Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 18

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 18

Oil

Are the oil prices expected to ever go back down again and when is the world's oil supply expected to run out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No one can predict future price movements. Oil prices could fall if, for example, global recession leads to a sharp drop in demand. In that case, especially if they have risen to their present levels as a result of speculation, the price of oil could drop sharply. Earth's total reserves of oil are not known for certain. Their size is the subject of great controversy. Some believe that oil production will not reach its all-time maximum until the 2020s or later. Others believe that oil production has already peaked and will decline in the future, at first very gradually and then much more rapidly. (See Peak oil). If the latter view is correct, then current high prices would be one result of the oil supply having peaked while demand continues to grow. Oil will almost certainly never "run out". Rather, the most accessible oil and the oil that is most easily refined will run out. There will still be oil beneath the ground, but eventually we are likely to reach a point at which it will take more energy to remove the oil than the oil would yield in energy. Oil might still be mined at that point for uses other than energy supply, for example, to be used for lubrication. Oil might also be extracted for a time even though that extraction would take more energy than the oil would supply, because oil is such a dense energy source. But at that point, oil extraction would be a net drain on probably scarce supplies of energy. It is difficult to know when oil extraction will no longer yield net energy, but even in the most pessimistic scenarios, that date is several decades away. Marco polo (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You may be sure that oil will also be extracted for a time even past the point at which it will take more energy to remove the oil than the oil would yield in energy, simply because a corporate tax structure has been set up, with incentives etc. Does anyone imagine that Alaskan oil fields will be shut down as soon as extraction and refining costs, and the costs of maintaining and supplying the community, cost more in energy than the system produces? Has this point already been reached, if you factor in the energy required to build the pipelines, construct the equipment etc? See Boondoggle (project).--Wetman (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It'll be a while yet before the oil supply runs out. People forget we still have the Athabasca Oil Sands, and with the price of crude rising, it will be finacially viable to extract oil from them. Then there are other, similar deposits accross the wrold that at present we are unable to extract from but I'd imagine we're capable of finding a way. By the time the oil actuaqlly runs out I wouldn't be too shocked if we've worked out how to synthesise an improved version... Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ladies of the Bedchamber

According to Patricia Nevill, Marchioness of Abergavenny, she died in 2005. But Lady of the Bedchamber lists her as being a LotB from 1987 - present. So, if she died in '05 then why does it say "- present"? Is this incorrect or just one of the many things I don't understand about English nobility? Dismas|^(talk) 00:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Burke's Peerage and Baronetage confirms your suspicions, and Lady Abergavenny's death was announced in The Daily Telegraph on 25 February 2005. This lady being no longer with us, I've corrected her Lady of the Bedchamber entry. Well spotted! Xn4 00:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 02:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

When I hear "bedchamber", as opposed to "bedroom", I think four-poster beds and Northanger Abbey. Every chamber deserves a ghostly lady, holding a candle guttering! Also, as for Burke's inaccuracy, wasn't it Oscar Wilde who said that that book was the greatest work of fiction in the English language -- though I think he was referring to other bedroom activities than the gentle haunting of aristocrats. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Gas Prices

Why are gasoline prices so high? Some people claim that the government is responsible for the high prices. Is there any validity to that claim?24.88.103.234 (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Lauren

