Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

August 18

In what order should one read Asimov's Greater Foundation series?

I already read

1. Foundation
2. Foundation and Empire
3. Second Foundation
4. Foundation's Edge
5. Foundation and Earth
6. Prelude to Foundation
7. Forward the Foundation

in this order and now I wonder where and how to continue. Perhaps I should have read something before reading the above? The answers to these questions would probably make sense in Isaac Asimov as well. -- RichiH 00:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ed Seiler's Isaac Asimov FAQ addresses this question here. Scroll backwards from that question to the previous one to see details of the two orders.

P.S. The captcha that I had to pass to anonymously post the above URL was "storywhen". How appropriate is that!? --Anonymous, August 18, 02:20 (UTC).

I particularly enjoyed my first ever captcha, which was 'yourrules'... Skittle 01:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Economics -- Inflation / The Cost of Living

As time progresses, inflation occurs and the cost of living rises. Therefore, a quantity expressed in "dollars" (e.g., the price of a new car, the average salary, etc.) will steadily increase over time. However, dollar figures from various years can be "equalized" through some index or formula or weighting mechanism. So, for example (just using hypothetical and "fake" numbers): In 1900, a car would cost only $100 but the average salary was only $1,000. Today, a car would cost $15,000 but the average salary is $40,000. In the year 2200, a car will cost $100,000 but the average salary will be $500,000. (These are all just hypothetical "fake" numbers.) So, as time progresses, what seems like a very low price in 1900 needs to be weighed against the fact that salaries were much lower than today. What seems like a very high price in 2200 needs to be weighed against the fact that salaries will be much higher than today. So (I think?) it all "equals" out. So, when comparing apples and oranges (i.e., the value of a dollar in 1900 versus the value of a dollar in 2007 versus the value of a dollar in 2200) the cost of expenses like a new car will be somewhat proportional or related to the income or salary typical of that time era. In 1900, even though it seems like $100 is a cheap price for a new car, we need to remember that those are 1900 dollars and not 2007 dollars. So, buying a car in 1900 is, pound for pound, more or less the same as buying a car in 2007 ... or in 2200. The dollar numbers change (increase), but they still maintain some proportion of expense to income. Just as buying a car in 2200 for $100,000 seems like a lot of money (when we think of 2007 dollars), it will not be a lot of money when we think in terms of 2200 dollars. Ultimately, the price of expenses creeps up slowly but surely (the dollar prices in absolute terms increase), but at the same time, the income / salary also creeps up slowly but surely (the dollar salaries in absolute terms increase). So, essentially, when you factor out the cost of living and inflation, that $100 car in 1900 costs about the same as that $15,000 car in 2007 and about the same as that $100,000 car in 2200. The question is this: why can't "they" (whoever) just keep the numbers stable and constant? In other words, why make the 2007 car cost $15,000 when average salary is $40,000. Why can't "they" (whoever) keep the cost of a car at $100, but keep the salary at $1000? If it is all "equalized" in the end, anyway ... why fudge with and play with (and increase) the numbers year after year after year? In other words, why can't the value of a 1900 dollar be held constant and the same as the value of a dollar in 2007 or in 2200? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 01:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

Whatever the answer, it should definitely be used to improve the article about inflation. A.Z. 02:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fiscal policy. Public expenditure is partially financed by printing money; the increase in the amount of money in the economy leads to a reduction in its value. However, over time, people demand salaries in such a way as keeps their actual income in terms of stuff constant. So over long horizons, the amount that stuff costs will appear similar.

That being said, cars cost a lot less now as proportions of average salary than they did in 1900. Hornplease 10:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your question—essentially, why inflation occurs—is complicated. Inflation is a result of both fiscal policy and monetary policy. It would be possible for a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve System in the United States, to raise interest rates and sharply limit the money supply such that inflation would be eliminated. However, raising interest rates and limiting the money supply in this way would tend to make it harder to pay debts and would tend to lead to insolvency among individuals and corporations carrying debts (such as home mortgages or bonds to finance capital investment). This would tend to make lenders very wary of lending and businesses wary of borrowing, while at the same time causing employment to drop. These are undesirable consequences, and they would have the additional likely consequence of causing deflation, which is the opposite of inflation, a process in which incomes and prices drop. One of the effects of deflation is that it makes sense to hold onto money (which rises in value) and to delay purchases, which perpetuates economic contraction and stagnation. Because policy makers want to avoid these consequences, they aim to maintain positive inflation at a low, but steady rate. This leads to a slow but steady rise in prices and incomes. The steady rise in prices, especially if it is not much greater than interest rates, is a spur to consumer spending and profitable investment. Therefore a steady rate of inflation, kept below a level where it causes economic harm, tends to promote economic growth. Marco polo 15:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Your original point, which doesn't necessarily have any bearing on inflation, is valid. In fact, France did just what you suggest in 1960, when 100 "old" francs were replaced with 1 "new" franc, and this, of course, is not a devaluation, but a revaluation.Asav 14:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Baptist views of homosexuality.

I would like to learn about baptist views of homosexuality, but Wikipedia doesn't have an article about it. A.Z. 01:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This question is too general to answer. There are many different denominations that are all considered baptist, some of which have widely varying views about homosexuality. Accordingly, I'm disinclined to think there should be an article with your suggested title. 1
Mrdeath5493 02:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You think there should only be an article about the views of a specific denomination if all people who claim to belong to it share the same view? If there's controversy, show the controversy. If baptists are too special somehow and it's impossible to define their views, then explain why in the appropriate article. Among the articles that do things like that are Anglican views of homosexuality, Christianism and homosexuality, Religion and homosexuality, Homosexuality and the Bible, Lutheran views of homosexuality. I believe the article about baptists is possible and I would very much like to read it. A.Z. 02:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The section Ordination_of_women#Examples_of_specific_churches.27_ordination_practices, linked from that section that you linked to as a proof of the impossibility of an article being written about baptist views of homosexuality deals with ordination of women in baptist churches the way I think the article about baptist views of homosexuality should deal with homosexuality in baptist churches. A.Z. 03:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course such an article is neither impossible nor out of place in Wikipedia. So why don't you start it yourself? That's the way things work around here. Be Bold! --Halcatalyst 03:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I started the article using the information on this thread. It's just a stub, though. A.Z. 18:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You are probably looking for the Southern Baptist Convention, if you want the SBC. There is a central problem with asking for "Baptist views," though, because the Baptist churches are congregationalists. They emerged from the "Independents" in England and believe in a somewhat extreme form of the priesthood of all believers. Therefore, they reject(ed) any official dogma. The Southern Baptist Convention broke with hundreds of years of that tradition in 2000 by issuing a set of views that established an official dogma. Some Baptist churches reject it, and some don't. It's within that that you will find statements about sexuality. I don't think the other Baptist churches have any enunciated single view on the matter, although, of course, individually they do seem to agree, generally, with an Old Testament interpretation. Geogre 12:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Our article on Baptists says:

"Organizationally, Baptist churches operate on the Congregational governance system, giving autonomy to individual local Baptist churches. Baptists traditionally have avoided the "top-down" hierarchy of Episcopalianism which is found in the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and many other churches.".

In other words, you won't find a single "official" Baptist view on homosexuality - each Baptist church will have its own individual view, influenced by its location and the background and preferences of its minister and members. I am sure that anyone who looked across all Baptist churches throughout the world would find a very broad spectrum of different views. Gandalf61 12:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The largest component of the Baptist movement in the US is the Southern Baptist Convention, and they have issued "official" statements. It has been quite the controversy among the Baptist churches, whether to agree to their statement or not, and churches have been ejected or removed themselves from the SBC over the issue of homosexuality. The (don't know if this will be blue or not) Olin T. Binkley Baptist Church, for example, was only one of many attempting to set up a moderate convention in distinction to the SBC. Geogre 15:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just rewritten the article Baptist views of homosexuality, which was a copy-paste from this discussion. The article now emphasizes the diversity in Baptist views and the autonomy of local congregations and gives examples of views of specific baptist denominations. C mon 00:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is the Baptist views on dancing slowly while thinking about premarital sex article?

A friend of mine in the old days of the late 1980's coined the term "Baptist Playboy" for the Victoria's Secret catalog. Fortunately, we didn't know about "memes" then, except in literary theory, and so no one tried to get it on YouTube. Geogre 02:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Since Congress went to the five day work week at the beginning

2007, do the Republican Party Congresspeople make partisan motions to adjourn on Mondays and Fridays during the work week? I have heard that they do, I would like to know how to check this claim out. I know that many Republicans protested changing Congress' work week from "three days a week" to "five days a week," claiming that this is unnecessary and keeps them from remaining in contact with their constituents.

Could anyone tell me how I can find out if this is true? --66.41.144.14 04:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You might consider looking in the Congressional Record or searching THOMAS at http://thomas.loc.gov/ (which coincidentally has digital and searchable copies of the Congressional Record). I don't know how successful you'll be in searching for this--assuming it's true--but you might try starting at the beginning of the term in January when it's more likely this happened as an irritation factor (by now, I'd doubt they're still doing it). –Pakman044 21:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgetting something you hate

Whats the word for forgetting the name of something you hate? Like forgetting the name of a school because you hated the people who went there when you were younger? --Candy-Panda 05:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Repressed memory or dissociation? ---Sluzzelin talk 06:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Trauma is Freud's term that has gone into common usage. Geogre 12:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Psychological or emotional trauma refers to the overall damage which can manifest itself in a number of physical, emotional, or cognitive symptoms, one of which is dissociation. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Martin Luther and Anti-Semitisim

Hitler praises Luther in Mein Kampf and he is viewed by many as one of the precursors of Nazi anti-semitism. What is the evidence?Bagration

Martin Luther has a section on anti-Semitism; the evidence centres around his pamphlet On the Jews and their Lies. The article on that is fairly detailed, but if you really want all the evidence you need collated analysed, dissected, and attacked in a manner worthy of the Reformation itself, read the fourteen pages of archives on the two talk pages. Hornplease 11:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Bagration, if you ever read Von den Jüden und ihren Lügen you may possibly feel that you have entered into a world inhabited by the likes of Julius Streicher: the language is vicious, the imagery unrestrained in its ugliness. But look more closely; you will find none of the preoccupations with race and blood that were the key feature of the forms of anti-Semitism promoted by Hitler and the like. For Luther a Jew who converted was no longer a Jew. It's even more basic than that: for the salvation of the Jews was a precondition for the salvation of all. Luther's world was one of imminence; a world poised on the threshold of the Second Coming. In anticipation of this the forces of Anti-Christ, whether they be Jews, Muslims or Catholics, were gathering, threatening to prevent the final victory of Christ. This was a danger for all, faithful and faithless alike. If the Jews would not convert they must "driven out like mad dogs, so that we do not partake in their abomniable blasphemy...and thus merit God's wrath and be damned with them." It was this fear that explains Luther's explosive sense of frustration at Jewish intransigence, and all of the venom and malice that erupted thereafter.

So, you will find him in the Nazi pantheon, admired by Hitler and the like, with his work displayed in a glass case at each and every Nuremberg Rally. At the time of the Kristalnacht, Martin Sasse, a Nazi and a Lutheran Bishop, was to express satisfaction that the pogrom had occured on Luther's birthday, and that the founder of his church deserved to be remembered as "the greatest anti-Semite of his time." And yet Luther was a sixteenth century Christian, a Reformer, a man who set German against German in a way that did not sit comfortably with Nazi ideology and racial politics. Rassenpolitik, published in 1943, specifically targets Christianity as an enemy of the National Socialist world view. From this perspective the churches are guilty of building walls were none should exist; of dividing German from German; a place were the marriages between 'Aryans, Jews and Negroes are blessed'. The Reformation started as a 'German Revolution', but degenerated into a battle over dogma, where "Luther finally bound the conscience to the Jewish teachings of the Bible." And thus the real distance is displayed in all its clarity. Clio the Muse 01:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in French we distinguish between anti-Semitism, which is "racially" motivated, and anti-Judaism, which is religiously motivated. Rhinoracer 19:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Luther's writings manifest both aspects, except, to him, the appalling character traits inherent in Jews would vanish like magic if they saw the light and converted. Hard to ascribe such illogic to such a genius, but Luther was a product of his time and his culture, like every historical figure and it's tough to judge his ethics by the standards of today. --Dweller 06:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

financial regulatory agency

what is the financial regulatory agency? waht is also their function? Akinmusi 12:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)akinmusi

In what country? Bielle 14:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Mary Tudor's persecutions

Did they have the effect she desired? Hope and Glory 12:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In the end, clearly not, though one has to suppose that at the time they gave Mary the idea that she was getting somewhere. The article Marian Persecutions looks a little shaky, but see also Foxe's Book of Martyrs. We can hope that when Clio gets home from burning up the Great West Road, she will give you the Rolls Royce answer. Wandering off the point, I have always thought that in the end most of the English would have taken to the tragic Queen Jane far better than they did to Mary, if in 1553 Jane had had enough support to survive. Xn4 18:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Here she is, off the road! Rolls Royce? Let me try a Mazda!

There is an understandable tendency, I suppose, to read history backwords; to assume, in other words, a given set of outcomes; that what is is what had to be. But do remember that when Mary came to the throne in 1553 Protestantism was still a fairly recent graft on to the English tree, and not all that popular, if the Pilgrimage of Grace can be considered as an accurate measure of the national mood. The ease with which Mary swept aside the challenge of Lady Jane Grey and her tiny Protestant party provides additional confirmation, if any such is needed, that there were no real fears of a Catholic restoration.

So Mary was very well placed at the outset of her reign to return England permanently to the Roman faith. Most people had little in the way of deep emotional attachment to the reformed religion, and were quite happy to observe the outward and conventional forms of belef. Even at their height the Marian persecutions only embraced a tiny proportion of the population. But the persecutions and the burnings, as is the way with these things, were completely counter-productive: they did more to foster anti-Catholicism than any Protestant propaganda.

As early as October 1553, Simon Renard, the Ambassador of the Holy Roman Empire, wrote that "It is easy to forsee that there will be difficulty in repressing heretics without causing scandal...The thing most to be feared is that the Queen may be moved by her religious ardour and zeal to attempt to set matters right at one stroke, for this cannot be done in the case of a people that has drunk so deep in error." The subsequent burnings were to confirm all of his fears, as the dominant mood among the thousands who witnessed these auto-da-fe seems, for the most part, to have been one of sympathy and anger. Foxe's later accounts of the martyrdoms is undeniably biased; but it finds support in contemporary accounts by Catholic observers. Giovani Micheli, the Venetian ambassador, who witnessed the burning of Rowland Taylor, wrote that the people were so angry that they planned to set fire to the houses "and raise a great tumult; not merely to release the Doctor from the stake, but to punish and revenge themselves on those whose religion was opposed to their own." When he left England in 1557 he noted that "the public mind is more than ever irritated."

It wasn't just ordinary people who were repelled by the burnings. A reading of the Acts of the Privy Council uncovers many examples of local officials less than enthusiastic in the enforcement of the heresy laws. Action had to be taken against jailers who allowed Protestant prisoners to escape. In 1557 letters were sent out to sheriffs and baliffs throughout the home counties, asking why sentences for heresy were not being carried out. Sir John Butler, the sheriff of Essex, was fined £10 for allowing his deputy to reprieve a woman sentenced to burning. Some, like Thomas Causton, were inspired by example-"Ye say that the Bishops lately burnt were heretics. I pray God make me such a heretic as they were."

Even some of those close to the Queen could see that things were going badly. Stephen Gardiner, the bishop of Winchester, had believed that if an example was made of a few of the leading Protestants that the rest would be frightened into conformity. When this failed to happen he ended burnings in his own diocese. Those who were frightened into conformity elsewhere observed only the outward forms of Catholic belief, as Micheli and others made note, which explains why the Marian counter-reformation was so easily and quickly put into reverse when Elizabeth came to the throne.

But there is also another factor to be drawn in here, the one thing above all others that explains why Mary's policy was so counter-productive. Persecution had worked elsewhere in Europe, particularly in Catholic Austria, in reducing the appeal of heresy; but only when force was accompanied by persuasion; by an active evangelical mission. In England this simply did not happen, or at least not to any significant degree. Quite simply the church lacked the means. All of the land and wealth lost during the Dissolution of the Monasteries was not returned; for to do so would have been a challenge to the interests and power of the nobility; and that, even for Mary, was a step too far. Reginald Pole, had pressed for this, with no success; for the beneficiaries of the redistribution had included many Catholics, as well as Protestants. There was no money, so there was no mission; only the terror-and the example-of the burnings.

Mary lacked money; she also lacked time. Her early death from cancer in 1558 ended the counter-reformation. More than that, the failure of Mary's reign, the examples and the lessons it provided, were to be the foundations for the Elizabethan Reformation, more complete and lasting in every way. Clio the Muse 03:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Clio. That's really great.Hope and Glory 12:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

devaluation of currency

what are the eonomic implication on devaluation of currency? what are the effects of the policy on marketing?

When a currency is devalued, debts held in foreign currencies rise and become more difficult to service. (The United States, incidentally, does not face this problem, as virtually all of its debt is denominated in its own currency.) Also, imported goods become more expensive in a country with devalued currency. On the other hand, the exports of a country with devalued currency become cheaper in terms of the currencies of its trading partners, and export industries may enjoy a rise in demand for their products. I'm not sure what "policy" your second question refers to, but I will assume that you mean that the country has pursued a conscious policy of devaluing its currency. In that case, marketers would want to focus their efforts on the export market, where they should be able to win sales by offering lower prices in foreign currency terms. Domestically, they would have a price advantage over imported goods and could win sales by exploiting that advantage. Marco polo 15:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The article Devaluation will also help you. Remember that within living memory (just), money had some intrinsic value, as it was based on silver, gold, or both. Money is now essentially a confidence trick: it only has value if we have confidence in the government or bank which issued it, and issuers often need to support their currency's value by various means - all of which cost them money, of course. Often, the cause of what is called devaluation is simply that the issuer can't sustain the cost of its support policy. Xn4 16:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Swords

Could you, please, tell me the name of the swords shown in the image on the top of this page [1]? Thanks. --Taraborn 14:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

From the left the first three are generic swords (Arming sword), the next is a rapier type, the right one is a scimitar type.87.102.92.28 15:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and notice that the hilts of the first three swords are a Crecent, a Cross, and the third has a Swastica on it. Of course these would represent Islam, Chistianity, and the NAZIs. I don't know what the symbolism of the rapier in the context of antisemitism is, and I thought that the scimitar was often used to symbolize Islam, which seems redundant to me. -Czmtzc 15:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The third one reminds me of a Claymore.

The "Claymore" sword would be representitive of the beginning of the First Crusade when pro-Christian (or anti-anti-Christian) sentiment was so high early pilgrims didn't bother discerning between Muslim and Jew and started annhialating Jewish societies in Europe. It was a holocaust on the scale of the Nazis. It took a while for the Vatican to firstly recognize the problem and then to communicate to the people the difference between Jew and Muslim and the significance of hating and persecuting the right one... because Muslims were in control of the Holy Lands, most importantly Jerusalem.

