What is the oldest secret society?69.201.141.45 00:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could tell you, but then.... DuncanHill 00:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Secret society. Freemasonry has many mysteries and secrets, but could we call it a secret society? It claims to date from the time of King Solomon's Temple, but evidence of that is lacking. Xn4 01:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean still extant? If not, the Sicarii were around at the turn of the first millennium, but they're not still fighting the Romans. Probably. --Dweller 08:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This question is unanswerable because by definition a secret society is a group which is not known to exist by the general public. If the group is known to the public then it is no longer a secret society. So your question has no meaning. 202.168.50.40 06:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I like the heading "To know me is to be me". I agree with that, actually. Only one question - what did it have to do with secret societies? -- JackofOz 06:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defeat of the Confederacy
Was the defeat of the Confederacy, as Lee suggested, all down to the superior resorces of the North? Hungry Hank 01:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What else? āTamfang 02:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Skill of the soldiers, and the fact that Great Britain stopped secretely supporting the Confederacy after the North gained an international abolitionist image? --99.245.177.110 03:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the first three years of the war the South seemed to more often have skillful generals in critical command positions. There's an interesting little book Why the North Won the Civil War which briefly examines several aspects of the question for a general audience. The most general conclusion is that if the South didn't strike a military knockout blow relatively early in the war, and wasn't able to wear down Northern morale or attract European intervention, then it was bound to lose, since in a long war of attition the North's numerical superiority in economy and population would become decisive. Of course, if Jefferson Davis had allowed the brightest minds under him (most notably Judah P. Benjamin on the civilian side and Robert E. Lee on the military side) full scope to exercise their talents -- instead of fussily trying to micromanage things, as he so often did -- then probably the Confederate cause would have been more successful over a longer period... AnonMoos 04:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they'd have had to take Washington DC in a surprise attack, at the outset of the war, then negotiate for peace from there. The other alternative by which the Confederacy could endure would be to avoid the war entirely. StuRat 06:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't there an early opportunity to take Washington, which the Southern commander declined? As for avoiding the war, the battle of Fort Sumter happened after Lincoln threatened to invade if tribute (his new tariff) wasn't paid. āTamfang 09:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The book "Reveille in Washington" described one day when Confederate General Jubal Early (iirc) was in a position to readily take Washington D.C., due to bad timing which led to a lack of adequate troops to defend the city. The defenders turned out clerks from the War department, uniformed militia and volunteers to show a presence in the ramparts and give the appearance of a better defense than they really had. Good spying (which the Cinfederacy usually had) would have told the Rebel general the true situation and the capitol could have been taken, with much of the government. But the bravado caused hesitation and eventually regular troops arrived sufficient to properly defend the city. Edison 19:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.110, saying the Confederacy failed because it lost British support strikes me as kinda like saying it failed because it never had Chinese support. The loss of foreign support merely unmasked the difference in strength (if it ever was masked). āTamfang 09:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Resources" is one way to put it. The North had won the seas thanks to northern steel. Once it had that, it could make iron clads like there was no tomorrow, while the South needed the few forges and sources for cannon, etc. The control of the seas meant steaming up rivers with invulnerable ships, and that made Vicksburg vital. On land, the North had one resource in vast superiority: numbers of humans. The South won all the way to the end of the war, in land battles with Lee, but it lost in the West with some inferior generals and with lack of control of the rivers, although the confederates did some amazing things to try to even the odds. However, in the east, in the Virginia campaigns, Lee won but lost, because Grant had tens of thousands more to lose at a given battle, where Lee had no reinforcements coming. The Battle of Cold Harbor is the most grim thing imaginable. Grant lost soldiers at a terrific pace. He would lose 10,000 to Lee's 1,000 and yet be able to replace those soldiers, while every loss to Lee was a loss for good. The British "secret support" was very small, as the blockade (see Navy: none in the South) choked it almost instantly. In the West: rivers, some bad Confederate leadership, some great Union leadership. In the East: darned-near human wave tactics. In the South, though, a yet different problem for the Confederates. Because the Confederacy was built on the idea of supreme state's rights, the states did not cooperate well with one another, and the Georgia governor Joseph E. Brown was really cute. He decided that none of his troops should be sent off to be commanded by Virginians, and so he cut off all support to Lee and kept all his troops at home in a "state militia" that had no leadership at all. The army that fought Sherman in Georgia was the Western army. Once Sherman gave them the slip, he only had to face a bunch of unequipped, poorly led rabble of Joe Brown's devising. The other component of the Southern campaign was Florida and Charleston, and the South defended these very, very well to the end. So, what was it? Resources, yes, both in terms of the farms of Indiana that weren't being turned into battlegrounds (if the south wanted food, it had to send its soldiers home to farm, and if it wanted soldiers, it had to depopulate its farms), the steel and industry that was never much imperiled, stable currency from a federal power, iron, saltpeter, and federated military commands. The defensive strategy the South adopted (not attacking Washington, except for one very brief cavalry raid) was hardly a mistake, as it allowed for many of the brilliant early victories, but it meant that the South had to win quickly or not at all. Geogre 10:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I.e. William Tecumseh Sherman was a very good general, Robert E. Lee was a great general, and Ulysses S. Grant was a butcher. That's more or less the verdict of Shelby Foote, but he seems to admire Grant as a man who did what had to be done, and what had to be done was to win at any cost in lives. It's also one of those myths of the war that Gettysburg was when the Union won. In fact, Gettysburg was more or less a Confederate victory, but it is when the war turned and when the South's lack of supplies meant that it was already losing the war of attrition. (Foote also admires Bedford Forrest despite his own cruelty (and what he would do after the war, of course).) Some of those Confederate ship designs (rams, submarines, naval mines) were horrible and inventive. Utgard Loki 14:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the end of the war, the north could ship soldiers and equipment to the front by newly laid train tracks, while the Rebels had little food or ammunition and no shoes. Shelby Foote said the north fought with one hand tied behind its back, and if the south started to win, the north could start using the other hand. The north had four times the white population of the south at the start of the war. The South was sending young and old into battle, while the north could spare college students from the draft. More early Confederate victories might have induced Europe to break the Union blockade and trade weapons for cotton and tobacco. But crop failures in Europe and availability of cotton from Egypt made norther grain more critical than southern cotton, and the Emancipation Proclamation made supporting the south morally less appealing than merely helping part of the U.S. to separate from the rest of the U.S. There were good, mediocre and lousy generals on both sides, and good and bad luck on both sides. Ruthless Union generals (like Grant was at the end) early in the war could have ended things a lot sooner. Good politicians on both sides could have prevented over 600,000 soldiers being killed. Per American Civil War, "Based on 1860 census figures, 8% of all white males aged 13 to 43 died in the war, including 6% in the North and an extraordinary 18% in the South." Edison 19:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Foote was being very seasonable with his suggestion that the North fought with one hand. That, I think, came in the Ken Burns documentary. In his three volume The Civil War: A Narrative, he covered the reasons why the North's hands were both pretty severely tied better. The population of the North did not like the war. There was a substantial copperhead population, and there were absolutely staggering riots in New York City when the Emancipation Proclamation was made. New York was not the only site of draft riots, either, and high and low society alike was at least ambivalent about letting the South go. As it was, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and faced extreme resistance from his cabinet, his generals, and the public at large. If we look simply at materiel, then the North could never have lost a defensive war, but the rule of warfare is that the attacker must win, or he loses, while a defender need only not lose to win. The military manuals of the day, as Foote relates, suggested that any attacker facing fixed works needed nearly a 3:1 superiority in numbers to prevail. Had the North felt that it was a war of it's survival, it could have brought both fists forward and would have from the start of the war. Field leadership was very clearly superior in the South for three years of the war, and it's only in the fourth year that the North had weeded out some of its peace time promotions and Mexican War old timers to get military leaders with flexibility. The South, starting from a disadvantage and having to assemble its army, had some big, big mistakes in leadership (the beloved "fighting bishop" of Leonidas Polk), but it generally had them overruled by more able generals. Yes, resources, but no, it wasn't as if they were playing while their youth lay dead on the battlefield. That simply makes no sense. Geogre 02:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Utgard Loki, I'm not a little bemused by your suggestion that Gettysburg was 'more or less' a Confederate victory. Do you mean it was a 'victory' because Lee was able to get what was left of his army, including the remnants of George Pickett's Virginian division, safely out of Pennsylvania, much as he had withdrawn from Maryland after his defeat at the Battle of Antietam? Otherwise it can only be considered as the kind of 'victory' that that King Pyrrus himself might have understood! Clio the Muse 01:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely pyrrhic, of course, and when Pyrrhus said "a few more such victories, and I shall be ruined," this is one where the victory was the beginning of the ruin of the Southern army. It was a win, in that the South not only managed a pretty amazing retreat, but also because the South generally inflicted more casualties on the North than vice versa. As a percentage of soldiers present, even the South did not lose. However, it was the first significant time that the North didn't lose to Lee. I don't think they won at all, but they did not end up with stolen supplies (commonly before, they did), flanked, or driven back. Also, both the Gettysburg Address and other documents from the time suggest that Lincoln didn't see it as a victory, quite. In the West, the Union was routinely winning or losing in the lower case. Gettysburg allowed quite a few Union commanders to rise, as well, and show themselves as the sorts of ruthless men Lincoln needed (even though that didn't really work out). Utgard Loki 13:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the numbers? In casualties and dead, the South came out ahead, but in field objectives it was a loss. A defender who doesn't lose, wins, and that was the time when the North was on defense. Therefore the South lost, although they won the numerical game. Pickett's charge was horrible, but there had been Northern Picketts before, too. I think one reason that battle gets talked about (aside from its being a singular occasion when the Union forces don't look like bullies) is that it was an absolutely monumental failure on Lee's part. His normally excellent communications failed, and he pushed troops into untenable positions without knowing the lay of the field. (I had an ancestor at the battle who survived to the end of the war, minus a limb or two. He saved his amputated leg and insisted on being buried with it decades later, or such was family lore.) Geogre 02:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the original question, I would say that the Civil War has always seemed to me as if there were two styles of conflict being fought side by side: the great material battle that the Confederacy was bound to lose, and the search for the 'knock out blow', which it might conceivably have won. The first kind of conflict was to emerge in a fully developed form in the Great War, a struggle between nations; between strength of will and depth of productive capacity; the kind of 'struggle in depth' rarely effected by the outcome of a single battle, no matter how large. In the Civil War one can detect evidence of this in Grant's final campaign from the Wilderness to Petersburg, particularly at Petersburg. The other kind of conflict based on the single 'knock out battle', the kind of thing that had been such a feature of earlier wars, including the campaigns of Napoleon, was what Lee looked for time and again, and why the Confederacy pursued such a high risk 'offensive-defensive' strategy. That this kind of thing was not confined to the past was to be fully demonstrated not long after the conclusion of the Civil War by the Prussians, who defeated the Austrians in such a manner, and the French not long after. Lee never found his Waterloo. Clio the Muse 01:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Catholic split: English and Scottish lines?
