Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Please help us write the Reference Desk guidelines

We are currently drafting a proposal at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines.
Please discuss those issues on its associated talk page, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines.

Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfgBot]]

Please help us write the Reference Desk guidelines

We are currently drafting a proposal at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines.
Please discuss those issues on its associated talk page, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines.

May 4

Reagan republican

What is a "Reagan Republican"?

As we head in to another presidential election here in the U.S., many of the Republican candidates are calling themselves "Reagan Republicans" or "Reagan Conservatives". What constitutes a "Reagan Republican"? My Google search turned up nothing useful; my Wikipedia search redirected me to a major article about Ronald Reagan, but did not answer my question.

So, what is a Reagan Republican? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.195.188.31 (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Oh, there isn't a definite meaning. The closest thing that there could be would be "opposed to the federal government" and "anti-Communist." The latter doesn't play so well anymore, so it's kind of, "Pro-military spending." The anti-tax platform that Reagan ran on consistently may or may not figure into it. However, for Republicans the term is almost meaningless, and they're just trying to hark back to a popular conservative president. Geogre 01:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with Geogre. This is not an expression with a clear meaning. It is a marketing device. It is an attempt to claim the mantle of the last widely popular Republican president. It invites the (Republican) listener to remember whatever it was he or she liked about Reagan in his presidential role (the reassuring grandfatherly air, the strong John Wayne sheriff persona, the tax-cutting conservative, etc) and to associate that quality with the candidate claiming Reagan's legacy, whether the candidate has that quality or not. Incidentally, Reagan essentially created the alliance between the propertied class and religious conservatives that has been the key to Republican success since Reagan's day. Now that that alliance shows signs of unraveling, Republican candidates will want to invoke Reagan to try to hold it together. Marco polo 01:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that Reagan wasn't nearly as well respected during his term of office as he seems to be today. Back then he was heavily criticized by many as being a plastic, senile idiot with a particularly poor memory, ("Well, uh, I really don't recall...",) whose "trickle-down" supply-side "Reaganomics" was nothing but a gimmick to widen the gap between the rich and the poor. Today, of course, he's widely credited for his genius in almost single-handedly winning the cold war. I can't help but wonder how history will treat the current administration. Lewis 02:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Reaganomics might provide some verifiable information. Rockpocket 03:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Especially for the primary election, they're saying that they are a candidate who can color a map like this one. --TotoBaggins 03:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Reagan ran on tax cuts, government being inherently bad, and anti-Communism. Those who invoke him now are, interestingly, not running on his most successful point -- tax cuts -- because that has been done in a frightening way by the current prednisent (sic), and the entire tax cuts without regard philosophy has suffered (at last). Marco Polo is correct that Reagan drew together the then-emergent tele-evangelist audience and leadership with the Republican party. Billy Graham had already been politically right wing, and all of those tele-evangelists were generally right wing, but Reagan drew them together. That, too, is not necessarily attractive for contemporary candidates. Geogre 11:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, I've been curious about your rather puzzling pseudonym for quite a while, but never got around to ask. Now that you've made reference to Prednisent Geogre Bsuh [sic], should I take it that you have a particular fondness for dislexics? Lwesi 23:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The evangelicals had become increasingly politically active in the mid-to-late-70s, largely as a result of Roe v Wade, the sexual revolution and changes in the culture that they opposed. Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority were that era's version of the current Christian Coalition and they supported Reagan with a vengance. (I do have to disagree with Geogre specifically about Billy Graham, though. He had presented himself as above severe partisanship and a "friend of the Presidents." He was friendly with the Clintons, for example. Our article on him says he is a registered Democrat, in fact. Of course, he did oppose the candidacy of John F. Kennedy for President because of Kennedy's Catholicism.) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

One Reagan philosophy that would sell well in today's political climate is to only get involved in small wars where you can win quickly and then leave, like Grenada. Less popular might be his willingness to give Iran whatever weapons they wanted to get them to return hostages. See Irangate. StuRat 02:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A "Reagan Republican" is generally just a Republican who agrees with Reagan's particular blend of conservative principles.

However, it can also be someone who changed parties due to Reagan -- his charisma did in fact pull many converts. The largest voter shift was in the South, which had been distancing from the Democratic Party but where party loyalty itself was still high. Korossyl 21:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Which King Louis was insane?

I remembered hearing about one of the Louis being insane but can't remember which one. It was said that he used to play with a toy army and capture mice and hang them and all sorts of other weird stuff. I've looked through the pages of Louis XIII to Marie Antoinette's son and cannot find record of it. Iluvelves 20:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that it is not a Louis at all, and that you are thinking of Charles VI, also known as "the mad," but someone else may have better information. Carom 21:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mad king Louis of Bavaria?

qp10qp 21:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's more likely to be Charles than Ludwig, as there is still some doubt over the nature and degree of the Bavarian king's madness. All the French Louis' were sane enough, though some of them were highly eccentric. I'm not familiar with any accounts of a king hanging mice. It's worth remembering, too, that the historical record can occasionally be quite scurrilous, and there is often an explanatory gap between what did happen and what is occasionaly said to have happened. Perhaps the most notorious example of this is The Secret History of Procopius, with its savage caricature of Justinian and Theodora. Clio the Muse 22:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I always thought it was a French boy king. I used to have a history teacher who was really great and her method was to teach and also offer insight into "their" lives. On one occasion she told us the story of a boy king that was mad and would do crazy things like play with dead mice. I thought he was French and he was supposed to be a puppet, someone in his court, an advisor, would get him to do things and at one point was given a very high position. I must have been mistaken when I thought it was one of the Louis. I was thinking Cardinal Richelieu. Maybe it would best to just look at "mad" kings, does anyone know any European mad kings besides Charles? Iluvelves 01:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a memory of someCarolingian-slanted history of a late Merovingian. Beware what you read!--Wetman 02:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

None of the Bourbon kings (Henri IV, Louis XIII to XVI) was crazy, even though they each had psychological weaknesses. You perhaps think of the late Valois kings: Henry II was not so bright, Charles IX had mood swings, etc. David.Monniaux 05:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your second bite at this is going to be any more fruitful than the first and, as Wetman indicates, it is important to beware of obvious political bias in the historical record. Anyway, confining myself to French and Merovingian terms, you might care to look at Clovis II-Louis in modern usage-who is alleged to have gone mad, and Childeric III, who, if not actually insane, seems to have had a very weak personality, and was eventually packed off to a monastry by Pepin the Short, first of the Carolingian kings. Richelieu was an important minister during the reign of Louis XIII, who was most assuredly not insane. And David, I have one small amendment to your contribution: the Bourbon kings ended not with Louis XVI but his brothers, Louis XVIII and Charles X, the last of them all. Clio the Muse 06:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, I was assuming an ancien régime setting! David.Monniaux 06:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Surrender of New Amsterdam

Hiya. I have been spending a couple of hours trying to find out just exactly when the English fleet arrived in Nieuw Amsterdam and when the city surrendered to the English and became New York. An extensive google&books.google&scholar.google research yielded wildly different dates even in the most respectabele scholarship, just about every single date between the 18.th of August (ODBN) and the 24.th of September 1664 (the latter is given in Wikipedia's New_Amsterdam article), the 27th. and 29.th come up quite frequently. Anyway, these discrepancies cannot even be explained by Old Style/New Style mistakes. Could anyone come up with a definitive date? --Janneman 02:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, published in England by the Public Records Office, you will see that New Amsterdam was transferred peacefully by Peter Stuyvesant to the English Crown on 27 August, 1664 (1661-8, sec. 788). You will also find confirmation of this date in New York Documents Relating to Colonial History (ii 250; iii 70ff). Cassell's Chronology of World History has the date as 29 August (2005, p. 271). If we assume dating under the Julian Calendar then, in present day terms and taking 27 August as the base, the date would be 6 September. The 24 September date would appear to be a simple error. Clio the Muse 07:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll just settle for the 27th then. Thnk you very much, --Janneman 15:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Leading/Best Legal Authority for Ethics/Professional Responsibility

I wish to purchase an American legal ethics treatise. Is there one legal commentators who is considered preeminent, like Corbin on Contracts or Prosser on Torts, Miller on Procedure, etc.? I see many available at online legal sites but I don't know which is the most appropriate. I am returning to practice after a long hiatus and wish to brush up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 02:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Two names that come to mind are John S. Dzienkowski and Charles Silver (the latter an expert on attorney's fees, don't think he's written a treatise but definitely worth citing). Unless you are doing academic research, however, your best bet is probably to just contact the board of professional resonibility of your own Bar Association, or whichever ones you intend to apply to if you need to take the Bar Exam or Professional Responsibility exam (or both) again. dr.ef.tymac 04:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving gone amok

Some current questions were archived to August 16 for some reason, starting I believe at "Greatest polygot". Clarityfiend 03:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

All I can find is that were some edits earlier this UTC day by individual non-bot users, including you, to the archived RD/Humanities page for August 16, 2006.[1].  --Lambiam^Talk 10:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So your theory is that a bunch of people suddenly decided on a whim to respond to August 16 questions? Damn, I must be a wikiholic! I suppose it is possible that some earlier questions were suddenly transferred to the current desk and then corrected, but something odd definitely happened. I'm not that desperate to up my edit count. What's the signpost up ahead? (cue Rod Serling) Clarityfiend 22:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My theory is that you got caught up in a time warp when you followed the link I had put on the RD/Language desk in response to the question entitled "Most languages?". (I don't dare to give a link; what with the eddies in the space-time continuum you might this time get caught in a time loop this time get caught in a time loop this time get caught in a time loop this time get caught in a time loop...) 22:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Humanities/2006_August_16 the 2006_August_16, Humanities page is being linked to from the current language desk, I'll see if I can track down the cause--VectorPotential^Talk 22:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Update I can find absolutely no sign of either a link or a transclusion to that page, on the language desk, yet Special:Whatlinkshere disagrees with me. The only theory I can come up with is that the 2006_August_16 archive was linked to, on the language desk, some time in the last few days, and that somehow both of you found your way there and mistook it for a current page--VectorPotential^Talk 22:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Update² Found it, on Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Most_languages.3F, which provides a link to Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 August 16#Greatest Polyglot, which must have been mistaken for a current Humanities page.--VectorPotential^Talk 22:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Beyond a reasonable doubt

What is the exact meaning of this term? Please explain with a scenario Thanks very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wooyene (talk • contribs) 03:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

There is a definition with examples in the article burden of proof (which, BTW, you would have found if you'd typed 'reasonable doubt' in the Wikipedia article search field). Anchoress 03:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's tantamount to saying that someone has put forth a convincing, compelling, and comprehensive case for such-and-such. Furthermore it's just a phrase and there's no use worrying about its 'exact meaning'. Vranak

I actually think this is, despite the article, a reasonable question to ask. The idea of reasonable doubt is very complex and not very tangible. One of my texts that I used for a course for a course on justice systems cited this opinion excerpt:

"[Reasonable doubt which will justify acquittal] is a doubt based on reason which arises from evidence or lack of evidence. It is doubt which a reasonable man or woman might entertain. It is not fanciful doubt; it is not an imagined doubt; it is not a doubt that a juror might conjure up in order to avoid performing an unpleasant task or duty." United States v. Johnson, 343 F.2d 5, 6 (2nd Cir. 1965) (quoted from With Justice for All? (Fowler 1998))

Other courts may define it differently, but I think that's a decent definition, maybe a little lighter than I would qualify it. In fact the verdict was overturned in that case on appeal for the sole reason that the judge did not give a good definition of reasonable doubt (he used the idea of being "morally convinced", not what I have above). –Pakman044 04:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason it's not amenable to a precise definition is that what is a reasonable doubt to one juror may be a load of hogwash to another juror. It comes down to personal (= subjective) opinion. The plot of 12 Angry Men was all about one juror (Henry Fonda) having a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, where the other 11 were all convinced he was guilty. I won't give the ending away in case you've never seen the movie. JackofOz 04:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

An excellent film, BTW. Lewis 23:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Another way to phrase it, now that I look over a few other opinions, is that the juror must be "fully satisfied or entirely convinced". State v. Stewart, 122 N.C. App. 748 (NC Court of Appeals 1996). But as JackofOz mentioned, this is the standard that it should be, not that a juror actually will interpret it as. –Pakman044 04:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You asked for an "exact meaning" and a scenario ... Anchoress and Pakman044 have provided links and examples, and JackofOz has already illustrated why "exact meaning" is elusive. You might then wonder why this exact wording matters at all. One scenario is the issuance of Jury instructions during a criminal trial. Criminal defendants routinely assert defective jury instructions regarding the burden of proof as a basis for contesting a trial court decision on appeal. Consequently, although "exact meaning" may be subject to interpretation, exact wording is often crucial, which is one reason why lawyers are ... the way lawyers are. (See also Reasonable man in addition to previous links and cites provided). dr.ef.tymac 04:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't define it, but I know it when I'm past it. -- Azi Like a Fox 07:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Emigration from england in the 1820's

