Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg

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.[1]

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 [2]. 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)

He failed because Carthage wasn't willing to support him in the earnest. The Carthaginian power elite never understood that the Romans were fighting an all-or-nothing kind of war. After Cannae Hannibal asked for more reinforcements and they where shipped to Hispannia instead. The guy fought in Italy for a lot of years with a single army and never recieved the reinforcements he needed. Flamarande 12:49, 10 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)

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)

Gandalf61 - best response i've seen all day :D Dangorironhide 11:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)dangorironhide

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)

Johnny Mnemonic, I presume. DirkvdM 18:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Short Circuit, actually. dr.ef.tymac 19:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

THAT'S IT! Thanks ever so, dr.ef.tymac. The scene in the book store is from Short Circuit 2. Clio the Muse 22:14, 9 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)

Hay fever is a very common affliction over here due to the mass planting of Japanese cedar trees after WW2 as a source of cheap materials. The pollen of this tree triggers allergies in a large minority of Japanese people, and those surgical masks are very commonly used to avoid the worse impacts of this. 220.34.254.226 15:24, 12 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.[3]. 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: [4]. -- 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.

Generally, the police have broad discretion in applying such statutes to individuals whom they justifiably perceive as a risk to public safety. Catch-all statutes such as the one you cite are rather well-known for (what some consider to be) quite arbitrary enforcement patterns. (See also Disorderly conduct). dr.ef.tymac 19:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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.[5] 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)

Jesus! I can't believe I forgot my books at home again! The stats on the Haitian population can be a bit confusing. I promise to bring the facts back to you all with citations tomorrow. But for now, let me point out that there like 6 or 7 really prominent groups. The majority of these groups were from West Africa (Senegal to Nigeria). However, the largest number of slaves brought to Haiti just prior to its revolution were from Central Africa and called Kongo or Congo on slave rosters. The political impetus for the revolution came from the men of color (mulattos, quadroons, etc) and Gbe speaking slaves (where Voodou originates). The backbone of the war effort however came from recently arrived central african slaves (mainly from the kingdom of Kongo and areas around it). I'll get back to you with more info later. Really excited ppl are talking about this. Cheers!  ;) Scott Free 12:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The ethnic groups brought into Haiti (Santo Domingo at the time) were Arada, Igbo, BaKongo, Chamba, Wolof and Yoruba. This info comes from page 25 of Gwendolyn Midlo Hall's "Slavery and African Ethnicities in the Americas: Restoring the Links" published by University of North Carolina Press in 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4shizzal (talk • contribs) 13:45, 11 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)

We might say Hitler was the supreme art critic. —Tamfang 20:24, 9 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)

And Hirohito did some legitimate work in marine biology. —Tamfang 20:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Napoleon III of France published on a range of topics, in addition to being Emperor Marcus Aurelius was also considered one of the most important stoic philosophers, and America's founding fathers include two individuals Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin who would have been remembered even if they had not become involved in politics, in addition to being the greatest of Britian's Prime Ministers, Winston Churchill was a Nobel laureate for his A History of the English-Speaking Peoples and other works. On the other hand Elena Ceauşescu used her position to create a persona for herself of a respected scientist for, Imelda Marcos considers herself an artist and Saddam Hussein wrote novels and staged plays, Muammar al-Gaddafi has his Green book. As to Hitler his pretensions was to painting, the world would have possibly been spared much pain if he'd managed to get into art college. KTo288 00:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read a story in which a time-traveler, intending at first to murder young Adolf, instead gets him a scholarship ... —Tamfang 19:38, 11 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)

Ah, yes, if you send most farmers to the new factories (urbanisation went incredibly fast in the USSR) then the remaining farmers need to do all the work and give away most of the food. I could have thought of that. However, I don't see how collectivisation would worsen the problem. Actually, it should have lessened it, industrialising agriculture and thereby increasing productivity. And the Gulags weren't a form of 'sucking farmers dry', at least not in the sense meant here. They were also bad, but something different. Btw, did urbanisation go faster in the USSR than in 19th century Western Europe and what effects did it have there? Weren't farms there (here) also industrialised and thus effectively collectivised (just by a different method) as well? DirkvdM 18:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Collectivisation when coupled with the Five Year Plan entailed a massive shift in investment in the Soviet Union, away from agriculture towards heavy industry. All agricultural surpluses were taken forcibly and used for other ends. The subsequent underinvestnent in the rural sector-when coupled with lack of peasant motivation-meant that agriculture was to be the weakest element in the whole Soviet economy. Indeed, it was only the small private family plots that were left after collectivisation that were to be at all productive. The Gulags were an instrument of repression and thus an essential part of the destruction of the so-called Kulaks, those who had been the most productive under the New Economic Policy, whose liberty and whose lives were taken, along with their 'wealth.' The surplus rural population-those not sent to the camps-flooded into the cities to augment the industrial workforce. The process of agricultural change in western Europe, and I have the example of England in mind, was quite different. It involved rationalisation and enclosure of common lands, which rewarded the most productive and efficient. Farmers were not expropriated in any wholesale sense. Improvements in farming techniques, along with mechanisation, impacted most on the smallest, least-efficient farms and on landless rural labour in general. In addition, people drifted towards the towns, attracted by the higher wages in the new cotton mills, not because they were forced to leave. Clio the Muse 22:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't factually know, but wasn't that economic force? I mean, the ones who performed less (or were worse businesspeople in a changing economy) couldn't cope, were effectively forced to sell their farms and had no other choice but to move to a city. At least, that's how I understood it, but I now wonder why they thought they would do better in the cities, because newcomers probably didn't have a lot of fun in the slums. Then again, one sees this happen again in third world countries in the second half of the 20th century. Urbanisation is a fascinating subject - I should read up on it, because throughout mankind's history it has been a decisive factor in the development of mankind (be it for better or for worse). DirkvdM 18:26, 10 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)

• If any such "let's spend 'em to death" directive from Reagan did exist, it would have been trotted out for (justifiable) praise long ago. It hasn't, to my knowledge. Furthermore, the American intelligence community was famously taken by surprise at the collapse. If they had been operating a deliberate plan to bankrupt the USSR, surely they would have been keeping careful track of the progress of that plan? --Sean 14:55, 11 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)

Hmm. Si non è vero è ben trovato? Xn4 00:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Clio the Muse 22:18, 9 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 [6]: "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)

Hello (anonymous and Taraborn). It's a good thing neither of you is asking for legal advice, because on these facts, as JackofOz already intimated, you won't get any. The facts aren't specific enough. The definition varies dramatically depending on the relevant area of law. Out of the litany of potentially relevant practice areas, Trusts and Estates, Property, Contracts, Constitutional law, Negligence, and even the rules of Evidence and Civil procedure can involve matters whose resolution hinges on the definition being sought here.

Just to cite a simple example, consider the scenario of intestate succession, (already hinted at by User:Xn4). Different jurisdictions answer the question differently, and different circumstances (such as whether a parent supported a minor child until a certain age, or whether that parent abandoned the child) will influence the determination as well. (See also, Per stirpes, Per capita, summary of Maryland's intestate succession laws).

Remember, this "simple" example is just dealing with intestate succession, which is just one sub-branch within the practice area of Wills and Estates. There are entirely unrelated practice areas and sub-branches that haven't even been addressed here. The point should be pretty clear: the only definitive answer to your question is ... "it depends". dr.ef.tymac 20:12, 9 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." [7] 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 suffix 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)

And what does 'ia' mean then? Are those cowboy countries? Or a lot of donkeys there perhaps? DirkvdM 18:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the OED, "in names of countries, as Australia, Tasmania, Rhodesia," -ia comes from Latin and Greek i- (stem or connective vowel) + -a (nominative ending of feminine nouns of first declension.). The -a suffix by itself occurs in placenames too, such as Africa, Asia, Corsica, Malta, etc. The OED further points out that "Latin names of places remain unchanged, except when the French form has been adopted, as in Italia, Italie, Italy," for example. I'm not sure what all this says about what -ia means exactly. That countries are female? Pfly 03:35, 10 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)

There was a time, in the seventeenth century, when their were more people of African than European descent in Brazil, so much so that Antonio Vieira, a Jesuit missionary, said of the country that it had the "Body of America and the soul of Africa." From this you can take it that the general contribution of black people to the development of Brazil was immense. In all, almost four million came from Africa, an influx that continued even after the government abolished the slave trade in 1850. Africans were to be found in every branch of the economy, not just in the coffee and sugar plantations, but in a whole variety of skilled urban trades. The discovery of diamond deposits in the early eighteenth century created a demand for Africans skilled in mining and metallurgy, many of whom came from the Gold Coast or Dahomey. When the Brazilian Empire was created in 1822 some 75% of Brazil's total population was of African origin. Most were free by this time, though there were still 20% with slave status. In 1844 the German naturalist, Karl Friedrich Philip von Martens, wrote a prize-winning essay which focused on the contributions of the African diaspora to the overall develpment of Brazil. This theme was later taken up by Silvio Romero, who wrote "We owe much more to the Negro than the Indian; he entered into all aspects of our development." Clio the Muse 01:24, 9 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 älteren 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)

For some reason that link's not working for me.87.102.18.10 18:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It works for me. Perhaps the top-level page and then search for "runes" will work? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:06, 12 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)

The Renaissance didn't have an effect on the European way of thinking, it was a change on the European way of thinking. DirkvdM 18:38, 9 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)

The three examples? Surprise your teacher by giving four. Or five. Or ten. But don't over-exert yourself. :) DirkvdM 18:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• The three examples of how European society differs from Western society today are:

#1. Their law that even death won't get you out of going to court

#2. The danger of witches

#3. Their magnificent hats

--Sean 15:41, 11 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)

Insofar as this perceptive little essay is based on a realistic appreciation of forms of political practice, independent of received wisdom and theological precepts, it is perhaps the most brilliant expressions of Renaissance thought. There was nothing new in The Prince; it had all happened before; the cynical and brutal manipulation of power was part of European history. What was new was Machiavelli's honesty, his willingness to see through hypocrisy and false conceits; to describe politics as it was practiced rather than as some abstract Aristotelian or Platonic model. If properly read it is acutely funny, one of the wittiest satires ever written about politics; a satire on the unruly and selfish behaviour of leaders, kings and princes of all kinds. Or, if not that, it is offered as a kind of mirror, showing an image of power, and the misuse of power, from which all those with any sense of morality should recoil! Or he produced the book because this is what he knew that people like Lorenzo de Medici would want to hear, a justification of themselves. However it is read it is a little work of great value. So says The Princess! Clio the Muse 02:01, 9 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)

Englightened in some ways, and not in others. (Sorry, I'm getting tired!) If you need any more detailed information please come back to me. In the meantime, I would suggest that you read Catherine the Great by Virginia Rounding, or Catherine the Great by Simon Dixon, the latter for preference, if you are interested specifically in the exercise of power and authority. Clio the Muse 02:15, 9 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)

Yes, it is true, for the simple reason that, as a Liberal, he was in a form of 'Babylonian Captivity' to the Conservative Party, by far the strongest partner in the coalition government. Lord Beaverbrook was later to say, in all truth, that Lloyd George was a 'Prime Minister without a party.' He had, in other words, none of the back-bench support that the leader of a government with a majority in the Commons could normally call on as a matter of form. The Liberal part was divided, part in the coalition, and part outside. The part that was in was no match for the Conservative majority.

