Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

August 11

Imbalance of women and men on dating sites and clubs

Why is it that dating sites always have many more men than women, and also nightclubs also have more men than women? What are the women doing, staying at home watching tv? How can the imbalance be accounted for? Whats the reason?

Yet an equal number of men and women get married. Given the imbalance above, are women more likely to marry after divorce than men?

Is the imbalance accounted for, perhaps, by women giving up socialising with men as soon as they've had one relationship (and perhaps had an unmarried child) at a comparatively young age, while men continue actively seeking partners to an older age? 62.253.48.5 00:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Try this article. Xn4 01:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

In biology, whichever sex invests most in the upbringing of offspring will be "commodity" in sexual courting, since they have the most to lose. Like any good commodity market, demand regularly outstrips supply. In humans (and most vertebrates) that is the female, since she is the one that has to carry and rear the child after getting knocked up by a randy male night clubber. Once that happens, her genetic imperative is to care for the child, and is less likely to be found in the nightclub the following week/month/year. In contrast, the male genetic imperative is to continue to spread his seed, so he is more likely to be found there again. Of course, human social motivation is more complex that this simplistic example, but the basic concept holds true, even in human society. After all, thats where the idiom, left holding the baby comes from. Rockpocket 05:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"In biology, whichever sex invests most in the upbringing of offspring will be "commodity" in sexual courting, since they have the most to lose. Like any good commodity market, demand regularly outstrips supply." This is complete nonsense, as there are (almost exactly) equal numbers of men and women, so demand and supply are the same. 80.3.41.168 12:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You are the confusing the goods on a market (females looking for mates) with the total goods capacity (all the females of reproductive age), and the active consumers (males looking for mates) with the total consumer capacity (all the males of reproductive age). The difference in biology between males and females means the former is a smaller proportion of all females, than it is in males. This is a pretty standard concept in evolutionary biology. Rockpocket 20:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

However much jargon you want to use, there are still an approximately equal number of men and women on the planet. Your paragraph above is just asserting what I said in my original question, so it doesnt add anything new. 80.0.99.26 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not nonsense. Or do you think single mothers with children at home do as much courting, dating, clubbing etc as single dads (with children somewhere far away)? The market doesn't consist of every existing unmarried individual, but of those who, well, advertise themselves on the market. 77.56.108.140 19:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

So your theory is that this is the reason? That unmarried mothers are less likely to date/ You may be right. 80.0.99.26 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but are there really an equal number of men and women? If you counted the population, the answer is probably yes. But, the question should not be: how many men and how many women exist on this planet? Should not the appropriate question be: how many men and how many women exist on this planet who are in fact interested in dating? Or some such variation. Those numbers might (?) be quite different than an actual population count which is probably 50/50. (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

It's not only who is interested in dating, but more like "Who goes to personal websites and nightclubs looking for dates?" Once you narrow it down like that, it's not so hard to believe there could be far more men than women in those environments. Friday (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, now tell me why women are less likely than men to go to dating sites or nightclubs? 80.0.99.26 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The article at the link I left (see above) says -

“ Cherchez l'homme, as they are saying in bars and clubs around the country. Speed dating is running out of men. The dating companies behind the romantic phenomenon of the Millennium are complaining that the British male would rather seek love at the computer terminal than meet real women face-to-face. Speed dating - where it is possible to meet two dozen potential partners in a single evening - has proved so popular with groups of single women there are not enough events to cope. But unless male interest can be doubled, expansion will grind to a halt. Companies are already scouring bars for male singletons, offering free drinks and admission, and next month Chemistry is launching an ad campaign persuading men to sign up. Director, Darren Richards said: "We try hard to get a 50/50 gender split at an event but while women's tickets always sell out instantaneously it can take several weeks before all the men's tickets are sold." Ben Tisdall, who founded market leader SpeedDater two years ago believes revenues would double if he could find more men. "Women always bring their friends", he said. "For a man it's like admitting you need Viagra." And Flurrrt.com said that finding enough men is the main obstacle for every face-to-face event it stages. This is in direct contrast to online dating, in which men outnumber women. Lorraine Adams, whose dating agencies include Gorgious Networks and One Saturday said: "Men often don't turn up even if they've paid for it." Dr Linda Papadopoulos, a Big Brother psychologist said: "Women are much more about sharing and emotionalising." And she added: "Being in your bedroom on a computer is a lot easier than dressing up and going out to an event where you might be laughed at by a big group of women." ”

(from speeddater.co.uk)

I can't vouch for any of this, but I thought it did seem to suggest some answers to some of your questions. Xn4 20:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

On your question about night-clubs, they still have much of their original purpose of late-night drinking places. There are well-known reasons why there are more men than women in bars of all kinds, including gender differences in comfort, security, and respectability, men's disposable incomes being much higher than women's, and even (one of Rockpocket's points) the fact that women do more of the looking after children. Xn4 20:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather disapointed that most of the "answers" above just assert what I originally mentioned in the third paragraph of my original question. However I cannot belive that all the women not using dating sites or not going to nightclubs are single parents staying at home looking after their child(ren). That does not account for enough women. Why are childless single women still not going to such places as much as men? What are they doing instead? And, a statistical point - are women less likely to marry than men? 80.0.99.26 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect, anon, there has been a number of perfectly informative answers. That you don't believe them, understand them or are disappointed by them does not invalidate them. I'm not quite sure what more you expect, when you dismiss those answers already provided. I'll have another go: The point is that basic male imperative is to go out and mate with as many people as he can, thoughout his reproductive life (which lasts almost as long as he lives). The female imperative is to fine a partner who will provide her with a child then support and care for that child (in a relatively short period in her life). Even though there may be equal number of men and woman in total, either sex are in an ongoing struggle to fulfil their very different imperatives. And since these imperative are in conflict with each other, there is a battle of sorts going on. So, as with any battle, if you want a better chance of winning, you will strategically plan where and when it occurs to give you the advantage. Now, ask youself this, are nightclubs better suited to finding someone to sleep with, or to find a lifelong partner? If you can answer that then it should be very clear why you find more males there than females. Its because the nightclub "battleground" favours the male imperative. So what are the women doing? Well, they are trying to tempt men to their favorable battleground, places where they can scope out the ideal partner as quickly and efficiently as they can. By the looks of the source above, it would appear that is speed dating.

Obviously this is a very biocentric view, but at a very basic level this kind of analysis can be used to model a lot of complex human behaviours. Rockpocket 09:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The previous comment is again just repeating what I said in the third paragraph of my question, followed by some very old-fashioned and sexist cliches about gender roles dressed up in some evolutionary-biology jargon. I am disapointed by these replies. They do not account for things like (as I asked) what are women doing while men are out nightclubbing? And, assuming equal numbers of men and women pair off each year, how do women find partners if they dont go to nightclubs or dating sites much? An analogy that comes to mind is matching a job with an employee - there is one job (female?) but lots of applicants (males?). And I am sure that the number of women who go to speed dating is less than the numbers who do not go to nightclubs. 80.0.133.26 20:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems likely that the numbers are much the same, despite the notion of Benjamin Disraeli, "I have always thought that every woman should marry, and no man". Xn4 23:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

pashtuns in pakistan

Does Pakistan have its own native Pashtuns or are they afghani pashtuns?

Have you read the article on Pashtuns? Donald Hosek 00:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions that the Pashtuns are indigenous to parts of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The article does not mention that the border is porous and that people move back and forth across it continually. So it is difficult to say whether some Pashtuns are Afghans or Pakistanis. Furthermore, there are Pashtuns of Afghan origin who are refugees in Pakistan, including probably some of the leadership of the Taliban. Marco polo 01:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

(after e.c.) 76.64.129.223's question might stem from the ambiguity of the word Afghan. As you can see on that disambiguation page, Afghan can refer both to the citizens of the nation Afghanistan, and also to ethnic Pashtuns (who can be ethnologically "native" to regions in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but can live and be citizens in any nation in the word, see Pashtun diaspora) ---Sluzzelin talk 01:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The Toledo Incident of 1925

I've searched and searched and everything I find is a book review by an historian named Cox, but with no actual information. I do know that in 1925 an angry mob in Toledo, Oregon ran a bunch of Japanese immigrants out of town for some reason. Apparently there was a lawsuit and the Japanese Americans won. What I'd like to know is what caused the problem. Why were the citizens so mad at the Japanese. I assume it's a labor dispute of some sort, but I don't know for sure.

I'm only asking for my own curiosity, not a homework assignment. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about every town in Oregon that has a quilt shop. (Yes, I know that sounds crazy, but I'm having a great time doing it.)CarolStill 03:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

books.google.com tells me that there is a chapter in A History of Japanese Immigrants in North America by Kazuo Itō regarding "The Toledo Incident of 1925", but that's all I've got. Plasticup ^T/C 04:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Tony Greiner of the Oregon Library Association

In 1925, a sawmill in Toledo (slightly inland from Newport) hired a group of Japanese laborers to work the "green line."These were the hard jobs sorting lumber that the company couldn't keep filled with local workers. Shortly after the Japanese (and some Filipinos and a Korean) arrived at their quarters inside the mill compound, a mob from the town, urged on by Rosemary Schenck marched to the mill. There, they overpowered the resistance put up by mill operators, and then, after roughing up a couple of the laborers, loaded them in cars and drove them to Corvallis. Five of the laborers brought suit in Federal Court, and won damages against several of the mob members... this case was one of the first to establish the rights of resident aliens.

The workers were brought to Toledo by the Pacific Spruce Corporation. The mob was about 50 strong, and largely motivated by xenophobia whipped up by speeches by the ringleaders of William S. Colvin and H. T. Pritchard. Colvin told the crowd "I appeal to every man who respects his flag to join the line", claiming "it was now up to the citizenry of the town to kick the Japanese out whether peacefully or by force." They marched to the workers' housing chanting "Down with the Japs," "Out With the Japs" and "Hang the Japs" and, after a standoff with local deputies and Corporation supervisors, eventually ran the workers out of town Rockpocket 07:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Date of Battle of Thermopylae

In the "On This Day" section of the Main Page, it lists 11 August as the date of the Battle of Thermopylae. However, in the linked article, it says that the date of the battle is estimated as being in mid-September, specifically 18, 19 or 20 Sep as the date of the betrayal. Why this discrepancy? Thanks. 72.205.41.2 03:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that it is the difference between the Gregorian calendar and the Julian calendar, or maybe some other calendar system. This is also why the October Revolution occurred in November. Plasticup ^T/C 04:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The calendar in question is the Attic calendar, and there is also the problem of different dates given in different sources (which is true for every ancient battle, and everything else in ancient history, and medieval history, and sometimes even modern history!). Adam Bishop 16:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Prison

I guess that this is a question of sociology. I just finished watching some documentary on, essentially, life in an American (male) prison. And, of course, pretty much every single inmate had either a tattoo or a whole bunch of tattoos. No surprise, right? It got me thinking. What is the correlation, if any, between anti-social behavior (i.e., being a prisoner who committed a crime and is living in a prison) with one's propensity to get (or to not get) tattooed? I mean, I have my ideas ... but I would like to see the input of others. And, of course, I realize that we are dealing with generalizations and that every individual is different. Blah blah blah. But, why is it that -- when you see a documentary about inmates ... they "all" have tattoos all over the place? Certainly, no one is surprised -- in fact, it's almost expected -- when you watch a documentary on prison life. What is behind this phenomenon? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 04:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

Well, a lot of fads come from prison. Baggy pants are one example, along with several types of tattoos. I know from one source that spider-web tattoos are used by inmates to signify that they have been in prison, but others have picked up on it and begun to use it as a trendy thing. (This is in certain parts of America.) I suppose that if you wear tattoo, you may be more surrounded by people who have been to prison before, and thus more susceptible to their world-view and behavior... Wrad 04:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, my sister in law carried out a study into something related to this, concluding "Tattoos may be possible markers for lethality from both suicide and accidental death in young people, presumably because of shared risk factors such as substance abuse and personality disorder", (PMID 10837885). Another study finds "individuals with tattoos were more likely to smoke, drink heavily, use smokeless tobacco, and ride in a vehicle with someone who had been drinking than non-tattooed individuals" (PMID 12564865) and a third explains "Participants with tattoos and/or body piercings were more likely to have engaged in risk-taking behaviors and at greater degrees of involvement than those without either. These included disordered eating behavior, gateway drug use, hard drug use, sexual activity, and suicide." (PMID 12042538). Considering the association with risk-taking behaviour, its no great surprise that there is a greater (than would be expected by chance) number of people with tattoos in jail. However, in addition to this, being in jail and/or adopting a criminal lifestyle appears to promote tattooing. See Criminal tattoo. Rockpocket 06:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrad, be careful not to turn the causality around. Prison folk may have more tattoos than others, but that doesn't mean that having a tattoo leads to hanging around with criminals. By far most tattoo-wearers are just 'ordinary' folk - well, not all that ordinary, because else they would not have gotten a tattoo. There is a bit of rebellion in getting a tattoo, which is why teenagers tend to get them - and are then stuck with them for the rest of their lives, whether they like it or not. A housemate of mine has a tattoo on his arm, and he is more the brainy type, a researcher at the University of Amsterdam. A niece also has one and she's a very nice girl who wouldn't hurt a fly (actually she's a nurse, so she does quite the opposite). But I suppose it also depends on where you live. In some cultures a tattoo will be more acceptable than in others. And in some tattoos are generally held in high esteem, especially if they are only used to celebrate something someone has done (and not just for looks), such as in Borneo.

However, I do believe that inmates are more likely to have loads of tattoos, whereas other folk usually have just the one. DirkvdM 07:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I would not venture to speak for the Dutch, but take a look at the list of associated activities given by Rockpocket. I would venture that, while risk-taking and 'rebellion' of a sort may be involved, there are powerful social and cultural forces at work here. My social radar would allow me to give a fuller (OR) answer for the UK (which may apply in a limited way to the US), but it's kind of socially hard to talk about these things :P Skittle 01:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You would be interested in Adolf Loos' opinions on Ornament and Crime and although his argument was an aesthetic one he did use the example of the criminal and our South Seas' "savages" (though I haven't seen many "decorated" white collar criminals etc). There are all kinds of tattoo and even tatau. Why not look at our article tattoo its seems to have some substantiated facts and references. Mhicaoidh 11:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input - it is helpful. Perhaps what I am asking is this: Are people with tattoos more likely to end up in prison as a criminal (i.e., is there some correlation)? My (very generalized) thinking is this: to get a tattoo in the first place, you have to be a little bit rebellious / going against the grain / trying to make a statement / marching to the tune of a different drummer / etc. (At least moreso than the "average" person who does not get a tattoo.) And people with those qualities and characteristics are more likely to be anti-social / rebel against authority / do whatever they please / act more on impulse than reasoned deliberation, etc. Any thoughts? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

Makes sense, but as I pointed out those qualities are found in teenagers and once they got them they're stuck with them, even if they turn out boring law-abiding citizens. Another thing I think of now is that people with tattoos might more easily end up in prison because the police are more likely to keep an eye on them. Which means that people without tattoos are more likely to get away with breaking the law.

But something more along the lines of what you were probably thinking is an analogy with dyslexia (no, I'm serious). On a BBC series called something like 'how to become a millionaire' they analysed what sort of people millionaires are and it turned out there was a disproportionate amount of dyslexics among them. The same was true for prisoners. Turns out dyslexics are more prone to risk-taking, which can lead to success or failure. Now this makes me wonder if millionaires have a disproportionate amount of tattoos. :) DirkvdM 18:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want specific numbers an Australian survey found, "Estimates of the prevalence of tattooing among the prison population vary from 51 per cent of females and 57 per cent of males in New South Wales in 1996, to 58 per cent of prisoners in Western Australia." In contrast, 11.9% of men and 8.5% of woman in the Australian population are tattooed. So there is a strong, statistically significant correlation, but cause and effect relationships are very difficult to establish for things like this. [1] Rockpocket 03:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A possible minor reason for people in prison having tattoos is that tatooing is one of the ways that prisoners can express themselves while actually in prison.

Surely we must have a prison tattoo article. No, hmmm. In America, prison tats can be about indicating prison gang membership. And no one mentioned the Yakuza yet? Rmhermen 01:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel sure that Foucault wil have a lot to say about this somewhere. DuncanHill 22:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

One other consideration is that those who get tats may have a short-term outlook on life. For example, someone with a long-term outlook may realize that the name of their current significant other shouldn't be permanently affixed to their body as there's a good chance they will have another significant other at some point in their life and the tat will then become a negative. Those with a short-term outlook are also likely to look at the immediate benefits of committing a crime, like getting some quick cash, and ignore the likely long-term consequence of prison. StuRat 03:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

StuRat ... I like the way you summed that up ... makes a lot of sense ... thanks ... (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

Thanks to all - I appreciate the input. (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

Alexander the Great

The easternmost Alexandrias

Which of the following, Bucephala; Susa; Bactra; Alexandria, is the furthest east of the cities that were conquered or established by Alexander the Great? 144.137.140.162 05:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Alexandria Bucephalous (thought to be Jhelum): 73°44′00″E

Bactra: 66°54′0″E

Susa: 48°15′28.03″E

Alexandria (in Egypt): 29°55′9.12″E

Looks like Bucephala. Although he also founded Alexandria Nicaea which appears to be marginally to the east of Bucephala. Rockpocket 05:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

bankruptcies

is there an increase in bankruptcies in relation to the subprime problem? I'd think that if so many folks can't pay their loans, they'd have to go bankrupt?

Not necessarily. The sub-prime problem is largely over mortgages. If you default on your mortgage payments, you risk losing your home. The lender will foreclose on the loan and auction your house to realize its value, but you don't have to file for bankruptcy. However, losing you home is pretty catastrophic financially, and it is likely that some people will file as a result of it. In fact, in some jurisdictions, by filing for bankruptcy you can get an automatic stay on the foreclosure proceeding. See Subprime mortgage financial crisis and Bankruptcy in the United States for more info. Rockpocket 06:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There is also an increase in the UK - you may like to look at Bankruptcy in the United Kingdom: Why are bankruptcies soaring? Xn4 19:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

In the United States, where the financial geniuses came up with the idea of lending to poor people with exploding interest rates to virtually ensure foreclosure or suffering, it would take a great deal for mortgage default to pass health care costs as a cause of personal bankruptcy. The genius of for-profit medicine easily clobbers the subprime mortgage in causing misery for Americans. Geogre 14:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Central bank interventions

"Central banks in several countries pumped billions of dollars into banking systems" . "European Central Bank injects €94.8 billion of liquidity into the European financial system". Exactly how does a central bank "inject" liquidity into the banking/financial system? What transactions are they undertaking? --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

They buy shares in companies/institutions - converting the currency (gold) into shares (representing amongst other things faith in the instituition/company) - see investment#finance and the terms therein - including- bonds,shares etc87.102.5.144 12:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"Lack of liquidity" can mean "lack of credit" meaning that banks etc are unwilling to invest in the markets/companies - if this is the case this may suggest that companies are not good investments, and may cause a reduction is stock price. The central banks may invest themselves to prevent a 'crash'.

Liquidity here means flow of money. (and the ability to get money quickly)

So to summarise they are buying stocks and shares OR simply loaning money. Was that ok?87.102.5.144 12:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

See Market liquidity for why liquidity is considered a good thing.87.102.5.144 12:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Liquidity is the ability to sell a given asset quickly, easily, and without affecting (lowering) the price for that asset by selling it. Central banks inject liquidity in two main ways: 1) by lending money to commercial banks so that those banks can use it to make loans (with which clients can buy assets) or purchase existing debt; 2) by directly purchasing financial assets that have become illiquid, such as mortgage-backed securities that nobody wants to buy in the current market. For an interesting perspective on the effectiveness of their actions in the current market, you might have a look at this commentary. Marco polo 18:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

monetary system.

what benefit are there for an economy to have a monetary system of her own?Akinmusi 13:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)akinmusi

The main reason for a country to have its own monetary system (as opposed to relying on a foreign currency) is that interest rates within that country can change or be changed in response to changed economic conditions within that country.

Italy and Ireland provide interesting examples. Italy's government has traditionally spent more than it has collected in taxes. As a result, prices and wages in Italy have tended to rise faster than in other western European countries. Traditionally, Italy's products remained competitive on world markets because its currency, the Italian lira was devalued or allowed to drop, so that price increases within Italy did not affect foreign customers. Since Italy's adoption of the euro, Italy has not had the option of devaluation, since it no longer has its own monetary system but shares a monetary system with its main trade partners in Europe. Consequently, when prices and wages rise in Italy, Italian goods and services become less competitive within Europe, and the economy slows. If Italy had its own central bank, it could lower interest rates both to revive the economy and to reduce the attractiveness of its currency on the world market. However, the European Central Bank (ECB) will not lower interest rates, because the euro-zone economy as a whole (led by Ireland and to a lesser extent Germany) is experiencing relatively strong growth and because the ECB is committed to combatting price increases and defending the value of the euro. In fact, interest rates may be too low to restrain price increases, and particularly increases in house prices in fast-growing economies like that of Ireland. If Ireland had its own monetary system and central bank, it could raise interest rates higher to reign in the economy and prices. However, Ireland, too, is subject to the ECB. Marco polo 19:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Control of the money supply is also a huge factor. By giving up their currency a country is essentially losing control of Monetary Policy and thereby reducing their control over their own economy. Plasticup ^T/C 03:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Scandal rags of the Bay Area

What are, historically and at present, the "scandal rags" local to the S.F. Bay Area? I'm interested in tabloids full of local, unverified, off-the-record, on the QT, very hush-hush sorts of dirt from the 1940s through the present. Any suggestions would be helpful! --24.147.86.187 15:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Suicide in Greece and Rome

What was their attitude towards suicide?Judithspencer

When? Bielle 21:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

During antiquity, of course. I am also interested in this question.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The attitudes of Christian Greeks and Romans in antiquity would be different than the attitudes of pagan Greeks and Romans in antiquity. 208.114.153.254 23:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's stick to pagan Greeks and Romans, please (sorry to hijack this question, Judithspencer; please tell me if I'm off track).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, not all pagan Romans had the same view of all suicide, but some kinds were more approved of than others. In any event, there was no collective rejection of all suicide in the Roman or Greek worlds until (as 208.114.153.254 has spotted) the arrival of Christianity.