Hi There, My GGGgrandparents and most all their children (some of whom were adults, but unmarried), emigrated from North Frodingham, ERYorkshire, England, to Ontario, Canada around 1820. I have seen baptismal and marriage records from the Parish church that list this ancestor's occupation as 'labourer'. In Canada they seem to have taken farms and became fairly prosperous over time, not rich by any means, but they had land, cows, a horse and wagon, your basic self-sufficient homestead. My main question is, what was the status/earning potential of a 'labourer' at the time they emigrated, and secondarily, if they had stayed could they have hoped to have anything like the kind of lifestyle and economic independence they achieved in Canada? Also, I know that different economic and cultural things caused waves of emigration at different times, was anything specifically going on at this time that may have led to their decision? I'll take my answer off the air.:)killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 04:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The period just after the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 was one of considerable economic dislocation in England, with demobilised service men competing for a limited number of jobs. Parliament was dominated at the time by a powerful alliance among the landed aristocracy, which, in order to keep grain prices at the artificial war-time high, introduced the Corn Law, placing heavy duties on cheap foreign imports. This also had the effect of artificially inflating land prices. The whole Corn Law Economy thus entailed a high degree of inflexibility in the cost of labour, which had a serious impact on industrial investment, and thus a deleterious effect on employment patterns in general. It was also a time of bad harvests, as well as high prices, placing an even heavier burden on the very social strata to which your ancestors belonged. I'm assuming from the place of his birth that particular individual you are referring to was an agricultural labourer. Things were particularly bad for this sector because of the debt burden accumulated by the landlords during the wars, and the return to the Gold Standard in 1819, which, despite the Corn Laws, had a serious effect on the whole rural economy. Labour at the time was completely unrepresented in Parliament, and the government of the day reacted badly to any form of popular political discontent, the Peterloo Massacre of 1819 being the most notorious example of this. The economy began to recover in the course of the 1820s, though wages, particularly in the countryside, remained low. If your ancestors had remained in England it is virtually certain that they would have been forced off the land and sucked into the rapidly expanding cities, to join the ever-growing industrial working class. So, on balance, they probably made the right move. Clio the Muse 08:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh, talk about coincidence. I just read about that in the 'creative nonfiction' book Voyages of Hope, a speculative but historically accurate narrative of the bride ships to Western Canada of the 1860s. Anchoress 08:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Shepherd

hi

i want to know who said the following idea or sentence " All of you are shepherds, and every one is accountable by(for) his own flock". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.200.102.158 (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

It was the Prophet Muhammad, and the exact quotation is Each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock. Clio the Muse 09:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So what is the exact meaning of this quotation?

Here is an extended version, providing the context:

Each of you is a shepherd and is responsible for his flock. The ruler who is in charge of people is a shepherd and is responsible for them. The man is the shepherd of his household and is responsible for them. The woman is the shepherd of her husband’s house and child and is responsible for them. The slave is the shepherd of his master’s wealth and is responsible for it. Each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock.

 --Lambiam^Talk 19:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sourcce?--Kirby♥time 22:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a hadith narrated by `Abd Allah ibn `Umar and included both in the Sahih Bukhari (#853) and the Sahih Muslim (#1829).  --Lambiam^Talk 23:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be the party pooper, but "Sahih Bukhari #853" is not a proper citation for a Hadith. Can you find it here or here?--Kirby♥time 23:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your first site has this in Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4496:

It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Umar that the Holy Prophet (May be upon him) said: Beware. every one of you is a shepherd and every one is answerable with regard to his flock. The Caliph is a shepherd over the people and shall be questioned about his subjects (as to how he conducted their affairs). A man is a guardian over the members of his family and shal be questioned about them (as to how he looked after their physical and moral well-being). A woman is a guardian over the household of her husband and his children and shall be questioned about them (as to how she managed the household and brought up the children). A slave is a guardian over the property of his master and shall be questioned about it (as to how he safeguarded his trust). Beware, every one of you is a guardian and every one of you shall be questioned with regard to his trust.

--mglg_(talk) 00:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think above "first" should read "second" (Muslim); specifically, it can be found here. You will find the hadith for Bukhari here (Volume 3, Book 41, Number 592).  --Lambiam^Talk 12:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Secret Police

Does anyone know anything about the Russian secret police in the 1900?

Hope you can help me, Thank you

Jade 09:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I do. What is it you want to know? Are you interested in the Okhrana, the Cheka, the OGPU , the NKVD, the KGB or the FSB? Look also at the pages on Felix Dzerzhinsky, Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Yezhov and Lavrenty Beria. If you want to take it further get hold of a copy of Stalin's Instruments of Terror by Rupert Butler, a history of the whole secret police system, from the Revolution in 1917 to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. If it is just the year 1900 you are interested in, then you have to refer to the page on the Okhrana, the Tsarist secret police. Clio the Muse 10:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good answer Clio. Do you subscribe to the claim that Stalin was in the Tsar's secret police before the revolution, and that some of the secret police just changed job titles when the reds took over? (I have sometimes pictured the Okhrana as secret policemen who play the Ocarina.) Edison 16:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Koba the 'Milkman', agent of the Okhrana, a man who would betray comrades without hesitation! There are, indeed, many murky areas in Stalin's career, Edison, none murkier than his activities in the Bolshevik underground before the Revolution. Some aspects of Communist Party activity in general would, it seems to me, even violate the moral code of the Mafia! There were rumours throughout the 1920s about Stalin's Okhrana file, and it was always a dangerous matter for anyone to show too much interest in the matter. When Yezhov's apartment was searched after his arrest he was found, amongst other things, to have been gathering material on Stalin's pre-1917 police record, papers that subsequently 'disappeared' into the safe keeping of Beria. I'm sure you must know Roman Brackman's book The Secret File of Joseph Stalin: a Hidden Life, in which it is explicitly stated that he was an agent of the Tsarist secret police, and the Great Terror of the 1930s was conceived of as a way destroying the traces of his treachery by wiping out all memory of the past.

Unfortuately, appealing as this thesis may be, it is built on very weak foundations. It is true that the Bolshevik underground was riddled with double and triple agents; it is true that Stalin was ruthless and unscrupulous to a quite astonishing degree; and it is true that, from time to time, he made use of his contacts in the Okhrana to obtain information, and pursue a given set of ends, including the betrayal of people whom he considered suspect. But there is simply no convincing evidence that he was on the Okhrana payroll in the same fashion as Roman Malinovsky. On this subject I would refer you in particular to Chapter 25 of Simon Sebag Montefiore's recently published Young Stalin (I read an advance review copy!), the chapter headed 'The Milkman': Was Stalin a Tsarist Agent? (2007, pp 183-9) Montefiore points out that there is plenty of evidence that Stalin received information from the police, but none at all that he actually gave information which in any way compromised the Bolshevik party. Indeed, his file makes note of the fact that he was a 'fanatical Marxist.' Most of the 'evidence' against him comes from old Menshevik enemies, who had every reason to be bitter, but whose testimony must be considered suspect. Montefiore also highlights several inconsistiencies in the agent theory. Amongst other things, Stalin was always short of money-bank robberies notwithstanding-, even though Okhrana agents were very well paid. They were also almost always at liberty, for obvious reasons. Stalin, in contrast, spent only one and a half years at liberty between his arrest in 1908 and 1917; and after 1910 he was only free for ten months in all.

Finally, the evidence, in the many surviving secret-police archives, is overwhelming that Stalin was not a Tsarist agent--unless it is overturned by some decisive document lurking undiscovered in provincial Okhrana archives, missed by Stalin himself, his own secret police, his many enemies, and the armies of historians who have searched in vain for a smoking gun for almost a century. (2007, p. 188)

This view is supported by most sober scholarship, including Donald Rayfield in Stalin and his Hangmen (2004, pp. 48-9). I suppose it will remain as another of the abiding mysteries of Stalin's career, like the murder of Sergi Kirov. But I agree with Montefiore that, if such evidence existed, it is virtually certain it would have turned up by now. And I do not believe that it has simply all been destroyed. Those who have worked in historical archives will know, that even in the most totalitarian of systems, it is virtually impossible to remove all trace of the past, Orwell-style.

On your second point, I think it quite possible that Okhrana 'experts' were recruited by the Cheka, though not at a senior level. In the early days the Soviet secret police were marked more for their enthusiasm than their efficiency, and for their skills in sadism and brutality rather than their techniques in intelligence gathering as such. Clio the Muse 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

US History

Describe how various economic forces resulted in the Industrial Revolution and unions in the US.

68.35.100.108 11:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Describe how your teacher told you to do your own homework Perry-mankster 11:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

See Industrial Revolution, United States technological and industrial history, and Labor unions in the United States. Marco polo 12:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Paradox

If you try to succeed and fail, what have you done?

Thanks Nebuchandezzar 14:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

answered a question on the Ref desk ;) Perry-mankster 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You've failed. That's not actually a paradox, you know. -88.109.92.36 14:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you meant to say...If you try to fail and succeed what have you done? This would mean you could say you have either succeeded in failing (i.e. you did fail to succeed as per your attempt), or you succeed by failing in your aims. Look at paradox for an explanation of what a paradox is, it's a good article. ny156uk 16:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And what if you try to fail... but fail, in spite of your best attempts?  --Lambiam^Talk 21:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Without suggesting that one shouldn't try to do things, trying per se is equivalent to failure. Think of it this way: If you're seated and I ask you to "try to stand up" (Note: not "stand up", but "try to stand up"), what do you do? If you actually stand up, you've done more than I asked. Thinking of trying to do something is focussing on the effort involved, whereas thinking of succeeding is focussing on the outcome that you want. This then gets into commitment, of which there are 3 levels - (a) I'll try; (b) I'll do my best; and (c) I'll do whatever it takes. JackofOz 07:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• You have gained valuable experience.With this you can try again.hotclaws**== 08:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

copyright status of US Court filing

I am trying to identify the legal copyright status of filings to the US Courts, at both Federal and State levels. The reason I ask is that Wikisource has a template for Govt edicts, but there is no explicit provision for other court documents. I am specifically interested in complaints in the jurisdiction of Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, in order to upload the complaint (and translations) described on Talk:Universal v. Reimerdes#Earlier history.

[2] indicates that wide distribution is to be expected, and [3] plainly allows public access, but little is said about the copyright of these filings, and the definitions do not define "public access" or "electronic access". [4] provides case law to indicate that it is the First Amendment that requires the court filings be opened unless there is good reason not to. says the court must provide access in a timely manner but again doesnt explicitly say "public domain". In 2001, a position paper from American Association of Law Libraries implies that primary sources were not free of copyright restrictions at that time.

[5] indicates that the information in official court records is in the public domain, but I'm not sure if that is sufficient, or even if that case hasnt been overturned.

I suspect that I am overlooking something obvious. Cheers, John Vandenberg 15:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Court Procedings are public records available to all. For this reason, litigants will often feel pressure to settle a case in order to keep private information off the public record. -Czmtzc 15:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. On what firm legal basis am I permitted to redistribute a copy of a complaint (or any other filing) using the exact words provided to the court in the original filing made by the defendant? Does the complaint loose all copyright when it comes out of the court system with a court identifier on it, or was the original never copyrightable? John Vandenberg 16:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless the the defendant files for a motion prohibitting release of the statement of defense, you can release the information i.e. exact words, to whom so ever you please. But here at Wikipedia we cannot give you legal advice so do it at your own risk. --Goingempty 16:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I remember this argument over at Wikisource. I think you would be fairly safe in concluding that federal court pleadings enter the public domain, except when they are sealed.

For State court proceedings, those are generally speaking in the public domain as well. See for example § 206.01 of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices which includes "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents" for federal, State, and local governments. But opposition was raised to using this justification as some were not sure whether the Compendium II is still valid.

In addition, Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress, 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc), cert denied, 539 U.S. 969 (2003) notes:

The issue in this en banc case is the extent to which a private organization may assert copyright protection for its model codes, after the models have been adopted by a legislative body and become "the law". Specifically, may a code-writing organization prevent a website operator from posting the text of a model code where the code is identified simply as the building code of a city that enacted the model code as law? Our short answer is that as law, the model codes enter the public domain and are not subject to the copyright holder's exclusive prerogatives. As model codes, however, the organization's works retain their protected status.

Veeck, 293 F.3d, at 793.

After reading this opinion, it would appear that it would endorse the Compendium II position. I don't know whether the Eleventh Circuit (the federal court of appeals that encompasses Florida) has adopted this position. But most of the discussion that I saw in the Scriptorium rejected the reasoning of Veeck: see discussion 1 and discussion 2. I never did get around to contacting the Copyright Office about their position on edicts of government.

And the reason that s:Template:PD-EdictGov exists is because I made it. So I'm not sure if that's adequate justification for your debate.