In most countries, a portion of the price of gasoline consists of taxes levied by the government. The government is responsible for that portion of the price of gasoline. However, few governments have raised their gasoline taxes in recent years. Instead, the increase in gasoline prices in recent years has been due to an increase in demand for oil, particularly from the rapidly industrializing nations of Asia, and a static or even gradually declining supply of oil. To a lesser extent, gasoline prices have also risen due to a lack of refining capacity for converting crude oil to gasoline. These prices are set on a global market, generally without government interference, through the forces of supply and demand. An argument could be made that governments have played a role in boosting demand by promoting economic growth. An argument could also be made that some governments have played a role in restricting supply, for example by invading and sparking civil war in Iraq, which has among the world's largest oil reserves. Marco polo (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, absolutely. If you buy £100 worth of petrol at the average cost in my area (107.1 pence/litre), £38.09 is the cost of the fuel, £47.01 is added duty, and £14.89 is VAT (which to add insult to injury is charged on both the cost of the petrol AND on the duty at a rate of 17.5%). So around 62% of the cost is tax & duty. For USA residents, 107.1 pence per litre equals $8.06 per US gallon - and you think you have problems with gas prices? Exxolon (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Taxes are much lower in the United States. Gas now costs around $3.20 per gallon in Massachusetts, which works out to 43 pence per liter. Of the $3.20, about 44 cents is tax. Marco polo (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Gasoline prices are as high as they are because gasoline is made from a commodity that is in tight supply, in the face of ever increasing demand. There are numerous other factors, but that's the gist. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In the U.S., inflation has decreased the value of the US dollar by more than 1/3 over the last five years: in 2003, two US Dollars could buy three Canadian dollars. Today, One US Dollar buys one Canadian Dollar. Thus, a very large percentage of the increase in gasoline prices is due to internal U.S inflation, which is directly caused by U.S. (Bush) tax policies. -Arch dude (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Inflation is widely recognized to be distinct from currency exchange rates. Inflation of over 1/3 in 5 years would be somewhere around 9% annual inflation, which has absolutely not occured. — Lomn 14:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And the devaluing of the dollar in turn affects the price of oil (not so much of gasoline, directly) because investors fly to valuable commodities when the dollar loses value - commodities like gold, diamonds, oil. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the majority of the difference in gasoline/petrol costs among most countries is due to tax policies in those places. In many countries, gas is taxed at extremely high rates compared to other products. Of course, in some countries, like Venezuela, gas comes cheap naturally. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Today I filled the car's gas tank for $3.699 per gallon, then an hour later saw the posted price had risen to $3.799. Glad I didn't wait. Edison (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The price of oil includes the getting of it, or more specifically, securing access to foreign deposits. Sometimes this involves blood, sweat, tears and toil. Wars are costly, and taxpayer-funded. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Israel memorial candle

While at my local Hannaford's (it's a fairly large chain of stores here in New England) grocery store, I saw that they had small candles for sale. The candles were in a open top aluminum can which was about 1.5" tall and maybe 1" in diameter. What I didn't understand about them was that the label on the can said "Israel Memorial Candle". I didn't see any sign by them saying that "X amount of the proceeds from the sale..." So what could these be for? Why would Israel need memorializing with candles in a supermarket? Oh, the name of the company that was printed on the side said something like "Rokesh Imports". I probably have the spelling wrong. Dismas|^(talk) 02:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I suspect those were Yahrtzeit candles. Jews light candles on the anniversary of the death of a loved one. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Rokeach makes yellow soap that's even found in Episcopalian kitchens. --Wetman (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as "what would Israel need memorializing," there are the thousands of Israelis who have died in wars and terrorist attacks since 1948. And, if "Israel" is interpreted more broadly to mean the Jewish people as a whole, there is, of course, the Holocaust. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • So, is there a Jewish observance coming up? These were right up front, so I figure that either they were put up front because of something that's current or something that just past and they're clearing out their stock. Dismas|^(talk) 03:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Memorial Day, is coming up. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm going to guess that must be the reason. Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 04:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• "Israel" probably just means that they are manufactured in Israel.--Pharos (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there Orthodox Islam?

I'm a Shia Muslim that don't follow traditional Islam. I'm not Orthodox. I pray five times a day. Is there Orthodox Islam? Jet (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sunnis would say that their version is orthodox and Shia (among others) is heterodox. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk)

Zhukov at Stalingrad

What strategic lessons did Zhukhov learn from the Russian offensive of 1941/42 and how did he apply them at Stalingrad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.8.148 (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the Soviet counter-offensive during the Battle of Moscow was that it ended by losing all focus. Reserves were used up over a wide front, simply hammering away at the Germans without a detailed strategic aim; too many blows, and not one deadly. The overall effect was to sap Russian strength, particularly during the attacks on Rzhev salient, and allow the Germans to recover. The danger of a continuing offensive in an unfavorable strategic position was also amply demonstrated by the Second Battle of Kharkov in the spring of 1942.

In formulating Operation Uranus Georgy Zhukov was mindful of these past failures, of the need to direct his strength towards a limited and specific end; namely the isolation and destruction of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad. The whole operation was thus confined to a limited area, bounded by the city of Stalingrad and the eastern corner of the Don bend. It was here that Zhukov concentrated no less than seven of the nine reserve armies built up over the winter. It was the kind of careful thinking that brought Hannibal such a crushing victory over the Romans all those centuries before. The plan in execution was so effective that it also brought the collapse of the whole of the German south-eastern front, forcing them to abandon virtually all of the gains of their summer offensive. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hitler and Stalingrad

Is it right to place all the blame on Hitler for the German disaster? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.8.148 (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Aa-ha, yes, of course, 217.43; all the victories belonged to the generals, just as all the defeats belonged to Hitler! Thus it is that history is created by the writers of memoirs! In actual fact the conduct, and the command abilities of Friedrich Paulus do not withstand critical scrutiny. He seriously underestimated Russian strength, and left his flanks dangerously weak. After the Russians closed the trap around Stalingrad on 23 November the conventional wisdom has it that Hitler prevented a breakout by ordering the 6th Army to remain in position. In truth the whole matter is not quite so straightforward.

