politicians who set policy or declared war, and the writers, industrialists, financiers, editors, or philosophers who set in motion the process which led to a conflict. It would also exclude executioners( one hangman in particular strung up a great many people). I mentioned Harris because he emphasized and achieved the bombing of civilian areas to try and win the war by inflicting death and misery on Germany's softer and less well defended targets, and resisted shiftinhg the attack to industrial and military targets. This was not considered an acceptable tactic back in 1939 when the British first bombed Axis targets. Of course by mid-war there was little sympathy for the enablers of Hitler on the part of the British public, who had endured the Blitz and the V1 and V2. Edison 16:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

V1 and V2 came later. They had nothing to do with the decision or the simpathy of the public towards the Germans. The Blitz is quite hyped in scale he never was even close to the scale of the allied raids of German cities. To give that guy a monument in the city of London is a dubious choice.--Tresckow 22:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Spanish flu. -Arch dude 22:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

divorce services

Are there any free divorce services through the government or any other organizations in the state of Texas? Specifically Houston, Tx?Aras bridges 22:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly doubt it. Governments and politicians tend to say that they want to promote and support marriage. It is hard to imagine a state legislature (especially in Texas) providing "taxpayer money" to help people get divorced. Marco polo 01:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a book on how to 'do your own divorce' in another US state. If there are no disputes over child custody, child support, alimony or division of property, then in most jurisdictions most people are capable of getting themselves divorced without a lawyer. Of course, there will be court fees to cover. In any event, the way to minimize the cost of a divorce is to reach agreement with your husband or wife on all points at issue, if you can. Xn4 01:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• The State Bar of Texas might also be able to help you find free or cheap lawyers. Be aware, though, that because of ethics rules, they're likely to advise each spouse to get a separate lawyer. --M@rēino 22:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

as for taxes

If I purchase lumber in 2007 and use it to build and sell a house in 2008 can I deduct it as a cost of materials expense or is it too late since it is not the same year? Clem 23:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You should check with an accountant, but wherever you are it would be very surprising if you couldn't. It's common for construction projects to run over more than one tax year. Xn4 01:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you should check with a tax accountant, but if you are in the United States, the instructions for Schedule C suggest that you can deduct the cost of raw materials from the sale price of a finished product even if those raw materials were purchased in a previous tax year. Marco polo 01:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

October 5

purpose of Vietnam War

Was the purpose of the Vietnam War to keep China from reaping the bounty of an inexhaustible food supply and if so is this what is now going on in Burma (having found the food supply available from Southeast Asia to be exhaustible) and is the Domino effect now thus proven to be a real and present danger? 71.100.9.205 00:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

...and is this a leading question or what? This page is not for soapbox debates.--Wetman 01:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Then you my friend need to stop trying to start one. 71.100.9.205 03:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The simple answers to these three questions are 1) no; 2) something quite unrelated; and 3) no. The Vietnam War was waged ostensibly to contain communism. A case could be made that it was really waged to defend American hegemony in Asia and the southwest Pacific. A case cannot be made that the war was to keep China from an inexhaustible food supply. Vietnam's arable land is and was just as densely populated as the more densely populated farmlands of China, and Vietnam did not and does not have a large food surplus. Thailand does have somewhat of a surplus, and Cambodia probably has the potential for one, but this is not an inexhaustible supply. I have never seen such an argument made by any serious scholar. As for Burma, I see no connection with China's supposed quest for an inexhaustible food supply. The Burmese junta has cultivated ties with China, but China's interest is quite clearly in Burma's oil, not its food supply. Finally, have you read the article Domino effect? This was the theory that if one country (such as Vietnam) was allowed to "fall" to communism, then the spread of communism in Southeast Asia could not be stopped. In fact, South Vietnam did "fall" to a communist government, and Cambodia for a time was under communist rule, but Cambodia is no longer under a communist government, Thailand never has been, and neither, for that matter, has Burma. So the theory of a "domino effect" has been disproven. Marco polo 01:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

About two years ago the article states something quite different and I fought a rather fruitless battle to improve it. Luckily, it is a little more balanced now. DirkvdM 18:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Two reasons for question part number one: 1.) in high school we were taught the reason all the buffalo were killed off in the West was to deprive the native population of a food supply, 2.) in the military as soldiers and at home the argument was originally that America was fighting for religious freedom and all the Ideals that had been fought for in Korea War, except now in Vietnam. The argument against the war was that it was not being fought to defend oil reserves or for any practical reason. The counter argument was that food was the practical reason; that if China had an unlimited supply of rice it could take over the world. The Domino Effect on the other hand I agree was proven wrong in the short haul and maybe in the long haul and maybe even in China due to the dependency of America on Chinese goods and whatever China depends on America for. But that still leaves Burma. Communism versus Freedom of Religion again, only this time its oil that’s the practical reason? 71.100.9.205 03:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

1)That's crap. You make it sound like it was a concerted effort. The killing of the buffalo was no more a concerted effort to kill the entire species any more than the killoff of the mammoth by prehistoric Americans was a concerted effort to keep other tribes from being able to eat mammoths. Buffalo hides were in style, they were there on the hoof, there were hunters eager to kill them to make money. q.e.d. 2)That's crap. Nobody ever argued that the Vietnam War was about religious freedom, except possibly, minutely, as a side effect of keeping "Godless Communism" out of South Vietnam (which was the stated goal - the "Communism" part, not the "Godless" part). Corvus cornix 20:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Whose purpose are you talking about? The original purpose of the Vietnamese was to kick the French out, which went fairly smoothly. But then the US took their place and their intention was to fight a conceived threat of the spread of the communist ideology. At least, that was the official reason. So the domino effect theory was the reason and fighting that the purpose. DirkvdM 18:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Make-up of Paris, France

Hi there,

I am looking for some information on the cultural groups that live in Paris, France. I also would like to know why they came to Paris.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.73.17 (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Demographics of Paris would be a good place to start. If that isn't what you're looking for, you might some tangentially related information at History of Paris. Note that the demographics article states, "French censuses are forbidden to ask questions regarding ethnicity or religion, therefore it is not possible to know the ethnic composition of the metropolitan area of Paris." --Ybbor^Talk 04:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Spanish fleet at Trafalgar

it is often overlooked that it was the Spanish as well as the French navy that was defeated at the battle of Trafalgar. Is there any information on the nature and quality of Spanish naval forces at this time? Bel Carres 05:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. This tends to be overlooked, but the Spanish in the course of the eighteenth century had developed a strong and modern naval arm, so much so that in 1790 the British Admiralty advised both king and parliament not to go to war in the dispute over the fur trading station at Nootka on the west coast of Vancouver Island because of the concentrion in European waters of 'The Spanish Armament', a force of Armada-like proportions. Later when Nelson captured the 112-gun San José at the Battle of Cape St. Vincent he described it as 'the best ship in the world.' It was, I suppose, the great misfortune of the Spanish to have entered into a bad alliance at a time when the Royal Navy was headed by the boldest, least conventional and most imaginitive sailor in its history. Clio the Muse 03:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

England and Islam

I was told that a king of England once threatened to adopt Islam as the national religion. Does anyone know who this was and what the circumstances were? 81.156.0.8 09:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Never happened as far as I am aware - must be an urban myth. --Fredrick day 09:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It is reminiscent of the slogan "Rather Turkish than Popish" of Les Gueux.  --Lambiam 10:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The king in question was King John. I think the threat was at best semi-serious, intending to put pressure on the Pope. Rhinoracer 10:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for the claim that John of England made such a threat?  --Lambiam 12:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

How is that a threat? The real bad thing is to have a national religion and that was already in place, so does it matter much which one? DirkvdM 18:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

King John was before the Church of England, back when England's religion was the Pope's religion. --M@rēino 22:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There certainly were severe problems between King John and Pope Innocent III, who were king of England and pope during almost exactly the same period (respectively, 1199 and 1198 to 1216). They were both powerful and aggressive men, and after a huge falling-out they engaged in a war of sanction and counter-sanction: in 1209, Innocent excommunicated John. By 1213, struggling on all fronts and especially with his barons, as well as being under pressure from Rome, John submitted himself to Innocent as his vassal, thus gaining support from Rome. According to an old copy of the Wikipedia page on King John here, Matthew Paris reported that John was so desperate for support that in 1213 he sent a mission to North Africa offering to help the Muslims in their Spanish wars with Aragon and to convert to Islam in return for help against his own enemies. If he did do that, how serious was he? It sounds an astonishing notion, and if it had come to Innocent's attention it could only have strengthened his hand. As the material is not on the Wikipedia article now, was it reverted because the reference is incorrect or because Matthew is unreliable? Xn4 22:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The reference, Xn4, is in part correct, and it can be traced to the chronicle of Matthew Paris. However, according to Paris, John wrote in 1205 to Mohammed An-Nasir, who was based in Egypt, promising that he would convert England to Islam if the Saracen ruler would make war on the Pope. Other sources make the same claim, though different rulers are named and the letter is dated a few years later. There are two issues here. First, John was not a popular figure with the church and all written records at this time were complied by clerics, who were certainly capable of exaggeration, if not outright lies. Second, there is no evidence at all of the alleged letter mentioned by Paris and others, and certainly no Muslim response to John's 'initiative.' What seems far more likely-assuming that the whole thing is not a lie-is that John, in a fit of temper, may have threatened such a course of action (he certainly threatened to slit Stephen Langton's nose), a threat that was then given an illusiory substance by the monkish chroniclers. Even so, true or not, it's a small but interesting point, which reveals much about John-and just as much about the church! Clio the Muse 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it was a direct jab at Innocent, who spent much of his reign trying to forbid any contact with Egypt, aside from landing large crusading armies there. I wonder how reluctant Innocent would have been to call a crusade against England had John openly allied himself with Egypt! However, I doubt John could have ever considered converting to Islam, and anyway, claiming one's enemies were converts (secret or otherwise) to Islam was a common theme among the English chroniclers of the Third Crusade, who levelled that charge against the native-born nobles of Jerusalem. Matthew Paris was certainly familiar with those chronicles, so perhaps he picked it up from them. Adam Bishop 02:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Novel as a present

This Sunday will be the birthday of a girl I know and, because she likes reading, I've thought of giving her a novel as a present. Since I consider my taste to be somewhat uncommon, and I'm not very keen on reading novels, I have no idea of what she could like. Which novel(s) would you recommend? --Taraborn 09:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

How old will she be? -- !! ?? 09:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And could you give some indication of her taste, like the title of a novel or the name of an author she enjoyed reading? Should the book be in the English language?  --Lambiam 10:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

She will be 21 and apparently she likes "mainstream"/thriller books, such as those by Dan Brown. The book should be in Spanish, but I don't think that's a problem since nowadays one can find translations very easily. --Taraborn 11:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Shadow of the Wind? Lanfear's Bane 12:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I second Lanfear's Bane's suggestion. Deor 15:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Time Traveler's Wife? 38.112.225.84 15:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Both of those are good: two more to consider are "The History of Love" and "The Book Thief".SaundersW 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

La Sombra del Viento by Carlos Ruis Zarafon Donald Hosek 18:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much to all. Tomorrow I'm going to the bookstore. --Taraborn 20:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sex as a "food"

When did people start referring to sex in the same terms as food? Like, "yummy" sex or "hungry for sex"?--Mostargue 10:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Since prostitution is said to be the world's oldest profession... my guess would be since then. Clem 13:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about sex specifically, but the OED has 'hungry' being used with non-food meanings at least as far back as 1200. Going by the OED again, sexual use of 'yummy' precedes food-related use. Algebraist 14:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, so saying food is yummy is really calling it sexy? The things I learn here. DirkvdM 18:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You should have watched CSI last night, there was a restaurant with blind waiters and the patrons served in the dark. The intent was to let the patrons feel the sensuality of the tastes and textures of the foods, rather than having to rely on their appearance. The eating was a very sexual experience, according to the show. Corvus cornix 20:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if it's too dark to read the prices on the menu, you're certainly bound to get screwed. dr.ef.tymac 20:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't clear, but I imagine the menu was prix fixe, since the owner said she only had two seatings a night. Corvus cornix 21:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Did they eat with their hands? DirkvdM 08:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Some. Couples were feeding each other figs dipped in honey, and others of the food (unidentifiable) was served on skewers. Corvus cornix 01:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there...