So are filings public domain when they are made in court? Yes...and...no. It's easy to conclude that the opinions are likely PD. So too are the briefs, complaints, transcripts, motions, and so forth (usually these are also public records as well). But is anything introduced in court as evidence automatically PD? I don't think so; for example, in a libel suit, if I introduced someone else's copyrighted writings to defend myself, I wouldn't think that would all of a sudden abrogate the copyright. I think that's where the idea of "edict" comes in. If it's the opinion, or related to the production of the opinion (such as attachments to the opinion, briefs, motions, transcripts, complains/pleadings, and so forth), those would probably be edicts and PD. At least, that's my opinion. –Pakman044 17:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, so edict applies to all of the parts of the case that are not sealed ? If so and the works are in the PD, are there any issues with translating govt edicts? (IIRC Canada doesnt allow this)?

Diving into specifics now .. the EFF collection [6][7][8] lists the case number and so it came from the court record, whereas 2600's PDF is the complaint as sent to 2600 prior to the court waving their wand over it. To be safe, only the EFF version is covered? That version doesn't include any of the details.

The two translations (German and Norwegian) do not have the case number on them and have the same contents as the 2600 PDF, so I'm guessing they were either sent to the parties or are translations of the non-blessed English version. John Vandenberg 18:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oy, this is getting to hot to handle. You need to talk to a lawyer for this one. I will give three further points:

• Court edicts of foreign governments are NOT necessarily PD. In fact, a lot of UK legislation was taken down from Wikisource because even though Compendium II would have it as PD, in reality it is loaded down with Crown Copyright. So no absolute inference can be drawn here.
• Translations are not inherently PD either, even if they are translations of something in the PD. I can go out and translate Beowulf and then copyright it just fine.
• I think the complaint itself though is probably covered (emphasis on the fact I'm not positive). The complaint is an offical court document filed to facilitate the case (for example, it's the kind of thing that would show up on PACER or LexisNexis). The parties willingly filed them with the court, so they've more or less released them. Now as to whether the pre-filing versions are PD is more complex. The Veeck case (see above) talks about this kind of issue (with the copyrighted model building codes that were passed into laws, and then extracted from reverse engineering as I recall). My take would be: if it's the actual complaint, and the complaint has been filed, it's fair game. A draft is not fair game, nor is a complaint before it has been filed, or a sealed complaint.

I am now taking my hands off this one. Needless to say, this is a highly complicated issue that needs insight from someone "in the know". Once again, I'd suggest talking to a lawyer who specializes in this kind of thing, or maybe a law school professor. –Pakman044 18:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

need help with this

I would like to find a complete and literal transcription of alaska US REP. Don Young's 1995 speech at a fairbanks, alaska highschool where he used very vulgar language to refer to homosexualsRandydem 16:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a record of this speech. Assuming that it happened, it seems likely to me that it wasn't recorded and that Young did not release a written copy. Marco polo 16:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The incident is mentioned here. I can't find anything more "complete and literal." --LarryMac 17:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Try contacting the newspapers that regularly report on Fairbanks, Alaska and see if their archives would be of some help. Another possibility, speculating on the interested-party angle, would be the local or regional offices of the Democratic Party who might have used such material in campaigning against Young. Also, try posting your query on the Discussion page for Don Young, where knowledgeable Wikipedians who don't necessarily frequent the Reference Desk may notice it. -- Deborahjay 20:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Shrek 2

where/when does shrek 2 reference sanford and son!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.199.0.8 (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

At one point, Donkey says "I'm Coming Elizabeth", apparently a reference to Fred Sandford's catchphrase "I'm coming to join you, [Elizabeth]!". IMDb is your friend. Laïka 17:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hostile Takeover

When a company say lists 20% of it stock in the stock exchange, the shareholders of this 20% are asked in the hostile takeover to tender their shares. But how can the take over be completed, considering the founders still own 80% of the unlisted stock? --Goingempty 17:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In this scenario, assuming that the "founders" are united in opposing the takeover, I don't see how it could happen. It could only happen if more than 3/8 of the private shareholders can be induced to sell. Marco polo 18:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Your question is a rather confusing one. What exactly do you mean when you say "when a company lists 20% of its stock"? Is this a new issue or is it previously owned stock? If it's previously owned, who are the previous owners? I may be wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that a company can own its own stock. That's...well...impossible. I'm further confused about what this has anything to do with a hostile takeover. Also, corporations can either be public or private, but not both. You seem to be implying that somehow the corporation is 80% public and 20% private. In a takeover bid, hostile or friendly, all shareholders are given the same offer. There seems to be a very interesting question in there, but I can't for the life of me quite figure out what it is! If you'd try to rephrase it, or describe what your speaking of in a step-by-step fashion, I'd be more than glad to do my best to answer it! Lewis 23:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression, that many companies which are listed on the stock exchanges, are public compnies, but many are controlled by the founding families, and their stock is not listed as outstanding shares in the stock exchange? --Goingempty 23:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I was definitely under the impression that a company can be partially owned publicly and partially privately. For example, Ford Motor Corporation is mostly publicly owned stock, but the Ford family does still retain a substantial portion of the stock. I suppose the difference between public and private stock is largely a matter of opinion, however, as the Ford family members can sell their stock at any time, just like any other stock. They are subject to additional concerns about stock manipulation, however. StuRat 01:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ford is a completely public company, and by no means a private company. The terms "private" and "public" are legal designations. With regard to stock manipulation, anyone capable of stock manipulation is subject to laws restricting it. The reason the Ford family is subject to these laws is because they have sufficient control to abuse their power, not because their last name is Ford. Lewis 01:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

All companies listed on stock exchanges are public companies. Yet just because a company's stock is publicly traded and is therefore a public company, it can still be controlled by its founders. For example, Berkshire Hathaway is a publicly traded company completely controlled by Warren Buffet (though technically speaking, he didn't actually "found" the company). Likewise, Microsoft is a publicly traded company controlled by its founder, Bill Gates.

Also, I don't think you quite understand what is meant by the term "outstanding shares". A company's "outstanding shares" are basically all the shares that have been issued by the company. For example, say Mr. Smith founds a company called Smithco, and as sole shareholder and director he causes the company to issue 1,000,000 shares at a par value of 1¢ each, and then buys them all for a total of $10,000. The number of outstanding shares is now 10,000, and assuming the company hasn't done anything yet, it's a private company with "contributed capital" of $10,000. Now say that after 10 years of hard work, because everyone knows that hard work is the key to success and luck plays no part, right? :) Mr. Smith builds the company into a phenomenal success. The market is just dying to invest in his company, so he causes the company to issue an additional 900,000 shares and offer it to the market in an IPO. As a result, 900,000 very eager investors each buy one share each for $100 a piece (I realize how overly simplistic and unrealistic I'm making this, but bear with me!) Now the company is a public company with 1,000,000 outstanding shares, and with its shares trading at $100, its market cap is now $100,000,000. Mr. Smith, with his mere 10% stake still by all accounts controls the company. And that, simply put, is pretty much all you have to know to become obscenely rich. It's quite simple actually. :-) Lewis 01:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

But then again, as Sexta-feira once said, I really don't ever contribute anything of value, so might as well ignore the above nonsense. :-) Lewis 01:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The board of directors for Dow Jones & Co. announced late Wednesday that it will take no action on the surprise five-billion-dollar bid launched by Rupert Mudoch's News Corp.

The prize asset of Dow Jones & Co. is The Wall Street Journal, which dates back to 1889 and is the most prominent daily business publication in the United States.

Michael Elefante, a board member who represents the Bancroft family -- which owns the shares that make up 52 percent of the company's outstanding voting power -- told the Dow Jones Board of Directors Wednesday that they oppose the bid.

The Bancrofts would "vote shares . . . against the proposal submitted by News Corporation to acquire Dow Jones," the statement read.

Approval of the merger according to Delaware law "requires approval of a majority of the outstanding voting power of the corporation.

"Accordingly, the Dow Jones Board of Directors has determined to take no action with respect to the proposal".

Widely spread out, the Bancroft family holds 24 percent of the capital but more than 62 percent of the vote in Dow Jones. So if only 52 percent were opposed to the Murdoch bid, that means the family is split on the offer.

Murdoch's bid led to the Down Jones stock spiking more than 60 percent by the time the markets closed on Monday, the day the bid was made public.

According to a source close to the transaction quoted on The Wall Street Journal website late Wednesday, the family appears to be split among generational lines, with the younger members seeking to sell and the older ones resisting.

Murdoch's offer of 60 dollars per share led to intense speculation on Wall Street, with Dow Jones shares finishing the day Wednesday at 56 dollars, a five-year high.

Yahoo News

Widely spread out, the Bancroft family holds 24 per cent of the capital but more than 62 per cent of the vote in Dow Jones. Vancouver Sun

I suppose they have a different class of shares, which has a higher voting power, but is not listed on the stock exchange? --Goingempty 14:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper Prices in USA and free newspapers

New York Times has recently increased cover price to $1. What is the prime reason behind that? Does anyone know how much dollars or cents will I get if I put 1 kg of newsprint to old-paper-store? If I get some 10 cents to 50 cents if I put 1 kg of old newsprint, why would anyone be sure that people read those free newspapers? Why wont people simply get 5 free newspapers and put it to old-paper-store and pocket handsomely each month. If anyone knows about the economics of these please explain. I do not belong to USA but researching about starting a newspaper/ freesheet in USA. I belong to business development of a non-US publishing company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.106.156 (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

The reasons for the increase in the price of the New York Times probably include stable or rising costs, along with declining revenues from subscriptions and advertising. They may try to make up the difference by raising the retail price slightly. The price is already $1.00 or higher in most parts of the United States. I think that it was below $1 only in New York City and the immediate suburbs.

As for free newspapers, I don’t think that you would get 50 cents or even 10 cents for a kg of newsprint for recycling. I think that the price is probably lower. Even it is 10 cents, 10 cents is very little money in the United States. You need at least $2-3 for a cheap meal here. That would be 30 kg. of newsprint. The places that would accept newsprint for recycling are many kilometers apart. Nobody can carry 30 kg. the necessary distance without a motor vehicle. The cost of transporting all of that newsprint would increase the amount that would have to be transported and reduce the money earned per kilogram. Also, the free newspapers are left in stacks of only maybe 2 kg. in scattered spots around the city. Someone wanting to collect those newspapers to recycle them would have to travel around the city and collect numerous stacks. This would further add to the cost and decrease the earnings. It would also be considered theft by the publisher of the free newspaper, and the police would quickly set out to arrest the person stealing the free newspapers.

Even if the police did not act, there would be no reason for a person to try to collect free newspapers for recycling. It is much more worthwhile, in most places, to collect glass for recycling, because in most cities, residents leave glass on the street for recycling one morning every week. Glass for recycling is worth much more per kilogram, and a person collecting the glass just needs to know the schedule and can quickly collect a large volume of glass by going to the correct neighborhood. There are some poor people who do this in the United States, but still there is some glass left for the city. Poor people would collect this glass and other valuable recyclables before they were tempted to collect free newspapers. Marco polo 18:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

According to this document, in Japan, 1 kilogram of old newsprint is worth about 7 yen per kilo, which is about 5 US cents. As Seymour Skinner claims when realising what a rip-off this is in The Old Man and the Lisa, "That won't even cover the gas I used to go to the store to buy the twine to tie up the bundles". Laïka 18:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. Probably a person could not make any money collecting free newspapers for recycling because of the low price and the transport cost. If they could make any money, it would be only a few cents per hour. In the United States, the minimum wage is now more than $7 per hour. Even the lowest-paid job would produce much more income than collecting paper for recycling. Marco polo 18:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting points Marco polo, I mean the fact that North Americas higher dollar value... --Goingempty 23:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times needed to charge more to pay their journalists to make up the news. Fiction authors aren't cheap, after all. :-) StuRat 01:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you now baiting me, Stu? Sorry, but I can't bite on that tasty one of yours, my PO may be watching. :-) Lewis 13:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Gray hair influence

I have read an article in KLM jurnal on my flight from kuwait to amsterdam in early 90's under the headline " Gray hair influence" and I would like to have a copy from it,please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.184.33.152 (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

We do not have copies of such articles at Wikipedia, but you might be able to get a copy by contacting the magazine, whose information is on this webpage. Marco polo 20:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Gustave Dore Publications

In what year did the London publishing house of Cassell. Petter. and Galpin first print (1861-1865?) Gustave Dore's The Legend of the Wandering Jew?

Thank you.

Gahermann 20:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the book carries no publication date. Estimates of antiquariats and others attempting to sell copies range from "1860" to "about 1890" to "early 1900s". One seller wrote "I know that it was published after 1875", without hint what this knowledge might be based on. It is generally agreed that the engravings themselves were made in 1856. There are several American editions, the first one published by George Gebbie, Philadelphia, 1873. It appears somewhat plausible to me that the English edition would have been earlier. I could find no indication that Cassell, Petter and Galpin published more than one edition.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

UK university library catalogues give 1866, 1866? or 1867. --HJMG 21:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

ELECTRIC BICYCLE LAW IN THE U.S.