So, the 'Welsh Wizard' was only safe for as long as his magic could keep his allies in awe of him. It meant, in effect, that he had to be everywhere at once; to dominate events or risk events dominating him. He could not delegate too much power, especially in the field of foreign affairs; for too do so would risk being upstaged. The danger here was that while all succcess would be his, so too would all failure. And the failures came; in Europe; in Ireland and on the home front, where expectations were raised that could not be fulfilled; expectations that only exposed the contradiction between a radical Prime Minister and a conservative coalition. Though he managed to keep Austen Chamberlain, the Conservative leader, on board to the end, the rest of the Conservative Party became ever more distrustful of his adventurism. In the end it was the Chanak Crisis, coming on top of the scandal over the sale of domestic honours, that caused the Tories to ditch the pilot in 1922. He was never to rise again. Clio the Muse 00:54, 9 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)

Actually, it's a bit strange for people to say they follow a certain religion that is centered around a holy book and then spend a whole life without actually reading it. It often surprises me how much less so many so-called christians know about the bible than I, an agnostic, do. DirkvdM 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• See here for a funny example of that with Stephen Colbert and Lynn Westmoreland. Also, I've read that many non-Arabic-speaking Muslims don't actually know what the words they've memorized mean. --Sean 15:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup, you'd be hard put to find a so-called christian who even knows the ten commandments. Not reading the whole bible is one thing, but the summary? :) About that second bit, ask someone who has said a certain prayer since childhood to explain it. To do that, they'd have think about what it means and chances are they suddenly can't remember the words. Most prayers, even in one's own language, are said like a string of words, not as something that has meaning. As can also happen with the lyrics to songs. DirkvdM 06:28, 12 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)

No need for correction, Marco: the core idea is absolutely correct. I would add one or two extra points. First, and perhaps most important of all, in 1815 the Old Regime in France moved back in, preventing the formation a vacuum; in 1918 the Old Regime in Germany tumbled, leaving a vacuum in its place. The one great difference between 1815 and 1919 is in the degree of consensus that existed among the victors on what form they wished the peace to take. The Congress of Vienna may not have been a completely fair peace, inasmuch as it was based on a systematic attempt to suppress nationalism; but it was workable, at least until it was finally swept away in the Revolutions of 1848, when nationalism could no longer be contained. It was workable because it established in the Concert of Europe an effective system of supervision, which, in its pragmatic focus on Realpolitik, was in every way better than the League of Nations, an ideal that died of too much practice.

In essence the Vienna peace was based on limited and conservative aims; the Treaty of Versailles had no effective basis whatsoever. It was, it might be said, the 'impossible peace', one that tried to satisfy too may diverse and conflicting aims: it aimed for security and justice; it ended by being neither secure nor just. But the contrast between the two peaces may come down to one thing, and one thing only: in 1815 France had been defeated and knew that she had been defeated; in 1918 Germany had been defeated, and thought she had been cheated. So, what kind of peace would have been acceptable to the Germans? In essence-and calling on Wilsonian principles of self-determination-one that would have left their country stronger than it was before. And who in 1919 could have accepted that? Clio the Muse 00:22, 9 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)

In the newest Ken Burns film, The War, a veteran describes the day he received his draft notice. The envelope in use at that time was apparently larger than most and was blue, he knew what it was before he even opened it. Of course that was about 25 years before 1968, but at least at that time the envelope was distinctive. 161.222.160.8 22:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Big clue: It would have been a government window envelope with a selective service return address. Edison 13:58, 10 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)

To make matters a bit more confusing, our article 1626 says: "The Dutch settle Manhattan, founding the town of New Amsterdam." So before we answer the OP's question about the date, we first have to get some clarity on the year of the founding of New York City. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• The New York City Parks Department did some thorough historical research a couple years ago, the results of which were a series of plaques stationed throughout the city. Here's the plaque for Battery Park. It states that the settlement of Manhattan began in 1625 (sadly, no month or date), with the Fort beginning in 1626. I have updated 1625, 1626, History of New York City, and New Amsterdam accordingly. --M@rēino 00:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding quite a bit of conflicting information. Lambian's Eendracht (Captain Adriaen Jorisz. Thienpont) departed Texel January 1624 with 60 guilders worth of blankets and an unknown number of colonist ("cannot have been more than a few dozen") who settle at four locations: the Fresh River, the South River, Nooten Eylandt and the site of Fort Orange. Clio's thirty Walloon families sailed March 1624 aboard Nieu Nederlandt (Captain Cornelis Jacobsz May, 260 tons). Or these two ships sailed together and arrived at the Hudson probably the middle of May. Catalina Trico who sailed with either Thienpont or May described the disposition of the colonists in a deposition fifty years later:

as soon as they came to Mannatans now called N: York, they sent Two families & six men to harford River & Two families & 8 men to Delaware River and 8 men they left att N: Yorke to take Possession and y^e Rest of y^e Passengers went w^th y^e Ship up as farr as Albany which they then Called fort Orangie.

but that those left on Manhattan may have removed to Governors Island, or Mrs. Trico may be completely unreliable. There may have been another ship, Mackerel (60 tons) which had reached the Hudson on 12 December, 1623, may have carried colonists who may have constructed the Governors Island fort. —eric 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I ask with great humility before the intellectual force of the above posters, but are you discussing old style or new style dates? These events fall right in the period when Gregorian and Julian calendars were both in use, and so each date needs to be related to the appropriate calendar. SaundersW 08:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch provinces of Holland and Zeeland were the major players in the West India Company, whose main chambers were in Amsterdam, Holland, and Middelburg, Zeeland. Both Holland and Zeeland, although Protestant, introduced the newfangled popish system already in the 16th century. The dates we are discussing are from WIC material, and therefore almost surely according to the Gregorian calendar.  --Lambiam 11:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

When New Amsterdam became the City of New York, the settlement only encompassed the lower part of Manhattan Island. Governors Island became part of New York only much later. As far as we know, the known 1624 trip of the Eendracht to the colony of New Netherland brought the settlers to other places than the initial territory of NYC. The suggestion of the WIC to concentrate the settlers in one spot, and the decision to select Manhattan for that purpose, are both from 1625. On the one hand, the extent of today's NYC overlaps with the 1624 settlements of the New Netherland colony. On the other hand, the direct progenitor of the City of New York, New Amsterdam, was founded in 1625.  --Lambiam 11:35, 9 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)

Three Capitals

Can somebody help me find the Three World Capitals that the national government took territorial land from other states, territories, and province in order to make these three world capitals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.121.5 (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a homework question, in which case your teacher is likely looking for examples from the assigned reading. In any case, just about any of the entries in Category:Capital districts and territories would fit the definition, so its especially important you look at your individual textbook for the examples your teacher's looking for. --Ybbor^Talk 02:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a homework question nor does it have to do with reading. It's an extra credit assignment and all I need is the three capitals that were made only because the national government took land from other territories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.121.5 (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, 75.46, then the three examples that immediately occur to me are Washington, in the District of Columbia; Canberra, in the Australian Capital Territory, and Brasilia in the Brazilian Federal District. You will find some more in Capital districts and territories Clio the Muse 02:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh-hem: extra credit assignment = homework. ;-) —Nricardo 11:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What about Mexico City and the Distrito Federal, and Islamabad and the Islamabad Capital Territory? Corvus cornix 17:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

the role of DTI in the economic situation of the philippines

how does department of trade and industry help the economic situation of the philippines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vague silhouette (talk • contribs) 03:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Which DTI? Does the Philipines have a DTI - if so I presume you refer to that one. The UK DTI helps the economics situation of the UK by providing information on international trade to national organisations and to (usually larger) companies. Are you after something a bit more specific? -- SGBailey 19:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

socio-cultural demographics

what is socio-cultural demographics? squisle Squisle 05:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

See demographics. Social demographics is about the place of people in society (age, gender, socio-economic and marital status, etc.), while cultural demographics is about the cultural variations between them, things like lifestyles and attitudes. Socio-cultural demographics is about both kinds together and how they are related to each other. Xn4 09:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

fascism in britain

why did fascism fail in britain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.3.222 (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple doctoral dissertations could be written on the subject, but a few relatively obvious factors were that electoral politics had deeper historical/societal roots in Britain than in most continental European countries, and fascism came to be seen as a rather "foreign" ideology (somewhat alien to British traditions, and aligned with countries which were hostile to Britain, or likely to become so in the future). I think I remember reading somewhere that Hitler himself thought that the British Union of Fascists should have called themselves "Ironsides", which had native English Cromwellian associations, rather than "blackshirts" (which effectively aped Mussolini, and seemed rather foreign). AnonMoos 07:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The gathering stormclouds of World War Two had a fair part to play in bringing down the Blackshirts. --Dweller 12:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AnonMoos. Also, please read the short article Oswald Mosley, about the leader of the British Union of Fascists, who was a remarkable character, cracked in ways that successful dictators rarely are. Although he had all the credentials and brilliance to become the leader of a major political force, his political judgement was poor. If you can get it, read Rules of the Game: Beyond the Pale, a biography of Mosley by his son Nicholas Mosley. I can't say it will help you much, but don't miss P. G. Wodehouse's priceless send up of Mosley and the BUF in the shape of Roderick Spode and the 'Black Shorts'. Xn4 14:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it may have been Unity Mitford to whom Hitler made his remark about the 'Ironsides', a remark which illustrates just how little he understood about England and the English. Just think: if only those boot-boys had been called Ironsides instead of Blackshirts how different it may all have been! Now, if they had called themselves Cavaliers...

So, why no Fascism in England? In addition to the reasons already given I think it important to consider that Britain had few, if any, of the deep-rooted structural problems that gave rise to Fascism on the Continent. It possessed an organic political culture with readily identifable symbols and institutions, which served to unite the whole commununity behind a single defining idea. Even the deepest economic and social grievances were not enough to 'disengage' most people from the national community, particularly those on the political right, who may otherwise have been attracted by Mosleyism. The country had not been defeated in war, like Germany; it did not feel aggrieved by the outcome of war, like Italy. There was simply nothing upon which Fascism could get a purchase. Even anti-Semitism was a non-starter, and Mosley's growing obsession with the 'Jewish question' was about as far away from traditional English 'golf club' snobbery as it was possible to get. Most people would have surely have been happy to accept Stanley Baldwin's assessment of Mosley that he was "a cad and a wrong 'un." Finally, any nation that could laugh at the absurdities of Roderick Spode and the Black Shorts was never, ever going to be seduced by the real thing. Heil Spode! Clio the Muse 23:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If a woman hits a man, can he press charges like how a woman can press charges when a man hits a woman?

If a woman hits a man, can he press charges like how a woman can press charges when a man hits a woman? This is in the USA and purely hypothetical. William Ortiz 11:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it goes both ways, crimes against "persons" not gender specific, see Battery and yes I have arrested females for battery, and domestic violence before. Dureo 12:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are wanting info into specifically domestic violence type crimes with the men being victims see here, Violence against men Dureo 12:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just much less common, because what man would dare ever face his friends again after having sued a woman for hitting him? The macho thing to do is to either hit back or, better 'take it like a man'. And laugh and pretend he didn't even feel it. For this reason, statistics on violence of women against men is pretty much non-existent. Worse still, clever women will know this and may take full advantage of it. DirkvdM 18:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A notable example of this is Tawny Kitaen. Adam Bishop 19:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A baseball player - I thought it was Troy Percival but I can't substantiate that via Google - brought a domestic violence suit against his wife a few years ago (prompting much amusement among fans, for the reasons Dirk listed). -Elmer Clark 06:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Chuck Finley, who was assaulted by Tawny Kitaen. Matt Deres 16:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Liza Minnelli and David Gest had a similar case, IIRC. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hegel and History

Hegel believed that the ultimate purpose of history was in the universal sovereignty of reason. In what forms was this idealism expressed and how did it manage to influence figures as diverse as Marx and Fukuyama? I hope my question is not too ambitious. Many thanks. E. G. A.. Husserl 11:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to answer the second part of your question, if you can please elucidate on the first part of it.

Hegel's intellectual heirs can be divided in two groups: the so-called Left or Young Hegelians who interpreted Hegel's work in a radical sense advocating atheism and liberal democracy and the Old or Right Hegelians, who interpreted Hegel's work in a conservative way, advocating orthodox Protestantism and loyalty to the Prussian monarchy. This legacy has given him influence in both conservative and progressive circles.