an article on how the Soviet Union attempted to appeal to the African American community? Spreading the myth that AIDS was invented by the United States to eliminate African Americans, or And you are lynching Negroes? Would it be a sub-article to Soviet propaganda?--Mostargue 12:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, after reading Richard Wright's novel Black Boy, it seems as though many members of the Communist Party of the United States were African American. How does that fit in?--Mostargue 12:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the article you want is The Communist Party and African-Americans. In general Soviet propaganda in the US was by means of the CPUSA, though it should be noted that many of those who were members of CPUSA were unaware that it took its line directly from Moscow. As for why so many African-Americans were drawn to the CP, it is pretty clear that it was one of the only venues speaking out loudly in defense of African-American rights at the time and the only group seriously advocating income redistribution (the free market has little allure to those who are systematically discriminated against participating in it). --24.147.86.187 15:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There might be an analogy to US blacks converting to islam, just to have a religion that is different from the white oppressors. So if they are strict followers of extreme capitalism, then it makes sense for them to go for the other extreme. One extreme often leads to the opposite extreme. DirkvdM 18:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ruling Ideology

To what extent did Henry VII introduce a unique Tudor ruling ideology after 1485? 217.44.78.128 12:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Our article on Henry VII of England may provide you with the answer to your homework. Aec·is·away ^talk 15:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Henry had one task in front of him in 1485: to repair the damage that had been done to the English goverment over the preceeding decades; to end 'states within states' and the liberty accorded to over-mighty subjects by weak central authority. A shrewd and careful man, he came with an entirely new idea of government, one that was to lay the foundations of Tudor absolutism. He ended the crown's reliance on parliament for money, and created a whole new class of administrators, made up of lawyers and the like, who by-passed the great noble houses as the new power in the land.

The ideology, if there was an ideology, was one of transcendent loyalty; an end to the false and dangerous bonds created by what has been called bastard feudalism, with all duty and commitment refocused towards the crown. This meant an end to private armies and the investment in the state of the monopoly of force. In every sense Henry ruled in a different fashion from previous monarchs, rising above the party quarrels that dominated English history every since Richard II had been deposed in 1399. Hard-working, reluctant to delegate and jealous of his authority, he created his own channels of responsibility, like the privy chamber, which could operate a little like a cabinet office. He selected his most intimate servants not by rank but for their loyalty, their flexibility and, above all, their ability. It is possible to see in this the outlines of an entirely modern system of administration. Clio the Muse 00:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Deputy Leader of the Labour Party

Harriet Harman is the current UK deputy leader, yet she holds a very junior role in government; when John Prescott was the deputy leader, he was also deputy PM and had a senior role. However, his "senior role" is now held by, basically, Alistair Darling. Is this because Gordon Brown disagrees with Harman's election as deputy?--Porcupine (prickle me!) 12:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unlike, say, the US Vice President, the British Deputy Prime Minister is entirely ad-hoc and is appointed in exactly the same manner as any other cabinet minister. There is nothing whatsoever so say that there even needs to to exist at all (indeed, the Tory party don't have any deputy leader). Maybe Gordon sees a deputy PM as simply unnecessary, as let's face it, he has practically complete support within the party, whereas John may have been necessary to secure support of the left. The position she does hold (AFAIK) is that if Gordon were to die in office, she would become interim Prime Minister whilst the party hold a leadership contest.146.227.11.233 12:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless the circumstances were extraordinary, I think it's more likely she'd become acting PM pending the outcome of the leadership contest. -- JackofOz 14:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think what he meant is, that Brown's "right-hand minister" is Darling, who holds no party or governmental position of power. Why not Harman?--84.51.149.80 14:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that Harriet Harman would automatically become 'interim Prime Minister' or 'acting prime minister' if Brown were to die. I don't think the UK has ever had an interim or acting prime minister, except in the sense that Prescott sometimes briefly deputized for Blair while Blair was away on holiday. The appointment of a prime minister is a matter for the royal prerogative. In practice, the Queen now appoints as PM whoever is elected as leader of the party which has a majority in the House of Commons, supposing there is one, which there usually is. Hand-overs are managed carefully by the party in power. The death of a serving prime minister would create a vacancy which could only be filled by the sovereign. While it's reasonable to expect an elected party leader with a majority to be appointed, I don't know that the Queen would have to choose the deputy leader of the majority party who had not been elected as leader... especially if the deputy leader faced an election for the party leadership, an election which of course could be influenced by his/her being appointed as 'interim prime minister'. So what would happen? I don't know. Xn4 21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You may be right. There are no recent precedents. The last UK PM to die in office was Lord Palmerston, in 1865. -- JackofOz 04:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Henry VII and Wales

I have one more question, please. Why did Henry Tudor land in Wales and did the Welsh gain anything from their support of his cause? 217.44.78.128 12:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

For the first part of your question, the Tudors were descended from the Welsh Owen Tudor, so he was looking for family support there. Adam Bishop 16:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose he also hoped to energise the Welsh by drawing on the ancient legends, reported in the chronicle of Geoffrey of Monmouth, that a liberator would come from the west. They were certainly in need of liberation; for the Penal Laws set in place by Henry IV, in the wake of the rebellion of Owen Glendower, had effectively deprived them of all civil rights. Beyond that, large parts of Wales had retained sympathy for the Lancastrain dynasty. In strategic terms the country was far enough away from Richard's centre of power to allow Henry time to make his own dispositions, yet close enough to the English heartlands to allow for a rapid strike.

So, what did the Welsh gain from their contribution to the victory at Bosworth Field? Dragons and Bards, in the main, a condescending royal nod towards the symbols of Welsh identity and very little else. Some were exempted-at a price-from the provisions of the Penal Laws, though these remained in place. After all, Henry had to prove himself as king of England, and Wales was subject to the English crown. It seems he was not, after all, the y mab darogon-the man of destiny-so eagerly anticipated by the poets. Clio the Muse 01:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a nit-pick, Clio's last sentence should read "....he was not, after all, y mab darogan..." y means the, after all! -- Arwel (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Or should that be oops oops? Clio the Muse 23:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Burma

We experienced the fight against Communism for Freedom of Religion in Korea and then in Vietnam. Are we once again faced with the need in Burma to defend the right to believe something other than what the State wants us to believe? Clem 13:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

How were the conflicts in Vietnam and the Koreas conflicts over the freedom of religion? And how is what is happening in Myanmar/Burma now a conflict over the freedom of religion? Aec·is·away ^talk 14:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Natural and human resources are allocated and managed differently under various religions and non-religions. Management under atheism, Islam, Judaism and Christianity may be sufficiently different when pressed that a conflict will result. Resolution of the conflict may then proceed either by compromise or by one group trying to eradicate the other. It is the later which characterizes the conflict in Korea, Vietnam, Burma and Iraq as being over suppression or oppression of religious freedom as the ultimate means of resolving a conflict.

In Korea you have evidence of this on one side from the public testimony of Rev. Moon. In Vietnam you had evidence of this from Hanoi Hanna speaking on behalf of North Vietnam. In Burma you have evidence of this by the oppression and suppression of Buddhist Monks by the military state. In Iraq you have evidence of this from IEDs set off in crowds of the opposing Islamic faction. One side wants to win and their plan is to accomplish this not by compromise and acknowledgment of the opposing faction's right to exist but by denying the opposing faction a right to exist. If the method of winning a conflict by this means does not characterize the conflict as being about religious freedom then I do not know what does. Clem 16:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's very simplistic to use one blanket term (freedom of religion) for so many different conflicts. It doesn't take domestic factors into account (such as ethnicity and historical feuds), and it doesn't take political factors into account, to name but two things. Or would you call communism and capitalism (Vietnam and Korea) religions? And how certain are you that the Buddhist monks are oppressed for being Buddhist monks, and not simply for challenging the authority of the junta? I think the key factor in the way they are being treated is not the fact that they are Buddhists, but the fact that, like Aung San Suu Kyi, they have stood up against the regime. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I may be using Freedom of Religion here as a Keystone (figurative use). Were Communism God centered or Capitalism not intrinsically theft then they might wash as voussoir polarities in a conflict characterized ultimately by denial of religious freedom. Clem 18:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity in this discussion, perhaps it might be better if you changed the word "religion" for "ideology" then, since I get the impression that you are using the term religion as a metaphor to describe the perception and implementation of an ideology. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Religion is so much more than that it would not be an adequate or accurate replacement although admittedly I am using religion here to include atheism which is non-religion. But religion is what I mean so I'm going to stick with it. Thanks. Clem 18:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

But semantics aside, just to be clear, with religion you don't just refer to Islam, Christianity etc., but also to a certain zeal within e.g. capitalism and communism? Aecis^Brievenbus 18:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarify I would say that State ownership under Communism depends upon atheism for justification, while private ownership under Capitalism depends upon theism for justification. Thus conflict resolution between the two depends upon compromise (agreeing to disagree) or elimination of religious freedom by either requiring exclusive belief in the State or by requiring exclusive belief in God. The key to successful compromise being balance of power. In the West this is achieved by government, fundamentally a socialist entity regulating business, which is a private entity, while making government dependent upon business and the people for income. Beyond this maintaining a balance becomes very complicated. Clem 11:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And who exactly are "we", anyway? 80.254.147.52 16:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you did not fight in Korea on the side of the South then you can probably exclude yourself from the term "We'" Clem 16:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh, no? A military junta has opposed the will of the people but has succeeded in isolating itself from all international intervention. The international community is doing what it can, and "fighting" won't do any good. Arguably, juntas can be removed by military means, since military means are their only method of ruling, but if that junta is in place because the people are at each others' throats, the only advantage to intervention would be blood letting instead of repression. Utgard Loki 16:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

On that note then what would you determine the case in Burma to be? Opposing factions at each other's throat, kept under control by dictatorial military rule or just a military state in conflict with most, if not all, of the people? Clem 16:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Merchant of Venice

My friend told me that Jessica never actually did give up Leah's ring for a monkey; she said that was just a lie to enrage Shylock. She said that in the end, it is revealed that Jessica had the ring the whole time. But I can't find that passage which says that she still has the ring. Is my friend mistaken, or did I overlook something? Kaiilaiqualyn 14:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look for you. If it's there, it must be after the first scene of Act 3, which has those lovely lines - "Thou torturest me, Tubal, it was my turquoise, I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor. I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys." Xn4 20:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything to contradict the story of Leah's ring being sold for a monkey, and Tubal says to Shylock he saw the turquoise himself in the hands of a creditor of Antonio's. Perhaps your friend is confusing Leah's ring with one of the other rings in the play, or else is confusing The Merchant of Venice with one of the later books or stories in which the same ring appears? Xn4 21:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hannibal

Why did Hannibal fail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.105.117 (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Because elephants can't climb mountains? Our article suggests it was because the Romans fought a war of attrition against him while he had no way to reinforce his army. Rmhermen 15:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