A US law states that electric bicycles with fully functioning pedals, no more than 750 watts of motor power output, and a top speed of 20 mph on motor power only, are to be treated as "bicycles", and are not subject to motorized vehicle laws. Where can I find a copy of this law? I've already searched the obvious places - even asked a Senator for a copy without response. 71.100.2.43 20:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm already suspicious. Are you sure that it isn't a State law rather than a federal law? Tihs would traditionally be the kind of area that would be subject to the jurisdiction of the State alone...in most cases. But if you really think it's a federal law, you can start looking at the THOMAS interface offered by the Library of Congress. –Pakman044 21:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As it turns out, the better interface for searching the US Code is at Cornell's Legal Information Institute. Conducting a few searches does yield some fruit. 47 U.S.C. 2085 notes that "low-speed electric bicycles are consumer products". The definition given is identical to your definition--750 watts, 20mph. §2085(d) preempts State laws on this issue. But this law is in Title 47, which is dedicated to Consumer Product Safety. While motor vehicles aren't "consumer products" (47 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1)(C)), I haven't found anything yet that says in so many words that they aren't subject to motorized vehicle laws, unless this is the distinction you mean.

You may also consider looking at the article Electric bicycle laws#United States. –Pakman044 21:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

@71.100: Your question is ambiguous because you have not defined what you mean by not subject to motorized vehicle laws. Although some of the wording in your question does coincide with statutes (cited above) and regulations promulgated under the Consumer Product Safety Act, administered by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (see also, Code of Federal Regulations Title 16 available on-line here); that may or may not apply to whatever problem or factual scenario you have in mind (if any).

There are many laws and regulations (both State and Federal) that apply to the manufacture, sale, distribution and use of "motorized vehicles". (See e.g., Lemon law, NHTSA, Internal Revenue Code, and many others that will never have articles on WP ... ). Moreover, statutory definitions vary. If anyone were to search for a single law that governs everything about "electric bicycles in the U.S." ... they might do well to re-think their research strategy.

Note: this thread and this thread provide excellent examples for why "legal hobbyists" should read this page. dr.ef.tymac 01:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

May 5

Local sale of product restriction

In the city I live a law has been passed prohibitting the sale in addition to the use of electric fences. Is the purpose of such restiction intended to be psychological or "meassge conveying" since all one need do to purchase and electric fence or the components thereof is to find a store outside the city limits. If not what is the logic behind a law that can be so easily thwarted? 71.100.2.43 00:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I would guess that someone was recently electrocuted by one, and politicians saw an opportunity to make political points by passing that silly law. We end up with many completely unenforceable laws that way. Consider yourself lucky when they don't pass laws which are actively harmful to society, like Prohibition in the US. StuRat 00:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Does the specific shield shape of e.g. US highways have a name?

Highway signs in the U.S. highway system use a signs based on a shield shape with two sharp points at each top corner and two more at the top and bottom center, but with the bottom corners rounded. Very much the same shape is used for signs on the trunk highway system in Nova Scotia, Canada. And I have seen similar shields used for other purposes: the Union Pacific Railroad logo is similar, and so is the one seen in an old photo showing the front of Toronto's Royal York Hotel, although these differ in the treatment of the top center part. See here (you'll have to follow the link to see the last one):

• 
• 
• 

My question is, is there a name specifically for this sort of shield shape with the upper corners doubled, or still more specifically for the U.S. highway version of it? Does it allude to something specific as opposed to just being one shape that a knight's shield might have used?

--Anonymous, May 5, 2007, 00:53 (UTC).

There seems to be a history of the shield including information on the shape HERE, an external link I found when reading the Wikipedia article U.S. Route shield, a page I found in my capacity as the Wikipedia Google Queen. There's also some interesting info in the History section of Great Seal of the United States. Anchoress 01:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

However, none of these cites relates to my actual question, as far as I can see. In particular, note that the shield on the Great Seal is a different shape. --Anon, May 5, 16:26 (UTC).

I think this is a type of "rococo" shield, which usually have a notch on the right side (from the knight's perspective) on which he would supposedly rest his lance. Although the absense of the notch in this case would seem to make the "rococo" label (referring to the asymmetry caused by the notch) technically inaccurate, the basic shape is the same. The arms of Connecticut also use this shape and refer to it as "rococo", so I guess that's the best word for it. Miremare 21:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anon, May 7, 00:09 (UTC).

Ramadan

In the Muslim holiday- I guess that's what it is- Ramadan (sp?), from what I gather, they are only allowed to eat before sun up, and after sun down (right?). My question is this- what about young children? A crying baby isn't going to wait until specific times at the beginning/end of a day to eat; Do they allow babies/small children to eat whenever? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.228.84.67 (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Muslims are only required to fast once they reach the age of puberty. Also, they may be exhemted if they are sick, travelling or too old/weak.Cuban Cigar 03:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Muslim women who are pregnant or who could be pregnant may also be exempted, depending on the local Imam's interpretation. --Charlene 18:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ramadan. puberty. Islamic Jurisprudence.--Kirby♥time 06:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

jacobite rebellions

i need som information on the jacobite rebellion. Why did the first fail so soon after dundee's death. Did the rebellion of 1715 have any chance of success? 84.201.163.98 05:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you read our article Jacobite rising? The rising Jacobites in 1715 must themselves have believed they stood a chance of success. I'll leave it to others to muse whether, in light of the insights offered by hindsight, that assessment was correct.  --Lambiam^Talk 07:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The link between both of these events is one of leadership, both good, bad and indifferent. Over the years the Jacobite cause threw up leaders with a wide range of talents; but John Graham of Claverhouse, Viscount Dundee was, in several respects, the greatest of them all. Although he was a Lowlander by birth and upbringing, he had an intuitive understanding of the Highland mentality, and how best to make the most effective use of irregular troops, on which his rising of 1689 depended. It was this ability that led him to victory over the much larger army of General Hugh Mackay at the Battle of Killiecrankie in July 1689. His death at the height of victory was a serious blow, because command of the rebel army then passed to the far less competent Colonel Alexander Cannon, a professional soldier sent over by King James from Ireland. His great error was to use the irregulars in an entirely conventional manner, in a fashion that Dundee would surely never have attempted, in fighting a street battle against a far smaller force of Cameronians at the Battle of Dunkeld in August, with predictable consequences. The Highland army fell back, seriously demoralised, convinced, in the words of one cintemporary account, that "...they could fight against men, but it was not fit any more to fight against devils." (R. C. Paterson, A Land Afflicted: Scotland and the Covenanter Wars, 1638-1690, 1998 p. 291) Although the army dispersed soon after for the season, it is not quite true to say that the rebellion failed altogether. It continued into the following year, under the equally disastrous leadership of Major-General Thomas Buchan, whose army was routed in comic-opera fashion at the Battle of Cromdale in May 1690.

There is actually a broader question posed by this first Jacobite Rebellion. That is, would it have succeeded had Dundee lived? It is almost impossible to answer imponderables like this with any degree of accuracy or consensus; but on balance it seems highly unlikely. The base of support for the Jacobite cause at the time was narrow enough in Scotland, confined largely to the west Highlands: it was non-existent in England. Dundee may very well have advanced into the Lowlands, but it is almost certain that he would eventually have met the same fate as his distant kinsman, James Graham, Marquis of Montrose, at the Battle of Philiphaugh.

The 1715 rising, in contrast, had real prospects of success, with extensive support over much of northern Scotland, and parts of England. The Jacobite cause had moved beyond its narrow political confines, and was increasingly identified in Scotland with growing hostility to the Union with England, which had yet to show any real benefits to the country. Soon after the Stuart standard was raised at Braemar in September 1715 by John, Earl of Mar, thousands of men came out in support of the cause. But Mar, as politician, a strategist and a soldier was a disaster. He hesited when decisive action was necessary; and although he heavily outnumbered his main rival, John Campbell, 2nd Duke of Argyll at the Battle of Sheriffmuir, the only major encounter of the whole campaign, he failed to press his advantage, retreating back north with a demoralised army, that soon after was to fade away altogether. Maybe things would have been better under a different leadership, a sentiment expressed when one man exclaimed in disappointment at Sheriffmuir, 'Oh, for an hour of Dundee.' His hour, and that of the Jacobite cause itself, was past. Clio the Muse 09:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Royal maladies

Reading the above question on mad king Louis reminded me of the movie The Madness of King George. What other examples are there of royal maladies having an impact on domestic and international politics? 86.131.244.244 07:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first one that springs to my mind is the Tsarevich Alexei of Russia. His hemophilia (passed on through Alexandra from Queen Victoria) enabled Rasputin to have access to Empress Alexandra, and the whole course of Russia's involvement in WWI was changed, not to mention affecting the factors that allowed the Bolshevik revolutions to occur when they did, and the rise of the Soviet Union, which lingered till 1991 and caused immeasurable grief and death to multiple millions of people both in Russia and elsewhere (phew!). JackofOz 07:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jack that one of the best, and most recent examples, of a royal malady impacting on history has to be the hemophilia of Alexei; and the relationship of the royal family, particularly the Empress Alexandra, to the disreputable Rasputin, inevitably exposed some serious weaknesses in the whole Imperial system. But I honestly believe far too much tends to be made of this. Nicholas himself was not quite as enamoured of 'our frend' as Alexandra, and was often quick to dismiss his attempts at interference when it came to military matters and questions of state policy. It is almost certain that the Revolution would have come even if Rasputin had never existed. Rasputin was merely a symptom, not the disease.

Clio, I did say "... affecting the factors that allowed the Bolshevik revolutions to occur when they did". They were always going to happen eventually.  :) JackofOz 03:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, beyond this example, two others come to mind, the first so closely linked to one another that it impacts on the wars and politics of two adjacent countries. The madness of Charles VI, as I indicated elsewhere, gravely weakend France at a crucial point in the nation's history, leading to the renewal of the Hundred Year's War by Henry V. Henry's success in this war led directly to the Treaty of Troyes, by which, amongst other things, he married Charles' daughter, Katherine of Valois, the mother of his only child, the future Henry VI. Unfortunately for England, Henry inherited not his father's fighting ability but his grandfather's madness, which, in time, would bring about the Wars of the Roses.

One even more significant example for Europe as a whole is that of Charles II, the last Habsburg king of Spain, arguably one of the most unfortunate monarchs, and certainly one of the most unfortunate men, ever to have lived. Better known to history as Charles the Sufferer, or Charles the Bewitched, he was the disastrous consequence of years of royal inbreeding. Unable to have a child of his own, and with no agreed successor, his death in 1700 led directly to the War of the Spanish Succession, in many respects the most brutal conflict of the whole of the eighteenth century Clio the Muse 10:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Baldwin IV of Jerusalem, although not mad, was a leper, which affected his own rule (he was unable to marry and produce heirs), and led to a sort of international and domestic competition to marry his sister and inherit the kingdom. Adam Bishop 17:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There's also:

• Joanna of Castile's madness (possibly schizophrenia), which after the death of Philip the Fair allowed the Spanish monarchy to come under the control of courtiers, who enriched themselves at the expense of the state;
• Alfonso XII of Spain's sons' hemophilia, which weakened Alfonso's ability to hold onto the throne in the face of Franco et al.;
• Catherine of Braganza's infertility, an indirect cause of the 1689 Glorious Revolution;
• Mary I of England's malady, thought for centuries to have been a phantom pregnancy and associated psychiatric troubles, but which might have instead been a complete molar pregnancy followed by choriocarcinoma (her symptoms were almost textbook). If the symptoms of her condition caused Mary to intensify her persecution of Protestants, it could be a partial cause of the creation of Anglican England;
• Edward VI's illness and slow death, which allowed the Duke of Northumberland to bully Edward into naming Lady Jane Grey as his heir in his will;
• Henry VIII's possible syphilis, which would explain not just the changes in his personality but also some of his physical ailments. --Charlene 18:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

These are interesting additional examples, Charlene, though I'm not sure that I would place the same weight that you do on their specific importance. For instance, I think James II's political incompetence had far more to do with the outbreak of the Glorious Revolution (which dates to 1688, incidentally!) than Catherine's infertility. Also Anglican England was a political compromise by Elizabeth I between Catholic and Protestant elements in the English church, rather than a response to the Marian persecutions as such. I won't cross Henry VIII swords with you, though I will say that the syphilis thesis is highly speculative. However, what puzzles me most is your statement about Alfonso XII, who died in 1885, and thus had no contact with Franco. Forgive me for being obtuse, but is this perhaps a reference to Alfonso XIII? Was he a haemophiliac? Even so, Alfonso's loss of the throne had nothing to do with any physical ailment but his close association with the dictatorship of Miguel Primo de Rivera, which led, in 1931, to the creation of the Second Spanish Republic. From exile he later declared his support for the military uprising of 1936, but Francisco Franco, made it clear that the Nationalists would never accept Alfonso as king, for the simple reason that he was too badly compromised and, even more important, a large part of the rebel army was made up of Carlists, determined opponents of the political legitimacy of the descendants of Isabella II. Clio the Muse 19:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

My point about Catherine's infertility was that had Catherine had a surviving child, James II would never have been king. Now he might have been Regent, but replacing a regent is much easier than replacing a king! --Charlene 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How abut Henry VI of England? He was at best mentally unstable, if not insane, and not a particularly um, strong leader. Corvus cornix 02:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