The respectable way to kill yourself was with a sword (falling on your own sword is how we remember this now), and that was looked on as manly, when appropriate. Death by hanging was generally repugnant to the ancient Greeks and Romans, as least as depicted by Roman writers. Xn4 00:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hanging was preferred for women. Therefore, it was not proper for a manly death. For some reason, worthy of research, poisoning and hanging were feminine, while vein opening and stabbing manly. (The hot bath with an open vein grew in popularity after the Republic. No idea, again, of why exsanguination would be acceptable then, except that it was supposed to be a "philosopher's" suicide as opposed to a soldier's.) Geogre 14:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot conceive that this is anything other than ancient Greece and Rome, just as I cannot conceive that it is not a question about pagan attitudes towards suicide. On this, Judith, you could do no better than consider the example given by Titus Livy of the colony of Massalia, the present day Marseilles, where those who wanted to kill themselves merely applied to the senate, and if their reasons were judged sound they were then given hemlock free of charge! In general the pagan world, both Roman and Greek, had a far more relaxed attitude towards the whole concept of suicide, a practice that was only finally outlawed with the advent of the Christians, who condemned it at the Council of Arles in 452 as the work of the Devil.

There is, however, some echo of later Christain hostility in earlier pagan thinkers. Pythagoras, for example, was against the act, though more on mathematical than moral grounds, believing that there was only a finite number of souls for use in the world, and that the sudden and unexpected departure of one upset a delicate balance. Aristotle also condemned suicide, though for quite different, far more practical reasons, in that it robbed the community of the services of one of its members. A reading of Phaedo suggests that Plato was also against the practice, inasmuch as he allows Socrates to defend the teachings of the Orphics, who believed that the human body was the property of God, and thus self-harm was a direct offense against divine law. Yet, it's not quite so simple, because after Socrates says than no man has a right to suicide, this is then qualified by the statement "...unless God sends some necessity upon him, as has now been sent upon me." After all, let's not forget that Socrates himself was a suicide, perhaps the most famous in history!

In Rome suicide was never a general offence in law, though the whole approach to the question was essentially pragmatic. It was specifically forbidden in three cases: those accused of capital crimes, soldiers and slaves. The reason behind all three was the same-it was uneconomic for these people to die. If the accused killed themselves prior to trial and conviction then the state lost the right to seize their property, a loophole that was only closed by Domitian in the first century AD, who decreed that those who died prior to trial were without legal heirs. The suicide of a soldier was treated on the same basis as desertion. If a slave killed her or himself within six months of purchase, the master could claim a full refund from the former owner.

But the Romans fully approved of what might be termed 'patriotic suicide'; death, in other words, as an alternative to dishonour. For the Stoics, a philiosphical sect which originated in Greece, death was a guarantee of personal freedom, a way out of an intolerable existence. And so it was for Cato the Younger, who killed himself after the Pompeian cause was defeated at the Battle of Thapsus. This was a 'virtuous death', one guided by reason and conscience. His example was later followed by Seneca, with as much courage and virtue, though under somewhat more straightened circumstances. A very definite line was drawn by the Romans between the virtuous suicide and suicide for entirely private reasons. They disapproved of Mark Antony not because he killed himself, but that he killed himself for love, a very un-Roman thing to do! Clio the Muse 01:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear: despite official rulings, the Christian church was not entirely settled on the subject of suicide until the later 17th century. One of the more interesting feats of theological derring-do is John Donne's Thoughts on Emergent Occasions, which is a long argument in favor of suicide as divinely appointed opportunity. It's a fascinating read from a young Donne showing off his learning and intellectual facility. Geogre 03:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The church had some discussions on the edge where the search for martyrdom was suicidal, in the case of Martyrs of Cordoba, I believe. --Wetman 05:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

See further Anton J.L. van Hooff, From Autothanasia to Suicide (Google Books searchable limited preview). Search this table of contents for some very influential early Christian thoughts on the subject by Augustine. Wareh 15:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We're off the main question now...a good bit off...but still in the land of Interesting, so:

Sleepless souls : suicide in early modern England / Michael MacDonald, Terence R. Murphy. by MacDonald, Michael, Oxford [England] : Clarendon Press ; Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 1990.

I haven't read it yet, but it looks good. Also, David Hume's Biathanatos is yet another argument in favor of the ethical neutrality, more or less, of suicide. I suppose the short version is that the Romans (and Greeks) regarded it as extreme (obviously!) and therefore justifiable only in extremis (obviously!) but not conclusively good or bad -- an act whose morality was determined entirely by its context. The Christian church has been generally denunciatory but also unclear on the matter. While there have been official, top-down, prohibitions on suicide, even these have had room for exceptional duress. Although Dante has suicides in Inferno and scholastics generally put them the same place, there isn't a great deal of certainty on the issue that runs through the rank and file of theologians (if they have ranks and files) or parishoners. Utgard Loki 15:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

How did Stalin industrialize Russia?

I was reading Paul Kennedy's Great Power book and he had an interesting thesis on how Stalin completed Russia;s industrial revolution. Basically he lowered consumption to unheard of lows and then used the unnaturally low prices of agrarian output to pay for industry. Unfortunately Kennedy only devotes a fe w pages to this issue. I've read both Stalin's official account and "mainstream" histories and both focus on politics rather than explaining how it actually worked. If anyone knows of any online resources that explain how the 5 year plans actually functioned in achieving industrial growth, I'd really appreciate it. --Gary123 22:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Gary, have you looked at the pages on the Economy of the Soviet Union, Collectivisation in the USSR, Gosplan and the First Five Year Plan? There is a lot of good information on the strategy and thinking behind Soviet industrialisation spread over these pages, which might go some way towards answering your question. I have not read Kennedy's book and cannot therefore comment on his thesis. I am not quite sure, though, how Stalin would personally go about 'lowering consumption' and in what way 'unnaturally low prices' for agrarian products would 'pay' for industry. The point is that collectivisation, and the export of agrarian surpluses, gave Stalin sufficient capital to invest in a programme of rapid industrialisation. Collectivisation of agriculture ended the uncertainty over falling grain deliveries, which had been a worrying feature of the later years of the NEP system. The stress on heavy industry shifted investment and spending away from the whole consumer sector, which was to be a fairly constant feature of Stalinist economics. Prior to collectivisation, Soviet industry was tied to Soviet agriculture and, to a large extent, to patterns of peasant consumption. The position was reversed with the Five Year Plans Clio the Muse 02:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What you say sounds a lot like the way it was done in Western Europe in the 19th century. Workers had to work really hard and what they got in return was barely enough to live off. In other words, low consumption. Our wealth was largely built up over the backs of our 19th century ancestors. I often wondered if this was a prerequisite for the emergence of socialism (be it state socialism or social democracy). Maybe that is what the USSR/Stalin thought too - the country as a whole needs to get rich first, before we can start to distribute wealth among the individuals. DirkvdM 08:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Russia went through a similar process of industrialisation to that of western Europe during the latter part of the nineteenth century, though it was narrow in scope and heavily concentrated in certain places, Petersburg and Moscow, most notably. There are, however, quite substantial differences between what might be thought of as an 'organic industrial revolution' and what happened in Stalin's Russia. In western Europe the process of capital formation, accumulation and investment developed over a far longer time scale, and was geared to an entirely different set of needs and demands: the development of capital and consumer goods proceeded hand-in-hand. Stalinist investment was entirely state controlled, and the chief emphasis, almost the exclusive emphasis, was on capital goods. Inevitably this had a severe impact on the consumer sector, creating all sorts of shortages. Price controls and shortages are also likely to have created a flourishing black market. Although industrialisation in western Europe-and here I have the example of England in mind-certainly impacted on the quality of life, particularly in the deterioration of the urban environment, living standards for the working-class, expressed in terms of wage rates, were actually rising at the most intense phase during the early part of the nineteenth century. There is an argument that a similar pattern can be uncovered in Soviet Russia, shortages notwithstanding, and that living standards were also on the increase, especially for peasants moving to the cities. For this please see Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution by Robert A. Allan. Clio the Muse 23:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

May be, but there were lots of riots and uprisings both in western Europe and Russia, so apparently any improvement wasn't quite going fast enough. And the popularity of Marx and the rise of communism and socialism (little distinction at the time between the two) is another good indicator. In western Europe the change came gradually, especially though democracy, but in Russia the Duma was a scam and when people found that out they started revolting again. With success some 10 years later.

But the point is that by that time western Europe was already largely industrialised, whereas Russia was still largely agrarian. It had barely escaped the middle ages (serfdom was abolished only in the late 19th century). So Russia started industrialising at breakneck speed. The space programme is a point in case (and intended as such). In just a few decades Russia went from a largely agrarian society to the first space-faring nation. To build a space vehicle you need not just a good design but also the groundwork - an industry to build all the components, from sheer power to high-tech. And they had to do it all themselves. After WWII, western Europe got aid from the US. The USSR, which was hit hardest, basically got a trade embargo (not too sure about that last bit - I once heard something to that effect). So industrialisation must have gone very fast. And that can only be done by re-investing any profits (or whatever one should call that in a Socialist State), which means it wasn't (all) made available to the people, which means low consumption. QED. DirkvdM 06:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a bit of confusion here over some simple facts; so let me clarify one or two points for the benefit of those who have a general interest in these matters. The 'riots and uprisings' that most often accompanied the process of industrialisation were the work of those opposed to new machinery and working methods; and here I am thinking specifically of the Luddites and the Swing Riots.

Very few, if any, working people had ever heard of Karl Marx before the late nineteenth century, so he can hardly be described as 'popular' by any reasonable measure. The ideology of Marxism first became widespread with the ascent of organised socialist parties in the latter part of the century, particularly the Social Democratic Party of Germany, which adopted the Gotha programme in 1875. These parties, and these programmes, were a cause of the whole process of industrialisation, not a reaction against it. By this time the older forms of labour had largely been absorbed into new social models, and wage-rates were far in excess of agrarian labour. Socialism, again taking the German model as an example, was more often than not a means of creating a specific 'labour culture' than a revolutionary vehicle.

The Russian Duma was born of revolution. The Revolution of 1917 did not break out because people found out that 'the Duma was a scam', whatever that is supposed to mean, but for a whole variety of reasons, largely to do with problems arising from the mismanangement of the war. By February 1917 the Duma was largely irrelevant in any case. Serfdom was abolished in Russia in 1861, though it is important to understand that as an institution its character was quite different from western European feudalism of the high Middle Ages. Besides, parallels and comparison of this kind are always fraught with dangers. The United States only abolished slavery in 1863. Am I to conclude, then, that its economy was only just emerging from a stage of classical antiquity? There was most definitely no 'trade embargo' against the USSR in 1945, or at any time thereafter. Marshall Aid was available to the Soviets and their allies, though Stalin refused to accept the economic conditions under which it was offered. Industrialisation under Stalin was achieved by high rates of capital accummulation and exchange obtained through exports, not by the deliberate suppression of domestic consumption. On the whole question of Russian consumption, and restrictions on consumption, I would once again refer people to the arguments advanced by Robert Allan, and to Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s by Shiela Fitzpatrick. Proof, Q.E.D. or otherwise, is obtained by investigation, not, I think, by empty and somewhat ill-informed speculation. Clio the Muse 08:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I erred on the Marx bit. Should have restricted that to socialism in general. Whether people called it that or not, btw.

What you say about Germany sounds like you mean to say that industrialisation in Germany started only after 1875, but I assume you don't mean that.

My point about the Duma was that the democratic movement that appeased things in western Europe was tried in Russia to, indeed as a reaction to the uprisings. But it was a scam in the sense that they only instituted democracy, but didn't give it any power. For which reason it was indeed irrelevant by 1917 (and before that).

Serfdom and slavery are indeed rather slippery terms, so I'll leave that.

Like I said, I wasn't too sure about the trade embargo thing. So indeed I used too strong a term. But something like a 'reluctance to do business with the USSR' is rather likely, and that is probably what I heard.

I didn't say there was deliberate suppression of domestic consumption. (Or were you addressing the OP?) It was just the result of reinvesting the profits in stead of using them for the good of the people. Which I assume you mean by 'capital accumulation'. So we seem to be in accord on this point as well. I just add to that the analogy between western Europe and Russia.

That last bit was somewhat uncalled for. You've got a rather nasty chip on your shoulder at times. Or was it meant with a smiley? :) DirkvdM 18:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I shall risk one last comment here. Our task on the Humanities Desk, as I see it, is to give clear and precise information; to talk when we can talk, and to avoid guesswork at all hazards. I will always attempt to correct empirical errors where I see a need, and within the degree of my competence; always try to prevent questioners being misled. If that means that I have 'a rather nasty chip on my shoulder' well, then, so be it-I am delighted to carry this. But I really have to say that I could not care less for your personal opinion of me; and you can take that with the biggest smile I can manage. Clio the Muse 23:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And you carry out that task quite well as far as I can judge (even if you miss my point occasionally). In your case I have learned to focus on that and ignore your attitude. Just thought I'd mention it this once. DirkvdM 07:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

August 12

Secularism vs. opposite

In political ideology, what is the opposite of secularism?

Given the wp definition of secularism (belief that certain practices or institutions should exist separately from religion), I might take that to be an established church. But then, the opposite of an established church (eg. England) should be the separation of church and state, eg. USA/France. Not an question I can answer precisely, because I haven't heard of secularism as a political ideology before. Could it be a theocracy - ie. a country ruled by God, or clerics?martianlostinspace ^{email me} 00:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Does everything have an opposite? What is the opposite of whale? --Wetman 05:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The whale is a large mammal which looks like a fish; so the opposite of the whale would be a small fish which looks like a mammal. QED. --24.147.86.187 22:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Wetman, we normally talk about adjectives when we talk about opposites of words. --Taraborn 06:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The secularism article also has the alternate definition "Secularism can also be the social ideology in which religion and supernatural beliefs are not seen as the key to understanding the world", and that works well with the antonyms (i.e. opposites) stated in the Secularity article: religious or devout. / Kriko 08:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw that the question was specific to political ideology, so I guess my alternate answer isn't what was sought. /Kriko 08:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say clericalism. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the opposite of the sea is the sky, and of big is small, then we might say that the opposite of whale is a hummingbird? A great sea mammal to a tiny bird! Or, if the spelling of "whale" becomes "wail", then I suppose "whisper". Actually, though: it makes sense that the opposite of b has to be a, if a is the opposite of b. You can't say that the opposite of a is b, and the opposite of b is c. So my point being, my logic doesn't fit together precisely.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 11:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Tilf?

You know there is a word called MILF meaning Mother I'd to Like F***, right? can there be a word called TILF meaning Teen I'd to Like F***?

Not that I'm absolutely up to speed with your subject area, you might want to take this to the language reference desk. This is humanities - we deal with things like History and Politics here.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 00:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course there can. You just wrote it out. However, anyone can make up an acronym, whether it goes beyond a neologism is another matter. Currently TILF is better known, by the population that didn't grow up watching American Pie, as Trade and Investment Liberalization & Facilitation (a goal of APEC) [2][3], though among the youth of today is appears to be an acronym for Teacher I'd Like to Fuck. One can only imagine the sniggers when schools visit APEC on trips... Rockpocket 02:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Protologisms are a passtime of youngsters, as is argot of all sorts. You can make up whatever fun words you like, but that doesn't mean that you need to try to spread it. If you want a successful neologism, look for a word that expresses an idea that does not currently have a term. Your suggestion is very unlikely, as "teen I would like to foul" is pretty tautological. In a society where 19 is the ideal year for female beauty, saying, "This is an attractive teen" is somewhat redundant. The most successful neologisms, other than those occasioned by technology or war, cover things like "homie." Most European languages already had a word like pisano, but English never had a word for "person from my neighborhood and therefore someone with a shared outlook," nothing that covered the force of "pisan." Therefore, "homeboy" worked. Geogre 03:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find an English word for "person from my neighborhood and therefore someone with a shared outlook", is neighbour! OK maybe not as forceful but I seem to have coped my whole life without needing the word 'homie'. And (although technically depending on the law where you live) "jailbait" is a common word for an attractive teen, especially one below the legal age of consent. Cyta 12:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

how much was lost

How much was money has been lost globally in the last month due to the market falling?

Last night I heard a former Dutch minister of social affairs explain that no real production was lost in the Netherlands (or was he talking about Europe in general?), so our wealth had not been affected. Only if manufacturers would loose confidence in the future to the extent that they would invest less then that would lead to a reduction in wealth (and thus money), but that hasn't happened (I hope I remember this correctly). I guess that what really happened is that money has changed hands between 'money market gamblers' (aka investors). So no money was lost. Don't know about other parts of the world, though. Of course the US is the odd one out here, because that's where it started. DirkvdM 08:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

alright i worded the question wrong. something is lost when market goes down. what is it called and how much of it is now gone?

You're thinking of market capitalization, although I don't know the answer to your question. -- Mwalcoff 21:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but as I understand it, what is lost is the value of shares and therefore means for companies to invest. But that is a long-term effect and it doesn't really happen if companies keep faith in the future and assume the funds will return. If they do, nothing is lost, really. The stock exchange is a bit like a weather-forecast, giving an indication of what (sort of) companies will do better and which worse. Which is the basis on which investments are made or not (shares are bought and sold). But sometimes the 'weathermen' go berserk and their predictions are worthless. Only if they persist will it become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Or if they had made wrong assumptions in the past, as happened in the US in the 1930s (with a strong effect on the rest of the world). And may happen again now because people have been borrowing money, assuming they will be able to pay it back. If that 'weatherforecast' turns out wrong, people realise they weren't as rich as they thought they were. Nothing is lost, it's just that people assumed something was there, which there wasn't. If that happens, it is important that the rest of the world keeps its head cool and continues as normal. If some companies don't, then others will have to invest extra to compensate (as my grandfather did in the 1930s). If they don't, then the government should take on that role, at least in the view of John Maynard Keynes. DirkvdM 07:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Asian ideologies

_{moved from Help Desk!}

-what are the different asian ideologies? 124.107.20.90 03:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a Google search that lists quite a few. --Teratornis 03:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of things that could be described as ideologies - religion, social constructs, politics.... However, the one that describes most of Asia most thoroughly is Confucianism, having spread across Asia like wildfire and shaped a good portion of the big three (Korea, China, and Japan)'s economic, social, and political landscape (I wrote my thesis on this, in fact). Confucianism primarily stresses a group-oriented social dynamic. Confucianism is an odd beast because it both enforces hierarchy (primarily familial) via the strong emphasis on loyalty and superiority of elders, but the principle of "rectification of names" also attempts to ensure that those "higher-ups" are called leaders on the terms of their leadership. Other "ideologies" might include Taoism, another important social "religion", Shintoism, ASEAN, pacifism (exhibited by post-WWII Japan and exemplified in South Korea's sunshine policy), the previously linked Japan's "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" (a euphemism similar to Hitler's "living space" to describe pre-WWII Japanese imperialism in Central and South Asia), and Islam (while not a completely East "Asian" religion, it is Middle Eastern, and Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world). Some more clarification on your definition of "ideology" might be in order if you need more help. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 06:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wooty gets, long form, at the single question you must answer in order to get a meaningful enquiry: what is an ideology? Are you using Althusser's definition? Hegel's? A political science textbook's? Karl Marx's? Know your terms, and then you can know what you're looking for. Geogre 14:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Argentina and the Perons

Please tell me in what way the Perons used propaganda to support regime.TheLostPrince 10:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In what way did the Peróns use propaganda? It might be easier to ask in what ways did they not use progaganda? It was at the very heart of the regime established by Juan Peron, a constant process of public engagement and self-promotion. It was also astonishingly successful, for reasons that I will touch on just a little later.

There were two essential elements to Perónist propaganda; first, the usual thing that one most associates with this activity: posters, speeches, publications and promotions of all kinds; and second, the practical work carried out by Eva Peron, the President's wife, in the Eva Perón Foundation, the charity she founded and managed, even at a micro-level. It would be difficult to uderestimate the impact of this, and the personal contact it afforded many people with Evita, which was to sanctify her, both living and dead, and, for a time, shore up the authoritarian regime established by her husband. Her work in promoting Perón was also furthered by the establishment of the Female Peronist Party, shortly after women gained the vote in Argentina in 1947. Faithful cadres were sent across the country, everywhere promoting the Perónist message. It was a highly effective, election-winning machine.

Apart from party publications promoting the actions, and more important, pushing the image of the President and his movie-star wife, the normal press channels were also subject to a high degree of control and co-ordination. Opposition newspapers were intimidated into acquiescence, or closed down altogether, as was La Prensa in 1951. Evita also bought her own paper, Democracia, which presented news in an attractive, photo-rich and Perónist light. Radio broadcasts also served the same purpose. Official publications, like The Argentine Nation: Just, Free, Sovereign, were essentially photo opportunities, punctuated by text celebrating the regime's achievments. Others catered for the growing personality cult, with titles like How PERÓN gets it done, A Happy People Acclaims Perćn, The Social Mystique of Eva Perón, so on and so forth.

But the most significant work of all was that carried out among school children, which included the publication of school books and stories like Little Cachito. In this an eight-year-old boy who comes from a family too poor to afford to buy Christmas presents but eventually gets a football thanks to the generosity of Evita and her foundation, which ensures that all the children of Argentina receive gifts, and no-one is left in tears! Children learned to read by pronouncing the names of Evita and Perón. After Evita's death in the summer of 1952 the following little prayer was included in the second-year reader;

Little Mother, who art in heaven, good fairy smiling among the angels, Evita: I promise to be as good as you could wish, respecting God, loving my country, loving General Perón, studying and being in every way the child of your dreams; healthy, happy, educated and clean-hearted. Looking at your portrait, like one who swears an oath, I make this promise to you. Even more, I ask you: have confidence in youe child, Evita!

It was in this area that the work of Perónist propaganda had its greatest impact, outlasting the overthrow of the regime by the military in the 1955 coup. By the 1960s the regime was under sustained attack from radical youth, from the very people who had grown up with the image of Saint Evita and the omnipotent General Juan. Clio the Muse 01:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

UK Public in determining qualification for fancy awards (e.g. knighthood)

Could the UK public force revocation of an GBE, KDE etc. by petitioning the UK government? --212.204.150.105 14:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Anon, we have two issues here:

1) Can the British government withdraw honours, and 2) Can it be forced to do so by the British public?

I cannot answer the first, but certainly, the concept of the elective dictatorship, which seems to make HM government largely opinion proof - at least, to myself it seems like it, compared to other parliamentary systems. It would be difficult for the public to force this, unless it were a really massive issue which threatened the government's position of power. If they could do it, they would normally do it of their own accord rather than public initiative. Even if the government could not, though, Parliament certainly could (constitutionally speaking, by making a law to that effect), because of parliamentary sovereignty.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 20:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Also see [4].martianlostinspace ^{email me} 20:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And more to the point of your question, [5].martianlostinspace ^{email me} 20:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In general terms, honours such as knighthoods and the membership of orders of chivalry flow from the Crown and can be forfeited at the will of the Crown. The constitutional practice is now that revoking honours needs to be done on the advice of ministers. Two famous cases of knighthoods being forfeited in the 20th century are Roger Casement and Anthony Blunt. Both had been guilty of what were seen (not least by public opinion) as treasonable acts, but both, although their highest loyalties had not been to the United Kingdom, were men who acted on principle according to their consciences. Criminal convictions are sometimes but not always seen as enough to justify stripping someone of honours of chivalry; they do more often result in the withdrawal of other positions, such as membership of the Privy Council.