In Barbarossa: the Russian German Conflict, 1941-45 Alan Clark offers some interesting details on the matter. Paulus, for instance, waited several days before sending his request 'strategic realignment' directly to OKW, knowing full well what Hitler's response was likely to be, rather than following the normal chain of command, contacting Maximilian von Weichs, head of Army Group B. Moreover, one has to consider the timing of the request. Paulus watched his flanks crumble several days before sending his message to OKW.

Even if immediate permission to withdraw was given, it would have taken five more days for the 6th Army to form into the necessary ram formation, according to information later given by Erich von Manstein. By this time the concentration of Russian force around the Stalingrad pocket was so great that the end result would have been just the same. When Manstein eventually launched Operation Winter Tempest, the attempt to break through the Russian ring, Paulus made no attempt to co-ordinate his own actions with the offensive. The evidence suggests that the 6th Army believed that they had a good chance of continuing to hold their position, if properly supplied from the air. For Manstein's plan to succeed Paulus had to concentrate his entire force at a single point in the siege perimeter. He did nothing but sit in the ruins of Stalingrad. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Unternehmen Zitadelle

Why did the Germans not remain of the defensive in the summer of 1943? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.8.148 (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a case, really, of having to do something rather than nothing. For once Hitler himself was uncertain, even telling Heinz Guderian that the very thought of an attack turned his stomach. But he gave way to his senior commanders, men like Kurt Zeitzler and Guenther von Kluge, who were actively in favour of an offensive, even under such unpromising circumstances. And so it was the Operation Citadel was launched, a head-on trial of strength, much like Verdun in the First World War. In the defeat that followed the Germans would never again have the capacity to launch a major offensive. Clio the Muse (talk)

Chhatrapati Sivaji Maharaj's letters to Mirza Rajah Jaisingh

Did Chhatrapati Sivaji Maharaj ever write to Mirza Rajah Jaisingh?Are the letters available in English translation?B.Krishnakumar (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello OP, is there a reason to delete the repeated question that had a reply, please? Julia Rossi (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Cup and reality

What does Sartre mean exactly by "The reality of that cup is that it is there and it is not me." —Preceding unsigned comment added by F Hebert (talk • contribs) 10:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Obscure as it looks, the meaning is actually quite simple. Sartre is simply giving substance to 'What is reality?', the traditional and abstract question posed by academic philosophy, which serves to remove it from everyday experience. For Sartre reality is not abstract but merely the way we have of experiencing things. It comes close to being a kind of sensation, the impact which things have when an individual comes into contact with them. In the example given the focus is on the realty of a given thing, not reality as an empty idea. Reality is not something added: it’s there in the presence of the cup. To put this another way, reality is not something divorced from perception. Its presence is directly experienced, something independent of the will, and thus 'not me.' This view of reality is also subjective and relative. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Foucault's methodology

I can find no methodological apparatus in Michael Foucault's "Histoire de la folie." was he working within any given intellectual tradition?F Hebert (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It really offers itself in the presentation of Madness and Civilization, F. Hebert. Foucault shares much of the thinking and the methodology of the historian Philippe Ariès and those who followed the so-called 'mentalities school'. It is the history, in other words, of slow transitions; of changes in attitude and in outlook. In Foucault's case he looks at the way 'folly', not necessarily a bad thing in the Middle Ages, was turned into modern concepts of madness. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