The Protestant Act of 1701 enabled Sophia of Hanover, a descendent of the Winter Queen of Bohemia and object of the English Gunpowder Plot, to succeed whereas the Scottish legitimists in the form of the Jacobites were left in the dust. What happened? How did an English Catholic plot result in a Protestant succession? How did a Scottish Catholic line of exiles descend from the Protestant Charles I? It doesn't make sense! Did the English and Scottish Catholics have no community and they were more politically united with their respective Protestant countrymen? Lord Loxley 02:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What "happened" is that many influential Englishmen feared that having an openly Catholic monarch would result in some form of heresy trials or inquisition against Protestants within England, and the subordination of England to its main enemy France in international affairs -- and the actions of James II did absolutely nothing to allay these fears. AnonMoos 03:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are underestimating the breadth of the opposition to a Hanoverian succession in Queen Anne's final years. Henry St John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke wasn't a Catholic. The relevance of Guy Fawkes's cunning plan to events in 1712ā1715 isn't blindingly obvious. Angus McLellan(Talk) 09:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an English-vs-Scots thing. Though the Stuart dynasty originated in Scotland, by 1701 no monarch had set foot there for fifty years (and that's only if we count Charles II as succeeding immediately on his father's beheading rather than at the Restoration). The only royal consort after 1603 with Scottish roots was the Late Queen Mum (daughter of an Earl of Strathmore). ā James II was a Catholic convert, and (iirc) the first Catholic monarch since Bloody Mary Tudor (in England) and Mary Stuart (in Scotland); neither was a favorable precedent, and James himself had unpopular notions of his own authority. The move to depose him was triggered by the birth of a son to his second (Catholic) wife; until then, his opponents were willing to wait for one of his Protestant daughters (Mary II and Anne) to succeed him. ā That the Jacobite revolt happened in Scotland may be simply because Scotland was a remote and neglected province. āTamfang 09:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lord Loxely. I hope you do not mind me being so direct, but you appear a little confused over some of the issues here. Before proceeding to tackle your question it might help if I clarified things, for the benefit of other readers, as much as yourself.
There was no 'Protestant Act' in 1701. There was, rather, the Act of Settlement, by which succession to the throne of England was settled on Sophia of Hanover and her descendants. The aim, of course, was to secure succession in the Protestant line, thus excluding the Catholic James Francis Edward Stuart, the son of the deposed James II. Jacobite, from Jacobus, the Latin for James, was a term coined to describe the followers of the senior Stuart line; it is not therefore technically correct to describe them thus, as you have in the above. Nor should they really be described as 'Scottish'. The line certainly originated in Scotland, though by the time of James Francis Edward it had more French and Italian blood than anything else. Only the Catholic Stuarts, moreover, were 'left in the dust', to use your expression. Queen Anne, herself a Protestant and the younger daughter of James II, was, after all, the last of the Stuarts to occupy the throne of England. Indeed, it was the death of her son Prince William, Duke of Gloucester in 1700, and the likely extinction of the Protestant Stuarts, that precipitated the Act of Settlement.
In find it really hard to make sense of your connection between the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 and the Act of Settlement. There is absolutely no causal relationship here. Nor do I understand what you mean when you say that Elizabeth of Bohemia was an 'object' of the Gunpowder Plot. It was the intention of the plotters to place her on the throne, that much is true, as a Catholic queen. But the Catholic descent from Charles I came with the conversion of his son James, while still Duke of York, in the early 1670s. In political terms this was certainly serious because of the suspicion of Catholicism and its links with Continental absolutism, though it would probably have passed without consequence if James had been remote from the succession. It became explosive because he was the only legitimate heir of Charles II, his elder brother. In the late 1670s the outbreak of the so-called Popish Plot saw serious attempts by the emerging Whig movement to have James removed altogether from the line of succession. But Exclusionism failed, and James succeeded peacefully enough in 1685, his Catholicism notwithstanding. Attempts to remove him in England by James, Duke of Monmouth, and in Scotland by Archibald Campbell, 9th Earl of Argyll were a complete failure.
There matters might have stood but for James increasing arrogance and tendency to resort to extra-parliamentary action. In particular the trial of the Seven Bishops for seditious libel led to fears that the Church of England itself was under threat. Even so, James would, in all probability, have continued to occupy the throne so long as his heir was his Protestant daughter Mary, wife of William of Orange. However, the birth of James Francis Edward in June 1688, and the prospect of a permanent Catholic line, precipitated the Glorious Revolution and all that followed, as Tamfang has described in the above.
Finally, it should be made clear that the Jacobite rising of 1689 in Scotland did not come about because the country was, as Tamfang puts it, a 'remote and neglected province'. The Jacobite movement at that time was largely confined to the west Highlands, to those clans suspicious of the return of Campbell power, yet another feature of the Glorious Revolution.
Anyway, I hope this is all clear. But please ask if you need any further information. Clio the Muse 23:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more small point of confusion can be cleared up - Elizabeth Stewart (later the 'Winter Queen of Bohemia') was not a Catholic. Her father, James I and VI, was brought up in the Kirk, and her mother, Anne of Denmark, as a Lutheran. This Queen Anne of Scotland, later of England, was sometimes suspected of Catholicism and managed to confuse people on the issue. She had sworn an oath at her Scottish coronation "...to withstand and despise all papistical superstitions", but also would not conform to the Kirk, nor later the Church of England. Many people (including Queen Elizabeth I in her last years) believed Anne had converted to Catholicism or else might do so. Elizabeth Stewart was only nine at the time of the Gunpowder Plot and so was seen by the Catholics as potentially malleable, especially given her mother's equivocations. However, when Elizabeth later married, her husband, Frederick V of the Electorate of the Palatinate, was a Protestant prince, and they brought up their many children as Lutherans, including Sophia of Hanover. Xn4 03:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quibble: It became explosive because he was the only legitimate heir of Charles II, his elder brother. Do you mean in the male line? āTamfang 16:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. I should have made that clearer. Clio the Muse 23:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point was: The Catholic Gunpowder Plot's motives to place Elizabeth of Bohemia on the throne, led to the Protestant succession of Sophia's son. This was an English movement, through and through. Guy Fawkes was even a soldier of the Spanish Habsburgs, like other English Jesuits and opposed to the line of Margaret Tudor. King Henry VIII barred the Scots and the English Parliament apparently respected this, after seeing that King James VI of Scots (like his son Charles) was not going to follow English customs. There was no love of the Scottish side, which preferred a Stuart-Bourbon Auld Alliance renewal and totally different way of things. The Scottish preference (how many English Jacobites?) descended from the hated Charles I, beheaded by the English for his apparent Auld Alliance which was prejudicial against England but favourable to the Scots as allies of the French--think of Queen Henrietta Maria. The political ambitions of English and Scottish were diametrically opposed and regardless of religious differences between conationals, it appears that Catholics and Protestants in each country shared more than with their coreligionists across borders. I just realised this yesterday, which made me think differently on the events and as of English descent, I feel less "guilty" or whatever for the "woes" of the Scots. It rolls off my back. The Scots wanted things one way and my ancestors wanted another. Animosity only dissipated when latent frustrations were released onto the Irish, so it really took the Pope to realise how the Protestant (Sophia of Hanover) and Catholic (Mary of Modena) branches of the Hanoverian line were what united the British. It was the introduction of foreign dynasties which lulled internal violence throughout the Britain, exported to Ireland. It just leaves one thing: why didn't the English resort to an heir of Lady Jane Grey (descent from Mary Tudor), instead of use James's daughter's line against the Scots? Is it because Elizabeth had two lines from Henry VII, plus the two Stuart lines of Mary and Lord Darnley, so they could control Scotland as well? I think the English Jesuits already tried to recruit the heirs of Mary Tudor during the plots (Babington, Throgmorton etc.) of the time when Elizabeth Tudor was queen of England, but were rebuffed/exposed and which is why they chose Elizabeth Stuart. Lord Loxley 06:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Loxley, are you pulling all our legs? The Gunpowder Plot's motives didn't lead to the succession of the Hanoverians... I could go on, but it's enough to say that this looks like a castle built on sand. Xn4 23:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Loxely, have you read or, more important, have you absorbed any of the responses to your original question? It would appear not, because you seem to be holding to the same errors. Your confusion over events even seems to be deepening. Please forgive me; I mean no offense; it's just that I have a Gradgrindish enthusiasm for facts. Anyway, addressing myself solely to empirical matters, and ignoring the 'manifesto' you seem to be offering here, I would, for the benefit of the community at large, as well as you, offer the following corrections.
I repeat: there is no direct causal relationship between the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 and the accession of George I to the British throne in 1714. The latter event can be traced, in the first place, to the Glorious Revolution in 1688, and in the second, to the death of Prince William of Gloucester in 1700.
Guy Fawkes was not a Jesuit. Where on earth did that bizarre suggestion come from!? The Jesuits as an order were not opposed to the line of Margaret Tudor. Why would they be? They may have disliked a Protestant succession; but that is a different matter altogether.
Under the Succession Act of 1543 Henry excluded his sister Margaret and her Scottish descendants from the English succession, though this provision was later ignored, because by the closing years of the reign of Elizabeth I James Stuart emerged as the only generally acceptable heir. There was no opposition to James and Charles in Parliament because, as you put it, they did not 'follow English customs', whatever that is supposed to mean!