When it comes to peers, they can be attainted by parliament for high treason. When there is no treason, the process of removing a peerage requires a specific Act of Parliament, and governments are generally reluctant to make parliamentary time for them. So following mere crime, dishonesty, murder, etc., peers have generally been left with their titles of nobility intact; although in some cases, of course, they have also been executed. As a result of the Titles Deprivation Act 1917, three royal dukes and Lord Taaffe were deprived of their titles for bearing arms against the United Kingdom during the First World War. For instances of peers unaffected by criminal convictions, seeVictor Hervey, 6th Marquess of Bristol, John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol, and Jeffrey Archer.

Undoubtedly, public opinion is a factor, but there is no direct democracy in the UK. A petition of the kind you mean couldn't strictly speaking force the British goverment to revoke the honours granted to someone the public wished to punish, but it might well influence a decision which was hanging in the balance. In the case of Anthony Blunt, pressure was mounted by national newspapers before the decision to take away his knighthood was taken. He was later stripped of the title of Emeritus professor by the University of London as the result of a vote by its governing body.

There has been a strong press campaign to take away Jeffrey Archer's life peerage, since he was found guilty of perjury and perverting the course of justice and sent to prison in July, 2001, but so far it has been unsuccessful. Xn4 23:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• I believe there has also been some calls for Robert Mugabe's Order of Garter to be withdrawn. --Counter-revolutionary 14:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• He's a KCB rather than a KG, and he still has it. However, in June of this year Edinburgh University took away the honorary degree it had given him in the early years of his presidency. Xn4 03:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, quite right. One wonders how he ever got it in the first place! --Counter-revolutionary 15:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

nyc threat

Why is NYC taking threat information from websites? Shouldn't they get any serious threat information from the CIA or NSA before they act and start searching for things?

Are you the same person who said "Why is Congress listening to the CIA when they say Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?" before the war? If so, you are basing both questions on faulty assumptions. -- Kainaw^(what?) 01:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

New York City has its own intelligence unit in its metropolitan police, and it's pretty good. Federal to federal, state to state, and city to city: the city's individual response is dictated by its own information, while the state's response is dictated by its information. Why are they looking at websites? The same reason everyone else is. Otherwise, yeah, it's a pretty foolish assumption that they're not gathering information from all other sources as well, including better human intelligence than many. Geogre 02:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hobbes the atheist

Can Thomas Hobbes properly be considered as an atheist? Martinben 19:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No. He was accused of being one, but he certainly denied it. If he denied it, it's hardly proper for any of us to say that he didn't know what he believed. Is his political science atheistic? Well, it's a-theistic but not anti-theistic, and, ultimately, it's as based on the assumptions and paradigms of divinely appointed rulers as anything Thomas Filmer argued. Geogre 02:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, many of his contemporaries certainly thought so. In October 1666 a committee of the House of Commons was empowered to examine the views expressed in Leviathan as part of the preparations for a bill intended to make hereesy a crime. Some even went so far as to suggest that Hobbes' doctrines were responsible for the Great Fire of London! His books were either banned or burnt, and the Catholic church placed De Cive on its Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1654. He was regularly attacked in the press of the day, which delighted in detailing the torments he would suffer in the after-life for his apparent lack of belief. It was his rationalism and materialism that tended to disturb people most; even God is reduced to a material level. Archbishop Tenison was to say of him "Yet for the very handsomeness in dressing his Opinions, as the matter stands, he is to be reproved; because by that means, the poyson which he hath intermixed with them is with the more readiness and danger swallowed." His views were certainly unsettling in an age not noted for latitude in matters of faith and belief: that there was no personal Satan; that the Pentateuch and many other books of the Bible were revisions or compilations from earlier sources; that few miracles could be credited after the Testament period; that witchcraft was a myth; and that religion was often confused with superstition. He was, as one writer has noted, 'anti-ecclesiastical, anti-clerical, anti-enthusiastic, anti-theology, anti-creeds and anti-inspiration.'

So, was he an atheist? All I can really say here is that the evidence suggests not; and in his personal life he adhered to the Anglican Church, which, in any case, was for him a necessary instrument of Leviathan. He believed in God as First Cause, but denied most of the manifestations and attributes accorded to Him by organised religion; even holiness, goodness and blessedness, which in the Hobbesian view are all unknowable facts. His God, such as He is, is distant, cold, intellectual amd essentially unknowable. What did he really believe? That is a question that can only be answered by God, and by Hobbes! Clio the Muse 02:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

To be annoying and bring up semantics, no one seems to have called themselves atheist at the time. Baron d'Holbach is often quoted as being the first self-described atheist (or one of them, according to his article) in 1770. Before that, during Hobbes's lifetime, and since its coinage in 16th century France, the word athéisme seems to have been used almost exclusively as an accusation for all sorts of perceived threats to established beliefs, not as a self-attribution. See the article on history of atheism. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There would have been clear risks in doing so, Sluzzelin, when Hobbes was alive; more risky, I have to say, in some parts of the the British Isles than in others. Clio the Muse 07:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Greenblatt makes the argument, in "Invisible Bullets," that it was "impossible" to say that one was an atheist (this swings on the hinge of Foucault's ideas of an epistem), that the concept simply existed as an attribute of the other only. The argument is hyperbolic, but it's not entirely baseless. This argument that it can only be an Other is, I think, shaky and a bit precious. We're being asked whether Hobbes fits a contemporary category, and we're actually all concluding that he doesn't. It is possible that he couldn't have fit it, but there were enough who were utterly silent about their religion who seem to have no faith at all, where Hobbes himself professed faith, albeit a highly aggravating and intellectual faith. Geogre 12:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Durable goods which have a chance to appreciate?

A household handbook I'm reading advises (on home ownership):

“ A home won't necessarily make you rich, but houses, condominiums, and cooperative apartments tend to grow in value over the long term. Also, few other investments offer the opportunity to boost their value while you get day-to-day enjoyment from them. ”

[emphasis added]

My question is what other investment would fit that description? I'm coming up with a complete blank -- it seems to me, other than "art" which you can enjoy but not really "use", there is no "durable good" (some would argue a house is just that) that tends to appreciate, or at least often does. Are there any other examples? Is there anything I can buy and use, with the expectation that it has a good chance of appreciating in value even as I use it?

Thank you!

84.0.126.69 21:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's assume you're talking about purely financial value, and note that even real estate does fall in value occassionally. The market doesn't always rise all the time. Other than that, are there not many antiques of many things which increase as they go? Many quality yachts, for example, will last long, and hold their value for a long time. Much more than say - cheaper yachts, of similar size and performance which aren't really built to last. But then you could call that real estate to - you can live on boats, obviously. Vintage motors? Are they not useable/enjoyable (as any car) yet hold their value better than some?martianlostinspace ^{email me} 22:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Question: Are there any other examples? Is there anything I can buy and use, with the expectation that it has a good chance of appreciating in value even as I use it?

Answer: A gold toilet bowl.

See for yourself http://clovetwo.com/archives/2007/7/1/decornlifestyle/sm_pg10toilet.jpg

202.168.50.40 22:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just a quick note that you've already disqualified the other obvious example the text was talking about: art. The quote does say enjoy, not use, after all. Other stuff that might qualify: jewelery, antiques, historical items, etc. To a limited extent, wines, cigars, whiskeys, and other age-able items might also qualify, though they're obviously less surely to increase in value compared to real estate. Matt Deres 22:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys - thanks for the quick responses! I didn't mean to imply the market would definitely rise, just that there was a reasonable expectation that it "might". i.e. a speculative "investment" (insofar as it is an investment). Now the reason I mentioned "durable" goods is because I am interested in things that I can "use" while I speculate wtih it possibly appreciating in value, without "using up". So, wines, cigars, whiskeys, and other such things don't qualify, since I can't smoke/drink them and have them too. So unless by "use" I meant having it on display to impress someone, they don't qualify. On the other hand, furniture is a perfect example of something you can use! What a great idea, to say "antiques". So, what kinds of antiques are good to speculate in?

Furniture? Jewelery?

Now, if I wanted to buy, say, a watch, that might well appreciate, how would I go about it? I guess now that I think about it some people "invest" in coins or stamps, but since I don't collect these, I couldn't use them while I had them (in a way that doesn't "use them up"), which is the essential basis of my question. So I guess the current list is:

- A House.

- A High-Quality Yacht

- Antiques (furniture, jewellery ... ? )

- Household items made of gold (toilet bowl, ... ?)

- Purely decorative art (a painting hung, a statue displayed -- hey, a Paperweight!).

I guess a small sculpture (ie a sculpture that is actual art made by a sculptist) as a paperweight I could "use" (in its use as a paperweight), without using up, while it appreciated in value.

Anything else?

The second question is obviously I want something that isn't just rolling off a factory floor, like a Rolex, since then why would it appreciate just from being older, when people can buy the latest with just as much gold in it (or whatever) ? So, in that case, where would I find jewellerey that isn't marked up off retail, continually being churned out even twenty years from now?

What else can I buy, and use carefully, for twenty years, with a chance, just a chance, that it'll be worth more? (Not "keep much of its value" but "be worth more", ie, have appreciated in value.) And, if I'm thinking of jewellerey, where can I buy it?

Thank you!

84.0.126.69 00:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC).

For things that you expect to use and have them maintain value, it is clear that they will need to be handled with care and protected. Given that, though, there are many things that would qualify if you consider the collector aspect. Of course, they would have to be things that you also enjoy using, or they would simply sit around gathering dust. For me, it would be books - first edition printings from popular authors that I also happen to like. Collectible Christmas ornaments. Automobiles - a well-cared for antique auto can be used for decades and still have great resale value. Certain high-end brands of pianos and violins. High quality crystal. Or, the best option I can think of: a business that you love. It isn't a "durable good" but it certainly is something that you can "use" while speculating with it possibly appreciating in value, without using it up. 152.16.188.107 06:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The entertainment industry provides a lot of opportunities here, from comic books to prints of classic movies to cells from old cartoons to classic vinyl records. While you can enjoy them as intended, the value generally is much higher for those maintained in new condition, such as unopened comic books. Sports memorabilia can also qualify, such as a baseball signed by Babe Ruth. (You can "enjoy" it by showing it off, but I wouldn't play baseball with it.) Toys are another area with potential, from Victorian dolls to an antique Jack-in-the-Box. We could also include antique guns, some of which are still in good enough condition to fire occasionally. StuRat 20:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Some instruments like a well made Grand Piano.192.53.187.183 15:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

English poem

Please i need a good poem that illustrate attitude and outlook in england just before first world war —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.38.137 (talk • contribs)

You could do no better than look at the work of the lovely Rupert Brooke, in particular The Old Vicarage, Granchester, which concludes with the following lines;

Say, is there Beauty yet to find?

And Certainty? and Quiet kind?

Deep meadows yet, for to forget

The lies, and truths, and pain?… oh! yet

Stands the Church clock at ten to three?

And is there honey still for tea?''

It recalls a world, as George Orwell puts it, where people ate "everlasting strawberry ices on green lawns to the tune of the Eton Boating Song." But we'll row forever... And so we will! Clio the Muse 22:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone may say that Rupert Brooke was a golden boy and not very representative of England as a whole, but I'm with Clio. I guess the attitude and outlook you're looking for are those of the long Edwardian Summer, in which the English basked in their relative peace, security, and imperial strength, so were able to enjoy the pleasures of home blissfully unaware of the nightmares on the horizon. Consider Edward Thomas's Adlestrop:

Yes, I remember Adlestrop -

The name, because one afternoon

Of heat the express-train drew up there

Unwontedly. It was late June.

The steam hissed. Someone cleared his throat.

No one left and no one came

On the bare platform. What I saw

Was Adlestrop - only the name

And willows, willow-herb, and grass,

And meadowsweet, and haycocks dry,

No whit less still and lonely fair

Than the high cloudlets in the sky.

And for that minute a blackbird sang

Close by, and round him, mistier,

Farther and farther, all the birds

Of Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire.

regards, Xn4 00:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Another approach might be to use Rudyard Kipling's If, which first appeared in 1910. It was soon taken up to be read aloud in English schools, and even today many old people can recite a few lines of it, if not more. Not a great poet (but a fine writer of short stories and novels) Kipling was one of the most admired writers of his day, and If sums up the English admiration for self-reliance, coolness, truth, resilience and long-suffering, and for keeping the stiff upper lip, which were the fabric of the old ordered society. The poem survived the Great War, and although it looks old-fashioned, its heart stands outside time. Read it here. Xn4 03:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Did If not top a fairly recent poll on the nation's favourite poems? I certainly love it, as I do Kipling's stories. And as for Mandalay....Come you back, you British soldier; come you back to Mandalay! Clio the Muse 03:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Heck! I'm a fan of "If", and I'm an American! Wrad 03:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Kipling may not have been a Great Poet, whatever that may mean, but he could write verse that engraves itself in your memory, and pops out at opportune moments. DuncanHill 13:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Robert Graves and Wilfred Owen both took aim at A.E. Housman and Tennyson as villains of the "youths ardent for some desperate glory." For that matter, Herbert Read still seems to have them in mind a bit later. It is the catchiness and sweetness of these verses that makes them pernicious to people who had to watch the bodies of their comrades rot in no-man's land five yards from the trench. Utgard Loki 15:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, I can't quite make out the words "these verses" - if they mean the work of Housman and Tennyson, then I don't see a connection with If, which doesn't glorify war, nor even soldiering. And after the Great War, Kipling wrote of the lost generation -

If any question why we died

Tell them, 'Because our fathers lied'.

Loki may find something to help his thesis in Kwib's List of Victoria Crosses by School, but perhaps we have wandered too far from Anon's request! Xn4 17:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The connection was also to "If," which is pro-pluck, as it were, and honour, but the main targets of the War Poets who mentioned contemporaries were Housman and Tennyson (and Brooke). Kipling, as I think we've discussed on this desk before, is a multifaceted writer who was both pro and anti-empire, both pacifist and imperialist. Whatever he himself was at the time, though, his poetry was used to instill a towering sense of heroism. When the Lost Generation went to war, they saw no heroism at all. They reacted differently from one another. Owen wrote the greatest war poetry, hands down, but he also died in the war, while Sigfied Sassoon and Robert Graves didn't. Graves might have had other reasons for hating Housman, as he seemed to hate a good many people, but the original questioner could do worse than to look at Goodbye to All of That for a temperature of England in 1914. Utgard Loki 18:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Gulp. We're on attitude and outlook in England just before the first world war, and my suggestion was that If illustrates them. Forgive me if I'm missing something, Loki, but it doesn't seem to me that we need to defend pluck and honour against the notion that they are 'imperialist' or warmongering qualities. If I'm wrong, then the first thing to say is that they're needed even more by pacifists than by militarists, even more by anti-imperialists than by imperialists. Xn4 20:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a missing logical connector there. 1. Poem that sets mood of England. Then we diverge. Most are looking at popular poems of the period. Loki is going a different route: 2. We know the most powerful ones by the ones hated by the War Poets. 3. They cited Brooke, Tennyson, and Kipling. 4. They could be unfair (Kipling is all sorts of things), but theirs is first hand testimony. 5. Go see Goodbye to All of That for more. <shrug> Two paths to answering the same question. Geogre 22:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If has alwways suggested Stoicism to me, and I believe I am right in saying that Albert Camus cited Kipling as an influential figure in the development of his belief (but am blowed if I can remember where). DuncanHill 22:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Loki, can I say without a trace of disrespect that Goodbye to All That is perhaps the very last book I would recommend here. I has almost nothing to say about the 'attitude and outlook' in England before the Great War, unless you think that Grave's rather limited experience at Charterhouse is somehow relevant to the question? Personally, I have always wondered by what right the 'War Poets'-always understood here to be a rather circumscribed group-are held up to be the 'voice of a generation', and what right they had to sit in judgement over Rupert Brooke or any other poet of the time. Brooke was as good a poet as any of them, and better than some. I will happily set The Old Vicarage, Granchester, and, yes, even The Soldier against all of the verses ever compiled by Graves. But this is getting too far off topic, which is the mood of England before the Great War. Graves hated Housman? Well, I think I can guess that most of the soldiers returning to England in 1919 would have understood and shared the sentiments expressed in what might serve the final epitaph of the 'long Edwardian Summer'. And if the original questioner is still around here it is;

Into my heart an air that kills

From yon far country blows:

What are those blue remembered hills,

What farms, what spires are those?

That is the land of lost content,

I see it shining plain,

The happy highways where I went

And cannot come again. Clio the Muse 00:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you i like this poem, its just waht i need. Please, Clio the Muse where is it from?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.38.137 (talk • contribs)

It is Poem 40 of A Shropshire Lad by A. E. Housman. DuncanHill 13:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow! Brooke as good a poet as Owen? I think you're way, way, way off the beam there. The War Poets were not actually the voice of the generation, but they produced the great poems of the era in multiple ways. Sassoon was a good poet for the war itself and then fell into repetition and shabbiness. Graves wasn't really a poet primarily. He was primarily a Classicist, where he was top notch, and novelist, where he was good (and Goodbye to All of That is best seen as part of that). He was a fine poet. "Persian Version" and "Down, Wanton, Down" are nice little doodads. The poet's poet among the bunch was Wilfred Owen. He managed extraordinary metrical skill, formal composition, wording, and imagery and was shaping up to be as great as Keats. However, the reason they are praised over others is that they were the very important bridge to Modernism for the generation. Modernism is born in WW1 and the glimpse of horror behind the mask of "Civilization." There is no question in my mind, anyway, that their verse, during those years at least, was the only living, dynamic, and innovative verse coming along. Part of this is because, as Swift said, there is only one type of health and a thousand different diseases, but it's also because the disillusionment of WW1 was much more profound than that of the Crimean. Dour comments on bad leaders are fine, but they don't match the static horror of the trenches. Geogre 02:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And I will continue to defend Brooke, and Housman, and, yes, even Kipling, off beam or not. But my tastes here are not really the issue, and the question has nothing at all to do with the 'horror of the trenches' or 'modernism' Clio the Muse 03:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It does, though, because a highly disillusioned nation doesn't react with righteous indignation at WW1. The form of the response is dictated by the horizon of expectations, and we know the horizon of expectations by the reaction, both. You end your poem, "You would not tell to children ardent for some desperate glory/ The old lie, Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori," unless you thought there were people out there doing that telling who needed to be upbraided. If you thought they were expecting little or without moral sense created by culture, you would never appeal against that kind of patriotism and Honour. Loki's argument may be indirect, but it's correct in that much. Geogre 12:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, I think you intended to say You would not end your poem..., and the 'you' is Wilfred Owen. But your quotation is a little out, the poem ends -

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est

Pro patria mori.

'My friend' is the hearer. This is a grim, realistic poem about the nightmares of trench warfare. Horace's foolish tag was much quoted in the early months of the Great War, but by the time he wrote his poem in 1917 Owen must have known that Horace had run out of credibility: he was shooting a sitting duck. The poem was published posthumously in 1921, and we can't say whether Owen would then have left it as it was. Perhaps he would. In any event, Horace was a humbug. He went to war and got as far as the Battle of Philippi, but later admitted he had deserted. Xn4 02:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Horace - "the soundest platitudinarian that ever was" [6] DuncanHill 09:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

August 13

Copyright tag

I uploaded an image of Mother Teresa and Dr. Johannnes Maas, and neglected to check the box that this image is NOT coprighted. I cannot figure out how to edit it to remove the warning that it is not tagged. This is the page:

Image: Mother Teresa and Dr. Johannes Maas.jpg

01:16, 12 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Mother Teresa and Dr. Johannes Maas.jpg (This photo of Dr. Johannes Maas and Mother Teresa was taken by his personal photographer. Her name is Ms. Toni Cordell. It is not copyrighted. It was taken in Mother Teresa'a office in Calcutta during a meeting with Mother Theresa following her being awar)

Mother Teresa and Dr. Maas are two noted humanitarians who, I think, are worthy of inclusions in this esteemed encyclopedia. (Dr. Maas is listed in the 16th edition of Marquis Who's Who in the Midwest, page 436. Thank you very much for your assistance. Carol Penrod 02:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Carol PenrodCarol Penrod 02:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Click on the blue copyright tag in the warning. Notice that that page has a link to All copyright tags. Pick the tag that applies. It will look like {{some description of the copyright}}. When you like one, copy everything from the beginning {{ to the trailing }} into the description of the image at Image: Mother Teresa and Dr. Johannes Maas.jpg. -- Kainaw^(what?) 03:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The Siena Duomo's Pavement

In your article it states that for 3 weeks each year the covers are removed so that the whole floor can be seen. Please,what are the dates of this in 2008 ?≥89.241.201.55 10:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any announcement of the dates for 2008. The dates were announced for 2007[7] as August 18-October 27, for 2006 as August 20-October 27 (though another source reported August 7-22), for 2005 as August 20-October 31, for 2004 as August 21-October 26, for 2003 (?) as August 21-October 21 and for 2001[8] as August 23-October 3. So it would seem that you'd be very safe planning your visit at any time in September. The telephone number for information seems to be (39)(0577)283048. An essay focusing on the odd prominence of Hermes Trismegistus in the pavimento can be found here. Wareh 15:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

But those time periods are for more than three weeks, so is our article incorrect in that statement? Corvus cornix 18:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems safe to assume so, and I've modified the article accordingly (with links). Wareh 19:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Name of John Galsworthy's short story

B.krishnakumar 13:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)There is a short story by John Galsworthy in which a spy woman-I am told the story is based on the life of Mata Hari-is lodged in a nunnery(convent)by the soldiers on the eve of capital punishment.She requests the Mother Superior to allow her to dance before the inmates at dinner time.The request is granted and she performs the dance of her life!Next day morning the soldiers come and take her to the gallows.But something unusual happened at the nunnery.One of the inmates-- who had watched the the spy woman's dance-eloped from the nunnery,leaving a note,"I've decided to live and enjoy my life".Can anyone post a copy of that story or in the least let me know the title of that story?