Beekone 15:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Economic history of the Great Depression in Great Britain

I want to learn more about the origins and economic consequences of the Great Depression (1929-1939), particularly as it affected Great Britain. Can anyone recommend sources (particularly scholarly sources) on this topic? Thank you. Marco polo 15:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at this book somewhere and it seemed pretty solid and well referenced. The next volume covers 1939-1992. Xn4 16:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I am embarrassed to admit that I did not review this list before asking the question. Thanks to XN4 for suggesting a source that did not appear in that list. I now have more than enough sources to get stared. Marco polo 15:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hunt the source: Fergus Mór and St Senán

Rather a long shot. In this edit to Fergus Mór, I added the comment "The early part of Fergus's ancestry is shared with that given for Senán son of Gerrgenn in the Betha Shenáin meic Geirginn from the Book of Lismore; compare Rawlinson B. 502 ¶1696 Genelach Ríg n-Alban and the Betha Shenáin, at line 1792 and after." This is true, but it's not verifiable as I can't find a publication remarking upon it. I do know that the source is not Anderson's Early Sources, or Mrs Anderson's Kings and Kingship, or Broun's Irish Identity, or Campbell's "Were the Scots Irish?", among others. It's always possible that I happened to read the Betha Shenáin and a little light went on in my head when I read the genealogy (i.e. the whole thing is wicked original research). It would be nice if someone could prove otherwise by finding a reference in print. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Angus, I have hunted and hunted but have to report, sad to say, a total lack of success. I think this kind of question can only really be answered by diving into the deepest recesses of a good research library, if even then. I will try again next month, when I go back up to Cambridge, though I am not too hopeful. I suppose this whole comment is really quite fatuous; but I simply hate people who pose historical questions to be left with the impression that their request has been ignored. Clio the Muse 01:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Clio, thanks for the reply. I can come up with several superficially plausible theories, not that I'll be putting them on Wikipedia, but please don't waste your time on what is likely to be a wild goose chase. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Insanity

Who said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Attributed (unsourced) to q:Albert Einstein, according to wikiquote. Algebraist 22:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be one of those apocryphal quotations that are attributed to more than one person and have several different variations. This quote has also been attributed to Benjamin Franklin and "folly" or "stupidity" is sometimes used instead of "insanity."--Eriastrum 18:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

August 19

nude picnic

Is it possible to host a nude picnic in a public park in Toronto?

Maybe if it’s for a good cause. --S.dedalus 00:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly possible. If you do it in daylight, no doubt you'll soon find out what happens next! Xn4 00:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hanlan's Point Beach on the Island is clothing-optional, but apparently this policy does not extend to the picnic area nearby. So if you want to bring food onto the sand I guess you'd be fine, but otherwise not. --Anonymous, August 19, 00:32 (UTC).

The RefDesk can't provide legal advice, so I won't do that. What I will do is note that section 174 of the Criminal Code of Canada addresses public nudity. There is an interesting and informative review of Canada's laws on indecency, including the nudity provisions, here that might provide some guidance. - Eron ^Talk 01:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For every bare that ever there was, will gather there for certain because...Clio the Muse 01:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Change and decay in all about I see. Give us back Parson's Pleasure and Dame's Delight! Xn4 02:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Literature in Textbooks / Anthologies

Anyone with familiarity of the industries of publishing, printing, or writing, please weigh in. When I look through a high school or college textbook (or anthology) on Literature, I usually see a sampling of various types / forms (for example, say, 10 short stories, 10 poems, 10 plays, 10 novel excerpts, and 10 essays -- or whatever). I was wondering. Say that one of the poems in this textbook / anthology is Robert Frost's Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening (just as an example). Do the publishers of that book have to pay any money to Robert Frost for use of his poem (sort of like a royalty)? Or, do they just need to get his permission to print it ... and, in essence, he is "honored" to have his poem included in the textbook with no demand for monetary payment? What is the standard in the industry? If there is money involved, what kind of money are we talking about ... a mere pittance or some substantial sum? Also, does it matter if it is a well-known author versus a little-known author? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

Generally speaking, permission in writing is required to reprint anything that is covered by copyright. That the reprint medium is a textbook is of little or no materiality. A writer might be honoured to win a Pulitzer, but doesn't, as far as I know, turn down the cash. (Most publishing companies have Permissions Editors or whole Permissions Departments whose sole job is to locate the holder of the copyright, to get authorization in writing to reproduce something, to ensure the material is correctly attributed in the text and to pay the fees.) Generally speaking, the longer the item, the more it costs to reprint. My last experience, over 20 years ago, was with a language arts series where we paid from $10 to several hundred dollars to use other people's writings. The charges may also be based on the size of the print run you are producing on the not implausible grounds that the more you stand to make from the text, the more should be paid to those who provided the material. The better known the author, the higher the price, though there are exceptions. Those on the Ref Desk who have more current experience may have other views. I doubt that things have become less expensive, however. Bielle 04:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"I doubt that things have become less expensive, however." That's for sure. I read a couple of years ago even academic works, which (in this case) a historian used to be able to use quote from, are getting denied permissions free, i.e are demanding payment, & the writer in Q said he dropped some quotes because he (or the publisher) couldn't afford the fee... (Myself, I'd take out any reference to it, bibliography included...) Trekphiler 16:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Song

Does anyone know the name of the song in this video ? Bewareofdog 04:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's "Ode to Joy", the European Union's anthem. See European anthem. --Nricardo 07:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

regressive sentence

Is uttering the sentence : " the self is what makes choices that define the essence of self " , an instance of invoking the axion of choice ? ... think about it ... 206.74.74.42 04:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC) willie

No. The axiom of choice is a formal statement in axiomatic set theory. It is not related to the given sentence. Algebraist 13:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

women's role in mass media

can i have the information regarding the participation of women in mass media?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.211.177.74 (talk • contribs)

Your question is far too broad. Women don't fulfil many specific roles in mass media (both of which are very broad topics), but you might want to read about sex in advertising.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Resistance to the Brazilian Military Dictatorship

Why did so many students from middle class backgrounds join the resistance against Brazil's military dictatorship in the 1960s and 1970s?Pere Duchesne 07:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that it started with them doing their own homework. But seriously... Historically (and globally) students tend to be more progressive (and optimistic) than their parents, and presumably these ones wanted change. Students never tend to like the suspension of democracy. Read our article History of Brazil (1964–1985) for a bit of background and let us know if you reach any interesting conclusions. Plasticup ^T/C 19:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

But that article doesn't even contain the word student. A.Z. 19:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

To begin with you have to consider what was happening in Brazil prior to the military coup of 1964. The 1950s and the 1960s was a period of growing national prosperity, which brought considerable economic and cultural benefits to the growing middle class, finding expression in music, cinema and poetry. Directors like Glauber Rocha brought new forms of cinematic language into use, focusing specifically on Brazil's underlying social and political problems. Theatre also underwent the same process of growing social awareness, as did literature. So, radical aesthetics walked in step with new modes of radical political consciousness, especially marked among the country's educated youth. Many of these people, in matters of debate, and in advancing new programmes of socialist reform, assumed that they were speaking for the Brazialian masses in general. Still more became involved in grass-roots activism, designed to educate the people and prepare for social revolution. It was Brazil's spring of hope. All was frustrated in 1964, when the military made its appearance on the political stage.

The fall of Joao Goulart, the left-wing president, brought an end to the 'democratic dawn.' All those in the student movement who had been radicalised by cultural freedom and left-wing ideologies, began to look for alternative ways forward. Unable to move the apathetic underclass, they began to look for fresh forms of direct action, much like the Red Army Fraction in Germany. It was a classic model of what might be described as 'revolutionary substitution'; in place of revolution by the inert masses, revolution would be achieved by by a committed elite through violence; by those seeking to push history down its designated path.

Things began to move in 1968, with the apperance of widespread student protests. In response the government issued, in December of that year, Institutional Act Number Five, suspending civil rights, and immeasurably increasing the power of the executive. Protest were suppressed with unrestrained violence. This was the point when the anti-military movement descended into the political underground. One of the students at Pedro II High School was later to describe the process thus;

All of us were cut off from any participation in political life. I'd say that we belonged to a generation that had its roads blocked. I had no idea of participation in the student movement would lead me to become a militant. The things I did back then were natural things, part of my universe. I collected stamps, was class officer, president of the student union. I organised parties, organised student assemblies, took part in strikes. My aim was to become an engineer. My going underground-shortly after Institutional Act No. 5-was a consequence of the political moment we were living through.

By the end of the decade there were some twenty organisations involved in the urban guerilla movement. The old-left, particularly on the shape of the Brazilian Communist Party, was seen as irrelevant and out-moded, as Marxist-Leninist, Maoist, Trotskyist, Castroist, and all the other shades of left-wing ideology competed for the loyalty of the young militants,. especially in places like Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo. Recruitment drives were carried out in schools and universities, initially with lectures in Marxist theory. Bit by bit the most determined were drawn deeper into activism, some taking the decision to leave their families and go underground.

It was in 1969 that the authorities became fully aware of the new danger they faced, when Charles Burke Elbrick, the US ambassador, was kidnapped in Rio, a action carried out by the Revolutionary Movement 8th October. In response more sophisticated measures of counter-insurgency were adopted, leading to the killing of Carlos Marighela, one of the most important of the guerilla leaders, two months after Elbrick's kidnapping.. Thereafter the whole urban movement went into decline.

Through violence the urban movement had lost the tacit support of their families and peers. But more generally the middle-class mileu from with the student revolutionaries originated was benefiting from the regime's economic success; and with wealth came political quietism. By the 1970s those left in the underground were increasingly isolated, faced with the daily threat of arrest and torture. A movement that began with such high and idealistic hopes was moving in a downward spiral. Clio the Muse 01:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I copied Clio's educated reply to History of Brazil (1964–1985). --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Falklands crisis of 1770

Can anyone tell me any more about this? Tower Raven 11:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

History of the Falkland Islands has some information in section 3. Colonisation. It is all quite sketchy, though, with the English and the French taking turns winning at "Bully on the Sand Hill" in games played earlier by/with the Spanish and then later with the Americans who withdrew after their own expensive War of Independence. Bielle 15:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not what you asked about, but 1833 invasion of the Falkland Islands is more interesting. Xn4 20:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an historical oddity that these islands, remote, wind-swept, with little strategic importance and no mineral wealth, have taken England to the threshold-and over the threshold-of war some five times; with Spain, with France and with Argentina. In fact it was the 1770 'crisis in a tea cup' that begins the whole sequence.

English sailors first caught sight of the Falklands in the late sixteenth century. In the following century the government was to make a half-hearted claim, though under the Treaty of Tordesillas they fell within the Spanish orbit. It was only in 1748, with the report of Admiral Lord Anson, that London began to give the matter its serious attention, sounding out the Spanish on the question of sovereignty. This only had the effect of drawing up the battle lines, though the matter was put to one side for the time being. An uncertain equlibrium might have remained but for the unexpected intervention of a third party-France.

After the conclusion of the Seven Years War, the French, attempting to improve their position in the South Atlantic, landed in the Falklands, establishing a base at St. Louis, now Port Stanley. At the same time, the one unbeknown to the other, the British made their own landing at Port Egmont in the west. Responding to Spanish objections, the French handed over Port Louis, now renamed as Port Soledad, though neither party was as yet aware of the proximity of the English, until a chance sighting of some ships in December 1769. And now we have a little overture to what was to come just over two hundred years later.

In June 1770 the Spanish governor of Buenos Aires sent five frigates to Port Egmont, landing some 1600 marines. The small British force present promptly surrendered. When Parliament assembled in November, the MPs, outraged by this insult to national honour, demanded action from the government. The Spanish attempted to strengthen their position by winning the support of France, invoking the Pacte de Famille between the two Bourbon crowns. For a time it looked as if all three countries were about to go to war, especially as the Duc de Choiseul, the French minister or war and foreign affairs, was in a militant mood. But Louis XV took fright, telling Charles III that "My minister wishes for war, but I do not." Choiseul was dismissed from office, and without French support the Spanish were obliged to seek a compromise with the British.

In January 1771 the British were allowed to restore the base at Port Egmont, although the whole question of sovereignty was simply sidestepped, a source of future trouble. The best verdict on the little fracas was passed by Samuel Johnson in his pamphlet Thoughts on the late Transactions Respecting Falkland's Island, looking at the British problem in holding such remote islands against a hostile mainland, "...a colony that could never become independent, for it could never be able to maintain itself." And so it remains today. Clio the Muse 02:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

An interesting account, as ever, Clio, but either our articles are wrong or:

• Port Egmont was on Saunders Island, off the west coast of West Falkland (not to the east of Port Louis).
• Port Louis (St. Louis?) and Port Stanley, while both on the east coast of East Falkland, are not in the same place, the latter being several miles further south than the former.

While perhaps of little strategic importance in the 1770s, the Falklands did come in useful later decades as a stopping off point for vessels sailing round Cape Horn - for example, in the California Gold Rush, and later as a coaling station (although not as important and well-placed as, say, Ascension Island). Now, there are fishing rights, and potential oil and gas interests. -- !! ?? 13:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! East is east and west is west. I've corrected my error; thanks. As for the rest please refer to volume one the 1929 edition of The Cambridge History of the British Empire, and William Hunt's History of England, 1760-1801. Clio the Muse 22:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The Humanities Desk

Hello, y'all. I've been following the questions and answers here for some time now, in obvious danger of becoming a complete adict! The Humanities desk is is head and shoulders above all of the others, and I am astonished with the ease and competence with which so many of you answer question, and the sheer levels of erudition displayed in the process. I have a number of favourites among the contributors, including Clio the Muse, Geogre, Marco Polo, Xn4, and Sluzzelin. My question is this: what is it the motivates people to give their time and expertise here when there's no palpable reward? Is contributing a reward in itself? Please do not get me wrong; I am glad that you do; it's just that I am puzzled by the sheer altruism of it all! I hope my inquiry is not out of place-and I do realise that you operate under clear and understandable parameters-but I really would like to know. Answer if you will. All the very best from Admiratio 12:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've put the numbered list, below, with blanks for folks as they were named (i.e. my answer is second).

1. Since a place has been 'kept warm' for me I suppose I have no choice but to answer! Why do I contribute here? First and foremost, because it's fun, perverse as that may sound to some. I like anything to do with hard empirical knowledge, and I like testing my research skills. More than that, as I have said elsewhere,-and Sluzzelin may be mindful of this-it is for me a form of 'mind aerobics', allowing me to exercise my intellect over a range of issues, some of which are outwith the context of my immediate research concerns. It's also, I suppose, an interesting exercise in forms of intellectual interaction. Clio the Muse 00:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
2. For me, I get a kick thinking about these things. Yes, it's altruism, primarily, or as near as I get to it, but I get a great deal out of the recombination and jarring of ideas and facts. From these answers, both those of others and the ones I've tried to formulate, I have rolled over some rocks and discovered some new perspectives of my own. It is never merely the fact that is interesting, but the combination of facts in the narrative that is useful, and that's the fun. I have, many times, gotten views that I would take away and develop. Geogre 12:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Really, I do it because it's fun! I love learning, and I love sharing what I know, particularly if it might help someone. Marco polo 15:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Thanks for your question and your compliment, Admiratio! I'm the novice on this desk, but I find it testing and recreational at the same time. On Wikipedia in general, I'll say "Only connect!": this site is a project with mind-boggling potential. Xn4 17:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Everything Geogre, Marco, and Duncan said. In addition, I found that the desks (along with watchlisting) perfectly fit my time and brain structure which usually won't allow me to do a lot of serious and heavy content editing, still our noblest duty here on Wikipedia. My greatest admiratio goes to the editors who included all this wonderful information to which we can link you from here. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I enjoy answering the questions, it keeps my mind sharp. SGGH ^speak! 18:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For me it's much as Geogre said, I do enjoy helping others, and I also enjoy the "detective" side of it too - I've found many interesting articles on Wp, and other interesting sites elsewhere, in my attempts to answer questions. DuncanHill 13:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not on the list, but I would also like to add that it is fun to help people, although perhaps there is also a bit of showing-off involved ("look how much I know!"). It is even better when a discussion here leads to the creation (or expansion) of an article, because the collaborative effort is what the site is all about (like the Battle of Arsuf article a couple of weeks ago). The only drawback to the RD, I find, is that it moves too quickly - discussions are archived after a week, but sometimes it takes much longer than that for the discussion to be concluded, so it has to be moved to talk pages. Adam Bishop 02:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking starts with good questions. And the ref desk (in general) provides some good ones. It's rather like having a good in-depth discussion with friends ('setting up a tree' as we say in Dutch), but with plenty of time to come up with the right answers. Sort of like the difference between speed chess and correspondence chess. Just that this is actual correspondence. :) DirkvdM 06:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Some mix of boredom, vanity, and honest-to-god altruism. --24.147.86.187 23:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Or altruism that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with religion. :) DirkvdM 19:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I ask and expect people to answer, therefore must answer myself. 68.39.174.238 02:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

CONTROVERSIAL NURSERY RHYMES

I have heard that there are some nursery rhymes, which have hidden meanings, which have come from strange origins, which are nonsense, or which are simply ill-composed. I wonder where I can read about such in the Internet. Would you be so kind to refer to me some links? Thank you so much.. I am actually studying literary criticisms on my own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.86.57 (talk • contribs)

Goosey Goosey Gander for starters, also Ring a Ring O'Roses may or may not (WP article says not) be about the Bubonic plague. Category:Nursery_rhymes would lead to others. PamD 15:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest starting with List of nursery rhymes in English and just go clicking down the blue links. Not all the of articles so linked are good, and some are better referenced than others; however, there are many suggestions for outside reading. There has been much written on this subject. You can start with the controversy over who really was the original Mother Goose and go from there. Bielle 15:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Not directly to your question, but by "nursery rhyme" we seem to mean two separate things, at least. One is folk tale in rhyme, where the author is anonymous. These are generally in ballad form, and their transmission to children can be odd. Ring around the rosie, Here we go round the mulberry bush, and London Bridge are that kind of thing. On the other hand, after about 1695, we begin to have authored children's rhymes (this is a rough date; we can count Charles Perrault as one, but the children's rhyming story doesn't really take off until later). These, unlike the folk ballads, tend to emphasize simple life lessons or nonsense verse. There are even occasions of the parody of children's literature getting used as children's rhyme (e.g. Namby Pamby, which pokes at Ambrose Philips's second Odes, which included rhymes for children). If you want nursery rhymes with folk origins and dark hints, you'll need to look for a relatively small set of folk ballads. Geogre 20:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's rather more complicated than that, since there are nursery rhymes that don't appear to be either folk tale nor specifically authored as such. However, the distinction between rhymes passed down by word-of-mouth and rhymes acquired from books is useful indeed. Also remember that there are rhymes passed down from adult to child, and rhymes passed from child to child. The former tend to be found in books these days, or just be songs and rhymes that the adult remembers (which were not necessarily originally nursery rhymes). The latter can be all sorts of nonsense, and yet strangely consistent between children. Any nursery rhymes which have 'hidden meaning' would be expected to have originally been popular rhymes or songs among adults, only later being repeated to children as nursery rhymes and preserved like that. So any song that appears especially aimed at children, or about childhood, would appear less likely to carry hidden meanings. (Unless it's a later parody in nursery rhyme style) (On this subject, our article says 'Ring a ring a roses' has no hidden meaning almost entirely because that is what Snopes says. I personally find the Snopes article on this subject flawed in a number of ways, but it would take a long time to find the sources to say what I want to say! Maybe someday I'll get round to it.) Skittle 01:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Georgie Porgie is a political satire. Corvus cornix 02:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As is The Grand Old Duke of York. Hornplease 03:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And Yankee Doodle, for that matter, but we're into political song and satirical song, very popular in the 1730's on (and see Vicar of Bray (song)) which passed over. (There's some kind of business with America the Beautiful too, if you ask me. I don't think it's accidental that the tune is the same as God Save the King.) Geogre 12:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not "America the Beautiful". The tune of "God Save the King" is used by "America", or "My Country 'tis of Thee". Corvus cornix 15:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, I'm having a bad week. Time to check the biorhythms to find out when I'll start getting details again. Geogre 20:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Since Skittle mentions Snopes... One nursery rhyme that most definitely does not have a "hidden meaning" is 'Sing a Song of Sixpence'. Snopes claimed in an article that the rhyme was "a coded message used to recruit crew members for pirate vessels"; a claim entirely made up by themselves to illustrate the perils of over reliance on one source (see here). Incidentally, at least one Urban Legends TV show has fallen for this lie. Hammer Raccoon 14:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater seemed creepy to me, but our article has had all the details deleted on why, so here they are elsewhere: [2]. StuRat 04:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

According to The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes: " Much ingenuity has been exercised to show that certain nursery rhymes have had greater significance than is now apparent. They have been vested with mystic symbolism, linked with social and political events, and numerous attempts have been made to identify the nursery characters with real persons. It should be stated straightway that the bulk of these speculations are worthless." The speculation includes:

• Ladybird, Ladybird a form of exorcism (apparently you can rid yourself of a witch by claiming her house is on fire) and The Rosicrucians says it's a remnant of Egyptian beliefs concerning Isis and the scarab beetle.
• Wee Willie Winkie from a Jacobite reference to William III of England.
• The Rock-a-bye Baby is either Horus, the Old Pretender, or an Indian baby described by a Mayflower Pilgrim in the first work of poetry composed in the New World.