The Scots effectively abandoned the Auld Alliance in the sixteenth century during the Reformation. Charles I was most assuredly not executed for his preference for the antique links between Scotland and France, but for his perceived treachery in bringing about the Second English Civil War in 1648, and because his political obduracy had created a constitutional impasse. Indeed, earlier in his career he had tried to invoke the spectre of the Auld Alliance in his appeal to the Short Parliament for funds against the Covenanter rebels in the north. The fact that he had a French wife is quite irrelevant.
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. . . .
My question: why would England give a damn for the Treaty of Tordesillas? āTamfang 02:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that article confirms my guess, that the English state did not consider itself bound by a treaty between two Catholic powers. āTamfang 09:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James I said he recognized Spanish sovereignty over the lands actually in Spain's possession, but not the Spanish claims to all parts of the New World beyond the line set by the Treaty of Tordesillas. This treaty was to some degree superseded by the Treaty of Madrid of 1750. Xn4 13:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
England may not have given 'a damn', as you put it Tamfang, about the Treaty of Tordesillas itself. What it would and did 'give a damn' about was the possible consequences of intruding in the Spanish sphere of influence. The intitial seventeenth century claim was not pursued because of the political implications. In an attempt to clarify matters the question of sovereignty was raised with the Spanish in 1748, who made it clear that they would take a hostile view of any English presence. After the Seven Years War England was immeasurably stronger; so while the affair of 1770 brought Spain close to war, the country was not prepared to act without French support; hence the fudge of 1771, which left the whole question of sovereignty entirely open
On the general question of Anglo-Spanish relations, there were times when London proceeded with considerable care. For instance, the failure of the Scottish Darien scheme, an attempt to establish a trading post on the Isthmus of Panama in the days before the Parliamentary union of 1707, was in part due to the fact that William III would offer no support, not wanting to alienate the Spanish. Though the region fell within the Spanish 'sphere of influence' they had no presence in the immediate area. There was, therefore, no Uti possidetis, though that made little practical difference to the outcome. Clio the Muse 00:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be overlooking the fact that all the English settlements in North America were in defiance of the Treaty of Tordesillas. Also, Uti Possidetis was a stated English policy, while the Darien scheme was a Scottish venture, at a time when England and Scotland were two separate kingdoms which happened to have the same king. And the Spanish did in fact make use of the Isthmus of Panama as an important seasonal Atlantic-Pacific trade link. AnonMoos 03:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
North America, if you mean by this the Atlantic seaboard, was not within the Spanish sphere of influence-outwith Florida, that is-; the Falklands were. William was king of Scotland and could have extended help to the colonists, if he had been so minded. He was also, I have to stress, master of a British foreign policy, even if that was largely determined by English (or Dutch) interests. There was no Spanish presence in Darien in the late seventeenth century. As a final point I would ask you to note that there is a universe of difference bewtween observing tbe terms of a contentious treaty and understanding how specific spheres of influence operate. Anyway, I think I have pealed enough onion skins here. Clio the Muse 00:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever -- North America equally fell under the terms of the Treaty of Tordesillas, to the same degree as all of the Western Hemisphere, Oceania, and the Indian Ocean, so that all English settlements in North America were in defiance of the Treaty of Tordesillas. James the Ist enunciating Uti Possidetis in letters which he sent to Philip III in connection with the Treaty of London (1604) was stating the grounds why England would continue to send ships to areas of the new world outside of Spain's effective control. And the Spaniards didn't have much of a year-round presence in Panama, but Portobello was a seasonally-used Atlantic-Pacific trade link of great economic significance within the Spanish empire (it was how the silver of Peru got to the Caribbean). I'm really not sure what the point of your remarks was supposed to be. AnonMoos 08:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weathercock on churchtowers
Please tell me the origin of the weathercock on churchtowers āPreceding unsigned comment added by LvdW (talk ā¢ contribs) 08:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They go back a long way ā the earliest known use of a cockerel for the weather vane is from 820 A.D., on the San Faustino Maggiore in Brescia ā and the origin is not really known. The German Wikipedia, in its article entitled Windrichtungsgeber, offers as a possible explanation that this is inspired by Matthew 26:74ā75: "Then began he [i.e., Peter] to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly." The weathercock then supposedly admonishes us not to turn with the wind like Saint Peter did then. Ā --Lambiam 09:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, the origin is kind of obvious, if you've ever lived on a farm with chickens (I suppose "free range" chickens). Roosters/cockerels/cocks absolutely love to go up high. Chickens can't fly, quite, but they can fly a bit. They can get up on the roof, and there is something quite masculine about a cock's desire to get up on top of everything to be king of all he surveys. The problem is that they're really hard to get back down, if they don't want to come down. Anyway, the roof is a common place for the rooster to go, although a bell tower is usually quite a bit beyond their range. Maybe it's more sophisticated than that, but they really do like to get up high. Geogre 10:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you find a weathercock or weathervane on a church tower? Is this a lower peak than the top of the steeple? If you refer to the steeple, I usualy see them topped by a cross. "Cock" by the way is one of those words which does not travel well across the pond. Edison 19:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, many church steeples have weather cocks. It's just one of those things some of us assume are done everywhereĀ :) There's even a song we used to sing at school: "The golden cockerel crows in the morning./Wake up children welcome the day." etc in which the cockerel comes alive. I'm sure I've read other children's stories that involved the cock on the spire coming alive, and not all of them were originally from the UK suggesting it can't just be a British practice. Skittle 22:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all churches in the UK have a steeple (aka spire). Norman churches were built with a square tower and spires were a later (Gothic) fashion. SaundersW 21:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apropos, I was reverted when I tried to add a link to cock throwing to our article on fox tossing. -- !!?? 00:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In architecture, a spire isn't quite the same as a steeple. A spire is a conical or pyramidal structure tapering upwards to a point, while a steeple is any tower (though usually a church tower), with or without a spire. Thus, a steeplechase was a cross-country race towards a church tower - a spire might help but wasn't essential! Xn4 00:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In some European countries Catholic churches carry a crucifix on their steeple, while the rooster sits on top of evangelical or reformed churches. This WDR site interprets the rooster as more than one Christian symbol: 1) The bible passage quoted by Lambiam, where the rooster stands for vigilance and a reminder of Peter's renunciation of Jesus. 2) As the herald of the morning light, the rooster can also be seen as symbolizing Jesus himself. The revolvable weather vane function is a useful side effect of necessity - strong winds might bend a fixed and rigid metal silhouette, even damaging the steeple. Some churches in Northern Germany have a swan instead of a rooster. Apparently this is traced back to Jan Hus's words on the stake, where he called himself a poor goose ("hus"/"husa" in Czech), but predicted the arrival of a swan whom his adversaries wouldn't be able to roast. Luther later came to be seen as the swan in Hus's prophecy, and the swans on steeples symbolize Luther. For literary reference, there's also Hans Christian Andersen's The Farmyard Cock and the Weathercock. ---Sluzzelintalk 06:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(snicker) I couldn't resist the desire to excise these words from their context in Geogre's post above: "... there is something quite masculine about a cock's desire to get up ...". Ā :) -- JackofOz 13:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Social changes in the philippines during spanish colonizers?
I don't understand this topic and I need help about it. What are the social changes in the Philippines during spanish colonizers? Need answers right away because we will have a quiz about this topic in our Araling Panlipunan class(Social Studies)WikiPoTechizen 09:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the History of the Philippines particularly the section dealing with Spanish colonization, PoTechizen? I do have to say that I find your question so broadly based that I find it difficult to produce a tailored answer, or one that could possibly serve a quiz-like format. Perhaps the main thing for you to focus on is the spread of Roman Catholicism among the people of the northern islands, and the resistance to such expansion by the Muslims of Mindanao and the south. Also the Spanish seemed to have behaved with greater sensitivity to local feelings, at least in the north, and there seems to have been none of the brutal subjugation and forced conversions that marked their passage through the Americas. The co-option of local elites led to the creation of the Principalia, an abiding feature of Philippine society and politics. In this regard Philip II of Spain's decree of June 1594 is worth quoting at length;
It is not right that the Indian chiefs of Filipinas be in a worse condition after conversion; rather they should have such treatment that would gain their affection and keep them loyal, so that with the spiritual blessings that God has communicated to them by calling them to His true knowledge, the temporal blessings may be added, and they may live contentedly and comfortably. Therefore, we order the governors of those islands to show them good treatment and entrust them, in our name, with the government of the Indians, of whom they were formerly lords. In all else the governors shall see that the chiefs are benefited justly, and the Indians shall pay them something as a recognition, as they did during the period of their paganism, provided it be without prejudice to the tributes that are to be paid us, or prejudicial to that which pertains to their encomenderos.
As I have said, quite a difference from the Americas. Clio the Muse 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Egypt GDP
What is the forecasted GDP in Egypt for 2007,2008 and 2009 āPreceding unsigned comment added by Moatazy (talk ā¢ contribs) 14:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.economist.com/countries/Egypt/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Forecast They offer more information but it comes at a price. This publication is probably one of the most widely respected Economics publications around. Not quite what you are after but does predict growth so you could always use it to work out the GDP for the years in question. ny156uk 17:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Siena Duomo Mosaic Pavement
Please what are the 2008 dates for the complete viewing of the mosaic floor in the Siena Duomo?
Katy Bedford 17:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What if someone pays a no-limit credit card's monthly payments with the same credit card?
There are some cards out there without a spending limit, so the owner can theoretically spend as much as they'd like.
However, say the times get poor and the owner doesn't have a legitimate income. To keep living as he has been, he uses his limitless credit card.