This short story is called Salta Pro Nobis and was written in 1922. It was first collected in Caravan (1925) and is also in a modern collection called The Apple Tree and Other Stories (see pp 160-164 of the Penguin edition, 1988). I tried googling the first sentence ("The dancer, my mother, is very sad"), but I'm afraid that doesn't lead to an online text. If you need it urgently and can't get hold of it in time, leave a note on my talk page and we'll see what we can do. Xn4 16:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you profusely for the information.I'll search for the story and come back if necessary.Thanks again!B.krishnakumar

Oldest (stone?) house in Europe (Knap of Howar is Northern Europe)

Knap of Howar in Orkney is often described, including in WP, as "the oldest preserved stone house in northern Europe". Sometimes "stone" is omitted. This implies that there's an older preserved house (stone or not) elsewhere in Europe. What, where? Any ideas? (Knap of Howar is a wonderful place and well worth a visit!) PamD 14:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that professional archeologists did the excavation, because otherwise these structures look something anyone who was familiar with stone fences or stone foundations could have built in a few weeks. The article says it was built on an earlier midden, so the radio carbon dating gets problematic. The stones themselves are possible millions of years old, and the midden (garbage) under them is "older" than the 300 year or so age of the house, so we are left with determing the date that humans worked and stacked the stone. Is there a lab measurement to state what year a stone was stacked on another stone? Edison 15:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Archaeologists would have determined the date of the house by obtaining the radiocarbon date of debris deposited in its floor while it was occupied. Probably the house had a packed-earth floor on top of the midden layers, so it would be possible to distinguish debris deposited by occupants from midden debris. Marco polo 17:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The oldest lived in house in the UK at least is I think "The Jew's House" in Lincoln, Lincolnshire, UK. 80.0.133.26 21:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, how about Saltford Manor? [9] DuncanHill 11:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Knap of Howar "was occupied from 3500 BC to 3100 BC", so is in rather a different league from Lincoln or Saltford! Someone suggested that Malta may hold the answer. Any ideas? PamD 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Air war over Japan

I would like to know someting more about the strategic air offensive against Japan, and how the Japanese responded, prior to the atomic attacks of August 1945. CheersSecret seven 16:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You could start with Japan campaign and Bombing of Tokyo in World War II and Strategic bombing during World War II, but none of these has much information on the Japanese response. Marco polo 17:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't much of one, particularly later on. Gasoline was in very short supply, and the small amount available was held in reserve against the expected invasion. The Japanese had no effective night-fighers, and few aircraft that could operate at the altitude of a B-29. It's why the strategic bombers were lightly armed and often without fighter escort, and why the atomic bombings were carried out unopposed. The basic response was to keep an eye out for bombers, head to shelter until the bombs stopped falling, and try to put out the fires afterwards. --Carnildo 22:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Also Bombing of Kobe in World War II. Rmhermen 23:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me focus chiefly on the question of the Japanese response, as the air offensive itself is largely covered in the pages linked here by other editors.

As early as 1928 the Japanese authorities had been alert to the possibility of attack from the air, and some precautions were put in place. In 1937 the Air Defence Law was passed, followed in 1939 by the formation of the Greater Japan Air Defence Association. However, as far as Prime Minister Tojo was concerned the best defence against this form of attack was Japanese expansion across the Pacific. Indeed, he went so far as to declare that "Preparations for homeland defence must not interfere with the operations of the armed forces overseas." It was not until 1943, as the 'protective perimiter' began to shrink, that the whole issue acquired a new priority in strategic planning. By the end of the year the government began to consider proposals for the wholesale evacuation of children and others, not vital to the war, from the cities of Tokyo, Nagoya, Kobe and Osaka, though little was done before the first serious B-29 raids began in June 1944. In the wake of this the evacuation programme was speeded up; and by September over 400,000 children and their teachers had been sent into rural areas.

The real fear, of course, was that Japan's 'cities of wood and paper' were perfect bonfire material. Neighbourhood 'bucket relays' were organised, hardly adequate for what was to come. More drastically, municipal authorities started a policy of selective demolition to create 'fire breaks.' Belts of up to 120 feet wide were cleared of houses, and most structures around public buildings were systematically removed. Almost 2 million people lost their homes this way; and though they received some financial compensation, no alternative housing was provided. Like the evacuees, they were expected to stay with relatives. Although the government also urged the construction of air-raid shelters, there was an insufficient supply of basic materials to allow for a comprehensive programme. Most civilians had to make do with plank-covered trenches.

If civilian defence was bad, military protection was even worse. Japan's radar screen, such as it was, could not cope with with aircraft flying very low or very high. The fighter shield available for home defence was completely ineffective, as Carnildo says, against enemy bombers flying at high altitudes. Fuel, moreover, was in short supply, as were good pilots, the best all having been sent overseas, or wasted in Kamikaze attacks. Not only were the anti-aircraft guns the country possesssed largely out of date, but there was also an insufficient number to protect all of the likely targets.

This wholly inadequate defence was aided, to an extent, by early American strategy, which placed the chief emphasis on precision bombing. Things changed in early 1945, when Curtis Le May took over command from Haywood Hansell. Although precision raiding continued for a time, Le May began to experiment with incendiary attacks; and that, for the Japanese, was when the real problems started. Clio the Muse 01:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Anti-aircraft warfare doesn't say much about the Japanese antiaircraft weapons. The article on strategic bombing in WW2 just says that the B-29's dropped bombs from 30,000 feet on Japan and missed their targets a lot. For terror bombing of a large population center, a miss is generally still a hit, when the desire is just to set paper and wood homes on fire and kill civilians. The Japanese had in May 1942 captured Corregidor, which had U.S. antiaircraft batteries able to keep the Japanese bombers above 24,000 feet, resulting in ineffective bombing. The 3 inch guns could reach 30,000 feet, but there was a shortage of mechanical fuses which could be exploded at that altitude. By April 1942 the Corregidor aa batteries were shooting down one bomber per 100 shells. Two planes which incautiously came over at 22,500 feet were instantly shot down. Mechanical fuses allowed shooting down planes up to 28500 feet.[10] Proximity fuses were not strictly necessary, because of accurate stereoscopic rangefingind and mechanical gun directing. It is surprising the Japanese either on their own or by improving on captured weapons had not gained the ability to hit aircraft at 30,000 feet by 1945. Even if hubris said the home island would not be attacked, the weapons would have been useful for defending against Allied attacks on their island bases. Edison 15:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bias depending on sexual preference

I'm looking for a word which describes someone treating someone differently due to their sexual preference. The word 'homophobic' doesn't exactly cover it, since this differential treatment may not necessarily be worse than normal; it could just be different, or even superior. For example, "Molly's view that all gay men are camp may have been ____(ist?)"

Thanks! --Joewithajay 17:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "heterosexist" means favoring heterosexuals. By analogy, I suppose that you could refer to the favoring of homosexuals as "homosexist", though I have never seen this word used before. I do not think that there is a word referring to favoritism based on sexual orientation in general. Marco polo 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to a negative attitude towards homosexuals or more generally against people of a different sexual preference (as per your first question)? I'm sure some homosexuals will have a negative attitude towards heterosexuals (think of an attitude and someone somewhere will have it). And I once heard a lesbian fulminate against bisexuals.

What about 'sexual parochialism'? (disclaimer: I made that up :) ) DirkvdM 18:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want a neologism, how about "orientationist"? Sounds obfuscatory... AnonMoos 18:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Prejudicial"? --Sean 19:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Prejudice, as in pre-judice, is to pre-judge someone (in this case based upon their sexual orientation). This probably doesn't fit 100% with what you're saying, but the following comment would be prejudicial: "So there's a homo guy coming tonight, he must be camp", or "I could never like a gay guy". Descriminatory is to descriminate (in this case based on sexual orientation). Like, "It's an open party, but homos aren't allowed", or "Sure I'll give him a lift home, unless he's gay, then no way". Finally there's derogatory, in this case anything verbal that would be insulting or offensive to someone (in this case based on their sexual orientation). So for example the terms "poof, fag, queer, fudge-packer" could all be considered derogatory.

Looking at your question again, I could see how if you altered the question we could have come up with the word sexist, as in "Molly's view that all men aren't faithful may have been sexist" - that is, a form of racism based on sex/gender. All we need to do for you then is come up with the same word, but for sexual orientation, not gender. That's why the word 'orientationist' or even 'sexual orientationist' may fit - but these probably don't yet carry the right connotations and are open to misinterpretation. In cases such as these, the all-inclusive "racist" usually does well, as in

"Molly's view that all gay men are camp may have been racist"

Rfwoolf 01:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds completely weird and wrong to me. I would say "bigoted", but would never generalize "racist" to the point that it didn't refer to race. Bhumiya (said/done) 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is not 'sexist' racism based on sex? The term racism is open to various definitions, one of which is anything that is prejudicial, derogatory, or discriminatory against a 'race'. A 'race' can be anything from "men", "women", "gay", "straight", and the very obvious "black", "white", "asian" etc. Given that the word 'racist' has been overused and more commonly refers to skin-tone or nationality, doesn't mean that other forms of racism don't exist, such as being sexist. Rfwoolf 01:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, race commonly refers to shared biological ancestry. even if racists are often even confused about that. Female individuals don't have a shared biological ancestry (though it could be argued that they have a social and cultural ancestry) distinguishing them from male individuals. The same applies for hetero- vs homosexual, young vs old people and so forth. Like with racism and sexism, a one-word term, such as ageism, sometimes finds these prejudices, but they're commonly seen as a form of prejudice, discrimination, or bias, but not as a form of racism. I don't think I have ever encountered that wide a definition of racism, and this usage would mislead me. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sluzzelin that definition of racism is completely non standard and would be very confusing to any normal English speaker. Cyta 07:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Glasgow

Tomorrow my team in playing against Glasgow Rangers in Champions League qualifications.I will spend just one day in Glasgow:tomorrow Im arriving at 6 am and Im leaving at 11 pm...What should I see in that time from the most important city sights,since this in probably the only chance I`ll get..>Thank you

Celtic Park ;) Rockpocket 18:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're art/culture inclined: Glasgow School of Art, Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, the University of Glasgow's Hunterian Buildings and the Hunterian Museum and Art Gallery. The Merchant City is attractive at night. Buchanan Street and (to a lesser degree) Argyle Street and Sauchiehall Street for shopping. If it's sunny (pah) and you're tired, Kelvingrove Park is a nice place to sunbathe and peoplewatch. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

More seriously, while Celtic Park is an interesting place to visit for football fans, you may wish to have a look at Category:Visitor attractions in Glasgow. Personally, I've enjoyed visiting the Glasgow Science Centre, Gallery of Modern Art (note the Duke of Wellington's hat), and the Scottish Football Museum. Many tourists prefer Edinburgh for a day trip, which is only 1 hour away by train. You would certainly have time to catch an early train and spend the morning at Edinburgh Castle - which is very impressive - before heading back for the match. Rockpocket 19:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Glasgow Museum of Transport and St Mungo Museum of Religious Life and Art are both good too. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Our Ibrox Stadium article, incidentally, would benefit from some "match day" photos (maybe one of the crowds outside, one of the game in progress). -- 19:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could take part in the traditional scottish match day ritual: find youself a pub filled with other football fans and have a drink with them. You will find that Scottish football fans tend to be very friendly and welcoming to others (see Tartan Army). Indeed, some of the most amazing sights I have seen in Glasgow is that of fans of rival football teams partying together (After a Scotland v Germany match at Hampden, the memory of a number of large German frau dancing on tables with skinny kilted scotsmen remains with me to this day). You may be surprised to notice that as many as half the people in Glasgow will be supporting your team anyway... Rockpocket 19:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The Tartan Army article also needs photos badly. There will be no shortage of willing subjects. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all of you,though I saw just a little part of Glasgow,it seems like a very beautiful city. The most amazing thing was excatly what Rockpocket said,that half of the city supported my team,and that even some of the Celtic fans came to the match,just to support my team. It is true that Glasgow fans are very friendly,unlike us,but after chanting "Fuck you Rangers,fuck you" for the whole first half without any negative response by them,we saw that they are nice lads,and after the game we got aplause from them. However ,they are very quiet,so 200 of us were louder then 35.000. of them.Other then that,once again,Glasgow is a beautiful city,and if I am ever to live in UK,it is definetly in Glasgow,not London.

Thank you for your advices,everyone,hope to see some of Rangers fans in Belgrade in return game

England and France

I am amused by some of William Hogarth's depictions of the French, particularly in Four Times of the Day and The Gates of Calais. I imagine his negative view was fairly typical for the time, but would be interested to know how English attitudes towards our nearest neighbour evolved. Any ideas? Janesimon 19:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Philippe Contamine, emeritus professor at the Sorbonne, has a lecture he calls «La formation de l’ennemi héréditaire anglais durant la guerre de Cent Ans». One hundred and sixteen years (1337 to 1453, with some breaks for tea and two longer intermissions) is a long time for a proud nation like la perfide Albion to be at war with a neighbouring country and lose. It then took the French another one hundred and five years to get the English out of Calais, and France went on traditionally allying itself with Scotland against the English until the union of the crowns in 1603. What is now sometimes called the Second Hundred Years' War, another series of wars and conflicts between Great Britain and France from about 1689 to 1815, then set in, including of course the Napoleonic Wars. In the mean time, the French had horrified the English (or most of us) by their Revolution. On their coins, the kings and queens of England went on asserting their claim to the throne of France until (one moment, I must check my collection) about the year 1800. The Entente Cordiale and the successful but difficult military partnership with France during the First World War came as a shock to the English and French views of each other, but the day was saved by the arrival of the Second World War and the Vichy government. Few people were surprised when General de Gaulle vetoed the British application to join the old Common Market. Since then, the French and British views of each other have gone on being fed by the two governments' struggles within the European Community, by the demonstrations and blockades of French farmers and dockers, and so forth. My telephone is ringing, I have probably missed some salient points. Xn4 21:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A detail: Queen Elizabeth II still styles herself "Duke of Normandy". The Channel Islands are said to "owe allegiance to The Queen in her role as Duke of Normandy".[11] --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

True.ISTR that loyal toasts in Jersey and Guernsey are still to "The Duke". Grutness...wha? 00:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A few potentially relevant articles on the issue: Style of the British Sovereign, which states that the Sovereign of England's claim to France was relinquished in 1801, under George III; English claims to the French throne, which provides more detail on the nature of the claims; and List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II, which includes a somewhat more substantial list of the Queen's titles and honours, including the point regarding the Duke of Normandy. I do not vouch for any of these articles, but it seems helpful to point out that they exist. 208.114.153.254 00:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The cultural smear on the French had to do, at least partially, with French high culture itself and, partially, with the sorts of people each nation sent over to the other. I remind my fellow Americans to imagine what they would think if the only Americans they ever met were tourists with beer bellies and loud shirts and soldiers. Well, that worked the same way with England and France. The sorts of French the high society of London would see were dancing and fencing masters (the most effete of the effete), while the humbler Hugenots were quietly assimilated (usually). Who would the French see? They would see young persons of wealth bumbling around Paris looking for culture and decadence. It would be inevitable for the English to view the French as effeminate men and weak women, on the one hand, or slaves of a despot (reacting to absolute monarchy under Louis XIV-XV), which is what you see in Hogarth. The French might well think the English boorish and vulgar, just as Parisians think of Americans now. (When I was in Europe, the one group I loathed meeting were my countrymen. At least I could resent the German tourists as ill-bred, but when they were my own countrymen I could only try to stand away. Meanwhile, my French friends have said, of certain stereotypes, "That's not French: that's the French you meet in New York.") Geogre 22:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, I totally agree with you. I've often wanted to grab a Canadian flag pin and claim I was Canadian to avoid association with certain American countrymen. I remember being in a very nice hotel dining room in Seville (the sort with white tablecloths and crystal drinkware for breakfast), and a large group of Americans, with Southern accents, were talking loudly at their table. When they got up to leave, one went off in the opposite direction from the others, and the rest of her party yelled across the dining room asking where she was going, and she replied, equally loudly, "I have to go up to the room to pee." I wanted to crawl under the table. I also remember being on a train from Amsterdam to Germany, with a friend of mine. We were sitting on seats that faced each other, and we were both reading. An older German woman sat next to me, and after a while, she asked, "Excuse me, are you English?" My friend and I said that no, we were American, and she said, "American? But you're so quiet!" Then there's the restaurant in Kaiserslautern that refused to serve us because we were American ... Corvus cornix 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My German friends alone shared my cringe response at meeting countrymen abroad, but for different reasons ("These are our beach chairs, because we had them yesterday"). Few people seem to realize the power of tourism to make a bad impression. However, the other image people get derives from US military bases. Military bases are viewed with worry within the US (Fayetteville, NC and Columbus, GA have troubles due to their overwhelming presence), and there are nations whose sole exposure to Americans may be those bases. The Anglo-French didn't have that problem, in particular, but they had to have the distortion of ex patriots and tourists, and that only helped them sneer at the fey French and the servile French dogs. The throwing Hugenots into the galleys didn't help. Geogre 12:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Jane, Hogarth lived at a time when English perceptions of the French had acquired a most definite form; and some these were to survive until after the conclusion of the 'Second Hundred Year War' in 1815. How did the English see the French? Well, as you can guess from looking at Hogarth, they were everything the English were not; mannered, effeminite, foppish, unmanly...and foreign! Their politics were wrong, their food was wrong, their religion was wrong and they were wrong. If anything, popular perceptions of the 'other' took a more formed direction during the second great phase of the Anglo-French conflict than the first; for printing, painting, theatre and other modes of public entertainment and education had created a whole range of negative and readily understood sterotypes. By the end of the seventeenth century the abuse of the French had become so commonplace that one French-Swiss visitor to London in 1695 was to remark, "No abuse is so common, or outrageous in their eyes, as that of French Dog...and I am persuaded that they think to aggravate the title of dog by coupling it with the word French, so much do they hate and despise our nation."

At root, of course, this was all to do with politics. For many years Spain had been perceived as the greater threat. It was only from the time of Louis XIV that France became the leading challenge to English security, and the source of all that was most feared, expressed, above all, in the concept of the 'Universal Monarchy', by which the French were held to be aiming at new forms of domination and imperium. Louis' intolerant Catholicism, and his persecution of the Hugenots added to the image of negativity. His political ambitions were seen to be supported by the Catholic clergy in France, a privileged elite living off the oppressed peasants, and almost invariably depicted in popular prints as fat gluttons, as you will have noted from The Gate of Calais. (You should also pay attention to the soldier on the left, strutting along in highly camp fashion!)

So, there, across the Channel, were the poor, benighted French; ruled by a despot and exploited by priests, all held in place by a large standing army. By stages the symbols used to depict this alien system moved from guns, cannons, whips and chains, until they eventually settled on two rather prosaic items-wooden shoes and French food; yes, clogs and frogs! The wooden shoe became the defining image of French poverty and of French slavery. The most popular English slogan of all was "No wooden shoes"; and when the country was threatened with invasion, by the French or their Jacobite allies, pictorial propaganda almost invariable shows the terrible threat of the clogs!

As the eighteenth century advanced the wooden shoe was supplanted in popular consciousness by an even greater threat-French food. Here the Roast Beef of Old England stands comparison with such horrors as 'fried frogs.' The politics of food makes its first significant appearance during the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion, when prints were produced showing frogs being sold as the Pretender advances towards London. But it really begins to take off with Hogarth, depicting the wretched French glancing loongingly at a large side of beef, while they dine on soup-maigre. It was such an effective propaganda image that the authorities reissued it during the invasion scares of 1797 and 1807. More and more prints appeared in this fashion, showing well-nourished Englishmen tucking in to beef and plum pudding, while the French have their soup, their frogs and, worst of all, their snails.

'Frog', though now the common pejorative term in English for French people, did not, in fact, catch on until after the Napoleonic Wars, because prior to that time it was used to describe the Dutch. Before this the French were more commonly called toads-crapauds-and 'Johnny Crappo' the most popular nickname. They were also commonly depicted as monkeys, chattering, excitable and gesticulating, an image favoured by James Gilray. It is in the work of Gilray that all of the elements come together: wooden shoes, frogs, snails, onions and poverty; a hungry, irrational and savage nation guided more and more by the ridiculous figure of 'Little Boney.' Clio the Muse 03:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

But snails are delicious! and the Roast Beef of Old England gives the French one of their happier names for the English, les rosbifs. Lately, we have become les fuckoffs, which lacks all Gallic subtlety and leaves me feeling a good deal less awkward about Mers-el-Kébir. Xn4 09:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In terms of contemporary views, a comment I've heard about the French is along the lines of 100 years of peace isn't much set against the previous 1000 years of warfare. There's also a recurring theme that as the French and Germans lost World War Two (get the joke, very funny...) since the 1970s they've been trying to take over Europe through the EU. The latter half of this sentiment has many notable outlets in popular culture, especially in the Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister series that Margaret Thatcher famously claimed to be very realistic. --Dweller 12:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Clio mentioned the depiction of the French as monkeys and I just had to link to the famous Hartlepool monkey hanging incident when it appears a monkey in uniform was mistaken for a Frenchman. And I would say that our attitudes towards the French haven't evolved very much. They are still seen as pretentious and effeminate (but then surely us Northern European beer drinkers will always be more manly than the Southern European wine sippers!). We bail them out every time Germany invades and they are ungrateful (e.g de Gaulle). If they'd beaten us on penalties in any recent football matches we'd probably hate them as much as the Germans! Cyta 13:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Andorra and WWII

What was the role of Andorra during the war? Was it really involved in the international weapons trade? --Jacobstry 20:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently. "During the Second World War, Andorra remained neutral and was an important smuggling route between Vichy France and Spain." (History of Andorra.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 23:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Andorra was certainly used for smuggling, which may have included weapons, I suppose, though hardly to any significant degree. It was occupied by Free French Forces in 1944. Clio the Muse 00:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised to hear that such a smuggling route was needed. Both Vichy and Spain were 'sort of allies' of Germany, each in their own way. Wouldn't that have made them allies? Or is this about the resistance movements in both countries? DirkvdM 07:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Spain, although entirely sympathetic with the Nazis (since they had helped Franco win the Spanish Civil War) decided to remain officially neutral in WW2. If they had allied with Germany, they would have borne the full brunt of Allied attacks, and they didn't want to risk that. StuRat 20:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The relationship between Vichy, Spain and Germany is actually quite complex, whatever broad political similiarities they might have shared. For instance, after German forces moved into the unoccupied Vichy areas in November 1942, armed units were stationed close to the Andorran border. As a counter to this the Spanish army moved into La Seu d'Urgell, the headquarters of the bishop, who, along with the President of France, is one of the traditional co-princes of the Pyreneean state.