There are a few with "fair evidence" of referring to a real life person:

• Jacky, the fiddler is Rattlin' Roarin' Willie.
• What is the rhyme for porringer an Oranger, from a Jacobite threat to the life of William.
• Charley over the water is Bonnie Prince Charlie.
• Jack Sprat makes fun of an Archdeacon Pratt.
• As I walked by myself is another reference to William.

And a few others, all but Jack Sprat i've never heard of before. There's one tho: "one of the few, perhaps the only one, in which there is justification for suggesting that it preserves the memory of a dark and terrible rite of past times", human sacrifice, living children entombed in clay and mortar foundations to act as guardian spirits, London Bridge Is Falling Down.—eric 08:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answers. You have been very helpful.. I have a follow-up question: I am not familiar with some of the nursery rhymes, which you mention above. Is there any website where I can get the chance to listen to how they are sung? Again, my profound gratitude to you.. Carlrichard 02:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There are a few that offer MIDI versions of the tune along with the words so you can get a gist of how they were sung. This site is like that, but the MIDIs weren't playing for me. I'm sure there are other sites available that do similar things and CDs of nursery rhymes are usually quite cheap. I'd also like to re-emphasize a caveat that's been mentioned already: a lot of the so-called explanations for nursery rhymes are pure speculation and folk etymology. If you make up a song to sing to your child or a joke to amuse your co-workers, you don't jot down what the thing's about or what you're referring to - it's not needed. Here's something to try: make up a context-sensitive joke about someone you know or something you've just experienced. Now try to imagine what someone from a different country two hundred years in the future would think when they tried to analyze it. Your reference to a bird that slapped into your house window becomes a reference to 9/11 and you burning your hand on a flaming marshmallow becomes a reference to wildfires, or corrupt politicians getting found out, or whatever else makes sense to a person completely removed from your frame of reference. Matt Deres 17:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

a project on ' womens role in history;

a project has to be submited by students of grade9, ON 3 SEPTEMBER 2007 on 'women role in history' biographies of 14 women is expected.

• soldier,dotors(MEDICAL), revolutionaries,social workers, politition,philosophers{2 women each-one from 19 and othe from 20 century}

I HAVE FINISHED 9 OF 14 KNOW I NEED: 19 CENTURY- DOCTOR 19 & 20 CENTURY -SOLDIERS 19 CENTURY- REVOLUTIONARIE 19 CENTURY-SOCIAL WORKER

NOTE: THEY SHOULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THEIR PROFESSION AND WORLD(PEOPLE AROUND THEM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aysha sana (talk • contribs)

You will find a list of admirable women at Clio the Muse's userpage. Clio is one of our top help-desk people, and I feel sure she will have some excellent suggestions for you next time she pops in. DuncanHill 13:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

She has now poped in! Thanks for good opinion, Duncan. Clio the Muse 23:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The dependable, nay infallible Clio has poped in! --Wetman 02:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Then how about (I'm sorry about this) Pope Joan? Xn4 02:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I found you a choice of 19th century female physicians with articles on wikipedia. They are, in alphabetical order: Elizabeth Blackwell, her sister Emily Blackwell, Marie Boivin, Susan Dimock, the Edinburgh_Seven (three of them with articles: Sophia Jex-Blake, Isabel Thorne, Edith Pechey), Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, Frances Hoggan, Harriot Kezia Hunt, Elsie Inglis, Anandi Gopal Joshi, Mary Scharlieb, Yoshioka Yayoi (barely 19th century), and Maria Zakrzewska. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

How about Emily Stowe, the first female doctor in Canada? Adam Bishop 20:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone remember the name of the woman who cross dressed and served as a soldier in the armies of George I and George II before retiring and raising a family? I should know her name, but it's flown. We do have a decent article on her. We also have some fair articles on the female pirates in Joan Druett's Hen Frigates. Geogre 20:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Might this be Hannah Snell? There is also the example of Ann Mills. who served as a dragoon. Clio the Muse 23:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely Hannah Snell! Ann Mills was an interesting story, but Hannah Snell proved legendary. In fact (gulp) I will admit to having read Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment, where the old sergeant is pretty well modeled on a legend of Hannah Snell. She was the most publicized, and our article is sufficient to get a young student going. Thanks, Clio. (Was it Mary Davys who was the supposed amazon of the seas, when, of course, she was nothing of the sort? I think that's the name.) Geogre 02:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Mary Read or perhaps Anne Bonny? Clio the Muse 02:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, yes. Anne Bonny is the most famous. I'm still thinking that there was a Mary Davys (although there was also a poet by the name around the same time), but I'll settle this tomorrow when I go to my copy of the Druett book. I remember because she has a nice illustration of how the woodcuts of the women change over time to make them more lithesome and naked, when they were just women who were captains and not the high seas version of Monster. Geogre 03:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Aysa. Since the medical area of your inquiry has been well covered by others it only leaves me to provide some examples to place under your remaining headings.

SOLDIERS. Have a look here at the History of women in the military, where you will find more examples than you could ever possibly need. My personal favourites are both Russian, one from the nineteenth and the other from the twentieth century: Nadezhda Durova, the first female officer in the Russian army, and Maria Bochkareva, who founded the wonderfully named Women's Battalion of Death during the First World War.

REVOLUTIONARIES. From a wide field you might choose Eleanor Marx, Karl Marx's youngest daughter, or Laura, her elder sister; Louis-Antoine Garnier-Pagès, who fought on the streets of Paris during the July Revolution of 1830; Constance Georgine, Countess Markiewicz, an Irish revolutionary, suffragette and political activist, whose career spans the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; Rosa Luxemburg from Poland, whose career also spans both centuries, as did that of Catherine Breshkovsky, alias 'Babushka'.

SOCIAL WORKER. In the context of the nineteenth century I take this to mean women who were involved, to some degree or other, in the area of social reform. Here again there are a great many individuals, and I choose a few purely at random, and from a British background. There is Octavia Hill, the original 5% philanthropist, important also in the the foundation of social work as a profession; Elizabeth Fry, the prison reformer; and Rebecca Jarrett, who campaigned against child prostitution. Clio the Muse 23:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For a 20th century soldier, sort of, how about Roza Robota? Adam Bishop 00:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't talk about social workers without talking about Jane Addams. Corvus cornix 02:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Mary Seacole (the popular contemporary primary school counterpoint to Florence Nightingale - a "doctress" or sutler, depending on your point of view); Ekaterina Bakunina (the "Russian Nightingale"); perhaps Darja Mikhailova (aka Dasha Sevastopolskaya).

For cross-dressing female soldiers, see Category:Female wartime crossdressers. Does Phoebe Hessel fit the bill for the soldier under the Georges? Then there is James Barry: man or woman? -- !! ?? 13:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

For social workers, Caroline Chisholm springs to mind from my neck of the woods. She belongs to the small club of people who've (a) been honoured on our currency, (b) had a suburb in the national capital Canberra named after them, and (c) had a federal electorate named after them. She's also classified as a saint in the Anglican Church. Our article on her needs a lot more work. -- JackofOz 04:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Lizzie McGuire Movie

In the movie, Hillary Duff sang the song 'What Dreams Are Made Of'. Apparently, I heard that her voice was...mixed with someone else's voice. Is that true? --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you try the Entertainment Desk? —Tamfang 02:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Charles Dickens

who is the most tragic character in the novels of Charles dickens?

I find it hard to see Dickens as a writer of tragedy, but two characters whose lives have real elements of it are Paul Dombey (see Dombey and Son) and Abel Magwitch. Of the two, I'd say Magwitch. Xn4 15:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Smike. DuncanHill 15:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding two female characters, with a tragic ambivalence and a tragic ending: Nancy and Miss Havisham. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Little Nell is almost a runner, despite Oscar Wilde's unkind quip, "One must have a heart of stone to read the death of Little Nell without laughing." Xn4 18:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A quip is neither kind nor unkind: it is funny or it is not funny, that is all. DuncanHill 21:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oscar speaks again through you, Duncan. Xn4 00:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There is only one figure that leaps out for me here-Jo, the young crossing sweeper from Bleak House. He is truly heart-breaking. He has no surname; he has no antecedents; he has no posterity. He is merely a feather on the breath of time. Clio the Muse 22:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, Clio, you above all people should be distinguishing between pathos and tragedy! --Wetman 02:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but Wetman, Jo breaks my heart; and therin lies the tragedy! Clio the Muse 02:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would go with Smike of Nicholas Nickleby. Wrad 03:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur with Sluzzelin: Havisham is actually tragic in the classical sense. (I haven't contributed to this before because Dickens is one of my holes. Don't like him much, don't read him much, don't remember him well.) Dickens's works are pretty heavily marked by poetic justice (where fiction shows "what must or should occur" rather than "what did occur," according to Aristotle's Poetics), and so the evil suffer by their own evil. (I.e., unlike in life, the evil do not get very rich, very happy, and die at an advanced age in their third resort homes.) However, for a tragic figure, the character has to be good and heroic but have a single flaw, the pursuit of which leads to the great fall. I think Miss Havisham is the nearest thing, as Dickens's general game is to create tragedy with his main characters and then offer redemption (a common plotting in Christian fiction), and she does fall. Geogre 11:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How about Agnes, the mother of Oliver Twist, who died in the opening scene after giving birth ? StuRat 22:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Per above, that's pathos rather than tragedy, as she doesn't really do anything to deserve the fate nor prove heroic prior to her fall. (I know, unmarried mother...not really the same thing, though.) Geogre 02:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, from Oliver Twist, I always read Fagin as tragic. He gets the whole Shylock treatment, but he also cares for his boys and "falls" due to avarice and weakness, so he is somewhat admirable and falls through his flaw. It's just that he's not supposed to be very admirable in a law and order world of anti-semitic London. Geogre 02:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Orwell Dickens wrote "awful pages of pathos" with "no genuine tragedy", but i'll try James Steerforth. Tragic from David's point of view if not the reader's.—eric 05:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

United States GDP calculation: Fisher vs Laspeyres

I'm trying to figure out how the Bureau of Economic Analysis calculates the United States' real gross domestic product. In at least one area, their documentation confuses me; they make it unclear whether a Laspeyres or a Fisher index formula is used:

In "Updated Summary of NIPA Methodologies" (2006), they seem to describe real GDP as being calculated as a Laspeyres index with base year 2000:

BEA uses three methods to estimate GDP ... The deflation method is used for most components of GDP. The quantity index is derived by dividing the current-dollar index by an appropriate price index that has the base year -- currently 2000 -- equal to 100. ... The direct valuation method uses quantity indexes that are obtained by multiplying the base-year price by actual quantity data for the index period. (page 2 of PDF)

In "A Guide to the National Income and Product Accounts of the United States" (2006), they describe using a Fisher index:

The annual changes in quantities and prices in the NIPAs are calculated using a Fisher formula that incorporates weights from 2 adjacent years. For example, the 2003-2004 change in real GDP uses prices for 2003 and 2004 as weights, and the 2003-04 change in prices uses quantities for 2003 and 2004 as weights. (page 16 of PDF)

A footnote in the latter document might help resolve the contradiction:

Because the source data available for most components of GDP are measured in dollars rather than units, the quantities of most of the detailed components used to calculate percent changes are obtained by deflation. For deflation, quantities are approximated by real values (expressed, at present, with 2000 as the reference year) that are calculated by dividing the current-dollar value of the component by its price index, where the price index uses 2000 as the reference year. (footnote 35, page 16 in PDF)

Here is sounds like they're using a Laspeyres index to calculate the quantity inputs to a Fisher index. Doesn't this defeat the purpose of using a Fisher index, though?

Even if it doesn't, I'm still confused. It sounds like they would normalize both year 2003 and year 2004 quantities to year 2000 quantities. Can these really just be plugged into a Fisher formula representing the 2003-2004 change?

--Ryguasu 17:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Renting apartments

Is it true that apartments won't let you rent if you don't have a credit card? 67.188.22.239 18:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it depends on the nature of the authority controlling the rent. If you are renting from a large respectable company or business I suspect they may expect/require one, a self--employed man running a small row of two room flats in down-town Mumbai probably wouldn't mind. You ought to check with whichever person you are renting it from. Remember we can't supply legal advice. SGGH ^speak! 18:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There probably isn't any law preventing it, but one thing to think about is that a lack of a credit card probably also means your credit history is also similarly undeveloped. Many landlords these days will do a credit check as a part of the process of determining whether they will rent to you. I also get the feeling that it will vary on the basis of the location of where you are renting and the clientele involved. –Pakman044 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is more probable that if you have no credit history (or a bad credit history), the leasing agent or management company will require that you have a cosigner. This was the case when I rented my first apartment, at a point when I had virtually no credit history. Carom 23:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Things may have changed in the past few years, but I've never been asked for a credit card when renting an apartment -- just proof of income and references. -- Mwalcoff 02:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not true. Some apartment complex may ask for a credit card, but I wouldn't honor that request. You must have a credit rating and may need to be above R## to rent, and you will need a letter stating your job, but no credit card. You may put your security deposit on a credit card, if you like, but that's a bad idea, too. You don't want any escrow sum taken from a revolving credit card. Geogre 03:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that this is about the US, where it is pretty standard to have a credit card. In other countries it is more common to have a bank card (oops, disambiguation, I mean a debit card). But even that would not be necessary, just as long as you can prove you have a steady income. For which a copy of a bank statement would be handiest. DirkvdM 06:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Simply having a credit card in and of itself is fairly unremarkable (US) and does not necessarily say much about your suitability as a potential renter. Hell, I must get about 2 "pre-approved" credit cards in the mail daily. 38.112.225.84 12:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

True, and most of those "pre-approved" ones are extremely bad forms of credit at that (companies that "don't care about your credit history!" are usually hoping that you will rack up a lot of debt and then spend the rest of your life paying off high interest rates). --24.147.86.187 23:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked about credit history in renting before, but not always. Usually it just depends on whether they think you are going to be able to reliably get the rent to them each month. If you have a job that is not too hard to guarantee. If you don't have any credit history at all you can often co-sign with someone who does (your parents, for example), who will be held responsible if you skip town, etc. --24.147.86.187 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda and music

I recently asked for some examples of Soviet propaganda and got a very good response, one with a music link. I am now looking for a Nazi example, if possible. Thanks a lot for your help. Zinoviev4 20:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is an Sturmabteilung propaganda reel, produced for one of the Nuremberg Rallies, with the most famous Nazi song of all [3]. Clio the Muse 22:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As a side-note, I once heard both fascist and communist tunes as they were sung in Germany in the 1930s. The nazi music was lighthearted lederhosen-stuff, whereas the communist tunes were much more serious. I can very well imagine that most people at the time (who were effectively forced to choose between the two) would have found the fascist rallies much more appealing. Don't laugh, music works directly on the emotions and your choice of music will very much help determine the size and type of your following. DirkvdM 06:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No laughs, Dirk. Propaganda is an art, and both Hitler and Goebbels were first rate practitioners. Please have a look at the relevant passages in Mein Kampf. Also the apotheosis of Horst Wessel and his song was pure political theatre, another brilliant coup by the malevolent dwarf himself. (He was called that by one of his own party comrades). Clio the Muse 23:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Another famous but far older example, is Haydn & Hoffmann von Fallersleben's Deutschlandlied. It also came to symbolize Nazi Germany, since they used it too, yet the third stanza finally survived the Third Reich. The Hitler Youth marched to Vorwärts! Vorwärts! schmettern die hellen Fanfaren (also known as Unsre Fahne flattert uns voran, an example of Baldur von Schirach's less than mediocre writing talents, music by Hans Otto Borgmann). Youth was a popular theme and target of musical propaganda, the austrofascists had their Lied der Jugend ("Song of the Youth", also known as the Dollfuß song), and the Italian fascists sang La Giovinezza . Clio's example is indeed the most famous and iconic example, and it was originally supposed to be the song losing the battle in Rick's Café. For copyright reasons, Warner Brothers had to pick a song more representative of the "Second Reich" than the Third, Die Wacht am Rhein, which was gloriously drowned out by La Marseillaise, in one of the most remarkable music battles in the history of film. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Vive la France! That is one of my favourite moments in the movie. Besides, the Germans sing so badly! I'm intrigued, Sluzzelin. What copyright issues were there over the Horst Wessel Lied in 1942? I can't imagine the German government would have been in a position to take Warner Brothers to court. Clio the Muse 23:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Mine too, Clio. But there are so many favourite moments in this classic film. Anyone who hasn't ever bothered to see Casablanca, or who's seen it and doesn't love every moment of it, is beneath contempt. But just imagine what it might have been like if Rick had been played by the studio's original choice, Ronald Reagan. Horrors. -- JackofOz 04:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan! Sam, do not play it, under any circumstances! Have you been on holiday? Clio the Muse 23:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep. -- JackofOz 02:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. Clio the Muse 03:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to Clio: Running the film in neutral countries might not have been possible. South American markets in particular seemed to have been significant enough for Warner Brothers not to take that legal risk. (from The German-Hollywood Connection). ---Sluzzelin talk 08:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Upon reviewing and relistening that scene in my mind, I think Max Steiner even uses a modulated version of the Deutschlandlied (changing it from major to distorted minor) to accompany the angry and humiliated Major Strasser stomping up to Rick to voice his indignation. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks fot that information, Sluzzelin. Clio the Muse 23:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

notable for the fascist movement in Spain is Cara al sol, the Falange-Anthem. It should be noted that thinking of the use of music in nazigermany as merely rumtata is wrong. they were much more subtile see: [4] The song is out of a movie Die große Liebe (The great Love) in the middle of the war. What it makes subtle Propaganda is the lyrics Davon geht die Welt nicht unter (The world wont crumble because of this). In the context with the wounded soldiers its pretty obvious.--Tresckow 12:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone noted the currently forbidden Horst Wessel Song or Deutschland Uber Alles? I know they're obvious, but it always pays to spot the obvious. Utgard Loki 17:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep to both, the Horst Wessel Lied was referred to twice above, and Deutschland Über Alles is in fact the most famous (or notorious) version of the Deutschlandlied. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As an illustration (again on the music bit, sorry), my mother still occasionally sings a nazi soldier's song. She was in her twenties at the time, so fully aware they were 'bad songs'. But they were just too catchy. There's perfect propaganda - even having your enemies join in your songs. Note, though that my mother lived in Heerlen, at the German border, and therefore grew up with the German language and German Marks and the like (her father was even a born German, although probably for that reason strongly anti-nazi). But still. DirkvdM 19:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Wehrmacht soldier songs were almost all of older origin. Most likely your mother sings something like Erika or Wildgänse rauschen durch die Nacht. Which have no nazi content.--Tresckow 20:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I sat in a Munich beer cellar a couple of years ago with some very attentive gentlemen, all singing Wir fahren gegen Engelland. It was fun; really it was! Clio the Muse 23:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The video you have requested is not available. DuncanHill 23:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So I see, Duncan. I've now changed it to the song title only (We are advancing against England). Clio the Muse 23:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I, on the other hand, was not far away, singing the likes of Zu Potsdam unter den Eichen (Brecht & Weill) which no doubt shows dangerously liberal inclinations... Xn4 23:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I heard you, I did, and my German friends and I responded with a rousing chorus of Der Anstatt-das-Song! From Polly Peachum, aka Clio the Muse 02:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, we were harmonizing completely apolitically and a cappella: "Die ganze Stadt ist wie verhext. Veronika, der Spargel wächst." ---Sluzzelin talk 00:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Anthropology question