He failed because, despite three comprehensive victories over Roman field armies, he could not make the Romans sue for peace. The Romans eventually learned their lesson, and fought a war of attrition, refusing to fight another decisive battle and denying him supplies. Far from home, his army was difficult to supply or reinforce, and he did not receive the support he expected from Italian city states, nor from Philip V of Macedon. His brother, Hasdrubal was defeated at the Battle of the Metaurus attempting to bring fresh troops from Spain. The Romans also attacked the Carthaginians at home, in Africa, and Hannibal eventually lost political support at home, and was recalled. Somewhat counter-productively for Carthage, as it turned out, his return encouraged the Carthaginians to continue the war when they could have agreed a peace treaty with Rome. And then he lost at Zama and there was no recovery. -- !! ?? 17:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Most basically, he lacked (or at least thought he lacked?) the capacity to attack and take Rome itself. In pursuing a more long-term strategy, he encountered the difficulties detailed above. Algebraist 18:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I have never entirely understood Hannibal. I would have said, like so many soldiers, that he was a brilliant tactician but a poor politician, except his talents as a politician, though not as high as his talents as a soldier, were still of a comendable order. How otherwise is one to explain his appeal to Rome's Italian allies, his announcment that his quarrel was not with them, but with the power to which they had all been subject. I also do not think it quite true, as Maharbal is alleged to have said after the Battle of Cannae, that Hannibal knew how to gain a victory but not how to use it. The real issue is that Hannibal the soldier and Hannibal the politician were at variance with one another; he had the power and the means to destroy Rome by a rapid follow-up to Cannae, but his war was still one of limited aims: Rome was to be humbled and weakened, not eliminated. The city, in other words, was to be left with a role but without a confederacy. It might have worked if he had been able to detach the Greek cities of the south from their Roman alliance; but for them his 'barbarian' army was perceived as the greater threat. The moment passed, and by 214BC the Roman fleet was able to prevent supplies and reinforcements reaching Italy. In effect, Hannibal the politican had robbed Hannibal the soldier of the full rewards of victory. Clio the Muse 02:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

nazi voters

who voted for Hitler? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.105.117 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Won't that be a pretty long list? Most voting is also anonymous. Perhaps you are talking about a specific event? Can you provide more detail? Lanfear's Bane 15:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Our article on the Nazi Party suggests that the party's strongest support came from rural Protestants, small business owners and their families, workers in Thuringia, residents of the region around Nuremberg, and university students. It was weak in Catholic regions other than Nuremberg and in socialist strongholds such as Berlin and the Ruhr District. Marco polo 16:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

One might say ;anyone who feared communism'. Kingdoms had fallen and largely replaced by democracies, but after WWI there was a notion that that was a failed experiment. the two newly emerging (albeit not new) ideologies were communism and nazism/fascism. In Germany, as elsewhere, there was a notion that you should follow one of those two. So if you weren't a communist you voted Hitler (of course that's an oversimplification). Also, the music played by the nazis was much more cheerful that that of the communists. Sounds silly, but that may actually have been a decisive contributor to WWII. DirkvdM 18:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

They do say that the Devil has the best tunes... - Eron ^Talk 20:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the patterns that emerged between the Reichstag elections of May 1928 and July 1932 it's fairly easy to detect the general trend: Nazi votes came in the main from rural and semi-rural communities in the north and east of Germany, and from the various bourgeois parties, including the DVP, the DDP, the Wirtshaft Partei and the DNVP. As Marco quite rightly points out, Catholic voters were largely immune to the Nazi appeal, and the Centre Party held steady, uniting middle and working class voters in their confessional alliance. Urban working-class communities were also immune, holding to the SPD, though some support was lost to the KPD on the extreme left. There is also another class of voter altogether, who seemed to have moved to the Nazis in significant numbers; namely those who had previously not bothered to vote at all. There was a considerable increase in turn-out between the election of May 1928 and that of September 1930, when the Nazi vote increased from just over 800,000 to over six million. While it cannot be absolutely proved that most of these 'new' votes went to the Nazis-and this has been the subject of heated scholarly debate-the Nazi 'boost' did not come from the haemorrhage in the votes of the liberal and conservative parties alone.

One small and interesting fact I noted from studying electoral maps of Germany was that for East Prussia, where Nazi brown almost completely enclosed a 'tongue' of Catholic blue, a tongue that followed to the exact detail the border of Poland prior to the first partition of 1772. Clio the Muse 02:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

October 6

Pope Benny

In a recent conversation, someone said that the Pope wasn't Catholic. This confused me and I asked for clarification. They didn't have any but they did say that there were a bunch of people worked up about it when he recently visited Rome (recent being near the time of Benedict becoming Pope). I looked through the Pope Benedict XVI article but didn't see anything that would lead to an assertion such as "The pope isn't even Catholic". So could someone maybe shed some light on what might have been referred to when this guy was in Rome? Dismas|^(talk) 22:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Read Sedevacantism. That sounds like something its adherents would say. Corvus cornix 22:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe they're making a distinction between the Roman Catholic Church and the various other churches called Catholic Church. -- JackofOz 01:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If the Pope isn't Catholic then there are a lot of constipated bears in those woods. Gandalf61 08:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks all for the responses. Dismas|^(talk) 09:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What poem

Can anyone help in naming a poem, a while back in a radio program about coal mining songs, a contributer quoted a poem with a line that went something along the lines of mining being the "harvesting the fruits of an ancient sun" , I think it was by a Welsh poet but I didn't catch the name of the poet or the poem. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by KTo288 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...kinda tangentially related, but is In Memoriam: the Poet’s Grandmother what you're looking for? There, husband, you harvested me cold coal, / Gathered from an ancient sun, the blood of/... --Ybbor^Talk 01:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I think this is the poem, sounded better when read by who ever it was on the radio. KTo288 16:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

During the Break/When we Come Back

When a television host/narrator says, "during the break" or "when we come back" in a pre-recorded show, do they generally take a break for the amount of time the commercials last, or can their break take much longer than that? --Silvaran 03:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I recently competed in a pre-recorded TV quiz show. The breaks varied from half an hour to just a few seconds. -- JackofOz 04:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Which show and how did you do? DirkvdM 08:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Modesty (not to mention failure) prevents me from saying. Besides, you wouldn't want me to break with long tradition and pierce my "aura of enigmaticism", would you Dirk? -- JackofOz 08:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that on most quizzes you won't do too well with enigmatic answers. Unless they're Quite Interesting. DirkvdM 17:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Camprio - painter, biography

I am attempting to find more information about the painter Camprio. After perusing Wikipedia & Google, the only biographical information I have found is sparse & confusing. Further, there appears to possibly have been 3 men alive about the same time, all with the same name, adding to the confusion.

What I have found so far from owners of his paintings via the information on the back of their paintings:

His birth: If he was born in 1895, it was most likely in Trieste. If he was born in 1910, 1912, 1927, 1937, or 11May1941, he was most likely born in Italy, specifically Milan. Are these two different men?

Did he receive his education at the Academy of Arts in Rome, the South Kensington School of Arts, and the Royal Academy of London, or did he study at the Academy of Art in Amsterdam? If in Rome, did he study under Professor Ranzi?

Was his first name Manuel, Hendrik, or Giuseppe? Did he paint in Holland or Capri? Did he marry a Dutch woman & live in Holland?

Do paintings have numbers like the books do with ISBN? Two paintings have registry numbers of 25-0073854 & 3081-700.

The artist I am principally interested in paints small adobe style houses along a small white sandy beach with blue water, a fishing boat and mountains, e.g.: http://cgi.ebay.com/Camprio-Itialian-Coastal-Scene-Oil-Painting_W0QQitemZ130151854132QQihZ003QQcategoryZ20136QQcmdZViewItem There is another artist that also goes by the name of Camprio, living about the same time, that paints stills versus beach scenes, & uses a completely different style of painting: http://www.burchardgalleries.com/auctions/2002/sep2202/l165.jpg The most prominent clue that this isn't the same artist is the signature.

Two Camprio works were auctioned last year:

• "Peisaj Mediteranean" 26Feb06
• "Fischerdorf Am Gardasee" 22July06, Giuseppe Camprio

One Certificate of Authenticity states: "Manuel Camprio is the artist name for Charles Lombard that he uses for lakescenes and landscapes. It is his wife's name who is an artist as well.The couple travel very much by housewagon along the coast of the mediterrenian, but return to Holland where actually they are living. French born and educated in Paris they migrated on account of war in 1939. They have no children and live their bohemian life."

Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Gpfx 08:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like the certificate of authenticity nailed it. Paintings don't have ISBN-style numbers. --Wetman 21:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That's quite an elusive artist you have there, with all these postings of people at Fine-art.com having contradictory information and trying to find out more. One person writes that the following is taped on the back of a Camprio painting: Born in 1937 in Milan, Italy. Received his education at the Academy of Arts in Rome and also attended the South Kensington School of Arts and the Royal Academy of London where his paintings were exhibited for many years. His works have been shown in the most noteworthy galleries and museums throughout the art capitals of the world and he was a most distinguished artist of his time. Well, that's clearly made up. I don't know when "his time" was supposed to have been for someone born in 1937, but if this is only half true the web should be aswarm with information about this painter. As you wrote, according to various descriptions he was born in 1895, 1910, 1912, 1927, 1937 and 1941, in Holland, Trieste and Milan, and he studied variously in Amsterdam, Rome, Milan, and London; he is also married to a Dutch woman and unmarried. The Dutch connection is a recurring theme. Based on the style and themes of the paintings, I think this is all one and the same artist. Is it possible that the artist made up such mystifications him/herself?  --Lambiam 22:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Renting.

Does renting a movie help support the people that made it? How does the process work? Do rental companies pay a flat fee for the rights to rent it out or do they give a portion of the profits from each rental? --SeizureDog 09:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if places like Blockbuster or Hollywood Video have different arrangements but as for the smaller mom & pop stores, they buy a copy of the movie from a distributor. Let's say they pay $50 for the copy (their prices are higher). If they rent it out for $5 then they have to bet whether it will be rented at least 10 times. Once they've rented it out at least ten times, then every time they rent it out after that is profit. This is of course not counting have to pay for overhead such as the electricity for the lights, heat, the lease on the store property, etc. Dismas|^(talk) 09:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What are Tories?

in reading extracts from some old Irish verse i came across this

'Ho! brother Teig, what is your story? I went in the wood and shot a tory; I went in the wood and shot another; was it the same or was it his brother.'

its from the seventeenth century. is this something to do with the english political party or is it something else? I'm really puzzled. There cant have been many tories in Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.101.131 (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

A good and interesting question. Tory has not always meant a political Conservative. The word is originally Irish, and meant "a pursuer", it was first applied to the Irish bog-trotters and robbers, and from about 1680 it was applied to the most hot-headed asserters of the royal prerogative. (From Chambers Dictionary. DuncanHill 12:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and its use as a political term was originally an insult by their opponents, the Whigs. -- Arwel (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

...While Whig was originally an insult directed at the Kirk party by their opponents. Algebraist 17:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a fine example of English self-mockery. In Dutch we've got a word for this, proudly copying an insulting name to refer to yourself; geuzennaam. The Dutch article on it mentions 'nigger' being used by blacks to refer to themselves. Is there an English word for that? DirkvdM 17:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Academically speaking, it's called linguistic reappropriation. - Eron ^Talk 20:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The Irish word is toraidhe, which I thought meant 'pursued person', but I am happy to give way to Duncan here, since I have not looked up the proper definition! Anyway, the word itself first appeared in print in 1645, though it was probably in everyday use well before this. The reference was to the gangs who made the open roads so perilous at this time for travellers. One band in County Clare amounted to to some fifty men, over half of them mounted. In Kerry there were even groups up to a hundred strong, and the London Gazette for July 1666 reports a fight with one band near Longford twice as strong as that. A good bit of the Irish countryside at this time was still heavily wooded, providing perfect cover for both ambush and retreat.

In an attempt to stamp on the problem the Commonwealth authorities decreed in February 1650 that all of the Irish people living in a barony in which tories had commited robberies should make good the losses, unless the perpetrators were produced in good time. When this failed to work another proclamation was issued in April 1655, with the even more draconian threat that if the tories were not arrested within twenty-eight days of any given incident, then four of the local Irish people were to be transported to the Americas and the remainder in the barony transplanted. Financial rewards were also offered, wild west style, for tories taken 'dead or alive.' Bounty hunting became something of a growth industry, reflected in the little verse you have given here, 217.42, and in the following;

I hunted him in, I hunted him out,

Three times through the bog, and about

and about;

Till out of the bush I spied his head,

So I levelled my gun and shot him dead.