There has been smuggling in the Pyrenees for centuries, with Andorra perfectly placed as a half-way-house between France and Spain. Given the unofficial nature of the activity, the political relations between the two countries had little direct bearing on the trade through the mountains. However, during the Second World War Andorra acquired an additional importance as a route for 'people smuggling', a way out for those trying to escape from the Nazis.

Finally, Dirk, if you are interested in this, Franco was falling over himself to enter the war on the German side in 1940; it's just that the price he was asking was more than Hitler was prepared to pay. I answered a question on this very topic not so long ago, and would be happy to look it out, if you so wish. Clio the Muse 22:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if you can easily find it. I am interested in this, but mainly because I find everything interesting. :)

Smuggling is only an issue for the two countries involved. So if Spain and Vichy were sympathising with the same side and wanted to help each other with arms then they could have done so in the open. Or would that have been regarded by the Allies as a declaration of alliance with 'the other side' (although sides are indeed not so easily determined here)? DirkvdM 04:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for the delayed response, but I have, as they say, been otherwise engaged!

You must remember that Vichy France and Germany had only signed an armistice at Compiègne in 1940, and were thus technically still in a state of war. Vichy was allowed under the terms of the armistice to keep a limited armed force, but the one thing that would have aroused German suspicions would have been an arms trade with the Spanish. As I have said, the political relationship between all three of the elements here is not, perhaps, as straightforward as you may assume. The smuggling through Andorra was free-enterprise and illegal. I imagine most of the light arms involved would have ended up in the hands of the resistance.

On Franco and the war here is a copy of the answer I gave to a question on this subject at the end of July. Clio the Muse 23:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It was at one time the accepted wisdom that Francisco Franco played a very close game, pro-Axis for security and apperance, but always managing to stay free of lavish commitments to Hitler. This view has largely been exploded by the work of Paul Preston, though it still manages to cling on, I see, in the page linked by Ngb.

The important point about Franco is that he was Fascist only in the most superficial sense, and would never have been moved by appeals to soldarity alone from his fellow dictators. He also was deeply resentful of German attempts to take advantage of the massive indebtedness of Spain for aid given to the Nationalists during the Civil War. What he was, though, was a good old-fashioned opportunist, one who did not want to be left on the wings in a German dominated Europe. Above all, as a former Legionnaire and an 'Africanista', he had ambitions to create a new Spanish Empire in Africa, largely at the expense of the French. Recognising that Spain was too exhausted economically to risk prolonged conflict, he was ready to enter the war, so to say, at one minute before midnight. This was the whole basis of his dealings with Hitler in 1940.

For Franco the decisive minute came in June 1940 with the fall of France. According to Ramon Serrano Suner, soon to be Foreign Minister, the Spanish government was swept by a wave of 'pro-war enthusiasm', deepened by Mussolini's entry into the conflict on 10 June. On 19 June Franco offered to enter the war in return for French Morocco, part of Algeria, and an expnsion of Spanish Sahara and Equatorial Guinea, along with substantial economic and military aid. Hitler refused to make any such commitment. Though he was angered by this rebuff, Franco's faith in a German victory did not diminish, and he was still ready to enter the war that autumn. By this time Hitler, checked by the Battle of Britain, was beginning to turn towards a wider 'Mediterranean strategy' in which the Spanish had a part to play. However, in the end, the price demanded by Franco was too high, and the risk of Spanish involvement to wider German strategic considerations too great.

The face to face meeting between Hitler and Franco at Hendaye in October 1940 failed for one simple reason: Spanish demands in Africa could only be granted at the risk of a major reaction in the French colonial empire. At Hendaye Franco was told that "the great problem to be solved at the moment consisted in hindering the de Gaulle movement in French Africa from further expansion, and therby establishing in this way bases for England and America on the African coast." In private conversation with Serrano Suner Franco gave vent to his anger;

These people are intolerable; they want us to enter the war in return for nothing; we cannot trust them if they do not contract, in what we sign, to cede as of now the territories which as explained to them are our right; otherwise we will not enter the war now...After the victory, contrary to what they say, if they do not commit themselves formally now, they will give us nothing.

Franco stayed out of the war not because he was cautious. It was rather more basic: his greed had been frustrated. Clio the Muse 00:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is a shame in a way. Had he entered the war, then the Allies would have also liberated Spain. Instead, the country suffered under his rule for another thirty years. I'm assuming the Allies would still have won, because Spain wasn't too much of a military force (yes?). DirkvdM 08:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If the Spanish and Germans had occupied Gibraltar in 1940, choking off access to the Mediterranean, the effect, in strategic terms, would have been virtually the same as if Hitler had entered London. It was as dangerous as that. Clio the Muse 22:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, of course. But then if an alliance with Spain could have led to such a huge strategic advantage, then it wasn't too clever of Hitler not to take up Franco's offer. Then again, he also attacked Russia while still fighting on the western front. Just imagine what might have happened if Germany would have had a more intelligent leader. I suppose the outcome of WWII was a close escape. I mean in the sense that if this one 'detail' had been different (assuming that Germany would also have gone to war without him) then our world would be extremely different. This in connection with the struggle between democracy, communism and fascism at the time, which I mentioned recently. Fascism could have won, and one extreme often leads to the other, so maybe we would have had a communist revolution too. Highly speculative, but I'm starting to realise more and more how pivotal WWII was. DirkvdM 09:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The fear was that if he accepted Franco's offer, and the price he demanded, the French Empire, and the French navy, would have gone over to De Gaulle, a very real prospect in the circumstances. It was balancing one set of strategic circumstances against another. Clio the Muse 03:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's also an overlooked fact that the allied armies in England in 1940 from Dunkurk were very weak having left most of their equiqment on the beaches of France. This includes the RAF which had spent over half of its power at Frances aid. If Hitler had taken the inititive and invaded England soon after France had fallen the allied armies would have been crushed thus destroying any real legitiment French claim to West Africa. I believe that with England out of the way the English common wealth could have been dealt with rather than ignored and Spain's demanding could have been met. Only after closing the western front should Hitler even thought of attacking Russia. Another error in Hitlers hastiness was that Turkey befriended the Reich and pressure was never put on the turks to enter the war officially, even though the stakes would be remarkably similar to Spain's; such as expelling the british from Jerusalem. If these circumstances had been the case at the beginning of 1941, I believe that the Germans would have had enough man power to of crushed the USSR, reached beyond European Russia and with the help of Japan occupied Siberia, that is of course if Hitler hadn't been so powerful in the German chain of command.

Economics: United States Department of Defense Budget

In their annual budget reports, do they include "black projects" in their statement? I'm almost positive they do not, since I know the B2 was not and that was a black project. The more important part of my question is if this is true, does congress know about the money being spent at all? And if they do not, could it be considered un-constitutional to have a black project at all, since Congress has "the power of the purse", and no one else does. Any Info would be great.--Soj 10:51 PM GMT

The total cost of the budget does include "black" items (otherwise the books wouldn't balance), but they obviously don't have clear line items for every secret thing. Some things are funded other ways (U2 and Sr71 were funded by the CIA), and some things are funded under code names. For example, the "doesn't exist" spyplane Aurora has (allegedly) been funded under line items AURORA and later SENIOR CITIZEN. And (as Judd Hirsh says in Independence Day) "do you really think they pay $500 for a toilet seat?". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was 30,000 dollars for a toilet seat, but Thank you : D --Soj 16:19, 14 August 2007

You're right about the constitutionality of "black projects" which are constitutionally shady at best under Article I section 9.7 "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time" - plenty of people think such things are illegal. This question - of the CIA's secret budget in particular - was dodged in a 5-4 1974 Supreme Court case.[12]John Z 07:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oscar Enckell

Who was Oscar Enckell who bribed young Mussolini into supporting Italy's entry into the Great War on the side of the Allies? --Jacobstry 21:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The only notable Oscar Enckell involved with WWII is a Lieutenant-General from Finland who signed the Armistice Agreement on behalf of Finland. -- Kainaw^(what?) 22:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The question was about the Great War, not the Second German War. DuncanHill 22:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's the same Enckell (1878-1960) who served as Chief of General Staff in 1919-24. I wonder whether he was a relation to Carl Enckell. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Brothers, suggests google. DuncanHill 23:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Here [13] DuncanHill 23:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Jacobstry, could you please provide some context here? Mussolini supported Italian entry into the First World War out of conviction, not because he was bribed, and I have never heard of this 'Oscar Enckell'. Clio the Muse 00:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oskar Enckell (1878-1960) was during 1914-17 working for the Russian military intelligence in Italy. I would not call his impact on Mussolini a bribe... --User: Joergen Hedman

Did Aristotle know that Earth is round?

Hello all I am interested in the issue since when did old Greeks knew that Earth is round and especially if Aristotle believed in this... I guess he did, but I'm not overly sure :(

Mel

Aristotle figured it out but then rejected his own proof. He reasoned it from watching a lunar eclipse. Knowing that this was the earth's shadow, he saw that the shadow was always a half-circle. No disk could make such a shadow at all phases, and the only object that could would be a sphere. Having thus brilliantly deduced this, he figured that he must be wrong. At least that was the version I learned in philosophy class back in college. I haven't read the proof. Geogre 22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Our article is at Spherical Earth. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• See [14] for more details. It's possible to perform the experiments yourself if you either (1) are patient enough to wait for a lunar eclipse like Aristotle, or (2) are resourceful enough to travel a couple hundred miles, like Eratosthanes did 100 years later. --M@rēino 15:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Alan Seeger

Was I Have a Rendezvous with Death by Alan Seeger written in English? Seeger is listed as an American poet, but is seems he lived in Paris and served during WWI in the French Foreign Legion. Thanks for your help. --S.dedalus 23:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(http://www.poemtree.com/poems/IHaveARendezvousWithDeath.htm). Presumably it was written in English and this isn't a translation ny156uk 23:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --S.dedalus 20:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

August 14

How much does a bilingual interpreter make?

I can't find anything in Interpreting, so I wonder how much a certified interpreter (for, say, simultaneous interpreting) can make in the European Union in work between Hungarian and English, assuming they're bilingual, educated in both languages, and certified. Any help?

Thank you!

84.0.158.107 00:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This will be what you want. It appears the salary for an interpreter is 3800 to 5500 euro per month, plus benefits, if you work for the EU. Interpreters/translators are also able to pay the 15% EU tax and then be waived of their country tax. Freelancers may end up making more, see here. Rockpocket 00:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! This is exactly the information I was looking for, and both your links are very informative. Thanks again :). 84.0.158.107 01:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's worth adding that (except for rare languages on an ad hoc basis) the European institutions don't normally employ bilingual interpeters: I mean, they expect those they hire to be able to work in three or four useful languages or more. Xn4 16:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How is Stalin viewed today in China?

I was watching a documentary about elections in China. And while it would be expected that paintings of Sun Yatsen and Lenin still hang there was also a painting of Stalin. In addition a books as late as 1988 the publisher was something like "the state commission for the works of Stalin." Finally I'm aware of several landmarks in China still named after Stalin. What is the current view of Stalin in China and why was MAo such a defender of Stalin int he 1960s after their disputes in the 1930s and 1940s? --Gary123 00:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite simply because the dead Stalin was a useful stick with which to beat the living Khruschev! Where is Stalin now? Why, he has been consigned to the Pantheon, even less relevant for present-day China than the Great Helmsman himself! Clio the Muse 01:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Schmokers

I have run into this term in conversation and the web lately but can't seem to find any google meaning or on this site...it may be computer term for a group of some kind but I can seem to find a meaning...thanks

"Shmoke and a pancake" is from Austin Powers in Goldmember, maybe that's the origin. Adam Bishop 02:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Another süggestion: The noun Schmöker is German for a thick and heavy book, and the verb schmökern means to browse through a thick and heavy book. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

hindi provinces

Which Indian provinces speak Hindi as its first official language?

This article Official_languages_of_India#Languages_currently_used_by_Indian_states_and_union_territories should answer your question. DuncanHill 02:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How can you compare price index data pre- and post-reweightings

At least historically, governments have computed their Consumer Price Indexes by tracking how the price of buying a fixed basket of goods changes over time. To keep the index useful, the governments would from time to time update the basket of goods to reflect what citizens were currently buying. What I would like to know is what they do to make it meaningful to compare the data from before one of these reweightings to the data from after.

For instance, say a country reweights its basket every five years: 1980, 1985, etc.. Say they've also done several calculations; they've calculated index values for 1980-1984 using the 1980 basket, index values for 1985-1989 using the 1985 basket, and so on, all the way through 1994. Now let's say they want to graph their consumer price index through time, from 1980 to 1994. (I know they do make such graphs.) How do they massage the data so that it makes sense to compare the data pre- and post-reweightings? For instance, what do they do so that it makes sense to compare the 1984 value against the 1985 value, or the 1989 value to the 1990 value? It seems like they must do something, or else they're comparing apples to oranges. That is, or else the "price changes" they report can be equally well attributed to changes in the basket.

I know these days they're turning toward chained Fisher indexes and such to help solve these problems. I'm curious how it has worked historically, though. --Ryguasu 05:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I always assumed they calculate the index using the old method, then set that value as the baseline for the new method. It's true that the index isn't very useful in tracking long range price changes, but, then again, no method is. How can you compare the cost of cars to the cost of horses and buggies ? They are completely different things. StuRat 20:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Book with no Es

I seem to recall reading about a full length book written without the use of the letter E. It had also been translated into other languages without using E again. Any idea what it is? Thanks -- SGBailey 08:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

La Disparition by Georges Perec, translated into English as A Void by Gilbert Adair. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

An earlier book in English without E's was Gadsby by Ernest Vincent Wright. I'm not aware of its having been translated, though. Incindetally, whereas A Void contains references in ints text to its unusual nature, Gadsby ignores it.

If the concept of preserving unusual features of language in translation is an interesting subject for you, by the way, then you ought to read Le Ton beau de Marot by Douglas R. Hofstadter. It's got to be the longest book ever written about the translation of a 28-line poem, as well as a poignant memoir about the death of the author's wife. --Anonymous, August 14, 2007, 22:41 (UTC).

In terms of in fictional fiction with no use of the letter E, the ne plus ultra must be "Lo! The Flat Hills of my Homeland" by Adrian Mole, which apparenty uses no vowels at all. I guess it's no wonder that in the Moleverse, he can't even get it vanity published...--Shirt58 12:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How was the author's name spelled in La Disparition? Gorgs Prc? And of course the second book should have been titled 'L! Th flt hlls f m hmlnd'. DirkvdM 04:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I first heard of A Void from Le Ton beau de Marot. Hofstadter points out that while it is difficult to write a novel with no letter e, translating said book while still avoiding the letter e is probably much harder. I read the English translation.. it's not bad-- a kind of surreal mystery involving a detective-like search for "something missing" that no one can quite describe... One of my favorite parts is the e-less version of Edgar Allan Poe's poem The Raven with its famous refrain nevermore... or as put in A Void: "quoth that black bird, not again!" It's a fun book. Pfly 08:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Perec's name is spelled normally on both the French and English versions of La Disparition; you can see covers at amazon.com. It's only the title and the body of the book that are E-less. --Anon, August 16, 05:01 (UTC).

human rights

where do rights come from?

Self preservation is one answer - eg I treat/give other people the human rights I would expect since I know/fear that they may 'learn from example' and treat me as I treat them.

Also some people hold the view that people are 'naturally good' (see the philosopher Mencius for example) - therefor would naturally have an innate understanding of what are human rights - and so to ignore someones 'human rights' would be unnatural (a perversion, illness, or crime etc)..87.102.66.187 11:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at altruism and The Selfish Gene in relation to altruism. The God Delusion also looks at morality all which of venn into human rights. (Can you use venn as a verb? Sounds good.) Lanfear's Bane

(I'm not sure why you're 'advertising' two Richard Dawkin's books - are they really the best source for an understanding of human rights? - perhaps you ARE Richard Dawkins?)87.102.66.187 11:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at Human_rights#Justification_of_human_rights for various theories of why people think human rights are good or neccessary. I'd like to point out that human rights can be considered the absolute minimum for standards of treatment of human beings and do not cover everything that might be expected of a hypothetical 'good human being'. There's an essay http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hum-rts.htm that you might find useful - specifically section 4a.87.102.66.187 12:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For a simpler explanation you could consider a hypothetical situation in which people do not respect human rights - as you can probably imagine the world would rapidly descend into chaos with murder,theft,slavery, etc etc happening - this is the simple reason why human rights are assumed - and in general garanteed by laws, constitutions etc.87.102.66.187 12:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not Richard Dawkins, although he has a verified Wikipedia account as it happens. I think whoever both of these books gave me a better understanding of the foundation of how such things come about within society and how such balances are arrived at. Plus the OP's question was very open and it never hurts to recommend a good read. Lanfear's Bane

The term human rights is odder than it sounds, as nearly all of the rights which have been established anywhere are human (as opposed to animal or divine) rights. You do clearly need to separate moral or religious 'rights' from legal rights - although sometimes they might coincide, as when Sharia law is also the civil law of a country or region. Moral or religious rights are usually founded in holy books such as The Bible and The Koran, and often have no mechanism for enforcement, while legal rights are founded in laws or constitutions made by a variety of legislators and/or judges, viz. Civil codes, statute law, common law, etc., and can usually be enforced through the courts. Some countries have a Bill of rights, of which Magna Carta can be seen as an early example (see Important bills of rights). In today's Europe we have the Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which has been incorporated into the law of the UK by the Human Rights Act 1998. Almost every European country, including the former Soviet republics, has ratified this European Convention. Xn4 16:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The United States Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson say this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This seems to both say that the rights are obvious and inherent, and that they are granted by God. I don't happen to agree, but that is Jefferson's opinion (and the Second Continental Congress agreed, presumably, since they adopted it and each member signed it). StuRat 17:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Europe and the Thirty Years War

Help! I'm trying to make sense of the origins of the Thirty Years War without an awful lot of success. I know about religious tensions within the Empire, but what other factors were important and why did the other European powers get drawn in? I thought it might be a simple post Reformation religious struggle, but on closer look it does not seem like that at all. It's all so horribly complex. So, help, please!!! Pere Plexed 10:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides the religious dimension, the war was also a conflict among the great powers of Europe. One of the issues was the dominance of the Holy Roman Empire by Catholic Habsburg Austria, traditionally allied with Habsburg Spain. France felt encircled and threatened by these Habsburg powers and wanted to keep them in check. Meanwhile, Protestant Denmark and Sweden sought to expand their spheres of influence in mainly Protestant northern Germany. The religious issues served largely as ideological justifications for the actions of the belligerent powers. Marco polo 15:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your confusion, and sympathise with all those coming to this question for the very first time. Most of the standard texts take the 'deep root' approach, which often serves to add to the sense of bewilderment. So, here is a simple thread through the labyrinth: forget about the long-term and focus on the immediate causes. The war began as an internal dispute in the Hapsburg realm, a political rebellion in Bohemia against the political authority and the religious policy of the Emperor. Although at the outset it had purely local significance, like a stone thrown into a pond the waves spread outwards, across European shores. It had the effect of drawing in a whole series of latent conflicts and tensions: the Danes and Swedes were concerned about their position on the Baltic, and the French were concerned, as Marco has indicated, by the threat of Habsburg power for their own national security.

Beyond this the Counter Reformation had the effect of upsetting the uncertain balance of the Imperial constitution, and brought the Diet into a state of political deadlock. Some form of renewed compromise along the lines of the Peace of Augsburg may have worked; but the throne, first of Bohemia, and then of the Empire, was occupied by a Crusader: Ferdinand II, a man of the Counter-Reformation, who was determined not to compromise on Catholic values and Habsburg prestige. For him the Defenestrations of Prague was too much provocation to bear. And so began the deluge. Clio the Muse 00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

sister-in-law-in-law

My sister is my sister because we share the same parents and my sister's husband is my brother-in-law because in law he is my brother but he is not my real brother because we do not share the same parents and if my brother-in-law has a sister because he shares the same parents with her is she then my sister-in-law-in-law and if so can I marry her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapper of the streets (talk • contribs)

Yes you could, she is not related to you at all, genetically (as far as you know) or legally. Lanfear's Bane

Depends on the nation and/or state. You almost certainly can. (Perhaps commas can be part of the dowry.) Geogre 12:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting, Geogre, that it is illegal in some places? I am amazed. - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It can be. In some nations, there are still strict regulations on sisters and wives. As late as 1680, it was a "scandal" for a man to have an affair with his sister-in-law in England. I.e. "it depends." The questioner did not say the nation, and I suspect that the punctuation was a sign of being a non-native English speaker, so giving a blanket "it's fine" would be improper. It's probably fine. It's genetically fine. It's religiously fine in Judaism and Christianity, so far as I know, but some interpretations of some primitive forms might suggest that an older brother has control over his wife's sisters. Geogre 12:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it still would be a scandal to have an affair with one' sister in law! --Counter-revolutionary 13:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It is common in India for a Brother & Sister from one family marrying Sister & Brother of another family respectively. Valid! Slmking 15:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC) slmking

I'm with Lanfear's Bane and Slmking on this, as the sister-in-law-in-law described by Mapper of the streets is not (at least in English law) a sister-in-law. I'm pretty sure there have been cases in English history of two brothers (of one family) marrying two sisters (of another), although I can't think of any instances off hand. Xn4 15:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmph. That happened in my family tree a lot. Mostly in Tennessee and Arkansas in the 19th century. Corvus cornix 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I know of at least two instances of two brothers marrying two sisters, and vice versa. --Counter-revolutionary 15:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not quite the same thing, but the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act 1907 may make interesting reading on the broader topic of marrying one's in-laws. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In Canada, the law on marrying relatives, the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act, is pretty simple, and the Interpretation Act contains nothing that would suggest that the words "brother" or "sister" include in-laws. So while we don't do legal opinions here, it seems safe to conclude unofficially that the marriage in question would be legal in Canada. --Anonymous, August 14, 2007, 22:52 (UTC).