I'm writing a piece of historical fiction set in a society which works according to a kind of primitive aristocracy, and as research I'd like to know if any such societies have been studied or documented in modern times. There's a class system - a settled farming/craftsman class and a mobile warrior class who extort taxes from them - but no real power structure. A strong man who can command a loyal group of armed followers may be able to extend his influence over numerous local communities, and thus be said to be a "king" over a wide area, but his power is entirely personal, so when he dies he is unable to pass his "kingdom" on to a son or nominated successor, the integrity of the kingdom collapses, and rule over the various individual communities within it is up for grabs for neighbouring kings or ambitious men with armed followers. Is there a term for this kind of society, and can anyone recommend any books that study such? --Nicknack009 22:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Nicknack, I personally know of no anthropological studies touching on this subject, or if there is a specific name for the forms of society and rulership that you have described here, but in historical terms I think you may have to go right back to the formation of the early Barbarian kingdoms to discover what you need. I would suggest that you might care to examine the particular case of the Huns, especially during the period of Attila, perhaps the prefect example of the rise and fall of purely 'personal' power. The Hun Empire simply imploded on his sudden death in 453AD. If this is indeed what you are after please let me know and I will make some reading suggestions. Clio the Muse 22:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What you describe is somewhere between Alpha (biology) and the way some of our remoter Anglo-Saxon ancestors dealt with kingship, giving the crown to the best-equipped member of the royal family, rather than simply to the king's senior male heir. By definition, we lack information on how these things were done in pre-history, but primogeniture was well-known to the Ancient Greeks. There must have been a point at which the animal way of managing these things generally gave way to the various systems of inheritance which we know were normal from the Middle Ages onwards. Xn4 02:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Trial by ordeal has a bad habit of leaving your best candidate maimed or, in the days before antibiotics, fatally wounded. Systematic methods are useful but rely upon legal codes. I'm interested in any suggestion that the early Anglo-Saxons battled it out, as I only know of their working by a gift giving exercise. The better candidate was the one with the better retainers, and that came from giving out gifts, and that came from taking prizes from others. Generally, the contenders wouldn't fight unless they believed that they had to. (It's a big thing in literature for them to fight, but it's an exception and "evil" when it occurs in the sagas. Whether we're looking at Volsungssaga or Egilssaga or the fragments we have, it always seems that these big fights are family feuds rather than contests for tribal leadership.) Geogre 03:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the article on warlord can give you some more food for thought, all the way to the present day. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions - my "kings" certainly could be considered warlords, and Attila's empire is a particularly large and successful example of the kind of kingdom I'm thinking of. --Nicknack009 07:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

August 20

Major P. P. Malcolm (character in Leon Uris's "Exodus")

In the novel "Exodus" by Leon Uris, a major influence on the protagonist is Major P. P. Malcolm of the British army, who becomes a fanatical Zionist and uses his knowledge of Palestinian history and genius for military strategy to help the Jewish settlers fight off the Arabs. Was there really such a person, or was this character based on a real person? Or is he entirely fictitious?

Possibly Orde Wingate. Clio the Muse 02:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much!

Da nada! Clio the Muse 22:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Napoleon complex?

Anybody know of a source suggesting what might have happened had Napoleon not destroyed the Holy Roman Empire? Trekphiler 05:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

We'd all be speaking Latin German? (Please note: I'm not necessarily a reliable source) 38.112.225.84 09:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Roman Empire! Clio the Muse 22:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Napoleon's action had little practical effect, since the Holy Roman Empire had already become a Hapsburg family possession for over 400 years, and the Hapsburgs promptly set up a new empire of their own after the war. What was more important is that the outcome of the Congress of Vienna set the stage for 50 years of Prussian-Austrian rivalry... AnonMoos 11:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The word 'source' isn't the one you want, as what you're looking for is speculation rather than fact. This question seems to be based on the premise that the Empire had a future, if it had not been "destroyed by Napoleon". But it had been in the process of dissolution for centuries. See Holy Roman Empire: The long decline. By the time it came to an end, the Empire had little power or coherence. The remaining strength of its Habsburg emperors was in their own possessions, both within the Empire and outside it, and by the late 18th century the Empire's other parts were running their own foreign policies and fighting their own wars. It's easy to forget, for instance, that Hanover, an electorate within the Empire, was in a personal union with the United Kingdom under the Hanoverians from 1714. In 1804, Napoleon formally created a new Empire for himself, and in 1806, following the fourth Peace of Pressburg, the Emperor Francis II gave the coup de grâce to the Holy Roman Empire, creating the Austrian Empire instead from his own possessions. After (or, more strictly, in the closing stages of) the Napoleonic Wars the Congress of Vienna (1815) redrew the map of Europe and restored much of the old order, but by then there was no impetus to re-establish the HRE. As the 19th century wore on, the age of empires began to give way to the age of nation-states, one of which was a new Germany. The HRE's survival would not have prevented the Risorgimento, the Revolutions of 1848, and so forth. It's hard to conceive that if the HRE had survived another sixty years, it could have become the vehicle for a new German state: it was rather the rise and expansion of Prussia which did that. The Holy Roman Empire was in the way and would have had to go. Xn4 13:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

One should always be mindful of Voltaire's assessment of the Holy Roman Empire, that it was an 'agglomeration' which was "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." By 1806 it was a crazy patchwork of competing authorities, both ecclesiastical and secular. Moreover, well before the dissolution Habsburg power was based almost exclusively on the Austrian domains. In a sense the empire was restored in 1815, in the more modern form of the German Confederation, with a nominal preeminence given to Austria. What happened to this? Why, the same thing that would have happened to the Holy Roman Empire if it had survived into the 1860s. Bismarck happened. Clio the Muse 22:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Cometh the moment, cometh the man." Xn4 13:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

german detective series

I'm trying to get the name of a german detective series that some time ago was show late night on british TV. The main character was plain in dress (a bit like columbo but not as scruffy), his methods were more hard edged (would shoot people etc). As I remember the action took place in a large german city (possibly Hamburg). I also remember that people would often be shot by a single bullet to the head (not sure if this was a trademark of the series) - dcan anyone help.?87.102.2.76 11:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I probably need more information (what did he look like, who were the other characters, how old was the series?), but my first association was the legendary Schimanski, Tatort's most famous roughneck, played by Götz George. This would have been in Duisburg, however. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

YES, that's it thank you.

Bless you. Now all I need is re-runs.87.102.2.76 13:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Austria and Serbia

I'd like to know something of the long-term background to the relations between Austria and Serbia leading to the crisis of 1914. Brodieset 11:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

See First Serbian Uprising, Principality of Serbia, Austria-Hungary, Border history of Serbia, History of Serbia, First Balkan War and History of the Balkans: The Balkans in modern times. Xn4 13:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to mention Bosnian Crisis. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Misha Glenny has written an excellent and readable book about the Balkans, too. SaundersW 13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is, I suppose, tempting to attribute the deterioration in the relations between Austria and Serbia to the rise of a militant form of Serb nationalism, given an extra edge by the Austrian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908. But the whole thing can be traced to another date and to another form of nationalism altogether: to the Ausgleich of 1867, which saw the creation of Austria-Hungary, followed by the rise of an assertive Magyar identity within the Empire. The Ausgleich, in creating a semi-independent Hungary, meant that the Slav minorities were at the mercy of Magyar nationalism, far less liberal in every way than the policy previously followed by Vienna. After the agreement of 1867 the Imperial foreign minister was obliged to take account of the views on the minister-president of Hungary; and the one thing the Hungarians were most concerned about was the threat of Pan Slavism. Here Russia was perceived as the immediate threat, with Serbia as its 'Trojan Horse' in the Balkans. No individual represented this view more clearly than Gyula Andrassy, first minister-president of Hungary and then himself the Imperial foreign minister.

Set against this general background it is also important to remember that, by the late 1860s, Austrian ambitions in in both Italy and Germany had been choked off by the rise of new national powers. Only the Balkans were left. The whole Empire was thus drawn into a new style of diplomatic brinkmanship, first conceived of by Andrassy, centering on the province of Bosnia-Herzegovina, a predominantly Slav area still under the control of the Ottoman Empire. It was a dangerous game to play in a dangerous place. A road was thus mapped out, with a terminus at Sarajevo in the year 1914. Clio the Muse 00:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Another model of balance and concision! I note how Clio makes each word count.--Wetman 00:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

x Clio the Muse 01:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Clio's reply has been incorporated into the article Austria-Hungary. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What was this guy's name?

I think I remember seeing this image on Wikipedia in a featured article a few months ago, and a few weeks ago the image appeared again in a music video somewhere. I captured the image and tried to see if anybody knew about it here: http://forums.galbijim.com/index.php?showtopic=2605&st=0&gopid=12438

Though that's pretty much just a thread of all of us saying that we don't know who the guy is (and after 13 days I've given up hope of finding the answer on that small board), so really the only important link is this one, to the image:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v180/mithridates/forgothisname.png

All I can remember is that I think this person was a Louis Riel type character, and maybe that he was born into wealth but later decided to become the leader of a rebel army, but then again that could all be wrong as well. Mithridates 15:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The second picture is Huey P. Newton. Bhumiya (said/done) 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I feel so much better know knowing where the picture came from. Thank you so much. My thirteen days of pain are now over. ^^ Mithridates 17:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Does "presential" exist?

Does the word "presential" (as in non-online, face to face -> presence) exist in English? There are some google hits, a rather odd M-W entry... but nothing very conclusive and a suspicious percentage of hits from obviously foreign pages. (The word does exist in other Roman languages.) Native speakers to the rescue!? --Ibn Battuta 16:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to be too definitive, but no. We sometimes say "real presence" or "face to face," but not generally any form of "presential." It forms up oddly for English rules. We'd normally do something like "present" and extend it to cover the adjective we need. Utgard Loki 16:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The "New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary" includes "presential," saying it is "now rare." It came from Latin in the 15th century. There is also "presentially" and "presentiality." The American Heritage Dictionary (1973) does not have it. Edison 16:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It seem that you are simply looking for the counterpart of virtual as in virtual reality. You have actual, and present is already an adjective in English: present company excepted. --Wetman 16:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Chambers Dictionary, 1983 ed, has adj. relating to presence: having or implying actual presence: present: as if present: formed from the present tense. - n. presentiality - adv. presentially. Hope this is helpful. DuncanHill 16:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Praesental exists, but that's something else, and real presence also has a specific technical meaning. As well as the suggested face to face (or f2f as they say), "in the flesh" would also do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone! Wikipedia rocks!! :o) --Ibn Battuta 17:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This would be an excellent question for the Language Ref Desk. StuRat 20:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The "rather odd M-W entry" is because the free online M-W is not the unabridged version. That's the screen you get if you search for a word that's in the unabridged but not in the free one. --Anonymous, August 20, 2007, 22:22 (UTC).

Thanks again, incl. the comment on the language desk. Apparently I hadn't looked close enough when choosing the forum--I had thought I *was" posting to the language desk. All the more thanks to those language-savvy non-language-desk-respondents! :o) --Ibn Battuta 07:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Bought In"

In the context of auction houses, what does "bought in" mean? Altonparks 17:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In general, it means "unsold", but usually means "unsold because the minimum asking price was not met." -- Kainaw^(what?) 17:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This would be an excellent question for the Language Ref Desk. StuRat 20:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Auction house practice is to "find" bids in the room, nodding to Mr. Chandelier or Mr. Potted Palm, in executing bids that have been left with the house, or in bidding on the part of the house up to the pre-established minimum acceptable to the vendor. As the gavel comes down with "Sold!" few in the room realize what has been "bought in". --Wetman 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Custody of children who's parents never wed

2 adults had a child, and never wed. Parent A took cutody of the child without a cutody battle in court. Years later, could parent B legally "take" custody of the child? could the child decide who she wants to live with?

There should be no issue with custody if both parents agree. The child could go from one to the other. Custody battles in court handle issues where parents do not come to an agreement. -- Kainaw^(what?) 17:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a legal question, and if the case is real, no one here can advise you, you need good legal advice on the matter. If it isn't real and you're asking a general question, then you don't give enough details - for instance, of the legal jurisdiction and of the age of the child. It's also not clear whether your question "could parent B legally 'take' custody of the child" means 'take by legal action' or 'take by direct action' (viz., by kidnapping). Whichever it is, the answer must depend on what country (or state) they are all in, supposing they are all in the same country (or state). Nearly everywhere, there's a distinction between legal custody (broadly, the right of someone to take decisions affecting a child) and day-to-day 'custody' (broadly, doing the actual looking after). In some countries, the rights of the father are greater than those of the mother, and in others it's the other way around. In the US, family law varies from state to atate. Most countries do have a concept that the wishes of mature children are important and should be taken into account in decisions about their custody, but when these matters end up in court, the court must have the final say. Many countries (but far from all) are parties to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and that may come into play if a parent takes a child to another country without getting the necessary consents first. Some countries have their own laws which aim to control parental child abduction within the country itself. Having said all that, if one parent fails to pursue the legal remedies open to him or her, the other parent can get away with murder! Xn4 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It could depend on which parent took them in the first place. I doubt the law of all countries treats mothers and fathers strictly the same way in this regard.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 19:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sophia Alekseyevna

was she a capable ruler? 86.131.255.19020:36 20:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

For your start, Sophia Alekseyevna. Xn4 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sophia was the first effective female ruler of Russia, but there is, arguably, only one person capable of passing judgement here: the Empress Catherine, the greatest of them all. In 1772 she was to write of Sophia "A great deal has been said about this princess, but I do not think in general that authors have done her justice...We cannot but own that she was very capable of governing." Clio the Muse 00:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Tsar Alexi

what was significance of tsar alexis polish campaign of 1654? 86.131.255.19020:36 20:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please consult Treaty of Pereyaslav and Russo-Polish War, 1654-1667. As for its significance, it's enough to say that the Russians held the capital of their centuries-old rival and enemy, Great Duchy of Lithuania, for six years. Neither Lithuania nor Poland would ever pose a threat to Moscow again. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's the beginning of a series of campaigns that marks Russia's emergence as a European power, though at the outset the Smolensk offensive was draped in the mantle of an Orthodox crusade. Alexis pushed the Russian border westwards, recapturing Smolensk and other ancient Russian towns that had previously fallen to the Poles during the Time of Troubles. But the real significance of the offensive was that it opened the Tsar to a whole range of new ideas, practices and styles that were to provide the foundations for a systematic programme of westernisation, afterwards pursued by Peter the Great. All sorts of western craftsmen and experts were brought to Moscow by Alexis. He acquired an interest in a number of things, from interior design, to craftsmanship, to military technology. He also began to reshape the Russian army along European lines, ordering books from the west, covering anything from fortifications to artillery, and made moves towards building a navy and a merchant fleet. As a result of his experiences on campaign Alexis started the modernisation of the Russian economy, making improvements in agricultural practices, and founding new industries. He also set up a school of medicine in the Kremlin, where Russians were educated in western methods. It has been said that by the time the Tsar died in 1676 he had "steered his people away from Byzantine exclusivness and stagnation." It is perhaps not too much of an exaggeration to say that under Alexis Moscovy was truly becoming Russia. Clio the Muse 01:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

August 21

Rhapsody in blue clarinet solo

Does anyone know who the clarinet soloist in this video is? Also, why does the video say Derek Bailey at the beginning? According to the article he played guitar- was he playing something in this recording? 68.231.151.161 03:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, never mind on the second question, I can see that režie is Czech for the director of the movie. 68.231.151.161 03:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Drucker is the clarinetist. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

British Empire question

From all the colonies of the British Empire, did the British Raj/British Indian empire have a special position as causing particular pride or wealth in comparison to the others or not? Thanks. --AlexSuricata 04:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was referred to as the 'jewel in the crown' of the British Empire, probably due to both its size and its wealth, largely from things like spices. Cyta 07:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

India accounted for a majority of the population of the empire, and it was also the possession over which the British monarch styled herself 'Empress' or himself 'Emperor'. Marco polo 16:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

India was indeed The Jewel in the Crown, the very heart of the second British Empire. A lot of additional territory, including Egypt and Aden, was acquired specifically to secure the passage to India. Under the Royal Titles Act Queen Victoria became Empress of India in 1877. When India and Pakistan became independent in 1947 the Empire lost some 80% of its population. What remained might be said to have been merely a husk. Clio the Muse 23:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A tiny correction, Clio - it was the Royal Titles Act 1876, the inspiration of Benjamin Disraeli. This reminds me of his famous (and true) statement Colonies do not cease to be colonies because they are independent! Xn4 00:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, Xn4, the Act does indeed date to 1876, though the title, so far as I am aware, was not adopted until 1877. My apologies for any ambiguity. Clio the Muse 01:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The question of particular wealth in comparison to the others is fraught with controversy, as it impinges on the theory of 'colonial drain' which has been attacked by defenders of the Empire since Dadabhai Naoroji raised it in the Commons in the late nineteenth century. Modern estimates of the drain of resources from India to the United Kingdom tend to get bogged down in statistical nit-picking; Holden Furber calculations were that in the ten years following 1783 alone, when British rule had not yet reached all of India, 1.8 million pounds were transferred from India to England, without compensatory capital investment. (1.8 million in 1780 is 180 million today.) After 1857, the transfer was formalised as "Home charges", or India's contribution to the British exchequer, and were just under fifty million pounds a year on average according to recent calculations; at least twenty million pounds according to contemporary calculations. (Fifty million pounds in 1880 is three and a half billion pounds today. Twenty is 1.4 billion pounds today.) That's not a small amount.

An under-accounted contribution was that of the Indian Army, which was paid for by India but used by Whitehall as a free source of infantry in Africa and the Middle East, greatly reducing the cost of imperial adventures.

Basically, the British Empire without India wouldn't (and didn't) pay. Hornplease 01:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dock leaves

Why are dock leaves always found where nettles are growing? - Kittybrewster (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Out nettle, In dock: Dock shall ha' A new smock; Nettle shan't Ha' narrun.

