Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

May 13

Mapp v Ohio case

I've chosen to write a report about the Mapp v. Ohio case and there was a couple of things I need to know before I start. Is it a criminal or civil matter and why? and what laws would apply to the case?

Thankyou for any help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kachi (talk • contribs) 01:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Have you read the article you have linked to?  --Lambiam^Talk 01:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but i'm not the slightest bit law savvy and I just wanted to clarify a few points

Well, the first sentence states that the case was in the area of U.S. criminal procedure. Now guess, is this a criminal or a civil matter? All the relevant laws are mentioned in the article; the most important being the Constitution of the United States, and particularly the Fourth Amendment. My advice is that you study the article well, and come back with specific questions about points you do not understand. Otherwise, in all likelihood, you will not understand what we answer here either, not learn anything, and not be able to write a good report.  --Lambiam^Talk 01:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

All right, will do. I see where you're coming from. Thanks

Actually no, it wasn't a criminal matter at all. According to the US Constitution, criminal matters are the exclusive jurisdiction of the States. If it were indeed a criminal matter, that would imply that the Supreme Court was acting ultra vires its jurisdiction, and in doing so, violating the Constitution. To be precise, it was a Constitutional matter, only tangentially connected to a Criminal matter. Yes, the original trial was a criminal trial, but the Supreme Court Appeal was a pure Constitutional matter, based entirely on the proper interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Lewis 12:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC

It's simply not true that "according to the US Constitution, criminal matters are the exclusive jurisdiction of the States". There are federal crimes, prosecuted in federal courts, and the Mapp case extended the principle that "a conviction in the federal courts, the foundation of which is evidence obtained in disregard of liberties deemed fundamental by the Constitution, cannot stand" to the state courts. Mapp v. Ohio is clearly about criminal law, not civil. - Nunh-huh 13:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, there does exist a rather small category of what are called "federal offences", I was indeed in error by using the term "exclusive". Still, the crime in question in Mapp was an offense against the State of Ohio, not a federal offense. In hearing the appeal, the US Supreme Court wasn't deciding a criminal matter, rather it was handing down an interpretation of the Constitution. Lewis 15:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the Supreme Court was deciding a constitutional issue has no effect on the distinction between criminal and civil matters. Mapp v. Ohio remains a criminal case, regardless of the appeals process. I'm sure you're aware of this, Loomis, I just wanted to provide some clarification. GreatManTheory 15:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No of course, by all means it definititely is NOT a civil case, that's for sure. It's just that not all non-civil cases are criminal cases. Cases that decide Constitutional matters, for example, are neither. I suppose I'm splitting hairs a bit too much by insisting it was a Constitutional, rather than a criminal case. It certainly involved a criminal matter, so for all intents and purposes I suppose you can call it a criminal case. Still, my point was that had it not involved the Constitution, the SC would be out of its jurisdiction to hear it. In other words, had the appellant not brought up a Constitutional issue, but merely argued that the appeals court of Ohio had misinterpreted Ohio law, the SC would have no jurisdiction to hear it. Lewis 22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification Lewis. I'd like to propose that this entire sub-thread be erased, and replaced with the last sentence of your clarification, (with "in other words" replaced with "As a side note: ") ... Why? Because this entire tangent is almost certainly irrelevant to the original poster, and because, until you made that clarification, it looked like you were entirely making this stuff up for your own amusement. dr.ef.tymac 23:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What if this forum enabled participants to vote on answers ... hmmm. That might help emphasize the irony that the most helpful, succinct and context-appropriate responses to this question were the ones already provided by the mathematician. :/ dr.ef.tymac 14:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Mapp v. Ohio was clearly a criminal case. It was an appeal from a criminal conviction, on direct appeal from the Supreme Court of Ohio. The case was within the U.S. Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction because application of a provision of the Constitution of the United States was involved. Newyorkbrad 23:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The case of Mapp v Ohio is a criminal constitutional case due to the fact that it is an appeal of an a constitutional issue from a state criminal court. The case revolves around the exclusionary principle, as first set forward in Weeks v United States in 1914. The law of importance is the Exclusionary rule and the Fourth Amendment. ~Lexington Hunter Esq.~

I agree with the preceding comments by Newyorkbrad and Lexington Hunter. I do not agree with Lewis's statement that "not all non-civil cases are criminal cases." In fact, I would define a civil action as "a non-criminal lawsuit". JamesMLane t c 04:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: I am withdrawing the proposal for deletion, pursuant to relevant guidelines, actions taken by User:StuRat, and credible feedback from informed Reference Desk participants.

Relatedly, I also consider it superfluous for me (or anyone else) to concur with yet another "I am also a lawyer, and Newyorkbrad is clearly correct," since: 1) Lewis recanted; and 2) Lambiam provided a well-considered and appropriate response that was sufficient from the beginning.

Nevertheless, superfluous content does not in itself justify hasty deletion. In light of the circumstances, I withdraw the proposal. dr.ef.tymac 07:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I admitted that I was splitting hairs and that for all intents and purposes the entire case (from trial, to state appeal, and finally to the SC appeal), was on the whole, a criminal case. My only point was, once again, that at the SC level, it was completely a constitutional issue, as the SC has no jurisdiction to correct the Ohio State Courts' misinterpretation of Ohio Criminal Law. But if all that is tangential, I have no problem with deleting the entire thread.

I'd just like to note, though, that an action involving the Judicial Review of legislation is neither a civil nor a criminal action. A civil action is an action taken between two private individuals regarding a private matter (i.e. a "lawsuit"). I therefore disagree with James' disagreement. Brown v. Board of Education, Plessy v. Ferguson, all the way back to Marbury v. Madison were all neither civil nor criminal cases. And it doesn't even have to be a Constitutional issue. Any case involving an action in mandamus, quo warranto etc. are neither civil nor criminal in nature. But again, if this entire thread is superfluous, by all means, feel free to delete it. (Personally, though, I don't see why it's so necessary to delete the discussion, as it only helps to further elucidate the matter, but I bow to consensus on this one.) Lewis 11:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Report

Is either or both of the Bruce Report obtainable anywhere online? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.193.219.164 (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

I haven't had any luck in locating either online. All I can offer is this illustration from the First Planning Report of the city's "inner core", as it might be "developed".  --Lambiam^Talk 15:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-evaluating Rostow

Requesting critique of Walt Rostow's writings on economic development, particularly The Stages of Economic Growth from anyone familiar with his work or one of his former students. Particularly, what is the relative influence of Rostow's legacy as an economist versus that as a political advisor. Not homework, just soliciting opinions that may be useful in reforming my own views, which may be biased. dr.ef.tymac 06:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not qualified to answer this question, but you may find this In Memoriam of interest.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Authors in the olden days

After buying a used copy of Don Quixote today at a library book sale, the wife and I started discussing what it would have taken to write such a book in the old days without modern conveniences. The discussion led to how authors made any money back then. Not as many people could read, so there weren't as many people to buy the books. Plus they cost more to make due to typesetting and binding and such. So did authors generally make their money by putting on plays? Did they get some sort of royalty (or the equivalent of that day whatever that was) for each book sold? How often did these writers work for kings where they were the court appointed playwright or whatever? I don't want to turn this into a discussion as this isn't a discussion board but if you have any related info that we hadn't considered, could you reply with that as well as any answers to the questions that you might have? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 08:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

...a much too subtly nuanced question for encyclopia entries, but read Grub Street; there will be numerous suggestive hints in the biographies of writers: see what John Milton sold Paradise Lost for. Copyright infringement wasn't even a question until the late 19th century: Dickens' work was pirated in the US as fast as it was published. --Wetman 09:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Authors sold their manuscripts to the book seller. They would be paid a single fee for the book, and that is all that they would get. Therefore, if you could make a second part or sell the book by subscription, you could do a great deal better. Most authors, therefore, had to write quite frequently or had to have income from another source. Another famous case, by the way, of a rip off in publishing history comes from late in the game. Oliver Goldsmith's The Vicar of Wakefield was sold for ₤10 to pay his rent (just his back rent). In fact, Samuel Johnson had to sell it for him, and apparently he got a better deal than if Goldsmith had gone in person. Geogre 12:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I believe the inflation-adjusted price for books used to be much higher, before modern techniques of mass production lowered the cost. StuRat 13:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Princess in the tower

I've read your article on Ingeborg of Denmark, wife of Philip Augustus of France, but it does not really explain why Philip took the attitude towards her that he did. Is there any information on the politics of this affair? Thanks Janesimon 11:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ingeborg of Denmark, perhaps the least fortunate of all the Medieval brides, a woman whose life was blighted for reasons that are still not entirely clear. Those familar with the tribulations of Katherine of Aragon may be interested to know just how 'fortunate' she was compared with Ingeborg, married to Philp Augustus on August 15, 1193, only to be rejected a day later. At the time Philip's only declaration was that he wished the marriage dissolved for 'bodily reasons'. His assumption is likely to have been that the whole matter would be over quickly; but he reckoned without the determination of the Danish princess, which had the effect of dragging the whole business out for twenty years, involving France in a dispute with the Papacy in the person of Innocent III, not a man to be tangled with lightly. Ingeborg was to be held prisoner in the castle of Étampes for more than ten years, from whence she wrote a heart-breaking letter to Innocent;

:...Set me free, from those who hate me, so that I shall not drown in the deep waters since I am being pursued for no reason. It is my master and husband, Philip, the famous king of the French...who wishes to scoff at my youth. Through isolation in prison he continues to torment me through his men...so that I shall conform to his wishes against the law of marriage and the law of Christ...I suffer from innumerable and unendurable indignities. No one dares to visit me, not even monks or nuns in order to comfort me, neither can I hear the word of God to strengthen my soul nor confess to a priest...I do not get sufficient food...I have no medicines to bear the weakness of humankind...I am not allowed to have a bath...I do not have enough clothes, and those I do have do not befit a queen...the detestable people who surround me, by order of the king, never give me any kind words, but torture me with sneering and offensive words...these things and others...make me tired of living.

History abhors a vacuum, and the gaps in this story have been filled with a variety of explanations. Amongst other things, it has been suggested that Philip may have suffered from temporary impotence on his wedding night, and developed an aversion to Ingeborg as a result, though she was always to adhere to her claim that the marriage had been consumated. We do know, though, that Philip came back from the Third Crusade with some unspecified disease, which seems to have affected his mental condition, bringing on periodic panic attacks. He even convinced himself that Richard I had arranged with the Assassins of Syria to have him murdered. However, the specific cause of his sudden rejection of Ingeborg cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.