---

In the kinship terminology systems of some languages, there are distinct terms for "man's wife's sister's husband" and/or "woman's husband's brother's wife" (Sometimes the "woman's husband's brother's wife" term is the same as the term that one wife in a polygynous marriage uses to refer to another wife of her husband.) Not sure there's a distinct term for "man's sister's husband's sister" in any language, but you can almost certainly marry her... Of course, if a brother and a sister marry another sister and brother, then the "man's sister's husband's sister" is just his own wife! AnonMoos 19:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

---

• The Ray Stephens song below throws a little light on some potential problems of kinship by marriage. Hear it here. Xn4 22:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See article I'm My Own Grandpa. If the song was written in 1947, including the lyrics here would seem to be a copyright violation. AnonMoos 07:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, like Corvus cornix I too have multiple examples of pairs of siblings marrying other (unrelated) pairs of siblings in my family tree -- also mostly from Tennessee and Arkansas. There's nothing remotely incestuous about it. The children of the two couples would be double first cousins with one another. The song I'm My Own Grandpa is very funny. I asked about this general topic a while ago, here. Respondents provided nifty graphics and explored the somewhat paradoxical relationships that can result. Fun fun.. Pfly 08:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction, the question I asked before was slightly different -- rather than two pairs of siblings marrying, it was a father and son marrying an (unrelated mother and daughter). That is the starting point of I'm my own grandpa, I believe. One step odder than sibling pairs marrying. Pfly 08:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

For about the closest relationship possible, consider the case of twins marrying twins, apparently called a "quaternary marriage" (wonder if that applies to non-twin siblings, too). And it raises the interesting point that when two pairs of identical twins marry and have children, those children are, genetically, siblings! Confusing Manifestation 06:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Urgent

I need an quick response. How do I get out of a speeding ticket? My trial is in 6 hours. Thanks XM 13:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't provide legal advice. Even if we did, it would be hard to do so without knowing which country (where relevant, what state) you're in, and under what circumstances you were issued with the ticket. --Dweller 13:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As you've asked it here, it's clear you want something other than legal advice, I therefore suggest you read If by Rudyard Kipling, and seek to appply its philosophy to your own life. Best wishes. DuncanHill 13:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Either drive a De Lorean or accept your punishment. This is neither legal nor temporal advice. Lanfear's Bane

There's a whole heap of precedents here ([15]) Not sure if Mark Milton's defence will work for you. --Dweller 14:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As a police officer, I would say you don't, you live with it, and don't speed next time :) SGGH ^speak! 18:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hope the officer doesn't show up. Other than that, there's not much you can do in only six hours. --Carnildo 23:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Crime and Punishment '2'

The last paragraph of Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment says that Raskolnikov's transition and change to a new man 'might constitute the theme of a new narrative' (according to the translation I have). Do any of his subsequent novels explore this (not with Raskolnikov, but the theme in general)? SolidNatrix 13:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Dostoevsky wrote many fine novels after Crime and Punishment, including The Devils, The Idiot and The Brothers Karamazov, but a tale of redemption and transfiguration was not among them. In fact it might even be thought of as an impossible project, because it would require a translation into the ideal; a new country and a new man; a world of Russian values and Orthodox convictions; a brave new world that has such people like Prince Myshkin in it. I would go so far as to say that Dostoevsky was too great a writer to create a believable fiction based on these ideal themes. Clio the Muse 00:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, building a new man later became part of the official policy of the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution brought them to power. One of the minor themes of Pasternak's Doctor Zhivago is Zhivago's dismay about this. Xn4 00:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

have your speedometer callibrated

<No question was posted>

I assume this is a question on how to do so ? I suppose a mechanic can do that for you, but I'd just clock the speed using mile markers and a stopwatch and figure out how far off the speedometer is. Then I'd just remember "it reads about 5% high" and apply that to figure out the exact speed. You could also put a piece of tape on the speedometer with the corrected values, if you want. BTW, this would have been an excellent question for either the Science or Computer Ref Desk. StuRat 17:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that this was an attempted response to the thread headed "Urgent" just up there ^. It's a good idea. If only he'd thought of it in time, lol. On the other hand, in most jurisdictions, I think it'd only help with mitigation, rather than being a good excuse. --Dweller 17:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I rather suspect, instead, that this was a comment directed to XM (above) which got misplaced. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How Likely is a Draft?

I am wondering how likely is a draft to occur in the United States as of now and in the future? (10-20 years in the future) Bond Extreme 16:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

None of us can accurately predict the future. Marco polo 16:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's obviously very wrong. All of us can very accurately predict some aspects of the future, and completely accurately predict certain other aspects of the future. In fact, it would be very special indeed if an adult American could not predict the future more accurately than a random number generator! That's because the things of interest to us don't happen at the roll of the die. For example, if temperatures world-wide are between -150 and 150 degrees Fahrenheit (I googled for "word record temperatures" and added a little to each value), then you can still predict tomorrow's weather more accurately than a random number generator returning a number between -150 and 150! Indeed, I would argue that people are INCREDIBLY accurate at predicting the future -- of course, a lot of this has to do with the fact that we CREATE the future. For example, it's no surprise that on a grocery trip we buy EXACTLY THE ITEMS that we end up needing the next day for a recipe we're making -- we certainly predicted that we would be making that recipe, and although something could have come in the way, it's not surprising that things generally happen as expected. Elections and laws are the same way -- created by people, not a random number generator.

So, regarding your question on the draft: It is out of the question now (guaranteed not to happen), and out of the question within the next ten to twenty years. In fact, there will not be a general draft instated in America in the next fifty years. And you can hold me to that, because I will be alive during all that time.

81.182.171.23 16:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s. people who are anal can insert the words "the magnitude of" in the appropriate place in my comment)

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1652179,00.html Corvus cornix 16:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See [16]. If the U.S entered a conventional war like World War 2, with a declaration of war after the military forces of a major foreign power attacked the U.S., or even an undeclared geopolitical war like Vietnam with its high level of troop deployment, the voluntary military would probably be unable to supply the manpower needed. In the present "Global War On Terror," which is not quite what I described in the previous sentence, providing the present level of occupation forces in Iraq and Afghanistan requires that the military personnel be repeatedly deployed for longer and longer tours with shorter and shorter breaks in between, which required dropping the time limits for deployment and for rest. Military leaders (active and recently retired) have called this level of deployment unsustainable. In World War 2 and in Vietnam, a far larger force was deployed, made possible by the draft. So to determine the likelihood of a draft in the next 10 to 20 years, one would have to determine the likelihood of another war like World War 2 or the Vietnam conflict. Reintroduction of the draft could occur practically overnight, because draft boards have been maintained on a standby basis and young men have been required to register for the draft. But the draft was seen as a motivator of college students to protest against the Vietnam War, and the "economic draft" of low income or unemployed Americans has not generated the level of protest on campuses that the Vietnam era draft did. Liberal politician Charlie Wrangel has urged a return to the draft precisely because it would bring the war home to the middle and upper class families. There was a much broader portion of society with their progeny at risk when draftees fought wars, although the well-connected could get assignments unlikely to see combat. Ironically, with the all volunteer army, those national guard and reserve units which were "safer" in the Vietnam War have seen repeated deployment to Iraq. Edison 16:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid debating about politics. The articles conscription and conscription in the United States should help. 199.125.109.19 16:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would not characterize my answer as a "debate," but a reasoned and fact-based answer to the question. Was there a part of it you want to see references for? Edison 21:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well this all sort of answers my question. I am looking toards what you are saying, 81.182.171.23 or at least I think that is what your name is on here. All you are really saying is that it is or it is not likely for these things to happen. I would like some detail in the answer. Describe why these things will or will not happen please. Bond Extreme 16:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's due to popular opinion, which is based on a subconscious "risk vs. reward" analysis. Most Americans aren't convinced that winning the war in Iraq is of critical importance, but were convinced that winning, say, World War 2 was of critical importance. To ask people to risk their lives and the lives of their friends and relatives on something they consider unimportant isn't going to work. Politicians which voted for the draft would either be recalled or voted out of office at the next opportunity. Knowing this, they aren't likely to pass such a bill. Note that this could all change in an instant, however, if Americans were suddenly convinced that winning a war was of critical importance and couldn't be done without a draft. A major WMD attack on a US city that killed tens or hundred of thousands of people might do it, for example. StuRat 17:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Supporting my statement above that the present volunteer system could not suffice for a higher intensity conflict than the present Global War On Terror, the Army Chief of Staff today said [17] the demand for forces exceeds the supply and if the demand doesn't go down "the Army will need a mechanism to provide more forces." Case said the draft is "absolutely not under consideration" at the moment. He did not say it would never be reinstituted no matter what. Edison 04:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Orator Hunt

Could someone please tell me a little more about the political career of Henry Hunt? Pacific231 18:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Henry Hunt (politician) is rather sketchy, but this adds more. Gutenberg has works by Hunt, and Google books has no end of C19th material on him. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a Dictionary of National Biography article about him online here. If you have access problems, you may be able to get in by going here and clicking on the link for Dictionary of National Biography. Xn4 21:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Members of most British libraries can access DNB for free from home with their library card number, more info here [18] DuncanHill 23:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear old 'Orator' Hunt, the star of Peterloo, a man who has had a particularly bad historical press. There have, however, been one or two attempts to redress the balance, and he is now more properly seen as a pioneer of working-class radicalism, and an important influence on the later Chartist movement.

He was first draw into radical politics during the Napoleonic Wars, becoming a supporter of Francis Burdett. His talent for public speaking became noted in the electoral politics of Bristol, where he denounced the complacency of both the Whigs and the Tories, and proclaimed himself a supporter of democratic radicalism. It was thanks to his particular talents that a new programme beyond the narrow politics of the day made steady progress in the difficult years that followed the conclusion of the war with France. Because of his rousing speeches at mass meetings held in Spa Fields in London in 1817-18 he became known as the 'Orator', a term of disparagement accorded by his enemies. He embraced a programme that included annual parliaments and universal suffrage, promoted openly and with none of the conspiratorial element of the old Jacobin clubs. The tactic he most favoured was that of 'mass pressure', which he felt, if given enough weight, could achieve reform without insurrection.

Although his efforts at mass politics had the effect of radicalising large sections of the community unrepresented in Parliament, there were clear limits as to how far this could be taken. The debacle at Peterloo, caused by an overreaction of the local Manchester authorities, added greatly to his prestige, but it advanced the cause not one step. Moral force was not sufficient in itself, and physical force entailed too great a risk. Although urged to do so after Peterloo, Hunt refused to give his approval to schemes for a full-scale insurrection. Thereby all momentum was lost, as more desperate souls turned to worn out cloak-and-dagger schemes, which surfaced in the Cato Street Conspiracy.

While in prison for his part in Peterloo, Hunt turned to writing, to putting his message across through a variety of forms, including an autobiography, his very own Mein Kampf, and just as tedious and self-regarding! After his release he attempted to recover some of his lost fortune by beginning new business ventures in London, which included the production and marketing of a roasted corn 'Breakfast Powder', the "most salubrious and nourishing Beverage that can be substituted for the use of Tea and Coffee, which are always exciting, and frequently the most irritating to the Stomach and Bowels." Catchy, is it not!? He also made shoe-blacking bottles, which carried the slogan "Equal Laws, Equal Rights, Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, and the Ballot." Synthetic coal, intended specifically for the French market, was another of his schemes. After the July Revolution in 1830 he sent samples to Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette and other political heroes, along with fraternal greetings.

Business interests notwithstanding, he still found time for practical politics, fighting battles over a whole range of issues, and always pushing for reform and accountability. As a consistent champion of the working classes, a term he used with increasing frequency, he opposed the Whigs, both old and new, and the Reform Act of 1832, which he believed did not go far enough in the extension of the franchise. He gave speeches addressed to the 'Working Classes and no other', urging them to press for full equal rights. In his opposition to the Reform Bill he revived the Great Northern Union, a pressure group he set up some years before, intended to unite the northern industrial workers behind a platform of full democratic reform; and it is in this specifically that we can detect the germs of Chartism. Worn out by his struggles he died in 1835, like Moses never to see the Promised Land. Clio the Muse 02:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Stalin and the Purges

What was Stalin's role in the origins of the Great Purges? Fred said right 20:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He played the lead. We have an article at Great Purge. Xn4 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Plato on 'third region' and fuzzy logic

Hello all, in a wikipedia article about founder of fuzzy logic, Lofti Zadeh, there is a following claim: "Plato laid the foundation of what is now known as fuzzy logic indicating that there was a third region beyond true and false." Does anybody know more specifically about Plato's opinion on this? mel

CSISS has this long thing which seems to discuss it SGGH ^speak! 22:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

there is a lot of this claim, often even same phrasing, but not a single way beyond to the source, or what Platon really wrote about it. tnx mel

For me, the first thing to come to mind is Aristotle's Sea Battle example. It goes like this. There are two opposing forces contesting an area of some sea, call it Sea X. Tomorrow, there either will or will not be a battle in Sea X. This all depends on whether or not the Captain of the approaching naval force gives the command to attack. The next day, a local newspaper will report whether or not there was a Sea Battle. Statements about this instance would look like this: "There was a Sea Battle Yesterday" or "There was no Battle at Sea Yesterday, Forces Surrender." These newspaper headlines epitomize how we make statements concerning the past. Mostly, we think about statements concerning the future in the same way as we do statements concerning the past. For example, we might say that one of the following is true and the other is false:

1. There will be a Sea Battle Tomorrow.

2. There will not be a Sea Battle Tomorrow.

However, if right now (now being an instance preceding the possible Sea Battle) one of those statements is definitely true and the other is definitely false, then the Captain of the approaching force could do nothing to effect whether or not there is a battle. This does not follow. The Captain will decide tomorrow whether or not there will be a Sea Battle, and he can not decide if one of the previous 2 statements are definitely true or false. So, statements made about the future are special; we make a mistake when we think about them in the same way we think about statements concerning the past. Thus, statements concerning the future are neither true nor false. If they were true or false now, free will would be negated. Perhaps this is the region you are referring to?
Mrdeath5493 04:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank You, this was a very good lead, but it was actually uttered by Aristotle

The classic argument for fatalism occurs in Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.), De Interpretatione, chapter 9. He addresses the question of whether in relation to all questions it is necessary that the affirmation or the negation is true or false.

What he says could be presented as an argument along the following lines.

• Suppose that (i) p is true or p is false and (ii) not-p is true or not-p is false.
• Then p is true or not-p is true.
• Now suppose that in 1900 one person says that a sea-battle will take place on 1/1/2100, and another says that a sea-battle will not take place on 1/1/2100.
• Then either what the first person says is true or what the second person says is true.
• But, in that case, either it is necessary in 1900 that a sea-battle takes place on 1/1/2100, or it is necessary in 1900 that one does not take place.
• But the date of the predictions is irrelevant, and it is irrelevant whether any prediction is actually made at all.
• So it is necessary at all times that a sea-battle takes place on 1/1/2100, or that a sea-battle does not take place on 1/1/2100.
• But the argument can evidently be generalised.
• So, everything that happens, happens of necessity.

So, is there anything wrong with the argument? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.40.41.10 (talk • contribs) 11:52, August 15, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it appears in those weird box thingies and is hard to read as a result of you pressing the tab key before each point. 38.112.225.84 12:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've fixed the formatting - but the line of argument makes no sense to me at all. Gandalf61 15:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with the argument is that it is begging the question. The question here seems to be "in relation to all questions [is it] necessary that the affirmation or the negation is true or false." The fourth point of the argument then states "either what the first person says is true or what the second person says is true." This statement assumes that what you are trying to prove is actually proven, i.e. that the answers to all questions must be either true or false. But until that is proven correct, it cannot be used to support the argument. - Eron ^Talk 17:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Whats' the difference between heavy and light industry?

Whats' the difference between heavy and light industry? particularly in the context of Soviet vs western economics. Are there any particular products that can only be build by heavy/slight industry? --Jacobin1949 22:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Heavy industry, light industry SGGH ^speak! 22:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In the context of soviet vs western - in comedy the soviets only had heavy industry. Perhpas there was some truth behind the joke.87.102.4.73 08:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A typical light industry is computers, and the USSR had developed their own system. Can't remember what it's called, though, and I can't find it in either computer or personal computer. Maybe that is an indication of how we got that idea. If there's no info about something we're likely to believe it doesn't exist. DirkvdM 06:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Then let's get rid of this temporary agnosticism quickly: There is History of computer hardware in Soviet Bloc countries, List of Soviet computer systems and the categories Category:Computing in the Soviet Union and Category:Soviet computer systems feature more articles. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

August 15

Economics

Does the recent problems with people borrowing money they can't afford to pay back mean that those with savings will benefit? Cyta 07:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Savings, in general, are tied to the Federal interest rate. Raising and lowering that rate can have some relation to the number of defaults on loans, but it can also be affected by many other things. In general, it is raised and lowered to maintain a rather stable economy. Now, if your savings is actually stock investments (or similar), loan defaults will only affect them if you are investing in a company that is affected by loan defaults. If you invest in Disney, it is difficult to attribute increases in Disney stock value with loan defaults. In other words - it just isn't that simple. -- Kainaw^(what?) 13:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't yet know how the current credit crunch will shake out. Specifically we don't know whether it will lead to deflation, which would benefit savers, or to inflation, which would hurt savers, or to deflation followed by inflation (in which case savers should invest when the direction shifts). Furthermore, your experience as a saver could depend on the currency or currencies in which you hold your savings. There is a fair chance that the Federal Reserve will lower interest rates for the US dollar if credit troubles persist, in which case saved dollars are likely to lose purchasing value relative to other currencies. In other words, it is impossible to know how the future will play out, and savers will fare differently depending on their circumstances. Marco polo 18:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is (generally) in the interest of everybody to have a strong economy, if enough borrowing problems exist then it could affect the wider economy, spending things like that and thus be negative for pretty much everyone. Those with savings tend to fare better than those with no money, but in a recession most people will lose. ny156uk 18:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

fatmouse

Do we have anything on the "FATMOUSE" internet phenomona or meme, and if not should we?87.102.4.73 09:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

On wikipedia, no [19]. Unless you mean the User:Fatmouse.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 11:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Re "should we", see WP:WEB. --Dweller 13:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See also this discussion held over a year ago. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - I was looking at internet meme I thought fatmouse was as notable as 'star wars kid' (and more notable than Gary Brolsma who still has an article).83.100.174.137 16:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You could be right. We do get things wrong sometimes, especially at deletion discussions with low participation. If there's enough verifiable coverage of the subject in reliable sources, we should have an article on the subject. On the other hand, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS means that perhaps the other memes should be deleted, lol. --Dweller 16:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I note 'fatmouse' doesn't score that high on a google search - though it does crop up regularily on forums - the comments (tags) poeple add under their posts etc. (could be just me though) It's definately a geniune meme.

Personally I'd like to know more about who 'did it' etc if that can be found out. I haven't got much more info on it except to say "it exists".User:83.100.174.137|83.100.174.137]] 17:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Note WP:OTHERSTUFF: Just because one questionable article exists, that does not justify another one. The territory of "memes" is vastly inflated, and it is about time for our swing back the other way. A real meme is not a real encyclopedic subject by itself. It has to spread outside of its own medium. Just as a film needs an audience and a novel needs readers, a "meme" needs to get off the Internet to be more than just a localized chatting point. Utgard Loki 17:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

the occurence

Hi, I'm looking for a short story "The occurence", whose author I believe is Roald Dahl? Does anybody know where I can get it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.49.140.75 (talk • contribs)

Not An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge by Ambrose Bierce, available free online at [20]? Interestingly, it is in a list of good short stories along with "Beware of the Dog" [21] by Roald Dahl . Some good free reading here. Edison 15:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As to that second external link, is there any reason to suppose that that particular Roald Dahl story is out of copyright? I looked through the site, but didn't see any information on copyright (except to claim that they have copyright to everything). Sadly, it looks like it might be a breach, and so may not be a good thing to link too :-( Hope someone can find something to indicate otherwise. Skittle 23:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In the EU, Dahl's stories are certainly not out-of-copyright, as he died in 1990, and copyright subsists for 70 years from death. This is not legal advice, simply the knowledge of a moderately responsible citizen with a passion for literature. DuncanHill 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no title containing the word occurrence in the list of Roald Dahl short stories.  --Lambiam 15:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My copy of The Collected Short Stories of Roald Dahl Penguin Books, 1992, ISBN 0-14-015807-3 contains no story by that title either. DuncanHill 16:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

financial sector regulator

Examine critically, the effectiveness of the financial sector regulatory agencies. Give possible recommendationss for their shortcomings.Akinmusi 14:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)akinmusi

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. -- Kainaw^(what?) 14:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha this must be the worst attempt at getting help with homework i'e seen. Look at FSA, look at Finance and the 'see also' sections. Read the FT. Also try rewording your question in a non-homework manner. You can do it I know you can! ny156uk 18:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't the worst. The worst ones include the question number. -- Kainaw^(what?) 19:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is Jane McManus Storm Cazneau?

Thank you for your answers to my questions on Argentina. This was for part of a study on history of Spanish speaking America. Please I now need to know more about this lady and see nothing here TheLostPrince 18:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This link [22] may help. DuncanHill 18:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There is so much more to be said about this wonderfully named lady than that rather sketchy outline in the link provided by Duncan.

She was born Jane Maria Eliza McManus, who after her marriage to Allen Storm took to signing herself simply as 'Storms'. A second marriage was to add the Cazenau to her wonderful array of names. Growing up in Troy, New York State, she attended the local female academy, one of the earliest colleges for women. In 1832 she and her brother Robert moved to Texas, then still part of Mexico, and became involved in land speculation. When this failed she turned to journalism, working first for Horace Greeley, editor of the New Yorker. Later she wrote for a number of other papers, including the New York Sun and the Democratic Review, both strong advocates of manifest destiny. Storms embraced this with enthusiasm, and was to go on to be a firm believer, northerner though she was, in the expansion of the South, and of slavery, its 'peculiar institution', into central America and the Caribbean. In the Sun she filed stories during the Mexican-American War adocating the annexation of all of Mexico. She went the front, where she witnessed Zachary Taylor's capture of the fortress of Vera Cruz in March 1847, the first female war correspondent in American history.