See Teleology, though you might want to ask on the science desk and see what they have to say.—eric 05:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats a good question. I can find no literature that explains why. Though both are found widely in the northern hemisphere and can survive in many type of soil. It may simply be that plenty of different plants are found in close proximity, but because we closely associate dock with nettles, that we notice their proximity and comment on it. Rockpocket 06:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Presumably they are both plants of similar temperament and will therefore be found in similar climatic zones. Plasticup ^T/C 03:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Magna Carta

How has this been interpreted since 1215 and why has it become such a cornerstone in notions of liberty in the Anglo-Saxon world?80.177.38.137 05:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

From memory, MC has more clauses that deal with Jews than clauses that deal with anyone's freedom, liberties etc. It was ignored straight after it was issued. And it did not even aspire to do anything for the rights of anyone other than Barons. But it was a useful perennial club to hit the monarch with. --Dweller 06:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(Summer School question moved to seperate section

I think you should consult our article on Magna Carta. It is important not because of its impact immediately but because it is one of the first steps on a long road to freedom. In it John recognised the power of the law over the King, some rights for Barons (rights that would be gradually extended down the social heirarchy over time) and important judicial rights such as habeas corpus made their first written appearance here. The 1215 Magna Carta was reissued in many forms, it was simply the first one. There were, Dweller, only two clauses dealing with Jews/money lenders, out of 60 something, which didn't reappear in later editions. There's an interesting argument on the talk page, with one contributor wanting to basically rewrite the article to say Magna Carta caused Nazism (I exagerate perhaps slightly I didn't read it all in detail). However it is quite right that this important step on the gradual march towards common law and even democracy is recognised for what it lead to, as much as what it was at the time. Cyta 08:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's strip away the verbiage and get to the heart of Magna Carta, the one core principle that might be said to have survived all others, not for a particular few but for everyone. It is this;

No free man shall be taken or imprisoned, or dispossessed or outlawed or exiled or in any other way ruined, not will we go or send against him except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.

This is now at the centre of our common law; but it is more than that. It sets limits to royal power, and is thus the first clear challenge to absolutism, a challenge renewed time and again. Yes, the Charter was overturned almost immediately, but as a set of ideas it did not go away, and was reissued in 1217 and again in a more definitive form by Henry III in 1225. Even the Battle of Evesham, and the defeat of the baronial rebellion, did not shift Magna Carta from its central position in the political life of England. During the reign of Edward I it was used to focus opposition to the king's financial exactions. Edward was thus obliged to acknowledge that he was bound by its provisions. When Parliament began to take shape as a permanent part of the English political landscape it took it upon itself the task of seeking reconfirmation and clarification of the document. Often sessions would begin with a public reading and a reaffirmation of the Charter.

So, how did this work in practice? It meant that all statues conflicting with this political keystone were declared invalid. In 1369, during the reign of Edward III it was declared that "If any Statute be made to the contrary it shall be holden for none." The provisions of the Charter were also extended during this reign in the so-called 'Six Statutes', which served to define law as 'due process.' The third of these extended the protection offered by Magna Carta by changing the wording 'no free man' to 'no man'.

Although it slipped into the background to some degree during the period of Tudor absolutism, it became a central platform in the seventeenth century opposition to the rule of the Stuarts. And here we enter the realm of the 'ancient constitution', as defined by Sir Edward Coke, amongst others, later to find its fullest expression in the Declaration of Rights after the Glorious Revolution. It makes no matter here that we are dealing with what was effectively evolving political mythology, a useful adjutant to the Whig interpretation of history, King John's Charter had ramifications well beyond its limited feudal origins. In one of history's many ironies it was the Tories in the eighteenth century who rallied behind Magna Carta in their defiance of the Whig oligarchy, forcing Sir Robert Walpole to stress the superiority of the post-1688 constitution.

But for many, in both England and the American colonies, Magna Carta was reinterpreted as a challenge to narrow parliamentary absolutism. One radical, Arthur Beardmore, arrested for seditious libel in 1762, arranged to be apprehended while teaching Magna Carta to his young son, becoming a hero in the process, the subject of a popular print. John Wilkes, likewise imprisoned for seditious libel, also invoked Magna Carta, "that glorious inheritance, that distinguishing characteristic of the Englishman."

While it is true that the Charter, and the mythology of the 'ancient constitution', became less and less relevant during the great age of Victorian reform, it acquired a fresh significance across the Atlantic. The 1225 version of the Charter was published in Philidelphia in 1687, part of a tract written by William Penn. After the outbreak of the American Revolution in 1775, lawyers turned to Magna Carta to justify Colonial defiance of George III, the new King John. The First Continental Congress declared that the colonists were doing "as Englishmen their anscestors in like cases have usually done, for asserting and vindicating their rights and liberties." In 1775 Massachusetts adopted as its state seal an image of a patriot holding a sword in one hand and Magna Carta in the other; and the Founding Fathers went on to place the document above statute law in the Constitution. Due process was also to be incorporated in the Bill of Rights of 1791.

So, you see, Magna Carta has a historical relevance well beyond defining the selfish rights of thirteenth century barons.

Magna Carta and Anti-Semitism

I hope nobody minds, and I realise that it is slightly off topic, but I simply have to address this matter, flagged up by both Dweller and Cyta. I have now read the 'debate' you refer to Cyta, and I can confirm that it is both hysterical and ludicrous. What is even worse, for the image of Wikipedia itself, is that the Magna Carta page has been added to Category:Antisemitism. Yes, it has, and for what? Why, for this:

If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.

Substitute the word 'bankers' then you more or less have the same reading. If Magna Carta is to be seen as 'Anti-Semitic' then one might as well add the whole of Medieval and early modern literature, theology and philosophy to the same category; anything from Chaucer to Shakespeare. I realise that this is a sensitive subject, but to interpret Magna Carta in this light is grossly inappropriate. More seriously, it gives a spurious legitimacy to some very unpleasant and entirely modern thinking. If you really want a proper illustration of anti-Semitism what about this;

What is the worldly cult of the Jew? 'Huckstering'. What is his worldly God? 'Money'

Who is the author? Why, the same man who described Ferdinand Lasalle as a 'Nigger Jew', and said that the Jews of Poland 'breed like lice.' He is Karl Marx. You will find the above quote and others in the same vein in On the Jewish Question Now, would anyone care to add his name to the Catagory:Antisemitism? OK, OK; I'm being disingenuous and polemical, though I feel sure some of you will understand my point. Clio the Muse 01:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Incidentally, that cat was added recenttly. You've inspired me to start a fight that I will almost certainly lose: [5]. Hornplease 02:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I admire your courage, Hornplease. Unfortunately there are too many POV warriors around here, corrupting and distorting Wikipedia pages. The very best of luck. Please let me know if I can help in any way. Clio the Muse 02:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes good luck, I hadn't realised that category was there, the debate I saw I remembered from a while back and it seemed to have been resolved reasonably in the article. After all Magna Carta is hardly in the same league as On the Jews and their Lies which also came up recently on the reference desk. It is simply in my eyes a law on money lending, naming the only people allowed to work as money lenders. I am surprised by Marx's comments, he was after all Jewish. Must be one of those Self-hating Jews. After all, we all know the link between Communism and Judaism, see Mein Kampf. Now that's what I call anti-semitism. Cyta 07:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's daft to put it in the anti-semitic cat and I'm daft too, to have been wrong about the number of clauses. Perhaps I'm thinking of the Ordinances. --Dweller 12:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Summer School

Just out of curiousity, do they have Summer school in England? 38.112.225.84 07:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really, thought the Open University has Sumer Schools for its undergraduates. DuncanHill 11:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well we do have summer schools, but they are not the same thing as the (US biased) Wikipedia article. They are sponsored by youth groups, churches, etc rather than the education authorities, and provide training in a specific topic of interest, e.g. music or religion.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

They may also be run by schools themselves and by certain youth/eduction organisations (NAGTY springs to mind). Martinp23 12:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no equivalent remedial "summer school" though? As in for kids who failed to pass or meet requirements during the regular term, as is the case in the U.S.? 38.112.225.84 12:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not as far as I know - and in Britain one doesn't Pass or Fail a year. DuncanHill 12:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a little? Here in the states you don't receive a grade per se for the year either, but certainly there must be some criteria by which students are deemed to have successfully completed a grade level and are therefore eligible to move on to the next one, or not, as the case may be. Unless you simply mean you call it something different, so in Britain you wotwottallyho or googlygob a year, or whatever. 24.22.163.169 14:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

One simply moves up into the next year, we dont have the system of grades that you do in the USA. Education in the United Kingdom (I'm hoping that will come up blue!) may explain more. DuncanHill 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To make it totally clear, even if you are inattentive, not very bright and a serial truant who fails all and every test/exam that may be set, it's extremely unusual in the UK for you to drop out of your age cohort into the one below. --Dweller 14:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We have an article on Grades in the United Kingdom, but it only covers exam scores. In the U.S., you have to pass a certain number of classes in certain subject areas to graduate from high school. Passing means having an average score of at least 60 out of 100 on a mix of final exams, mid term quizzes, homework assignments, participation, etc. No one wants to fall too far behind and not be able to graduate at 18. So if you fail, say, English class in 10th grade, you may want to take English at summer school so you can get the course credit before entering 11th grade. Now what happens in Britain if a student completely bombs a year -- doesn't do his assignments, gets low scores on tests, etc.? -- Mwalcoff 23:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

He'll still move up to the next year - but will probably be placed in lower sets. DuncanHill 23:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, but what if he's already in the lowest set? I mean, what do they do with someone who just completely makes no effort to succeed in school? -- Mwalcoff 22:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also mention that in Britain one does not graduate from school - only from University. Secondary education in the United Kingdom should explain more (I'm hoping that will be blue!) DuncanHill 23:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Whilst a student teacher at a college in Dundee (Scotland), a girl in my 1st year (the fair Amanda, whose hair was sooo blonde, like the sun, shinning like....enough) decided to change courses (to english/philosopy) and attend another Uni in Dundee, she was accepted but she had to attend a summer school, run by her new Uni, which enabled her to join her new course at the begining of the second year - have never heard of this happening to anyone else so i am assuming that it is quite rare, but there were quite a few people at the summer school (for 'quite a few people' read 'i don't know how many') Perry-mankster 09:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone makes no effort to succeed, or indeed is just not capable of attaining high levels in the usual subjects, they will usually end up in the bottom sets for subjects that are set. The teachers may come up with alternative plans for them, they might end up being excluded from school some days, they might spend some time in isolation, their parents may be prosecuted if they continually truant, the teachers might try to find a way for them to learn something or at least have the best chance (possibly helping find an apprenticeship, taking some more vocational subjects, etc). But ultimately, retaking a year during compulsory education (before you turn 16) is very rare. Skittle 18:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Novel name

I'm trying to think of the name of this novel I read a few years back in college. It was set mainly in Hawaii, the class I read it in was all ethnic or mixed race authors, I think the main characters were a young boy and his older sister, possibly of Japanese descent. There was something about cats taking away people's pain also, but it wasn't a huge part of the story/plot. Having no luck finding it, any help would be appreciated. Thanks. 38.112.225.84 07:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, found it in Literature in Hawaii. Gotta love Wikipedia. Blu's Hanging by Lois-Ann Yamanaka.

A book named "THE GENIE"

I read a horror novel titled "The Genie" some years ago. It is the story of some sexual relationship between a genie and a human female. Can somebody say who the author is? I have forgotten the author's name. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.20.40 (talk)

Do you remember any more details? A character name, a location, any proper noun? Plasticup ^T/C 03:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

what is the financial regulatory agency? waht is also their function?

what is the financial regulatory agency in Nigeria? what is also their function? what are the possible recommendation for their shortcomings? Akinmusi 14:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Akinmusi

• You can get some information at Finance_Minister_of_Nigeria. --Halcatalyst 00:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of Bangladesh

I am confused about Bangladesh's number of sub-district: one article "Districts of Bangladesh" says that it has 493 sub-districts(upazila) and another article "Table of administrative country subdivisions by country" says it has 474. Which one is correct about the number of sub-districts of Bangladesh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.202 (talk)

It seems that upazilas are periodically divided or merged in administrative reorganizations, so that the total number changes. According to this Bangladesh government document, there were 481 upazilas as of 31 December 2006. Marco polo 18:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for a discussion of the torturer as victim.

I read an essay (I believe it was a blog post) (possibly by Arthur Silber, though I've been unable to locate it on either of his sites (powerofnarrative or thesacredmoment)) which detailed the psychological process by which torturers or murderers who did terrible things in the service of a totalitarian regime transfer the idea of victimhood from their victims onto themselves--that because they had to endure the pain of doing these things, they were really the victims. I'm trying to tie this into a discussion of Ender's Game, but I can't for the life of me find the essay. Does this ring a bell with anyone? grendel|khan 16:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it pretty unlikely that anyone would argue that the torturers were "really" the victims (that is, removing the victim status from those tortured), but I have heard arguments that they are often also victims in their own way. There is some discussion of this in Grossman's, On Killing, I believe. --24.147.86.187 17:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, no, the bit I was looking for was on how the torturers tell themselves a story about how they're the real victims in order to deal with the guilt of what they've done. grendel|khan 17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have what you're looking for, but you might be interested in John Conroy's book Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People: The Dynamics of Torture, which tells a different story. The torturers he examines are not particularly bothered by what they're doing, since they've fit it into a larger framework of a greater good. --Sean 17:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've certainly heard and read about this kind of rationalization before. I don't think I found your essay, but maybe this is of interest or can help you locate it:

A couple of months ago, the Washington Post ran an article by Laura Blumenfeld titled The Tortured Lives of Interrogators. It's up to the readers to characterize the regime employing the interrogator.

In her paper The Psychology of Torture South African psychologist Shirley Spitz mentioned that "the torturer probably still experiences some mental stress through tormenting victims and through the subtle realisation that he too is being exploited by the system" and refers to Bendfeldt-Zachrisson, F., "State (Political) Torture: Some General, Psychological, and Particular Aspects", International Journal of Health Services, Vol.15(2), pp.339-349. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have what you were looking for either, but a related character in fiction is the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov, who feels he is sacrificing his own happiness, even his soul, for the benefit of the great masses by keeping them ignorant and thus happy.--Rallette 07:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

...unless what you were looking for was this, from Slavoj Zizek:

The problem for those in power is how to get people do the dirty work without turning them into monsters. This was Heinrich Himmler's dilemma. When confronted with the task of killing the Jews of Europe, the SS chief adopted the attitude of "somebody has to do the dirty job". In Hannah Arendt's book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, the philosopher describes how Nazi executioners endured the horrible acts they performed. Most were well aware that they were doing things that brought humiliation, suffering and death to their victims. The way out of this predicament was that, instead of saying "What horrible things I did to people!" they would say "What horrible things I had to watch in the pursuance of my duties, how heavily the task weighed upon my shoulders!" In this way, they were able to turn around the logic of resisting temptation: the temptation to be resisted was pity and sympathy in the presence of human suffering, the temptation not to murder, torture and humiliate.

Which Silber quotes here.--Rallette 07:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is going to hurt me more than it will hurt you was the traditional cry of those who would beat small children. DuncanHill 09:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks! grendel|khan 05:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Prague c. 1911

What kinds of events were happening in and around Prague in the decade before the Great War? Was there any internal feuding, battles with neighbors, invading interests? Anything I can find kind of tapers off towards the end of the 19th century and doesn't pick back up until the assassination of Franz Ferdinanad.

Thanks in advance

Beekone 17:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

While I can't provide specific events, I can provide a general context. Prague was the centre of Czech nationalism within the Czech-speaking lands of the empire. For several decades there had been a shift in power in Prague from the minority German-speaking bourgeoisie to a bourgeoisie that spoke Czech like the majority of Bohemians. During the empire's last decade, this shift in relative power was largely complete. Meanwhile, a diversity of parties had emerged among the Czech population, including class-based parties such as the Social Democratic Party. Bohemia was one of the most economically advanced parts of the empire, Prague was relatively prosperous, and buildings from this period include several fine examples of the art nouveau style. Marco polo 19:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very useful. Any idea as to the degree of struggle between Bohemia and Germany? I can't imagine they just handed Prague over without some fighting?

You realise that has nothing to do with Germany? Bohemia was part of the Austrian part of Austro-Hungary.--Tresckow 20:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't realize that. Is there helpful info to follow or just the zinger? Beekone 20:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

When the Austro-Hungarian Empire was broken up after World War I (as a result of the Treaty of Saint-Germain concluded at the Paris Peace Conference), Czechoslovakia (which incorporated Bohemia and regions to the east), gained independence—with Prague as its capital—in part due to the efforts of Tomáš Masaryk, whose biography offers insights into this time and place. During World War I, Bohemia did not openly rebel, but nationalists such as Masaryk faced a choice between exile and possible imprisonment. Also, many Czechs resisted fighting in the imperial army against their Slavic brethren, the Russians and Serbs. The Austro-Hungarian Empire did not let go of Bohemia without fighting. It was forced to let go after it lost the war. Marco polo 20:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the foot work, Marco. Beekone 20:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are still pursuing this, I would point out that many Czechs ultimately did take up arms against Austria-Hungary in the Czechoslovak Legions. Marco polo 21:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. This is all still slightly after the time line I'm after. Maybe no significant raids or battles or fighting of any kind transpired. I was hoping with all of that tension there would be a night of bomb blasts and gunfire somewhere in the annals. Beekone 21:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Beekone. Like Marco I cannot provide any specific information on the decade you have identified, though in general terms I believe it to have been reasonably peaceful. There were certainly none of the kinds of acute tension that you are looking for. In general the Czechs were well treated in the old Empire, represented in both the Reichsrat in Vienna and their own Bohemian Diet, established in 1861. After the creation of the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary in 1867 the Czechs pressed for a tripartite partnership, though with no success. One small point of clarification: the Austro-Hungarian Empire fell apart in 1918, and the Czechs simply established an independent state without a fight; so they did in fact rebel. The Treaty of Saint-Germain merely provided recognition of the established political facts. The Ruthenian tail was later added to the territory of the new republic by the Treaty of Trianon. Clio the Muse 23:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Beekone. If you go a little earlier in 1848 you would find serious uproar in Austria (not yet austro-hungary). See for example: Lajos Kossuth However it were the hungarians that wanted a piece of the cake.--Tresckow 12:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't know, you may find it interesting that despite being part of Austria-Hungary, Bohemia was apparently autonomous enough that it had its own national team in the 1900, 1908 and 1912 Olympic Games. Austria and Hungary also had their separate Olympic teams. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the input, guys. I'm a little disappointed by the findings, but it's also good to have a firmer grasp on the societal climate of Prague c. 1911. I've discovered in additional readings that Einstein accepted a position at the University of Prague in 1911 where he associated with writer Franz Kafka. It looks like the Czechs preferred their peace. They're truly a good people, as are all of you. Beekone 16:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Commodities Market for Flash Chips

This is actually several related questions. First, are there futures and other derivatives based on the prices of basic computer components like NAND flash chips or LCDs? Second, are there any commodity markets where these types of products are listed? If not, how could futures work? (Everyone needs to have a single agreed upon price for a quantity of a product for futures to work, right?)

I guess these questions aren't strictly limited to computing goods (especially the one about if futures can work without a centralized exchange to track commodity prices), but it came up in the context of how tech companies protect themselves against fluctuations in the market for such goods. 12.118.102.38 19:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Question 1 No. - From commodity "In the original and simplified sense, commodities were things of value, of uniform quality, that were produced in large quantities by many different producers; the items from each different producer are considered equivalent" - the problem with flash chips, lcds is that the quality (or capacity) is constantly improving. Bulk Copper for instance is much the same in 1970 as it is today, the same can not be said for chips etc.

Therefor question 2 - No.