Clearly dead was more convenient than alive! Still, none of this had any real effect on reducing the problem, because the local people sympathised with the outlaws, protecting and aiding them when they could. For the whole issue had a political dimension, arising from previous land confiscations by the English, particularly acute during the time of Cromwell. Little was done to address the problem after the Restoration of the monarchy, and the tories became popular heroes, Ireland's Robin Hood bands. And the most popular of all, Robin Hood himself, it might be claimed, was Redmond O'Hanlon, whose band operated from the Mountains of Mourne. Clio the Muse 00:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Robin Hood was a 20th century travel writer? DirkvdM 06:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? For once Clio is (almost) speechless! If there is a joke here I can't see it. Clio the Muse 22:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's okay, Clio, you wikilinked the wrong Redmond O'Hanlon! There's a separate article for Redmond O'Hanlon (outlaw), and it's an excellent joke. Xn4 22:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Now I understand. I did not check the link (now changed). Sorry, Dirk! Clio the Muse 22:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added links between the articles. Funny, I'm in the middle of a discussion (resolved now - I got my way :) ) about another travel writer who's written a book on his voyage through Borneo, Eric Hansen. Hanlon and Hansen, and there's loads of 'm. Very confusing. :) DirkvdM 07:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Btw, Clio, you like to read, I gather, especially on history, and Hansen's Stranger in the forest is one of the best books I've ever read. It can be seen as a glimpse of history (the way our ancestors probably used to live) by a contemporary person who really knows what he's writing about (as opposed to O'Hanlon and loads of other travel writers). If you also like adventures (real ones, not bloody novels) then this is a must-read. DirkvdM 07:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Dirk, Clio reads, absorbing 'input' like the robot (Johnny 5?-I can't remember the name of the movie)) in the book store! Thank you for flagging up the Hansen book; it sounds like something I may very well be interested in. The only problem is that most of my leisure reading at the moment is taken up with 'bloody novels'! (Thackery, Ralph Ellison, Celine). Clio the Muse 22:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Kilsoo Haan

Please, is anything known about Kilsoo Haan? K Limura 11:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's mentioned in the (disputed) article Kinoaki Matsuo, and Google has some stuff. What, more precisely, do you want to know? Algebraist 13:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

He was born in Korea, later becoming an agent for the Sino-Korean People's League, based in China in the 1930s. Not an awful lot is known about his background, other than that he was opposed to the Japanese occupation of his native Korea. He was particularly opposed to the Black Dragon Society, the ultra right-wing and nationalist organisation, whose agents operated across the world.

In 1940, Haan, then living in California, discovered that Kinoaki Matsu, a Japanese intelligence officer and member of the Black Dragon, was visiting the Japanese communities on the west coast, promoting his book, which turned out to be The Three Power Alliance and the U.S. Japan War. Haan got hold of a copy and translated it into English. He was convinced that the timetable for war laid out in the book was more than theory, a suspicion confirmed when another Korean agent managed obtain a detailed map of Pearl Harbor from the Japanese consulate in Honolulu. Yet another informed him that an article had appeared in a Japanese newspaper, reporting that U.S Army Air Force maneuvers in the Hawaiian Islands would be carried out everyday, except Sundays and holidays in Devember 1941. Haan reported his suspicions to Guy Gillette, Senator for Iowa, who in turn alerted the State Department, as well as Army and Navy intelligence, that Japanese attacks were planned on both Hawaii and the Philippines. On Thursday, December 4 1941 Haan telephoned Max Hamilton of the State Department, telling him that Korean underground agents had information that Pearl Harbor was to be attacked soon, possibly that coming weekend. Sensing his scepticism Haan concluded,

It is our considered and sincere belief, December is the month of the Japanese attack, and the surprise fleet is aimed at Hawaii, perhaps the first Sunday of December...No matter how you feel towards our work, will you please convey our apprehension and this information to the President and to the military and naval commanders in Hawaii.

Nothing further happened until the afternoon of Sunday, December 7, when Hamilton phoned, warning Haan not to reveal the details of his previous warnings, threatening to "put him away for the duration" if he did. With the help of Senator Gillette and others Haan remained at liberty, taking up permanent residence in the United States. After the war he became a persistent advocate of Korean independence, though he gradually sank into obscurity. His life-and his accurate reports-may have been forgotten altogether but for John Toland's Infamy: Pearl Harbor and its Aftermath, naming him as one of the intelligence sources ignored by the Roosevelt administration. Clio the Muse 01:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

About Agrawal and Agrahari Vaishya

Dear sir,

I want to know whether there is difference between Agrawal and Agrahari Vaishya. I found no any material on this topic on your site or Internet

please provide the material on this topic and if possible intimate me on my e-mail <e-mail removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.47.109 (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

A Google search suggests that Agrahari Vaishya is considered a subcaste of the Agrawal caste.  --Lambiam 21:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wearing of surgical masks

I just finished watching Babel and in it there is a scene in Tokyo where someone in the background is wearing a surgical mask. I realize that people did this during the SARS outbreak but is this still a common thing to see? Dismas|^(talk) 13:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to Japan or Tokyo, but while travelling I frequently see people - usually women, usually Asian - wearing such masks. Typically this is in airports and on aircraft, particularly when I'm going through Vancouver on my way to Beijing. - Eron ^Talk 15:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It is quite common in Japan, if you have a cold, to wear a surgical mask to avoid infecting others. I think this civilized custom predates the SARS outbreak. Presumably they can also be worn to offer some protection to the bearer, which may account for increased popularity during the SARS period.  --Lambiam 16:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Is this a relatively new thing? I don't remember anyone wearing one when I was in Tokyo in 1991. Of course, I was there in the summer, July I think, so there wouldn't be too many people with colds then. Dismas|^(talk) 16:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I've seen this also (in the U.S.) and always wondered exactly what the reasoning was, I assumed it had something to do with infectious diseases. Also, when I was living in the Phoenix area I would occasionally see Asian women walking around with deployed umbrellas, which I assume was to protect their skin from the desert sun, but which still always struck me as incongruous and gave me a chuckle. 38.112.225.84 20:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen various pop culture references to wearing cold masks from at least the late 1970s, so it's not very new. You can even get them in convenience stores around Japan. Tantei Kid 00:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Does Frank Tyger exist?

We have found lots of quotes ostensibly from him, and a page on him seems to have been deleted from Wikipedia. But we don't know who he is or what he does to say such pithy things. Is he a real person, or a spurious source of clever sayings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.171.0.148 (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

He clearly exists in some form. See a page here which seems to locate him in Trenton, New Jersey in the 1990s. From this, it looks as if more work is needed to work out whether he is or was a 'real' person. You may be thinking of him as another Henry Root, but then there have always been writers who don't use their own names. The more useful question is 'How are all these quotations sourced, where do they come from'? If Tyger is such an elusive figure, then all kinds of people may find it convenient to add his name to things which otherwise would belong to 'Anon.' Xn4 14:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

UK service industry size in relation to UK GNP

What and how to determine the size of uk service industry in relation to uk GNP?— 194.6.79.200 14:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You could start with the OECD web site here, which has online information and details of publications. Xn4 14:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Austrian navy in the first world war

I assume the empire had a navy-it certainly had an admiral (Horthy)-but am unable to find anything on it. Can anyone help? 217.43.14.30 18:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The main article for the navy is here - Austro-Hungarian Navy. DuncanHill 19:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy and revolution

It was the view of Edmund Burke that the French philosophers like Voltaire were high among the causes of the revolution of 1789. How accurate is this view and what impact did their thinking have on the course of events? Pere Duchesne 19:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't answer homework questions here, and that sure sounds like it was copied from an assignment. You might take a look at the articles philosophe, Age of Enlightenment, and French Revolution (in particule the sub-article Causes of the French Revolution, esp. the part relevant to the Enlightenment). But in almost all cases like this your teacher has assigned you readings which cover this specifically and have the answers they expect you to give hidden in them somewhere. --24.147.86.187 19:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Burke's contention was later taken up by Alexis de Tocqueville and Lord Acton amongst others, though it is possible to overstate the argument. The collapse of the Ancien Regime had nothing whatsoever to do with the 'ferment of ideas'. However, once underway, the theories of the philosophes operated like a kind of road map, indicating, perhaps, where the Revolution should be, rather than where it actually was. Anyway, I would suggest, Pere Duchesne, that you break this down into elements, trying to match particular thinkers with a particular stage of political development. I can help you on your way-philosphe style-with the following suggestions.

The chief intellectual influence on the first phase, roughly from the Fall of the Bastille in 1789 to the Flight to Varennes in 1791, was Montesquieu, particularly the ideas he expressed in L'Esprit des lois, first published in 1753. Here a liberal constitutional monarchy is considered to be the best system of government. Louis' personal 'abdication' in 1791 effectively brought the moderate revolution to an end, though it limped on for a time.

The second phase, that of the Republic, falls from September 1792 to the coup d'etat of 18 Brumaire in November 1799. Here the intellectual guide is, of course, Rousseau and The Social Contract. Though he is particularly associated with Robespierre, the fall of the latter did not lead to his displacement from the Pantheon, literally or metaphorically. The concept of the sovereign nation remained in place as the guiding idea of the Republic.

The third and final stage is the Imperial, which was not the end of the Revolution but a channeling down a different avenue. And Napoleon's intellectual mentor, his justification, if you like, has to be Voltaire, the advocate of enlightened absolutism. Clio the Muse 03:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thermidorian reaction

Was this truly a counter-revolution? What impact, if any, did the event have on the subsequent course of French and European history? Pere Duchesne 19:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like a homework question. You might see our article on Thermidorian reaction and then ask any follow-up questions you might have. --24.147.86.187 19:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no group of people, Pere Duchesne, more prone to looking for the 'lessons' of history, and more prone to misreading these lessons once uncovered, than the political left. I have seen arguments to the effect that the Thermidorian Reaction was a counter-revolution, a view particularly favoured by Marxists, with serious repercussian in one case at least, which I will touch on in a moment. Anyway, Thermidor was a reaction against the excesses of Robespierre and the Reign of Terror; a reaction against the threat of dictatorship and institutionalised violence; a reaction, above all, to the extreme direction in which the Revolution had been taken by a narrowly constructed an unrepresentative vanguard. It was not-and this really has to be stressed-counter-revolution; for the republican regime and its political institutions remained in place. The counter-revolution, puting to one side the Napoleonic dictatorship, would have to wait until 1814-15.