He's already been mentioned, Corvus, along with his grandfather, Charles VI. Have a look at the second paragraph of my first contribution above. Clio the Muse 03:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Gaaa Never mind. Corvus cornix 03:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirov and the Reichstag fire

Thanks to those people who answered my previous question on Russian history. I have one more. Is it possible to draw a comparison between the political outcome of the Reichstag fire in Germany in 1933 with those that followed the assassination of Segei Kirov in Leningrad in 1934? . Fred said right 08:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is. Hitler used the hysteria caused by the Reichstag Fire to consolidate his dictatorship; Stalin used the murder of Sergey Kirov to begin the Great Terror, eliminating virtually all of the Old Bolsheviks, and establishing his own dictatorship on an unparalleled basis. Incidentally, there is another interesting contrast between the two events, which shows how much more careful the Russians were in arranging these matters than the Germans. The Nazis blamed the KPD for the destruction of the Reichstag, putting on trial, amongst others, Georgi Dimitrov, a leading Bulgarian Communist. This was in the early days of the dictatorship, and the courts were not yet under the complete control of the state. The trial proceeded with a high degree of fairness, and Dimitrov, conducting his own defence, was even able to embarass in cross-examination Herman Göring, who appeared in his capacity as Minister-President of Prussia. In contrast, the Moscow Trials of leading Communists, like Zinoviev and Kamenev, were competely stage-managed, a piece of political theatre rather than a serious judicial process. Clio the Muse 10:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm amused that you can use the word "unparalleled" while drawing a parallel. —Tamfang 02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

They just keep on truckin'! Mukden_Incident.--Kirby♥time 11:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Jews funding Hitler

Several notable persons (including George Galloway) claim that some jews funded hitler early on in his political career, is this True? If so who? how many and how much for how long? hotclaws 12:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well at a guess any political party is likely to be funded at some point by donations from all manner of religious and ethnic groups. Especially if you're talking about Jews as an ethnic group, it is highly probable that at some time, somewhere, a Jewish person donated to the Nazi party. On specifics, however, I don't know. Try German central government past financial records if you're really interested. 86.146.74.206 13:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There was certainly more than casual contact between Hitler and the Jews but unlikely it would have taken the form of financial donations to his political campaign or party since his grandfather is said to be his grandmother's Jewish landlord, who in the absence of cash, was paid with sexual favors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.2.43 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

See Alois Hitler. That claim seems to be bogus. Corvus cornix 02:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What an unusual conspiracy theory! The questioner seems to believe that the Jews are the root of all evil and even gave the world Adolf Hitler. Dr Zak 15:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It it too much to ask to assume good faith on the questioner's part, rather than to go making unfounded accusations of anti-semitism? Mentioning Jews whilst not being an anti-semite is, after all, possible. Miremare 17:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Types of military units

Lots of strategy games have generic types of units for use on the "battlefield". Is there a good list of such units e.g. Infantry, Medium Tank, Anti-Air, Destroyer, Bomber etc. anywhere? I'm not looking for a specific game, just for some ideas on such unit types (not commercial or legal or anything). Thanks. 86.146.74.206 13:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It'll vary heavily by game type. One might just be infantry/armor/air/naval, another might subdivide artillery into mortars, self-propelled guns, field guns, and converted anti-aircraft guns. Still others might break down formations to squad level and represent the quality, equipment, and morale of individual soldiers. What sort of scale do you have in mind? — Lomn 20:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, quite general. For instance, the whole field of armoured vehicles could just be Light and Medium Tanks. I'm just looking for some units that stand out so they could fulfil a special purpose. 86.150.14.21 08:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What I really meant by "scale" was the quantitative level of representation. Is a unit analogous to a corps, division, regiment, company, squad, or what? I would think that, for deciding what units you represent, it's far more important to know if one armored unit is one tank or 100 rather than if those tanks are Shermans or Pershings. Anyway, should you run across this, feel free to continue the discussion on my talk page. — Lomn 16:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Statute of Limitations on Murder

I thought there was no such limitation in almost any jurisdiction world-wide. However, I read today on the CBC news site that the lone Canadian rounded up in the Bonanno/Massino family RICO trials in New York, name of Rizzuto, was not charged with the murders because "the statute of limitations had run out on the crime." [[9]]. There is, I understand, a 10-year statute of limitations on racketeering, but I did not think that it also included murders related thereto. Does anyone know for certain if there is now a limitation on murder, what that limit is, and where it holds true? --Bielle 14:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

All sources I could find – apart from the CBC news article to which you linked – agree that there is no statute of limitations on murder in New York. Other news sources I looked at offered various explanations for the prosecution's acceptance of the plea deal, none of which involved statute of limitations.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It could be the case that Mr. Rizzuto would have faced charges for felony murder and that the statute of limitations applicable to the underlying felony had run out (the wording of the CBC article is sufficiently imprecise to support this interpretation) but that still doesn't necessarily clear him of the murder charge. Therefore, it seems appropriate to question the accuracy (or at least the precision) of the CBC article itself. dr.ef.tymac 01:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser, as well as unusually poor writing for the CBC. Thanks for your thoughts and research. Bielle 02:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

According to this article at findlaw.com, no U.S. state has a statute of limitations on the crime of murder. But I have my doubts whether that is completely correct, as this news article suggests that Louisiana has a statute of limitations of two years for second-degree murder. Murder as a federal crime does have a statute of limitations in certain circumstances, according to a report I found in a Google search. The Congressional Research Service has a report called "Statutes of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview". The 2007-04-09 version, found here, says that federal capital crimes have no statute of limitations[10], but not all murder is a capital crime. As far as I can tell, under U.S. federal law there is no statute of limitations for first-degree murder (a capital crime), and generally the statute of limitations for second-degree murder is five years (see 18 U.S.C. § 1111(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a)). However, as I read 18 U.S.C. § 3286(b) there would be no statute of limitations for certain types of second-degree murder referred to as "terrorism offenses" and listed in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B), and those types of offences might well include a very large percentage of federal prosecutions for second-degree murder. As for Rizzuto, this 2006 blog entry about Rizzuto's extradition from Canada mentions that Alan Dershowitz gave expert testimony on the statute of limitations issue. In a decision of August 6, 2004 at paras. 38-39, the Quebec Court of Appeal explained it like this:

In the instant case of an offence of conspiracy breaching RICO, the statute of limitations can be invoked after five years. The situation would be different if the charge were murder, since the State of New York has not imposed a statute of limitations on that crime. However, the state has not brought murder charges against the appellant (perhaps because the rules of evidence are more difficult to satisfy, making the case less favourable to prosecution), and only RICO (under federal jurisdiction and forming the grounds for the extradition request) is relevant.

What must be determined is whether the statute of limitations begins running in 1981, the date the underlying offences of murder were committed, or in December, 2003. In other words, the question is the following: in the context of a request for judicial interim release, does the available evidence show that the appellant was still a part of the conspiracy infringing RICO in 2003, as the respondent maintains, or did his participation in this crime come to an end in 1981, as argued by counsel for the appellant?

If I'm wrong about any of this, I hope someone will correct me. --Mathew5000 08:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as statute of limitations on murder, at least two southern states (Georgia and Louisiana) have (or had) statutes of limitations on second degree murder, but you might want to check if any state currently has such for first degree murder. Additionally, your research into the judicial interim release pleadings of Mr. Rizzuto further substantiates that the CBC article is (at best) "imprecise" as it does not distinguish between the seperate charges under RICO, conspiracy to commit murder, felony murder, and murder (the latter charge apparently never even prosecuted). dr.ef.tymac 15:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought there was no such limitation in almost any jurisdiction world-wide. There is a statute of limitations for almost any crimes in France, save for rare exceptions (crimes against humanity, e.g. genocide). I would not be surprised if it was generally the case throughout Western Europe. David.Monniaux 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Pinyin

In what words the "q" in Pinyin is proununced "q" and in what "j-ch"? --Vess 14:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by 'pronounced "q"'. According to our article Pinyin, there is only one pronunciation associated with the letter q in Pinyin, which is [tɕʰ], similar to "ch" in English "church". I could imagine, though, that, for example, a name like Qantas retains its spelling, in which case the letter "Q" is, presumably, not pronounced Pinyin-style by people who know the Australian pronunciation of that name.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I worried. I would say in what word the letter "j" in pinyin is proununced as "q and in what as "j-ch". --Vess 16:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I am lost a bit what you mean. The letter j in Pinyin is pronounced as [tɕ]. It is an unaspirated version of the sound represented in Pinyin by q.  --Lambiam^Talk 16:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Of note: in pinyun, each letter has one and only one sound associated with it. This is confused a bit when hearing a Cantonese speaker pronounce a Mandarin word with an accent. It isn't that the pinyin has two pronunciations. It is that not all Chinese pronounce Mandarin perfectly (similar to English pronouncing "the" as "thee" and "thuh"). So, any question asking when a pinyin letter has one sound and when it has another is faulty. Pinyin letters never have one sound and then another. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... Don't you mean phoneme instead of "sound" or allophone? --Kjoonlee 22:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This would have been an excellent question for the Language Ref Desk. StuRat 07:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Rejection of Christ by some Jews

Do some Jews beleive that Jesus Christ is merely the object of Joseph having been cuckold and if so is Jesus Christ rejected on those grounds even though the cuckler is claimed to be God? 71.100.2.43 18:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you begin a question with "Do some Jews believe" then I'm sure there's some lunatic Jew out there who would believe such a thing. But if you're asking if that's a premise shared by any stream of Judaism I'm aware of, the answer would be a clear no. Lewis 19:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Only a few Jews accept Jesus as their christ. They number only a few thousand in the whole world. Also see 'Syrian Christian' in wikipedia.

I find this a disturbingly strange question. If you mean "Jew" as a religion, then of course Jews reject the claim that Jesus is the only Son of God (in the Christian interpretation of that term), otherwise they would be Christians and not Jews. If you mean "Jew" in an ethnic sense, what does that have to do with anything? People who do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, presumably also do not believe in the Virgin Birth and would assume his natural father was Joseph, making the whole question pointless.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

See Yeshu about a figure in classical Rabbinic literature who may or may not be Jesus. Dr Zak 14:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Cat minders in history

hi - I was wondering if any historians present might provide some contemporary accounts of servants employed to mind cats, if there were ever any such - was it ever an official position? Strange question, I know, but there have been offices just as strange in royal courts etc. I'm particularly interested in European history here - Louis XIV's court for instance - anything 18th century and earlier.

Thanks in advance.

Adambrowne666 23:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, if anyone can tell me aught about any servants employed to mind any royal animal whatever, I'd appreciate it.

• I'm not sure about people employed to look after cats (although it's not a strange suggestion that a royal would get someone to attend to their favoured pet), but I think that Q. Elizabeth has people looking after her Corgis... --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that the servants who look after the Queen's corgi's aren't employed specifically for this reason, but do so as part of their more general household tasks. Miremare 17:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would look into Egyptian history...I don't have time to do any research right now but the Ancient Egyptians were quite fond of cats. Gradvmedusa 10:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm sure you're right - what I'm hoping for is the name of that position...

I don't know about cats, but England had the Master of the Buckhounds, Master of the Harriers, etc. See [11] for a number of animal-care-related offices in the Royal Household after 1660, although they generally seem to relate to hunting. Choess 01:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My daughter managed to pet Clinton's cat, minded presumably by the Secret Service, on a White House tour. Edison 05:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am able to determine, there was never a specific office related to the care of royal domestic pets, though there were for many others, including some of astonishing intimacy. Does anyone wish to know the function of the Groom of the Stool? For once I think silence might be best! Clio the Muse 05:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds to me like it would be the person in charge of polishing the royal turd? Which would in turn appear contrary to an old adage I've heard, but leave it to royalty I guess... -- Azi Like a Fox 07:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It gets even closer than that, Azi, as you will discover if you read the page on the Groom of the stool. Clio the Muse 08:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, I'm still eating lunch...Ok. I certainly did not expect to read the words, "The position was highly prized", in an article with that heading. I shudder to ask, but, was there a prescibed methodolgy in carrying out such an important duty, or was it more of an improvise as needed type of a job? -- Azi Like a Fox 09:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot say. But the position was valued because it gave one access to the 'ear' of the king, as well as the other, more fundamental, part of his anatomy! Clio the Muse 11:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, yes, I realize the unparalleled and exclusive access such an intimate relationship might afford, but on reading the particular wording in the article I could not help but picture the actual physical "position" such a job must have entailed. I imagine the Stool Groom's would have been quite conscientious in executing their functions, with all that implies, because, after all, when dealing with a monarch one never wants to do a half-assed job. -- Azi Like a Fox 14:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A very belated thanks to you all! Adambrowne666 06:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

May 6

Nobles

Hey everyone why where nobles in Russia between 1900 and 1914 so highly classed??? And where the nobles like royalty? And how did they become so rich??