SUPER POWER

i always wonder,the USA is so quick in pointing fingers and laying guidelines as to who should have and who shouldn't have nuclear power.Don't you think its so unfair,as USA itself has loads and loads of nuclear reactors,and yet they threaten countries like IRAN with military attacks for trying to build the same?Who monitors the USA?And since it's the super power how sure are we that its president wont wake up one day and decide to attack another country with nuclear weapons?I know they always have an excuse, TERRORISM!!!!!.......is libya,iraq,iran,cuba,north and south korea.......and many more full of terrorists?why will they allow countries like pakistan and india to make their own and prohibit others? ARE THEY TRULY JUSTIFIED?||||DAVIS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.120.202 (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You've asked a lot of questions, but I'll just answer one: the reason the US is allowed to have nuclear weapons and Iran isn't is that the two countries agreed to that arrangement by signing the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. --Sean 12:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Our article "Nuclear proliferation" would be a good place to start, though your question touches on practically every aspect of international law and diplomacy. I'm no expert in these fields, but I'd say that you have a good grasp of the basic situation. The victors not only write the history, they order the world, and, as the Romans asked, "Who will guard the guards?" It is indeed scary that one country, however benevolent, can crush the rest of the world militarily. This is a novel state of affairs for the planet, one that we are just now waking up to, and I'd say that you are to be congratulated for noticing it. But I don't think it's the president you have to watch out for, it's the populace. The president does what the people will allow—the big moves, anyway. The world has to keep an eye on the US and help them be the "kinder, gentler nation" that the elder Bush spoke of. If only they'd get excited about soccer their insularity would break down.

As for the use of nuclear weapons, it was decided long ago that nuclear weapons have no military use because there is no conceivable scenario resulting from the exchange of nukes that could be called victory. And if the US were to vaporize a non-nuclear pest, the entire rest of the world would turn against them, including their staunchest allies. That, too, is not a victory scenario. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What you're asking is essentially the core question which has vexed nuclear diplomacy since 1945. There's no simple answer to it—our current situation is a result of both an earnest desire to keep the number of nuclear powers in the world to a minimum mixed with the practical fact that those who are already nuclear powers have usually little to no interest in not being a nuclear power (South Africa being the one-time exception; I personally suspect North Korea will be in this category within a few years as well). Add to it that nuclear weapons seem to promise a good deal of both political power (no coincidence that the UN Security Council is made up of the original five nuclear powers) and military power (though in this case, nuclear states quickly realize that they are in fact fairly limiting, since the taboo of their use, and the threat of like retaliation, is so high, it ends up constraining quite a lot of activity), and you have an essential, long-running tension.

Is it "fair"? I'm not sure what the word means here. Do you mean to imply that it would be fair if everyone had nuclear weapons? That hardly sounds like a very safe and sound world. Why make things worse?

If you mean to imply the world would be better off without nuclear weapons, then I can agree with you on the most part, though it seems unlikely to be accomplished anytime soon. I would certainly be happy to see the world have LESS nuclear weapons—two hundred warheads or so per nuclear state at maximum, not thousands.

Anyway, I think it is clear that in any case it would not really help matters in the Middle East if Iran became a nuclear weapons state. Without worrying about the proverbial mushroom cloud in the near term, the region is historically extremely volatile, and adding more nuclear weapons to that mix would only raise the stakes even higher. :The Cold War was stable only from a very limited point of view (and mostly in retrospect)—it resulted in multiple proxy fights, multiple extremely tense situations, multiple junctures at which great amounts of death were very close at hand. I don't think we want or need that again. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You might also be interested in the idea of political realism, which accepts that "fairness" is not the overriding consideration in international relations. It might be more "fair" for a trainwreck like, say, Somalia to have thousands of hydrogen bombs, but it would inarguably make the world a worse and more dangerous place, even for the Somalians. --Sean 13:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The main problem as I see it with nuclear weapons is that we cannot uninvent the technology. America has nuclear wapons because it invented them, and it is generally trusted with them because it is a free and fair democracy, and when the occassion where it used nuclear weapons helped prevent an unneccessary and prolonged period of war. America would face awful consequences were it to nuke any country, regardless of the reason, as it is part of a tightly knit global community. But countries like Iran would probably notfeel the consequences of doing so nearly as badly, do not have to take the likly reactions of their subjects into account and have a stated prerogative to destroy a particular nation. In Iran's case, it's Israel, but Somalia has a horrible war going on, Ethiopia would just blow up Eritrea and so on and so on. Although the US is involved in numerous wars, for the sake of public opinion it is committed to minimising civilain casualties, as evidenced by the smart bombs in Iraq. Further, to quote the Geneva Convention "It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment". Violation of these rules could mean severe consequences for the US, so overall I would say that sitting on a huge pile of nukes during a Cold war with another nucleaar superpower and not using them once in the last 50 years has earnt the US the right to keep nuclear weapons. Many of the other countires, frankly, can't be trusted. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Michael, that's certainly a view. Personally I'd say that America isn't trusted with nuclear weapons so much as there isn't a lot that can be done about it. I'd say there's some truth in what you say, but I think you over-rate the US concern with what the rest of the world thinks and does and underestimate internal PR. 79.66.106.188 (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. As I mentioned above, there will always be a lage part of the American public opposed to a nuclear strike. But if said strike was retaliatory, public opinion in the US is likely to be more pro-nuke than the rest of the world. And the American government couldn't afford to ignore the rest of the world on something as serious as nuclear warfare. I think the US has earnt the right to be trusted. It didn't even use them during the Cuban Missile crisis. I think you underrate the concern of US politicans with the opinion of the rest of the world, especially in the aftermath of Iraq. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read reposrt in the mainstream media in the U.S. saying that the present administration has been and is considering the possiblilties of preemptive nuclear strikes against countries they don't like, such as Iran, to prevent them developing nuclear weapons. Do not assume that regard for world opinion limits the options. And this administration has already labelled the Geneva Conventions as "quaint."As for the non-proliferation treaty, doesn't a signatory such as Iran have the right to renounce it and build whatever they choose? Edison (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, they've considered it, but crucially they haven't done it. They clearly weighed up the pros and cons and decided against it. It's one thing to regard the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" and quite another to ignore them whole-heartedly. Even when deciding on "interoggation" methods the Bush administration has been careful to not fall foul of the Geneva Conventions. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and yes, I'm fairly certain Iran could just leave the non-proliferation treaty, but they would likely face stiff international opposition and possibly closer scrutiny if they did. Although I wasn't aware they were even signatories. Scratch that, yes they are. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