After the October Revolution of 1917 Russian Communists almost invariably looked over their shoulders, seeking parallels between their own political processes and the that of the French, forgetting that all historical events have their own unique momentum. Later, from the perspective of exile, Leon Trotsky was to describe the rise of Stalin and Stalinism as the 'Soviet Thermidor' in his book The Revolution Betrayed. However, he had previously cast Stalin in the role of Robespierre, refusing, together with his colleagues on the left, to co-operate with Bukharin and the right against him, because it was the union between the fragments of the left and right that had brought about the Thermidorian Reaction in the first place! Those whom the gods wish to destroy etc. etc. Clio the Muse 02:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Clio, you really need to stop doing people's homework for them...unless of course you want them to get in trouble for plagiarism, which would be amusing. Adam Bishop 04:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is a homework question. The topics are too advanced and open for homework assignments.  --Lambiam 05:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what you call homework; it certainly isn't sixth-grade social studies, but it could be a first- or second-year university question. - Eron ^Talk 13:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

University homework, sure. I imagine these might also be young teachers or professors who are trying to figure out what kind of responses to expect, in which case I guess it's not really homework, maybe reverse homework :) Adam Bishop 15:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not do people's homework. Even the fullest answer I give here can only provide pointers to further research. And if you think the above could be reproduced as it stands as a full answer to the question then all I can say is that the standards demanded elsewhere in the world must be a lot less rigorous than in England; or a lot less rigorous than those in my old school, at any rate. I will continue to answer in all good faith where I consider the question both interesting and, most important of all, worthy of a thoughtful answer. Clio the Muse 22:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I would dare say they are a lot less rigorous than that, and also that the students are a lot more lazy! :) Have you never had your own students incompetently plagiarize from the Internet? Even undergrads do that over here... Adam Bishop 01:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

At Cambridge? Never! (It's far too obvious). Clio the Muse 01:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but another problem over here is that even the worst students seem to think their teachers (or professors or TAs) are idiots... Adam Bishop 02:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Georgian era ship travel, and post

In the 1790s, approximately how long would it take for a ship to travel from the Caribbean to New England, or to cross the Atlantic to America? What was the nature of international postal service at the time, and what is the minimum amount of time it would take for a letter to travel one of these routes? --π! 21:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I can say a word about the transatlantic crossing. In the eighteenth century, crossings were all under sail, so the time taken was less predictable than it became a generation later when steam arrived. By the 1790s, the passage from England to New England usually took between four and five weeks, but it could be longer if the weather was bad. Xn4 00:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Weeks. The first trans-Atlantic steam crossing wasn't attempted until 1819 (it took 29 days and used sails part of the way.) In 1838, the first nonstop crossing took 18 days - cut to 15 days on the return trip.[6]. But this was long after the 1790s. Rmhermen 00:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, "crossing the Atlantic to America" is a bit vague. For example, the straight great circle distance from Ireland to Newfoundland is about 2,000 miles, while from Spain to Cuba is more like 4,500. Pfly 04:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this also depend on the direction one goes and the time of year? Alas I can't find anything on that. Maybe the wind-related articles need a better organisation. Or is it me. DirkvdM 07:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

When crossing the equator, there were the dreaded doldrums, a belt where the winds could disappear for weeks, leaving the ship thus caught motionless.  --Lambiam 13:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Virginia question

What was Virginia's first governor after it became a part of the United States? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.12.248 (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Henry. DuncanHill 21:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

October 7

Surfing the web

Is it legal to surf the web without trousers? If so, how about completely naked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.161.158 (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, reference desk guidelines forbid us from giving legal advice. - Eron ^Talk 00:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think he or she needs medical advice...which we are also barred from giving. Clarityfiend 00:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I rather think you're pulling our leg, 88.110.161.158, but no doubt the answer depends on where exactly you were thinking of doing this trouserless or completely naked web surfing. At home, you should be safe from arrest in both cases, in a public library you may run into problems in the second scenario. Xn4 00:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Folsom Chevy in Folsom, California encourages it. Corvus cornix 01:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

LC? Clio the Muse 01:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think she means User:Light current. a.z. 02:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're at home, then yes, it's legal in most jurisdictions. —Nricardo 05:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if you wear a mask. DirkvdM 07:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(Health and safety advise, not medical) You need to take care if you are sitting on a hard chair, as naked flesh can get stuck to such furniture. SaundersW 08:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I frequently surf the net without trousers and in public too.Of course I'm a woman.-hotclaws 08:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a slob. -- BenRG 11:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of Colleges/Universities in the US

How many are there? A single number of total 2-year and 4-year public and private is what I'm looking for, but a breakdown of how many of each type might be interesting too. Thanks in advance :) --Ybbor^Talk 01:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Here 'ya go: [7]. -- Mwalcoff 03:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

So 4,276 colleges (or 1 for every 70,761 people). I wonder other countries compare. Rmhermen 04:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well Canada has something like 44 four-year universities and about 138 2-year community colleges for its about 33.4 million people, so that's about one school for every 183,000 people. -- Mwalcoff 04:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The usage of the word "college" varies wildly in different countries, and many do not have a similar educational institution, making comparison with other countries difficult or meaningless.  --Lambiam 13:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If that were true, students would have a much harder time studying abroad. Colleges here (as stated in the beginning as "colleges/universities" refers to tertiary education) Are there any developed countries that don't have tertiary education institutions. Rmhermen 17:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The link for Tertiary education redirects to Higher education, and in the UK, at least, Tertiary education is what you do BEFORE you go into Higher education. DuncanHill 22:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

In several countries, apart from vocational education, the only, or predominant, form of higher educational institution is that of a full-fledged university, conferring Masters and Ph.D.s, with a broad range of faculties: science, medicine, humanities, economics, sociology, psychology. These tend to have large numbers of students. These universities are, catering for the same number of students, much fewer in number than two-year community colleges.  --Lambiam 22:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Boxer shorts

When did boxer shorts replace pajamas as the preferred form of sleepwear among teen-age boys? 67.188.22.239 02:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

1960s.--Wetman 07:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

At age 13, in this house. SaundersW 08:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think jockeys may also need to factored in there as well as boxers. Corvus cornix 19:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal question

This is a legal question, but not related to anyone in particular: just general. Why is it seen as a breach of the peace etc if you drop your trousers in public (you still have your shorts on), when it would be perfectly legal if you were walking down the street in just shorts and shirt (hot weather). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.198.32 (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

LC, (it is you, isn't it?) you might get a better response to this silliness on the Miscellaneous Desk. Clio the Muse 03:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Depends what kind of shorts you have on. If they are the kind of shorts that it's decent to wear in public, then I see no legal problem. Of course, if you are playing games like this for the purpose of annoying the local policeman, don't be shocked if he arrests you anyway -- police in most nations have plenty of authority to detain troublemakers for a couple hours without arresting them. --M@rēino 03:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have wondered about something similar concerning some seaside holiday resorts where people walk around town in swimming attire. If that is accepted (and presumably legal) there, then how about elsewhere? Can someone be arrested for wearing clothing that is not considered appropriate for the specific surroundings? How much freedom do police-officers have in being their own judge about this? DirkvdM 07:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Ohio Revised Code section on "public indecency" requires the exposure of "private parts." It doesn't define "private parts," but the courts have ruled that exposing female breasts is legal. -- Mwalcoff 07:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

In Franco-era Spain the beaches were patrolled by a special branch of the police in white jackets who checked the appropriateness of bathing wear and the same police also prevented people walking about the towns in bathing wear. Even quite small children had to dress properly beore leaving the beach area. SaundersW 08:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

OK this question relates to something I saw on Street wars (UK Tv program). A young man momentarily (1 sec)dropped his trousers (whist holding on to them) to reveal a perfectly decent pair of boxer shorts: possibly as a sign to (an)other young person(s) in the vicinity of the nightclub/pub he was exiting. He did not notice the police car. The police arrested him for indecent exposure. Legal or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.198.32 (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No idea about the UK, but in Canada the Criminal Code provision against public nudity includes a clause reading "For the purposes of this section, a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order." So the authorities have all the scope for interpretation that they want, up to the point where they are restricted by precedent from earlier cases. --Anonymous and fully dressed, 12:42 UTC, October 7, 2007.

Ok If haitians are mostly descended from West Africans, Why did half of the slave population descended from the congo's?

Most haitians descended from West Africans which came from the Western Sudan depending on the Tribes: Ibos, Nagos, Bambara, Arada, Mines, Morriquis, Sosos, Thiabas, Bobo, Mondongues, Senegals, Mozos, Hausa, Tacouas, and Yolofs. Only a minimum percentage came from central africa (Congo) so what is going on?--arab 05:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

According to a study, 49.2 % of the slave population of Haiti was originally from the Congos during this period!!?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerrorSonghai (talk • contribs) 05:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC) --arab 06:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The questioner is referring to an article in Historia Thématique, no. 80, Novembre-Decembre 2002, p.41, which is referenced in the Haiti article. The theme of that issue was: L'esclavage un tabou français enfin levé.[8] I don't have access to this journal, so I can't verify if the findings of the study are correctly reported. It would be nice to have the title and names of the authors of the cited article. I must say that the number 49.2% is presented with a precision that is only attainable if the researchers had access to comprehensive accurate logs for the whole French period. It is not clear to me whether "originally from the Congos" only includes such slaves as were shipped from there. There is a lot of material on the web from Black History sites and such, but it is not clear what the sources are for their (sometimes contradictory) statements. What is missing in general, here as well as in our Saint-Domingue article, are reliable (scholarly) references.  --Lambiam 13:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Catholic and Orthodox

What are the roots of the divisions between the two churches? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electra One (talk • contribs) 05:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

All is explained at East-West Schism. Xn4 12:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

English Catholics after the Reformation

Did their attitudes towards the Papacy change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electra One (talk • contribs) 05:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

After Henry VIII left the Church, yes. They changed back and forth, depending on whether the monarch at the time was Catholic or Protestant. The Pope in Elizabeth's day put a price on her head, for anyone who would assassinate her. Wrad 05:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of native English Catholics in Elizabeth's reign pretty much just wanted to be tacitly left alone to practice their own beliefs in private, and had very mixed feelings about such efforts as the Papal bull Regnans in Excelsis (in which the Pope declared that English Catholics were absolved from all bounds of loyalty to the pope, and also effectively called for her assassination, which meant that from the English government's point of view, it was a proclamation that all Catholics who were loyal to the pope were traitors to England), Philip of Spain's preparation of the Spanish Armada, and the threatening polemical jeremiads and bloodthirsty political fantasies of people like Cardinal Allen. So unfortunately, international politics and tensions made the tacit accomodation of private Catholic worship -- which both Elizabeth and many English Catholics would have been moderately satisified with -- much more difficult. AnonMoos 17:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem for English Catholics, Electra, after the break with Rome was in essence one of politics: the head of the Universal Church was now no more than a foreign potentate, and as their principle allegiance was to the crown, any lingering attachment to the secular authority of the Pope opened them to a possible charge of treason, especially after the excommunication of Elizabeth I. Yet it should not be assumed that English Catholics always had an uncritical devotion to the Papacy. In the period before the onset of the English Reformation, when Sir Thomas More, later a Catholic martyr, was advising Henry VIII on the composition of his book, Defence of the Seven Sacraments, a polemic against Luther, he advised the King to tone down some of the arguments in favour of papal authority,

The Pope, as your Grace knoweth, is a Prince as you are. It may hereafter so fall out that your Grace and he may vary whereupon may grow breach of amity and war between you both. I think it best therefore that that place be amended, and his authority more slenderly touched.

I suppose the point here is that pontiffs like Alexander VI and Julius II, were almost entirely worldly figures, who impinged very little on Catholic practice and conscience. It was possible, in other words, to be a sincere Catholic yet distrustful of the Pope. So, those who in the end held to the 'Old Religion' may very well have done so for other reasons than loyalty to Rome.

The real break, the crisis of English Catholicism, if you like, came not in the 1530s but in 1570, with Pope Paul V's bull, Regnans in Excelsis. In forbiding English Catholics to obey Elizabeth and her laws, whether they paid heed or not, Paul effectively forced the government to treat them as a source of potential treason. The new class of 'Recusants', those who now refused to attend their local parish churches, were treated with increasing degrees of severity. Even so, while there was some plotting against the throne, centering on Mary Queen of Scots, the Catholic alternative to Elizabeth, most of those who continued to adhere to the Old Religion, had little or no interest in treasonable actions; and regardless of papal instructions they effectively trimmed and compromised where they could, rendering unto Caesar what was due to Caesar. There were even Catholics who declared openly at the time of the Spanish Armada that if the enemy landed they would come to the defence of the Queen.

By the end of Elizabeth's reign, and into that of James I the pragmatic tendency in English Catholicism was well-established, expressed most particularly in the views of a new class of priests, known as the Appellants. The argument was now put forward that one could be loyal by both Pope and Crown, because the Pope had no claim on the political allegiance of Catholics. In this it is possible to see a 'national' reaction to the 'internationalism' of the Jesuits. In effect, the Pope's authority in civil matters was denied, just as he continued to be recognised as the supreme arbiter in matters of faith. And it's worth emphasising that there was nothing new in this. Even rulers as orthodox as Philip II of Spain placed clear limits on the degree of papal interference allowed within their realms.