Last question - I imagine such a market would work when there are no further improvements in the technology, in which everyone produces the same chips to the exact same specifications etc No.87.102.42.81 16:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Also I imagine (am fairly certain to be correct) that chips are produced to a specific order - unlike bulk goods like copper/palm oil which are produced because there is a general market for them.87.102.42.81 16:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your best hope is for something like ultrapure silicon boules - however even these are produced to a certain width - and a given size will no be suitable for another application.87.102.42.81 16:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

See Commodity - and wait for market stability87.102.42.81 16:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Russia in 1812

I've just finished reading War and Peace. It details how some of the Russian people reacted to Napoleon's invasion, but I would like to place these events in a wider political context, so would be interested to know what the general reaction was. Thanks for your trouble. P. Bezukhov 22:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

French invasion of Russia (1812) would be a good place, and it does state that War and Peace does give good information on the reaction. 1812: Napoleon's Fatal March on Moscow, Adam Zamoyski, HarperCollins, 644 Pages. ISBN 0-00-712375-2 may be a good start also, as might Alexander I of Russia SGGH ^speak! 00:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I can offer you some interesting tidbits of information, P. Bezhukov, to flesh out that given in War and Peace. There was a strong Polish contingent in Napoleon's army, who looked to him to restore the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, though he gave them little direct encouragement. When Mogilev was occupied some of the local Polish-speaking nobility formed a confederation, promising support to Napoleon Most, however, remained aloof, fearing that the French would liberate their serfs. Likewise, in Vilna the Lithuanian nobility were more lavish in their praise of Tsar Alexander than Napoleon, to the disgust of those Poles who came from the Grand Duchy of Warsaw.

The one group the Russian government was most concerned about was the Jewish population of Belorussia, who only became part of the population after the Partitions of Poland. Napoleon was known to have pursued a liberal policy towards the Jews, setting up a Grand Sanhedrin in 1807, so it was feared that he would be seen as a liberator on his entry into western Russia. But, contrary to expectations, the Jews remained loyaly to the Tsar. In August, while the Grand Army was in the district of Smolensk, Marshall Davout told Napoleon that his troops were being deliberately misled by the Jews, causing a number of his uhlans to be ambushed by Cossack patrols. Boris Uxhill, an Estonian in the Russian army, was to write "The Jews regard us everywhere as liberators. They detest the French and help us where they can."

Alexander's greatest fear was that Napoleon would appeal to Russia's serfs, by far the largest part of the Russian population. Troops were therefore stationed in each province in anticipation of a serf uprising, along the lines of the Pugachev rebellion. But it did not happen, or at least not to any significant degree. A proclamation was issued by the French, promising liberation and calling on Russian soldiers to support them. Beyond that Napoleon took no practical action, a matter he was later to express some regret over while in St Helena. At the time, though, he had good reasons for not doing so. The aim of the war was not to overthrow Alexander, but to force him to make peace. A widespread serf rebellion would have made this an impossible prospect. The potential that such a rising may have had is shown by the actions of some of the serf population in areas occupied by the French, and in neighbouring provinces. Commenting on the situation later in the century one Russian observer noted that the peasants of the Smolensk region had behaved 'like brigands.' However, one should not discount the actions of the French army in alienating the peasantry, by pillaging and acts of casual brutality, in much the same fashion as the Peninsular War. Many serfs fought with the partisans, inflicting serious damage on the invaders.

Some of the Russian clergy were later accused of collaboration, most noteably Archbishop Varlaam in Mogilev, who was later tried by the Holy Synod, stripped of his rank and confined to a monastery. His defence was that he only co-operated through fear, though others suggested that he had been tempted by Napoleon's offer of a cardinal's hat if he converted to Catholicism. Most of the clergy, though, were deeply hostile, telling the peasants that Napoleon was the 'Anti-Christ', a view that found particular support among the Old Believers. Uniting serfs, nobles, the Jews and the Orthodox against the invader, the campaign of 1812 is justly remembered in Russia as the Patriotic War Clio the Muse 03:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm always impressed by your answers, Clio, but I'd like to make you aware of one minor but common mistake which I saw in some of your posts. The puppet state created by Napoleon on Polish territory was called Duchy of Warsaw, not Grand Duchy of Warsaw. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that correction, Kpalion; I shall make sure that I use the proper title in any future references. I absorbed this error from a reading of Norman Davies's book Europe. I've checked other sources and see that use of this title is fairly common. What, I would be interested to know, is the origin of the 'inflation'? Clio the Muse 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Could it (perhaps) be connected with the existence of the Grand Duchy of Posen and the Grand Duchy of Krakow? Easy to have it at the back of the mind that Warsaw should have at least the same status. Xn4 23:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but my guess would be the same as Xn4's. Probably some English-speaking author confused the Duchy of Warsaw with the Grand Duchy of Posen or some other of history's many grand duchies and later this mistake was reproduced elsewhere. I have a Polish translation of Davies's Europe at home and this error is corrected here. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Are haitians of both North and Western african descent?

The first slaves of haiti came from spain that had been obtained from the north african slave trade and later they got the slaves from senegal, tuaregs, slave coast and the bantu's from angola and congo

read the passage "spanish period"

source: http://www.discoverhaiti.com/history_summary.htm --arab 23:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerrorSonghai (talk • contribs)

URL fixed.  --Lambiam 20:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the web page is blank. The Spaniards may have brought a small number of North Africans to Hispaniola, but Haiti was very thinly populated at the time the French established their colony of Saint-Domingue. That colony was populated mainly by hundreds of thousands of slaves taken from West Africa, who are the descendants ancestors of most Haitians today. Marco polo 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ancestors :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, GeeJo! Marco polo 18:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

August 22

Go Like Who-Dray-Gah

This is a family expression, meaning to go very quickly. It comes down from the Bohemian side of the family, and I have tried to find out who or what this refers to. The spelling is phonetic, the best I can do.

This question really belongs on the Language desk and would stand a better chance there! Xn4 00:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Interest Rates and Trade

Could someone describe how the trade imbalances with China and the subsequent huge current account deficits the US has accumulated helps to keep interest rates low in the US?

THank you AlmostCrimes 02:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it doesn't. The current account deficit is a sign of over-heated demand, which tends to push up interest rates. I suppose the only reason American interest rates aren't very high is that other countries (including China) are willing to buy American debt. Of course, that won't last forever... Plasticup ^T/C 03:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it the trade imbalance does mean that we buy enormous amounts of things from China without China buying anything from us except little pieces of paper; those pieces of paper indicate that China owns bits of us. The fact that China and a couple of other places want to own bits of us means that it's easy for people to borrow money from them, and that keeps interest rates lower than they would be otherwise. So the current account deficit with China is a necessary ingredient to keeping rates low at the moment; but it isn't sufficient. Hornplease 06:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Plasticup is right that the trade imbalances and U.S. current-account deficits do not by themselves keep interest rates low. Indeed, in other countries with large current account deficits, such as Australia and New Zealand (and to a lesser extent Britain), interest rates have been raised in order to attract the credit needed to fund the current account deficit and to keep their currency from plummeting (which would send interest rates soaring and make it difficult to service external debt). The United States is different from these other countries in that enjoys monetary hegemony. Its currency, the U.S. dollar, is the international reserve currency and the currency needed for purchasing the world's most vital commodity, oil. So, dollars tend to accumulate in the central bank reserves of nations that have trade surpluses with the United States, the most important of which is China. China could dispose of these dollars in several ways. For example, it could sell the dollars and buy gold or some other currency such as the euro for its reserves. This would have the effect of driving the value of its own currency up relative to the dollar, which would lose purchasing power in terms of the Chinese yuan. It would also force interest rates in the United States up to attract credit to fund its current account deficit. The resulting devaluing of the dollar and increase in interest rates would tend to correct the trade imbalance by forcing Americans to import less. However, at least until recently, the Chinese have not wanted to reduce demand for their exports in the U.S., because a drop in exports from China would probably lead to a drop in employment within China, which could in turn lead to social unrest within China. Therefore, to maintain employment in the export sector, the Chinese have used their dollar reserves mainly to buy U.S. debt (that is, to provide credit to the U.S.). Massive Chinese purchases of U.S. debt have driven down interest rates in the U.S. (though to be fair, there have been massive purchases from oil-producing countries and from other Asian countries, such as Japan, as well).

In effect, the trading partners of the United States (other than those in Europe) have been letting the United States buy on credit. That credit however, is in terms of United States dollars, of which the United States can issue an infinite quantity. The United States will therefore have the option (and ultimately perhaps the necessity) of inflating its way out of this debt, in the end leaving holders of U.S. debt with little more than pieces of paper. Perhaps for this reason, there has been a recent shift, over the past year or so, in Chinese reserve strategies, from the purchase of U.S. government debt to the purchase of more tangible assets through a sovereign wealth fund. Of course, when China spends its dollars on tangible assets such as mining companies, the shareholders who receive those dollars must find some use for them. A lot of the dollars still find their way to the U.S. debt market and therefore depress interest rates. This process is likely to continue until the United States is perceived to be inflating its way out of its debt, a perception that threatens to emerge if the Federal Reserve System increases the money supply to buy up structured debt, such as mortgage-backed securities, that lenders cannot unload to other investors in the current credit crunch. Marco polo 18:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Media Against International aid

Hello, can you tell me some reasons if possible, why some Media personalities are against overseas aid? –203.217.17.48 04:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're Australian, given that you use the phrase 'overseas aid' rather than the UK or North American variants. I certainly can't answer precisely what you ask without knowing which media personalities you're talking about. However, I think it is fair to say that Australia by and large isn't pulling its weight. It's ranked 19th out of the 22 OECD countries in terms of aid per capita; is the only country that is dragging its feet on agreeing to the UN's Millenium Development Goals; and may, indeed be among the worst offenders in an old, old game called tied aid, where the benefits of aid are shared between the recipient nations and specific companies in the donor nation. (The wikipedia article indicates that Australia has reduced it aid-tying below the level mandated by the OECD, but does not mention that tied aid is now almost completely phased out except by Aus, France and the US.)

Another word: Australian media is probably not as anti-overseas aid as it is repeating party lines on the subject in anticipation of the upcoming election. John Howard recently announced that he would double overseas aid; but it appears that he halved it a little while ago [6], so charities are naturally saying that it's all a little dodgy. The content as well as quantity of aid is in dispute, as Howard's government intends to change the recipients of aid in line with the Bush administration's policy on aid[7] (only give it to countries where we like the leaders/think they're honest); this was Paul Wolfowitz's job at the World Bank. Hornplease 06:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There are other arguments against overseas aid; firstly, there is the philosophical view that we are under no obligation to help poor people in other countries - or that we have no obligation to help other people, full stop. I'm not supporting this viewpoint, by the way, merely noting that it exists. Furthermore, there are critiques by various economists that argue that overseas aid doesn't work particularly well in helping, for a variety of reasons - for instance, that corrupt government officials siphon the aid money off for themselves. Have a look at the Wikipedia's article on aid for some starting points. --136.186.1.191

Many people, as well as 'media personalities' believe a governmemnts duty is to it's own people, those who elect it and pay taxes, rather than to struggling 'overseas' countries whose own governments can't provide for them. As mentioned, aid is not always effective, does it really help those who need it or those in power? Will it do any good anyway? Will those who get extra food go on to die of AIDS or TB or malaria? Will those saved from disease simply increase the number fighting over food? Plenty of money has gone to Africa especially already, if people see little effect they may become cynical. However I am surprised that media people speak out. It seems there are many very rich celebrities who could do a lot of good with their own money, much more willing to beg for the ordinary man's money whilst making themselves look and feel good as they 'save the world', rather like the famous people taking private jets to climate change concerts. It would be easy for these media people to say the PC thing without any effort, so I suspect they have genuine belief in what they say. Cyta 07:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S., opinion polls have consistently shown that ordinary citizens think that a hugely larger proportion of the national govenment budget is spent on foreign aid than is actually the case -- and the conspicuous failure of many prestige projects (of the Tanzanian steel-mill type) in past decades has caused some to become rather cynical about the subject. The U.S. doesn't really "pull its weight" as far as direct aid goes (much of which is connected with security/military alliances or tied to U.S. companies and agricultural products), but the U.S. does have fewer trade barriers to LDC's than many other developed countries... AnonMoos 09:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, Americans still seem to believe that the Marshall Plan was typical or recent. What they don't realize is that the Marshall Plan was one of the things that inspired the John Birch Society to scream about helping the Nazis and Japanese, etc. Foreign aid has been unpopular at all times and places, and what aid there is is buried in appropriations bills so as to not become a campaign issue. Even liberal districts will vote against anyone who seems to be too pro-aid (this is because the left fragments over aid and will say, "Why give it to Fredonia, when Freedonia needs it more?"). Foreign aid is denounced by media figures of the Limbaugh stripe in the US, but it is also generally politically damaging. Even if Americans think the Congress should allocate aid, any individual aid bill can be presented to the public as a political negative. Hence, because no one can fight for a particular aid package (unless it's disaster relief), the power to designate and send aid is left to the executive, and the US hasn't had very many internationalist presidents in the last couple of decades. Geogre 13:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The IP address of the questioner is in Australia.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

William of Ockham and Existence

I need a little help here. William of Ockham was a nominalist, but was he a scholastic, sorry, that should be scholasticist? I am working on the Philosophy article, Existence, you see. Nominalism seems to be a branch of Philosophy of Language. Perhaps there is a closely related article that might help fill in some gaps. TIA Newbyguesses - Talk 04:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The article on scholasticism mentions him several times as being a famous scholastic; the List of scholastic philosophers includes him; and the article on William of Ockham itself calls him a scholastic philosopher. So it looks like the answer is: yes, William of Ockham was a scholastic philosopher. What are the gaps you are referring to? See also Problem of universals#Medieval nominalism.  --Lambiam 06:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this raises some doubt in my mind about the following paragraph, (or at least the first bit of it), from that article, which I guess I do not fully understand.

The nominalist approach to the question (not to be confused with the scholastic usage of "nominalist") is to argue that certain noun phrases can be "eliminated" by rewriting a sentence in a form that has the same meaning, but which does not contain the noun phrase. Thus Ockham argued that "Socrates has wisdom", which apparently asserts the existence of a reference for "wisdom", can be rewritten as "Socrates is wise", which contains only the referring phrase "Socrates". This method became widely accepted in the twentieth century by the analytic school of philosophy.

There is more, (not a lot on Ockham, the article is called Existence). Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 06:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, the "not to be confused" is quite confusing. "Current" nominalism is not that essentially different from "scholastic" nominalism; there is, rather, a continuity in the thoughts and arguments.  --Lambiam 08:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I have got that now, and the "confusing" bit has been removed from the article. In another section there is -

The medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas, perhaps following the Persian philosopher Avicenna, argued that God is pure being, and that in God essence and existence are the same. At about the same time, the nominalist philosopher William of Ockham, argued, in Book I of his Summa Totius Logicae (Treatise on all Logic, written some time before 1327) that Categories are not a form of Being in their own right, but derivative on the existence of individuals.

which seems fine too. Thanks for helping. Newbyguesses - Talk 09:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm way off the mark, here, but I should have supposed that nominalism is not a philosophy of language, or at least that it certainly was not (since 1915, I haven't kept up) but rather an extension of the idealism of Aristotle. Yes, I know, people don't always like calling Aristotle an idealist, but his Universals take the role of Plato's ideals. In other words, although it seems to be linguistic because of the Logos, what they were going on about was always ontology. Maybe I am not helping, but I've never been able to see them in any way but as idealists. Geogre 12:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To use the designation "philosophy of language" for (aspects of) Greek or Medieval philosophy may appear somewhat anachronistic, but is not necessarily improper, and especially not for Ockham. As the opening sentence of our article on the Problem of universals puts it:

The problem of universals is a phrase used to refer to a nest of intertwined problems about universals within the philosophy of language, cognitive psychology, epistemology, and ontology.

Nominalism is one possible position with regard to these problems.  --Lambiam 12:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Technology and the end of the Cold War

In an editorial today in the New York Times by Philip Bobbitt, the author says:

The end of the cold war was brought about in part because of technologies that empowered the individual and whetted people’s appetites for more control over their lives.

I admit to being a little perplexed. What technologies is he referring to? I am assuming he is gesturing towards information technologies, but I have never seen those cited as one of the "causes" of the end of the Cold War (which are usually about the economic woes of the USSR and the political unrest in the wake of Gorbachev's reforms). Any idea what specifically he is referring to and whether this account of the end of the Cold War has any merit? It strikes me as a little inaccurate, a wacky re-reading of the past in light of a present concern, but that's just me. --24.147.86.187 14:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is most likely information technology. Without it, information comes from corporate and government sources - allowing governments to make the public believe that a threat exists when it doesn't exist, or allowing a governments to make the public believe that all is well when it isn't. That is why countries, such as North Korea, actively pursue any attempt at gaining information technology (as well as countries such as Taliban-run Afghanistan refusing to allow people to get an education, becoming literate, so they can read information). -- Kainaw^(what?) 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So what did that have to do with the end of the Cold War? Very little, yes? That's the part I'm having trouble with; I have no trouble thinking that information technologies could hypothetically lead to increased openness, civil society, etc., but their role in the end of the Cold War seems very small to me, since the Soviet bloc was very backwards in respect to information technologies. --140.247.240.228 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an editorial - I could have written "the cold war ended because west better XBOX360=ownage=better (internet=we won)" etc, etc. Why expect more?87.102.42.81 20:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that a guest editorial? I would suppose it has to be, to be signed. I would suppose the argument is a variant on the luxury goods argument. If The People have televisions and short wave radios, they will have knowledge and desire better, and, if they desire better, they will demand better, and if they demand better, the government will fall. The founding assumptions don't stand up to scrutiny. (The Lockean idea that the people always have the power and will inevitably depose a tyrant simply doesn't bear up across history. It requires acute misery to provoke revolt, not ennui or misery. Furthermore, an armed populace is ridiculously poorly equipped to overthrow an immoral state apparatus (see half a dozen wars in Africa, half a dozen in the Middle East).) At any rate, the dissolution of the Soviet Union was roughly 1990, and the sorts of IT that are supposed to be revolutionary just weren't there. On the other hand, the East Germans had more access to information from the west than the average middle-Russia citizen, and yet it was slower to change. From what you're presenting, the statement doesn't make a lot of sense. Perhaps the argument is something other? Geogre 20:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As I alluded to, the editorial appears to claim that access to info in the U.S. allowed people to realize Russia was not a threat and cease supporting the cold war on our side. Access to info in Russia allowed the people to see that their economy and military was struggling and cease supporting the cold war on their side. I used North Korea as an example of a country without access to info. I believe that the people of North Korea believe that the whole world lives in poverty and starvation as they do - so why revolt? -- Kainaw^(what?) 21:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that they didn't have access to info in Russia in any great degree that I know of (and any access they did have had less to do with the technology than it did the politics), and access to info in the US really didn't have anything to do with its role in the end of the Cold War (which is usually interpreted as being "sit around and wait" or "buy lots of nukes and make them try to match it), so neither of those arguments really hold up as historical arguments, I don't think. --24.147.86.187 23:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think History of the Soviet Union (1985–1991) gives nice insight (though - I read it last week, when I was writing article related to Soviet collapse, so I also read other stuff that gave nice insight) -- Xil/talk 22:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read people claim that the fax machine and copier brought down Communism. That may or may not be true. It's certainly true that the failure of the Communists to match the West in terms of consumer comforts dampened support for Communism. Slavenka Drakulic explains in her books that the Communists were good at building tanks but in 40 years never made a single passable women's sanitary product. People used to keep stores of newspapers in their home because they never knew when there'd be a shortage of toilet paper, or what passed for toilet paper in those days. Meanwhile, the proximity of countries like Hungary (the first Bloc state to end the Communist power monopoly) and East Germany (where mass protests forced change) to the West meant people in Bloc countries knew they could have it better. This knowledge in and of itself didn't lead to the fall of Communism. But it meant that Communism had no mass support, and once Gorbachev started to weaken the pillars, it was only a matter of time before the house of cards collapsed. -- Mwalcoff 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how many fax machines and copiers in the USSR? I have heard anecdotally (from historian friends) that there were almost no photocopiers at the time of the collapse (and still aren't a whole lot), in part because the government saw little reason to give people the ability to quickly reproduce documents, but I don't know that for a fact to be true; it would be interesting. In any case, even in this form of argument the line from the editorial seems a bit overstated to me (and frankly I don't think it is needed for the argument the editorial is trying to make—it is an old saw that information technology has ups and downs, no need to try and make the end of the Cold War one of the ups!). --24.147.86.187 23:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The radio is technology.The BBC World Service is often credted with giving out unbiased news particularly useful to those in repressive regimes and simple radio recievers of the "cat's whisker"! variety can be constructed and hidden very easily.hotclaws 13:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Map of wealth distribution

I'm interested in learning more about how well income is distributed among different countries. Image:World Map Gini coefficient.png is useful in showing how well it's distributed overall in a country, but I was wondering if I could find something more specific; specifically for places like the US, India, and China. For instance, my hypothesis is that I would see high income along China's East coast, and a much poorer interior, while the United states would be more uniform (since it takes quite a bit of capital to maintain a farm). Does anyone know of any maps that would be interesting for me? --Ybbor^Talk 17:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC

[8] China Map

[9] United States Map

Oddly, the China map shows the flag of the PRC, but includes Taiwan. What's interesting is that Taiwan as a whole has a much higher income than rural US (note the Taiwan figures are for individuals and the US ones are for households and I'm assuming on average three in a household). I suppose that will never change. Farmers have industrialised and have come up in the world, but they still haven't equaled citydwellers in terms of income. Of course one has to take into account that prices will be lower there too. Especially land-prices. This a major explanation for how people in third world countries can live off incomes of just 20 euro or so per month. DirkvdM 19:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Difference between Five Year Plan and Great Leap Forward?