Politically Philip's actions weakened his realtionship with the Vatican, at the very apogee of its Medieval greatness. In 1213 Ingeborg was finally reinstated as Queen of France, although not as Philip's wife, thus ensuring he could be reconciled with Innocent. The Wikipedia article says that the reason for his action was to allow him to press his claim to the throne of England through his connection with the Danish crown, though no source is given for this statement. Besides, he had earlier tried to get the Danes to accept this claim as part of the marriage negotiations, though this was rejected by Canute VI, Ingeborg's brother. Clio the Muse 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be mentioned that Pope Celestine III was the Pope at the time of the marriage, with Innocent taking over in 1198, in time to really fall out with Philip, who was excomunicated at one point.Cyta 12:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Britian in 1800

Ok, ok, so this is a homework question but i am really only looking for some leads. I need information on britain in the year 1800. 86.154.188.151 11:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, it was the year in which the Act of Union 1800 was passed – although the Act took effect only the next year. Perhaps you will find some more leads in our articles on the History of the United Kingdom and the year 1800.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first and most obvious point is that Britain was at war with France, which impinged far more on everyday life than a reading of Jane Austen would suggest. Taxes were high, trade disrupted, manufacturing diverted to the war effort, and men were being killed. While the war at sea had been going well, especially after Nelson's victory at the Battle of the Nile two years before, things were not so good with the war on land. By 1800 the French had control of the Low Countries. An attempt by Frederick, Duke of York, the king's son, to dislodge them had been a miserable failure, a misadventure that is though to be a source for the nursery rhyme, The Grand Old Duke of York. Attempted landings at Belle Isle, Ferol and Cadiz had also failed, causing Charles, Marquess Cornwallis to describe the army as the 'laughing stock of Europe.' Waterloo was still a long way away!

As Lambiam has said the Act of Union was passed, following the defeat of the Irish Rebellion of 1798, which was to add the saltire of St. Patrick to the Union Flag. The war also had a serious impact on the national economy, causing inflation and the collapse of the gold standard. Real wages declined in value, resulting in much industrial and social unrest. Concerns about labour activism led the government of William Pitt the Younger to pass the Combination Acts of 1799 and 1800, outlawing trade unions. Britain was also still in the middle of its great Industrial Revolution, which was transforming both rural and urban life. By 1800 London had a population of more than a million people, making it the biggest city in Europe. In 1700 there were only five English towns with more than 10,000 inhabitants. This number rose to twenty-seven in 1800. The system of communication was greatly improving, with many new roads and bridges. Coal production had increased markedly, some 15 million tons being mined in 1800, attracting new industry to the coalfields in Scotland, Wales and northern England. Bit by bit the Dark Satanic Mills were begining to cover much of the country, as Jerusalem was builded here, in England's Green and Pleasant Land. Clio the Muse 00:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Bell-Lancaster method of teaching began to be popular, as Britain struggled to introduce education to all to a year 7 standard, sustainably, without teachers. Nelson was looking at proteges to carry on with his derring do. One such daring raid on a French port had one such protege mortally wounded, dying some six months after, tended at Nelson's House. Nelson's personal life crystallised with the birth of his only child, a daughter named Horatia, to his second wife. Horatia grew up not knowing who her mother was, although she lived with her until her mother died, when Horatia was 12. (check out Pococks' Nelson Biography for Nelson's references) DDB 12:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In later years, it was popular to attribute English success at Waterloo to the adoption of game play (team sport) at schools. However, such sport did not really take off until later in the first half of the 1800's. (Delderfield) DDB 12:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Deaths in space

Another morbid question... Is there a list anywhere of people who have died in space? Carcharoth 12:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that anybody had, so it might be a very short list (I don't count the Space Shuttles, as they both were destroyed within Earth's atmosphere). I suppose there might have been some cosmonauts to die in space, perhaps even some kept secret to this day. StuRat 13:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

All humans that are presently known to have been in space are listed here. An asterisk next to the name denotes those who died during spaceflight. Dr_Dima.

Thanks for that. That allows a complete list of space disasters, though some of those listed there died on the launchpad (Apollo 1), or on impact with the Earth after re-entry (Soyuz 1). So the final list I have is:

• Soyuz 1
• Apollo 1
• Soyuz 11
• Space Shuttle Challenger disaster
• Space Shuttle Columbia disaster

So the Soyuz 11 disaster comes closest to what I was looking for, and Komarov's cursing of the designers of the spacecraft as he plummeted to his death is a classic (if very sad) moment. Still doesn't top the sad story of the drowning of Prather. See Victor Prather for details.

In addition, if you widen the remit of the question to cover the entire space industry, one of the biggest disasters was the Nedelin catastrophe, where it seems over 100 people died when a large Soviet rocket exploded in 1960. And expanding to include animals, you have Gordo (space monkey) and Laika and others. Carcharoth 14:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've removed the *'s from the Apollo 1 victims. Crashing into the ground at the end of a spaceflight can reasonably be counted as a death during the flight, so Komarov (Soyuz 1) keeps his *. --Anonymous, May 13, 2007, 20:24 (UTC).

• Oh, pfft! I just found space disaster, which covers all that and more!! Though it doesn't include that astronaut drowning, but then he wasn't an astronaut - he was testing a spacesuit though. I wonder... I'll raise it on that talk page. Carcharoth 14:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• See also Fallen Astronaut and Soviet space program conspiracy accusations. Fascinating. Carcharoth 14:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• And Monument to the Conquerors of Space (on which Laika appears - I don't know whether to be impressed or not that Laika is a featured article while Alexei Leonov and Yuri Gagarin are not! On reflection, it is rather nice that Laika has been elevated to the pantheon first). Carcharoth 16:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a gorgeous monument. --Charlene 22:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

National Identity in Hawai'i

Hello. I am looking for some insight as to how Hawaiians (presently and historically) view their identity. Can Hawaiian be considered a fully fledged national identity? Or is it considered merely a sub-identity of American? How do opinions vary among different groups? I would greatly appreciate some citable resources. Thanks in advance. Ninebucks 13:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That likely depends on which Hawaiians you mean. I'm guessing you mean native Hawaiians of Polynesian descent, but there are also many of European, Japanese, and Filipino descent living there, each likely having different, distinct identities. StuRat 13:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in all Hawaiian groups, but especially the indigenous people, yes. And is it really the case that these identities are completely distinct? Is there not a strain of collective identity? Ninebucks 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not sure what is meant by a "national identity". If national identity means identification with a nation-state, then Hawaiians lack this. If instead it means ethnic identity (see the heading "Alternative usage" in Nationality), then again, Hawaiians other than Native Hawaiians lack an ethnic identity specific to the state.

You might take a peek at the article Haole. The politics of identity in Hawaii are very complex. There is some group feeling among people born and raised in Hawaii that might amount to a regional identity, and particularly an identity in contrast to mainlanders. But the differences among these ethnic groups are considerable, and I'm not sure that the Hawaiian state or regional identity is really any stronger than that of other distinctive American states such as Maine or Texas. The articles Haole and Native Hawaiians list some citable sources that might lead you to other sources as well. Marco polo 02:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Read Hawaiian Independence Movement for an account of a group of indigenous people there who apparently retain a strong native identity. StuRat 05:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

History of the Mongols.

Hi everyone, guess what, I just woke up... behold my attitude about history at these early hours !

I've just updated an article about Orda Ichen, basically I've had so much problems with that article that I might need assistance with it. I couldn't copy/paste the text I'd written to my desktop cause every letter had spaces, so I was forced to post the text on wiki to safe it cause I was getting so tired at 3'o clock in the morning.

So anyone have some information about Orda Khan and the white horde, yeah I know that Batu took over but that article is about Orda so no need to discuss the entire story of the blue horde while it is infact meant about the white horde. So what I want to know what are the relations between Kublai & Orda, cause everyone know how badly Kublai messed up in Japan etc.

But anyway there is very little known about Orda Khan and the White Horde while there were 8 Khans of the white horde, so remember the white horde had 8 Khans at least so there is no point in saying they were swallowed (overstatement) or shortlived cause that is bullcrap to me and I am a taurus don't you ever forget !

I did my homework about Orda, what were his relations to the high council of the blue wolf ? Like there was a discussion or something about the forming of the white horde, all things so please don't begn issues about blue horde swallowing or white horde being shortlived cause I don't accept that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phalanxpursos (talk • contribs) 13:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Richard Cobden

I'm looking for some information on the later career of the British politician Richard Cobden, in particular his opposition to the Crimean War. Secret seven 13:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the article on Richard Cobden, especially the section titled "Peace campaigner"? Clarityfiend 16:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a useful article on this very subject by Professor Anthony Howe entitled Richard Cobden and the Crimean War, which you will find in in the June 2004 issue of History Today. As the Wikipedia page indicates, Cobden saw international peace as the corollary of his campaign for free trade. He did not share the popular distrust of Russia, and was deeply opposed to the interventionist foreign policy pursued by Lord Palmerston. However, his oppoosition to the Crimean War undermined the great coalition he had built up in the Anti-Corn Law League; it even earned him a snub in Anthony Trollope's 1855 novel The Warden. You will also find him and his political ally, John Bright, in a cartoon of April 1854 by the satirical magazine Punch, showing them dangling a 'little Turk' as the plaything of Tsar Nicholas I. Cobden went on to publish an anti-war paphlet, What Next-and Next?, in January 1856, but, given the mood of the times, it made little impact. However, in the long run, it was Cobden's views on international peace and non-interventionism that were to gain the upper hand in the Liberal Party, over the adventurism of Palmerston, especially following the emergence of William Ewart Gladstone, his friend and political ally. Clio the Muse 02:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty

When was the Statue of Liberty built? Was it built in France before it was brought to USA? Did they build it here? How long did it take to make? Please answer before Tuesday. Thanks. ~~Amy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.169.160.91 (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC). Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Statue of Liberty. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title.

Algebraist 17:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sack of Rome 1527

I would like some detailed information, please, on the Archduke Charles and the sack of Rome. Judithspencer 18:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As a start, you could read our articles Charles III, Duke of Bourbon and Sack of Rome (1527). If you have more specific questions, please do not hesitate to ask them.  --Lambiam^Talk 20:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

world evolution

in christianity we believe that god created the world in 7 days. do any other relegions have a beliefe of world evolution? 19:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Creation within belief systems might interest you. 213.201.189.242 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worth reminding you and everyone else that a seven day creation is not one of the basic tenets of Christianity. You wont find it in any of the Christian creeds. Only in the twentieth century in the United States has anyone attempted to make it some sort of fundamentalist shibboleth. alteripse 20:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Genesis is part of the Biblical canon.--Kirby♥time 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A follower of Ancient Greek Religion

Hello:

What is a follower of Ancient Greek Religion called?