At the end of the Mexican war she turned her attention to Cuba, and the potential it represented, advocating its annexation, and denouncing its Spanish colonial overlords. She later settled at Eagle Pass, a frontier village three hundred miles up the Rio Grande from the Gulf of Mexico, getting to know many of the local Indian chiefs. With her second husnband she moved to the Dominican Republic in 1855, where she was to remain for most of what was left of her life. Despite her earler sympathies for southern expansionism she disapproved of secession, and was hired by William H. Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of State, to write denunciations of the Confederacy. It was a matter of simple principle for Storms: the war was a serious interruption to further prospects of American expansion in the Caribbean. She had lived a life of storms, and it seems only fitting that she met death in the same fashion. In 1878 she was drowned on her way to Santo Dominigo, after the steamer on which she was travelling was caught in a huge storm. Clio the Muse 04:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Tidbit: Cazneau's biographer Linda S. Hudson argues that Cazneau actually coined the phrase "manifest destiny." This is briefly discussed in the article John L. O'Sullivan. —Kevin Myers 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Partition of India

I watched an interesting documentary last night on the violence that followed the creation of the separate states of India and Pakistan sixty years ago this month. I have been reading through the pages here for more information, but still find the whole thing enormously complex. I know its always dangerous to ask for a simplification of any difficult political process, but that is just what I want! Who was at fault and why; was it the British, the Hindus, the Muslims, Nehru, Jinnah, who? Am I asking for the earth? Some of you may think so. Stockmann 18:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that any one party can be singled out for blame. Neither of the parties most responsible for partition, the British or Jinnah's Muslim League, foresaw the violence that it would engender. For both the British and the Muslim League, it was an intellectual solution to the problem posed by the escalation in communal violence during 1946-1947 and the prospect of majority rule in a Hindu-majority India. Neither the British or the Muslim League foresaw the passions that would be unleashed in the already-existing context of communal violence when people felt forced to flee their lifelong homes. This is not to say that they could not have foreseen this, but I'm not sure that they can be blamed for not foreseeing this. In principle, I think that the British can be blamed for not having worked harder to mediate between Congress and the Muslim League and to negotiate either ironclad guarantees of minority rights for Muslims in a united India or else a peaceful transition to partition without rancor and with compensation to those who felt compelled to relocate. Arguably, they should have done this during the interwar years. On the other hand, in 1947 the British had just fought a war that threatened their own existence and were desperately short of resources and personnel to rebuild their own country. The British simply did not have the resources after 1939 to manage a peaceful transition in India. Marco polo 20:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Marco, with one minor modification: yes, no one party is to be blamed; they all are, to some degree or other. Ghandi and Congress for basing the independence movement on specifically Hindu values; for promoting campaigns of 'non-violence' paradoxically rooted in violence. Nehru for underestimating Jinnah and the attractions of faith for the Muslim masses over the secular ideology of socialism. Jinnah for his personal ambition, for playing on Muslim fears of a Hindu dominated India, and for calling in August 1946 for a 'Direct Day of Action', the prologue to a year of almost continuous inter-communal violence. The British for having deliberately engineered divisions between the two great faiths earlier in the century to shore up their political position. The worst aspect of this policy was the introduction of communal electorates, with Muslims voting exclusively for other Muslims. This meant that in the elections of 1946 the Muslim League won 425 of the 496 Muslim seats; a mandate, in effect, for Pakistan. But you may have gathered, Stockmann, if you watched the same BBC documentary on Tuesday night that I did, that an extra responsibility attaches to how the process of partition and independence was managed; and more specifically to the individual who was charged with managing the process. Yes, the British could no longer hold India; but they left with a haste, and with such uncertainty over the final borders, particularly in the Punjab and Kashmir, that did much to guarantee mass violence. In addition, it is no longer possible to overlook Lord Louis Mountbatten's personal contribution to the tragedy; the way in which his apparent favouritism towards Nehru angered Jinnah. I read an article on the whole subject of partition quite recently, which quotes a Punjab official speaking to a graduate just out from Oxford. His words might serve as the epitaph for Empire, "You British believe in fair play. You have left India in the same condition of chaos as you found it." Clio the Muse 02:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Jinnah, it must be said, lacked any of the qualities of charm and personability which Nehru had in spades, and Mountbatten was highly susceptible to charm. DuncanHill 02:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Religion

I was in a discussion regarding my belief in reincarnation. I believe that our souls are reincarnated in order to learn the lesson we did not learn in our previous lives. I was challenged with reference to 'The Book of Lamb', something I'm not familiar with, According to ‡'The Book of Lamb', as I was told, we are only admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven once, which disputes the reincarnation theory since we may reincarnate as another person but our soul would remain as who we are.

My question is, what is 'The Book of Lamb' and is it part of the Bible? What religion is it derived from? Is it Old Testament?

Whatever information you can offer on this subject it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time.

???? Irish1955 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irish1955 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what the Book of Lamb is, but it is not part of the Bible - at least, no version of it that I am familiar with. As far as reincarnation being a no-go because we are only admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven once, I can't see that the two ideas are totally incompatible. Perhaps we keep going round until we get it right, at which point we break out of the circle and enter the Kingdom of Heaven - or something like it. I'm fairly certain the Buddhists have considered this question. - Eron ^Talk 19:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Eron, I'm afraid I can't be very specific, but the Bible (ie Revelation) has loads imagery which seem to make little sense to me at first glance, anyway. If it is from the Bible, Revelation would be it. And I mean a perfectly decent number of popular and respected versions of the Bible, not one random, eccentric version championed by one fringe cult. The "Book of the Lamb" does not sound like it would be the bounds of revelation.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 20:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Another name for Book of Life (Judaism), perhaps?martianlostinspace ^{email me} 20:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Not only is that not what the Book of Life is about in Judaism, said Book of Life is not a tangible, physical book. Furthermore, (simplification alert) Judaism does believe in reincarnation. --Dweller 20:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OK.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 20:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

First, let me clarify that I was not suggesting that nothing which could be considered a reference to "the Book of the Lamb" was in the Bible; I meant that while there are many Books in the Bible - Genesis, Exodus, Revelation, etc., there was no book called the Book of the Lamb. Looking further into Revelation, chapter 21 verse 27 reads "Nothing impure will ever enter [Heaven], nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life." I agree that it is a short walk from "the Lamb's book of life" to "the Book of the Lamb." Googling "the Book of the Lamb" also turns up a number of Latter-Day Saints references, so there could be a Mormon connection. - Eron ^Talk 21:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds as if it is an attempt at a reference to a work of theology. Now, given that it is not one of the principle works of any world religion that anyone has been able to uncover, the gates open wide. Certainly, it is orthodox to say that there is only one incarnation and that various scholastics worked this out, but we're not getting bells ringing on that title even among theologians. Mormonism has a great deal more to say about metempsychosis than Christianity does, as it has a very defined belief in pre-existing essences, and the paschal terminology would not be particularly attractive to Jewish thinkers, so it very likely is a Mormon work. Utgard Loki 18:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mormons consider themselves Christian. Some Christian churches consider Mormons not Christian. Geogre 20:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Randomness (Philosophy)

Hello,

I was talking about this with a friend and we wondered how to answer this problem : I think that, when throwing a dice, if it is assumed that the throwing is random and that every face has a probability to occur superior to 0, that every (finite) sequence will appear in the succession of numbers.

In some sense like Champernowne's constant (where every finite sequence imaginable appears in the decimal expansion). But my friend says that it is possible that the same number occurs an infinite number of times (like, six would infinitely occur, with no other number ever occurring). While I agree that this can happen for any finite number of throws (for example, that after 1 000 000 throws, the only number to ever occur is 6), I don't think it could happen for an infinite number of throws.

(Of course, we both assume the throwing is random and that the probability of ever face to occur is superior to 1, as in a situation that isn't totally random, one number could effectively never occur even in an infinite string of throws (for example, the dice being thrown in always the same way, and the same number occurring infinetely)

--Xedi 19:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that no matter how many throws we are talking about, it is possible for only one number to appear. The odds of such an event happening would reduce down to:
$1/6^{x}$
Where x is the number of throws. As x approaches infinity, the likelihood of the same number continuing to occur gets extremely small. However, I think that it is approaching an asymptope that is >0. Thus, I don't think that you can say that the same number couldn't occur an infinite amount of times. You can only say that the odds of that happening are right next to impossible. Just my thoughts.
Mrdeath5493 19:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

$1/6^{x}$ goes to zero as x goes to infinity. Give me the smallest number you want greater than zero and I'll show you an x such that $1/6^{x}$ is smaller than that number. So it's asymptotic to zero. iames 21:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See Almost surely. An infinite number of rolls of a single number (as well as any other infinite sequence you fully specify) happens "almost never" -- with probability zero. Note that "probability zero" does not mean "impossible." iames 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Almost surely article describes your question nicely under "Tossing a coin" by the way. Just that you have a six-sided coin. iames 21:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. So what particular (additional) properties would be necessary so that any finite sequence of numbers between 1 and 6 is contained in sequence of throws ? A property that, for example, π possesses (I think), as Pi can't contain an infinity of the same digit in a row. Is it just the fact that Pi is not rational ?

(And yes, maybe this would be more appropriate at the mathematics desk...)

--Xedi 22:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Replying to your aside, I don't think it's known whether pi has this property or not (it's not enough that pi is irrational; there are irrational numbers whose decimal expansions contain only 0s and 1s). Replying to your question, the nearest I can think of is the concept of a (base 10) normal number, where every finite sequence not only occurs but occurs the 'right' proportion of the time. Algebraist 00:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I fell on a concept called "Nombre univers" [23] on the french Wikipedia that seems to describe this (a "nombre univers" is a number whose decimal expansion contains any finite sequence of digits). Pi is thought to be a "nombre univers", but it hasn't been proven.

Would it be so special for an infinite sequence of throws with a dice to correspond to a "nombre univers", so that every finite sequence is contained ? Would it be possible to give a probability for this to happen ? --Xedi 01:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The question is a bit curious in the following sense. The question has the form: "if you do X, could Y happen?". Here X = "throw a dice an infinite number of times", and Y is "six comes up each time". But X is impossible: you can't throw a die an infinite number of times, and so you can't see an infinity of sixes coming up. So the question is in a sense: "if you do <SOMETHING IMPOSSIBLE>, could <SOMETHING EQUALLY IMPOSSIBLE> happen?". The answer may depend on the precise meaning of the words you use; the normal everyday meaning of the words is too vague to settle this.  --Lambiam 01:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, what precisions could be made to be able to settle this ?

Would it be fundamentally different to, instead of taking an infinite sequence of dice throws, taking an infinite sequence of digits of pi (possibly in base 6, and maybe add 1 to each digit for it to be 1 through 6) ? Now, Pi is always the same, and changing the starting point of the sequence wouldn't change that much in the end. Would another type of number correspond better to the situation ? --Xedi 02:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The number π is quite definitely not random, so you get a completely different question. We know that it is not a rational number, so we also know that there is no tail of repeating digits, in any base. As to the meaning of the words, you could agree to agree that "if X happens, then anything is possible" is a true statement if X is something that is impossible. You know, by definition, that you don't run the risk this will be falsified by an actual experiment. In that case the answer to the original question is that an infinite sequence of sixes is indeed possible. But you could also agree to take the opposite position, with even less risk of an experiment proving you wrong.  --Lambiam 02:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. In mathematics, there are theorems that say "If X exists, then it has the properties Y and Z", even though it is finally discovered X cannot exist.

Why is the fact that it is impossible to throw a die an infinite number of times relevant here ? --Xedi 02:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your thought experiment is not mathematics. While I know that you can't throw a die an infinite number of times, I cannot prove that it is impossible. And in normal discourse, words do not necessarily mean the same as they do in mathematical jargon. If the die is not fair, it is quite conceivable that six comes up every time you throw it. How do you know a given die is fair? In mathematics, mathematical objects have properties that are true by definition. A given real die cannot be fair by definition. The only way you can find out is by throwing it, and even then you can, at best, conclude with high confidence that it is a good approximation of the ideal fair die. So the abstractions of mathematics will only lead you so far, but no farther. The other day there was a question at the maths section of the RD: "suppose I have drawing/measuring instruments of infinite precision ... and if I measure the hypotenuse, it will be some FINITE PRECISE number". Well, how would you read off an "infinite precise" number from the scale of your instrument? You can't. So you get at best a finite imprecise number. Likewise, for your die, you can only get finite approximations to the "ideal" notion of an infinite sequence. Without further elucidation, it is not clear that the question is meaningful.  --Lambiam 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand. --Xedi 17:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to correct my point earlier: $1/6^{x}$ has an asymptope of zero. This means that as x approaches infinity the probability never goes to zero, it only gets extremely close. (Earlier I had said the asymptope was >0, this was wrong. Mrdeath5493 06:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Naseby

Can Charles I's decision to fight at Naseby be considered as his biggest military blunder? General joffe 20:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Why not? Just get some facts to back your theory and let others debate it. Some may agree. Some may disagree. -- Kainaw^(what?) 02:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Clio, I thought you might have a view on this? General joffe 11:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's easy for us to find fault with strategic military decisions of long ago with the benefit of 'twenty-twenty' hindsight - and generally with some intelligence that the protagonists didn't have. Naseby wasn't Charles's choice of battleground, it's where Fairfax caught up with his army. The King had to decide whether to fight or to run away, and there were obvious disadvantages in running away. Rupert and others persuaded him to fight, and although that can be seen as a bad decision, we don't know that the other course would have turned out better. You may ask, 'Should Charles have been facing that dilemma'? An arguably more critical decision for him came earlier in the year, when he could have attacked the New Model Army while it was weaker. But his problem was that he was fighting on several fronts at once and had to watch his back everywhere: something like playing three-dimensional chess without being able to see where all the other player's pieces are, and not knowing whether your own pieces will be able to move as you decide to move them!

Winston Churchill once wrote an essay from an imaginary future called something like What might have happened if Germany had not invaded Great Britain in 1940? It shows the problems of going back and changing what we believe were critical turning points in history.

On the subject of retreat, when I was a small boy I was told this by an old soldier of the Empire: "The enemy retreats. The British and Indian Armies have sometimes needed to withdraw to a more favourable position". Xn4 19:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That phrase was reworked by the Marines into, "Marines never retreat. We advance in the opposite direction." -- Kainaw^(what?) 19:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a view! Sorry I've not been able to reply sooner.

Why, indeed, did the King decide to fight at Naseby when the odds were so heavily against the Royalists? Sadly for him, it was not just another battle but the great defining moment of the First Civil War. It blooded the recently formed New Model Army, and gave it a taste for victory it was never to lose. Charles had effectively handed his enemies the one great opportunity that they needed. Defeat was all the more tragic because the campaign had opened with such promise for the Royalist cause. They had taken the Parliamentary stronghold of Leicester, just as Sir Thomas Fairfax, commander-in-chief of the New Model Army, was forced to abandon the siege of Oxford, the King's headquarters. It had not been Charles' original intention to face Fairfax in battle. Rather, as the enemy aproached his camp at Market Harborough on the evening of 13 June, he was intending to withdraw to the north and join up with the garrison at Newark. At the last moment he changed his mind, after his scouts reported that Fairfax was at Naseby. Why? The simple answer is that we do not know for certain.

According the account set down later by Clarendon in his History of the Great Rebellion, a council of war was held in the early hours of 14 June, at which Prince Rupert, an able soldier and the King's best commander, urged that the withdrawal continue. This was opposed by Lord Digby and Jack Ashburnham, Charles' chief civilian advisers, who argued that such a move would be dishonourable and demoralising. Charles agreed and overruled Rupert. But Clarendon, writing in 1671, was drawing on an earler account by Sir Edward Walker, who was not at the meeting and would appear to have been drawing purely on stories that only began to circulate after the defeat. Digby himself, the chief villain of the occasion, was to deny that any such meeting ever took place. It seems likely that the story of divided counsels was invented as a 'settling of accounts', devised with the specific intention of passing the blame on to the 'politicians', thus exempting both Charles and Rupert. But it is far more likely, drawing on evidence of previous debates in the royal council, that the decision to fight was theirs, and theirs alone. They may have believed that they had the initiative; they may not have known that Fairfax's force outnumbered their own by some 5000 men; they may have believed that New Model Army, as yet untested in open battle, was made up of many green troops. We simply do not know. It was a blunder; we know that much. Clio the Muse 00:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Clio has all this at her fingertips. Clearly I may be wrong in thinking that Prince Rupert was one of those who wanted to stand and fight. Xn4 03:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder when Clio will get to work writing a history book to replace those bland pathetic ones most schools use. -- Kainaw^(what?) 12:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

the obfuscating squid

Looking for a quote: of whom was it said (to paraphrase) that he wrote so much but actually said so little that he was like a squid, hiding behind its own ink?

thanks Adambrowne666 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The metaphor occurs in the poem Elucidation Blues by John M. Burns, the text of which can be found here.  --Lambiam 02:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff, thanks, Lambiam. I also have a memory of it being a witty criticism of some olde worlde British writer or politician by one of his contemporaries. Does that ring any bells? Adambrowne666 21:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

bicentennial print of Tn

I am trying to find information on a print that was done in the 1990's for Tn.'s bicentennial. The artist name appears to be A.Henry, and shows various scenes of TN. If located where could I purchase one? Laura — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.253.185 (talk • contribs)

What is Tn? DuncanHill 23:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tennessee. Edison 23:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

August 16

American Idol owner FremantleMedia Inc. North America sent a letter to me to stop the use of Amerian Fashion Idol and its registration as a service/trade mark

Can someone please help and give me the options for the following trade mark issue.

Background:

I completed the search on the USPTO.org website on the availability of this service and trade mark: American Fashion Idol. It is available and no one has registered it.

I employed a company online to do the filing of this service/trade mark. They did the filing and is now at the USPTO office waiting to be assigned to an examiner.

I was told that I can start to use the name: American Fashion Idol to generate material to promote this event which is offered to multiple charity organization as an opportunity to raise funds for their cause and to help the less fortunate people. Printed material and emails have gone out to the community already. I organized this event without any personal gain and I have been doing charity work since I was in high school.

Then today, 8.17.07, I got a letter from a law firm representing the owner of American Idol and demand that I stop to use my on filed name: American Fashion Idol. I have to reply before 8.22 and that means only a few work days away. The letter said that American Fashion Idol is too close to American Idol and can get people confused, etc. In these day and age of computer, Internet, Google search, etc. how can these two names be mixed and confused by people, especially American Idol is a household name and show. Are they saying that American Idol is not that popular, famous or remembered?

Is this a reasonable demand on the written response with only a few days? What are some of my recourse? Any suggestions? I am thinking that worst case, I will change the name for the time being but I will find some way or some law firm to fight with Goliath. I now know that this name American Fashion Idol is worth a lot of money to them since they will use it to make money for personal gain by licensing the name to merchandisers, etc. just like American Idol.

Also, if you know of someone or law firm, who are interested in this case, please contact <email removed for security and spam purposes>.

Please see Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer - we can not offer you legal advice. Rockpocket 07:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, what do they threaten to do if you don't reply, or don't desist? --Dweller 12:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to talk to a lawyer about this, but safe to say, trademark protection includes protection against dilution by similar names that may confuse consumers. –Pakman044 13:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Kaharingan (religion)

Kaharingan is a religion practiced by many Dayaks in Borneo. It only got recognition from the Indonesian governement about 20 years ago. The government classified Kaharingan as a form or variation of Hinduism. From an anthropologist point of view is Kaharingan really related to Hinduism? Is there any political motivation to classify the religion as a form of Hinduism? Thats all. Thanks.. kawaputra^torque 09:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This page, linked from the Kaharingan page, states that Kaharingan was "classified as an 'offshoot' of Balinese Hinduism" to meet "the Indonesian state's requirement that all citizens adhere to a monotheistic religion." This suggests that there was a political motivation. The page provides a reference (Gall, Timothy L. (ed). Worldmark Encyclopedia of Culture & Daily Life: Vol. 3 - Asia & Oceania.) that may give more detail. - Eron ^Talk 12:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

ah, i didnt read that, sorry. I see, interesting. I dont understand whats the big fuss about recognizing animism. Cos its barbaric? Cos its a threat to national security? Anway, thanks a lot for pointing that out. Will try check out that reference. :) kawaputra^torque 17:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's all to do with politics. Under Indonesian politics, all Indonesian are expected to believe in the existence of one true God. Animism does not fit into that mold. So with a bit of self-delusion, the religion of Kaharingan was made (or forced) into an off shoot of Hinduism. Never let the truth stand in the way of GOOD POLITICS. 202.168.50.40 03:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea. I guess we can say at least the religion is recognized. Thanks. kawaputra^torque 04:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Where in Europe do freelance English teachers make the most?

I've taught in a few different large cities in Europe and noticed the standard rate (as I found it from talking to English teachers in the respective areas, the offers of the language schools, etc) differed markedly from one place to another.

So my question is which city would have the highest market rate? I have no idea what would drive local prices -- is it whether a city is "glamorous" (so that there are many people going there to teach English), whether the cost of living (and by extention the per capita income?) is highest, so that things generally are more expensive? The state of the educational system there? Whether there is much of a business center? (Since a lot of the expensive lessons are taken by people using it to make an investment in their careers -- or that of their kids).

How would I go about finding the rate in different places?

As for per capita income, can someone point me to a list of cities sorted by this? What would be a good metric of where there is a thriving "yuppie" culture of people making investments in their careers?

If it makes a difference, I'm an American, with an American education, which in some places make my lesson a "luxury" or able to command a premium over schools who just use someone who learned English for a few years.

Thank you!

84.0.158.38 13:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There aren't going to be reliable sources for you to find this out. You're going to need to triangulate, but I should warn you very seriously not to overvalue yourself. The poor will be with us always, and English teachers. Given the job market in both the US and UK for Ph.D.'s, don't expect a great clamor for your credentials.

To triangulate, use common sense first. The less common American dialect speakers are, the more such can command as instructors (provided they have pedagogical experience). Therefore, "fun places" are going to be the worst and "boring places" or "emerging economies" will be the best in terms of supply and demand. Now, given the fact that the Peace Corps provides English teachers, you're going to have to face the prospect of some low cost competition anywhere.

Next, look at the reliable indicator: how much English teachers are paid by schools. Look at private schools, because their rates of pay will match market conditions better than state schools. The state schools will often be closed to foreign workers, but, if they are not, then they're the better place to be for reasons of benefits. In general, private schools will pay teachers 10% less or more than state schools (15% less in the US, but, again, it always varies).

The highest demand and pay in comparison to cost of living for English teachers, particularly American English teachers, is not in Europe at all, but in Korea, Japan, and China.

Finally, you can get a good idea of cost of living by various cost of living calculators that can be found via Google. Reliability is always suspect with these, but they do exist. Utgard Loki 18:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My sense is that Received Pronunciation and Commonwealth spelling are preferred in most of Europe, so a British native speaker might be preferred over an American. My hunch is that you might be able to find lucrative gigs in Moscow, where there is oil money and where it may not be so pleasant to live. Another European city where you might do well relative to the cost of living is Warsaw. Possibly you could do well in a place like Düsseldorf, Stuttgart, or Frankfurt helping German businessmen polish their colloquial American skills for meetings at American plants or subsidiaries. Marco polo 20:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with Moscow! Clio the Muse 02:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The original poster is right that there is some premium to American English. There have been various discussions and attempts at tracking the rise of American English as the dominant form in Europe. In business, there is a strong bias toward it. Anecdotally, this is true even in Germany. However, the question is always about the supply. There is a lot of supply. Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and Poland would be good choices, though. Geogre 01:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

St Anthony of Martkofeli

Today being the feast day of St Anthony of Martkofeli (I like how he holds an icon in his icon), I have to ask, where is Martkofeli? And what script is used on that icon? iames 13:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Trying an alternate spelling of Martkopheli gives a hint it could be Georgian. iames 14:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

iames seems to be on the right lines: The Georgian Calendar calls him "Saint Antony (Martkopheli, the Hermit, VI century)", so perhaps Martkopheli may not even be a place? As to the script, I don't pretend to recognize it, except that it looks like Georgian or Armenian, which are related. Compare with this and this. Xn4 16:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking for a poem...