Why did Stalin's 5 Year Plan succeed in raising Soviet industrial levels to that of Britain and Germany while Mao's Great Leap Forward actually lead to a temporary decline in output? What were the fundamental design and calculation's differences in planning and focus? --Gary123 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you have read the pages on the First Five Year Plan and the Great Leap Forward? I think, perhaps, that you overestimate the success of the Five Year Plan. which did not raise output to quite the levels that you are suggesting. There are also some similarities between what happened in Russia and China, in that both processes were accompanied by mass famine. But there is little direct comparison beyond that. Soviet industrial planning, for all its deficiencies, was carefully co-ordinated and, well, planned. It focused on the development of heavy industry in manufacturing centres, and applied resources and expertise in achieving a given set of realistic and identifiable ends. Mao's, 'plan', in contrast, was based on crackpot notions and half-baked thinking, all too characteristic of his whole approach to political and economic issues. You see, Gary, it comes down to one thing: a belief in voluntarism; a belief that historical progress was merely a matter of collective will: if people wanted something badly enough it would happen, and the mountain would move. If China the 'will' was Mao's, and he decided that industry was based on iron; the people must make iron, and so achieve the great collective leap. Agriculture was negelected, as were many other areas of economic activity. There was no proper co-ordination, and any form of expertise was suspect. Millions of people were turned to making pig iron in back-yard furnaces, turning out, for the most part, a very poor quality product. Stalin understood that high quality iron needs large-scale enterprise; Mao thought it was merely a question of will and incentive. The result, as we know, was disastrous. It was the economics of the treadmill: lots of energy expended for almost no pratical result.

Mao's 'enthusiasms' also impacted at this time on other areas of the economy. I would refer you to the Great sparrow campaign. Here the 'Great Helmsman' decided that sparrows were a grain-eating pest. Thousands were killed, with the result that the real pests on which the sparrows fed multiplied, reducing grain yields still further at a time of famine. In arguably one of the craziest episodes in all of economic history the Chinese were afterwards obliged to appeal to Russia for surplus sparrows. Clio the Muse 23:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure Haitians are just of African descent, no mixing with indians or anything? while DR is mixed but the haitians are just of pure non mixing north & western african descent?

I'm not talking about the mullato side, i'm talking about the Negro side, What kind of other blood do they have in them, instead of just black??!!! or are they just black nothing else??!!!--arab 20:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerrorSonghai (talk • contribs) --arab 21:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I answered your question above that Haitians have minimal North African ancestry. Most Haitians are mainly descended from West Africans. Many also have significant European ancestry (from both French and Spanish colonists). I don't really understand this question. You say you are not talking about the "mulatto" side. Mulattos by definition have both European and sub-Saharan African ancestry. You are talking about the "Negro" side. I guess I am not sure what you mean by "Negro". Racial terminology varies from one culture to another. Note that "races" are cultural categories. There is more genetic variation within sub-Saharan Africa than there is between sub-Saharan Africa and other world regions, so in genetic terms, there is really no such thing as a "black" or "Negro" population set apart from other populations. This is a cultural category, and different cultures draw the lines around races in different ways. For example, in the United States, most mulattos are seen as "black" and possibly most "blacks" are in fact mulattos, in that they have some European ancestry. In fact, most people of all colors in the Americas, and particularly in the West Indies, have a mixed ancestry. (In fact, if you go back enough generations, hardly anyone in the world is genetically "pure.") Few if any Haitians are likely to have "pure" West African ancestry. Most will have some European ancestry. Most will have Central or Southern African ancestry, as significant numbers of slaves were taken from the Congo Basin, Angola and Mozambique, particularly during the later years of the slave trade. Perhaps there is some Native American ancestry in Haiti, but I doubt that it is significant, since the Spanish virtually exterminated the indigenous population of Hispaniola, and then, during the 1600s, ordered the remaining inhabitants of western Hispaniola to move east, closer to Santo Domingo. (See Hispaniola#History and Haiti#History.) Western Hispaniola was nearly uninhabited when the French established their colony of Saint-Domingue, which they populated with slaves taken from Africa and much smaller numbers of French colonists. Saint-Domingue became Haiti when it declared its independence from France. During and since the colonial period, some people of every background have migrated to and from Haiti/Saint-Domingue and the Dominican Republic/Santo Domingo, so the populations of the two countries have much shared ancestry. Because the French relied more heavily on slave plantations than did the Spanish, Haiti's population has a larger sub-Saharan African component. However, the population of the Dominican Republic has a considerable sub-Saharan African component as well, and both countries have European ancestry. Marco polo 21:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A minor elaboration-- while the indigenous Taíno of Hispaniola were almost completely wiped out, Native Americans from elsewhere were shipped to the island to work as slaves. It was not uncommon for "mainland" Indians to be enslaved and shipped to the Caribbean. I'm more familiar with the English trade in Indian slaves, which mainly involved export from Charleston, South Carolina to Barbados and other English colonies. Hispaniola received Indian slaves from French sources (like Louisiana) for sure, and probably from English and Spanish sources as well. One example I was just reading about is the French enslavement of most of the Natchez people, around 1730 in French Louisiana. They were shipped to Saint-Domingue. The number of Indian slaves sent to Hispaniola pales in comparison to the number of African slaves, and must be a very small part of general Haitian ancestry today. I just wanted to point out that Native American ancestry among Haitians need not be Taíno. It could just as easily be Natchez or any number of other "mainland" native peoples. Pfly 03:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

=== So what countries of africa did the haitians came from as slaves???!!! from the both spanish and french--arab 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Name the North(minority), West, Central, south and southeast african countries they all came from!!--arab 22:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The first African slaves brought by the Spaniards were born in Spain; it is hard to tell where their ancestors came from, but in any case they were a few hundred on in the end many hundreds of thousands of imported slaves; possibly three quarters of a million. Once the Spaniards started importing African-born slaves directly from Africa, they took them predominantly from the Atlantic coast of West Africa, just as where the French and later the British (who obtained a monopoly on the trade) hauled them from. Although the trade lines later extended to sub-Saharan regions, that was always a small fraction. In West Africa the main supply was from the densely populated so-called Slave Coast.  --Lambiam 07:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Never forget that we are all 'Jock Thamson's Bairns' - (randy sod) :) Perry-mankster 10:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Telecommunication Industry

Hello. How is a nation's telecommunication industry so vital to their sovereignty? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare 20:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

One might fairly ask if a telecommunication industry even is vital to sovereignty. Our article notes that the telecommunications infrastructure (which I submit is a distinct subsection of the overall industry) is important to the economy. However, claiming that that which is vital to the economy is therefore vital to sovereignty is where I see a problem with your original question. — Lomn 22:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it could be argued that cheap and efficient telecommunications infrastructure is a threat to sovereignty.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have heard Finland's innovation in telephony credited to a deliberate policy of decentralizing the biz so that a hypothetical Russian invasion could never get control of the telephone system by seizing one building. This illustrates two aspects of sovereignty which can conflict: control over the populace and lack of control by foreigners. —Tamfang 21:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Batista and cuba

Please, Clio, can anything be said in favour of batista in cuba. was regime all bad.TheLostPrince 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think, Lost Prince, that you may have in mind the usual sterotype: that Fulgencio Batista was nothing more than a corrupt dictator, a friend of the mafia and an oppressor of the Cuban people, a monster justly cast out by Fidel Castro? I would say here that the time for a reassessment is long overdue, and I am happy to report that some progress has been made along this road by Frank Argote-Freyre, whose first volume of a new biography, Fulgencio Batista: The Making of a Dictator, was published last year. Batista, in short, was a far more complex character than the traditional depictions have allowed. He himself came to power as part of a revolution, and made sincere attempts to improve the Cuban economy. The problem was that the price of sugar, the country's main product, had fallen sharply during the Great Depression, and was subject to periodic fluctuations thereafter. In response, Batista looked to tourism to fuel a recovery, drawing in the mafia, in the person of Meyer Lansky to help him sort out Cuba's notoriously corrupt casinos. It was so successful that when the American ambassador was asked why the Cubans tolerated the presence of so many gangsters, he replied "It's strange, but it seems to be the only way to get honest casinos." By the 1950s, largely thanks to Batista's efforts, the Cuban economy was booming. The problem was there was still a considerable gap between the wealth being drawn in to places like Havana and the relative poverty of the countryside; and it was on rural discontent that Castro built his revolution. Clio the Muse 00:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actors' Pay

Why do studios pay actors millions of dollars instead of an average salary. It isn't like the actors could effectively go on strike, because there are too many actors as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.76.61 (talk)

Actually, actors can go on strike, and the vast majority of actors make what you might consider "average" (perhaps even "substandard") salaries -- which is a prime reason to go on strike. The top few actors, however, are paid exorbitantly for the same reason that anyone else is paid exorbitantly -- their particular industry has determined that their work is worth that pay.

For a parallel example, consider the 1994 Major League Baseball strike: very highly paid professionals successfully went on strike, shutting down the season, despite the abundance of eligible (minor league) players who could be paid far less. — Lomn 22:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Show business is just that -- a business. And studios / studio executives are keenly aware of the business forces at work in their industry. So, here is just a representative example. Why would NBC pay Jennifer Aniston 1 million dollars to appear in a 22-minute week's episode of the TV show, Friends? Surely, NBC can find another actor (Actor "X") willing to do the job for far less -- even, say, $5,000 or $10,000 -- right? The answer is: NBC knows that Jennifer Aniston's work will bring in to NBC more than a million dollars of revenue that week. If her work did not produce such results, surely NBC would not operate at a loss just to pay her that salary. So, hypothetically, Aniston's work brings in to NBC, say, 5 million dollars of revenue ... they pay her 1 million dollars and keep the "profit" of 4 million dollars for the network. If NBC had hired Actor "X" instead (a no-name "nobody"), Actor X's work would not generate the 5 million dollars for NBC that Aniston generates. So, it is all business and economics. Aniston commands a 1 million dollar fee because she can. And NBC is comfortable with the profit margin that they earn (the extra 4 million) by hiring her for 1 million. In economics, it is an "equilibrium point" ... which simply means that, in order to make 4 million dollars of profit, NBC is willing to spend 1 million dollars in expenses (her salary). That is a simplified version of the economics of show business. (Joseph A. Spadaro 01:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

Once upon a time, actors did get salaries. In the days of the studio system, actors were "contract players." What spelled the end of the studio system is a favorite subject of speculation, but, ultimately, the corporations killed the corporate control over actor pay by being willing to do whatever it took to get the guaranteed box office of a star. Once certain actors became "stars," disparity between them and the rest got underway. If it were not for the Screen Actor's Guild, the bottom end would be way down to nearly zero, as the studios would be happy enough to pay Tom Hanks and stock the rest of the film with minimum wage actors, but collective bargaining has at least ensured that SAC members away from the star ranks can live on their pay. (And that leads the studios to shoot in exotic places, like "right to work" states and foreign countries.) Geogre 02:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This does not answer the question of "How does the studio figure out how much an actor is worth?". Do they just pick a number out of the thin air? Or do they bid on ebay? 202.168.50.40 05:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How does the studio figure out how much the actor is worth? The answer is no different than any other economic / labor situation. How does a hospital determine what to pay its nurses? How does a school determine what to pay its teachers? Etc. Etc. Etc. There is absolutely no difference between those situations (nurse, teacher) and the actor situation. The answer is economic equilibrium ... and, simply put, it is the "meeting point" of supply and demand. In plain English, that means ... NBC will pay Aniston the very least $ (salary) that it thinks it can get away with (and not pay a penny more) ... and Aniston will accept the very highest $ (salary) that she thinks she can demand (and not a penny less). So, where NBC's "very highest salary figure that they are willing to pay" meets Aniston's "very lowest salary that she is willing to work for" is the equilibrium point at which both sides are happy. NBC is happy at the equilibrium point of (say) $1 million and Aniston is happy at the equilibrium point of $1 million ... so both sides agree to that figure. Think of the equilibrium point as both sides negotiating back and forth, trying to wear the other side down. Aniston trying to get as much $ out of NBC as she possibly can. And NBC trying to get away with paying Aniston as little $ as they possibly can get away with. Where these negotiations meet ($1 million dollars per episode) is the equilibrium point and, therefore, the agreed upon salary. And, this is the exact same way that it works with nurses, teachers, janitors, brain surgeons, etc. Actors are no different. (Joseph A. Spadaro 07:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

Studios don't determine the worth of an actor. Several things have intervened to take this from a classic labor situation, the most important of which is the agent/agency. Since you seem to want to know about stars and upper echelon actors (I answered about the low end: SAG determines that), talent agencies have stepped in in the form of "management." The actors do not generally negotiate their pay: the agency does. In Hollywood (since we're on stars) and New York, the agencies like ICM (a horrible article...really horrible) will make a demand based on 1)what the talent got the last time, 2) what a similar star has gotten, 3)what polling, Q-rating, and other things indicate the actor will add to the take of the entertainment, 4)the actor's own preferences. Each of those can become artificially elevated or depressed in the negotiations. What the studio will pay depends upon each of those things, too, and its perception of the uniqueness of the actor's services (is there another teen hunk who can star, and this one is on the way up and therefore working for less?). The talent agencies work like a cartel, in economic terms, or a union for the highest income section. Geogre 12:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Geogre - I don't understand (or agree with) why you are saying that the actor situation is different than the classic labor situation. There are two sides ... for ease of discussion, let's just say the employer and the employee. Those two sides will meet at the equilibrium wage. It does not matter "who" (specifically) the two sides are. The employer can be the studio, the network, the production company, whatever. The employee can be Aniston, her agent, her lawyer, her mom, ICM, whoever. Still, there are both sides: (a) one side seeking the employment services of an actor ... this is the employer (or, more likely, his representative); and (b) one side seeking employment as an actor ... this is the actor himself (or, more likely, his representative). So, as the two sides (represented by whoever appropriate) meet at the equilibrium wage point, that illustrates the classic labor theory of supply / demand of labor services. In theory, the final salary agreed upon by both sides is (theoretically) the only point at which both sides are happy / satisfied / and at equilibrium. NBC would not pay a penny more and Aniston would not accept a penny less. Who specifically is doing the negotiating for both sides is, essentially, irrelevent. (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

We're running long, but I said that it's not classic free market, not the supply and demand don't function. Any time there is a cartel or when there is a successful collective bargaining body, the normal labor capital changes its function. A cartel usually applies to commodities, and collective bargaining to people, but agencies act like a cartel of people. In the usual wage-labor-capital arrangement, the individual worker sells his labor to the capitalist and receives a wage, and the buyer of labor wishes to buy cheap and sell dear, while the seller of labor wishes to do the same. However, because the capitalist has a monopoly on the means of production, he is in a position of power over the labor-seller. A Hollywood star can't be a star without the studios and their control of capital and equipment, let's say. As long as the single worker is selling to the capital, that worker is at a huge disadvantage in power. When all the workers together make a single decision, they make labor the same as capital: a single voice with equal power to the capital suppliers. What is curious about the Hollywood star (not the rank and file actor) is that the agents lock up all the stars and then negotiate in their own interests and will "blackball" studios, directors, etc. They are putting themselves in a medial position of capital themselves against the studios. So long as they deliver very high pay to their clients, the clients will come, but they also endeavor to ensure that no client can get the big pay without them. Supply and demand still function, but not wage/labor/capital dynamics. Geogre 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

To the Original Poster - you can think of actor's salary (or anyone's salary) much in this way. If you walked into a pizza parlor, how much are you willing to pay for a pizza? If the pizza parlor was charging $1000 for a pizza, that number is unacceptable to you (it is too high) ... so you will simply go to another pizza parlor to do your business. You want to "get away with" paying as little as you possibly can. On the other side, you have the pizza parlor owner who needs to set the price he will charge for the pizza. If he charges $1000 for the pizza, he knows that that number is unacceptable to customers ... no one will patronize his shop ... and he will go out of business. At the same time, if he charges, say, 3 cents for a pizza ... every one in the world will go there to eat ... he will not make any profit and will drown in debt ... and he will go out of business. So, there is some number (in between the 3 cents and the $1000) at which BOTH the parlor owner is happy / satisfied and the customer is happy / satisfied with the transaction (of buying & selling the pizza). Both market forces (the supplier of the pizza and the demander of the pizza) are at equilibrium. This pizza example is the same exact thing as what happens when a supplier of acting services (the actor) negotiates with the demander of acting services (the studio). And with any other job, as well -- surgeon, professor, janitor, secretary, etc. Equilibrium point is "how high is the employer willing to pay" and "how low is the employee willing to accept". (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

An oldie, which I've seen attributed to George Bernard Shaw:

"If I paid you $1,000,000, would you have sex with me?"

"Wow, nobody ever asked me that before. Well, yeah, I guess I would."

"Okay, how about a quickie for $10?"

"No! What kind of woman do you think I am?"

"Oh, we have already established that. Now we're just negotiating the price."

--Anonymous, August 23, 2007, 22:25 (UTC).

August 23

main issues for the political bases

The U.S. Presidential hopefuls in the Republican and Democratic parties are now courting their respective bases, those voters most likely to vote in primaries and in caucuses such as the Iowa caucus. What are the main issues and concerns, in each case, for these party faithful? --Halcatalyst 00:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Many of the issues are the same for both parties, such as Iraq, although the positions on each issue will be different for each party. In more general terms, I suspect that candidates from both parties will want to distance themselves from Bush's foreign policy, which has not been a success. How to deal with North Korea, Iran, Syria, and the Palestinians/Isreal will also come up. For Democrats primarily, the future of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and the prisoners in them will also come up, as will freedoms given up in the PATRIOT Act and by Bush's executive orders (such as the freedom from having your phones tapped without a warrant). Allowing federal support for stem cell research will also be a likely Democratic issue.