Thanks,

-- Vikramkr 19:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be the case that no term for this exists. The issue here is that worship in ancient Greece was not a matter of a well-delineated religion, with an authority that worshippers could follow. Some quotes from our article Religion in ancient Greece may clarify this:

• It is perhaps misleading to speak of 'Greek religion.' In the first place, the Greeks did not have a term for "religion" in the sense of a dimension of existence distinct from all others, and grounded in the belief that the gods exercise authority over the fortunes of human beings and demand recognition as a condition for salvation.
• Indeed, the Greeks did not have a word for "belief" in either of the two senses familiar to us. Since the existence of the gods was a given, it would have made no sense to ask whether someone "believed" that the gods existed.
• First, there was no single truth about the gods. Although the different Greek peoples all recognized the 12 major gods ... in different locations these gods had such different histories with the local peoples as often to make them rather distinct gods or goddesses. ... Second, there was no single true way to live in dealing with the gods. ... Third, individuals had a great deal of autonomy in dealing with the gods. After some particularly striking experience, they could bestow a new title upon a god, or declare some particular site as sacred... No authority accrued to the individual who did such a thing, and no obligation fell upon anyone else--only a new opportunity or possibility was added to the already vast and ill-defined repertoire for nomizeining [i.e., paying respect to] the gods.
• In the context of the Greek traditions, there was no theology in the sense of a rationalized exposition of the normative understanding of the gods.

Worshipping or paying respect to the gods was in a sense a matter of "common sense" to the ancient Greeks; just like we put lightning rods on our houses to deal with the risks of lightning strikes, they might give Zeus his due to avoid being struck by his bolts or otherwise incur his wrath. So ancient Greek religion was not an "ism".  --Lambiam^Talk 21:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Olympianism is the closest I can get. This strikes me as the worship of the gods residing on Mount Olympus, encompassing most of the Ancient Greek gods. Martinp23 21:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A modern follower of the Greek gods might call himself a Hellenic pagan or a Hellenic polytheist. [1][2] --Charlene 22:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the words "pagan" or "polytheist" were in use at the time. My guess is that a "Hellene," by definition, would follow a given set of religious practices. In Against Apion, Josephus' defense of Judaism against Greek objections, the author refers to paganism as simply "the laws of other nations." It was, I'd say, the Jews who introduced the concept of "religion" as distinct from "nationality" in the Western World. The Jews stood out by partially assimilating into the Greco-Roman world while maintaining the faith of their Israelite homeland. This infuriated many Greeks and led to the invention of antisemitism. Even today, there is no distinct term for the indigineous religious practices of many Third World ethnic groups, such as the Yoruba and Luba -- it's just the traditional religion of the Yorubas or the Lubas or whoever, as the case may be. -- Mwalcoff 23:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If it would have made no sense in ancient Greece to ask whether someone believed that the gods existence, why did that come up as an issue in the Trial of Socrates? According to the Apology (Plato), Meletus claimed that Socrates was an atheist. (Although Meletus soon afterward admitted that Socrates believed in divine activities, thus contradicting his previous accusation, the Apology indicates that the Greeks did have a concept of what atheism was.) --Metropolitan90 08:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course you could say, in ancient Greek: I do not believe that X exist, where for X you can substitute Flying Pastry Monsters or gods. But the charge against Socrates, as put down in the deposition of the accusers, was not so much not believing in the existence of gods, but (according to Plato, in Socrates' words in the Apology) that of Socrates' θεοὺς οὓς ἡ πόλις νομίζει οὐ νομίζοντα, ἕτερα δὲ δαιμόνια καινά not "nomizei-ing" [paying respect to] the gods that the City [Athens] "nomizeis" [and thereby "officially" recognizes], but other new/strange divinities. Taken together with the charge of subverting Athens' youth, the essence of this charge was not so much atheism, but undermining the moral fabric of Athenian society by defiance of the state's customs.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Spherical rocks on Mars

NASA named this soil target on Mars after Laika during the Mars Exploration Rover mission

What would cause these relatively uniform size spherical rocks (mixed in with a few sharp rocks) on Mars ? I would guess they were blown around on the surface and thus eroded into spheres. Due to the thin atmosphere, this would require very high winds, however. The far less likely (but far more interesting) speculation, of course, is that they could be fossilized eggs. StuRat 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Or some Martians lost their marbles.  --Lambiam^Talk 20:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This NASA page [3] says that scientists aren't sure. They could be droplets of cooled lava, or they could be concretions around a seed. --Charlene 22:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I assume you mean "seed" as in nucleation site, not as in plant seeds. StuRat 05:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Our article on Martian spherules discusses various possible origins of these objects. Gandalf61 10:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that link (is "spherules" actually a word ?). StuRat 15:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

May 14

Jürgen Klinsmann and Tottenham

Which game was it when he scored 4 goals,I remember it was his last season for Spurs,but I cant seem to remember which game was it?? Thank you very much

According to some fansite, it was a league game against Wimbledon. Algebraist 09:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

To paraphrase some singer or other, it was the football club formerly known as Wimbledon. --Dweller 09:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It was Wimbledon 2-6 Tottenham on 2 May 1998. Incidentally, the rarely-seen Moussa Saib (ooh, there's no article for him yet), who cost £2.3m but made only 13 appearances, scored the sixth goal. Here's an in-depth match review, and here are some musings on Saib. Hassocks5489 21:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Archaic Occupations - Crocher

In the 1910 census, my grandmother's occupation was listed as "crocher." I do not find this term in the unabridged dictionary, nor did I find a match in on-line search.

I do know that she was an accomplished seamstress and later in her life did alterations for a high-grade retail store.

What does this term mean? Thanks.65.54.97.192 03:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)glebou

Since she was a seamstress, maybe it's an alternative or corruption of "crocheter"? --TotoBaggins 03:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a possibility if you are reading this from an old document with uncertain legibility, is the word 'crofter'. The date is a little late for this unless she is from say, Scotland, but see the article, Croft.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 23:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Glorious Revolution

The traditional view is that the English revolution of 1688 was bloodless. Is this view correct? 84.201.163.98 05:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The very first paragraph of the Glorious Revolution article has your answer. Dismas|^(talk) 06:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an area of British history that still manages to be draped in a large measure of intellectual confusion. Indeed, the use of the word 'bloodless' to describe the events of 1688, and more important, their political aftermath, has rightly been described as the last vestige of 'Whig smuggery'. Much depends, moreover, just where one happened to be in the British Isles to see just how 'bloodless' or 'bloody' the whole affair really was. In England it succeeded with ease. In Scotland it also succeeded, but was quickly followed by the beginnings of an armed counter-revolution, which was to reach long into the future. In Ireland it hardly succeeded at all, and the government of James II remained in place, until dislodged by the landing of William III.

In England the only serious encounter was the Battle of Reading, a tiny affair that hardly justifies this inflated title. But soon after this a rumour started to spread that James' disbanded Irish soldiers were intent on the massacre of Protestants. This story, to be known as the Irish Fright, spread rapidly across the country, leading to widspread rioting. In Scotland, most of the nobility, and all of the Lowlands, embraced the Revolution, and only Edinburgh Castle held out for King James, until the governor, the Duke of Gordon, capitulated in the summer of 1689. However, by this time John Graham of Claverhouse had raised the Highlands on behalf of the ancien regime, going on to win a stunning victory at the Battle of Killiecrankie. His death at this encounter, and the subsequent defeat of the Highland army at the Battle of Dunkeld robbed the rising of much of its momentum, though it tends to be forgotten that large parts of the Highlands remained in rebellion until the Massacre of Glencoe in February 1692. In Ireland the victory of the Revolution was even more costly, with major engagements at the Boyne in 1690, and Aughrim in 1691, one of the bloodiest battles ever fought in the British Isles. Resistence on the island was effectively crushed by the subsequent Penal Laws, and the breach of the Treaty of Limerick, which carried the consequences of the Revolution deep into the future. The Bloodless Revolution? No, not by any measure. Clio the Muse 08:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Gertrude Bell

I was astonished to discover in browsing through your encyclopedia that an Englishwoman, Gertrude Bell, was in part responsible for the creation of the modern state of Iraq. The page on her has a little information on this. Are there any more details? Secret seven 07:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Gertrude Bell is a particular heroine of mine: the first woman down from Oxford with a First in Modern History; an independent scholar, an archaeologist, and expert in several Middle Eastern languages, a writer, a political specialist, a traveller; a friend of sheiks and kings-the female Lawrence of Arabia! In 1900 she dressed herself as a Bedouin man, riding alone into the dangerous Hauran Plain, still under the control of the Ottomans, in search of the Druze, a militant Muslim sect, which had been fighting the Turks for two hundred years. She made contact with Yahya Beg, king of the Druze, and conversed with him in his own language. Some weeks after he was to ask another visitor to his domain 'Have you seen a queen travelling?'

Bell's knowledge of the Arab peoples was later to be used by the British authorities after the outbeak of the First World War. When the British Army captured Baghdad in March 1917, she took up a position in the city as Oriental Secretary. There she remained in Iraq, or Mesopotamia, as it was known at the time, until after the conclusion of the war. Like her friend, Lawrence of Arabia, she became keen advocate of an independent Arab state. In 1919 she complied a report on the subject, in which she wrote;

An Arab State in Mesopotamia...within a short period of years is a possibility, and...the recognition or creation of a logical scheme on those lines, in supercession of those on which we are now working on Mesopotamia, would be practical and popular.

Her advice was effectively ignored, and the tribes of the Euphrates, angered that one form of imperialism gave every appearance of being replaced by another, rose in revolt, an event that cost the lives of 10,000 Arabs and several hundred Britons. Bell wrote:

We have made an immense failure here. The system must have been far more at fault than anyone suspected...I suppose we have underestimated the fact that this country is really an inchoate mass of tribes which can't as yet be reduced to any system. The Turks didn't govern and we have tried to govern...and failed.

For Bell the one way out was to give the people a distinct political identity, which she believed could be focused in a monarchy, in the particular person of Faisal bin Hussein, recently deposed by the French as King of Syria. At the Cairo Conference of 1921, she and T. E. Lawrence worked assiduously for the creation of Iraq and Transjordan, and Bell persuaded Winston Churchill, as Colonial Secretary, to endorse Fisal as King of Iraq. Bell was also in favour of Sunni dominance in the new nation: "Otherwise", as she put it, "you will have a... theocratic state, which is the very devil." With her help and guidance Fisal came to his new kingdom, and was crowned king in August 1921. For Arab and Briton alike Bell was the uncrowned 'Queen of the Sands.' With the King's approval she went on to found Iraq's great Archaeological Museum, whose unparalleled collection was so sadly looted in 2003. This leads me on to some final words from 'Queen Gertrude', which may serve to sum up the present position of the Western powers in the region;

If Mesopotamia goes, Persia [Iran] goes inevitably...And the place which we leave empty will be occupied by seven devils a good deal worse than any which existed before we came.