Marx studied law and philosophy at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität in Berlin between 1836-1841. Hegel, who had died only 5 years before, had been chair of Philosophy there. When Marx studied there the legacy of Hegel was being debate between the Young and Old Hegelians. Between (roughly!) 1836 and 1844 Marx associated with the Young Hegelians, entering in debates with Bruno Bauer, Ludwig Feuerbach and Max Stirner. Until 1844 Marx was a liberal and not a socialist, a position which didn't really exist yet. In his later life he developed his own philosophy, scientific socialism, which has many Hegelian influences, most prominently, in his dialectic materialism

Francis Fukuyama's inspiration from Hegel and Marx, is based on the work of Alexandre Kojève, who saw a synthesis of Hegel's liberalism and Marx' socialism as the end of history. Fukuyama was pointed in Kojève's direction by the prominent Allan Bloom, who taught Fukuyama at Cornell University. Allan Bloom had been sent to Kojève by his mentor Leo Strauss, who kept a life long correspondence with Kojève. Bloom, Fukuyama and Strauss are considerably more conservative than Kojève, who took an ambiguous position on the left/right spectrum and when Bloom interpreted and translated the works of Kojève some of his more ironic, nuanced and ambiguous statements were lost in translation. In Germany, where Kojève was educated Hegel was still an important philosopher.

I hope this clarifies some things about Hegel's legacy. C mon 14:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So much for the legacy; now for the Idea!

I will try to make this as simple as I can without, I hope, losing sight the intellectual dynamics involved, not easy, I assure you! Hegel preceives history as a quest for self-realisation, a move from the less complete to the more complete forms of an existence; of an unfolding of freedom. The evolution of the Idea in history was akin to the voyage of Odysseus, an analogy that he uses himself. His dialectic is one where the human spirit first become alienated from itself, and then through a growing awareness of the forms of alienation becomes capable freeing its potential and achieving liberation through self-awareness. Paradise Lost is Paradise Regained. History, in other words, was a tragedy with a happy ending.

In practical terms this means that the individual life, the individual destiny, if you like, is meaningful only insofar as it gives shape and purpose to the Spirit moving through history. Napoleon made use of the moment to create his own fate but history made use of him by the 'cunning of reason' to shape events to its own purpose and ends. His actions brough freedom to Prussia and Germany from the old forms of historical identity, and even his downfall did not bring the downfall of freedom. Napoleon lived; the Spirit moved; the world has been permanently changed.

As the Spirit continually moves forward to higher forms of expression, it breaks free from all encumbering institutions. As Hegel expresses it, this is the 'nregation of all that is.' In Hegel's system of things the relation between Spirit and matter is likened to the relationship between slave and master. It is the process of emancipation, in other words, that gives shape to the history of the world. In the Philiosophy of History he expresses it thus, "The History of the World is none other than the progress of the consciousnes of freedom...the Eastern nations know only that one is free; the Greek and Roman world only that some are free, while we know that all men absolutely (man to man) are free."

So, each new revalation destroyed the world to which it came. The Spirit, at war with itself, as truth gave way to truth; at war with matter and the institutions in which truth had been enslaved. The Spirit in seeking objective realisation of itself is always moving beyond. For a Roman to hold on to Paganism and resist the advance of Christianity was effectively to embrace the dead, a shell without habitation. For Hegel history "aims at the conviction that what was intended by eternal wisdom was actually accomplished." There is no failure in history, for "God governs the world: the actual working of his government-the carrying out of his plan is the history of the world." All has its purpose and there is nothing to regret-even injustice has its place. Conflict was resolved by transition to a higher phase of being, no matter how many victims are left along the way. For, after all, "the particular is for the most part, of too trifling value compared with the general for which individuals are sacrificed and abandoned."

There you have it, and I am sure you can detect the elements that would lead to Marxism and other historical absolutes-to teleologies of all kinds, of the left or of the right. It's seductive, it's persusive, it's comprehensive and its monstrous. Clio the Muse 00:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My sincere thanks and admiration for C mon and Clio for answers that cover both dimensions of my question with such wit and aplomb, answers that can only enhance the reputation of the reference desk. With all good wishes E. G. A.. Husserl 17:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

H. L. Hunley

In the opening of the article, it is stated that 32 lives were lost on the Hunley. In the body of the article, it is noted that 5 crew members died in the first sinking, the entire crew of 8 in the second and third sinkings. That totals 21. Where are the other 11? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.115 (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the citation that NlynchN added when he added that number (32), Robert F. Burgess (1975). Ships Beneath the Sea: A History of Subs and Submersibles. United States of America: McGraw Hill, 238, I do not have access to that book so I cannot look it up, but I agree the article isn't very clear. Dureo 14:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Female murderers in victorian britain

what was the attitude towards women who killed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.249.118 (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Like who? --Dweller 12:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Decidedly negative, usually followed by hanging. See Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Xn4 13:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Like Ada Williams, Margaret Waters and Mary Pearcey, presumably. Nothing much in those articles on popular opinion, however. Algebraist 13:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would there be a distinctly different attitude towards female murderers than male? What's prompted this question? --Dweller 13:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There is often a distinctly different attitude towards female murderers than male, usually because it is a defiance of gender roles/expectations and secondarily because people cringe more readily at the thought of executing a woman. --24.147.86.187 13:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Victorians weren't exactly averse to the idea of execution. I read somewhere that theft of a loaf of bread was punishable by death... though I'd be interested in seeing a RS. --Dweller 13:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Stealing bread from a store was punishable by death (interfering with trade) but stealing the same loaf from a person wasn't. (At least acording to the criminology text I remember reading.) Rmhermen 15:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was the immediate pre-Victorian age which had the death penalty for the widest range of crimes (though these theoretical super-harsh laws were rather inconsistently applied in practice). Relatively early in Victoria's reign, legal reforms cut down on the number of crimes which incurred the death penalty. AnonMoos 16:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Nor are modern Texans, but even then consider executing a woman to be something notable, in comparison to a man (they still do it, of course, but they talk about it a lot more). --24.147.86.187 15:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the rate of executions of Victorian Britain waaaaaaaay exceeds even bloodthirsty ole Texas. --Dweller 15:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely when they execute a woman we are just seeing a variation on a theme? Actually that wasn't a great example, it's somewhere between MWWS and deviancy amplification spiral. Perhaps we should coin a phrase for the media attention to a deviation from 'the norm'? Lanfear's Bane 15:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(cancel indent)Dweller:According to Capital punishment in the United Kingdom, England and Wales in the 60 years immediately before the Victorian period executed about 7000 people. Texas has executed 404 since 1982. That's an execution rate about 7 times higher. We don't seem to have information on the Victorian period itself, which was probably somewhat less bloodthirsty. Algebraist 17:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And England and Wales then was about half as populous as modern Texas. Algebraist 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Still doesn't account for the difference: England was twice as populous but had seven times the execution rate? Wrad 19:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

More capital crimes, fewer avenues of appeal. And shorter wait times. - Eron ^Talk 19:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

To begin with,I think it might help if I clarified one or two points here before attempting to answer the question. First of all, there was quite detailed debate of the efficacy of capital punishment at the beginning of the nineteenth century, as more and more people started to question the savage nature of the old Hanoverian penal system, the so-called Bloody Code Even when people were on trial for capital crimes, crimes in themselves which may have been of a trivial nature, like stealing bread, juries were often reluctant to convict, no matter how compelling the evidence. When conviction was secured, moreover, sentence was more often than not commuted to one of transporatation. When Robert Peel was Home Secretary during the ministry of the Duke of Wellington in the late 1820s the death penalty was abolished for almost all of the minor offences. By the 1860s only murder and certain types of treason remained as capital offenses.

Now, for the figures. In the hundred year period from 1800 to 1899 death sentences were passed on 3,365 men and 172 women in England and Wales. I cannot break this down by decade, though I think it safe to assume that the majority were probably skewed towards the earlier part of the period. The records, moreover, do not always make it clear if sentence was carried out or not.

On your specific question, 86.141, and so far as I understand it, I can indeed tell you that female murderers generally excited extra interest among the nineteenth centuty public, especially as one goes deeper into the reign of Queen Victoria, which introduced all sorts of new notions about the ideal women, her outlook, her attitudes and her place in society. As today the popular press took a prurient interest in these matters, tending to 'demonise' the perpetrators of murder, because only monsters could act in a way that was 'contrary to nature'. Readers were able to lap up in detail the story of Constance Kent, who is alleged to have slit her stepbrother's throat before disposing of his body in an outhouse; or Madeleine Smith, a Glasgow socialite who is alleged to have poisioned her French lover.

There was a definite set of double-standards in operation that made cases like this all the more sensational; for while deviant behaviour in men was deplorable, deviant behaviour by women was unacceptable, especially when it was directed against men, when it tended to be viewed as a hideous perversion. In a sense these women, mediated through the popular press, ceased to have all the qualities that made them women, or human at all. They were most often depicted as 'ugly', 'masculine', 'sub-human' with almost no attempts made to uncover motives. In many ways the press reports seem to hark back to an earlier age, with a murderess presented as a witch-like figure, who had outraged the orthodoxy of Victorian family values. After all, gentle, submissive, passive, self-sacrificing creatures do not strangle babies, no matter how desperate they are, nor do they poison friends and husbands to obtain a little extra income. Clio the Muse 02:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Desperation may have been a mitigating factor when it came to infanticide, and juries seemed reluctant to hand out a conviction which carried a sentence of death. Prior to 1803 under the law unmarried women had to prove with a witness that a dead baby had in fact been born dead. Juries had already begun to ignore this provision, and a barrister would testify before the 1866 Royal Commission on Capital Punishment that: "Practically the law of infanticide hardly prevails. Almost always now juries find concealment of birth; and ... I also find that there is a great reluctance to hang women." Clive Emsley in Crime and Society in England, 1750-1900, states that most of the women brought to trial for infanticide in the nineteenth century were young, servants, and desperate to maintain their position and suggests that juries were sympathetic to their plight.—eric 03:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Reclaiming the past

I was watching Michael Palin's BBC documentary from eastern Europe. While in Hungary he mentioned that Imre Nagy, the Prime Minister who headed the anti-Soviet uprising in 1956, for which he was afterwards executed, has been reburied in Victor's Square in Budapest. This made me wonder in what other ways has the new Hungary attempted to reclaim its past? Victor Day 16:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The process of historical re-evaluation in Hungary, Victor, was actually begun by Imre Pozsgay, who as Minister of State in the former Communist government gave a radio broadcast in early 1989 in which he described the events of 1956 as a 'people's uprising'. Previously it had only ever been referred to as a 'counter-revolution'. It was a hint that the citadel was falling; that history was open for reinterpretation; that Hungary was beginning to move down a different road. Within weeks of this broadcast a popular movement had grown up to replace April 4 and November 7 as national holidays with March 15 and October 23. The first date was that which offically marked the Soviet liberation in 1945 and the second is the anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. The latter dates are both significant in the national calendar of Hungary: March 15 was the date in 1848 when Sandor Petofi, Hungary's greatest poet, and others proclaimed the programme that sparked off the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, and October 23 was the first day of the 1956 Rising.

As the whole movement gathered momentum the government began to give way, marked, above all, by the re-intermnet of Imre Nagy in Heroes' Square in June of that same year, an event attended by some 200,000 people. In October the Law on the Memory of the Revolution was passed, declaring that the events of 1956 had been a 'national uprising' and a 'struggle for freedom'. Hungary was, as you have put it, beginning to reclaim the past. Clio the Muse 01:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

vintage belly machine for losing weight

Can someone tell me what the machine is called that is hooked up to the persons stomach and it vibrates? Its suposed to loose inches in your stomach. Im not sure what year it was but there was a triva about this and cant find anything on it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegameblackie (talk • contribs) 17:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Vibrating belt machine, perhaps? --LarryMac | Talk 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC) (editing my own entry to mention that Vibrating belt machine is in our list of requested articles)

Welsh coat of arms

Hi! Does anyone knows what coat of arms were using the kings of Powys and Deheubarth, Gruffudd ap Cynan, Owain Gwynedd, Llywelyn ab Iorwerth, Dafydd ap Llywelyn, Gruffudd ap Llywelyn and his descendants to Owain Lawgoch? And most of all, in which primary sources can I find these informations? Thank you!

PS: sorry for my English, I'm French...