" Even when deciding on "interoggation" methods the Bush administration has been careful to not fall foul of the Geneva Conventions." Seriously? Seriously seriously?! This is going to fall foul of the ref desk rules if I go any further, but I'm pretty sure most other countries would have been found in breach of the convention in the circumstances. Skittle (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

.....we all all know that nuclear power provides over 6%of the worlds energy.the reason i specifically chose Iran is because dating back to 1950s,the nuclear program of Iran was launched with the help of the USA,as part of the atoms for peace program.nuclear energy is also used to drive big ice breaker ships and also produce electricity right?Iran signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty,and the third pillar of that treaty allows the peaceful use of nuclear energy!mr George w bush later made a statement reiterating that Iranian regime arms funds and advices Hezbollah!...THE SAME LAME ACCUSATIONS HE MADE BEFORE IRAQ'S INCURSION,prompting the death of our young men and women in military service.thats why i asked who monitors the USA,because sooner or later i am afraid poor nations will continue being victimized,when they are honestly trying to earn a living?41.220.120.202 (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)DAVIS

Wikipedia is founded upon five pillars, almost like a religion. One of these is that Wikipedia has a code of conduct, including an obligation to assume good faith. This means that we have to start out giving everybody the benefit of the doubt, as I did in answering your question above. You seemed a little upset, but your basic question was sound and deserved an answer. Now you've gone and moved the whole business into a political diatribe, which violates the first pillar as it is expressed in the guidelines at the top of this page about soapboxing. We are not allowed to enter into discussions of this kind. This is the reference desk for the encyclopedia and not a discussion forum. Sorry. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Military Performance

Is there any reason why the British performance in the First World War was so much better than in the Second? John Spencer (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In what respect do you consider their performance better in WWI? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ive always thought the Britsh perfromed a hell of alot better during WWII. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 15:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

By 'the British' do you mean the cannon fodder or the donkeys? 79.66.106.188 (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look, John, at Blood, Sweat and Arrogance and the Myths of Churchill's War by Gordon Corrigan, which covers the kind of ground you are interested in. The conclusion is devastatingly simple.

In the First World War the British Army developed from an underrated and largely part-time force into a superb fighting instrument, which carried the burden of the conflict for much of 1917, and spearheaded the offensive in 1918. In the Second World War the position is reversed: the British Army did not win the war, rather the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force prevented Britain from losing it. In Winston Churchill, moreover, Britain had both the best and worst of leaders; an inspiring public performer, he also attempted to micro-manage the conflict in ways that almost brought disaster time and again.. His strategic judgment was faulty, demonstrated by the Dardanelles fiasco in 1915 and the plodding Italian offensive of 1943. He dissipated resources in, for example, sending men and material to Greece in 1941, when the Eighth Army was facing a German build up in Africa.