I've always believed that an understanding of history should be an essential basis for the formation of policy. But historians will always be cast in the role of Cassandra. Even so, Gertrude Bell's book, The Desert and the Sown, is still worth reading, all these years later. Clio the Muse 10:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Also see Druze, for a description of their beliefs. StuRat 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What a delightful typo from Clio: snow in the desert. The book's title is The Desert and the Sown, referring to the difference in many Arab lands between the cultivated lands of the fellaheen and the wild lands of the bedouin. 217.155.195.19 17:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Ha! Ha! Thank you for that, 217! I have amended accordingly, but will remember always The Desert and the Snow. Who knows? Perhaps it may even become a title yet to be born! Clio the Muse 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Obscure PBS Musical Piece

Some years ago there was a show on PBS which depicted famous works of classical music mixed with weirdly impressionistic and surreal settings. For instance, one of the scenes showed a cornfield, which on closer inspection turned out to be a large number of expressionless men, who danced up and down. Another scene showed a dance at a ball.

Does anyone know the name of this work, or the pieces that were played to accompany it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MelancholyDanish (talk • contribs) 08:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Hi MelancholyDanish, it looks like no one has a direct answer to your question yet. In the meantime, you may want to try:

• contact the PBS station for your area and send an e-mail or phone call to the programming director;
• PBS stations accept financial contributions from listeners and viewers, phone in a pledge and request the information from the volunteer who accepts your contribution, they will probably be happy to help you, and thankful for your contribution;
• Post your question to Talk:Public Broadcasting Service (controversial, some would consider this inappropriate use of an article talk page YMMV);
• Post your question somewhere else at Curlie or somewhere else at Curlie;

Note: you may have better results if you ask for the name of the show or series instead of the name of a specific work included in the show. Also, if you find the answer, feel free to come back here and post it so others will benefit from your findings. Regards.

dr.ef.tymac 15:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings

I remember being told at school that Tolkein did not like the Welsh, and that in building his mythology of England he deliberately cast the Dwarves ("who thought of nothing but themselves") like the South Welsh mining community who are generally short in stature. I cannot find this documented and the maps might indicate otherwise. Was it just a fanciful English teacher or is there any truth in it? --BozMo talk 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard such a claim before, and the evidence given is highly tenuous: I see nothing to link the Welsh to dwarves (who are more obviously connected to the dwarves of various northern european mythologies), nor for that matter is Tolkien particularly opposed to dwarves in any case. What I can add is that Tolkien loved the Welsh language, using it as a basis for one of his own. It's possible his talk English and Welsh would help here, but I don't have a copy to hand. Algebraist 11:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Dwarf#Possible origins, it has been suggested that the dwarf-myths of northern Europe relate to the northern migration of tin-miners in the bronze age, which is at least in the same ballpark as your teacher's suggestion. Algebraist 12:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Our article on cellar door quotes him as saying:

"Most English-speaking people...will admit that cellar door is 'beautiful', especially if dissociated from its sense (and from its spelling). More beautiful than, say, sky, and far more beautiful than beautiful. Well then, in Welsh for me cellar doors are extraordinarily frequent, and moving to the higher dimension, the words in which there is pleasure in the contemplation of the association of form and sense are abundant."

, which doesn't sound like dislike to me. --TotoBaggins 01:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Dwarves have various points of analogy with Jews. Their creation story resembles that of Abraham and Isaac, and their language resembles Semitic at least as closely as Sindarin resembles Welsh. —Tamfang 07:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Terry Pratchett makes his dwarves Welsh mostly from the mining context.On the other hand he appears to be very fond of them.hotclaws 08:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidentally Tolkien thought quite well of the Welsh: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tolkien#.22English_and_Welsh.22_.281955.29 Vranak

XM Capital Management

A friend and I have studied investing for quite some time, and now we feel as though it would be a good idea to start a partnership or hedge fund, where we aquire clients & invest their money--similar to how Buffett started his partnership. We have beaten the S&P for 3 years, and realistically feel we can produce returns in excess of 35% annually. What steps do we need to take to start our own fund?? And also are we unable to get non-accredited investors to invest with us? Regulation D confuses me on this issue. XM 12:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Regulations for Investment Funds of any sort vary by country, by state, by province. Where you are is key to any response we might provide, but generally, you need legal advice, which you won't get here, and a lot of your own money. Bielle 21:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Eurovision Politics

Okay, while Eurovision might be more of an Entertainment type thing, this is really about the politics, which humanities people will probably know more about...

Why the hell did Malta give the UK 12 points this year? I can kind of understand Malta having a tendency to award points to the UK over other countries, but the song was really awful and they awarded the maximum 12 points! And since this was by televoting (I think all countries do it that way now?), the people of Malta must have chosen to vote for the weirdly imperialistic, innuendo laden, Fly the Flag. I could almost understand if it was by jury, but this was the population phoning in! Also, why does Malta (and Ireland too) give us points in such a preferential manner? It's not like we reciprocate, at least not with Malta. Do they think we'll retaliate if they don't? O_o

So, basically hoping someone has some insight. Thanks! Skittle 15:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the numbers to confirm this, but I suspect the British expat community mentioned at demographics of Malta may have something to do with it. Algebraist 16:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

While Ireland boasts more than a hundred thousand UK nationals [4]. That's quite a block vote. Algebraist 16:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Malta is after all a former British colony, and it only ceded in 1964; that's within living memory of quite a few people. And in fact, the UK does often give Malta very high votes: 10 points in 2005, 12 in 2002, 6 in 1999, 12 in 1998, and before this, voting was done by jury, with Malta still regularly receiving around 6-8 points from UK and vice-versa. Of course, it doesn't always work out this way; both sides awarded each other nul points in 2003. This pact is sometimes called the "George Cross pact", after the George Cross medal awarded to the island during WWII. Ireland doesn't receive quite the same level of block voting (7 in 2004, 5 in 2001 etc), but there is still some. Laïka 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well Ireland gave the UK a good few points, They didn't give any to us though, :(, Its all got to do with immigrant populations, the large Latvian and Lithuanian population of Ireland, meant that although they got very few points of other countries they got plenty of votes from Ireland. Serbia with large minorities in many states was always going to have an advantage. there are a few countries, that once they have a half decent song they are going to win because of minorities in other countries. Ken 20:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks. Immigrant populations. That's all very interesting. But, given Malta doesn't always give us 12 points, and in fact doesn't always give us points at all, why did they give us 12 points this year? It can't have been the song, unless 'Fly the flag' means something else to the Maltese. Skittle 23:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Migrant populations are the key elements to many western European votes. France always gives maximum points to Armenia, Turkey always gets a lot of votes from The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany and Austria, etcetera. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This article from the BBC may explain why Malta cast its votes in favor of the UK - apparently it was some sort of protest against what the Maltese contingent deemed unethical voting practices by other naitons. Carom 00:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that makes a lot more sense. Thanks! I was beginning to worry about the Maltese.... Skittle 16:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

animal rennet in chocolate bars and Kashrut

I was going to add to the article Mars bar that the recent addition of animal rennet to Mars bars made in the UK[5], as well as making them not suitable for vegetarians, also makes them non-kosher. However after a bit of research I've discovered that things with only a small amounts of rennet or similar products are sometimes considered kosher if the rennet is not a crucial part in the manufacturing of the food. What is the rule on this? Are they now non-kosher? Were Mars bars even kosher to start with, before the addition of animal rennet? --Krsont 15:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this story. The London Beth Din are due to make an announcement on the subject imminently. I'll post here if/when I have anything. --Dweller 15:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to your last question, yes, Mars bars (and many other affected products) have been approved by the London Beth Din for some years. --Dweller 15:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The KLBD site ([6]) is carrying this announcement:

"ALERT - MARS PRODUCTS Articles have recently appeared in the national press concerning the use of whey derived from animal rennet in Masterfoods confectionery. We have been aware for many years that whey can be a by product of cheese-making and that, even today, animal rennet can be used in cheese manufacture. Since whey derived from this source contains only trace amounts of rennet, it is permitted according to halacha. There is therefore no problem with any of the Masterfoods products that are currently on the London Beth Din approved list."

Hope that clears things up. --Dweller 15:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks. --Krsont 15:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that this is really 'cleared up'. There isn't one world body approving food items for compliance with kashrut; in fact, there are foods labelled kosher by many certifying bodies that are avoided by observant Jews of certain denominations. When my Orthodox friend came to visit, she had a list of about a half dozen kosher symbols her sect recognised; everything else wasn't allowed. Anchoress 15:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hard and fast rules don't easily work when it comes to Jews and Judaism, but basically, anyone who keeps the rules of kashrut but is content to consume non supervised milk will happily go with the KLBD supervision. The UK doesn't have the same proliferation of supervisory bodies as in other countries (although there's still several such authorities). --Dweller 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to my post above, there's a fuller explanation of the Beth Din's ruling available in pdf format here --Dweller 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Middle ages - Middle class?

There's plenty of information about the really rich people during the middle ages , and about the really poor, but was there a medieval middle-class? Were there people who had access to enough good-quality food that they never went hungry, or lived in reasonably well built houses (brick and stone maybe), and perhaps even had some access to education? Monks may have come close, but even they were either quite poor or quite rich (I enjoy the story of the monks who protested to a King James (can't remember which) because they had their meals cut from 10 courses to 7!). Other than that, I can't think of any group who would have counted until the Renaissance, when merchants and guild-members would probably have had access to these resources. Laïka 19:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to generalise, because conditions around the world varied so much. I assume you're referring to Europe. One of the interesting elements of European history is the rise of the middle classes and the urban population too. In many countries, this was fomented by the dearth of manpower following the Black Death. In English history, for example, commoners' voices are increasingly heard, even if only as a mob and the London mob plays an important part in several key incidents. I guess if you want a detailed answer, specify a country. Personally, I wouldn't consider the clergy to be a "middle class", rather a class unto themselves, but others may disagree. Of course, the highest clergy were effectively (and sometimes officially) noble. --Dweller 21:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The techonlogical innovations that made a middle class possible weren't existant back then. For example, crops did not grow as plentiful and were harded to harvest, so a large amount of labor went into farming. The making of metal goods, tailoring, etc. usually needed practice and were also time-consuming/labor-intensive/etc. Most of the money and land was owned by lords, who essentially hosed the serfs out of their fair pay because the serfs lived on the lord's land (if you live in my house, you'll live by my rules dammit) and had to accept whatever pay was given them, which was presumably beans (due to the lord's greed). And there were was no BBB or labor unions, so the serfs couldn't negotiate (or arbitrate) their rights. - 2-16 14:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In an agricultural society most wealth comes from ownership of land, and most land was owned by nobles in the middle ages. There was a small amount of wealth to be made from trading and skilled labor, but holding onto that wealth wasn't so easy, as all the laws favored the nobles. Many people lost their possessions as part of the Spanish Inquisition, for example. As noted above, things started to change a bit as a result of the Black Plague. StuRat 22:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The patterns of wealth and poverty in the Middle-Ages were actually quite complex, Laika, in some ways just as complex as they are today. Most people did indeed earn their living on the land, but there was also a large and prosperous urban 'middle-class' made up all all sorts of people, from merchants to guildsmen. In England in the late Medieval period this 'third estate of the realm' had even attained a voice in Parliament. Dweller is quite right about the effects of the Black Death: it introduced a far higher degree of labour mobility, as families were prepared to move if wage rates were not attractive enough. If one examines in detail the social composition of the rebel army in the so-called Peasants Revolt of 1381, moreover, it can be seen that large numbers of those involved were anything but the 'rustici' described by hostile chroniclers. Many of the rebels were indeed ploughmen, labourers and the like, but still more were artisans, craftsmen and small-traders. Most surprising of all, quite a number were wealthy Londoners, including one Paul Salisbury. You will get an excellent insight into the patters of medieval life from a reading of The Canterbury Tales by Geoffery Chaucer. Incidentally, on a point of information, and just to ensure that there is no confusion in the matter, it is quite wrong to suggest that all land in the Middle-Ages was 'only owned by the nobles', as you will discover if you read the page on the Yeomen. I would also suggest looking in to the The Paston Letters, which demonstrates that social-mobility is not entirely a modern concept. Clio the Muse 00:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