See The Development of Welsh Heraldry by M.P. Siddons (Aberystwyth, four volumes: vol. 1 1991, vols. 2 & 3 1993, vol. 4 2006). Bear in mind that heraldry as we understand it really didn't begin until the 12th century, which is later than some of the men you mention. Before that, knights (including kings) had emblems painted on their shields, but they were rarely hereditary. The best primary sources for English and Welsh coats of arms are in the records and collections kept by the College of Arms. Xn4 00:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The John/Jane Doe Memorial "insert disease or affliction" Research Foundation

What exactly do all the so called "Memorial insert disease or affliction Research Foundation"s do? All you need to do is search for "memorial cancer foundation" on Google to find a bunch of these foundations related to cancer. So what do they all do? Do they just collect money and send it on to a larger research organization? I can't see how all of them could have their own dedicated research labs. Dismas|^(talk) 23:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• There is more than one form of cancer so some of these may specialise.hotclaws 09:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

October 10

William Shakespeare

Seeing the Bard as today's featured article reminds me of a question I have always had. In that "famous" portrait of Shakespeare (the Chandos portrait displayed in the feature article), why would they have Shakespeare wearing an earring? I found that odd. I know that males starting wearing earrings in the 1980's or 1990's or so. But was that a common -- or even accepted -- practice in Shakespeare's day? Or was the portrait artist employing some artistic license ... and, if so, what would prompt this manifestation of such (i.e., adding the earring)? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 01:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

Men were as lavish as women in the wearing of jewelry, even to the wearing of earrings, though men usually wore a ring in only one ear at a time. LaMar, Virginia A. (1958) English Dress in the Age of Shakespeare. p. 13. OCLC 735619.

—eric 02:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Haven't you ever seen a pirate movie? Arrr! TresÁrboles 06:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I needed that chuckle. Dureo 06:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What do you mean? Shakespeare was in a pirate movie? Or he wrote one? I'm confused. (Joseph A. Spadaro 06:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

No he meant that many pirates are portrayed wearing earings, even though they were from before the 1980s. Cyta 07:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know -- I was just kidding. (Joseph A. Spadaro 21:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

and there are loads of pirates since the 1980s that wear earrings. Richard Avery 10:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In Shakespeare in Love, he was working on a play called The Adventures of Romeo and Mildred, the Pirate's Daughter. Corvus cornix 20:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't that "Ethel, the Pirate's daughter"? --LarryMac | Talk 21:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Corvus cornix 18:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

OK - thanks for the input. So, it seems that it would not be uncommon / odd for a male in his day to wear an earring. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 21:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

The married name of the violinist Maria Soldat

The name of this violinist is spelled with a tilde in the title, but in the article itself is spelled with an umlaut. I suspect the umlaut is probably correct; however, I don't know how to edit the article title. Interestingly, the German language version of the article does not use either an umlaut or a tilde, so maybe that is the correct way? TresÁrboles 06:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"ö" and "oe" are orthographically equivalent in German, so the umlaut would correspond to the spelling in the German article title. Of course, there are no tildes in German either. However, German names can use either "ö" or "oe" depending on the person (they aren't interchangeable in this case), so we probably should ascertain which she used. The two spellings have almost the exact same number of Google hits. The tilde is certainly wrong though. -Elmer Clark 06:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to "Maria Soldat-Röger" for the time being. -Elmer Clark 06:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Note also that the spelling Maria Soldat-Röger (or Maria Soldat-Roeger) with the given name ending on a is only found on the web in our English Wikipedia article or copies thereof.[8]  --Lambiam 12:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right about Marie. However the vast majority of german webentries give her as Roeger. See: [9]--Tresckow 13:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"ö" and "oe" are orthographically equivalent in German, so the umlaut would correspond to the spelling in the German article title. This answer is partially correct. Relatively seldom familynames are spelled with ue or oe intentionally not using an umlaut like ü or ö. The e then is used for elongation of the vowel before. I think you better trust the de:wp on this.--Tresckow 13:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Meal Monday at Edinburgh University

When I was at Edinburgh University in the early 1960s there was a long weekend in February which included "Meal Monday". Can anybody give me any historical information about this? Does the holiday still exist? Stephen Wimbush 07:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

According to J. CAMERON SMAlL O.B.E, LD. (1963) In the 17th century students lived in very basic accomodation in Edinburgh University. They were required to bring their own fuel, faggots and peat, to maintain a fire in the winter. Meal Monday was the day on which students were permitted to return to their homes to collect oats with which to make their porridge. To me this sounds as though it was a ?monthly holiday or at least more often than annual. As to whether it still exists, perhaps a student from Auld Reekie will pop up. Richard Avery 10:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephen, I asked a friend of mine who attended Edinburgh University (she graduated last year) about this and she says she has never heard of such a thing. I should make it clear that she is English. Perhaps 'Meal Monday' is yet another of those mysteries that the Scots keep to themselves! Clio the Muse 22:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Richard Avery is correct. According to Proverbs, Proverbial Expressions and Popular Rhymes of Scotland, Andrew Cheviot (1896) "The second Monday in February, which is a holiday in the University of Edinburgh, is called Meal Monday because the day was originally held as a holiday, in order to allow the students to return to their country homes to procure a supply of oatmeal to last them to the end of the session." As a former employee of UoE, I can confirm we haven't had that holiday for at least 6 years (but there are still plenty of UoE students with country homes). Historically, it wasn't specific to Edinburgh though, as Glasgow and Aberdeen observed the holiday too. According to Alexander McCall Smith, "The Scottish universities used to have a special holiday called Meal Monday, which was meant to allow students to return to the farm to replenish their sack of oatmeal. That holiday was still celebrated some 30 years ago, when I was a student, although nobody used it to fetch oatmeal." [10] So I guess it stopped being a holiday sometime between the mid 1970s and 2000. Incidentally, this rather interesting blog quotes a source that seems to suggest it was probably known as Oatmeal Monday before being reduced to its shortened form. See also here Rockpocket 22:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Leaving Cuba

For the novel I am writing I am hoping to have the character leave the country (legally) and I've been doing research; I know there's a whole process to obtain a permit to leave the country, and usually it gets declined, etc. but there's one thing I do not know and I'd like to have my information as accurate as possible. I believe I read somewhere that an invitation from someone in another country would allow a person to leave? This is what I plan on doing for my character under her circumstances but I am not sure exactly if that is a possibility that is likely, or not, and if it would be different than applying for a permit to leave. Thanks in advance.

I met a few people in Cuba who had traveled abroad. Some of them were quite pompous arses, acting like 'big spenders'. I don't know what their deal was, but I understood that a lot of Cubans go abroad on scholarships. Cuba considers education very important, but has limited financial means, so it makes sense that any opportunities to get a free education elsewhere is welcomed. Mind you, this is just a combination of hearsay and conjecture. DirkvdM 18:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I was told when I was in Havana. Seemingly all you have to do is to write to the government (I'm sorry; I do not know exactly which department) inviting X to come to your country, explaining the reasons for your invitation. As I understand it what then happens is that the authorities will look into the background of the person in question and if they have no 'criminal' record (subject, I have to stress, to a very wide interpretation) and are not otherwise suspect, then the application will be granted. I had this information from three separate sources: an official on the tourist industry, whom I suspected was a member of the Communist Party, and two ordinary Habaneros. I do have to stress, though, that it is all theory. I myself know of no Cubans who have been granted permission to leave using this particular method. Clio the Muse 22:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the scholarschip thing would of course also fall under this. But there's another issue. Who would pay for it? Most Cubans won't have the money to travel very far. Just a short trip by plane would cost at least a month's salary (barely over 20 euro I've been told). And then when they get there, they'd need either a job or some financial support. Or of course the inviting person taking them in as a guest. DirkvdM 06:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, in case you wonder how someone could live off that little money, housing, education and health care are free in Cuba (effectively, they're all house-owners). But that is not going to help here, of course. DirkvdM 07:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The person sending the invitation is also expected to pay for the cost of travel. Clio the Muse 22:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Moray and Huntly

What was the cause of the feud between the houses of Moray and Huntlay in late sixteenth century Scotland? Donald Paterson 08:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Some good info here History of Scotland it appears an arrest warrant was issued, someone was killed, much avenging ensued. May need to scroll up a bit, Google has more info on it also. Dureo 09:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Donald, you will find all of the information you are looking for and more in Bloodfeud in Scotland, 1573-1625 by K. Brown, and The Bonny Earl of Moray by E. Ives. There is also quite a good piece entitled "Bad Blood in the North: The Feud Between the Earls of Huntly and Moray in Sixteenth Century Scotland" by Harry Potter (no jokes, please) in History Scotland, May/June 2002. Clio the Muse 00:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dnieprostroi Dam

Can anybody tell when when the Dnieprostroi Dam started construction and when it was finished, please.

Thanks in advance, 195.195.239.237 10:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See Dnieper Hydroelectric Station --24.147.86.187 12:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Religion

I am Looking for a essay or an updated version of the 39 Articles of the Anglican church, suitable for the present time.

How about http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=39+articles+of+anglican+church&sa=N&tab=nw

87.102.79.56 13:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

We have an article 39 articles... AnonMoos 17:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

slave trade

Please I would like to know about Lorenzo de Sliva and the campaign against the Atlantic slave trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan Muzenzi (talk • contribs) 12:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

He apparently was an Afro-European Brazilian whose full name was Lourenço da Silva de Mendouça, who travelled to Rome in 1686 and succeeded in getting a con­demnation from the Curia of the slave trade as a violation of human rights. Unfortunately, all links that I can find by a Google search that appear to offer more information require a subscription of some sort.  --Lambiam 13:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Lourenço da Silva de Mendouça (1620-1698)[11], probably born in Brazil, went to Lisbon in 1681, then Madrid in 1682 where he became procurator-general of the Confraternity of Our Lady, Star of the Negroes, a charitable lay society in Brazil and Portuguese Africa.(Mullett, Michael A. (1999) The Catholic Reformation. p. 194. OCLC 50553439.) Lourenço, claiming to be descended from kings of Kongo and Angola, travelled to Rome in 1684 to protest to the Pope against slavery. His petitions, which presented a firsthand account of the cruelties inflicted by slavery,(Gray, Richard. (1997) "The Kongo Kingdom and the Papacy". History Today. 47: 44. OCLC 86379560.) supported by Capuchin missionaries, convinced the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith and led directly to the March 20th, 1686 condemnation by Pope Innocent XI.(Hastings, Adrian. (1996) The Church in Africa: 1450-1950. p. 125. OCLC 44954750).

correction 1886 → 1686 applied.  --Lambiam 20:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

His petition is located in Rome in the archive of the Propaganda Fide, the body responsible for missionary territories. In it he describes the forms of ill-treatment used against slaves, including burning with lard, pitch and other materials. As a result of these cruelties many Christian Blacks "seeing that not only they, but also their children, even though they are White, are condemned to remain enslaved, desperately commit suicide as a result of the diabolical use of such slavery." De Silva goes on to ask the Pope to excommunicate "those wretches who are involved in the sale and purchase of these unhappy Christians."

Prior to discussion by the Cardinals of the Propaganda Fide, Archbishop Edoardo Cybo, Secretary to the Congregation, took the matter up with some former missionaries, who confirmed the truth of the account, adding some further horrors, saying that reluctant slaves were greased and grilled "as meat is by our cooks."

At this point the investigation broadened out to consider not just the question of Christian slaves, the focus of de Silva's petition, but other injustices and cruelties committed by the slave owners and traders. As a result of these investigations letters were sent to the Nuncios in Madrid and Lisbon, ordering that all such activities should be prohibited under the severest penalties.