The deeper and more wounding truth is that if Churchill was 'the man who won the war', as the election posters of 1945 put it, he was also the man who nearly lost it; by his flights of fancy, his unwillingness to trust professionals, his unshakable belief that he knew better than anyone else how the nation's efforts should be directed. His actions as First Lord of the Admiralty during the Norwegian Campaign had been disastrous; the attack on the French fleet was against Admiralty advice and could have seriously undermined the British position in the Mediterranean. His constant demand for offensives in Africa before the commanders judged this prudent also brought repeated reverses. But, being a brilliant publicist, Churchill eventually wrote a big book about himself and called it The Second World War! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

From what i can remember of my History of Winston Churchill, the 'Dardanelles fiasco' wasn't his fault. Someone suggested it to him, he said it was a bad idea, they went ahead with it anyway and blamed him when it all went wrong, then got themselves killed just before they got the chance to take the blame for it. I'm not totally confident about my memory of every little detail from that long ago though, and might be thinking of another event. Not that it matters either way, since that was in the war we supposedly did better in. Although I'm sure we lost a lot more people in the first war though, just throwing everyone at the enemy until we won.HS7 (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure about your analysis, Clio. In general, I think that at the beginning of the war Churchill did interfere in what should have been military decisions; for example, the Norwegian campaign, the abandonment of the 51st. Highland Division at St. Valery, and the Greek campaign. (Arguably, you could add the 1944-45 Burma campaign, as Max Hastings does - what was the point in fighting when the colony was going to be granted independence anyway?). However, the point that I would make is that these were also political decisions; in each case an ally was being courted and Churchill committed troops on that basis. We also need to remember Corelli Barnett's point; in the early stages of the war, Britain fought where it could, not where it wanted. Churchill, too, was a keen historian; a hundred and fifty years previously, the British had let the French fleet survive, despite having it at their mercy, at the Siege of Toulon; the attack on Mers-el-Kébir didn't repeat that mistake and sent a powerful political message to the Americans.

The corollary of Clio's view is that the British should have taken a back seat after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union and the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, just acting to protect Britain's own interests rather than actively pursuing an aggressive war; that the fight between Nazis and Communists was inevitable and 'nothing to do with us'. This is an argument previously adopted by Evelyn Waugh and Alan Clarke. It may be a valid point of view, but it's also a minority one. Perhaps, to paraphrase Shakespeare, nothing so became the British Empire as the ending it; sacrificed to destroy Nazi-ism in Europe and Japanese imperialism in Asia.

Getting back to the question as asked, a lot must have to do with the twin policies of disarmament and appeasement pursued during the '20s and '30s; when war came to the British, they simply lacked effective means of waging it. --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My analysis is almost wholly based on Corrigan's book, Major, an interesting corrective to the usual hagiography surrounding Churchill's wartime premiership. There is so much more I could say but I think the essential problem comes down to one thing: Churchill was essentially an eighteenth-century politician fighting a twentieth century war; a man who seriously underestimated the decline in British power. Even his diplomacy was eighteenth-century, judged on the basis of his percentage deal with Stalin. There is also a deeper irony at work here: Churchill may have gained retrospective kudos for his opposition to appeasement towards Germany (though he was blind to Japanese and Italian aggression) but he was also the man who, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, had been responsible for the decline in defence spending, the very thing that made Britain unprepared for war in 1939.

Churchill's actions during the war, his policy of forcing Britain to punch above its weight, to fight a global war without the means, was a major factor in both bankrupting the country and destroying the Empire. Given his attitudes and arguments in the 1930s, particularly over the question of dominion status for India, this was surely far from being his aim. I suspect he thought he was fighting the same war as his great great ancestor. How are the mighty fallen, or trapped by their failure to understand the true lessons of the past! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any "official" biography of Osama Bin Laden?

Is there any "official" biography of Osama Bin Laden? One published by Al Queda or one of his organizations? --Gary123 (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there may be. CNN says that Hamid Mir is writing one, or at least was in 2004. And this article in The Times of India mentions him writing it, too. It doesn't seem to have been released for sale, though. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Gee I wonder if the CIA has tapped Mr. Mir's phone... SGGH ^speak! 22:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Indian Illustrators

who are the famous indian illustrators in india at present ?117.196.226.115 (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)29zz

Surely if you have to ask, then the answer is 'no'? 82.36.179.20 (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely if the OP has not asked a closed question then the answer is not 'no'? Joe^Talk_Work 12:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Indian_illustrators (for some reason I can't get a link to work) has one entry: D._G._Godse, but he died in 1992, apparently. 130.88.47.34 (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Court clerk