Thank you Jade 03:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Russian nobility may answer some of your questions. Dismas|^(talk) 03:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Be careful in your assumptions. The Russian nobility's position in the social hierarchy was often determined by status alone, and many of them were actually quite poor. Please see the page on the Table of ranks. Nikoli Gogol's novel Dead Souls is one, among a number of others, that provides a good literary depiction of the condition of a cross-section the minor land-owning nobility in late Tsarist Russia. Clio the Muse 05:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the titles for court ranks in the table of ranks, it is apparent that many are direct transliterations of the German titles of ranks in the court household, such as Oberhofmeister, Hofmarschall and Kammerjunker. Is there an easy explanation for this use of German titles, presumably copied from the Austrian (Habsburg) monarchy?  --Lambiam^Talk 09:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The system of ranking, Lambiam, was adopted during the reign of Peter the Great, when Russia was under all sorts of foreign influences. There was also quite a large number of men of German origin, serving in both the Imperial Civil Service and the army. Some of the more notable included Alexander von Benckendorff, Levin August, Count von Bennigsen, Friedrich Wilhelm von Buxhoeveden, Fabian Gottlieb von Osten-Sacken and Peter Wittgenstein, many of them Baltic-German. Indeed, it was once a popular view among the European right that Tsarist Russia had effectively been governed by a German ruling class. Here is a fairly typical view expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf: For the Russian State was not organised by the constructive political talent of the Slav element in Russia but was nuch more a marvellous exemplification of the capacity for State-building possessed by the Germanic element in a race of inferior worth...For centuries Russia owed the source of its livelihood as a State to the Germanic nucleus of its governing class. But this nucleus is now almost wholly abolished. The Jew has taken its place. (London, 1939, p. 533) Clio the Muse 10:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Religious terminology

What is the term for the belief that those who believe in justification by faith alone will fall into a sinful life, knowing, as they would, that the inevitability of their salvation, provided their faith remain pure, gives them free reign to commit whatever heinous sin they could possibly imagine in this life, while remaining assured of an eternal life postmortem? I was trying to find the term on sola fide, but I couldn't find it. :( Thanks in advance! 207.35.41.4 03:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Antinomianism —Wayward ^Talk 03:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! It was on the tip of my tongue... 207.35.41.4 03:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And look, it's right there, halfway through the sola fide article! Boy, am I foolish! Many apologies, Wayward and the rest. 207.35.41.4 03:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wifes of Henry the eight

How many of them were executed? Martinben 10:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The answer is two: Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard. One good way of remembering the fate of all six (I used it at school!) is divorced, beheaded, died; divorced, beheaded, survived! Clio the Muse 10:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you accept that he married six times. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, technically, none of his wives were executed. The marriages to Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard were annulled, so by the time they were separated from their heads they were his ex-wives. JackofOz 22:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

But an annullment means the marriage was retrospectively revoked. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. The marriages had either ended before their executions, or they had never existed validly at all. Either way, they weren't his wives at the time they were beheaded. JackofOz 02:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Divorced,Beheaded,Died,Divorced,Beheaded,Survived.hotclaws 23:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I visited the lawn at the tower where the evil acts were done. So sad. Edison 05:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

'Clean-limbed'

I've come across this phrase twice recently while reading about 17th century characters. Can anyone put it in context? Vranak

I gather that it's a translation of a phrase often used in ancient Greek to describe a well-formed youth. —Tamfang 17:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Try using Google: "Having well-formed limbs; well-proportioned". Flamarande 18:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, cheers. Vranak

As the OED says, concerning the meanings of "clean" grouped under "Fair, fine, comely, neat, clever,": "The sense-development is here uncertain: cf. F. propre." For the specific meaning "Neatly-made, well-fashioned; not unwieldy; trim, shapely, comely," OED gives Chaucer first: "He hadde a paire / Of legges and of feet so clene and faire."

I suppose a compound ending in -limbed sounds ancient (though no Greek synonym is leaping to my mind: Hera is white-armed, in Theocritus the moon is of shining skin—actually "fair-limbed" per se is more frequent in Sanskrit). But this "clean" usage (which is probably what provoked the question, I'd imagine) seems peculiarly English. Wareh 14:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Family Trusts?

Hi, as of now I am the only participant covering Canada in the Taxation WikiProject not wikilinking it on purpose, so this won't see as I am trying to recruit new members, I just want some answers, so I can try to make an article.

I am asking this question because the article Tax shelter provides no information, in relation to the law enforced by the Canadian Revenue Agency. Now I am no law expert, but I can try interpreting provisions of laws, as it is in english, lol. I have done some pre-eliminary research.

From Googling I found out that the government website http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en includes all the Federal Laws of Canada, except the Income Tax Act and Income Tax Regulations.

The government website states The Income Tax Regulations are not included on the Justice Laws Web site. A version of the Regulations, current to August 31, 2004, is available from CanLII at [12] and [The Income Tax Regulations are not included on the Justice Laws Web site. A version of the Regulations, current to August 31, 2004, is available from CanLII] at [13]. However, when I create the article I will need the latest version of the act to try and interpret it. The 2006 Government's Budjet implemented many reforms to the Income Tax Act. Whereas, the versions provided above are out dated?

I am sure you have all heard of Family Trusts being used as a tax shelter by small companies owned by a single person. The way it works (I hope I am right?) is like this: the owner of the company, incorporates the company. The owner then incorporates a family tust? The company then gives out dividents to the family trust. In an example lets consider the family is 3 people, as thats the average people in families in Canada (I hope I am right?), and the family trust income is $85,000 (considering 80% of business go bankurupt after the first year). It then decides to give dividents of $28,000 (round figure for simplicities sake), to each memeber of the family. Now lets consider in our example the 3 member family is all over the age of 18 (I don't want to get into stuff like child care included in the budget etc.)

I now try a new strategy of researching information from the Internet, I go to the cra's website and all I could find there is tax forms for people to fill out!

Income Trusts can also be called Family Trusts? (I think?), so dividents are not taxable? If it is not which provision of The Income Tax Act states that?

Do they have to disclose the dividents to CRA? If so which forms do they have to download from the CRA's website? And in which line of the form do they dislose that income?

If the answer is it is taxable, then what are the tax brackets alloted to them? Are they mixed with say a family member who works at McDonalds (for simplicities sake) and earns a certain amount of working income in which they pay EI and CPP, and the McDonals has to pay another EI amount which is equal to the amount paid by the worker?

Anyways, I will much appreciate responses given, but please also state the source of the information, or if you just know it state (from my head).

I hope to fill in the blank spots in the Wikipedia's collection of articles, while following WP:NOT.

disclaimer: follow any information in this subsection, (which means if somebody replies here dont be stupid), and use the information at your own risk.

Finally, before stating goodbyes and my gratefulness, I would like to include a quote from Mark Van Doren, poet: The art of teaching is the art of assisting discovery.

This is Goingempty from the Taxation WikiProject.

--Goingempty 10:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A page of links to publications of the Canada Revenue Agency on the subject of trusts can be found here.

If a trust pays a dividend to an individual, then the individual would need to declare that as income on their individual (in Canada, Form T1) income tax return. Some dividends are taxable, some are not, but as far as I know (and I am not a tax specialist) all must be declared. An individual's total tax payable is based on their total taxable income. This income can come from a variety of sources: employment income, dividends, investment income, interest, etc. It's all rolled together and the total amount is taxed. (See the General Income Tax and Benefit Guide for more information.)

Trusts may also earn income themselves; trusts are required to file a form T3 trust income tax and information return. Trusts may also be required to pay tax on their income. If an individual owns a trust and that trust earns income, that income can be reported on the T3 and not on the individual's T1, in which case it would be taxed separately.

That is far from a complete answer but I hope it clears a few things up. If not, let me know and I'll try again. - Eron ^Talk 15:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The amendment taxing income trusts has not yet passed, so if you want to read the actual text, you have to go to the Parliament of Canada web site and look for the bill, which turns out to be Bill C-33. This should be a direct link to the page about the bill. Apparently it has only had first reading, so select "First Reading Version" to see the text. The subpage for "entire document" does not work for me, but I can select individual sections and read those... an extremely tedious task unless you know exactly what you are looking for. Obviously the text may be amended before it actually passes, or conceivably it might not pass at all. --Anonymous, April 18, 2007, 02:12 (UTC).

I'll add that rather than trying to interpret the law, as contained in the Income Tax Act and the various regulations issued thereunder, you'd probably do better to refer to the various publications put out by CRA to explain the Act and the regulations. Acts and regulations can be hellishly difficult to decipher, and I say that as someone who does it (in another area of government) for a living. Publications like the General Income Tax and Benefit Guide are specifically written to interpret and explain the law for the layman. They are not always 100% up-to-date, but in the case of CRA they do tend to be published and republished annually to keep up with changes to the tax laws - as they have been passed, and not just proposed - and so they should be more than sufficient for your purposes. - Eron ^Talk 02:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, CRA publications do sometimes refer to provisions in "proposed" legislation. I assume this is done in preference to delaying the publication when they are reasonably sure that the law will be passed and it will affect the upcoming tax season. I've never heard of a case where they did this and then it didn't pass. --Anon, April 18, 08:51 (UTC).

Very true, thanks for the clarification - Eron ^Talk 11:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The T3 Trust Guide 2006, is very informative. I can't believe I missed that. Thnx Eron. I have made some text in your answer green, I hope you don't mind. Eron if you would please assist me here: so which line in the T1 form should the individual file (in our example $28,000)? --Goingempty 02:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends. The trust will issue a form T3 to every individual who receives payment from the trust. There are different types of income from trusts; these are reported in different boxes of the T3 (see here for details.) Depending on the type of trust income, the individual could report it on various different lines of the T1 - line 120 for dividends from taxable Canadian corporations, line 121 for interest and other investment income, line 127 for taxable capital gains, etc. The T1 guide gives specific instructions like "Enter on line 120 the taxable amount of all dividends from taxable Canadian corporations [reported on ] ... boxes 32 and 50 on T3 slips." There isn't a single answer, as trusts earn all sorts of income and pay all sorts of income, all of which may be subject to different tax treatments. - Eron ^Talk 11:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Bringing back the archived question. Formatted my question, for ease of reading. The green sentences are the sum of my curiosity. --Goingempty 15:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You may be missing a significant point: so far as I know, with some considerable personal involvement with family trusts, taxes must be paid. The choices are whether the taxes will be paid on income, on captial gains or on dividends and whether they will be paid in the trust or in the hands of the individual, or both. The advantage to the individual receiving dividends or capital gains from the Trust, rather than income, is that dividends and capital gains are taxed, generally speaking, at a lesser rate than income, and for that reason, are often a preferable way of getting money out of a trust. Bielle 16:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

dividends and capital gains are taxed, generally speaking, at a lesser rate than income. Whats the rate? --Goingempty 20:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I knew I was likely to get thumped for giving a simplified answer. I really don't want to look at those $%%&**($# forms again, having just finished them for another year. The rate of tax, for income and capital gains and dividends is actually the same. (I know that's not what I said above, but hold on.) The rate is your marginal rate (See third paragraph of Tax rate.) of income tax, and, depending on your personal situation, can vary from 0 to something like 49%. However, up to a maximum limit, only half of your captial gains are taxed at that rate. (If you had taken that capital gain as income, you would pay tax on the full amount.) The first half is not taxable. Dividends are divided between eligible and non-eligible and grossed up either by 125% or 145%, respectively, after which there are dividend tax credits to be deducted. Only on this net amount, is tax payable, and at your marginal rate. Now you know everything I know. Bielle 22:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really am beyond my competence now. I use the information on T3s, T4As, and T5s as issued by the various financial institutions. I insert whatever amounts are called for into Quick Tax and it spits out the liability. You need either someone who does taxes still by hand or someone who handles trusts and investment tax accounting for a living. You can also phone Rev Can, though my experience is that you don't often get the same answer twice. The Trusts group is helpful and knowledgeable, but it isn't listed anywhere. They have to call you first, and then you have call-back number. Bielle 22:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular way to figure out if it is "eligible" or "non-eligible"? Also is it true that the first $25,000 of the total dividend (capital gains etc) is not taxed? --Goingempty 16:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Replying here, per your post to my talkpage: Have you looked at some of these pages? [14] [15] [16] and check the google result, because the Yahoo!Answers pages weren't showing right now. "what is a family trust" canada. HTH. Wikipedia Google Queen

Thanks now I am almost there in making Wikipedia Articles.

#1:

What is a Family Trust?

To talk the trust language, here are some basic terms you should know.