In 1685, the year after de Silva's petition, the Capuchin missionaries mounted a major offensive against the slave trade, sending a memorandum with a series of propositions to the Propaganda Fide, seeking, amongst other things, to establish that it was unlawful to capture "innocent blacks or other natives" by violence or fraud, as well as forbidding those who already owned slaves from torturing and killing them. It was not an attack on slavery as such, but an attempt to establish a clear division between what was 'just' and what was 'unjust.' The petition was forwarded to the Holy Office, with a reminder following at the beginning of 1686. In March 1686 the Holy Office decided in favour of the Capuchin propositions. The Propaganda Fide thereupon contacted various bishops in Spain and Portugal with news of the findings, though the approach had moderated somewhat since 1684, carrying none of the severe penalties that de Silva had wished. In the end Papal disapproval carried no more than the loosest of moral force, which made little real difference when set against the vested interests of the Spanish and Portuguese crowns. Clio the Muse 00:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A tale of two putsches

Is there any direct comparison to be made between Castro's attack on the Moncada barracks in 1953 and Hitler's atempted coup in Munich in 1923? 81.129.85.131 12:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You've already made the direct comparison (in your title) - they were both failed putsches, also both led to prison sentences. Reading Moncada_barracks and Munich putsch (Beer Hall Putsch) you will be able to check for any other similarities.87.102.79.56 13:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

By comparison, do you mean similarity? I can think of a difference, though. Castro intended to get Batista out of power, while Hitler rather intended to get himself into power. Same dif, you could say, but then, hey presto, you've got a similarity. :) DirkvdM 18:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible to make comparison between the two events in terms of the political mythology they engendered, that of the heroic failure, one that subsequently became an integral, and celebrated, part of the propaganda of both German Fascism and Cuban Communism. I also suspect that Castro had more than a passing familiarity with the 1923 events in Munich; for in his subsequent trial he cast himself in more or less the same 'man of destiny' role that Hitler did in 1924, even drawing on the same tiresome hyperbolic style. Consider these;

For it is not you gentlemen, who pass judgement on us. That judgement is spoken by the eternal court of history...Pronounce us guilty a thousand times over: the goddess of the eternal court of history will smile and tear to pieces the State Prosecutor's submissions and the court's verdict: for she acquits us.

I warn you, I am just beginning! If there is in your hearts a vestige of love for your country, love for humanity, love for justice, listen carefully... I know that the regime will try to suppress the truth by all possible means; I know that there will be a conspiracy to bury me in oblivion. But my voice will not be stifled – it will rise from my breast even when I feel most alone, and my heart will give it all the fire that callous cowards deny it... Condemn me. It does not matter. History will absolve me.

The first passage is Hitler and the second is Castro. Both, it would seem, have lodged appeals in exactly the same court. I leave it to you to decide if this is coincidence or not! Clio the Muse 23:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but you have to work with the loser....

Is there a system of voting/government where the second place finisher is appointed as vice president/chairman/prime minister/etc. to the winner of the race? Dismas|^(talk) 13:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, that was the original U.S. Presidential election system. The obvious problem is having your arch-rival in a position of power (holding the gavel at Senate meetings for instance) and in a position to replace you if you suffered an unfortunate accident, got assassinated, or your missteps were exposed leading to impeachment. It was then changed so the President and Vice President are elected as a team. Edison 13:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See Vice President of the United States#Original Constitution, and reform and Twelfth Amendment for Edison's example. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, all 150 'first places' get into parliament, so they all win equally. :) However, I assume you mean elections for a single person. May I point out that prime ministers aren't elected that way. Usually, at least (any exceptions?). They are supposed to represent the government, but then what if you get, say, a left-wing government and a right-wing prime minister? A prime minister is just a 'primus inter pares', a first among equals, a spokesperson. At least, that's how it should be. In answer to your question, one could say the vice prime minister is the 'second choice', elected by the government, so (s)he could be viewed as having finished in second place. DirkvdM 18:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Btw, a loser would be someone who comes in last place. Being considered the second best choice for the highest position in government isn't quite what I'd call 'losing'. DirkvdM 18:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Getting second place just means that you're the first loser." I don't remember the movie I first saw this in but it's a fairly popular phrase for printing on t-shirts, beer cozies, etc. Besides which, the person in second in a presidential race does in fact lose and therefore it's an accurate descriptor.

Thanks for the links. I thought I'd heard of some form of this in my history classes, just couldn't remember when or where. But there's still no mention of a name for this system, huh? Dismas|^(talk) 22:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, the 'first loser' thing depends on the form of government. The vice prime minister does hold extra authority (ie is asked for his opinion more often than other ministers - think Gordon Brown under Blair). The same goes for the leaders of the other ('losing') parties in the coalition. And for the leaders of the 'losing' parties in parliament (the ones that weren't included in the coalition). They didn't didn't lose, they just didn't win as much. And someone who was placed in too low a position on the list of a party can still get into parliament by getting a disproportionate amount of votes. Basically, all the people on the lists of the various parties have a shot at becoming prime minister (even though the election isn't officially about that), and get various amounts of power depending (in part) on how many votes they get. At least, that's the Dutch system. Other systems are similar. A presidency is indeed a winner-take-all sort of thing, but you made the mistake of including prime ministers in your question. :) DirkvdM 07:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Touché.  :-) Dismas|^(talk) 10:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A small correction, John Prescott was the deputy prime minister under Blair; Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Hammer Raccoon 12:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Britain does not have-has never had-a 'Vice-Prime Minister'. Clio the Muse 22:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops. He acted like one, though. Of course one can also have extra power just through skill, reputation, personality and such without that being linked to an official position. DirkvdM 06:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As has been brought up in this thread, the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom holds no real powers as such, and it isn't even mandatory to have one - Brown currently has no deputy. Harriet Harman is the deputy leader of the Labour Party, but not the deputy Prime Minister. None of this has anything to do with the question, I just thought people might like to know... Hammer Raccoon 13:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sounds like the same thing under a different name. The Dutch vice prime minister holds no extra power, nor does the prime minister, for that matter. They have extra authority, though. They are listened to more, which is everything in a democracy, and therefore effectively constitutes more (future) power. DirkvdM 17:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ontario ballot history

When did the party affiliation of each candidate first appear beside the candidate's name on an Ontario ballot?--Tilda29940 14:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.111.99 (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Here's a cite for that. --Anon, 22:34 UTC, October 10, 2007.

Actually, let me amend that. Yesterday was the relevant election day, but there were advance polls, which natually used the same ballots. So technically the answer would have been whatever day in September the first advance polls opened. Anyway, it was this year's election. --Anon, 23:29 UTC, October 11, 2007.

Town Commons of Tarboro, NC

I would like to know more about the Town Commons located in Tarboro, NC? So far, I know it is the second oldest official town commons in America and it was started in the 1700's. I also was informed from different sources this is the only "official" town commons besides the one in Boston, MA in America. What is the meaning "official" with the town commons? Plus how large is this town commons? I would really like to know more about the Town Commons of Tarboro, NC? The Town Commons of Tarboro, NC may be a good future article on this site, because of it significants, just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.96.34 (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of those, such as myself, who have no idea - what is a "Town Commons". I would guess at an area of common land within a town, sort of like a park. But this sounds very unspecial. -- SGBailey 19:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See Common land. In early colonial times in North America, the town commons was a section of the town which was held in common by all of the town's residents, and was used, in general, for grazing livestock. Corvus cornix 20:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a very brief mention of the town Common on Tarboro's own website. That page also says that the area was settled in approximately 1733, and chartered as "Tarborough" in 1760, which means it isn't all the old (in terms of US history). By comparison, our article on the Boston Common indicates that it dates back to 1634 or so. The Boston article also mentions some of the other uses of the land besides grazing.

Regarding the "official" designation, I've not found a lot of detail. At this point I think the Tarboro, NC article might benefit from a well-sourced addition about its Common, but it doesn't seem quite notable enough for a separate article. --LarryMac | Talk 21:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You might like to check how commons are or were created in North Carolina. I don't know anything about land law in the American colonies, but I imagine the concept of rights of common there is or was much the same as in English law, which has a huge and fascinating body of law to do with commons. Most of the recent cases here in England are to do with the Commons Registration Act 1965, which provides for new commons to be registered after twenty years' use of a piece of land by local people 'as of right' (nec clam, nec vi, nec precario) for lawful sports and pastimes. It sounds simple, but the courts (including the House of Lords) are still grappling with all the concepts involved. Xn4 21:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If the Tarboro Common dates to the mid-1700s, then it is certainly not the second-oldest in what is now the United States. As others have noted, the Boston Common dates back to 1634 or so. The Cambridge Common in Cambridge, Massachusetts, dates back to about the same time (1630s), as do the Salem Common in Salem, Massachusetts and several other town commons in eastern Massachusetts. Most towns in colonial Massachusetts had town commons, and about 100 Massachusetts towns had been founded by the mid-1700s, when Tarboro came into being. While the Boston Common and Cambridge Common have articles because of their historical prominence, most town commons in Massachusetts are not prominent enough to merit encyclopedia articles. I'm not sure I see why the Tarboro Common should have an article if, for example, the Salem Common does not. Marco polo 20:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sheep in literature

I have just read 'Three Bags Full by Leonie Swann and found it a most enjoyable book. I see that Leonie Swann is an orphan article. Can anyone suggest sensible articles to link to this German author who writes stories about "Detective Sheep investigating a murder". (Honest its a good read despite how that previous sentence sounds.) -- SGBailey 19:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You might write an article on the Friedrich Glauser Prize... Corvus cornix 20:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added her to List of German-language authors, List of crime writers‎ and List of detective fiction authors‎. If 'detective fiction' is stretching a point, any writer who can get a flock of sheep to solve a murder must deserve a little leeway. Xn4 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Baa, Baa, Black Sheep (nursery rhyme)? --Sean 23:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• "The Sheep and the Goats" by Jesus Christ, or "Sheep Go to Heaven" by Cake. --M@rēino 19:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Nuremberg/Hitler Picture

Front of the Frauenkirche

In this picture at [[12]] of the Nuremberg Rally, there is a building that resembles a castle. Does anyone know what building that is?

It's the Church of our Lady (Frauenkirche) in Market Square. Clio the Muse 22:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

Why are there at least two gentlemen carrying bunches of flowers in that picture, was it symbolic of something? Rockpocket 22:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

They are not gentlemen, no gentleman would ever have been involved in such an exhibition. DuncanHill 22:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The one on the left looks like Göring, if that helps. --24.147.86.187 22:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The figure in the foreground is Hermann Göring (certainly a gentleman by upbringing!); I do not know who the other individual is. It is likely that they have taken flowers handed to Hitler, in the same fashion as the attendants of our own dear Queen do on her walkabouts! Clio the Muse 22:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

He may have been a gentleman by upbringing, but he certainly wasn't one by inclination! DuncanHill 22:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on how you choose to define gentleman, I suppose. I chose not to cast aspersion by association. Rockpocket 23:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Duncan; you should have had an invitation to Karinhall in the company of the Reich's Hunt Master! Clio the Muse 23:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

His brother sounds like a decent chap though. DuncanHill 23:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

de:Frauenkirche (Nürnberg) if that helps.--85.180.48.7 23:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Conducting

When one is conducting music for a performance by a symphony orchestra, exactly how much influence does the conductor have on the musicians during a performance? While I don't doubt they are integral to the process during rehearsal, it always appeared to me that such talented musicians as those in the orchestra would know their parts so well that the conductor's routine is somewhat redundant by the time they are performing for an audience. Is the theatrical hand waving more of a show for the audience than a guide for the musicians? Rockpocket 22:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on whether the players like the conductor or not. If you've ever been to a symphony orchestra rehearsal, you'll notice that most of the comments that the conductors gives are stylistic. Therefore, whether it is followed is really a matter of personal taste. My friend from the LA Phil tells me that they listen to Essa-Pekka but not to many guest conductors. Really, the audience can't tell much anyway, but it makes a good impression. bibliomaniac15 23:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

During performance, the key things that the conductor does is give direction on tempo and expression (primarily through adjusting dynamics). The first one is essential to follow. I've played with both professional and amateur ensembles (sometimes with the same conductor) and the direction given during performance does make a huge difference. There won't be huge variations from the directions given during rehearsal, but it's one less thing to have to know or control. If you watch a professional performance, you'll notice that the players keep a close eye on the conductor (and also the section leader who sets a fair amount of what happens at the basic level, such as bowings for string instruments, moments for breathing for wind instruments etc.) Donald Hosek 23:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, both. That answers my question nicely. Rockpocket 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So, could an orchestra perform without a conductor? If so, would anyone notice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.114.11 (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There's only one way to find out: by trying it. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone tried it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.114.11 (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Most certainly. There are many examples, and when I have some time I'll dig out a few. -- JackofOz 00:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