When I was in primary school, I seem to remember do a whole project on the rise of the middle classes in Victorian England. It was strongly implied, and possibly said, that the very concept of 'middle class' was invented by the Victorians, and that they had not existed before Victorian times. Of course, while my teacher did actually know an enormous amount about history, I expect a certain amount of exaggeration, simplification and dressing up happened in the telling. Also, that the meaning of 'middle class' being used is very important. Just a thought, trying to tease extra information out of others... Skittle 00:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Middle class" as a concept is really just a matter of classification. It's quite possible that what we now call the middle class existed long before it was given a name. One earlier name was the bourgeoisie (boozh-wa-zee), but that also sometimes included the rich. StuRat 05:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There were thriving "middle class"es of free artisans etc in many ancient societies, notably Greek and Roman. The Romans, in particular, knew the power of the "plebs" - the games were a useful device for keeping the urban masses happy. --Dweller 09:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Cromwell statue

When I was in London recently I saw a statue of Oliver Cromwell outside the Houses of Parliament. I always thought he was one of the great baddies of English history. Who put it there and why? Martinben 20:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

While waiting for a fantastic answer by far more resourceful editors than myself, you can read some information under Oliver_Cromwell#Posthumous_reputation which addresses the statue as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This page says "It is by Hamo Thornycroft, and was presented to the Palace by Lord Rosebery in 1899." Further down that page the author indicates that "Cromwell was honoured for his democratic principles and in fact, this period is the only experience England has ever had of a republican government - hence his manifestation in the form of a statue outside Parliament today." --LarryMac | Talk 20:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we expect a Guy Fawkes statue soon ? :-) StuRat 22:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For an indication of current opinion on Cromwell, he finished 10th in the BBC's poll of the 100 Greatest Britons. Miremare 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As the poll result shows, in England Cromwell is often remembered as a hero (when he is remembered). If you want him as a baddie, you should turn to Ireland, where he was long hated (and I think still is) for his conquest thereof. I think Irish influence is the reason Cromwell is often badly thought of in the US, but that's very much original research. StuRat: while I would applaud a statue of old Guido, not all would share my opinion. A Cromwell statue, however, is not at all controversial in England (though approximately half of Northern Ireland are presumably somewhat opposed to it, and I've no idea about Wales and Scotland). Algebraist 23:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Every age has a tendency to refashion the past in its own image, and the story of Cromwell's statue at Westminster provides no better illustration of this general principle. In fact, this statue, if 'read' in its own particular historical context, tells us far more about the shifts and changes in Victorian opinion than it does about the infamous Lord Protector.

The saga begins soon after the old Palace of Westminster burned down in 1834. To enhance the new gothic structure designed by Sir Charles Barry and Augustus Welby Pugin, the recently established Fine Arts Commission, arranged for a series of paintings, statues and stained glass, all intended to celebrate the nation's history. This, of course, included depictions of the various monarchs. Only Oliver Cromwell was omitted, passed over in silence as a regicide and a tyrant, a view that had been in place ever since the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660. But the decision of the hapless Commmissioners was greeted by protests from across the country. Radicals and Nonconformists of all sorts demanded that he should have his rightful place in the national panorama. The reason for this is not too hard to detect. England was undergoing some rapid social and political changes; the old aristocratic dominance, the dominance of the Cavaliers, if you like, was under challenge by the 'Roundheads' on a whole variety of fronts. The Reform Act of 1832 had extended the basis of the franchise to large sections of the new middle-classes. The landed interest was under sustained challenge from the Anti-Corn Law League. Right at the heart of this desire for change were to be found the religious Nonconformists, once confined to the political margins, now moving steadily towards the centre. For all of these people Cromwell was a symbol. On this occasion the agitation failed; but it would not go away. Admiration for Cromwell grew still further when Thomas Carlyle, the historian, published Cromwell's Letters and Speeches in 1845. No longer perceived as the tyrant who dismissed more Parliaments than any other man in history, Cromwell re-emerged as an earnest middle-class Victorian moralist, an advocate of the twin ideals of empire and religious toleration.

In the years that followed he appeared in provincial town halls and Nonconformist chapels up and down England, in statue, bust or in stained glass, wherever the radical tradition was strongest. Another attempt to install him at Westminster was made in 1871, supported by over 100 MPs, but once again was defeated as Whigs and Tories fought out the old battles of the English Civil War. Thereafter the issue died away somewhat, especially after William Ewart Gladstone took over the leadership of the Liberal Party. For the Nonconformists and the radicals the 'Grand Old Man' became something of a living embodiment of Cromwell, full of the same moral earnestness and sense of purpose. What need of statues when one had the real thing? The project revived for the oddest of reasons: in 1894 the 'Roundhead' Gladstone was suceeded both as leader of the Liberal Party and as Prime Minister, by the 'Cavalier' Lord Rosebery. Rich, elegant, urbane, Rosebery, a member of the Jockey Club, is said to have had two ambitions: to become Prime Minister and to win the Derby. What he needed to do immediately was to uphold the uncertain coalition of interests that made up the Liberal Party, which almost came apart in the latter stages of Gladstone's ministry over the question of Irish Home Rule. To secure his position he needed the support of the Nonconformists; and to secure the Nonconformists he proposed to give them Cromwell. But he was surprised from an unexpected direction, as yet another old battle was refought, the bitterest of them all.

Rosebery mangaged to push the issue of the statue through Cabinet; but when the Commons was asked to fund the project in June 1895 John Redmond, the leader of the block of Irish Nationalist MPs, on whose votes the ministry also depended, rose in protest, reminding the House of the horrors of the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. The motion had to be withdrawn, a move which was greeted, as one Cabinet member noted, "with anger and disgust from English Liberals, with thick-witted jibes from Unionists...and with wild cries of aboriginal joy from our Irish friends." In the end Rosebery decided to pay for it out of his own pocket, but the erection was resisted all along the way, by an odd combination of Tory and Irish opinion. it was only finally unveiled on 14 November 1899 at 7.30 in the morning, an unusually early hour, intended to avoid any adverse demonstration. Cromwell had won his last battle. Clio the Muse 23:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"... and with wild cries of aboriginal joy from our Irish friends" - what a delicious phrase! So this unnamed Cabinet member acknowledged that the Irish had indeed been the owners of Ireland since antiquity, and the English never had any business there, despite Pope Adrian IV's permission. Or maybe they used the "terra nullius" excuse that was the spurious basis, in respect of the indigenous population, of the British colonisation of Australia. JackofOz 00:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Cabinet member in question, Jack, was John Morley. Clio the Muse 01:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Clio. JackofOz 02:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell appears on both the BBC's 100 Greatest Britons poll. Neutrality^talk 02:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Clio the Muse for that amazingly detailed answer to my question. I have another bellow, and would be grateful for your help. Martinben 11:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

fred the monkey website

Why the hell would u delete the site????????????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.70.1.89 (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Why would "who" delete the site? Bielle 21:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignore my question. The site is there. I just accessed it through "CafePress". Bielle 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I assumed the anon was irritated by an article deletion about said website. --Dweller 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted on March 21, 2007 through the regular process: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred the Monkey, as was an earlier version on November 20, 2006: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred the Monkey.com.  --Lambiam^Talk 00:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jewish refugees

What were the options for jewish people trying to leave Germany before WWII? Captainhardy 20:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How soon before WWII? --Dweller 21:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the timing, but I understand that, at one point, Jews were allowed to leave so long as they could get visas allowing them to travel thru or to another country. The problem was that those were granted by other countries on a quota basis, so there weren't anything near the millions needed to evacuate the entire Jewish population. Exceptions were made for particularly notable, talented, or wealthy Jews, who found it easier to travel. Einstein, for example, went to the US. One odd situation is that quite a few Jews were able to travel safely to Japan, due to a Japanese ambassador who was aware of the threat and granted many travel visas. Thus, even though Japan was a genocidal aggressor in WW2, it actually served to save many Jews. StuRat 22:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, there were a few such cases. One of the most notable being Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg, who saved tens of thousands of Hungarian Jews by providing them with Swedish passports. Lewis 02:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a small but highly interesting dimension to this whole story that deserves to be far better known, the details of which are given in Frank Shapiro's book Haven in Africa, published by the Gefen Publishing House in 2002.

Before the outbreak of the Second World war, and indeed right up to Octber 1941, when all Jewish migration from German occupied Europe was halted, the real tension was between the Nazi desire to rid themselves of their Jewish population and the unwillingness of the international community to rise to the humanitarian challenge this presented. The problem was made considerably worse from the time of the Kristallnacht onwards, when a new radicalism entered German policy. Even so, most countries simply tightened existing laws against immigration, which included the British Aliens Act of 1905, and the Immigration Act of 1924 in the United States. Still others enacted new laws. Concessions could be made, and were made, in individual cases, but not at a level anywhere near adequate. The Evian Conference of July 1938, intended to resolve the problem, got absolutely nowhere. Palestine, the only possible destination for large-scale Jewish migration, was effectively closed off by the 1939 White Paper on Palestine. This was a time when Britain was pursuing a double policy of Appeasement: towards the Germans in Europe, and towards the Arabs in the Middle-East. However, one country did remain open to large-scale Jewish migration; and it was Malcolm MacDonald, the British Colonial Secretary, and architect of the White Paper, who suggested it as a possible refuge within the confines of the British Empire. This country was Zambia in southern Africa, then known as Northern Rhodesia.