Then to pay his minimum payments, he cashes it out from an ATM, deposits it into his bank account, and pays it from there. Or he does a "balance transfer" from his credit card to his debit card and back again. This routine could go on for the rest of his life, but would it? --Let UsUpdateSpecial:Ancientpages. 18:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As our credit card article saysĀ : "Many credit cards can also be used in an ATM to withdraw money against the credit limit extended to the card but many card issuers charge interest on cash advances before they do so on purchases. The interest on cash advances is commonly charged from the date the withdrawal is made, rather than the monthly billing date. Many card issuers levy a commission for cash withdrawals, even if the ATM belongs to the same bank as the card issuer." - so, no, you can't avoid interest by paying off a credit card bill with the same card or even with another card. Gandalf61 18:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask about avoiding interest, I asked about whether paying the card's minimum every month with the same card would work. Also, what about balance transfers? Could the minimum payment be transferred to the bank account's debit card and back to the credit card to pay that off? Will anything happen when its owner keeps this up? --Let UsUpdateSpecial:Ancientpages. 18:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the process described, a cash advance was taken and used to pay the monthly minimum. The downside is there is usually a fee for the advance, and then a higher interest rate than for purchases may be applied from the date of the advance. Money is money to the card company. But each month this is done, the monthly minimum will increase. At any time, the company may decide the borrower is a poor credit risk and disallow further cash advances, or the card may reach its max limit, then the house of cards collapses. User:Donald Hosek on August 29 coined a term for this that I likeĀ :"autoponzification," as in the classic Ponzi scheme. Individuals and businesses have sometimes fallen into this practice, leading to economic failure, or perhaps just postponin the inevitable, when they start out with the intention to only do it one month. One can also use a cash advance from a new card to pay the minimum on an old card, but a credit report for the issuance of a new card might trigger a drop in credit rating and a higher interest rate on the old card. The issuer of the card may well be able to take back the "no limit" provision and refuse to allow any higher borrowing level: check the card agreement. Many issuers state that they can change the terms of the agreement when it suits them, and your only recourse would be to cancel it and continue making minimum payments. People sometimes get stuck with a string of payday loans or even juice loans from the mob, with the balance and the payments constantly increasing, without even any additional borrowing, and it rarely ends well. Even bankruptcy is no longer the kind and gentle solution to the problem that it once was in the U.S. The ironic thing is that the less able the borrower is to pay, the higher the interest climbs, to 30% and beyond. Edison 19:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Diary of a Farmer's Wife 1796-1797
The book Diary of a Farmer's Wife 1796-1797 (edited?) by Anne Hughes and published in 1964(?) is of unknown provenence. A Google search comes up with some pages saying it is fiction and some saying it is edited non-fiction. Anyone know which is correct please. -- SGBailey 18:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the "Biography" section of the libraries that I checked. Most pull that data from the Library of Congress, which tells me that the LoC has it in the Biography section. As such, it would be non-fiction. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean it is all true. Many biographies are packed full of fictional information. -- kainawā¢ 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article List of diarists calls this book "spurious, published 1964". If that's correct, then such made-up diaries were doing well at the time. The Diary of a Young Lady of Fashion in the Year 1764-1765 by Magdalen King-Hall is another example from the 1960s. Xn4 21:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It is listed under "Fake diaries" in List of diarists. Do you think it should be moved? -- SGBailey 21:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'd say it needs a little more research. Xn4 21:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...fake diaries designed to deceive historians into thinking them part of the archival record. One such example is The Diary of a Farmer's Wife 1796ā1797 (1964) by 'Anne Hughes' (Jeanne Preston), which was televised by the BBC and screened as an educational programme to show British schoolchildren what everyday life used to be like in rural Georgian England. Ruthven, K.K. (2001) Faking Literature, p. 45.
The Folio Society later published it as Anne Hughes Her Boke by "Anne Hughes [Jeanne Preston]". It was edited by Mollie Preston with an introduction by Michael Croucher (London, 1981). So a good-quality fake! Xn4 21:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, based on the his genitive, I'd have to say that the title of the latter, at least, is suspect. Did some people still insert artificial his genitives in 1796? I suppose. One can never rule these things out. However, if it were 1696 it would make more sense to have "Hughes Her Boke." Heck, that spelling of "book" belongs to an even earlier era. Most odde, if trew. Geogre 01:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gather Anne Hughes was said to be a Herefordshire farmer's wife without any formal education. You shouldn't underestimate the way Prayer Book spellings and turns of phrase hang on in rural areas, Geogre... Thou, thee, thy and their verbal forms can still be heard in everyday speech in some parts of England. Xn4 03:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By no means am I being argumentative, but your answer begs an interesting question -- one I didn't seek when I was working on his genitive -- are there instances of his genitives in the King James Version? I don't think we can search electronically, without much labor, but I cannot recall any. I know the 1787 American BCP, because I got one some years ago, and the 1920 (of course...being a Rite II guy), but I could understand "boke" as an isolate better than "Hughes her." It could be a Middle English holdover, because there was a somewhat rare ME intensifier genitive. (Well, folks, someone has to be interested in things like whether "her book" occurs.) Geogre 10:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Geogre, I only meant it's more or less plausible as a fake, not that Anne Hughes her boke is a genuine survival. As I recall, the his genitive doesn't properly include a her genitive. No, I can't think of any his genitives in the King James Bible. If there are none, we can thank its translators again for being highly literate men: linguists, indeed. Xn4 11:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The his genitive article mentions briefly the OE and ME "her genitive," but I'll be honest and say that I never felt like we had good information. I was reading Baugh and others, and yet I just don't feel confident in the conclusions people reach. Even those old timers with their "A preface to the study of Old English personal pronouns in genitive and dative cases in West Midlands 900-980" seem shaky on this point. I didn't look at Krapp, but I don't have access to his books these days. Geogre 02:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lighting on this discussion more than three years after it occurred, I am astonished that this fraud seems to have been accepted in all seriousness by Suzanne Beedell and others, rather than at the actual content of the "diary". No one who has read just a few diaries or commonplace books of the time can possibly be fooled by it. It is full of little errors and seems to be written in a phonetic rendering of turn-of-the-century English. I note that the editor (1964 edition, anyway) refers to the "typescript" and not to any original manuscript. I am sure that Mrs Jean Preston, who was presumably the author, derived enormous pleasure from seeing it serialised in the Farmer's Weekly Home Section, and I hope she survived long enough to see the hardback edition in print. Nick Michael (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Utopia fonts
Hi. I've just used a font of the Utopia family for a presentation and started wondering about this font family. Who designed it and when? How did it get on my computer? I somehow remember that it is an older font, pre-dating the digital era, maybe from mid of the 20th century. Does anybody know more? An article on it would be great. Simon A. 18:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
see Robert Slimbach. It says "His time at Adobe Systems in California has seen the production of, among others, the "Utopia" (1988). See also [1] for more info on the font. Edison 19:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish word
Which Spanish word sounds exactly like the French "quoi"? --99.245.177.110 19:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That answer is wrong. Cua is Catalan, and this is a translation of it. I'm crossing out the answer. In fact, the word "cua" does not exist in Spanish. The Evil Spartan 16:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the word cuƔl. It doesn't sound exactly like quoi, but it's the closest I can get with my rusty Spanish. Xn4 02:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a riddle, but a very common word in Spanish; it means something like "who" or "what". --99.245.177.110 03:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you wanted the language ref desk. In any case, cuall is the closest word. I think you may be mistaken. The Evil Spartan 18:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is this gaping tomb?
Consider the following written in 1856 when he was visiting a natural formation in Malta known as "The Devil's Punch-bowl." "I had to make a precipitate retreat from the Devilās Punch-bowl, around which, as about the gaping tomb of Wizard Scott, beings not good to gaze upon were beginning to accumulate."
The following footnote was added: "Possibly refers to Sir Walter Scott who was known as āThe Wizard of the Northā after publishing several novels anonymously."
If the editor is correct in identifying the wizard as Sir Walter Scott, what does the "gaping tomb" refer to?69.201.141.45 20:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Linnaeus[reply]
Sorry, I don't know how to edit you into a new question...
The "Wizard Scott" is referred to by Walter Scott in the "Lay of the Last Minstrel, canto two, XIII
``In these far climes it was my lot
To meet the wondrous Michael Scott,
A wizard, of such dreaded fame,
Than when, in Salmanca's cave,
Him listed his magic wand to wave,
The bells would ring in Notre Dame!
Some of his skill he taught to me;
And Warrior, I could say to thee
The words that cleft Eildon hills in three,
And bridled the Tweed with a curb of stone:
But to speak them were a deadly sin;
And for having but thought them my heart within,
A treble penance must be done.