It was, in short, possible for Catholics to be loyal subjects of a heretical crown, no matter how much the Pope may have disliked this development. The English Civil Wars were to provide the best demonstration of the new dual tradition, with Catholics high among the Royalists. Clio the Muse 23:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

wise leaders

Stalin published some scientific or pseudoscientific papers, and during his reign it was considered prudent to pepper one's publications with grateful allusions to Stalin's expertise on any subject. Now it seems that in North Korea all the arts and sciences are sprung from the brow of the Great and/or Dear Leader. Other examples? Offhand I don't recall hearing that Hitler had any such pretensions. —Tamfang 06:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

In the days of the Cultural Revolution, it was de rigueur for Chinese scientists to state upfront that the publication had greatly benefitted from the correct application of Mao Zedong Thought. While Mao's works were philosophical rather than straightforwardly scientific, it was nevertheless taken for granted that the applicability of the philosophy extended to the scientific realm, all in the tradition of Marxism-Leninism, in particular in the strict adherence to the doctrine of dialectical materialism.  --Lambiam 14:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that scholars and scientists in Nazi Germany had to pretend that Hitler was the source of all scholarship and science, but many fields of study were realigned to reflect the alleged importance of "race" to just about every subject (including "Jewish physics"). AnonMoos 16:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(Though it should be noted that the Deutsche Physik movement was largely a failure, especially by comparison with the far more consequential re-alignment that took place among the German medical profession, which actually had real and nasty consequences.) --24.147.86.187 13:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

One common theme during the Nazi period in Germany was to consider Hitler "the great doctor" and label him as a "scientific thinker," but he was not considered to be the source of scientific knowledge in the way that Stalin and Mao were at times. In general it seems that this was more common in Communist regimes than in right-wing ones, probably because Marxism purports to be a "science" and a general sieve for dealing with the world, and no doubt as well because early Marxist philosophers (in particular Engels) did believe that they were putting forth a new theory of the world and of knowledge, one which took many points of departure from the standard scientific worldview. --24.147.86.187 13:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I can think of Henry VIII and James I who both published, against Protestantism and tobacco respectively. Henry was rewarded by the Pope giving him the title Fidei Defensor, which to this day appears on British coinage ("FD"). James was rewarded by becoming known as "the wisest fool in Christendom". --Dweller 13:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

From footnotes to James I of England ""James VI and I was the most writerly of British monarchs. He produced original poetry, as well as translation and a treatise on poetics; works on witchcraft and tobacco; meditations and commentaries on the Scriptures; a manual on kingship; works of political theory; and, of course, speeches to parliament...He was the patron of Shakespeare, Jonson, Donne, and the translators of the "Authorized version" of the Bible, surely the greatest concentration of literary talent ever to enjoy royal sponsorship in England." Rhodes et al, p 1." --Dweller 13:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Henry's book was entitled "The Defence of the Seven Sacraments"--Dweller 13:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism then and now-part II

In answering my question on Terrorism then and now (October 4) Clio mentioned the lax attitude of the British to the problem of nineteenth century terrorism. I think she has touched on a very interesting topic and I would like to know some more about this, if possible. All information (Clio?) greatly received. Ta. Gordon Nash 09:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read The Secret Agent, which deals with this to some extent. Hopefully someone will be along to say how accurately it does so. Algebraist 14:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, Algebraist; this is a work I flagged up the first time around! Clio the Muse 00:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It is an interesting topic, Gordon, which reveals quite a lot about changing attitudes. You see, Britain in the nineteenth century considered itself in every way more advanced politically than just about all of the powers of the Continent, most of which were considered to be under some form of despotic rule. This gave rise to the view that if foreign rulers were the targets of terrorism then it must be partly their own fault for ruling in an unreasonable way. It was also responsible for the liberal approach towards all those seeking political asylum. Foreign governments even suspected that the British were encouraaging plots for their own particular ends, the Iran of the Victorian age! This view became especially pronounced after Felice Orsini threw his Birmingham-made bomb against Napoleon III in 1858, killing twelve by-standers in the process.

The reality, of course, was quite different. The government was always embarrassed when any given incident could be traced to English shores, but was still unwilling to risk a challenge in Parliament by making any fundamental alterations in the law, or to undermine a well-entrenched liberal tradition. This attitude was shaken somewhat when terrorism came home, as it did in the Fenian bombing campaign of the 1880s. But the only new law this led to was the Explosives Act of 1883, which obliged those possessing dynamite to prove that they did so for legitimate purposes. It is not as if the government ignored the advice that it gave out so freely to to the Continent: namely, address the root problem and the violence will go away. Some attempt was made to tackle discontent in John Bull's Other Island with the introduction of the First Irish Home Rule Bill.

Sir William Harcourt, the Home Secretary of the day, responsible for domestic security, in a further, less publicised, attempt to improve matters, and to placate the Continental powers, created a section within the London Metrapolitan Police, charged with keeping an eye on foreign socialists. This was followed by the creation of an 'Irish Branch'. In the end the two new offices were combined in a single Special Branch, charged with two functions: to be ready for any revival of the Fenian threat, and to reassure the Europeans that no threat would be mounted against them by exiles living in England. The Special Branch, whose activities were largely unknown to the wider public, could thus operate in such a way that did not mount a direct challenge to the liberal tradition. Clio the Muse 00:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan's Legacy: Did He Intentionally Bankrupt the Soviet Union?

In recent years I have observed a growing media consensus that Reagan's huge military exenditures were an intentional and and specific strategy to bankrupt the Soviet Union by means of Soviet attempts to match the U.S. buildup. Is this conservative mythology or is their a public record of Reagan expressing his intentions before the actual outcome? This has been frequently touted as Reagan's great accomplishment but was the dissolution of the Soviet economic system attributable specifically to Reagan in any varifiable way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.184.222 (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a Reagan-specific doctrine. From what I've read, many major projects and campaigns from the 1970's onward were designed to draw resources away from the Soviet Union, such as funding & supplying the Taliban in Afghanistan. I'd have to do some digging later to find specific citations. -- Kesh 19:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect, 67.189, that this question will have to wait for another fifty years or more for a complete answer; until such time (if ever) that all of the relevant documents are declassified. I'm certainly not aware of any statement by Reagan, or by a member of his administration, that there was a clear intention to 'spend' the Soviet Union to death, though this is effectively what happened. It was, however, already known in academic circles that the Soviets were in trouble well before the Reagan presidency. I would refer you in particular to Andrei Amalrik's seminal work of 1970, Will the Soviet Union Survive until 1984? There were also more objective indicators of problems. For example, the Soviets stopped publishing figures on infant mortality, used in international comparisons, because they were becoming embarrassingly high. So, there were clear underlying strains in the Soviet military-industrial complex, strains that the war in Afghanistan only served to emphasis. Reading the signs, it would not be at all surprising if Reagan received advice from the Pentagon, the CIA and others on what it would take to push matters over the edge. It was a high-risk strategy even so, with lots of variables that could not be fully controlled. And who is to say what would have happened if Gorbachev had been able to implement an effective strategy for renewal. Anyway, you were looking for concrete answers, and I have only been able to offer some speculations. Sorry. Clio the Muse 00:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

For some more speculation, I don't know if the USSR was on the brink of economic collapse (I had understood it was more of a political/social change due to different leaders), but the high level of bureaucracy (strictly top-down, leaving little room for initiative) must have kept the country from reaching its full potential (though I wonder if the present situation, the exact opposite, is much better). In the beginning, the USSR was an economic miracle because it really started up the industrialisation that was much overdue. Society as a whole needed to be completely turned around, setting people to work on industrialisation in stead of sucking them dry as peasants. For this sort of change, a top-down approach is needed because it won't get off the ground if left to individual initiative (or at least not as fast). But once the development was complete and the groundwork was done, the state should have let go and liberalised its policies. But established powers rarely let go. Actually, it's quite a miracle that this happened from the inside, and at the time I suspected the plan was to give these state-pampered people such an overdose of capitalism (no socialism at all, so no more safety-net) that it would scare the shit out of them so they would massively vote for the communist party. That did indeed happen to some extent, but if that was the idea behind the experiment, it obviously failed. The rule of the communist party wasn't just about economics. I suppose the ability to speak freely without fear is something the Russians (especially Russians!) found more important in the end. DirkvdM 07:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Soviets weren't adverse to sucking peasants dry themselves... AnonMoos 09:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How's that? DirkvdM 18:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's called "primitive socialist accumulation" -- to build up heavy industries at the fastest possible pace, the peasants had to send the food they grew to the cities and factories (to feed the bureaucrats and workers), but couldn't be allowed to receive much in the way of consumer goods in return. Stalin was adept at using brutal force, threats of brutal force, skewed administrative policies, and outright dirty tricks (such as the currency demonetization of December 14th 1947) to ensure that peasants handed over the bulk of their agricultural products without gaining much in the way of improved living standards. 20:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonMoos (talk • contribs)

Soviet industrialisation, from the First Five Year Plan onwards, was built on the expropriation of the Russian peasantry. I would refer you to the Wikipedia pages on Collectivisation in the USSR, Kulak, and, most important of all, the page on the great Ukranian famine, known as the Holodomor. It is difficult to establish exact figures, but it is thought at least three million people lost their lives in the latter event alone. In addition, we know from figures released from the Soviet archives that close on two million peasants were sent to the Gulags for resisting forced collectivisation, where some 400,000 died in the period between 1932 and 1940 alone. I would also suggest that you consult Robert Conquest's monograph, The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivisation and the Terror Famine. Clio the Muse 23:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My bet is that if there is a document saying such a thing explicitly, it is probably among the still-classified NSDDs of the Reagan administration, which include things like the top-secret authorization of CIA operations with mujahadin fighters in Afghanistan (NSDD 166) and other nasties. --24.147.86.187 19:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

French Franc 1965

Shall appreciate if anyone can tell me today's value in Euros of 15,000 1965 French Francs. Info needed to illustrate history of a small village.86.197.151.8 08:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)petitmichel

Question moved here from the Mathematics section.  --Lambiam 12:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The franc introduced in 1959 was the version which was converted to the euro at €1 = FRF6.55957. FRF15,000 is, therefore, €2286.73. If you're looking into the history of a rural area, be aware that for many years after the 1959 re-denomination it remained common, particularly among the elderly, to reckon prices in "old francs" (100 pre-1959 francs = 1 new franc) so you need to be sure which kind is being referred to! -- Arwel (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that may not be accurate. Was the 1965 franc not devalued to create the franc that converted to the Euro ? And I also need to know the inflation data to secure an accurate comparision.86.200.4.62 14:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)petitmichel

A better approach is to say that in 1965, the French franc was pegged (by the Bretton Woods system) at 4.9371 francs to the dollar, with very small fluctuations. So 15,000 French francs was $3,038 US dollars in 1965. That was then more than the average annual income for a manual worker in the UK and the US. Price inflation since 1965 has been roughly 1,500%, so if you take that approach then 15,000 francs in 1965 is about 45,500 US dollars, or about 32,200 euros. Xn4 14:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that comparing the value of the franc to the US dollar is particularly meaningful, other than to know that the sum was more than a workers' typical annual income, particularly once we reached the era of floating exchange rates from 1971 onwards. -- Arwel (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you, Arwel. You can't really equate money now with money in a past generation. Even forty years ago, people generally expected much less from life, and inflation for some things has been far more than for others. But I also find it's very hard to get a handle on an amount expressed in a foreign currency. I did say "if you take that approach..." Xn4 16:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, again. Done some more research. The old franc was devalued by 100 in 1960. So that's out of the equation. But I have discovered an Economic survey that relates prices from 1965 to 2006. On that basis the 15,000 francs would be equivalent to roughly 115,500 francs today. i.e. an increase of 100,000 francs. Of course I appreciate that this is a crude measure... but sufficient for my purpose. Many thanks for the assistance.86.200.4.62 14:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)petitmichel