JackofOz you are absolutely correct. In Soviet Russia orchestras had to learn to play without a conductor because it was part of the communist ideal. Also the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra is famous for playing without a conductor. --S.dedalus 07:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Gulp, guess my post below was a classical case of tl;dr! ---Sluzzelin talk 08:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra point, it looks more like the WP:TLDR was on my part. Oops. . .By the way, the source for the Soviet Russia thing comes from an interview with John Adams I’m looking for more background on it now though. --S.dedalus 01:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Two characteristics that may require a person entirely devoted to conducting are the size of the orchestra and the complexity of the music in terms of dynamics, tempo, meter, and so forth. Ensembles and chamber orchestras often perform and record without a conductor. Before the 19th century, orchestral concerti were usually "conducted" by one of the instrumentalists. More modern works, as well as operas or musical works including choirs, for example, would be more difficult to perform without a conductor than a Mozart symphony. PERSIMFANS (Pervyi Simfonicheskii Ansambl, no article on en.wikipedia) was a famous conductorless orchestra in the Soviet Union between 1922 and 1932. Prokofiev attended a performance of his Third Piano Concerto in 1928, and was impressed, though he noted that they had some difficulties with agogical elements such as ritardandi or accelerandi. Nikolai Myaskovsky was less enthused when PERSIMFANS premiered his more complex 10th symphony that same year - the performance lacked co-ordination, and, during the fugue, the composition fell apart in front of the audience. The Orpheus Chamber Orchestra is a more contemporary example of an excellent orchestra without a conductor. I have also heard former members of the Berlin Philharmonic claim they performed without a conductor during the late 1980s - with an ancient Herbert von Karajan merely serving as an audience attraction standing in front of the orchestra. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I just remembered witnessing a performance that proved how important a conductor can be. It was a chamber orchestra, with conductor, premiering a Colombian composer's piano concerto, the composer was also the soloist. The program had been quite boring up until then (Vivaldi's Four Seasons, believe it or not), and at least half of the audience, including myself, had come for the premiere anyway. We were not disappointed: the concerto was one of the finest premieres I had ever heard, the pianist rocked and so did the Colombian rhythms he incorporated in his music. There was a standing ovation and everyone was shouting for an encore. Since the whole thing was a charity event, the conductor then auctioned off his baton to round off the collected sum. The highest bidder not only received the baton, but was also invited on stage and asked to conduct an encore of the concerto's final movement. It was a catastrophe, the poor bidder was humiliated, the composer/pianist was humiliated, and everyone ended up looking bad. So, even if he demonstrated extremely poor judgment in creating this embarassment, the conductor obviously did contribute a lot to making the concerto sound right the first time around. When the conductor who rehearsed the work with the orchestra has to be replaced for the performance, things can easily start sounding shaky - even when the replacement is a pro. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Pieter Wispelwey the cellist does a lot of work with conductorless orchestras. From [13]: Pieter has appeared with a variety of orchestras and ensembles both with and without conductors. Notable projects without conductors have been the touring and recording of the Schumann and Shostakovich cello concertos with the Australian Chamber Orchestra. This orchestra has, without doubt, provided for Pieter the happiest and most satisfying musical collaborations of his career to date, not least due to the genius of leader and musical director, Richard Tognetti. I also believe the Prague Chamber Orchestra plays without a conductor. -- JackofOz 01:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The conductor of a band, chorus or orchestra sets the tempo and dynamics, as stated above. He also cues entrances by glancing at the soloist when it is time for him to come in. This can actually lessen the chance of a missed or tentative entrance. Edison 03:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the first violinist also sort of a conductor for the string section, in that the other violinists follow his lead? DirkvdM 08:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The concertmaster? ---Sluzzelin talk 08:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely it depends on the size of the orchestra and how well the orchestra 'know' each other? A fairly small orchestra that has played together a lot for a long time is likely to be able to keep itself together and give an artistically satisfying result without the conductor (I remember a conductor getting annoyed with us in string-group once, when I was very young, and saying 'Fine, see how you do without me!'. Of course, we played it perfectly... That may be more related to the 'liking the conductor' bit). I fail to see how knowing your part very well would render the conductor redundant. Playing music isn't about playing exactly what is written, as a computer would do. The tempo, emphases, dynamics, the way the music is 'pulled about', the 'effects' such as shortening or lengthening notes, the lengths of pauses and rests, these all need to be done in a way that gives a good overall effect, although each of these things must be done by individuals. 130.88.140.43 17:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite. But I fail to understand how all those subtleties can be communicated to up to 100 different musicians simultaneously by waving a little stick about at them, unless a large part of it is already committed to memory during rehearsal! Rockpocket 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket, although it is hard to understand without actually having played in an orchestra, a conductor or at least a leader (concert masters used to lead orchestras too), really does help hold the group together. Of course there are exceptions; the Vienna Philharmonic is a very great orchestra, but conducts seldom change how the musicians play the music because the musicians already know most of the music and have usually played it many times! It is unfortunate that Wikipedia does not yet have an article on Communication in chamber music. A similar thing happens in orchestras. Musicians learn to take their cues from more than the “stick waving around.” It almost a psychological thing. Because the players can not watch each other and still play they sense the movements of the conductor with their upper peripheral vision while still reading the music. Good conductor now that conducting is more than just counting off beats. A good conductor balances the orchestra by showing what parts should be loudest or most expressive or whatever. Bad conductors confuse an orchestra by giving conflicting signals or, often, by showing off too much for the audience. The point is anybody with some basic training can act like a metronome, the skill is in interpreting the music and communicating it during performance. --S.dedalus 01:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As for "waving a little stick about at them", there are good reasons for that, visibility for the players without being visually intrusive to the audience being an important one. However, not all conductors use a baton, preferring their own appendages. Leonard Bernstein often dispensed with the baton, for example. And on Bernstein, look at this youtube video of him conducting Mahler’s 9th Symphony. He might, as usual for Bernstein, have "become the performance" himself - it was often joked that the orchestra was really only there to accompany Bernstein's conducting. At the other extreme, when Richard Strauss conducted, it was often complained that he was just standing there doing nothing, because his movements were almost imperceptible to the audience - but by the same token Bernstein was outstanding in being able to communicate the feeling he wanted from his players. Music without feeling is just sound, really, and when it comes to this type of music, there has to be a unified approach, because if the players are left to decide the mood, character, tempo and endless nuances of the particular piece for themselves, it will sound like many individual players rather than one orchestra. Even with a conductorless orchestra, there must be some prior agreement among the players about the starting point and all the other characteristics of the piece. So, a conductor is not absolutely essential for a very good performance, but if you want a great performance, I'd say the larger the ensemble, the more essential there be a conductor. That's why string quartets get by without a conductor but the Berlin Phil et al can't. -- JackofOz 04:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I sympathies with Bernstein’s decision to do away with the baton there. It can be a little silly. A violist acquaintance of mine says that when she was playing with a professional orchestra a number of years ago they had a guest conductor come in to conduct a performance of Beethoven’s sixth symphony. In rehearsal the guest conductor took the piece very slow, and by the week of the concert it became apparent that he was not going to speed it up to a proper tempo. So, to save audience from their impending agony, the concert master and timpanist told the rest of the orchestra to follow THEIR tempo not the conductor's! The poor guy had to just stand there and “lip sync” with the music. Obviously orchestras can do without the conductor if they really have to. --S.dedalus 05:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's extraordinarily interesting, S.dedalus. Any given orchestral work can be interpreted in a vast number of different ways, and it's almost always the conductor's personal conception that prevails. That's essentially what he's there for - not just to beat time, but to convey the whole concept of the piece. Most conductors would simply not tolerate the players disobeying his tempo indications, and usually have more than enough personal authority to quickly bring them back in line if they do wander off. If they did what they did to the poor guy in the Beethoven Pastoral, he'd probably vow never to conduct them again (which is probably exactly what they wanted). Conductors with more gumption would have preferred to stop the performance mid-stream, even at the risk of creating a scandal, rather than be associated with a performance they disagreed with. When there's a soloist, as in a concerto, the soloist and the conductor have to agree beforehand on the intepretation, otherwise there'd be chaos. I know of one case where the conductor deferred to the soloist - the famous 1962 performance of the Brahms Piano Concerto No. 1, with Glenn Gould at the piano and Bernstein (again) conducting. Bernstein so profoundly disagreed with the interpretation he was about to conduct that he addressed the audience beforehand as follows:

• Don't be frightened, Mr.Gould is here. (audience laughter) He will appear in a moment. I am not - as you know - in the habit of speaking on any concert except the Thursday night previews, but a curious situation has arisen, which merits, I think, a word or two. You are about to hear a rather, shall we say, unorthodox performance of the Brahms D Minor Concerto, a performance distinctly different from any I've ever heard, or even dreamt of for that matter, in its remarkably broad tempi and its frequent departures from Brahms' dynamic indications. I cannot say I am in total agreement with Mr. Gould's conception. And this raises the interesting question: "What am I doing conducting it?" (mild laughter from the audience) I'm conducting it because Mr. Gould is so valid and serious an artist, that I must take seriously anything he conceives in good faith, and his conception is interesting enough so that I feel you should hear it, too. But the age old question still remains: "In a concerto, who is the boss (audience laughter) - the soloist or the conductor?" (Audience laughter grows louder) The answer is, of course, sometimes one and sometimes the other depending on the people involved. But almost always, the two manage to get together, by persuasion or charm or even threats (audience laughs) to achieve a unified performance. I have only once before in my life had to submit to a soloist's wholly new and incompatible concept, and that was the last time I accompanied Mr. Gould. (audience laughs loudly) But this time, the discrepancies between our views are so great that I feel I must make this small disclaimer. Then why, to repeat the question, am I conducting it? Why I do I not make a minor scandal -- get a substitute soloist, or let an assistant conduct? Because I am fascinated, glad to have the chance for a new look at this much played work; because, what's more, there are moments in Mr. Gould's performance that emerge with astonishing freshness and conviction. Thirdly, because we can all learn something from this extraordinary artist who is a thinking performer; and finally because there is in music what Dimitri Mitropoulos used to call "the sportive element" (mild audience laughter) - that factor of curiousity, adventure, experiment, and I can assure you that it has been an adventure this week (audience laughter) collaborating with Mr. Gould on this Brahms concerto; and it's in this spirit of adventure that we now present it to you. (loud clapping) -- JackofOz 06:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) If nothing else, when the music is particularly complex in rhythm, it can help to have a timekeeper showing the beats. For example, Frank Zappa often conducted his band through some of the more rhythmically tricky music. Funny to watch a long-hair freak who has just sung a song about poodles and played a guitar solo to suddenly put down the guitar and pull out a baton and start beating time for the band... Pfly 04:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The conductor also must be a coach and referee. In some ensembles, the trumpet section, say, may decide that the louder they play the better the performance will be, and dirty looks from players in other sections are unlikely to reduce the volume to a level which best presents the artistic intention of the composer. Yes, the orchestra could get through the piece without a conductor, and as we have seen in old western movies, a wagon or stagecoach can move along pretty briskly for a time after the driver is shot. Edison 14:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

October 11

Is there an advanced search engine?