He was a real person, living in the C13, and his burial place is disputed, maybe Home Coltrame, in Cumberland; maybe Melrose Abbey. However his books are supposed to be buried with him.SaundersW 21:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant article is at Michael Scot, but Scott does seem to be the more common spelling. Tytler's Lives of Scottish Worthies has a chapter on Scott and can be read or downloaded through Google books. Angus McLellan(Talk) 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sir John Gardner Wilkinson had remarked upon "The Devil's Punchbowl" in Malta some years earlier in his travels in Dalmatia: "The Yesaro, or lake, is a natural sinking of the rocky mountain surface, like that in Malta called "the Devil's punch-bowl' and others in similar limestone formations, where a border of precipitous cliffs surrounds a low piece of ground, which is either cultivable soil, or covered with water." (Wilkinson, Dalmatia and Montenegro: With a Journey to Mostar in Herzegovina... 1848: ch. viii:141) I suppose your footnote reveals the local name for the Maltese "Devil's Punchbowl", a familiar Anglophone designation for cirques and other features, but unlikely in lands where punch had been unknown before the quite recent arrival of the British.. --Wetman 00:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Company owners
Don't know if this question belongs here or on the science desk but here goes... I'm tying to find the names of the owners of a company based in Shanghai, PRC doing business in the United States and going by the name of Golden Motor or Golden Island Machinery. I need this information because I suspect the company is selling products that do not pass line inspection in the PRC and instead of being held at the end of the line for repair are sold to this company which in turn dumps them on buyers in the USA. How do I find the name of the owners so I can write them a letter and ask them if this is what is going on? Clem 20:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page gives some details of a 'Golden Island Machinery Ltd', described as "a private company founded in 1996, located in Changzhou, Jiangsu province". On your last sentence, it seems a little naive to expect anything but a robust No to the question you are meaning to ask! Xn4 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What was the political impact of the Union of the Crowns? SeanScotland 20:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In practical terms the Union introduced a dangerous imbalance in the politics of the 'whole Isle', so to speak. Scotland maintained its functional independence, including its own Parliament and Privy Council, though significant powers slipped away to the south, including control over matters of defence and foreign policy, which remained prerogatives of the crown. The Privy Council was left to micro-manage national affairs in the north, which worked well enough so long as there was no extraordinary developments. But the control and co-ordination of three separate kimgdoms, including that of Ireland, was difficult enough even for the British Solomon. The succession of Charles I brought to the throne a man whose wisdom was not of a highest order, to say the very least. His attempts to dictate religious policy to the reluctant Scots induced a crisis over which his northern Privy Council simply lost control. What happened next was to show the limitations of nations united solely by a personal union; independent yet centralised under an absolute monarchy. The Union of the Crowns was, in the long run, politically unsustainable. Clio the Muse 01:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I initially read the question as "What was the political impact of the Union of the Clowns? and was looking forward to reading Clio's no doubt erudite and witty response about clowns uniting to form a workers' representative body to advocate for better pay and working conditions and how that affected the government of the day. Sadly, it wasn't until the reference to Charles I that it began to dawn on me that it was something else entirely. --Roisterer 03:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also known as the Union of the Clowns! Clio the Muse 03:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Politics
What's the difference between the viewpoints of republicans and democrats? Thanks. --24.76.248.193 21:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Screams of homework but how about checking out Republican and Democrat for starters. Then look at areas such as conservatism and liberalism, socialism - also check out their respective websites and see how they fit into ideological systems such as these. The differences range throughout history form being striking to being barely noticeable. It all depends on the public/situation of the day. ny156uk 22:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither major political party has anything to do with Socialism. Corvus cornix 16:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I live in North America so right now it's NOT HOMEWORK. You can go ahead and give me article references but I'm looking for a simple comparison. Thanks again. --24.76.248.193 01:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They slide around. On almost every issue, the two parties have swapped sides at least once over their histories. Specify historical period. Geogre 01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really terrific work on this has been done by Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal[2] with their D-NOMINATE and DW-NOMINATE programs for multidimensional scaling, which find that Congressional roll-call votes over history can be mapped quite nicely onto two dimensions, and follow the individuals of each party along through time. If you can find the original animated gif of 1879-2000 online somewhere ([3] doesn't come up any more for me) it's a real hoot to "see the two great clusters circle each other, trying to capture the center".[4] "The first dimension can be interpreted in most periods as government intervention in the economy or liberal-conservative in the modern era. The 2nd dimension picks up the conflict between North and South on Slavery before the Civil War and from the late 1930s through the mid-1970s, civil rights for African-Americans. After 1980 there is considerable evidence that the South realigns and the 2nd dimension is no longer important... Finally, the past few Congresses are nearly unidimensional with correct classifications of 90 percent or better."[5]Gzuckier 16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you haven't received a straightforward answer yet. I will give it: the Republicans are the conservatives of the United States. They generally support socially conservative measures: they are for the death penalty, and against legalized abortion or homosexual "rights" legislation. They are also economically conservative, meaning they tend to favor lower taxes and the well-being of companies over the individual, and oppose such measures as universal health care. The Democrats are liberals, meaning they favor legalized abortion and homosexual "rights", are ambivalent about the death penalty (but support it less than the Republicans), and tend to support greater government spending and favor the rights of the individual over that of the corporation. Liberals in general tend to be more pacifist (in whatever country they hail from), so Democrats are much less likely to support any armed conflict, particularly the Iraq war. The Evil Spartan 16:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One or two small historical observations here. It was a a Liberal Prime Minister who took England into the First War and yet another Liberal who led the country to victory; just as it was a Democrat who took the United States down the same road. It was a Democrat also who presided over American involvement in the Second World War, and yet another Democrat who was responsible for a huge escalation in the war in Vietnam. In general I would say that while liberals may be opposed to war as an act of policy, they are not beyond fighting if they believe the cause to be just. Clio the Muse 00:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with almost none of that. Democrats are moderate and liberal. Republicans are generally conservative, with very few moderates left. There are many Democrats in office who oppose abortion, favor capital punishment, and/or oppose further gun regulation, but there are virtually no Republicans left with any variation. Democrats tend to be the party of social responsibility, and Republicans tend to be the party of business "rights" and laissez-faire, but they are also now the party against civil rights expansions in all forms. Other than that, little meaningful may be said. Listen to particular candidates on particular issues, and never trust anyone who says "Liberals want...." Utgard Loki 19:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a common theme that social-interest is ony pursued through social welfare. Both parties exist and are founded on systems that try and produce the best society - they merely have differing ways of helping. One party may believe legal abortion is the best route to a better society, another that it is not. I couldn't disagree more regarding moderate Republicans. This desire to paint one side as reasonable and another as unreasonable is foolish. According to the wikipedia article on republicans there are 55 million registered Republicans, it would be simplistic in the extreme to suggest that they all stand as one voice. The truth is that variety across the party (and its members) is huge, this is the same for the democrats and any other party out there. We the public struggle to comprehend this as it makes it difficult to generalise/make statements but be weary of tarring all people of one party with the same brush. In the Uk you have 'one nation tories', 'thatcherites', 'classic liberals', 'modernists', 'traditionalists' and many other factions all in one party! ny156uk 22:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the line was "few moderates left" (in office). Of course there are moderate persons who call themselves Republican, and on the local level there may be some like Michael Bloomberg who are in that party (no more, of course) and yet disagree with the planks of the national platform. However, in Congress, both House and Senate, there is extremely little variation among the Republicans and almost as little unity among the Democrats. Why this is is a matter for study. Most people attribute it to Newt Gingrich's use of funding, explicit threats, and the like when he was Minority whip that then got embraced as The Way. No one thinks abortion is the way to the social good, that I've ever met. They may think that it is the legal right of a mother to make the decision and that this level of freedom is necessary, but I don't know anyone, including NARAL who have ever said that abortion is good. Geogre 02:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick response...There is variance in voting habits of republicans (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_1.htm - look at few will show this). They think that legal abortion is better for society than it being banned (and vice-versa) - both believe that their choice creates a better society either because of increased freedom of choice for women, or increased moral standards for society. Again the republican party (and its representatives in power) has a wide variety of viewpoints, just as the democrat party does. ny156uk 16:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm glad we could have this question asked. Not that it stoked any partisan feelings or venting or anything - e.g., "I do not support abortion (hint: I never said you did) and there are no Republican moderates left. Perhaps I know to no longer answer honestly any question about politics anymore. The Evil Spartan 18:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GOP?
What does GOP stand for? It's often used in newspapers and such when talking about government- or politics- related issues, but I don't what it means. āPreceding unsigned comment added by Graciepoooo (talk ā¢ contribs) 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That answer is 100% correct, but it's also worth knowing that the Grand Old Party is not the oldest party in the United States -- the Democratic Party (United States) is older. --M@rÄino 17:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the old Democratic party had ideals more similar to current Republicans than Democrats. Ā· AndonicOTalk 20:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. It is just a shorthand to say "Republican Party." It's a little silly at this point; I don't think anyone worries about what it actual means, it just makes it easier to have headlines that say "GOP RILED BY GAY SEX SCANDAL" whenever the next self-righteous, homophobic politician is found to actually be a self-loathing closeted homosexual.Ā ;-) --24.147.86.187 01:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this input. It is the bridge crossing the River Herault to which I am referring. The reason for the interest is that my son decided to jump from the top! If anyone has any ideas, or estimates of likelies I would still be interested in a response - thanks Caroline217.38.125.254 16:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since Wikipedia's image shows people standing on the bridge, it's easy to make an estimate. Look at the man(?) near the center of the bridge in a dark shirt and white pants. From his belt to the top of his head is 12 pixels. He looks fairly tall, so let's estimate that height at 2.4 feet. Now look at the far end of the bridge where the base meets the water. It's just over 200 pixels from the waterline up to the parapet. Now we have to correct for these points being at different distances from the camera. Looking at the angles at the bases of the arch, I think the rock foundation comes higher on the center pier than on the far side abutment, so I estimate that the distance of 140 pixels from the near end of the far arch up to the parapet corresponds to maybe 105 pixels at the far end. So the height from water to parapet is about 2.4 x 200/12 x 140/105 = about 53 feet. Allowing for the inaccuracies in estimating, I would say it's pretty safe to say that the answer is between 40 and 65 feet (or between 12 and 20 meters). --Anonymous, 22:12 UTC, September 5, 2007.
I'm attempting to start a Librivox project to record the Quotations of Mao Tse tung as an audiobook. However before the project can begin I need to be sure that it is in public domain. Now while I realize the book was published in 1966 as far as I know the English translation was done by a government agency of the PR of China "Foreign Language Press". Since the 1980s I'm not aware of any new printings from that body. I would think that it would be in public domain just from it being a government document and thats further strengthend by the government basically abandoning any claims for the last 30 years. In addition just about every English translation currently availible in the web makes clear that it is in the public domain. http://librivox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10188 --Jacobin1949 23:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could very well be in the public domain, but the determination of whether it's in the public domain would have very little to do with most of the factors you mentioned... AnonMoos 03:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Does it count as a government document? It is a work of Mao Tse-tung; whether it is considered a work in his capacity as general secretary (and thus a work of the government) is a question I can't ask, but that's the sort of question that would be asked if it were something like a The Quotations of George W. Bush.
2. Whether it is published in the 1980s or not makes no difference. Since China is a party to the Berne convention technically the original publication could still be copyrighted.
3. Whether the translations are public domain depends on whether the source material is public domain. If it is not, then the translations are technically not public domain, as they are derivative works.