Although both South Africa and Southern Rhodesia-now Zimbabwe-introduced their own restrictions on Jewish immigration in 1937, in Northern Rhodesia the ruling Legislative Council voted in March 1939 to continue with an 'open door' policy, virtually the only place in the world where such a liberal arrangement was in place. No Jewish refugee was ever turned away, and in the end approximately a hundred families were able to make a home there, some two-hundred and fifty people in all. The reason the number was so tiny was because the policy was never officially publicised. Those who came did so because they were told by relatives already living in southern Africa. But the vast majority never found out that a visa could be obtained for Northern Rhodesia simply by asking for one. Clio the Muse 02:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the window for Jewish immigration from Germany to Northern Rhodesia was open fairly briefly, or, it would seem, even by word of mouth more than a few hundred families would have found out about it. I believe one argument the Nazis made was that "since Jews destroy any country they enter, we should ship as many as possible to our enemies". Of course, once many of the Jewish scientists they let move away worked to develop nuclear weapons and otherwise worked for the defeat of Nazi Germany, they might have had second thoughts about this policy. StuRat 04:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A much more significant "open" place was refugees was found in Shanghai. See also Category:Jewish emigration from Nazi Germany.--Pharos 21:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Objections to a missile defence system

I have noted that Russia isn't at ease with the idea of USA having a system of defence against incoming missiles. My question is, what are the reasons to object to someone defending themselves? If it was about launching attacks I'd understand it, of course. My only speculation is that such a defence system would ruin the mutually assured destruction, i.e., USA could attack Russia without suffering from the counterattack. Is that the reason? —Bromskloss 21:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It could be related to issues surrounding NATO expansion, a bloc of military allies harking back to the days of the Cold War. Whilst the Soviet bloc (the Warsaw Pact) has since all but disintegrated, NATO is going strong and a number of ex-Soviet states are either looking or being approached to join. The development of the missile defence proposed by the USA may well be linked to and involve NATO members. Wherever countries take bilateral actions in a multilateral political climate, there are bound to be those who are less than enthusiastic: in this case Russia which stands to be excluded.Coldmachine 21:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that part of Russia's position can indeed be explained from its declining power in eastern Europe. The Warsaw Pact has disintegrated, many countries have joined the EU and NATO, pro-Moscow governments have been overthrown in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine and have been fiercely protested in Belarus, Estonia has removed the Bronze Soldier, etcetera. This also explains Russia's gas wars with Ukraine, Georgia and Bulgaria. I think Putin fears that with the defense shield in place, those countries will have even less reason to listen. He fears that their orientation towards Moscow will be replaced by an orientation towards Washington. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the ironies of war is that defensive measures sometimes bring about war and offensive weapons sometimes bring about peace. For example, nuclear weapons prevented World War 3 between the Warsaw Pact and NATO. However, if the Russians had a way to defend against nuclear weapons, they would have been able to attack Western Europe. StuRat 22:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A pro-Moscow governments has been overthrown in Kyrgyzstan? Really? As for Ukraine, do you know who Viktor Yanukovych is and who actually appoints the government in that country? What "gas wars with Bulgaria" do you speak about? Could you provide a reference to the news? --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And if the US had had/had a way to defend against nukes, they could have/will be able to nuke Russia without reprisal. Perhaps more importantly, they could have/could use the implicit threat of the possibility to do whatever the hell they liked. Algebraist 23:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the US might have run amok, doing nasty things like liberating Eastern Europe from Soviet control. StuRat 02:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And I thought the countries liberated themself in the course of velvet revolutions, while Gorbachev's Russia basically stood aside and applauded, never attempting to interfere. Can't see what the US did to "liberate" them that Russia didn't. Now we have old Europe and new Europe who while getting generous cash handouts from EU tax-payers, takes its commands from America. So far so good, both for US and for Russia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I was saying they might have been liberated in the 1950s, if the US had overwhelming military superiority then. StuRat 02:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that part of the reason is that it would upset the balance that obtained through the various treaties to limit nuclear arsenals. If the US and (old) Soviet Union had reached a point of roughly balanced missle forces and the US were then to develop a workable missle defense the balance would be lost. If the US could shoot down some significant percentage of incoming missles it would in effect have an edge without having to build more missles. Another effect would be to force the Soviets to spend vast amounts of money to develop its own missle defense system. I seem to recall that at one time there was talk of offering the technology to the Soviets (but not, of course the hardware), which would somewhat reduce the cost but would still require them to spend billions. Talk of the need for such a system was revived after the North Korean launch of a missle that was theorized to have the ability to carry a nuclear warhead and a range sufficient to reach the US West coast.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 23:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is also the political aspect of deterrence: if the US is no longer afraid of Russian warheads, will it push Russian on points in a way harder than before? Nobody really knows — the exact way in which nuclear weapons themselves translate into political clout is variable, and so any system like this would be variable as well. Better in their eyes to have stability in these sorts of affairs. --24.147.86.187 00:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Russia, and the USSR before it, fear the American development of a "first strike" capability. That would mean being able to nuke Russia without getting nuked back. The Cold War nuclear stalemate was based on mutually assured destruction. -- Mwalcoff 01:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, that's all just a bit silly, as there is no way any defensive shield could stop the thousands of nuclear weapons Russia could launch. They might, however, have a chance at stopping one or two nukes from North Korea, Pakistan, or Iran. StuRat 02:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

... which countries simply do not have missiles capable of reaching Europe, and would not in any foreseable future. If US were really interested in defending themselves from Iran, they should have put their anti-missile defense much closer to its border, for instance, in Iraq. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Iran actually touches Turkey, which is partially in Europe, so they shouldn't have much trouble reaching a European nation. North Korea is working on missiles which can cross the Pacific Ocean; just point them the other way and they should be able to reach Europe. StuRat 02:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Another reason is that the US is proposing an interceptor site based in Eastern Europe. The plan, as far as I know, is for interceptors in Poland and a radar post in the Czech Republic ([7], [8]), which could reasonably be seen by Russia as additional American militarization in their sphere of influence, and as a possible counter to their missile systems. You have to admit, the US wouldn't be very happy if, say Russia decided to build a missile site near their borders. --ByeByeBaby

That's the diff between a missile site and an antimissile missile site. StuRat 05:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Spanish legion

why did the Spanish legionnares call themselves the bridegrooms of death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.201.163.98 (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

You should read the pages on the Spanish Legion and, in particular, that on José Millán Astray, the founder of the Tercio de Extranjeros. The ethos of the new formation was taken from the example supplied by Millán Astray, a flamboyant, violent and somewhat extreme individual, who popularised the slogans Viva la Muerte! (Long live death) and A mi, la Legión (To me, the Legion). As a result the Legionnaires referred to themselves as the Novios de la Muerte (The Bridegrooms of Death). They were to prove their courage-and their brutality-during the Spanish Civil War, when they fought on the Nationalist side under the command of Juan Yagüe. The Spanish philosopher Miguel de Unamuno once had the courage to challenge Millán Astray and his thuggish supporters at a meeting in Salamanca University, attended by Francisco Franco and his wife Donna Carmen, shortly after the outbreak of the Revolt of 1936. Although Unamuno supported the rising, the shouts of Viva la Muerte! in the confines of the ancient university were simply too much-"You might as well say death to life", he responded. He had to be taken from the hall under the protection of Donna Carmen, and was held under house arrest until his death in December 1936. Clio the Muse 00:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think I would have a better chance of getting into college if I pretended to convert to Islam?

That way if I got rejected I could threaten to sue for discrimination because I am a Muslim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.149.191.209 (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

I seriously doubt that any colleges use participants' religions as an criteria for minority enrollment. Also, if your application was rejected, it is very unlikely that a judge would rule in your favor if you sued. Testimony for the college would most likely have no trouble showing the specific reasons your application was rejected, and there is practically no chance that "religion" would be enumerated there. As I said, I have never heard of any college, not even one operated by another religion such as the Catholic Church, that would reject a student because the applicant's religion was Islam. If you are SURE your application will be rejected, why do you bother applying?___J.delanoy 22:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen to less Rush Limbaugh. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume you were joking when you wrote this question. The joke failed badly. If it wasn't a joke, your strategy is the worst example I've ever seen of preparedness to litigate in bad faith. Please don't ever again ask us to give you advice - even in jest - on how to manipulate the system in an unethical and unconscionable way. JackofOz 00:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Every rule offers unethic escapes. Less rules, less lawyers! A lack of rules is not better : more rules, more ways to be heard.

People trying their chances are the best testers for badly constructed rules - if and only if rulers (Congress, Assemblée, Parliament) take time to look at them and improve them. So thank you 64.149 (or is it 191.209 ?), we'll look at that. -- DLL ^{.. T} 16:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, that should be 'fewer rules, fewer lawyers'. 86.133.247.13 09:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What do the British call people who come from the United States?

As you probably noticed from my question title, people who live in the United States commonly refer to people who live in Great Britain as "British", or "English". Do people in Britain call us "Americans"? Or is there another term that is used? Thanks.___J.delanoy 22:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Yanks", when I was a lad... --Wetman 22:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The term I hear most on BBC is "fat bastards" ;) Aecis^Brievenbus 22:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The serious answer is yes, they call us "Americans." -- Mwalcoff 23:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We tend to use "Americans", "Yanks", or I have heard among a very small minority of determined pedants, "United Statian". The other side of that pedantry is occasionally calling Canadians "American" for the fun of the reaction, as they are, after all, from North America. --Mnemeson 23:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

United Statian makes as much sense as UKoGBaNIan. Corvus cornix 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost always "Americans", sometimes "Yanks", less commonly "Yankees". My grandfather used to call them "bloody colonials" in an affectionate kind of way, but I think that was just him. ;) Miremare 23:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What about Merkin? Is that used often? Aecis^Brievenbus 23:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Not often, at least in my experience. I use Damnyankee sometimes, but that's pretty rare too. Algebraist 23:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you call an American with an obvious Southern accent a Yank too? Better watch out...that's pretty much like asking a Scot whether he believes in Leprechauns. Lewis 01:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To an Iranian, "yanks" includes even Southerners, and they might even toss in Canucks for good measure. StuRat 02:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No one should even put true Yankees on that level. - AMP'd 01:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Or even pretend Yankees!

Come to think of it, that would be even more insulting to an Irish person! But you get my point. :-) Lewis 02:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There's the other one that always understandably riles the Scots (and probably the Welsh and the Irish, too) - referring to them as "English". Just on the "United Statian" thing, I would never call that pedantry. It's more like inverse pedantry. It's a very recent neologism that imo will never catch on; nor should it. Citizens of the USA have been correctly referred to as "Americans" since 1776, and despite everything I've read at Use of the word American and elsewhere, I can't see that ever changing. JackofOz 02:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if that happens elsewhere. Does someone from Swaziland complain when someone from South Africa calls themself a South African "Hey, I'm from southern Africa, too !". StuRat 02:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For a European example, see Macedonia naming dispute. -- Mwalcoff 23:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the obvious difference is that between "South African" and "southern African". People from South Africa are both, but people from Swaziland are only the latter. JackofOz 02:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You could do the same thing and use "North American" for a resident of the continent and "American" for a US citizen. StuRat 04:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.

To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.

To Northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner.

To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander.

To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.

And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast.