For comparison it is better to look at the ratio: 15,000 is 13%, or slightly more than one eighth, of 115,000. That is in the same ballpark as what our article on the French franc states: "when the euro replaced the franc on January 1, 1999, the franc was worth less than an eighth of its original 1960 value." Also, the euro of December 31, 1998 has not quite the same value, presumably, as today's euro.  --Lambiam 14:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You can also find an index to the various French consumer prices indexes from 1970 to the present here. It looks like they habitually re-based their inflation indices to 100 every 10 years (1970, 1980, 1990, and again in 1998) so working out a cumulative inflation rate from 1970 (can't find an earlier index from my search so far) to the present will involve a little calculation! -- Arwel (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Edward and Piers

Is there any real evidence to support the belief that Edward II and Piers Gaveston were gay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.78.76 (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is no, but it appears from the contemporary sources that by the time he was about twenty-two Edward loved Piers more than he ever did anyone else. The Vita Edwardi Secundi says of them "I do not remember to have heard that one man so loved another. Jonathan cherished David, Achilles loved Patroclus. But we do not read that they were immoderate. Our King, however, was incapable of moderate favour, and on account of Piers was said to forget himself, and so Piers was accounted a sorcerer." Material of this kind has led to plenty of speculation, but we don't really know. Xn4 15:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, beloved Piers! I said recently with reference to a later king that the question of his alleged homosexuality was one that could not be subject to any test of evidence; that it was essentially unknown and unknowable. This is also true of Edward II, though to a far lesser degree, and there is enough material to make out a good circumstantial case, if one were so minded. So, at my peril, here it is.

Piers was introduced into Edward's household by his father, seemingly as a suitable role model for the young prince. Later the Chronicle of the Civil Wars of Edward II was to claim that an immediate bond formed between the two; that Edward felt such regard that "he tied himself against all mortals with an indissoluable bond of love." The first contemporary reference we have is from a letter written by Edward himself in 1305, after the King had reduced his househld, separating him from Gaveston and Gilbert de Clare, another young knight. In this he urges his sister Margaret to persuade Queen Margaret their step-mother, to intervene with the King to allow both men to return-"If we had those two, along with others we have, we would be greatly relieved of the anguish which we have endured and from which we continue to suffer from one day to the next."

Both were eventually restored, but in 1306 Gaveston was banished for unspecified reasons. He was only allowed to return after the King's death in the summer of 1307. It is now that expressions of disquiet become ever more evident in the sources, including that given by the Vita Edwardi Secundi. Robert of Reading goes even further in the Flores Historiarum, saying that Edward entered into 'illicit and sinful unions', rejecting the 'sweet embraces of his wife.' In the Chronicle written by John of Trokelowe, Edward no sooner brought his new bride, Isabella of France, to England after their marriage at Boulougne in 1308, than he rushed to greet Gaveston, showering him with 'hugs and kisses.' During the Queen's coronation Edward's attentions to Gaveston, and his neglect of his bride, caused her uncles, Louis de Everaux and Charles de Orleans to storm out in anger. That same summer Isabella wrote to Philip the Fair, her father, complaining of ill-treatement.

The final piece of evidence comes in the spring of 1312 when Edward fled in the company of Gaveston from the Baronial forces of Thomas of Lancaster, abandoning jewels, plate and his pregnant wife in his haste.

None of this amounts to a conclusive case-and one always has to be mindful of the bias in Medieval sources-, but it shows both an astonishing lack of judegement and degrees of intimacy with a single individual that exceeds all reasonable fraternal bonds; a degree of intimacy that would seem to go beyond mere considerations of personal loyalty. Edward was a king who came close to losing his throne not for the love of a woman but for his love of a man, in whatever form that was expressed. Clio the Muse 01:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The bit most likely to persuade us is the 'illicit and sinful unions' quotation from Robert of Reading, but we need to add (1) that Robert hated Edward and (2) that that passage doesn't refer specifically to Piers Gaveston and could also mean adultery and/or incest. Perhaps we could say that the 'balance of probabilities' test is met, but no more.Xn4 03:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It was not just Gaveston who was a male favourite of Edward, after Gaveston's downfall at tha hands of the barons, Hugh the younger Despenser became the King's new favourite. He was much more ambitious and power hungry and it was this second close relationship that would lead to Edward's own downfall. Again sexual relations were rumoured, again nothing can be proved without time travel. Cyta 09:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Beware, by the way, the tale of Edward's uncomfortable demise (involving a poker, a lot of heat and a bodily orifice). It may or may not have happened... when I was studying the period c.15 yrs ago, historians of the day were tending toward the 'may not', though I'm sure someone can bring us right up to date... --Dweller 09:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's gratuitous nonsense, though, as I have said before, once a myth is up and running it is almost impossible to knock it down. The hot poker story appears well after Edward's death, and does not take its final form until the sixteenth century, in the chronicles of Raphael Holinshed and Sir Thomas More. Death by this method would have been far too elaborate (and far too gothic!) when simple suffocation would have served the same ends (leaving no external marks). The story was an invented elaboration, a comment on Edward's alleged homosexuality. Why should it have mattered, moreover, how Edward died? It certainly did not matter for Richard II and Henry VI. They were too dangerous to leave alive, and that is the simple truth. But, what the hell; it's a good and lurid tale; of pits and pendulums and gruesome deeds! Clio the Muse 23:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Cooking, Children and Church

Is this an accurate definition of the limits of female involvement in the Nazi State? Judithspencer 14:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I shan't try to answer the main drift of your question, which calls for someone who knows more about the period, but the expression "Kinder, Küche, Kirche" predates the Nazis and is credited to Kaiser Wilhelm II. Adolf Hitler's spin on it was "Die Welt der Frau, die Familie, ihr Mann, ihre Kinder, ihr Heim" (The woman's world: the family, her husband, her children, her home.) On the whole, the Nazis had less to say about Christian religion than the old ruling class did. Xn4 16:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There's an article Kinder, Küche, Kirche... AnonMoos 16:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

PS See Magda Goebbels, Leni Riefenstahl, and Gertrud Scholtz-Klink. Xn4 22:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

PPS A substantial book by Claudia Koonz called Mothers in the Fatherland: Women, the Family and Nazi Politics (1986) is well reviewed, a good university library should have it. It followed a paper by Coonz and Renate Bridenthal called Beyond Kinder, Küche, Kirche: Weimar Women in Politics and Work in Liberating Women's History: Theoretical and Critical Essays ed. Berenice Carroll (1976). Xn4 23:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as so often in these cases, ideology had a tendency to be undercut by practice. Blood and soil and other rural themes favoured by the likes of Walther Darre was effectively superceded by the need for a strong urban and industrial base. To begin the role assigned to women in the Nazi scheme of things was narrow and domestic; but once the pressures of sustained ecomomic growth began to feed through, then the fortress of theory began to weaken, especially from 1936 onwards. The demands of the armaments industry were such that the state had no choce but to dig into the reserve pool of female labour. Economic pressures thus had the effect of improving the status of women, a case made out by Jill Stephenson in Women in Nazi Society, and David Schonbaum in Hitler's Social Revolution: Class and Status in Nazi Germany. Wage differentials remained, though the gap began to close. Schonbaum concludes, "The pressures of the totalitarian state combined with those of an industrialising and industrial society to produce for women...a new status of relative if unconventional equality." This meant that some figures in the pre-Nazi women's movement, including Gertrud Baumer of the Federation of German Women's Associations were happy to reach an understanding with the regime, praising policies like labour service for young women, introduced in 1937. Clio the Muse 02:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

history

who in history said "the british are comming"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.80.31 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Paul Revere. (Although it is doubtful that he actually said that, it is a part of the legends surrounding his actual midnight ride.) - Eron ^Talk 15:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I always knew it as 'the Redcoats are coming'? Cyta 09:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably lots and lots of people have said that. --Dweller 09:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• From the article: Revere certainly did not shout the famous phrase later attributed to him ("The British are coming!"), largely because the mission depended on secrecy and the countryside was filled with British army patrols; also, most colonial residents at the time considered themselves British as they were all legally British subjects. Revere's warning, according to eyewitness accounts of the ride and Revere's own descriptions, was "the regulars are coming out." --M@rēino 14:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

difference between the mercantilist and the liberal perspectives on IPE

What difference can we make,firstly, between the mercantilist and the liberal perspectives on IPE , then , between the liberal and structuralist perspectives on international political economy. from farafina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.106.240.12 (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll be happy to answer this question, but first, can you convince us that it isn't homework, or can you fess up that it is homework, and show us what you've done to solve the problem yourself??? 203.221.126.202 16:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And Christ said, "Don't bite me!"?

I just finished watching Donnie Brasco. In it there is a scene where he mentions to his daughter to not bite the eucharist. Having been raised Catholic, this confused me. I'd never heard that you weren't supposed to bite the wafer before. So, is this just a thing with some churches? Was it dropped at some point along the way? I googled for "Eucharist bite" but didn't find anything. Although I did learn that the term "sound bite" comes up a lot more often than I thought it would in the company of the word eucharist. Dismas|^(talk) 17:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

When I went to a Catholic church as a young boy, the classes we went through told us we weren't supposed to bite Eucharist, since it would be like biting into Jesus. My Grandmother, who is also Catholic, said that that was unnecessary. If you told someone you didn't bite the bread at my Protestant church, you'd likely get a lot of strange looks. It's pretty much up for you to decide what you believe. Assuming you're Catholic, you can check out our articles on Eucharistic theology, Transubstantiation and Eucharist (Catholic Church). --Ybbor^Talk 18:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I know my mother was kept in fear when she was young as they told her that if she bit the bread, the blood of christ would flow in her mouth. How delicate. Keria 19:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You'd think you'd want to try it, at least once, to see if it was true. I mean, I find the whole transubstantiation thing to be pretty unlikely to begin with, but if it were easy to check, you'd think you'd give it a shot once. --24.147.86.187 00:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It was thoroughly drummed into me as a Catholic-raised kid that one should swallow the wafer, never bite or chew it. But that was a fair while ago and I don't know what current practice is. -- JackofOz 02:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was raised Catholic (in the 1970s and 80s) and never heard of such rules. I always ate mine like any piece of food. It's not like Jesus said "this is My body, which shall be given up for you; take it and eat... but don't chew!" If you're going to participate in a religion that incorporates God-eating into their ceremony, what's the point getting squeamish about it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

From [9]: "Jesus is risen, gloriously immortal, incapable of being harmed by our teeth.". Try googling "Eucharist wafer chew". -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The original ceremony must have been with a piece of bread cut from a solid loaf. Not biting is obviously a much later taboo.203.21.40.253 02:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My experience was in the '50s. As I say, it may have changed since then. A lot of things have in RC Church. Even some mortal sins are not even considered sins at all now. I wonder what happened to all those poor souls who went to Hell on the strength of these teachings, who shouldn't have gone there. -- JackofOz 06:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So Donnie Brasco basically said that "Eat, for this is my flesh” should not be interpreted as bite me? DirkvdM 07:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

European Domesticates

There are two actual European Domesticates (a food that orginated in Europe). I think Goosefoot or Fat Hen is one but I am not sure and I cannot ascertain what the other is (perhaps the European Wild Boar)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.100.112 (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Domestication does not necessarily imply food. Dogs, horses, camels, ferrets, honey bees and the silkworm have been domesticated for other reasons than serving as food sources. Also plants can be domesticated for other reasons, like cotton and the bottle gourd. Domesticated implies not wild, so the wild boar is not domesticated. Pigs are, but that did not happen in Europe. Our Domestication article has a list of the places where different species of domesticated animals are believed to have first been domesticated.  --Lambiam 21:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Goosefoot and fat hen are both plants and neither are are particularly major food or crop items.I wonder if someone is pulling your leg?-hotclaws 09:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