All that being said, I have no idea what its copyright status is. Without definitive proof to the contrary I would lean towards thinking it is protected. There was an extended discussion on Wikisource awhile back about this, and they concluded it was probably not public domain, but you might take a look at it. --24.147.86.187 01:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
September 4
Royalties from book publishers
Are publishers audited to make sure that their tally of book sales are correct? 69.201.141.45 01:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, all registered companies have to be independently audited. I imagine it's the same in most civilized countries. (It might be worth mentioning that if you have employed a "vanity press" to publish your book, you are unlikely to see any royalties.)--Shantavira|feed me 08:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The case indeed involves what was previously called a "vanity press," but what is now referred to a POD (print on demand) publisher. I monitored sales as best I could using the internet. Amazon.com twice re-stocked. I saw some sites through ABEbooks.com display a quantity over 20, yet the publisher says that only 23 hardcovers and 4 paperbacks were sold. I've asked that they check the records of their printer (who I think is owned by the same company).69.201.141.45 18:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. Despite the audits, at the end of the day you will have to take the publisher at their word. If you have hard evidence, they should be able to explain any discrepancies, but you won't receive royalties until the books are sold to the end user, and even then you will probably have to wait three months or more. Books are easily damaged in transit and some are likely to be written off as damaged stock. Please note that a vanity press, which is a type of publisher, is definitely not the same thing as print on demand, which is a printing service, though it does get a bit complicated if they are owned by the same company. (You will find more information in those articles.) Having a publisher, printer, and distributor under one roof means taking quite a lot on trust.--Shantavira|feed me 09:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Thanks for the info and the links. It's a treacherous world out there.69.201.141.45 13:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Linnaeus (A Yankee Engineer Abroad)The publisher's reply: "Your Quarterly report is accurate reporting of your book sales for the second quarter. The self-publishing service that we offer is print on demand, which means that copies of your book are printed as they are ordered. Therefore, Online booksellers to not actually have copies of your book 'in stock', but will report fictitious numbers of books in order to lure in potential buyers. They may also show varying numbers of your book to show that your book appears to be 'moving' for consumers that might check back several times. However, the copies of your book are only printed as they are ordered."LShecut2nd 16:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is someone born in 1992 considered a 90's child or a Millenium child? Is someone born in 1995 still part of Generation Y? What year do you have to be born in to lose the right to call yourself a 90's child? 99? 98? 97? --124.254.77.148 07:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Generation Y, it's approximately 1978-2000 for the generation. These type of classifications are known to be imprecise; unlike the Baby boomer generation, there's nothing that really makes them any different from other generations, so it's usually whatever people make it up to be. As for the term millenium child, I am unfamiliar with it, and a google search shows it's not really a term with much use yet, and as such is probably undefined. The Evil Spartan 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] I would think that anyone born before 11:59:59 on December 31, 1999, could be called a 90's child. As for Generation Y, there is no commonly accepted end point for the birth years of this generation. Most sources seem to agree that members of Generation Y were born before 2000, while some put its end point several years earlier. So, it is not a clearly defined category. These categories, incidentally, are created and used mainly by marketers to refer to trends in consumption among different generational cohorts. Trends in consumption are often not clear for a generation until it has entered the wage-earning labor force around age 20, so the definition of Generation Y may be clearer 10 or 15 years from now, if marketers still find the concept useful. Incidentally, marketers define these cohorts in broad brush strokes that clearly are not accurate for all members of that cohort. The meaningfulness of these categories outside of the world of marketing is limited. Marco polo 16:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Also, anyone born before 11:59:59 on December 31, 2000, could be called a 20th century child.) We get similar questions about TV shows that started late in one decade but ran mainly in the following decade. Take a show that was first broadcast in 1979 and ran till 1988. "An 80s show" or "a 70s show" may both be accurate labels, but truthful statements do not necessarily give the whole truth. Labels have their place, but they also have their limitations. Many things really require multiple labels, but that's generally too hard for pop culture, so one has to suffice. -- JackofOz 00:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Doesn't having effectively ALL Tolkiens legendarium (stopping short of copying the books directly into the wiki), that is every single fact extracted from it, actually represent a real breach of a variety of intellectual property or copyright rules etc.
3. Further to 2, isn't it morally off, to build a entire section of wikipedia, around one persons, life work - what I see there is effectively a rip-off of tolkien's work. What do you think?87.102.21.232 07:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. In general I would welcome any feedback on what is and is not derivative. Also any help with getting the entire middle earth project properly cited would be good - in general (at risk of repeating myself) It seems that all articles except those which have been labeled 'A Class' lack or are lacking citations.87.102.21.232 09:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my. "Isn't it true that you are a dirty rat and that your mother did not like you and that your first girlfriend accused you of body odor" sort of non-question question, isn't it? First, no. A good many are not "ridiculous cruft." A good many are. Trying to measure the whole of something that evolved over time by a single pronouncement is unwise and unproductive. Second, absolutely not. There is no "breach" whatsoever, and that's a pretty weak argument, to tell the truth, because it would mean that, for example, every Cliff Notes or Spark Notes ever made was a horrible crime. Further, it's contradicted by your first question. If it's cruft, then it won't replace the reading experience but rather merely reiterate it, and if it replaces the reading experience, it's not cruft. Third, no. We would have an article on every Shakespeare play, because each has an independent effect on the wider culture, and we would have an article on all the major protagonists for the same reason. The same argument cannot be made for all the items of "Middle Earth," and so I have always thought that many/most of the Tolkeinia needed merging, at best, but there is nothing immoral. As for your fourth point, that's a particular argument. Fifth is your answer to your own non-question question. Sixth, there is a Middle Earth project that is trying to merge, redirect, cite, and manage the proliferation. If they are not working hard enough or severely enough, take your concerns to WP:AN, not here. Geogre 10:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the fuck was that all aboutĀ ?87.102.21.232 11:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC) What did I do?87.102.21.232 11:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Why did you answer to say 'fuck off' to me in a long winded way?87.102.21.232 11:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But the essence of "fuck off!" is that it is short-winded, irrational and discourteous. Geogre's answers to your questions, on the other hand, are clearly no more 'long-winded' than the questions and strike me as rational and polite, if also forthright. Abusiveness on this page should be reverted. Xn4 11:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the first sentence doesn't look 'rational or polite' to me. I must have done something..god knows what..87.102.21.232 12:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my intention to belittle the project - I've reasked below in a different way with some additions to try to make it clearer what I was saying and avoid flames!.87.102.21.232 11:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't a flame. It looks to me like it was an explanation of the question that isn't a question. I would say that with a link, myself: Fallacy of many questions or Begging the question. In other words, he was saying that your questions weren't questions, that they were accusations, just like the hypothetical, "Isn't it true that you stink" questions one hears on the playground are. I.e. you were not asking a question that sought an answer, because you supplied the answer yourself. <shrug> It's not a flame as much as it is an objection to what looks like a prejudiced discussion. You believe that the project is all cruft and immoral, and you crafted questions designed to allow that answer. There are other venues for complaint. Utgard Loki 13:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, it should be noted that the repeated association above of 'lots of Tolkien related articles' with Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth is incorrect. I started that Wikiproject with an eye towards having a group to clean up and organize the large number of Tolkien pages which already existed (pretty much since the start of Wikipedia). Obviously a work in progress, but I think we can all agree that pages like List of Middle-earth weapons are superior to a couple dozen short unreferenced articles on the same information.
Second, the claim that "every single fact" from Tolkien's work has been reproduced is clearly false hyperbole. Many of the things named in the texts are described, but various details about them and the vast majority of the story are not. There are literally millions of details not here incorporated. Nor is the story retold in more than summary form... and therein lies the flaw in your claims of 'derivative works'. Because Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, is not creating another work of fiction incorporating elements from or copying the original. We have commentary and analysis about the original. Which is true of every article on every fictional topic in every encyclopedia. This is no more 'immoral' or a 'copyright violation' than The Complete Guide to Middle-earth or The Encyclopedia of Arda... or Britannica for that matter. It's what Wikipedia exists to do. The extent of the Tolkien related coverage is greater than some topics in Wikipedia, but less than others. You'll find the same proliferation of articles around Harry Potter, Star Wars, Star Trek, Pokemon, and dozens of other popular topics. As stated on the 'five pillars' page, Wikipedia incorporates the kind of information generally found only in specialized encyclopedias. Thus, whereas Britannica might have an article on Bats we've got hundreds of them... and hundreds more yet to be written. More referencing and organization is certainly needed, on this and every other topic, but less so now than a year ago and hopefully continuing in that trend. --CBD 12:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to say I couldn't find any facts that weren't in this encyclopaedia! You can take that as a compliment if you want. And some facts I found here that I couldn't find elsewhere! For instance I didn't know that Elendil was 241 cm tall! Good luck with referencing all this.87.102.21.232 13:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accurate, but overly precise. My recollection is that Tolkien stated that Elendil was about two and a half rangar tall... it's in the Unfinished Tales section on Numenorean lengths and measures. There the 'rangar' is also defined as being about 3'2"... so 2.5 rangar would be roughly 7'11". Converting that to the equivalent 241 centimeters for the imperial-measurement challenged is undoubtedly kindly meant, but gives a degree of precision lacking in the original. As to the info itself, surely how tall someone was is a relevant bit of information... particularly in reference to the character said to be the tallest human ever. --CBD 13:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok found it (p369-70 do these vary?) "more than man high by nearly half a ranga", man high =6'4" 6'4"+1'7" ok.. I accept that for an article about elendil his height is relevant - but worry about the additional "original research" (note the quotations - using the term approximately) - because the approximate original description does not really convert to a hard and fast figure even in imperial measurements..It's this sort of thing that bothers me in the newer articles (many of which have been created without any references) - it's not that easy to find this stuff. I just looked at a few of the unnacessed articles and found them needing numerous {{fact}} tags. Also "two ranga was taken to be man high" = 6'4" but (from the same page) this was a comment from a later time when men where shorter - so maybe he was taller? Anyway it was just an illustrative example of actually referencing facts and figures that have been infered from the text..I believe a similar problem exists for sizes of armies in some examples...87.102.88.218 14:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that better references and specificity are needed... though I note that this "newer" article was created in 2002 and the height has been in there for over two years. It isn't at all 'original research' though, just inexact wording. Add the reference and the word 'approximately' and the problem goes away. Try it.Ā :]