Should I have one? What is a trust anyway? To talk the trust language, here are some basic terms you should know:

• Trust: A relationship between trustees and beneficiaries with respect tospecific property.
• Settlor:The person who transfers property to the control of trustees to hold for the benefit of one or more beneficiaries.
• Trustee:A person or entity responsible for the custodianship of the trustproperty who has an ongoing obligation to administer the trustin accordance to the trust deed.
• Beneficiary:The person or entity who has rights to the income and capital(property) of the trust, based on the terms of the trust deed.
• Trust Deed:The legal document that outlines the terms, rules andresponsibilities of the trustee with respect to administering the trust property for the beneficiaries.
• Protector:The person or entity who consults with the trustee in particular situations, as well as appoints and dismisses the trustee inaccordance with the terms of the trust deed.
• Discretionary:The settlor gives the trustees decision-making rights to allocate the future income and/or capital to any or all beneficiaries.
• Testamentary Trust: A trust created by a deceased individual based on the terms of his/her will.
• Intervivos Trust: A trust created by a living settlor.
• Domestic: A domestic trust is a trust located in Canada.Offshore:Generally refers to a trust located outside of Canada.

In a trust, assets are heldby the trustee for the benefit of the beneficiaries. In a discretionary trust, the beneficiaries have no direct ownership of the trust assets; therefore, creditors of a beneficiary would have no value to attach to. The timing of the trust creation and terms of the trust are very important and must bediscussed with a lawyer who specializes in trust law. A discretionary trust allows trustees to exercise flexibility when allocating the income and capital of the trust. The trust deed would define the limits of the discretionary/flexibility powers of the trustee(s).Trusts have existed for hundreds of years. They may not be for everyone; however, they should be considered when setting up your estate or business.

The advantages of having a family trust include income taxsavings, asset protection, and flexibility. Some of the income tax advantages are:

• 1. The ability to allocate income to family members in lower tax positions. Allocations to minor children may not bepossible under the tax rules. However,the tax savings of allocating trust income to a child who is over 18 for living expenses, including education, could save thousands in income tax, compared to having the expenses funded from your after-tax income.

#2:

Tax and Estate Planning with a Family Trust Although trusts have been around hundreds of years, family trusts have become enormously popular in the last 10 years. Once considered something to be used exclusively for the very rich, trusts are now relatively common and are set up by families who hardly consider themselves rich. Why is this?

The main reason is that tax rates have grown so high for so many people, that it is worthwhile to spend more energy trying to minimize taxes. Trusts are a tremendously powerful vehicle for tax planning strategies, and are surprisingly affordable, especially if you think of them as being paid for with part of your tax savings.

The other reason is due to the considerable flexibility that trusts provide for tax and estate planning purposes. If we can be certain of one thing, it is that things will change. And nothing handles change better than a trust.

WHAT IS A FAMILY TRUST?

A family trust is a term used to describe a type of trust that usually has family members as its beneficiaries. However, nonfamily members can also be included in the trust.

A trust is a means by which property is held by one person for the benefit of another. This property can include any type of property interest including investments, shares of private companies, principal residences, bare land, vacation homes, and family heirlooms.

A trust is established when a person contributes property to a trust. The contributor is referred to as the "settlor". The person who receives the property and manages the trust is referred to as the trustee. The trustee can be a family member or a trusted relative or friend. It can also be a trust company or any combination of persons. Although it is most common to have only one trustee, it is not unusual to have trusts with two or more trustees.

The trustee holds the property in trust for one or more beneficiaries. These beneficiaries can consist of any person, a company, a charity and even unborn children. For example, you can set up a trust today that includes all future grandchildren as beneficiaries even though you have no grandchildren right now.

Add to this flexibility the fact that you can be the settlor, the trustee and a beneficiary of your family trust. There is virtually unlimited potential to design a trust that meets your particular needs.

One of the most popular forms of family trust is the discretionary trust. In a fully discretionary trust, the trustees make all decisions regarding the administration of the trust fund and distribution of the trusts fund among the beneficiaries. They decide who gets what, how much they get and when they get it. In a fully discretionary trust, being named a beneficiary does not necessarily translate into receiving anything. You as a trustee can make your own decisions and can completely exclude one or more of the beneficiaries if you so choose. Your replacement Trustees can do the same.

HOW YOU CAN USE A FAMILY TRUST

One of the most popular uses of the family trust is income splitting. This is where income earned by the trust is paid to low income beneficiaries who pay tax at a very low rate. This works particularly well with children who have reached 18 years of age who have no other source of income. However, there are a number of tax rules which restrict income splitting when spouses and minor children are involved. Good legal advice is recommended here.

Another popular use of the family trust is to avoid probate proceedings on death and probate fees. In British Columbia, probate fees are levied at the time of death and are based on the total value of all assets in your name (excluding jointly owned assets and out of Province assets). The rate of probate fees is 1.4%. This means that if you own assets (including your home) in your name worth $1 million at the time of your death, the probate fees would be $14,000. A family trust avoids probate and probate fees because assets that you transfer to your family trust during your lifetime are not deemed to be owned by you on your death for probate purposes.

A valuable use of a family trust is to avoid a legal challenge of your Will. Many people don't realize that even if they do have a legally drawn Will, after their death a spouse or child may apply to change the terms of their Will. This typically happens when a family member feels that their inheritance is too small. One good technique for avoiding such a challenge is to transfer certain parts of your assets to a family trust while you are alive. Since it is not part of your estate on death, the property does not pass under your Will and therefore is not affected by a challenge of your Will.

Many people use the family trust to hold investments and other property for family members who are mentally disabled or incapacitated. This can be particularly valuable to provide the disabled person with an additional source of income and if structured properly, will not reduce their eligibility for social assistance such as GAIN.

Family trusts are being used as a savings vehicle for children and grandchildren for their future educational expenses. The family trust is often more flexible than the Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP) as the money can be spent on the beneficiary whether or not they actually attend university.

Another use of a family trust is to make sure that money, property or investments are protected for beneficiaries who may not be able to properly manage the money if given to them in a lump sum. A family trust can be designed so that trustees manage the property and investments for the long term wellbeing of the beneficiaries. The trust can be designed so that if the trustees are satisfied that the beneficiaries have proven that they can handle the money themselves, the trust can be collapsed and the funds can be distributed out to the beneficiaries.

The family trust works very well in the succession process for a familyowned business. For tax planning reasons, a family trust can become a shareholder of the familyowned business. This provides great flexibility to the business owner who may not be sure which of his or her children might be the appropriate ones to take over the business when he or she retires. Essentially, the discretionary family trust allows the business owner a substantial period of time to "wait and see" before deciding how to pass on the shares of a family business.

The key to the value of a family trust is in its flexibility. A family trust can be tailored to the needs of that particular family and can adapt to changing circumstances like no other vehicle. Its unique nature provides the tax and estate planning professional with virtually unlimited scope for creativity and originality in meeting your tax and estate planning objectives.

Family Trusts may seem confusing or too much trouble, but when you stop to add up the benefits and reduced taxes available, family trusts deserve a second look. Using professionals to create and assist in managing your trust can make a Family trust a smart move.

This article is not legal advice and a lawyer should be consulted on any specific case.

--Goingempty 20:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what to make of the above. Are they proposed articles for Wikipedia? If so, you'll need to bear in mind our "Wikipedia is not a how-to" policy, and also remember never to write articles second-person. These articles clearly give advice: something we never do, and slapping "This article is not legal advice" at the end doesn't really help. Also, I'd cross-reference Trust law rather than setting out the basic terminology of trusts. I think you'll need to explain to us exactly what you are trying to achieve before we can offer you any clear advice on how to move forward. I'll keep this discussion on my watchlist, though, and help if I can. AndyJones 13:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hostile Takeover?

When a company say lists 20% of it stock in the stock exchange, the shareholders of this 20% are asked in the hostile takeover to tender their shares. But how can the take over be completed, considering the founders still own 80% of the unlisted stock? --Goingempty 17:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In this scenario, assuming that the "founders" are united in opposing the takeover, I don't see how it could happen. It could only happen if more than 3/8 of the private shareholders can be induced to sell. Marco polo 18:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Your question is a rather confusing one. What exactly do you mean when you say "when a company lists 20% of its stock"? Is this a new issue or is it previously owned stock? If it's previously owned, who are the previous owners? I may be wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that a company can own its own stock. That's...well...impossible. I'm further confused about what this has anything to do with a hostile takeover. Also, corporations can either be public or private, but not both. You seem to be implying that somehow the corporation is 80% public and 20% private. In a takeover bid, hostile or friendly, all shareholders are given the same offer. There seems to be a very interesting question in there, but I can't for the life of me quite figure out what it is! If you'd try to rephrase it, or describe what your speaking of in a step-by-step fashion, I'd be more than glad to do my best to answer it! Lewis 23:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression, that many companies which are listed on the stock exchanges, are public compnies, but many are controlled by the founding families, and their stock is not listed as outstanding shares in the stock exchange? --Goingempty 23:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I was definitely under the impression that a company can be partially owned publicly and partially privately. For example, Ford Motor Corporation is mostly publicly owned stock, but the Ford family does still retain a substantial portion of the stock. I suppose the difference between public and private stock is largely a matter of opinion, however, as the Ford family members can sell their stock at any time, just like any other stock. They are subject to additional concerns about stock manipulation, however. StuRat 01:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ford is a completely public company, and by no means a private company. The terms "private" and "public" are legal designations. With regard to stock manipulation, anyone capable of stock manipulation is subject to laws restricting it. The reason the Ford family is subject to these laws is because they have sufficient control to abuse their power, not because their last name is Ford. Lewis 01:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

All companies listed on stock exchanges are public companies. Yet just because a company's stock is publicly traded and is therefore a public company, it can still be controlled by its founders. For example, Berkshire Hathaway is a publicly traded company completely controlled by Warren Buffet (though technically speaking, he didn't actually "found" the company). Likewise, Microsoft is a publicly traded company controlled by its founder, Bill Gates.

Also, I don't think you quite understand what is meant by the term "outstanding shares". A company's "outstanding shares" are basically all the shares that have been issued by the company. For example, say Mr. Smith founds a company called Smithco, and as sole shareholder and director he causes the company to issue 1,000,000 shares at a par value of 1¢ each, and then buys them all for a total of $10,000. The number of outstanding shares is now 10,000, and assuming the company hasn't done anything yet, it's a private company with "contributed capital" of $10,000. Now say that after 10 years of hard work, because everyone knows that hard work is the key to success and luck plays no part, right? :) Mr. Smith builds the company into a phenomenal success. The market is just dying to invest in his company, so he causes the company to issue an additional 900,000 shares and offer it to the market in an IPO. As a result, 900,000 very eager investors each buy one share each for $100 a piece (I realize how overly simplistic and unrealistic I'm making this, but bear with me!) Now the company is a public company with 1,000,000 outstanding shares, and with its shares trading at $100, its market cap is now $100,000,000. Mr. Smith, with his mere 10% stake still by all accounts controls the company. And that, simply put, is pretty much all you have to know to become obscenely rich. It's quite simple actually. :-) Lewis 01:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

But then again, as Sexta-feira once said, I really don't ever contribute anything of value, so might as well ignore the above nonsense. :-) Lewis 01:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The board of directors for Dow Jones & Co. announced late Wednesday that it will take no action on the surprise five-billion-dollar bid launched by Rupert Mudoch's News Corp.

The prize asset of Dow Jones & Co. is The Wall Street Journal, which dates back to 1889 and is the most prominent daily business publication in the United States.

Michael Elefante, a board member who represents the Bancroft family -- which owns the shares that make up 52 percent of the company's outstanding voting power -- told the Dow Jones Board of Directors Wednesday that they oppose the bid.

The Bancrofts would "vote shares . . . against the proposal submitted by News Corporation to acquire Dow Jones," the statement read.

Approval of the merger according to Delaware law "requires approval of a majority of the outstanding voting power of the corporation.

"Accordingly, the Dow Jones Board of Directors has determined to take no action with respect to the proposal".

Widely spread out, the Bancroft family holds 24 percent of the capital but more than 62 percent of the vote in Dow Jones. So if only 52 percent were opposed to the Murdoch bid, that means the family is split on the offer.

Murdoch's bid led to the Down Jones stock spiking more than 60 percent by the time the markets closed on Monday, the day the bid was made public.

According to a source close to the transaction quoted on The Wall Street Journal website late Wednesday, the family appears to be split among generational lines, with the younger members seeking to sell and the older ones resisting.

Murdoch's offer of 60 dollars per share led to intense speculation on Wall Street, with Dow Jones shares finishing the day Wednesday at 56 dollars, a five-year high.

Yahoo News

Widely spread out, the Bancroft family holds 24 per cent of the capital but more than 62 per cent of the vote in Dow Jones. Vancouver Sun

I suppose they have a different class of shares, which has a higher voting power, but is not listed on the stock exchange? --Goingempty 14:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

NYSE stocks - alternative trading methods?

I was reading in the news:

TSX Group Inc., whose stock suffered its biggest drop yet yesterday after a group of Canada's largest securities dealers said they will create a rival trading system, may have to deal with even more competition as exchange industry sources say there is at least one more alternative trading system in the works.

Even before the announcement of project Alpha - as the alternative trading system (ATS) proposed by the Big Six banks and Canaccord Capital Inc. is known - the TSX already faced plenty of competition, with alternative systems available to enable buyers and sellers to trade large blocks of stock outside the exchanges.

But the development of full-fledged alternative trading systems that enable trading of all stocks, in blocks of all sizes, had been slow in Canada since regulators changed the rules in 2001 to make it possible.