---

According to Guns, Germs, and Steel, poppies and oats were domesticated in western Europe... AnonMoos 09:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

October 8

Felix Mendelssohn's The Resurrection

Hi, My father always throws on at me on his wish list for birthday. I'm looking for this piece of music, but cannot find it. I've researched Mendelssohn and can only assume that he rewrote a piece from Bach. Can you help? Any information would be helpful for me to find this piece of music! 151.204.12.142 02:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Ron

I know of no piece of that name that Mendelssohn wrote. He did "resurrect" Bach's St Matthew Passion in 1829, by giving it its first performance since Bach's death 79 years earlier. The Passion concerns the events leading up to the Resurrection of Jesus. Is your father a practical joker? Is he confusing Mendelssohn’s "Reformation" Symphony (No. 5) with Mahler's "Resurrection" Symphony (No.2) - it does happen, even among experts (see the correction at the bottom). -- JackofOz 02:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Got a reply from the program director of a classical station - resurrection is a nickname for the Reformation Symphony,(No 5), as you predicted. After listening to the piece on the radio, they referred to the symphony as the Resurrection. How confusing is that? At least now I have a title to go on. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.12.142 (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I must say I've never heard the Reformation Symphony nicknamed the "Resurrection" Symphony before. It really has nothing to do with any resurrection. -- JackofOz 06:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

siblings

i was wondering is a step sister/brother still my sister/brother legally if our parents get a divorce in the state of maryland

I'm also wondering this (but in a more general basis, not just the state of Maryland). And, please, notice this is not a request for legal advice. --Taraborn 09:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I think it may depend on a number of factors. Did the law consider your step-sibling to be your sibling before your parents divorced, and if so, why would their divorce change that relationship? If the non-biological parent never formally adopted your step-sibling, then he/she would not necessarily be your sibling at law, but simply the child of your step-parent. Or it may depend on whether a family unit can be demonstrated. Family relationships are often treated differently from law to law even within the same jurisdiction, and maybe it's not possible to give a categorical Yes or No answer to the question. This is terribly vague, I know, but the question is somewhat imponderable without more specific information. (And this is most definitely not legal advice.) -- JackofOz 13:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There are various dictionaries of words and phrases which have been judicially reviewed, you should try checking any of those you can find in or through your library, but I think the question would only really arise at law if there were legal provisions to do with step-brothers and step-sisters. I can't think of any (for instance, I don't know of anywhere where such relations by marriage feature in the law of intestacy). If any kind of legal instrument referred to step-brothers and step-sisters, then it would be usual to define the term at the same time. Xn4 16:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Lyrics for Mata Oh Ah Eh.

Can anybody please provide lyrics for the above mentioned song by Dr Alban (or Alben?). Googled for it but couldnt find it!

Regards, Nikhil. Illogical Programmer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.54.180 (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You might find more specialist help at the Entertainment desk. --Dweller 13:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"We're sorry but the artist has decided not to disclose the lyrics for this song." [10] SaundersW 20:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

<whatever>-stan countries

Why do so many countries in Central Asia follow that name pattern? Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Afganistan, Pakistan... --Taraborn 09:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Because -stan is a Persian-language roughly meaning "place" (Persian was spoken in Central Asia before the Turkic languages). There's an article on -stan. AnonMoos 09:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Think of it as analogous to the -land suffix (Iceland, Finland, Scotland, England, etc.) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Slavery in Brazil

In what way did black slavery contribute towards the shaping of Brazil? TheLostPrince 12:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read History of slavery in Brazil?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

book - runes etc

Can anyone recommend a good book for pre-christian runic inscriptions, carvings, and rock carvings/pictograms. Stuff like this runestone etc. Preferably european though anything central asian would also be good. Colour pictures or high quality monochrome rather than sparsley illustrated. Also please no 'coffee table paganism' stuff - lots of 'proper' background, or research, or a 'text book'. I'd really like to find one that covers much or most of the available material if this is possible. Stuff covering christian/pagan themes together is also of interest..

Also any good sources for carvings that give mythological stories in pictorial form (again eurasian).

I'm looking for things that have the semblance of a story rather than the hunters pictures/deer/dead sheep found in mesolithic petroglyphs.

Thanks if you can help.87.102.17.101 14:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether any of the books listed in the Runic alphabet article might help you? For instance,

• Blum, Ralph (1932) The Book of Runes - A Handbook for the use of Ancient Oracle : The Viking Runes, Oracle Books, St Martin's Press, New York, ISBN 0-312-00729-9
• MacLeod, Mindy, and Bernard Mees (2006) Runic Amulets and Magic Objects, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge
• Odenstedt, Bengt (1990) On the Origin and Early History of the Runic Script, Uppsala, ISBN 9185352209
• Page, R.I. (1999) An Introduction to English Runes, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge ISBN 0-85115-946-X
• Spurkland, Terje (2005) Norwegian Runes and Runic Inscriptions, Boydell Press ISBN 1-84383-186-4
• Williams, Henrik (1996) The Origin of the Runes, Amsterdamer Beiträge zur ältereen Germanistik

All of these sound as if they might be some use. Xn4 15:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the ancient Roman author Tacitus refers to a Germanic practice of divination by means of marks on wood (which may or may not be runes), but no specific details of any early historical use of runes in divination have come down to us, and "systems" which attribute abstract philosophical or occult meanings to specific runes cannot be supported by any solid early historical evidence... AnonMoos 19:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above might be useful - (though the first one looks a bit 'new agey' to me), however it would help me a lot if anyones read any of these and could say if they are what I was after.87.102.17.101 19:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Boydell Press publish hardcore academic stuff. Those will be in-depth, and may assume a lot of prior knowledge, same for the Henrik Williams book. The Rune stone article cites two books, one of which looks like it might be interesting: Sven Birger Fredrik Jansson, Runes In Sweden. Best of all, you can read a free dissertation on early runes, Looijenga, Jantina Helena, Runes around the North Sea and on the Continent AD 150-700; texts & contexts. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Renaissance

Did the Renaissance had a significant impact upon European means of thinking which greatly affected and transformed the Catholic Church? and what was it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.175 (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

For a start, visit Renaissance, which has been listed as a History good article. Xn4 15:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't help really. Where is it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.175 (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Renaissance: Religion is the section most relevant to your question. It also refers you onwards to Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Xn4 15:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You might also take a look at Renaissance humanism and Catholic Reformation. They cover this more specifically. Marco polo 15:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As well as Reformation, the significant English Reformation and Holy_Roman_Empire#Crisis_after_Reformation, notably the Sack of Rome (1527), which had a huge impact on papal policy then and thereafter. This section is also right up your street. --Dweller 16:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Society

How was European society different from western society today? and what are the three examples of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.175 (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you left out the bit of the homework question that specified a period. Either that or it makes no sense, "European society" overlapping hugely with "western society" today. --Dweller 16:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Machiavelli's Prince

Was the morality of Machiavelli's The Prince a product or rejection of Renaissance Culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.175 (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read our articles, or indeed the book The Prince, by Machiavelli? --Dweller 16:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Enlightened despot?

How enlightened was Catherine the Great? 86.147.191.17 15:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

See Catherine the Great. --Dweller 16:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Lloyd George

Is it true that the seeds of David Lloyd George's downfall were planted in the election of 1918, the moment of his greatest triumph? Brodieset 16:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This must be a record-breaking run of homework questions. --Dweller 16:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

David Lloyd George is quite helpful. Xn4 16:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

memorization

Why and how come Islam is the only religion that have its believers memorize the whole holy Koran by heart? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.175 (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Because Islam venerates the Koran more than any other religion does. --Dweller 16:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Some Jewish groups memorize the Torah. Wrad 17:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This question's about memorising the Koran. Even so, Jews are far more likely to set out to memorise chunks of the Oral Law (Mishna, Talmud) than the Written Law (Torah) as the terms Oral and Written imply. --Dweller 18:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

For memorizing the Qur'an, see Hafiz (Quran). For memorizing sacred scriptures in other traditions, see also Vedic chant (though "scripture" is not the right word for something that is oral not written in its authoritative form). Wareh 17:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

---

The Qur'an is a lot shorter than the Bible, and the traditionally-prevailing view among many Muslim groups has been that the Qur'an is "uncreated" and "has existed since the beginning of time" (which is quite a bit more than Jews or Christians have generally claimed for the Bible...). 19:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Vienna and Versailles

Why was the Congress of Vienna of 1815 a relative success and the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 a complete failure? Brodieset 16:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the power elite of each country (including that of the vanquished, France) was more or less satisfied with the outcome in 1815 and because France was not subjected to penalties it found onerous in 1815, whereas the elites of Germany and Austria resented their serious losses as a consequence of Versailles and therefore backed politicians who made Versailles a scapegoat for the hardships of the lower and middle classes and who advocated revanchist policies? Perhaps Clio will step in and correct me. Marco polo 17:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC) 17:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Opponent process theory as applied to emotion

What support is there for the opponent-process theory of emotion? User:Kushal_one --69.150.163.1 16:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Found it. its a stub, though. Opponent-process theory --Kushal^{Click me!} write to me 20:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

1968 Draft Notice

What does the envelope of a 1968 United States draft notice look like?

ɗʒɛʐəɓɛɭ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.52.2 (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• As the advice at the top of the reference desk page suggests, it's often quicker just to do your own search. Had you done a Google Image Search for "draft notice", you would have seen that the very first item that pops up is a draft notice from 1968! --M@rēino 19:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, it is a lot harder to find an image of the envelope. SaundersW 20:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Good point! I mistakenly ignored the part about the "envelope" because, as far as I know, they didn't come in a special envelope, so asking for the envelope didn't make any sense to me. Still, that is the question, so I retract my previous answer. --M@rēino 21:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Exact date of Foundation of New York City by the Dutch

Dear Madam/Sir:

Please help me find the precise date--month-date-year that is the official date for the founding of New York City (in those days, only lower Manhattan) by the Dutch. Many cities have a precise date, either traditional or actual. e.g. Rome's is April 21, 753 B.C., and Mew Orleans's is C. April 15, 1718.

The closest I have found for New Amsterdam is July 1625. Is it possible to find a specific day? WAll my attempts to find ones, based on building the fort, signing a charter, landing in Manhattan, or building a city wall or a city hall, have yielded no results.

Please help me find the month and day; 1625 as the year is on the city flag and the city seal.

Thank you.

Yours cordially, mjjon —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJONeill (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Any such date will have something arbitrary, but there is evidence that the earliest Dutch colonists to settle on Manhattan arrived there on July 16, 1625 (see item #27 here). That would then be a reasonable candi-date.  --Lambiam 22:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate complicating things (no, sorry; I love it!), but I think and advance party of settlers, some thirty families, may have arrived on Governor's Island the previous summer, though I cannot be more precise than that. Clio the Muse 23:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

To quote our article New Amsterdam: "The town developed outside of Fort Amsterdam on Manhattan Island in the New Netherland territory (1614–1664) which was situated between 38 and 42 degrees latitude as a provincial extension of the Dutch Republic from 1624. Provincial possession of the territory was accomplished with the first settlement which was established on Governors Island in 1624. A year later, in 1625, construction of a citadel comprising Fort Amsterdam was commenced." (Italics added for emphasis) Is that what you had in mind, Clio? Aecis^Brievenbus 23:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed so. Also see the information here - 24k Clio the Muse 23:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

October 9

Criticism of F A Hayek's Why I Am Not a Conservative?

Do you know of anyone who has expressed a criticism or opposing views to those contained in Hayek's Why I Am Not a Conservative?? Your help is much appreciated, as I had trouble using Google Scholar and JSTOR (and unfortunately there is no separate article for this postscript of The Constitution of Liberty). Regards --Dami 23:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)