On the army sizes, I agree that some of them do drift into original research. One article in particular I've had on my 'to do' list for a while as I think it goes too far in drawing disparate facts together into conclusions not stated elsewhere. That's an issue with all topics, but not, I think, particularly prevalent on Tolkien related articles. You thought Elendil's height an invention... but it actually is in the text. I think you'll find similarly that most of this info can be supported. There is just a tremendous amount of work yet to do in citing it all. --CBD 14:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK done, while I've got your ear do you know were the second height quote comes from by any chance the "another note as 7 feet"? āPreceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.88.218 (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can be found in 'The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion' by Hammond and Scull, The Council of Elrond - reference to page 242 (page 229 of the Companion itself). "...Elendil and his son Isildur, both of whom had been seven feet tall..." --CBD 22:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, 90% of Wikipedia is ridiculous fan cruft. Gzuckier 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say not. I think most of Wikipedia is actually articles about people. There are approaching 400,000 biographical articles on Wikipedia. That number includes articles about music groups, but still, the sheer number of historical and contemporary people makes it logical that it is people (like you and me, just a bit more famous) that make up an exceedingly large proportion of Wikipedia articles. Other large chunks will be taken up by articles about places (from roads to small towns, to schools). I'd guess that fictional topics (books, TV programs, films) only take up about 10% of Wikipedia. That's a guess though. It should be possible to get an estimate for the number book/TV/film articles. My conclusions? Wikipedia is peoplecruft! I mean, what is more logical than for the monkeys to type about themselves?Ā :-) Carcharoth 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "fancruft" is just fan cruft, not necessarily fictional fancruft. If the purpose is to say, as Chris Farley's character used to, "Hey, uh, 'member when he said, uh, Hosta la vista, baby? That was so cool," then it's fancruft. If it's there to be the ultimate collector and fan's revivium, then it's cruft. If it's there because, "Burke's Reflections refers to the History of the Great Rebellion, so we need to help people reading that widely read and important work know who Clarendon was and what this book was," then it's not cruft. A good many of the people articles are fancruft, too, in other words. "Stark Mark is the singer for the neo-goth-dark-numetal industrial dance Viking folk band DĆ¼fus" is just more fancruft. Utgard Loki 17:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
how many romanian born nationality peoples lived in american old west? āPreceding unsigned comment added by 89.137.119.189 (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How would you expect anyone to know (even if "american old west" was a specific unambiguous term, which it isnt)? --Dweller 12:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question is imprecise, but the answer must surely be "not many". I'll use 1850 as a prototypical "Old West" year. According to the United States Census, 1850 only 27,019 of 2,244,602 foreigners (1.2%) lived in the West of the US. That same year, there weren't enough Romanians in *all* of the US to bother counting, and 50 years later there were still only 15,032. If we generously assume that there were as many Romanians as Russians in the US in 1850 (1,414), and that they like most Europeans stayed away from the West, we arrive at around 17 Romanian cowboys. You can't reliably do this kind of back-of-the-envelope calculation on numbers this low, so again: "not many". --Sean 15:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As best I can tell from Historical Statistics of the United States, published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census in 1976, the United States did not distinguish Romanian-born residents from residents born in other smaller eastern European countries before 1900. Also, as of 1900, some foreign-born residents of Romanian nationality would have been listed by country of birth as Hungarian, since Transylvania was then a part of Hungary. According to this source, as of 1900, there were 15,032 U.S. residents born in Romania (not including Transylvania). Incidentally, the foreign-born population from other parts of southern and eastern Europe jumped sharply between 1890 and 1900. (For example, the Greek-born population in 1890 was less than one fourth of the Greek-born population in 1900.) If we (reasonably) assume a similar jump in the Romanian-born population during that decade, then there might have been 4,000 Romanian-born people in the United States in 1890, even including Transylvanians. Since the 1890 Census announced the closing of the American frontier, 1890 might be seen as an end date for the vague concept "American Old West", since the "old west" might connote the existence of a frontier. If 1890 was an end point for the "Old West", it would have marked the high point of the Romanian-born population, since immigration from southern and eastern Europe was accelerating rapidly in 1890. So, how many of the possible 4,000 native Romanians in the United States in 1890 would have lived in the "West"? This would of course depend on how you define the West. Certainly the "old West" would have included the Great Plains, and possibly Texas, but the region defined by the Census as the West excludes Texas and the Great Plains states. If we use the Census definition, then there were about 673,000 foreign-born whites in the West in 1890. This was about 7.4% of the total foreign-born population in the United States at that time. Applying this percentage to a supposed total of 4,000 native Romanians in the United States (assuming that Romanians were distributed regionally in the same proportion as other foreign-born whites), there would be about 300 native Romanians in the Census West as of 1890. If we included the Great Plains states and Texas (and assumed that their share of the foreign-born population in their regions was similar to their share of the total population), then this number could double to 600. However, it is unlikely that the native Romanian population was distributed regionally in the same proportion as foreign-born whites, because migrants from southern and eastern Europe had a strong urban bias in the late 19th century, and the West (particularly the "Old West") had few large cities other than San Francisco. So, most likely the number of native Romanians in the West (however you define it) in 1890 was below 300. At earlier points in the history of the West, the number would have been lower still. Since the U.S. government did not collect numbers of native Romanians before 1900, however, it is impossible to find an exact number for the "Old West", however you define it. Marco polo 16:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
literature - notability - serious question (re ask)
Taking Macbeth#Characters as a guide it looks like the project middle earth has gone way too far (since there are no articles for minor characters, the 'walking wood') etc. (By the way I found this http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Earth which personally I think represents an approximate example of articles that would be notable..)
The current contractions of articles to lists doesn't seem right either.
What I was trying to ask was "should the project be this extensive?, or not?"
as well as "doesn't the extraction of every last iota of information from the text become dubious in various ways.."
Is this right or wrong, and IF right where is the right place to suggest it...87.102.21.232 11:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not really the right place to ask this question. The WikiProject itself is a good start, followed by other venues. The question of whether to move content to other wikis, for this and other fictional WikiProjects, is as old as Wikipedia, and not likely to be resolved any time soon. I'll say more back at the WikiProject talk page. Carcharoth 12:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not right to try to make an announcement on something that contains so many individual articles. Arguing from the general is a sure way to make a mistake. Let's suppose, though, that we were only looking for qualities that this particular fiction had that made it like or similar to others. We could compare it to Star Wars or Star Trek, if we were so inclined (although the former was influenced by it significantly), where similar variety has been presented in the articles. Ok, massive consolidation occurred in those areas, but deletion did not, and there were no questions of morality (despite MemoryAlpha and a dozen Star Wars projects existing). Or we can compare these works to Shakespeare. For qualitative purposes, I'd say that the Tolkein stuff has already exercised a much, much longer influence than TV-show-related stuff or most science fiction novel stuff. It has shown a deeper and longer influence than Foundation, and its world (adapted, as it is, from already archetypically approved tales told by the Germanic tribes) has inspired repopulation more than any other framework of tale since the Greek myths. Any particular is debatable or junk, but the whole looks like it ranks above America's Next Top Pop Tart Model contestants and Big Brother 25 Dutch edition participants. If overly granulated coverage is your top concern, we have much to choose from. Utgard Loki 14:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the depth of coverage that bothers me - and wondered if in the future such articles would be deleted as non-notable - Tolkien certainly has affect more than one generation of readers - so I'd expect some coverage, but this much? take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Tolkien_literature_stubs_etc for some links especially "Category:Unassessed_Tolkien_articles" - I've asked there for unbiased input..87.102.88.218 14:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question. If you don't like them, why do you read them? Why not just ignore them? Corvus cornix 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
theft - that's why - sorry I haven't got a real answer to that - I'd be able to like them if they cited their sources, as it stands they make me unhappy - ok?87.102.81.184 17:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the older articles employed sources but did not "cite" them. Some of these were, in fact, far more expert than the "cited" articles coming along now. (An article built from book study usually impresses me more than one with a dozen footnotes to websites.) Wanting citation is laudable, but I'll bet what results is nothing like the original works being cited, but rather just corroboration. Utgard Loki 19:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope that people realise that the original text is the only real choice for citation, unfortunately there do seem to be a few examples of mirrors of wikipedia (same content) being used as a reference..
Apart from the multitude of articles lacking references the primary problem here is lack of secondary sources, excluding fan-created tolkien wikis/encyclopedias etc. So in other words, yes, though I'd say that 'harry potter' has caught the disease known as tolkienitis.87.102.5.137 12:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Man's a Man for A' That
I'd like to find a list of recorded versions of the song A Man's a Man for A' That by Robert Burns. I've heard a version of it before and it's bugging me because I can't remember who the artist was. Wikipedia's article doesn't have a list of versions; anyone know where I might find one? (Or can you name any of the most famous recorded versions?) Thank you in advance. --60.241.217.147 12:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a guess, but I'd be surprised if Harry Lauder didn't record it. -- JackofOz 13:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one. A 3-CD collection called Scotland Sings! 60 Scottish Favourites has A Man's a Man for A' That on CD2 wi' Jamie Nicol & the Scots Fiddle Orchestra. Xn4 17:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used to know part of the answer to this, but it's all astonishingly complicated, like everything to do with Reilly. The books to get hold of are Ace of Spies: the incredible story of Sidney Reilly (later called Reilly, Ace of Spies, to match the name of the TV serial based on it) by Robin Bruce Lockhart (1967) and the same writer's later Reilly: the First Man (1987); The Adventures of Sidney Reilly: Britain's Master Spy: a Narrative Written by Himself, Edited and Completed by His Wife (1931); Gordon Brook-Shepherd's Iron Maze: the Western Intelligence Services and the Bolsheviks (1998); Memoirs of a British Agent by R. H. Bruce Lockhart and his later The Diaries of Sir Robert Bruce Lockhart (ed. K. Young, 2 vols. St Martin's Press, London, 1973 & 1980); Andrew Cook's Ace of Spies: The True Story of Sidney Reilly (2004). Some of these contradict each other - you have to work out why their versions are different. Xn4 18:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's also called the Lockhart Plot. Essentially, it was a planned counter-revolutionary coup against Lenin. In some versions, Reilly intended to become the new head of government himself. I've looked at that section of the Sidney Reilly article, and it seems to me to give a good start to the thing for Ghirlandajo, although it lacks references. Xn4 18:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In his campaign in Ireland Cromwell behave much more savagly than he did elswhere in the British Isles. His conduct was said to be based, amongst other things, on derogatory attitudes that had developed since early contacts between the two nations. What is the background here?Irishbard 16:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Negative English attitudes date as far back as the reign of Henry II. You might begin, Irishbard, by looking at some of the things written by the chronicler Gerald of Wales, who visited the island in the company of Prince John. As a result of this he wrote Topographia Hibernia (Topography of Ireland) and Expugnatio Hibernia (Conquest of Ireland), both of which remaind in circulation for centuries afterwards. Ireland, in his view, was rich; but the Irish were backwards and lazy;
They use their fields mostly for pasture. Little is cultivated and even less is sown. The problem here is not the quality of the soil but rather the lack of industry on the part of those who should cultivate it. This laziness means that the different types of minerals with which hidden veins of the earth are full are neither mined nor exploited in any way. They do not devote themselves to the manufacture of flax or wool, nor to the practice of any mechanical or mercantile act. Dedicated only to liesure and laziness, this is a truly barbarous people. They depend on their livelihhod for animals and they live like animals.