E.B. White

Neutrality^talk 03:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of my numerous American colleagues in Canada were discussing whether or not someone from a particular border state was really a southerner. I said I had a solution: they are all Yankees. They didn't like that, haha. Adam Bishop 06:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We tend to call leprechauns the 'little people' and we do believe in them, who else catches the wild haggis for the american tourists? ;) Perry-mankster 09:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The left wing in Britain (which really is left wing) often calls Americans "imperialists", which is beautifully ironic if you consider how the country came to exist in the first place. --Dweller 11:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The yanks are often accused of cultural imperialism but I have to say I've never heard "imperialist" used as a noun to describe them. Miremare 15:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Going astray into the Teutonosphere, I always liked the German language's most common nickname for Americans: Der Ami (m, singular) or die Amis (plural) is used by the left, right, and apolitical alike. I'm fond of it because it's cute and also means friends in French. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A Merkin is a wig worn in the pubic area by a female. A Murcan is someone who believes in the Murcan Way [9]. He grows murcan violets [10]. If he moves to Yurp, he takes murcan measuring cups and spoons along [11]. In the 1940's at the beginning of the nukular era, even before the war on terra, similar lazymouth prononciation was termed "slurvian" [12]. Edison 15:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yankee go home.--Kirby♥time 01:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In Australia, Seppo (dating from WWII) is still quite common. I don't know how much penetration that word has in the UK though. FiggyBee 02:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, Figgy Bee. I see you're a Queenslander. I lived in Queensland (Gold Coast; Brisbane) for 11 years; also in NSW, the ACT and now Victoria, and I don't think I've ever heard that word in my life. JackofOz 03:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I guess it depends on the circles you move in (and whether those circles include Americans). I'm a student at UQ and we have a fairly large American student body. Brisbane (and the University) also had a lot more contact with the Americans during the war than most of the rest of Australia, so I guess some of that lives on in the culture of the city. FiggyBee 05:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

May 15

Spanish Regenerationists

Regarding the idea of "regenerationism" in Spain after the loss of Cuba in 1898, I know of Joaquin Costa's idea of the need for an 'iron surgeon' for Spain, but were there other philsophers/intellectuals who took part in regenerationist thought? How popular were they? BVonZeppelin 03:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the page you may be looking for, Lieber Graf von Zeppelin, is that on the Generation of 1898. You will find most of the prominent figures of the time mentioned there, some with links to their own separate pages. There is still no article, though, on Costa. They certainly established a dominant position in Spanish intellectual life at the turn of the century, if that is considered an adequate measure of popularity? If I were to pick out those whom I consider to have had lasting influence I would choose Miguel de Unamuno and José Ortega y Gasset, one of the great prophets of the modern age. Clio the Muse 07:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

Is the title of Christopher Hitchens's new book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything a reference to the takbir? Neutrality^talk 04:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously.--Tresckow 06:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Hitchens lumps all religion together as sharing the same troublesome qualities. I actually agree with much of Hitchens' opinions regarding American foreign policy, I'm just not sure if his use of the word "God" rather than "Allah" was done out of ignorance or just to be politically correct.

Hitchens rejects certain characteristics of religion that are mostly characteristic of Islam, and to a much lesser degree, Christianity. He's irritated by proselytization, a practiced frowned upon if not forbidden to Jews, killing in the name of God, which, at least in post-Biblical times is forbidden to Jews and most Christians, the destruction of the holy shrines of other faiths, which is obviously a practice not shared by Jews (witness the prominence of the Dome of the Rock in Israeli controlled Jerusalem, a site which would have been bulldozed decades ago had Jews not shared the view that such an act to be utterly disrespectful to Muslims) etc. With the exception of proselytization, still practiced by many Christian denominations, and in a sense the bedrock upon which Christianity was formed, all the above apply equally to modern Christianity. Lewis 09:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In an English text you can encounter an Arabic word like keffiyeh for the simple reason that there is no good English equivalent term for this. But it is affected and somewhat silly to write something like "ripe mishmish is delicious", using an Arabic word, when a perfect English counterpart exists: "ripe apricot is delicious". Allah is simply the word for God in the Arabic language. When French Christians profess their creed, would you say it is "We believe in one Dieu, the Père Almighty". I hope not; the reason for not leaving the word Dieu untranslated has nothing to do with political correctness, but is part of the general rule that, ideally, you do not leave words untranslated. It is equally silly to think that Arab Christians have a strange creed in which they believe in "one Allah, the Ab Almighty". Translating the word Allah is neither a matter of ignorance nor of (religio-)political correctness; leaving it untranslated is.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I note that it is often people with an anti-Muslim disposition who object to translating "Allah" as "God", which I assume is to avoid being on the same team. Does anyone know if there is a similar reluctance among Islamic partisans to translate "God" as "Allah"? I see that the Arabic wikipedia has a separate article on each ("Allah", "God"), as we do, but those pages seem to be full of backwards squiggles I can't read. :) --TotoBaggins 18:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Both of those backwards squiggles read 'Allah', except the former reads 'Allah (Islam)'. So apparently Allah is the generic term in the Arabic language. Ninebucks 20:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

بسم الاب والابن والروح الق.--Kirby♥time 01:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

English resistence to the Normans

Was there any English resistence to the Norman invasion after the battle of hastings? Janesimon 05:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There certainly was, by Hereward the Wake for example. There was also resistance from the Danish population in the north-east, who never really recognized the authority of the English king and didn't bother recognizing the conquest either. William didn't like that, which led to the Harrowing of the North. Adam Bishop 06:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There is some information on post-Hastings English resistance in the page on the Norman Conquest. As Adam points out, the most determined opposition in southern England came from Hereward in the Fens, and only ended in 1071, when he disappeared from the light of history into the mists of legend. There were, however, lesser known figures, no less determined, who included the wonderfully named Eadric the Wild, who launched an attack on Hereford in 1067, serious enough to bring the Conqueror back over from the Continent. In the summer of 1068 King Harold's son, Godwine, landed in the south-west with the support of an Irish fleet, only to be defeated by the local levies at near Avonmouth in Somerset. In the north the arrogance of Robert Comine, whom William had created earl of Northumbria, provoked a rising in Durham in December 1068, in which he and his knights were massacred. This was the beginning of a widespread revolt in the north, spreading south to York. From his refuge in Scotland Edgar Atheling, a grandson of Edmund Ironside of the Saxon royal house, came to England, and was enthusiastically acclaimed as the rightful king. Once again William reacted with his usual ruthless determination, routing the rebel army just outside York. No sooner was this accomplished than Godwine Harroldson was back in the south-west, only to be defeated, yet again. But Edric the Wild and the men of Chester, with the assistance of Bleddyn of Gwynedd, a Welsh prince, managed to seize and destroy Shrewsbury.

The most serious challenge to Norman rule came in the summer of 1069, when a Viking fleet, under the command of Asbjorn, son of King Swein of Denmark, sailed up the Humber. Advancing to York, Asbjorn made contact with Waltheof, a former earl of Northumbria. Together they asked Edgar to return to England. In York the Norman garrison was massacred. William reacted with savage fury, returning north in person, while his half-brother, Robert, attacked the Danish fleet. The 'Harrying of the North' that followed was so severe that its effects were still noted when the Domesday Book was compiled sixteen years later. In a great purge of all established institutions, William removed virtually all of the Saxon clerics from their positions, and replaced all native landowners with his Norman and Breton vassals. The Conquest was now complete. Clio the Muse 08:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the Norman conquest article skips over this slightly, maybe it needs expanding or even it's own article. Edgar Ætheling is relegated to a footnote. I don't think there's much to add to what Clio said, with the English army heavily defeated at Hastings and after Stamford Bridge as well, little remained to provide an effective resistance. Potential candidates for the throne had to seek help from Scots, Vikings or whoever, who all had their own ambitions for England, so I don't know how much they count as English resistance. Hereward is probably the most like the popular resistance we might imagine from World War II France for example. Any opposition was ruthlessly crushed and, as Clio has said, Normans given all the positions of power. England's exisiting bureaucracy and system of government allowed an easy transition to power, simply by replacing the people at the top. I have somewhere heard this described as 'cultural genocide'. Cyta 11:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

British republican movement

I would like some information on the the republican movement in Victorian Britain. Clio the Muse, anyone? Thanks. Martinben 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Martinben. This question actually links quite nicely to the previous one about Cromwell's statue in Westminster. It tends to be forgotten now that Britain towards the end of the 1830s looked to be on the threshold of sloughing off its own particular version of the ancien regime, much as France had in 1789. That is not to say that the country was on the verge of revolution, well at least not on the French model. Rather, for the emerging middle-classes, the ancient institutions, including the monarchy, appeared less and less relevant, representing the arcane, the out-moded and the wasteful. The two monarchs who preceeded Victoria, her uncles, George IV and William IV, were representative of an institution that was out of touch with the times, one that gave every appearance of terminal historical decay. Indeed, William IV's funeral cortege in 1837 had even been pelted with excrement. Victoria came at just the right time: young, personable and, above all, the very model of a modern middle-class wife. Her marriage to Prince Albert, the steady growth of her family, her sobriety and sense of duty, all corresponded to contemporary notions of what was acceptable and proper. But in 1861 the whole happy facade collapsed. Albert died, and Victoria took on forms of mourning almost gothic in their intensity. Virtually overnight the vivacious young women became the dowdy dowger, disappearing almost completely from the public eye. By amazing coincidence, the year of Albert's death also saw the publication of Charles Dicken's novel, Great Expectations. Once again reality mirrored fiction, as Victoria grew into her own version of Miss Havesham, sitting among the ruins of the royal spectacle. To make matters even worse, as Victoria withdrew from view, the vacant spot was occupied by her eldest son, the disreputable Bertie

Victoria's abdication from public duty and sober middle-class values revived earlier unfavourable notions of the monarchy, thus breathing fresh life into the republican movement. Soon, men like Charles Bradlaugh, the first declared athieist to take a seat in Parliament, and Sir Charles Dilke were attracting a public following for their anti-monarchist views. In 1871, Bradlaugh wrote The Impeachment of the House of Brunswick, one of the most influential of the nineteenth century republican tracts. In it he reminded readers of Victoria's relatives in Hanover, who "in their own land...vegetate and wither unnoticed; here we pay them highly to marry and perpetuate a pauper prince race." In Prince George he brought back to the public mind the misdemeanours of the past royals to discredit the present still further. These criticisms, moreover, came at a time when the old aristocratic England was giving way to the growing economic power of the new middle-classes, expressed in the success of the Anti-Corn Law League and the Second Reform Act, which greatly extended the Parliamentary franchise. Sir Charles Dilke recognised that a republc would only come in England if it was desired by the middle-classes. English republicanism was free of the great flights of principle and ideology that marked its Continental counterparts; but it was no less potent for all that. For many the monarchy was 'no longer value for money', arguably the most killing accusation in all of English politics, which found full expression in Dilke's pamphlet, Cost of the Crown. The radical campaigner, Annie Besant, even argued, after Victoria became Empress of India in 1877, that as Parliament could now confer titles on the monarch, Parliament was also in a position to create a republic if it so wished.