Immigration remains unresolved, as do perennial social programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Then there are those "flag-burning issues" (things which won't generate any new law, but which candidates up for election bring up to distract the electorate from the real issues), such as banning gay marriages, banning abortion, requiring school prayer, etc. I would expect these to come mainly from Republicans this election cycle, as they have the most reason to distract voters from the real issues (like their failing to catch Bin Laden when in power). StuRat 00:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Isreal? I can't resist inserting this: Keats and Chapman were walking through the Jewish neighborhood of Dublin one day, when they met a mutual friend, Paddy O'Cohen.

• All stopped to have a little talk, which turned to the conditions in the Near East. O'Cohen delivered strong opinions on the need for security and expressed his strong support for the policies of Ariel Sharon. Keats and Chapman each offered slightly differing opinions, but all were on cordial terms, and O'Cohen went his way.

• After a moment, Keats commented on the great feeling of isreality which O’Cohen had. But Chapman demurred: "What isreality?" he asked. --Halcatalyst 02:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is information, and sources aplenty, in Democratic presidential debates, 2008 and Republican presidential debates, 2008. Rockpocket 01:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

TMI. In a nutshell, what turns the partisans on? --Halcatalyst 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The Pew Research Center asked voters who self identified as Democrat or Republican (or Democrat- or Republican-leaning) what they considered the most important issue effecting the 2008 Primary vote. The results were as follows:

Most Important Issue	Democrat voters	Republican voters
Iraq War	38%	31%
Economy	16%	12%
Health care	13%	3%
Education	12%	5%
Terrorism	5%	17%
Immigration	3%	12%
Abortion	1%	7%
Foreign policy	8%	8%

-- Rockpocket 05:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, Rockpocket. Extrapolating,

Democrat priorities	Republican priorities
Iraq war 38%	Iraq war 31%
Economy 16%	Terrorism 17%
Health care 13%	Immigration 12%
Education 12%	Economy 12%
Foreign policy 8%	Foreign policy 8%
Terrorism 5%	Abortion 7%
Immigration 3%	Education 5%
Abortion 1%	Health care 3%

• These are illuminating but incomplete results. Probably everybody reading this realizes that poll outcomes depend on the questions asked; questions can be worded in such a way that the answers given by well-designated pollees are quite predictable. Reputable organizations like Pew of course do their best to avoid this problem. But some words in the political space are extremely emotionally charged: for example, "terrorism."
• I'd like to know of attempts to encapsulate the issues as they would be viewed and expressed by the two sides. For example, on abortion: (1) Abortion is a moral evil. (2) Abortion is a woman's right. Those diametrically opposed propositions have been bruited continually for over 30 years and have been adopted in the R and D party platforms. But what about the other issues? Anybody care to distinguish between R/D views on foreign policy, for example? Or point to a place where someone else has attempted to summarize the issues for each side? --Halcatalyst 14:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, your example of abortion is not an example of diametrically opposed statements. That particular debate is one where there can be no progress because the "warrant" of the argument is never stated and cannot be empirically determined. The question is "personhood" and "legal personhood." One side takes a stand that metaphysical personhood begins early (perhaps conception) and that therefore legal personhood should begin at the same point. The other side takes the position that legal personhood depends upon a series of tests (viability outside of the womb, etc.). These are both matters of asserted principle and cannot be proven nor disproven. Both are speaking of a legal definition that depends entirely upon community consent and trying to say what it must be without such community consent, and therefore neither can talk to the other. However, "moral wrong" and "woman's right" are not opposite statements. Smoking is a "moral wrong" and a "woman's right." Getting drunk is both. In other words, morality and rights are not separate matters and do not routinely exist at opposite ends of a single spectrum of licensed action. Utgard Loki 16:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well put. --Halcatalyst 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

state caucuses

What states besides Iowa have Presidential caucuses? --Halcatalyst 00:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

According to United States presidential primary, Nevada and Iowa have caucuses, while all the other early States have primaries. As for the later States, Nebraska is replacing their primary with a caucus for the first time next year. Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 also lists as having caucuses: Alaska, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Michigan, Washington and Maine. Rockpocket 01:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Halcatalyst 01:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Trotsky or Stalin?

I've read-and heard it said-that it would have been better if Trotsky had suceeded Lenin as Russian leader rather than Stalin. Is there any real reason to suppose that he would have been more humane? Blanco Bassnet 02:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No one can say what might have been. Given how barbarous and paranoid Stalin was, it's easy to argue that Trotsky wouldn't have been as bad. It's also easy to argue that Trotsky, the general, would have conducted the Russian affairs during WW2 better, but, ultimately, it's impossible to say. The personality-driven massacres of Stalin would not have occurred, but there is no way to be sure that show trials and disappearances wouldn't have happened anyway. Furthermore, given Trotsky's preference for decentralization and anarchism, it's also possible that, had he succeeded, he would have been replaced by someone else. There's no telling. We know what did happen: Stalin was a monster. We cannot know what would have happened. Geogre 02:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Trotsky learnt a lot about how to run a military machine, but remember that he wasn't a soldier, he was a politician in charge of the Red Army. He saw the need (as others didn't) to rely on the advice of professional soldiers. Perhaps because he was driven out and assassinated, we're inclined to see Trotsky now as a victim, more rational, more of an idealist. He had some good qualities (it's hard to say that of the bruiser Stalin!) and was brighter and more capable, but he was also a 'hard man'. The following isn't properly applicable to Trotsky (who was far from 'unselfish'), but here is one of my favourite Joseph Conrad quotations...

“ The scrupulous and the just, the noble, humane, and devoted natures; the unselfish and the intelligent may begin a movement, but it passes away from them. They are not the leaders of a revolution. They are its victims. ”

I offer this as part of the answer to your question because it's arguable that in the Soviet Union of the 1920s and 1930s no humane leader would have survived. Xn4 13:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(Fantastic Conrad quote. I assume that's from The Secret Agent? Very nice. I almost want to nick it for my commonplace book.) Geogre 13:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Geogre. That's from Under Western Eyes. Xn4 14:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

He would almost certainly have been much too busy raising hell elsewhere to be causing massive famine and organising show trials for old friends at home; Stalin, on the other hand had nothing else to do.Hornplease 14:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

afaik Trotsky was an extremely intelligent bloke, but that doesn't necessarily make a good politician. Perhaps Trotsky would have had Stalin killed in 1946 1940 in Mexico, as opposed to vice versa.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 14:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is possible to give a meaningful answer here, based not upon speculation, or counterfactual assumptions, but a reading and an interpretation of Trotsky's record when he was in power, rather than writing about its abuses from the margins of history.

In the early 1920s he was one of the party 'hard-liners', fully behind the oppressive and politically counter-productive policy of War Communism, when the economic justification for this had passed. He was also the man responsible for the destruction of Russia's independent trade union movement, an advocate of the 'militarisation' of labour. It was he, moreover, who in 1921 was behind the brutal supression of the Kronstadt rebellion, a protest against the Bolshevik government's misuse of power. He accepted with some reluctance the partial return to free market economics, ushered in by the New Economic Policy, believing that the peasants should be coerced by a policy of enforced collectivisation, prefiguring Stalin on this issue by some years. In the 1990s, Dimitri Volkogonov, a Russian historian, discovered previously unexamined Russian state papers, showing that Lenin and Trotsky worked together on a policy of deliberate terror, again foreshadowing Stalin. He was later to denounce Stalinism from exile not because it was violent, but because it was violent for the wrong reasons. Secret police, a one party state, show trials, deportations and mass shootings were as much a part of the 'Trotsky system' as they were that of Stalin. We might as well, I think, let the man speak for himself;

Violent revolution was necessary because the undeferrable demands of history proved incapable of clearing a road through the apparatus of parliamentary democracy. Anyone who renounces terrorism in principle must also renounce the political rule of the working class. The extensive recourse, in the Civil War, to execution by shooting is to be explained by this one simple and decisive fact. Intimidation is a powerful instrument of both foreign and domestic policy. The revolution kills individuals and thus intimidates thousands.

Would things have been any better under Trotsky? No, they would not. Clio the Muse 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Having reread some of the contributions made in the above by other editors I would just like to correct one or two small factual inaccuracies. Trotsky most definitely did not have a preference for 'anarchism and decentralisation'. Stalin was as bright, capable, intelligent and as well-read as Trotsky, and a far better political tactician. If any one has any doubt about this I would urge them to read the excellent biographies by Simon Sebag Montefiore. Trotsky's own Stalin is sour, inaccurate and, at points, racist. Clio the Muse 03:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Russia under any form of communism would have been bad, regardless of the virtues of the leader. bibliomaniac15 Prepare to be deleted! 03:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A US base in the USSR

After seeing so many interesting discussions on the subject of World War II, I decided to ask another question.Can you give me any information about Western military bases in the Soviet Union (Poltava, Murmansk) and about the Soviet air base in Bari? Thanks, Jacobstry 13:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I know of no western bases, either at Poltava in the Ukraine, or at Murmansk. The Yugoslav Partisan Air Force had the use of several bases in Italy from 1944, including one at Bari in the south. I know of no Soviet presence. Clio the Muse 01:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, two US airbases were established in former Soviet republics of Central Asia and used for operations in Afghanistan - one (now closed) was at Karshi-Khanabad in Uzbekistan, the other (still open) is at Manas in Kyrgyzstan. Xn4 03:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

communications pre-telegraph

I was thinking about The Shootist, in which John Wayne's character rides into town and buys a newspaper reporting the death of Queen Victoria, and that made me curious: when her uncle died 64 years earlier, how long did it take to get word to all the colonies? —Tamfang 21:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

By 1833 the introduction of steamships had reduced the Atlantic crossing to 22 days. You will find somre details here [10]. The passage to Australia was probably three times as long. Clio the Muse 03:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Can British Tourist become a criminal?

The Office of Foreign Asset Control, the entity which enforces the embargo against Cuba, has promulgated regulations (at 31 C.F.R. Part 515) that "prohibit persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from purchasing, transporting, importing, or otherwise dealing in or engaging in any transactions with respect to any merchandise outside the United States if such merchandise (1) is of Cuban origin; or (2) is or has been located in or transported from or through Cuba; or (3) is made or derived in whole or in part of any article which is the growth, produce or manufacture of Cuba."

You are a British tourist, you go to Cuba, buy a Cuban cigar and then travel to Mexico and enters USA. Would you be a criminal when you enter USA even if you are already consumed the cigar in Mexico.

Second question, the law states "merchandise", is that only physical goods or does it also cover services like prostitution or health care services. What is you did not pay for the services, aka receive the services for free, are you still a criminal? Is Michael Moore and a bunch of SICKO americans criminals?

202.168.50.40 22:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Using the "services" of a prostitute is illegal regardless, at least in the US and UK it is. Furthermore, I would image that people under the "jurisdiction of the United States" include anyone travelling through it. However please remember that wikipedia cannot and will not give you legal adivce SGGH ^speak! 22:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong about the UK - if a consenting adult pays another consenting adult for sex here, that isn't unlawful in itself. Subject to the usual age limits, a man or woman working alone, not in a brothel, not on the street, not advertising such services, is not committing any offense, nor is the person who pays. Xn4 00:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine US authorities would try to prosecute a non-American for going to Cuba; in fact, they rarely take action against Americans who do so as tourists. -- Mwalcoff 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

God and nuclear war

Any religious people here? What's the current thinking on what God's reaction to a full-scale, planetwide nuclear war would be (i.e. one that threatens to destroy all life on earth)? Would God intervene to prevent this 'unauthorized armageddon', as it would be contrary to his grand design for humanity, as written in the Bible? --62.136.226.208 23:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think He would prevent it... but that doesn't mean we should be presumptuous and test that theory either. Prophecy has a history of being conditional. ◄Zahakiel► 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would he do such a thing? Man's fate is man's own doing, if I understand the Bible correctly (and not being a believer, frankly). That's what free will is all about. God doesn't intervene directly (in any measurable way) in every other stupid thing man does, no matter how much harm it causes, I don't know why this would be anything more special. --24.147.86.187 23:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suspect that's why the question was directed to those who do believe that He has a plan. He may not intervene always on an individual scale, but there's no such thing as unbounded free will either. Humans have all kinds of limitations, natural and (as in this case) otherwise. ◄Zahakiel► 23:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

He has a plan, but he gave man the free will to do himself in (as an individual and as a group), last time I checked. It's not free will if you can't make the wrong choice. --24.147.86.187 23:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

God supposedly has a plan for the redemption of humanity. Humans unleashing something that would destroy all humans (and end his 'experiment') would throw a big spanner in the works as far as God is concerned. I think I saw this theory mentioned here before - but look at WWII. God saw that things were starting to get 'out of hand' WRT the 'Final Solution' and he intervened to cloud Adolf Hitler's judgment, strike him with insanity, deliver the Aryans into the hands of their enemies and scatter their people to the four corners of the earth, never to be a threat to anyone ever again. It's an interesting interpretation. --62.136.226.208 23:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So now God gets credit for Hitler losing the war? Funny how he waited for 6 million to die first! And amazing that he ordained that Stalin should have control over all of Eastern Europe. And etc. etc. etc. I think this business of assigning God "credit" for things like this is a bit far-fetched. The Bible is pretty explicit that the works of man are the works of man alone — if man does evil, he does it by his own hand, not by God's. If he does good, he does it by his own hand. God tells man what he'd like man to do, God provides a way for man to attain immortality, but God does not intervene when man makes bad choices. Hitler's insanity was purely pathological (caused by a virus he contracted years before he took power), not divine, and in any case had very little to do with the downfall of Nazi Germany on its own. Yes, you can interpret all of history through a "God is responsible for good things" lens but it is an epistemologically silly approach, and belittles any true nature of religion, in my opinion. --24.147.86.187 23:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You may not find this current, but C. S. Lewis did suggest God would stop an all-out nuclear war. Try the last two verses of his poem On the Atomic Bomb... Xn4 00:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As if your puny gadget

Could dodge the terrible logic

Of history! No, the tragic

Road will go on, new generations trudge it.

Narrow and long it stretches

Wretched for one who marches

Eyes front. He never catches

A glimpse of the fields each side, the happy orchards.

I don't really see that poem as implying that God would stop nuclear war at all. It looks to me like Lewis is just arguing that the atomic bomb, despite all the hype about it being some new power, is really just a new form of the same sort of power that people have always had, and that despite its apparent monumentality history will march on. There were a number of intellectuals who took the position just after the end of World War II that the bomb was not as significant as it was being made out to be by scientists (Gertrude Stein famously said that she "had not been able to take any interest in it" and that it was "not any more interesting than any other machine"). That's the light I read Lewis's poem in; I don't really seem him implying that there would be divine intervention in the case of nuclear war. --24.147.86.187 02:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Free will does not mean that God left humans and doesn't care about what they do. In the past, God certainly has intervened to save both individuals and groups and to punish the wicked (e.g. the Flood). In any case, the Bible says that the Lord "will remember [his] covenant between ... all living creatures of every kind." In other words, because God created life, he has the power to take it, but if his whole creation is at stake, he's not going to just watch us kill everybody. There are things that our finite mind cannot comprehend in the field of morality, but we should do our best to exert the free will we have and to not destroy our whole race. bibliomaniac15 Prepare to be deleted! 03:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Che!

Slightly related to the question above about Trotsky. What would the world be like now if Che Guevara had survived and was still alive now? --62.136.226.208 23:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Alberto Korda would likely be more obscure. —Tamfang 23:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not go to Cuba and find out for yourself? For I have seen the future and it creaks! Sorry; I'm being facetious. In what way would the world be different? Why, the Cuban government would be making periodic announcements about the health-or lack of it-of two geriatrics, as opposed to one. Clio the Muse 02:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bolivia and Venezuela have popular, populist leaders currently. The stability of that oil revenue and the like brought was insufficient for an indigenous population convinced that the oligarchic structure of power would not change. I have no idea what things would have been like in Cuba if Che had survived, but it doesn't really matter, because he almost certainly would not have been there. South America, now: I cannot imagine it being unchanged if Che had survived into the 1980s. Hornplease 05:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

US Coins

Why do US coins have the word "Liberty" on them? Belinda12.207.111.70 23:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at Liberty? Liberty is really what America is (soem may argue was) about. It's jsut too much to put in an answer. Read History of the United States, Liberty, Lady Liberty, and Statue of Liberty. If you still have any questions after that, ask again and a little more elaborately. schyler 00:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

August 24

Counties of Iran

I am confused. I was reading about the counties of Iran and the articles of each provinces of Iran. 9 articles of each provinces of Iran had different numbers from the articles Counties of Iran. These 9 provinces are Qazvin, Kermanshah, Khuzestan, Fars, Hormozgan, Kerman, North Khorasan, Razavi Khorasan and South Khorasan. Please, take a look at these articles and the article "Counties of Iran" and please tell me, which one is right about the number of Iran in each provinces? Thank you.

Is science Infinite?

Will we ever run out of things to discover in physics or mathematics? Is science infinite? And what about Art and other stuff will we ever run out of ideas for films, painting, plays, books etc? 89.243.215.246 01:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Einstein said that the only 2 infinite things were the universe and human stupidity, and he wasn't even sure about the universe. That leaves human stupidity as the only definitely infinite thing. But I reason that with all that stupidity (aleph-null), there must be at least an aleph-1 amount of science, art, creativity as well. Or, at the very least, a very great number of stupid scientists, stupid artists, stupid writers etc. Maybe this very post is a perfect demonstration of that.  :) -- JackofOz 01:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious question in the philosophy of science. How you answer it will depend on what you ultimately believe science is, what you believe are the limits of human comprehension (if there are any), and whether or not you believe science is truly progressive or not. One of my favorite essays on just this question is Ludwik Fleck, "Problems of the Science of Science" (1946) which is unfortunately a little hard to come by these days. In any case, there's no simple answer to this, and the deeper you probe into it the more difficult the entire problem becomes, largely because in the end it rests on the ever-tricky of how exactly one relates ontology (what the world is) and epistemology (how we know). (And JackofOz, Einstein did fundamentally believe that the all aspects of the universe were in theory graspable by the human mind, unlike, say, Niels Bohr, who believed that representations were all one could have and that our language would in the end limit our understanding. Just a nitpick!) --24.147.86.187 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Has there never been a full-length bigraphy of Tristan Tzara?

Has there never been a full-length bigraphy of Tristan Tzara? If not, why not? He may not be a household name, but he founded Dadaism, and everybody has heard of that. And he led such an intersting life. I'm a screenwriter who's had some success with bio-pics, and I'd love to have Tzara for my next subject, but I can't do all the legwork of a biography. 64.131.162.63 04:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Matt Bird

There is none written in English. One has recently been translated from French; I have heard that another is in the works. I cannot remember the name of the translated work, but I did remember reading about it approximately two years ago in the TLS or the NYRB; it seemed to be somewhat unsatisfactory. Hornplease 05:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not in English, but there are several works in French.[11][12][13] You can buy a 1930-word biography for $9.95.[14] I've no idea of the quality.  --Lambiam 05:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What piece of classical music is this?

It starts off the Word for the Wise broadcast at Merriam Webster. It can be found here. Thanks! Baseballfan 05:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's from a symphony by Josef Haydn. But which one, I don't know. -- JackofOz 05:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Article finder?

I try to stay as informed as possible, so I subscribe to The New York Times, The LA Times, The New Yorker, Harper's, and various other periodicals. And if that wasn't enough I go to a newspaper stand fairly regularly, and pick up a whole bunch of magazines and newspapers there. I didn't know where to ask this, so I decided to ask it here. Does anybody know of a website that gives me good articles, interesting editorials, or controversial columns in various publications? I've looked all over the internet for a media guide, but I can't seem to find one. If anyone can help me out it would be great.--Bobpalloona 06:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)BobPalloona