What are the dialogues that a court clerk will say during a criminal trial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Most courtrooms are open to the public. Why not stop in to your local one and listen. I much prefer traffic court to criminal court. The cases go by faster and the defendants appear to have much less intelligence. -- kainaw™ 02:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a monologue rather than a dialogue? I don't think the clerk usually gets to say very much anyway; just stuff like "All rise!" perhaps.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Cross-examination

What is cross-examination and what are the questions that crown prosecutor will ask during his/her cross-examination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at Cross-examination? I would think the questions would very much depend on the nature of the trial and the nature of the evidence given by the witness. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also remember that if you are the one going to trial, that wikipedia mustn't be used for legal advice! Get a lawyer :) SGGH ^speak! 22:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Where do people live? (coalesced similar questions)

Turkish-Canadians in Toronto

Which part of Toronto do Turkish-Canadians live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon

Which part of Lebanon do the Sunni Muslims live and which part of Lebanon do the Shi'a Muslims live?

Historically, Sunnis lived in the coastal cities, such as Beirut and Sidon, and also in the north in Tripoli. Shi'ites historically lived in the south, centered around a mountain known as Jabal 'Amil. In modern times, a large, mostly-Shi'ite suburb has grown in southern Beirut as well. Of course, nowadays you're likely to find some Sunni and Shi'ite communities all over the country. -- Slacker (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Iraq

Which part of Iraq do the Shi'a Muslims live and which part of Iraq do the Sunni Muslims live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article on Shia Islam / Sunni Islam has a map showing the areas setlled by the two groups in the Iraq. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Northern Syria

Which governates of Syria do Shi'a Muslims live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See the above links. They also show the respective areas in the Iran, Turkey, Azerbaijan, etc. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic groups in afghanistan

Which provinces are inhabited by Pashtuns and which provinces are habited by tajiks and hazara? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article on Afghanistan has a map which indicates the various ethnic areas. May I suggest that you use the search box for queries which are fairly obvious. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Book recommendation for someone who is grieving the loss of a parent

This question was also posted here [1]. I created an answer, and when later I found the question without my answer, assumed it had got mysteriously lost or never uploaded, and researched again, wrote again, posted again. Please do not cross-post. I have removed your question. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yogurt

Yogurt seems to be predominantly advertised towards women. Is there a reason for this? Dismas|^(talk) 17:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[2] This article here suggests that yogurt is more of a "woman thing" (I eat yogurt... hmmm) so I guess that could be a reason why it's more geared towards women. Plus, going by the adverts I've seen (in the UK), yogurt is generally portrayed as method for helping with bloated feeling and weight loss, so that's probably another reason. PeterSymonds | talk 17:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Because men like pizza and women like yogurt. [3] 132.206.22.23 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not make yogurt pizza and get double the sales, then? 206.252.74.48 (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the question I ask every time I go shopping. PeterSymonds | talk 19:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I went to a dinner celebrating women's contribution to something academic. Every single course was pale and creamy. There seems to be an equation: food for women = pale and creamy. That would be semiotics, or something of that ilk. SaundersW (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It used to be a tradition in upper-middle class (or thus aspiring) North America, early 20th century, to give a white meal, usually a luncheon, on the occasion of a young girl's engagement. The guests would be her unmarried female friends, and the unspoken colour association was of course virginity. Think vichysoisse, sole, vanilla ice cream.... The white wedding would be followed by a more colourful breakfast. I believe I first read of this in Alice Munro's stories. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Since your question appears on the humanities rather than on the science desk I assume you are looking for a social rather than a nutrition based answer. Despite that I think the social answer is nutrition based since milk is the single most complete food and when you add a bunch of little bacteria it becomes the most complete food, i.e., its a subtle way to prove that women are smarter than men. 71.100.12.111 (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Many women are concerned about osteoporosis and make a point of eating yogurt because it is an easily digestible source of calcium. Marco polo (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is yogurt from Venus and pizza from Mars? Clio the Muse (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Bella Amore in Cullen Bay sells a Mars (bar) Pizza, and of course we all know about Venus's close relative's style of yogurt, so I'm rather happy that yes, pizza is indeed from Mars, and yogurt was possibly brought here on an asteroid from Venus. Cool.--Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a brand of yogurt, possibly Canadian, which, while advertising specifically towards women, also claims to be "probiotic, and prebiotic too". It seems to me that this means the yogurt contains yogurt. Perhaps they think women are stupid? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There are ancient connections between women and dairy products, quite aside from the obvious mammary similarities. Women have traditionally been responsible for dairy animals (cows, goats, sheep, and in some places camels, horses, etc.) in cultures from American homesteads to Eastern European subsistence farms to Central Asian nomadic pastoralism -- if not for the overall care of the livestock, then usually for the actual milking and certainly for the subsequent dairying activities, i.e. performing the magical transformation of raw milk into a variety of less perishable fermented milk products. (This double meaning of "culture", both bacteriological and human, is explored in Wild Fermentation by Sandor Ellix Katz.) Dairying is so intrinsic to some cultures that its tools become symbols of femaleness. For example, the plains Pokot women invariably carry a gourd, into which milk is placed at the beginning of the day, to be transformed into yoghurt, simply by the heat of the sun and the remnants of the previous day's bacteria. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The tools perhaps, but what about the consumption? Is the consumption of yoghurt a female 'thing' in other cultures, particularly with a tradition in this regard? My guess is it isn't although I don't have any evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