NYSE trading is still not completly computerized like other stock exchanges. Are there full-fledged alternative trading systems that enable trading of all NYSE stocks (outside the exchanges), in blocks of all sizes, and is also popular with the business community? --Goingempty 23:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Best International Relations Schools

What are the best colleges/universities in the United States for international relations (undergrad), especially international politics and international economics?

Here is a U.S. News and World Report ranking of the top four schools at the graduate level. Presumably, the same schools would be near the top of the list at the undergraduate level, though these rankings are controversial. Marco polo 23:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Graduate and undergraduate rankings can be at a great variance in the US, as what is important for each is quite different. For an undergraduate, the most important thing is a competitive classroom and a gifted teacher. For graduate students, the institutional resources matter more. It's at that point that you need a library with excellent resources, faculty with heavy credentials, a fantastic history of publication, a faculty highly involved in their professional societies/journals, etc. A school that rejects "publish or perish" and which puts all its emphasis on teaching could be at the top of undergraduate education, but such would almost certainly be impossible for graduate education. The US News rankings.... I would only say that they're worth every penny they cost you (i.e. some, but not much). Geogre 11:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

George Rudisil, what prison camp was he in?

Question moved here from the Help Desk.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

…George Rudisil was in Company E, 12th Regiment of Indiana Volunteers who was enrolled on the Ninth day of August, 1862 to serve 3 years. He was discharged on Feb 28th 1863 at the age of 18, by reason of Surgeon's certificate of disability. This was the result of a gun shot to his foot. (Note: According to his death certificate, he was born on Feb. 8, 1844, which would have made him 19 on February 28th, 1863.) He was in a Confederate prison camp for a while and we know not which one, can you research the camps and tell us? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rich fike (talk • contribs) 14:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Still searching for the Civil War prison camp that George Rudisil, one l, was in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rich fike, 20:04, May 6, 2007 (UTC).

Differences between left and right wing

The differences between Lef wing and right wing?

See Left-right politics. Marco polo 23:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In a nut-shell, left-wingers believe that individuals should be taxed (often progressively) in order to finance a state that intervenes in the economy for social purposes.

Whilst right-wingers believe that tax is a necessary evil (or, in some cases, an unnecessary evil), and that, as far as possible, people should be free to keep their own money and spend it in such a way as benefits themselves individually, (reasoning that individuals are best situated to work out what their own money should be spent on).

There is also an issue of libertarianism vs authoritarianism, i.e. how prone a particular politicist is to impose their own wills over others. But trying to categorise that on a left-right axis is problematic, and it is good habit to use left and right as purely economic indicators. 194.80.32.12 00:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That is largely a libertarian argument, 194, drawn, one assumes from an American context? There are plenty of examples of right wing governments that have also imposed high taxes; so an economic explanation is, in itself, not sufficient. Clio the Muse 00:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that either label still has any coherent meaning: the Left values equality among citizens, the Right values social stability. All else is an arbitrary matter of "strange bedfellows". —Tamfang 02:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

On social issues, the left-wing tends to favor individual liberties, while right-wingers want to ban so-called "immoral activities" (gay marriage, abortion, marijuana, etc.). StuRat 02:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's as simple as that, Stu; try telling Uncle Joe that his regime (or any U.S.S.R. regime) favoured individual liberties. ;-)

The Nazis called themselves socialists; they believed in government service to the community through community service to the government and strong ties between business, government and military. Yet they are often held up as an example of extreme right-wing-ism. And my good friend, raised a secular Jew in Canada (and a long-time rabid, if I may say so, socialist), now calls herself a militant right-winger, because of her newfound religious ultra-orthodoxy. Israel is an interesting melding of socialist values (collective farming, utility monopoly, etc) laissez-faire capitalism (unregulated markets), legislated secularism and conservative theocracy. Anchoress 04:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The binary Left/Right model oversimplifies many aspects of political opinion. This may be of some use in a political speech, if you want to demonise your opponents as "communists" or "fascists". It is less useful in other situations. Our political spectrum article discusses more nuanced multi-axis models of political thought. One example is the Political Compass, which separates the economic dimension from the social dimension, and distinguishes shades of opinion along each axis. Similar concepts appear in the Nolan chart and the Pournelle chart. Gandalf61 09:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The linguist George Lakoff has an interesting model about what the left/right categorizations really map on to (in the U.S. in particular) and why certain positions on issues seem to flow from these categorizations even if there isn't an immediately logical reason. Basically he argues that these two groups ascribe to different metaphors about the state itself; the "left" believe that the state is a nurturing mother and the "riht" believe that the state is a strict father, and that different mappings of what it means to be a "child" and an "adult" are responsible for many of the different political points of view.

In any case, though, as should be evident nobody is quite sure what left and right are supposed to map on to or if they are useful categorizations. I like Lakoff's model because it presumes that the categorizations are not wholly artificial (which seems to me to be the case) and that you can in fact divide most of U.S. politics in particular into variations of one of two clumps of beliefs, which he identifies as these metaphors. --24.147.86.187 13:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the left/right dichotomy is really an oversimplification of political differences that have many different dimensions. In most countries, "left" and "right" are shorthand terms referring to a package of different views on social, economic, and environmental matters. This package can and does differ from country to country. For example, the "left" in the United States and most Western countries tends to be socially liberal, that is, it tends to favor personal freedoms. However, obviously in the old Communist realm, the "left" was quite authoritarian. Because of this legacy, it can be difficult to refer to politics in former (or remaining) Communist countries in "left/right" terms. I think that our articles Political spectrum and Political compass help to unpack the different qualities subsumed by the labels "right" and "left", but these articles fail to mention the environmental dimension to politics, or how "green" a political position is. At the far green end of the environmental spectrum are people who believe that environmental preservation and improvement should take priority over personal liberties or economic growth. At the opposite end of this spectrum (which lacks a recognized label) are people who believe that environmental concerns are unimportant and that personal liberties and/or economic growth should always take priority. Most people would fall somewhere in between, but perhaps closer to one end or the other. I suspect that the "green" dimension of politics will have growing importance in this century. Marco polo 14:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

May 7

Trotsky, Stalin and the terror

Hi I would like some information on the struggle between Stalin and Trotsky for control of the Soviet Union. Why did Trotsky fade so quickly after he had established such a strong position during and after the revolution? Was the Terror of the 1930s simply born out of Stalin's paranoia? Fred said right 05:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you read our lengthy articles on Leon Trotsky and Joeseph Stalin for a start? --Robert Merkel 07:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A very interesting question. One observation before I proceed with an answer: the struggle, Fred, such as it was, was conducted over control of the Party, and the general determination of policy, rather than over control of the Soviet Union, a small but important distinction. Yes, on the face of it, Trotsky should have won any contest with Stalin with a minimum of effort. A senior figure in the party, second only to Lenin at the time of the Revolution, the chairman of the Petersburg Soviet in both 1905 and 1917; a brilliant orator, a Marxist theoretician of some note, a publicist and a writer. He was the first Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs, and had even dominated the German diplomats at the Brest-Litovsk peace negotiations. As creator and commander of the Red Army he led the Reds to victory over the Whites in the Civil War of 1918-1920. Yet, despite all of this, he had two serious weak spots: first, he had come late to Bolshevism, and had left many bitter anti-Leninist polemics in his wake; second, he was intellectually and personally vain to an astonishingly high degree, a man who made enemies far more easily, especially among his 'inferiors', than he made friends. Lenin had recognised his unique talents in 1917, and was prepared to overlook past differences; but Trotsky's personal style and his past career meant that he had no real power base in the Bolshevik Party, nothing to fall back on in times of difficulty. It would have been within his capacity to start building such a base. He was, however, in his unique senatorial style, quite un-collegiate, preferring to make his mark by dint of his well-earned authority, on the assumption that this alone would be enough. It was not. He was also to be the victim of the Bolshevik tendency to draw endless parallels between their own Revolution and that of 1789. In this particular drama Trotsky was cast in the role of Napoleon; the one person the Party most assuredly did not want. Instead they got Robespierre.

Stalin, in contrast with Trotsky, was in many respects, the man least likely to come to the top in a political contest. He had only a fraction of the education of Trotsky, and other leading Bolsheviks, like Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev and Nikolai Bukharin. But Stalin was far from being the 'grey blur' that Trotsky assumed, and was a man of considerable intellect. He certainly used his power base within the party, particularly after his appointment as General Secretary in April 1922, to further his own set of ambitions. Beyond that, though, he was a superb networker, and throughout the 1920s built up a talented personal following: men like Grigoriy Ordzhonikidze, Andrei Zhdanov, Sergey Kirov, Vyacheslav Molotov, Lazar Kaganovich and others, who while not of the first rank, were also skilled political operators, with deep roots in the Party. He also managed to make clever use of the middle ground in the inner-party struggles, never going too far in his early triumvirate with Zinoviev and Kamenev, and never associating himself too closely with the specific views on the peasantry of his later allies, Bukharin and the party right-wing, in the struggles of the mid-1920s. In the end he outmanoeuvred them all, establishing a pre-eminent political position by 1929, the year Trotsky was expelled from the Soviet Union.

The victory, though, was not that of Stalin as such, but the Stalin faction. His authority, in other words, was still open to question. At the Seventeenth Party Congress, held in early 1934, it even looked as if he was about to loose his pre-eminence within his personal faction, the Party and the State to his old friend and ally, Sergy Kirov. The assassination of Kirov, which Stalin may very well have arranged, though this has never been proved conclusively, was the trigger for the Great Terror. The Terror, therefore has to be viewed as a political instrument, much in the same fashion as the Terror in the French Revolution. The targets may have looked as if they were chosen in some arbitrary and paranoid fashion, but in fact they were quite specific. The Old Bolsheviks, including some Old Stalinists, many of whom had attended the 1934 Congress, were amongst those who suffered the most. The beneficiaries were a new class of specialists and technocrats, those who were identified implicitly with the Stalinist path, men like Pavel Nikolayevich Rusanov in Solzhenitsyn's novel, Cancer Ward. Stalin emerged from the Terror not simply as the leader of a faction, primus inter pares, as he had in 1928-9, but as a man with unparalleled dictatorial powers. Clio the Muse 08:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Edward III

Can Edward III be considered as the father of the English nation? Janesimon 10:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you must be reading, or have read, Ian Mortimer's book, The Perfect King: the Life of Edward III, Father of the English Nation. Yes, there is much in Mortimer's thesis that stands up to scrutiny. Perhaps the most common perception of Edward's reign is one that brought England success in war, from the Halidon Hill and Neville's Cross against Scotland, to the even greater victories against France at Crecy and Poitiers. In 1356 England had two enemy kings in captivity: David II of Scotland and John II of France. In some ways the country had reached the high point in its Medieval history. But success in war brought two more innovations: the enhanced role of ordinary people in attaining military success, and the rise of Parliament as a unique English political institution.

Before Edward England had continued to rely on the feudal levy for its military arm, which meant, in essence, dependency of the great feudal nobility and the armed knight. But Edward's wars saw the recruitment of professional armies, where the decisive arm was not the knight but the plebeian archer. It was through Edward's wars that the ordinary people of England (and Wales!) acquired a direct interest in the course and the outcome of the nation's foreign adventures, which did much to forge a common sense of nationhood, distinctly lacking at earlier periods. Even more important, the wars demanded money, and money meant Parliamentary grants, and Parliamentary grants meant detailed scrutiny of expenditure, as well as the granting of petitions. By the end of Edward's reign the Commons were able not only to introduce legislation, but also to hold officials to account. His successor, Richard II was to discover just how assertive Parliament could be.

It was Edward who raised England from the nadir of the reign of his father, and created a sense of common identity and purpose. More than that, it was his patronage that turned St. George into a national saint, and he was the first king to give first place to the English language, as opposed to the Norman-French favoured by his predecessors. Not only did he use English himself in everyday discourse, but also in 1362 he passed legislation recognising English as 'the tounge of the nation.' Where he led the great nobility followed. So, the answer has to be, yes: Edward has every justified right to be considered as the father of the English nation. Clio the Muse 11:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

He may have been the father of the post 1066 English nation, but let us not forget those who built the country up which the Normans invaded. Alfred the Great, although not King of all the land now called England (but certainly with power and influence over it), must have a very similar claim to Edward III. After all, he also created a standing army (half the time on, half off so people could still tend crops), had one of the first 'navies', that would grow later to be the most important part of the military of our island nation. Alfred also used English as a language to communicate with every day people, translating religious texts from Latin personally. The support of the 'nobles' or Witan was important for Anglo-Saxon kings, probably years in advance of the Norman barons, John, for example had trouble with. This lead the way for Alfred's grandson, Athelstan to become the first official King of England (in some accounts anyway). Not denying Edward's acheivements, but I don't think he is the sole claimant to the title of 'father of the English nation'. I would as always be interested to hear Clio's thoughts.137.138.46.155 12:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Churches in Towns

Does anyone know where I could get a list of the number of churches in American (or otherwise) towns?

--Grey1618 14:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)