I am looking for a history on English women and chocolate between the 15th and 18th centuries. Especially women of nobility or higher rank. Is there some kind of advanced search that I can do in order to find a link between these subjects because the search engine only looks up the first word, then the second, and so on. I'm doing research on it for a paper and was hoping to use the bibliographies for further research. Thank you for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.137.78 (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It would make more sense to ask this at the computing ref desk. DirkvdM 08:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Skip the 15th and 16th centuries, when there was no chocolate in England, and jump to the court of Charles I. I've just read an anecdote about Tobie Matthew, preparing the new chocolate for Queen Henrietta Maria, and absent-mindedly drinking it all up himself, as a bit of comedy; I added it to the Wikipedia article. It came to England from Spain, in the wake of the ill-starred "Spanish Match". There are several books on the history of chocolate: The True History of Chocolate, by Sophie D. and Michael D. Coe, has gone to a second edition, amazon.com says. There's no reference to chocolate in my four-volume incomplete edition of Samuel Pepys's diary (but it couldn't have been omitted). Sir John Denham’s wife was reported to have been poisoned by a dish of chocolate, at the bidding of the Duchess of York, according to a note in Andrew Marvell, by Augustine Birrell (p. 130). Try googling "history of chocolate" with the quotation marks! -Wetman 08:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried Google Scholar? -- Mwalcoff 23:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bengali-Canadians politicians

How many Bengali-Canadians politicians are participating in the Ontario election? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.159 (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Electricity rationing in Britain during WWII

According to Timeline_of_World_War_II#March_3, during WWII the British began to ration electricity. What exactly does that mean? Did they have brown outs, or times of the day that were blacked out, or what? --24.147.86.187 03:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I remember seeing in a sixties or seventies British tv series that people had to feed a metre in the hallway with coins to get electricity. That's not really rationing, though. DirkvdM 08:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, coin-operated electricity meters were commonplace here in the UK until very recently, they have now mainly been replaced with meters that are topped up using a smart card or plastic key that has to be topped up at a terminal in a local shop. These 'prepayment' meters are commonly used either for flats/shared residences or anywhere people don't live for long or for customers that have failed to pay their bills, prepayment ensures that they have to pay up. With regard to the rationing, I am not sure, it could be related to the 'blackouts' where people were encouraged not to use lights in order to avoid the light being spotted at night by the enemy. --GaryReggae 11:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think (no references to hand) that electricity was rationed in certain areas by periodic power-cuts (we have power-cuts, not brown outs in Britain) - domestic use would be cut at times of peak industry demand in order to maintain industrial output, which was vastly more important to national survival than domestic lighting etc. The times of the power-cuts would be announced in local papers or by posters. Coal (at the time much more widely used domestically than it is now) was also rationed, and people were encouraged to have fewer & shallower baths in order to reduce the amount of fuel used by water-treatment works. DuncanHill 12:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that a Brownout (electricity) is not a powercut per se. A brown out is a temporary dip in the voltage. I am not sure of the formal definition - though I believe that there is one - but I think that the greater the dip, the shorter the duration. We are talking here of electricity going missing for under 0.1 seconds here. -- SGBailey 20:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I have always suspected that we say powercut rather than blackout precisely because we already had something else called a blackout, and they were both common, annoying things in the same timeperiod. 130.88.140.43 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Electricity rationing began in the summer of 1942—based on a points system consumers were allocated a certain number of units for all uses during a certain time period. I can't find any references as to deliberate cut-offs or the amount of power each household could use, but during the coal shortage during the harsh winter of 1946–7 there were planned blackouts. Almost daily an announcement would be read over the 8 A.M. news broadcast concerning which areas were to lose power, followed shortly by a blackout.—eric 19:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There were also "rota" (scheduled) power cuts by area during the coal miners' strikes of 1973/4 and 1978/9. During the 1973/4 strikes, all tv broadcasts closed down at 10.30 p.m. in order to save energy; the unexpected consequence of having nothing to watch on tv, and going to bed early to keep warm, was a baby boom nine months later! -- Arwel (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Was there a miners' strike in 1978/9? Clio the Muse 22:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Winter of Discontent? There were certainly two miners' strikes in the 70s, but I may have got the date of the second one wrong... -- Arwel (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• If I recall correctly, in addition to the rationing, there were also blackouts during the Battle of Britain, either to prevent the Luftwaffe from the advantage of being able to spot targets at night, or because the bombs knocked out service (by hitting a plant or a power line). --M@rēino 00:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

These blackouts did not involve cutting power, Mareino. All street lighting, including traffic lights, was certainly put out; but people still had lighting at home, hidden behind blackout screens. Air-Raid Wardens went around specifically to check that no light showed through. Clio the Muse 00:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S. utilities frequently use voltage reduction during periods of high demand to prevent system overloads and blackouts. One method is to send out a signal from the control center to selected substations to reduce the voltage by 2.5 % or 5 % on selected lines. Suburban residential areas are the favorite targets, and central busness districts are usually spared. When the voltage is lowered, load which is resistive naturally uses less power, . Motors, such as air conditioners, draw increased current in attempting to provide the required motive force, which may result in them stalling and popping their circuit breaker, which also reduces the load. Theoretically, if the voltage entering the home started at 120 volts, it could be reduced to 114 volts, a typical minimum voltage mandated by state law, and still be considered legal. But in practice, many customers near the end of the line might have voltage near the 114 minimum to start with. This "legal" and intentional brownout may go on from mid-day until 10 pm or so when the demand decreases. Edison 14:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts, though it seems like most people aren't sure, but suspect scheduled blackouts (which makes sense to me). As an aside, I remember reading something a few years about a South American country (Bolivia? Columbia?) where the authorities decided to save power by cutting the voltage/amps/frequency? or something along those lines, and the result was that everything basically looked fine except that all electric (non-battery) clocks ran slow (the quartz crystals were off). Anybody remember this? It had a very Borges-like feel to it but I'm pretty sure I remember reading about it in a reputable source (CNN or something along those lines), but my Google searches are coming up fruitless. --24.147.86.187 15:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Discovery Process - Civil suits in Canada

• Hi, could someone enlighten me on how exactly the discovery process works in Canada? The plaintiffs and the defendants just exchange any affidavits or other evidence before the pre-trial conference right?
• The article Discovery_(law) is based solely on US law. :(
• Yes I know the legal information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a licensed professional (Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer)
• --1ws1 05:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • To make things simpler, lets just use the Federal Court of Canada, because of the severely decentralized nature of the Canadian government. --1ws1 05:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wool suit as art

Years ago, somewhere in the mid 90s, I went to the Art Institute in Chicago. While there I saw a wool suit on a hanger which was displayed as a piece of art. It was as if someone took it out of their closet and hung it on the wall. I remember seeing an article about this work, maybe it was mentioned in the article about the artist, here at Wikipedia. Does anyone know of this piece and know what the name of it might be? I tried various Google searches but didn't find anything. Dismas|^(talk) 12:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Maslow's Human Needs

I try to find out why there are two versions of Maslow's Human Needs pyramid, one with 5 levels and the other with 6 levels. Did he change it or was it other people's intepretation? When was that 6th level added? The following website of yours has included only 5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

thank you very much for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.68.88.132 (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look a little further down the article, under Self-transcendence, it says "Maslow later divided the top of the triangle <the self-actualisation level> to add self-transcendence which is also sometimes referred to as spiritual needs." Gandalf61 15:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

war in the church

did the fourteenth century schism in the catholic church bring about military conflict? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.107.238 (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the so-called Western Schism? If so, there's no mention of military conflict in the article. Algebraist 14:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article mentions the "Guerras fernandinas" or Fernandine Wars, on which we lack an article. However there is an article on Guerras fernandinas in the Portuguese Wikipedia. The article also mentions the 1383-1385 crisis in Portugal as a consequence of the schism. Finally, since England supported the Roman pope and France backed the pope in Avignon, the schism played a role in the Hundred Years' War. Marco polo 20:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It may have played a role in the later stages of the Hundred Years war, but at the start if the war there was only one Pope, based in Avignon, and always on the side of the French. I don't know what later role it had, but I don't think it brought about the military conflict, although no doubt both sides having God's right hand man on their side spurred them on later! Cyta 07:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, here is an interesting story for you, a story of an English bishop who led a 'crusade', no less, against the schismatic French. His name was Henry Dispenser, Bishop of Norwich and nuncio of Pope Urban VI, who took an army into the Low Countries under the sign of the cross in May, 1383. Some years prior to this Urban had sent a bull to the Archbishop of Canterbury, offering crusading indulgences to all those who took arms against Clement VII, his rival in Avignon, who was supported by France and Scotland. Henry Dispenser, described as 'warlike' by his contemporaries, was quick to make his own plans for a crusading venture, which Urban readily approved.

The opportinity came when the people of Ghent rebelled against Louis of Male, Count of Flanders, a supporter of Clement. This also attracted the interest of the English crown, which had important commercial interests in Flanders, and was keen to support the burghers of Ghent. The matter was made all the more urgent after the Flemings were defeated by a French army at the Battle of Roosebeke in November, 1382. Because of this, and the danger the victory presented to English economic interests, Richard II granted Dispenser permission to raise an army. A crusade had the added advantage to Richard in that the expenses could all be met by the sale of Papal indulgences, rather than parliamentary grant.

Dispenser and his army landed at Calais on 16 May. Soon after they attacked and slaughtered the French garrison at Gravelines, before moving on to Dunkirk, where they fought and defeated Louis of Male. It was after this high point that things started to go wrong. An attempt to take Ypres was a failure, after which the gains of the spring were lost, and towns previously captured by the crusaders were retaken by the enemy. Gravelines was only given up after Dispenser, in his anger, ordered it to be sacked. By October most of the army was back in England. Dispenser was impeached before parliament for his failure. His temporalities were confiscated and he was ordered to behave in a manner 'befitting his episcopal dignity.' The massacre at Gravelines also did much to discredit the Urbanist cause, just as the unscrupulous sale of indulgences had roused the criticism of John Wycliff and the new Lollard movement. Wycliff denounced both Popes as 'power made'. God's forgiveness, he argued still further, could not be purchased, and that the grant of remission of sins for killing fellow Christians was 'an affront to Christ.' Clio the Muse 00:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

war in the french countryside

what effect did the hundred years war have on the rural communities of france? 81.152.107.238 13:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• The Hundred Years' War affected the peasants mainly by adding an element of instability to a way of life that was usually quite boring. Things hit their low point during the Jacquerie revolt. --M@rēino 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The effects were not nearly as bad as was at one time assumed. An English chevauchee could certainly be destructive and terrible in its consequences for the peasantry, but the most frequent complaint at the time was not over murderous soldiers but the break down in customary relationships, and the excessive financial burdens caused by the levying of taxes and tributes, no matter if the leviers were English or French, with little in the way of practical return. Peasants, no longer able to rely on customary feudal protection, took to defending themselves, usually in the fortification of their local churches. At night these 'mini castles' gave added security to the community, who all slept within, while during the day the church tower was used as a look-out point. These little fortresses spread across France and, despite official disapproval, were to remain a feature of the countryside well into the eighteenth century. Clio the Muse 01:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Unknown piano piece

Could someone please help me find the title and artist to this piece? Thanks! HokieRNB 15:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is spooky. If you’d asked this question a few days ago, I couldn’t have helped you. But I recently came across the sheet music for Chopin’s Largo in E flat major, and that’s what this is. It’s a minor work, hardly ever played and rarely recorded, but quite pleasant. I have no idea who the pianist is. (Btw, it’s not the same piece as this, which is incorrectly labelled “Largo”. That is its tempo indication, but it's actually the Prelude No. 20 in C minor, Op.28, sometimes nicknamed the “Chord Prelude”.) -- JackofOz 03:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking for Annual Distribution of Vacation Taken in America

Hi!