I remember reading a wikipedia article a while ago (I think I got to it from DYK on the main page) about an English poet from whom only one surviving poem exists, a poem he wrote the day he died. He was hanged for being part of some plot against the monarchy (not the Gunpowder Plot, but something like that). I remember finding the poem incredibly beautiful. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? --Oskar 13:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not Thomas Usk? Utgard Loki 14:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no, that's not it :( --Oskar 15:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of Chidiock Tichborne's Elegy. Xn4 16:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, yes that's the one, thank you! --Oskar 16:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Varsågod, Oskar. Xn4 18:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Tackar :) --Oskar 22:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Politics and Religion

Under South African law it is a criminal offence to discriminate against race, sexual orientation, and other stuff. My question just is that, if the Bible promotes homophobia, doesn't that make the Bible an illegal book? Because South African law also states that you may not distribute hateful content or content that inspires other people to discriminate. I've put it really simply here, because I think it has a simple answer anyway? Either the Bible does not discriminate, or it does but nothing is done about it?► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 17:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't taking action against the bible not be some sort of religious discrimination? And so in order to do so, you'd have to break the law you are upholding. ΦΙΛ Κ 18:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all the question is, does homophobic text equate with descrimination? No. To descriminate they'd have to ban homosexuals in churches - and to my knowledge that's not allowed in South Africa. Same-sex marriages weren't legal until recently, but now they are protected and legal. The bible I believe is protected by freedom of speech. Of course freedom of speech has its limitations, like hate-speech, propaganda, etc. All in all this doesn't make the bible an "illegal" book - but maybe on some level it should be seen as such -- but to fight a religious text is very difficult. Some parts of the christian Bible speak of killing homosexuals - but for good reason this hasn't made it into modern-day implementation. People are allowed to be homophobic, in fact people are even allowed to write about homophobia - but to actually descriminate, that's not allowed. Rfwoolf 19:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks very much for that. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 19:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the Bible (to me, anyway, though I respect it is open to interpretation) isn't homophobic, and doesn't promote it. Yes, the Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin (see Homosexuality and the Bible for examples [24]), that isn't homophobia - homophobia is a hate for not just gay/lesbianism, but homosexuals themselves. The Bible makes God's love for all people very obvious. I think that simply because a book considers homosexuality wrong, that doesn't necessarily mean it promotes homophobia. I think freedom of speech can't be ignored either, though.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 21:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A god who encourages killing to the extent seen in the old testament has a decidedly perverse way of showing love for all people. DuncanHill 21:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Though, Each god kills the one he loves has just sprung into my mind. DuncanHill 21:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If you mean my link above, my point is not about people being killed - what I meant was, it is an example of how homosexuality (at least, actually gay/lesbian intercourse) is seen as a sin. From a christian perspective anyway, few/no christians would kill them as said in the link.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 22:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet plenty who support criminalisation of homosexual behaviour, discrimination in employment & services, and other homophobic positions. To claim a love of the individual while denying him or her full equality before the law, and full social opportunity to develop and express themself, is rank hypocrisy. I appreciate that not all christians are as I described, but there are very many who are, and who use their holy book to seek to justify their actions. DuncanHill 22:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have heard that the term homosexual was added to the bible in translation, and the original (or at least Greek) version used a word for a male prostitute instead. I don’t have a verifiable source for this, but perhaps it’s worth looking into. --S.dedalus 22:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but if it is so that homosexuality is seen as a sin or whatever, why did they decide to see it as a sin? Plus, is it only Abrahamic religions who see homosexuality as a sin? Or are there others?► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 08:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The original (Old Testament) text is in classical Hebrew. The passages that deal with homosexual issues are unambiguously referring to the act, not the person. The term used is not "sin". The act is prohibited using an unusual word, usually translated as an "abomination". But, as already stated by others, focus is on the act, not person and no "hatred" is involved. Interestingly, the Old Testament doesn't explicitly mention lesbian sex, although some commentators see such a prohibition in the vague command not to behave "like Egyptians". Once again, the emphasis is on the act, not the person. --Dweller 10:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

They shall be put to death ... their blood is on their own heads seems, to me, to focus directly on the person, and to imply hatred very strongly indeed. Unless you feel that I love you so much that you must be killed if you don't do what I tell you can be justified. DuncanHill 13:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to be anything other than focusing on a person when you're killing them. There's no more or less hatred for the person than for any other executed person. For example, there's no difference in how the corpse was treated (as you might expect with "hate"), or indeed how the execution was carried out. The issue remains that the Bible text prohibits and punishes the act, not the sexuality. That the punishment was astonishingly severe to a modern western mind is unarguable - the question being addressed here is clearly one of severity of response to the homosexual act in the Bible, rather than "hatred" of gay people, per the original question. --Dweller 14:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but was there a specific reason why they wanted to prohibit people from being homosexual?► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 11:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is "they"? If you mean the author of the Bible, you're into theological territory and speculation abounds. Alternatively, you're into soiciological/anthropological territory and... speculation abounds. As a Jewish text, the Old Testament is traditionally regarded as written by God. It contains a whole bunch of commands (613 is the traditional figure), very few of which are explained with reasons (examples of commands with reasons are Tzitzit and Shabbat). A conventional view of the 'lifestyle' type commands is that they are designed to make ordinary people holy ("You shall be holy, because I the Lord your God am holy.") but it's hard work being truly logical about this. --Dweller 11:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not that hard. Being logical, we know that the Bible was not written by God, it was written by normal people who were in the human gene pool. So they must have had a reason for criminalizing homosexuality? Why did they see it as a "bad thing"? — Adriaan (T★C) 13:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As no-one who espouses a non divine origin for the Bible knows who wrote it, any answer to that question would have to be speculative OR. --Dweller 13:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"...written by normal people who were in the human gene pool." What nonsense... We all know it was the Annanuki from outer space that wrote the bible. Rfwoolf 13:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Eton school song

What is the name of the Eton song? MindyE 18:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Carmen Etoniense, but you may be thinking of the Eton Boating Song. Xn4 18:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The School Song is Carmen Etonense, link here [25], however the Eton Boating Song is much more famous. DuncanHill 18:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nightmare for investors...

A rather cryptic title, but again it has to do with my creative ponderings: How much, in USD and/or GBP, would it cost to feed the entire population of France (or 60ish million people) for one day? Lady BlahDeBlah 21:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It is really a simple math problem. If you bought cheap foods wholesale and prepared them cheaply, you could do it for €6 (US$8). Multiply this by 60 million and you get US $480 million or roughly ₤240 million. Marco polo 01:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cult of the personality

I'm looking for some good visual images illustrating the cult of the personality in Stalin's Russia.Zinoviev4 21:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Cult of personality is featured on the Finnish wikipedia. Anyway, Commons:Stalin and Commons:Category:Stalin are the places to start as most contemporary propaganda images of Stalin should be in the public domain, and thus have been transferred onto Wikimedia Commons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at this from U Tube, Zinoviev [26]. The music is from the National Anthem of the Soviet Union, adopted in 1944 to replace the Internationale. Clio the Muse 22:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just favourited that, thanks Clio, I especially love the pipe-holding while perusing a map of the Eastern Front. DuncanHill 23:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's fun, isn't it! Clio the Muse 23:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've always loved the tune, of course it got played an awful lot on the Olympics etc when I was a boy, and there are hints of it at the start of the Pet Shop Boys' version of Go West. I also believe the world would benefit from greater use of pipes (and moustaches) in politics. DuncanHill 23:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Zinoviev, I'm sorry I'm straying from your point! On reflection, I award the Joseph Stalin Cup for the finest 'tache of the present day to the Liberal member of parliament Lord Thurso - an image is [here]. The resemblance to Stalin is striking, but what of it? Xn4 02:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

He looks like the kind of dastardly top-hated villain that would tie poor innocent girls to railway tracks!

No, more likely he'd invite a girl to 'ave some madeira, m'dear! DuncanHill 08:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

On the rise and fall of facial hair you might be interested in what I wrote on this subject back in April. Here is an extract;

The best example I ever saw of the various fallacies you have linked was a mischevious title given by Salvador Dali to an apostolic succession of Marxist 'saints'. He called it The Rise of Marxism Corresponding to the Decline in Facial Hair. Looking from left to right it begins with a hairy Marx, followed by an even hairier Engels. Then comes Lenin with his goatee and moustache, followed by Stalin with just the moustache. Finally comes bare-faced Mao Zedong! It's very funny. Clio the Muse 02:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

afganistan

Why did america attack iraq and afganistan when everyone knows that osama bin laden is a saudi and most of the al-quada guys are pakis (from pakistan). Also it's common knowledge that they hide in pakistan yet no bombs drop on it. Why?87.102.74.134 21:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This question is one of huge debate across the world of politics and, well, anyone interested in politics. There is justification given (i'll leave it to you to decide its value) that Iraq was ran by a dangerous individual who needed to be deposed. There are people who say that Iraq/Afghanistan can be used as stablising regions in the middle east and to try bring about change (again decide your thoughts on this). There are those who say that Afghanistan harboured terrorists and that in order to 'scare' other nations in the region the USA and its allies took control in Afghanistan. THere are those who argue it is just to secure cheap oil, those who say the interest in Osama is a useful smoke screen to spread by force American lifestyles into the middle east. Virtually every possible scenario is held by someone on this issue. The reasoning is really down to your interpretation of events. If I recall correctly Pakistan is a nuclear power which many think mean sthat any action against them would have to be very delicately done (another reason why many nations strive to build nuclear weapons). ny156uk 22:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, Saudi and Pakistani governments are relatively friendly towards the U.S. while the Taliban of Afghanistan and Hussein of Iraq were openly hostile towards the U.S. As for why the U.S. attacked - why has the U.S. ever gone to war anywhere at any time? It is very rare that a government gets a Pearl Harbor incident to designate a country as a clear enemy and threat to civilians in the nation. -- Kainaw^(what?) 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Rationale for the Iraq War for an overview of some of the issues. Also, consider that there may be a difference between the reasons American politicians gave for the war, and the real reasons they decided to invade. - Eron ^Talk 00:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As for why no bombs drop on Pakistan, Pakistan's ruler, Pervez Musharraf, is somewhat cooperative with the United States and Britain and has moved to defuse tensions with India, which makes him (at least in the eyes of the Western powers) a force for stability in the region. However, his hold on power is weak. If the Western powers were to bomb any part of Pakistan, Musharraf would likely face a very serious risk of being toppled by popular unrest and perhaps by elements of the military angry at his cooperation with the very powers that had violated Pakistan's sovereignty. If Musharraf fell, he would almost certainly be succeeded by a much less cooperative, perhaps anti-Western, perhaps Islamist government, and the Taliban taking refuge in Pakistan's border regions would operate with even more impunity. This, anyway, is likely the fear of strategists in Whitehall and the Pentagon. Marco polo 01:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason why USA attacked Afghanistan is well understood so I will not talk about that. There is a reason why the administration decides USA should attack Iraq. However the real reason is never reveal to the public. Instead another reason is given to the public to justify the invasion. In short, I believe the real reason is to maintain USA political and economic control of that important region of the world, because it is a region which contains a very important source of energy. 202.168.50.40 01:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

follow on question

OK thanks for your replys - One thing that bothers me is that it never seems to be considered (when considering Pakistan/Mushareff) is that he is lying (to US/west), for economic/military reasons ("can I have some cheap F16s please" - ok) and that they are in fact not 'friendly'. Why is that USA foreign policy appears to be based on some sort of child-like trust of whatever a figure head is saying. The same goes for the Saudis - often described as an ally or friendly - in what sense (sure they like to buy US/UK weapons cheap and sell you oil) beyond that in what sense are they 'friends' of the west?

Consider this hypothetical analogy - year 1939 thousands of germans invade poland but the leader of germany says 'they are rebels' and the attack has 'nothing to do with him' and he 'wants to work with you to stop these bandits' - what do you do ? Sell them an aircraft carrier? year 1941 Pearl harbour is bombed but the emperor of japan says they were 'pirates' and not under his control - what do you do - take his word for it and help upgrade his bomber force???87.102.14.51 08:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on what your own goals are. If you want to maintain good relations with Germany, and cannot afford a war with her, then you would be well advised to do nothing. Looking into the Munich Agreement, and appeasement, will show you that Britain put her interests first for as long as she could before declaring war, as she could not feasibly go to war with Germany. The population didn't want war, and Britain wasn't really strong enough. Even Hitler was suprised when Britain declared war.

With the second example, I don't think the American government would be stupid enough to believe that SGGH ^speak! 15:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Greatful Dead

No, not the 70's band, but the custom it took it's name from. one defenition is: "the soul of a dead person, or his/her angel, showing gratitude to someone who, as an act of charity, arranged their burial."

Could someone help me find sources for an article, as it's hard since most of the info is about the band.Samuel 23:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's one to start with from the Encyclopedia Brittanica online. I googled "grateful dead" and "burial" and excluded the words band, jerry garcia, song, album, music, and lyrics. That narrowed it down to about 1500 hits. - Eron ^Talk 23:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's actally a folktale motif. If you looked in Stith Thompson's classic Motif-Index of Folk-Literature, I'm sure you would find it catalogued and indexed with variations... AnonMoos 06:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What type of source is the Associated Press?

What type of sources is the Associated Press (AP)? Daily periodical? Daily newspaper? I need to know which type of MLA format to use when using AP articles as a source. thanks. 65.96.4.202 23:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Associated Press says "American news agency". See Citing Electronic Resources Using MLA Style. Xn4 23:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

August 17

Banknote

I recently got this banknote and dont know where its from. Can some help me.Bewareofdog 00:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this image I'd hazard a guess that it's from Belarus. Looks like a three ruble note. -Eron ^Talk 00:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It does indeed say "Three Roubles" on it. Do you have an image of the other side? It may have further text or imagery which could help identify it. DuncanHill 00:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a Belarus 3 rouble note from the 1992 series, [27] DuncanHill 00:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And sure enough, there it is on the other side -- "Belarus". -- Anon, August 17, 2007, 01:45 (UTC).

Thanks ! Bewareofdog 00:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Extispicy

Have there ever been any documented cases of extispicy performed with a human corpse? Atropos 03:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Extispicy. This is not an answer, just a link so people can learn what extispicy is. A.Z. 04:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's an article on anthropomancy, googling splanchomancy might yield some results too, (and so would reading about blood libel). ---Sluzzelin talk 04:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Mrdeath5493 06:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's its own form of divination. Thanks. Atropos 07:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you any idea where that bizarre suggestion about the nocturnal practices of the Emperor Julian comes from, Sluzzelin? It's not something I have ever come across before. One small observation: the blood libel has nothing to do with extispicy. Clio the Muse 07:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no clue, Clio. You are, of course, right: blood libel is not directly linked to extispicy. However, our fascination with the gruesome practices Atropos asked about, and our readiness to attribute them to groups we know little about seemed psychologically related. I guess I was being unnecessarily didactic. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, then; if it's the gruesome for the sake of the gruesome, what about this little beauty! I am in blood steeped in so far that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o'er. Clio the Muse 07:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You need look no further than the present day and your home island. Smile, though your heart is aching... --Sluzzelin talk 08:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's a literary case of human extispicy, cf the article on Roger Zelazny's Creatures of Light and Darkness: "In one scene, a "scrier" (or augur) tries to read the future by disemboweling and examining the entrails of a professional rival. He misses an important detail, and his victim screams "They are my innards! I will not have them misread by a poseur!" " John Z 09:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember that words like augur and auspicious have their roots in the Latin avis (bird), due to extispicy and also the scrier looking at (-spic-) the flight patterns of birds. --Sean 14:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Clio, in The Donning International Encyclopedic Psychic Dictionary, ed. June G. Bletzer PhD (Donning Company, Norfolk, Virgina, 1986): "anthropomancy ...It is reported that in his magical operations, Julian the Apostate caused a large number of children to be killed, so that he might consult their entrails..." - but no source given. Bletzer is described as 'a self-professed proponent of parapsychology' and has given us another book, called Self-Disclosure of a Soul Memory : Research into Why We Live Over and Over Again, about reincarnation and karma. Xn4 14:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

All this grue reminds me of a funny blurb in this month's Harper's Magazine by Daniil Kharms, a mid-century writer later executed for writing allegedly anti-Soviet children's literature. Here's a lesser translation: [28] --Sean 14:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And all this time I thouught "extispicy" was one of the varieties of fried chicken! Edison 15:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Parliament and the Tudors

How important a part did parliament play in the government of Tudor England?Hope and Glory 11:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Do your own homework. The reference desk won't give you answers for your homework, although we will try to help you out if there's a specific part of your homework you don't understand. Make an effort to show that you've tried solving it first. Lanfear's Bane

You'll get a bit (not much) of help from reading this: Parliament_of_England#King.2C_Lords_and_Commons:_1485-1603_.28including_the_annexation_of_Wales.29 and following the links. --Dweller 13:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

NO BITEE NEWBEE !!!! Rhinoracer 17:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Attila

I grew up with the image of Attila as a rampaging, brutal barbarian. The more I read, though, the more I sense that he was a far more complex character. For example, he seemed to be a very effective user of diplomacy and law, made complex alliances (with the Romans, among others!) Is there anything to be said in Attila's favor? History, after all, is written by the victors.

On the other hand, his foe Aetius, the "Last Roman", strikes me as being less a hero than an opportunistic, manipulating creep.

BTW, Nero also stikes me as getting excessive bad press. True? Rhinoracer 11:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave others to treat Attila. Nero does get a bad press from Roman sources and it's difficult to pick apart whether he was quite the bad guy he's made out. If you want a Roman emperor deserving of bad press, try Caligula. --Dweller 11:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

i to held the same beliefs, and have started to change them after some reading. On the subject of Nero the BBC (British TV co) ran a seris of docu-ramas on the emperors of rome, and Nero (to begin with) was potrayed as all right, he didn't fiddle while rome burned but rather opened his private gardens to allow the citizens somewhere to sheleter during the great fire. Then he rebuilt rome, but to raise the finance he had a list of the richest citizens drawn up, had them forcably change their wills to benefit the rebuilding of rome and then oredered them to commit suicide and he also killed his wife in a fit of anger (but felt really bad about it and had a male slave castrated so that he could take her place). As for Attila she should be along soon with a full account of their lives, once she has finished playing with her new sports car (ooh you'll burn for that one perry) :pPerry-mankster 12:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nero follows the pattern, somewhat, of Caligula: pretty much alright at first, then weird, then weirder, then too weird for toleration. However, he was also put into position by murder and double dealing, and quite a few felt that Claudius allowed a vicious woman to put her half-wit son on the throne. Since blood was the interest of early historians, a bad/undeserving mother means, automatically, an illegitimate rule. Therefore, he was going to get a bad accounting in history, even if he had been a bland emperor. He wasn't bland, though. Whether he was corrupted by power (the old view), venereal disease (a less old view), or lead poisoning (a less old view), he did get increasingly arbitrary and irrational. "What an artist the world is losing," he is supposed to have said with his last breath. For Romans, this would have been tantamount to, "Yes, you were right: I've never been a proper leader."

Attila operated by the codes of his own nomadic peoples. This was, indeed, barbarous to urban nations accustomed to written laws and agriculture. Because he wasn't a cannibal, don't think he was a lovable lug. He was an aggressive, somewhat arbitrary, and brutal guy -- sort of comes with the job description. He didn't eat babies, but that doesn't mean he was a friend of mothers and babies the world over.

If you want some interesting perspectives, you should see how he ends up being fictionalized in "Viking" literature. He is a standard hero/figure in some of the Icelandic sagas. Geogre 12:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Attila is also etzel in the Nibelungenlied in which he plays a secondary role. In the case of "history being written by the victors" in this case 'history was written by those who could write!' ie the romans - who were enemies of attila - hence the bad press. Have a look at attila it mentions a Byzantine historian admiring attila's "humility and simplicity". Most of our (english speaking peoples) negative view of characters such as attila is based upon the foundation of western civilization on greek and roman legends and historical perspective. The romans come across as having nothing good to say about any non-roman people - everyone else was barbarians. We simply don't have any accounts that would tell the other side of the story.87.102.14.51 14:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As a thought experiment, if the Axis had won World War 2, how would books and movies depict Churchill, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, "Bomber" Harris, and MacArthur, to pick a few examples? Not in terms of totally making things up, but in terms of accentuating the negative and minimizing the positive? Edison 15:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thelema Mini-Forum

Don't delete this due to strict wikipolicies, just please help me out.

I am a new Thelemite and also researching it for other purposes, including a broad interest in the occult. If you will allow me to do this here, I wish to keep posting questions I have for you to answer. Yes, I know there is an article, but I want real-time explanations and plus soe of the stuff isn't written well there.

It would also be nice if you could explain stuff I don't ask about, but the questions are there for you to answer.Don;t violate neutrality and opinion wikipolicies please, just answer the best you can.

If any of you practice this (Thelema), please put your input in would be nice.

• 1st one- Is Thelema in any way based on Christianity, as some seems like it may draw those roots, or is it strictly an anti-Christian occult practice. (Also, is it truly dark or is it somewhat goody-goody)?

"(Also, is it truly dark or is it somewhat goody-goody)?" I'm afraid you will have to elaborate on this one, it is too vague to answer. As for policies, they do need to be enforced, on all questions - we can't simply make "one exception". Though, reading the top header helps prevent questions being deleted like this.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 14:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I wouldn't expect too many detailed responses here, over and above what you can get from reading Thelema and its related articles. We RD volunteers are a varied bunch, but I wouldn't mind betting there aren't too many practising Thelemites who are regular posters here. Mind you, I've been wrong before. Love is the law, love under will, Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There are forums on this topic on the Internet. Thelema has its own website and forum, for example, here [29]. This might be both more knowledgeable and also more "real time", and thus better suit your purposes, than this Ref Desk. Bielle 15:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Answer what thou wilt shall be the whole of the ref desk. Friday (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole concept of Thelema was appropriated from Rabelais in Pantagruel, then wilfully distorted. Thelema was meant to represent the birthing humanism of the Renaissance and the liberation of the individual; there was no occult claptrap whatsoever associated with it. Rhinoracer 17:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)