When selling product, prebiotic = contains fibre, probiotic = contains live bacteria. All live yoghurt is 'probiotic' I suppose, but not all yoghurt is live. So no, it doesn't just mean contains yoghurt. Skittle (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, read the articles :-)), prebiotic means that it contains ingredients with a possible health effect in the large intestine, whereas probiotic means living beneficial bacteria. Normal yoghurt is not probiotic, as it contains the wrong bacteria for that.Knorrepoes (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Who said yogurt was for men? Even badasses can have their voracious cravings for yogurt satisfied. [4]. bibliomaniac15 20:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody siad yoghurt was for men, but here is a sweet & creamy item marketed as "not for girls": Yorkie (chocolate bar). BrainyBabe (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's for the same reason that ads for family-suitable cars always show the happy non-dysfunctional family with the golden-haired perfect cute kids being driven by the father, never the mother; and ads for dishwashing detergent or laundry powder or vacuum cleaners or preparing a family meal show a woman doing the chores, never a man. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yogurt alters the vaginal flora, lessening the incidence of vaginosis and candidiasis. This is, generally, not an issue for men. - Nunh-huh 07:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Only when applied topically, not orally, and of course only if it is live, not pasteurised or irradiated. I remember a women's studies prof proposing that the yoghurt marketing people develop a new campaign, focused around a totally different use of their product -- sort of like how baking soda is used more for cleaning and deodorizing than its original use, baking. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, in fact yogurt changes the vaginal flora when eaten. - Nunh-huh 12:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? <polite tone of voice> Do you have a reference for that? </> BrainyBabe (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Capital of the Illiterate

Who described Diego Rivera's murals in these terms?

Anthony Blunt, according to the Spectator. I would spell that with a "K" because it refers to Das Kapital, but I wouldn't italicize to maintain parallelism with the Bible. The full quote seems to be something like "If medieval art was the Bible of the Illiterate, Rivera's frescoes are the Kapital of the Illiterate." --Milkbreath (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

McCain's plan to roll back federal gas taxes

John McCain has suggested that all federal gas taxes be eliminated between Memorial Day and Labor Day. My question is, how easy is it to do this, at the nuts-and-bolts, gas pump level? Can a local service station owner just go into his pumps and set the price to zero for a particular tax, or does it require some sort of manipulation by a representative of the company, or of the government? Corvus cornix_talk 22:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that companies would jump at the chance to lower prices while simultaneously increasing profits. Wrad (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is actually another way to do it that involves a delay and more paper work than simply dropping the price at the pump by the exact amount of the gas tax, which I doubt will ever happen. You would use your gas purchase receipts to figure an income tax deduction and any left over would be applied to your refund check. In the end its the same thing but psychologically it could backfire. 71.100.171.234 (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not an income tax deduction, it's an excise tax reduction. Corvus cornix_talk

Since gas prices were lower when oil prices were lower, I'd expect that reducing the tax will lower the price. My bigger concern is the increase in quantity demanded, which eventually will raise prices. I wish more Americans would live in Europe for a while before complaining about gas prices again. Imagine Reason (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And I wish Europeans would consider how big the United States is before complaining about how Americans complain. To give an idea, from where I'm sitting right now, I could drive for 400 kilometers in any direction without reaching a city of more than 200,000 people. --Carnildo (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Gas stations change their prices all the time, and I'm pretty certain each station can do it themselves (for example not all stations run by a company charge the same price). So all the station operator has to do is figure out the new price. More difficult might be changing the software that prints the till receipt, which usually includes the tax on it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)