In the end Victoria did manage to re-engage with the people, and the republican impetus failed. But, even so, it gave birth to the very modern notion that the monarchy was an institution like any other, not sacred and not apart, but subject to public and Parliamentary scrutiny. Adulation of the monarchy is now no longer unconditional, but subject, as Dilke once recognised, to the vagaries of public taste. Clio the Muse 23:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Writing a poem

I'm writing a poem. Could anyone please suggest a few lines for me? 195.194.74.154 11:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I wandered lonely as a cloud,

Adrift through rooms and crowded halls

When all at once I blew one loud;

A mighty wind that shook the walls -

Its pungent scent made all the greater,

Standing in this elevator

Think outside the box 12:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah di'nae smoke tae be cool

Ah di'nae smoke tae play thi fool

Ah di'nae smoke tae escape, thi dreaded, boring landscape

Ah di'nae smoke cause em shy

Ah jist smoke tae git high

Perry-mankster 12:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I never saw a purple cow;

I never hope to see one;

but I can tell you anyhow;

I'd rather see than be one!

See also Rhyming recipe for another sublime poem.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Here I sit, all lonely hearted...Edison 14:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, I know, but here's my favourite limerick of all time (apart from one that's way too rude to post):

There was a young lady from Ryde

Who ate a sour apple and died

The apple fermented

Inside the lamented

And made cider inside her insides

217.155.195.19 15:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A shrimp who sought his lady shrimp

Could catch no glimpse

Not even a glimp.

At times, translucence

Is rather a nuisance.

-- Ogden Nash (not TotoBaggins 18:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)).

There once was a man from Nantucket? Ninebucks 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The one who kept all his cash in a bucket or the other one? jnestorius^(talk) 22:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Politics question re: Australia + Asia

I was just curious as to people's opinions on the topic of: Does Australia have an "identity crisis" regarding Asia? It was something which was brought up at dinner tonight I was left pondering. 137.166.4.130 11:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Susie

I'm afraid that the function of the Ref Desks is not for us to offer our opinions, however, it'd be great if some of our contributors could point you at articles and websites that might help inform you. --Dweller 12:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. The OP may indeed be asking a question regarding an issue that goes beyond his/her individual ponderings, but an issue of interest among Australians themselves. I'm not Australian so I'm not sure for sure, but if it's the latter, I definitely think it's worthy of a response. Indeed I'm rather curious as to what the OP means when s/he speaks of Australia having such an identity crisis. Lewis 12:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dweller did not say that the question is not worthy of a response, but only that such responses should not be just the respondents' personal opinions, but instead refer to sources that discuss the issue. I concur.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Not 100% related, but a Google search for Australia and Asia together gave me this, which serves as a bit of a starting point to how I understand it: Australia is a country in a bit of an odd position, because its culture is strongly "Western" (ie. linked to Britain and the US), but its geography puts it close to Asia, and far from both the Americas and Europe. As a result, we have strong economic and political ties to many Asian countries, particularly those in South-East Asia. In terms of an "identity crisis", I wouldn't go so far as to call it that, but certainly in the 1990s Australia was probably even more closely connected with Asia than it is now, to the extent that in some contexts it was described as being part of Asia (or at least some economic division such as APEC). Frankly we were lucky to not be too heavily affected by the 1997 East Asian financial crisis, and I think that as a result we took some steps to be less closely associated (in terms of how other countries see us) with Asia since then.

As a massive, huge disclaimer, I will point out that my information comes more from, for example, The Games and a scene where people were calling to ask whether the Sydney Olympics were cancelled due to the Asian crisis than from any economics knowledge or references. Confusing Manifestation 01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Iranian revolution

I am tring to discover the the root causes of the Iranian revolution of 1979. What I need to know is how deep these were in Iranian history? Gordon Nash 14:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Iranian Revolution? Skarioffszky 16:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have, thank you. What I was wondering was were the Revolution's roots, political and religious, even deeper than those described there? Gordon Nash 18:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Discontent with the pro-Western regime of the Shah, frustration at the state of the economy, and, more generally, a population pyramid that was scewed towards adolescents. Societies with a plurality of adolescents and young adults are prone to revolution; compare with France and modern-day Africa. Ninebucks 20:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Who commits gun crimes?

What percentage of gun crimes are committed by people living under the poverty line? Is there some study that has been done on this?

--Shadarian 14:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Slightly dated, but Short, "Poverty, Ethnicity, and Violent Crime," 1997, Westview Press was quite good (ISBN 0813320143) Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Less dated is the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. See http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/ageracesex.htm - it shows that statistically black men between the age of 18-24 dominate homicide rates. You can poke around the various statistics and find a lot of interesting things. Did you know that violent crime has been going down quickly the last few years? --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The truly sad thing is that the in the charts on Kainaw's referance the tables for blacks ate scaled almost 10 times greater than whites, so the problem is far greater that the pictures show if you don't read the scales. --Czmtzc 15:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Brother-in-law

A brother-in-law is, according to this wikipedia:

• sister's husband
• spouse's brother
• spouse's sister's husband

My English-German dictionary confirms only the upper two, mentioning there is no special term for the third (instead: "husband of one's sister-in-law").

If, however, the definition given here is correct, what about:

• sibling's spouse's brother? --KnightMove 17:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a native English speaker and I would call him my sister-in-law's brother. As for the "spouse's sister's husband", I would refer to him as my husband's brother-in-law. Bielle 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Loss of Normandy

How significant was King John's loss of Normandy in 1204? Janesimon 18:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It was significant enough for it to become a common homework essay question when covering King John. --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikipedia page on John hardly touches on his Continental affairs, and not at all on the implications of the loss of Normandy in 1204 for both the English crown and the evolving concept of English nationhood.

Before 1204 England had been part, and not even the most important part, of a Continental empire, stretching all the way from the Scottish borders to the Pyrenees. The Kings of England, moreover, from 1066 onwards, had considered themselves, first and foremost, as Dukes of Normandy. The status of England is illustrated by William the Conquerer's division of his lands before his death: his eldest son, Robert Curthose, received Normandy, England going to his second son, William Rufus. Although reunited by Henry I after the Battle of Tinchebrai in 1106, England continued as an appendage, a status confirmed by the emergence of the Angevin Empire. England's kings were French in language, culture and attitude, rarely remaining on the 'offshore island' for any lengthy period of time.

The loss of almost all of the French territories, including Normandy, to Philip Augustus in 1203-4 had an impact on several crucial fronts, domestic, political and legal. John became obsessed with the recovery of Normandy, raising funds for a campaign against Philip in a variety of highly dubious ways. As well as imposing heavy taxes, he placed a cash value on justice. Massive finacial 'contributions' were extorted from the nobility merely to secure the king's goodwill. This continued for some ten years until John began his war, only to loss all at the Battle of Bouvines in July 1214. The undercurrent of resentment over years of royal mismanagement was now openly and forcefully expressed by John's barons, who compelled him to sign Magna Carta, limiting royal demands for money, ending arbitrary imprisonment and the general prostitution of justice. Notions of fairness in justice, and the importance of the rule of law, thus became defining concepts in the English constitution. If it had not been for John's actions after the loss of Normandy it is quite possible that this document would never have been conceived.

The other important effect of Bouvines and the loss of Normandy was the end of the 'international aristocracy.' The nobility had to choose one side or the other: they could hold land in England, or they could hold land in Normandy; they could no longer hold land in both. Although it was slow to develop this had the effect of moving towards the creation of a distinctive English identity. Indeed, during the reign of John's son, Henry III, matters had gone so far that he was to find himself under attack for surrounding himself with non-English advisors. Some Continental lands were retained in gascony, in thr far south-west of France, but these were far less important than England itself, and the monarchs were now to be resident rulers. The expansionist impulse, moreover, was to be turned inwards for some time to come, moving towards the creation of a new British Imperium, in both its good and its bad forms. Clio the Muse

Fall of Constantinople facts

Could i possibly enquire to some facts which escaped the article about the Fall of Constantinople. i would like to know what was the composition of the Byzantine force cavalty/infantry wise. I would also like to know the same of the Ottoman force. also the equipment and specifics of troop types of the both armies.

        Thank You, Andrew Milne 15

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.215.40 (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Starting a company

If I start a company (in the UK or US), will my personal credit rating be reflected in the credit rating of the company? Is the personal credit rating of some director relevant for the credit rating of the company? 217.95.9.251 20:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the type of company. Are you considering a sole-ownership, where the owner is the company? Are you considering an LLC or SCORP where the business is merely a legal protection against lawsuits? Are you considering a full corporation with multiple investors? --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It would definitely not be sole-ownership. I was thinking on a LLC, S-CORP or C-CORP. (I am still doing some research of what form is best suited). 217.95.9.251 22:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S., both an LLC and an S-CORP are linked to the individual. I believe the maximum number of owners is five. So, a bad credit rating of any individual would correlate to a poor credit rating for the company. For a C-CORP, there can be many owners who have nothing to do with the company other than provide investment. I know, it is possible to have an S-CORP where all owners are hands-off investors, but it is rare that any investor will be dumb enough to do that with an S-CORP because the profits/losses of the company go straight into your taxes. In the end, if your credit rating is so bad that you cannot get a loan for anything, you will have extreme difficulty in getting a loan for a company you own. To put it another way, I helped two men put together an S-CORP when I was building a theater for them. One of them had tax issues in the past. Before the bank would loan them money to start their theater company, the back taxes had to be paid and a the bank required a letter from the IRS stating that there were no other problems. Had they started a C-CORP, that would not be an issue as the startup funding would have come from stock sales, not a business loan. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

May 16

Harry Potter, John Newbery Medal

Why didn't J.K Rowling win the John Newbery Medal?72.83.232.54 01:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because she's British; the award is given to a book by an American author. Same reason Philip Pullman, A. A. Milne, C. S. Lewis and Tolkien don't have them. grendel|khan 01:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mucha's rendition of Sappho?

I read this comment: looking at the little Mucha print of Sappho tacked to the corkboard in my bedroom, and your link, it’s just plain laughable. Mucha’s Sappho is cool, calm, collected and intelligent. she’s depicted from the shoulders up, and either draped in or hiding behind (it’s hard to tell) a column of fabric that is sort of a romantic abstraction of a toga. She holds her pen aloft, towards the viewer. her stance says, “i will hide my physical form under the bushel of this swath of fabric, while i shove the power of my mind to the forefront, channeling it through the pen (which BTW is mightier than the sword)”. I can't find any indication that Mucha ever made a print of Sappho. Does anyone here know what the commenter was talking about? grendel|khan 01:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)