I really appreciate any help finding resources to determine the distribution of average hours of vacation paid time off taken annually. Minimally I need it by month, but further resolution wouldn't hurt. An average for US would work, but I am looking for vacation taken (not awarded or available) by non-union health care workers in Texas. I have looked at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but haven't found the right data set yet. Again, and pointers are greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Aqualinx 15:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

War Novel

Can someone please help me? I've been trying to remember the name of a novel that I read years ago. It's set, I think, during the First World War and begins with a scene in a sanatorium with the patients looking out over the plain of battle. Sorry to be so vague. Hope and Glory 17:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely this has to be Under Fire by Henri Barbusse? Now in the sinister light of the storm beneath black dishevelled clouds, dragged and spread across the earth like wicked angels, they seem to see a great livid white plain extended before them. In their vision, figures arise out of the plain, which is composed of mud and water, and clutch at the surface of the ground, blinded and crushed with mire, like survivors from some monstrous shipwreck. (Penguin edition, 2003, p. 6) Clio the Muse 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, that's it. Clio you seem to be able to make bricks without straw! Thank you very much indeed. Hope and Glory 12:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

manifesto

I am looking for a manifesto published in London in 1917 that was signed by eight clergymen representing the leading Protestant dominations including Baptist, Congregational, Presbyterian, Episcopalian and Methodist. The major topic of the manifesto was the end of the Gentile times.

thanks! mis_ann—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.51.179.254 (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ann, there is a reference here to something called the London Manifesto. I do have to say, though, that I rather thought the whole idea of 'the end of the gentile times' coinciding with the First World War was one espoused by Jehovah's Witnesses and only Jehovah's Witnesses. I personally have never heard of this 'London Manifesto'. The only reference to it is the Wikipedia Page, which was created on 10 October and coincides almost exactly with your request for information, which, I have to say, seems to rank very high indeed on the scale of coincidence! A reference to this document was also added to the Wikipedia End of Time page on 11 October. I've checked the names of some of the clergymen mentioned in the 'manifesto', and while they certainly existed I have no idea if they really subscribed to this document or not. The only reference given in the Wikipedia page is to something called 'Current Opinion', presumably a journal of some sort, though not one I am familiar with. My gut reaction is that there is something not quite right here, though I would be happy to admit that I am wrong if some more definite proof is forthcoming. Clio the Muse 23:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This "manifesto" appears to have been originally reported in an unnamed newspaper at the time. I expect, however, that the article was sourced from (the wonderfully titled) Millions Now Living Will Never Die! (1920) by Joseph Franklin Rutherford (p39-40) who used it to promote his beliefs. It seems, therefore, to be a genuine event, though I can find no record of it known as the "London Manifesto". Nor am I convinced that an erroneous statement by a few ministers in 1917 that "the revelation of the Lord may be expected at any moment" is sufficiently notable for an article on its own. I'll {{prod}} it. Rockpocket 00:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have been published in the Marshall, Morgan & Scott newspaper Christian (World?), 8 November 1917, p. 14. A group called 'The Advent Testimony Movement' and somehow tied to Christabel Pankhurst?—eric 05:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Historical Education Method

IS there any method of education where all subjects and disciplines are taught through historical geometry? For example Euclidean geometry would be taught during studies on Ancient Greece or Darwinian Evolution during study of the 19th century and language and literature during their time span. --Gary123 19:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Your question is slightly unclear; I'm going to assume you mean that all subjects are taught from the primary sources that show their development, not that all subjects are somehow derived from the history of geometry in particular. (Though I happen to have taken out of the library, just today, Dan Pedoe's Geometry and the Liberal Arts, St. Martin's Press, 1976, which at least makes connections between Euclid & his successors and art and architecture. In the very unlikely case that you would like to relate animal development to geometry, I'd recommend reading D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson's On Growth and Form.) All too many scientists are illiterate in the history of their own subjects. The "great books" curriculum of St. John's College requires students to read Euclid and Newton's Principia (with its exposition in terms of Euclidean geometry), and Darwin too, alongside literary classics, and to reproduce in the laboratory epochal experiments of Faraday, etc., whose results they discuss informed by reading original scientific papers. And all students study a bit of Ancient Greek and French. (While I don't believe that the St. John's method is particularly interested in relating contemporary developments in literature and science to each other—the natural prejudice of studying putatively timeless "great books" is to be anti-historicist—the students who follow this course might be in a position to make the connections—at least they've read the primary sources, which is incredibly unusual in our world. On the other hand, the academic discipline of the history of science, home to those who devote themselves to such sources, is all about interpreting science in terms of its historical context. But this is matter for advanced undergraduate seminars and Ph.D. students, not a method of [general] education.) Is the St. John's model close to the method you have in mind? Wareh 20:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The history of ideas is generally the last kind of history that comes to be understood

.--Wetman 02:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

For the Owl of Minerva always flies at dusk! Clio the Muse 02:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Rosas and Peron

Can Juan Manuel de Rosas be compared directly to Juan Peron? How do they both stand in relation to the history of Argentina? TheLostPrince 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

They were both caudillo, 'strong men' very much in the Latin American mould, and both had a populist agenda. Both attempted to draw on sources of native support, defining themselves in opposition to the traditional conservative elites, or the 'oligarchy', as Peron liked to refer to these people. Both tended to be viewed by those with an outward and European identity as representing something 'savage' and 'backward' in Argentinian culture. Both were demagogues and dictators, and both created their own political mythology. So, yes; I suppose a direct comparison can be made. Clio the Muse 01:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

October 12

Chinese and New Zealand Holiday

Does anybody know what the differences and similarities are between Chinese New Year and New Zealand's New Year celebrations???

Any help wound be much appricated, many thanks, POKEMON RULES 00:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Similarity is that they are both held once a year. Difference is that the years aren't the same length. :) DirkvdM 07:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hymn 166

Can anyone identify "Hymn 166" for me? It's mentiioned in the ODNB entry for John Boson (writer), his dates were 1655-1730. DuncanHill 00:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, would it be that old parlor favorite

Sing, my tongue, the glorious battle;.

of the mighty conflict sing;.

tell the triumph of the victim,

to his cross thy tribute bring.

...or would that be Hymn 166 from the Rig Veda, book x, you know, the one that begins

रषभं मा समानानां सपत्नानां विषासहिम Wetman 01:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hindu Sufis

Are there Hindu Sufis, or is there a such thing as Sufi Hinduism? --Vikramkr 00:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of Tito to Saddam

Tito fell, the region became overrun by factions. Now same thing is happening in Iraq?--Mostargue 02:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And then the Yugoslavia was split up, so should the same thing happen to Iraq? A big difference is that Yugoslavia was a recent construct, after WWI. However, Iraq has for very long been a unity, as Persia. This goes waaaay back, so now I wonder if there has always been a ruler like Hussein to keep the country together. I assume the differences between the factions aren't a recent thing. A very important question to answer if one is to make a decision on what should happen with Iraq (who is to make that decision is an entirely different matter). DirkvdM 07:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, Iraq is very much a constructed state. The modern state is the successor of the Kingdom of Iraq, which was the British Mandate of Mesopotamia, which was itself created from part of the Ottoman Empire following the First World War, resulting from the Sykes-Picot Agreement made between Britain and France in 1916. This is an extract from a history thesis:

Iraq constructed, pulled out of thin air, void of nationalistic leanings or reason for existence, Iraq from its birth was a nation provided with artificial boundaries, leaders, and basic reasons for existence.

Iran is much more cohesive - geographically and culturally - and was formerly known as Persia. -- !! ?? 12:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a little confusion here. Dirk seems to be thinking of Iran, which used to be called Persia. Like Yugoslavia, Iraq is also a "recent construct", having been created by the League of Nations and the British from former parts of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War. Indeed, there's another parallel, which is that most of Yugoslavia had also been part of the Ottoman Empire, although most of it wasn't still Ottoman at the beginning of the Great War. While most Iraqis are Arabs, it's entirely arguable now that the creation of a composite country including (for instance) a significant Kurdish minority has turned out badly. But I don't think we can look back now and say that those who created Iraq ought to have seen the matter in that light at the time. Xn4 12:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Saddam or Hussein?

Why is Saddam Hussein almost invariably referred to as Saddam? Is that his 'last' name? His children are called Hussein, so that doesn't make sense from a western point of view. Or is it because there are so many Husseins? And is there only one Saddam, as the redirect suggests? DirkvdM 07:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Saddam is his name. In traditional Arabic naming, one doesn't have a surname, but rather a name with a collection of modifiers: in Saddam's case, Hussein is a patronymic. His children are often called Hussein, but that's because we're imposing western conventions: for example, Uday Hussein is more fully called Uday Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti, 'Uday the son of Saddam the sun of Hussein of Tikrit'. There's a discussion of this in footnote 1 at Saddam Hussein. Note that in Arabic, names are generally also meaningful words, so Saddam's full name can be translated as 'Stubborn, the son of Handsome, the son of Noble, from Tikrit'. Algebraist 13:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion of this: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/January_2007#Arabic_Names. While Saddam's family observed "traditional Arabic naming" and appended the father's first name as a second name, many other Arabs have been passing down surnames for centuries without any suspicion that it is a "Western convention" or any less "traditional" (though some might argue it shows Ottoman influence). Wareh 13:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Valuation

How do you convince Tom and Dekey that Valuation is a professional? Every Body can carry out property valuation.Do you agree?Please i beg your help even refferencesGeorgekalusanga 08:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean convince someone that valuation is a profession? Well you can never be sure of convincing anyone of anything, but you could show them a good dictionary, such as the OED, which has the following entries:

"Valuer: One who estimates or assesses values; a valuator.

Valuator: One who estimates the value of things; esp. one appointed or licensed to do so; an appraiser.

Appraiser: One who appraises: spec. a person appointed and sworn to estimate the value of property.

Assessor: One who officially estimates the value of property or income for purposes of taxation."

Property valuation requires comprehensive knowledge of local property markets, which is why estate agents employ professional valuers.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

n informal

As you say, anyone can carry out a property valuation, but it will be seen as an informal valuation and will have little weight if not done by someone professionally qualified. In the UK, we have people called "chartered valuation surveyors", whose abilities are verified by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. If another professional were to rely on a valuation by an unqualified person then in some circumstances it could amount to professional misconduct. In any event, it would be taking unnecessary risks. Xn4 12:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Saddam and Stalin

Since today seems to be Saddam Day I thought I made as well add another question. Did Saddam admire Stalin? Can the be compared? Please don't tell me they were both dictators! 217.43.13.176 08:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, this is coverted in the Saddam Hussein article on here:

Saddam was also a great admirer of Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin. During the 1970s, he visited all fifteen of Stalin's seaside dachas in Abkhazia which dotted along the coast of the Black Sea. In a meeting with Saddam in 1979, Kurdish politician Mahmoud Othman recalled that his office included a library of solely books on the Soviet leader. Saddam's visit to the dachas was said to be one of the inspirations for Saddam's construction of the grand palaces built in Baghdad and Iraq.

How odd. You learn something new every day. (There are references in the article itself, if you want to follow up on it.) --24.147.86.187 14:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"role of women in india's struggle for freedom"

how can i make the project on the topic "role of women in india's struggle for freedom"? please help me in making my project. please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.169.22 (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

English crown jewels

Can anyone tell me anymore about the fate of the crown jewels after the execution of Charles I in 1649? K Knut —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of them were destroyed by Oliver Cromwell. They were not, of course, the Crown Jewels dating from the Anglo-Saxon period, which had been lost by King John in crossing a swampy area in the east of England called The Wash. It was the replacement set of crown jewels which was mostly melted down by Cromwell. In The Adventure of the Musgrave Ritual, Sherlock Holmes discovers the missing crown. Xn4 12:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Operation Sealion

I would like to know what the evidence is that Hitler really intended to invade Britain in 1940. Captainhardy 11:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I quote here from Operation Sealion by Egbert Kieser, a quite comprehensive paperback: "There is not a single clue that Hitler ever really did intend to occupy the British Islands. There is much evidence that in a complete misapprehension of the actual situation, he intended from the outset to force Britain into concluding a peace agreement by means of a massive threat, in order thereby to clear the way for his attack upon Russia." However, quoting from the same volume: "But would he have stopped it, had the Luftwaffe won and the British still not thrown in the towel?" Random Nonsense 12:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of Hitler's "real" intentions is poor, because he did not like to write things down. But there were certainly preparations, whether a ruse or not. -- !! ?? 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Walter Darre and the environment

Your article on Walter Darre says he is quite influential on modern right wing extremists. Could he also not be seen as a prophet of the environment movement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastbank (talk • contribs) 13:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mithramat

I have found a few websites that make the claim that Manicheanism is synonymous with Mithramat, which sounds suspiciously similar to Mithraism. Given that Mithraism and Manicheanism are reputed to have come from Persia, and Manicheanism is a syncretic faith, absorbing many other religious ideas from other faiths, I wonder how accurate this statement is? Can we say anything definite, given our very limited lack of information about these mainly extinct beliefs and lack of documentation? Is Mithramat a proper synonym for Manicheanism?--Filll 14:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)