When it comes to Irish marital and sexual customs Gerald is even more biting, "This is a filthy people, wallowing in vice. They indulge in incest, for example in marrying-or rather debauching-the wives of their dead brothers." Even earlier than this Archbishop Anselm accused the Irish of 'wife swapping', "...exchanging their wives as freely as other men exchange their horses." You will find these views echoed centuries later in the words of Sir Henry Sidney, twice Lord Deputy during the reign of Elizabeth I, and in those of Edmund Tremayne, his secretary. In Tremayne's view the Irish "commit whoredom, hold no wedlock, ravish, steal and commit all abomination without scruple of conscience." In A View of the Present State of Ireland, published in 1596, Edmund Spencer wrote "They are all papists by profession but in the same so blindingly and brutishly informed that you would rather think them atheists or infidels."
This vision of the barbarous Irish, largely born out of a form of imperialist condescension, made its way into Laudabiliter, one of the most infamous documents in all of Irish History, by which Adrian IV, the only English Pope, granted Ireland to Henry II, "...to the end that the foul customs of that country may be abolished and the barbarous nation, Christian in name only, may through your care assume the beauty of good morals."
All and every method was to be used in this 'civilizing mission' over time. In 1305 when Piers Bermingham cut off the heads of thirty members of the O'Connor clan and sent them to Dublin he was awarded with a financial bonus. His action was also celebrated in verse. In 1317 one Irish chronicler was of the view that it was just as easy for an Englishman to kill an Irishman as he would a dog. Later when the English control of Ireland shrunk back for a time to The Pale around Dublin, all beyond was considered as given over to savagery, hence the expression 'Beyond the Pale'.
What we see here is the same thing that appears time and again, throughout the whole world, and over all time: it begins when an entire community is condemned as barbarous; it ends with the justification of all and every method in the creation of 'civilization', no matter how barbarous. It is against this background that you must place the Cromwellian Conquest and all that followed, in both Hell and in Connaught. Clio the Muse 02:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, girl-why are you not Irish? Irishbard 16:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've seen it. For example in the GPL3.0, point 15, Disclaimer of Warranty, there's the usual "...PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY
OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO..." yadda yadda.
Just curious, is there a legal requirement that disclaimers have to be in all caps? Or is it just common practice of people trying to cover their behinds as thoroughly as possible, as in "SEE, I'M DUMBING THIS PART DOWN AS FAR AS I CAN FOR YOU SUCKERS: DON'T SUE ME."? 84.129.163.13 16:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia's own disclaimer prevents me from giving legal advice, but I've never come across any state or nation where all-caps would be treated any differently under the law. Personally, I think they hope to give the impression of "THIS IS SERIOUS. WE KNOW WE WROTE IT SO YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT, BUT IT'S SERIOUS." --M@rÄino 18:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My suspicion is that "IT IS REALLY HARD TO READ LONG SENTENCES THAT ARE ALL IN CAPITALS THAT IS WHY WE DO IT SO YOU WILL GIVE UP TRYING TO READ IT BEFORE YOU REALISE THAT THE WARRANTY IS USELESS AND GIVES YOU NO EFFECTIVE RIGHTS WHATSOEVER". But I may be wrong. DuncanHill 18:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just started to research this important topic and would be grateful for some pointers. Fred said right 16:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this information on Soviet snipers might help: [6]. It says so in the fourth box (kills, country, name, fourth unnamed box) when they are female. I suspect you could google a few of them, see what comes up (or their regiments). Ā· AndonicOTalk 20:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you are not talking about military participants, Googling "Soviet Women World War II" comes up with a number of articles, references, etc. The basic story is that life was pretty darn hard for the Soviets during WWII, and as one might expect women felt a lot of that hardness directly. Wikipedia even has an article titled Soviet women in the Great Patriotic War (which is the Russian name for WWII), but it again is mostly focused on military participation. --24.147.86.187 02:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should also consider the role of women on the domestic front. Already in 1940 they made up 41% of the Soviet labour force, a proportion that increased in the years that followed: they worked in munitions factories; enrolled as air-raid wardens; dug anti-tank ditches. There was even a 'Special Woman's Brigade' delegated to paint newly assembled artillery pieces as they were being transported on flat railway cars to the front. Some 800,000 women saw service on the battle fronts, not just as soldiers, partisans and pilots, but as cooks, laundresses, sappers, nurses and doctors. On the land Russian women kept Soviet agriculture alive, often harnessing themselves in teams to plow the land in the absence of machinery. The tractors that remained, starved of spare parts, were kept going by female mechanics, using every ingenious method at their disposal. The female pilots who flew over the German defences in the dark, so effective in unsettling the enemy that they were called 'Night Witches', had their planes armed and maintained by female ground crews. These women were able to rearm planes within minutes of landing, sometimes loading 400-kilo bombs by hand. Joseph Goebbels preached total war to German women; it was Russian women who learned to practice it. Clio the Muse 02:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure feminist studies have a lot to report about women in the Soviet Union, but I like this poster from before World War II. "8th of March is the day of the rebellion of the working women against the kitchen slavery. Say NO to the oppression and Babbittry of the household work!" ---Sluzzelintalk 13:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Babbitry, from Babbit a conventional middle-class, esteeming success, and having no use for the arts or the intellect. DuncanHill 00:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Sinclair Lewis' novel of the same name, of course. Though why the term should have made its way into Soviet propaganda in just that particular form is not a little perplexing. I simply love the 'Babbittry' of housework! Clio the Muse 00:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clio! I'm shocked! Wrong Sinclair (though there is a connexion). As to the Soviet's using the word, a possible clue in our article on the novel "In characterizing Babbitt's work, Lewis suggests a critique of capitalism. In the novel's opening chapter, we are told that Babbitt "made nothing in particular, neither butter nor shoes nor poetry, but he was nimble in the calling of selling houses for more than people could afford to pay." Likewise, when Babbitt reflects on his career while home sick in bed, he exclaims to himself that his work is "Mechanical business ā a brisk selling of badly built houses.""DuncanHill 00:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes; too quick she types! Embarrassing error now corrected. Thanks, Duncan. Clio the Muse 01:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean Human Development Index, then it is calculated for states, not provinces, so Northern Ireland would be included in the figure for the United Kingdom. DuncanHill 17:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i know that it is calculated for states but England, Scotland and Wales all have their own different ones so that brings me back to my orngional questin --Plague of Death 18:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our articles for those countries do not appear to give sources for the quoted HDIs, but I notice that the .939 figure given for both Scotland and Wales is stated to be from 2003, and the .940 quoted for England is for 2006, and is the same as the 2006 figure for the UK as a whole. DuncanHill 18:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When Were the Nuremberg Trials Televised?```Momynym
I cannot find information on when the Nuremberg trials were televised. From when to when? I remember the end of it being televised when I was a child in the 1950's--but what, exactly was televised? It seems the all of the trials were actually concluded by 1949. I am not talking about any movie. Thank you for any information you are able to provide.````Momynym āPreceding unsigned comment added by Momynym (talk ā¢ contribs) 19:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Televised? In which country? And broadcast live, or broadcast from a recording? I suspect that any television broadcast of the Nuremberg Trials in the 1950s would be based on a newsreel or similar film-based recording. -- !!?? 19:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly is some original film of the Nuremberg Trials. As you aren't thinking of any movie, it can't help that there are things about like Stanley Kramer's Judgment at Nuremberg. Presumably some of the original film material did find its way onto some television networks at the time? If you can fathom this, you may wish to add something to the Nuremberg Trials article, with a reference to your source. Xn4 20:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems probable that in 1949 more people in the U.S. stilll got their visual news from newsreels in movie theaters than from TV's at home. (That was the era when TV's sometimes had a permanently installed magnifying lens in front of a tiny screen!) Certainly there was no way to transmit video images across the Atlantic in real time until more than ten years later. AnonMoos 03:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the trials in the U.S. Could the original footage have been rebroadcast in the 1950's as series--sort of pre-PBS? This would have been no later than 1956 or 1957, I think.````Momynym āPreceding unsigned comment added by Momynym (talk ā¢ contribs) 19:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Religious Studies vs Religious Education
I'm from the UK. Some people say Religious Education and some say Religious Studies. Are they different or the same thing? I think Religious Education may be for religious institutions (like a Roman Catholic school) but I'm not sure. --Staceytalk 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from the US, and it may be different here, but in US terms, "religious education" would be indoctrination or training in the beliefs of a particular religion. "Religious studies" refers to the academic study of religion, typically from a basically anthropological perspective. A person in a "religious education" class would typically be an adherent of the religion studying to attain a greater understanding of their religion or to attain a status within that religion through a process such as confirmation or ordination. A person in a "religious studies" course would typically be a university student, not necessarily an adherent of any religion, seeking to understand a religion or to compare different religions from a critical, external viewpoint. Marco polo 20:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh over here you can do "religious studies" from ages 11+ (maybe earlier but I can't say I've spoken to many under 11s about it personally, although I did "religious education" since...forever) as my friend did it at her school, and another did it for A Levels. --Staceytalk 21:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In England and Wales (probably Scotland and Northern Ireland too, tho' they have separate educational systems), all children in state schools must take Religious Education/Religious Instruction/Religious Studies unless their parents specifically ask for them not to. Also, all state schools must have a daily act of collective worship which must be mainly christian in nature. Freedom of Religion is all very well, but on no account should children be exposed to it! DuncanHill 08:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a theoretical distinction, which I doubt always holds in practice. There are also a plethora of other names like "faith studies" etc. Johnbod 21:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your objection to that, Lambiam. You're far more steeped in our culture than most people, and Divinity is the hallowed English (and Scottish) name for Theology. There is a Divinity School at Oxford, a School of Divinity at Edinburgh, a Gresham Professor of Divinity at Gresham College, and so forth. We have had Doctors of Divinity and Bachelors of Divinity since the middle ages. I remember having classes in Divinity at school. I admit I find it a more authentic term than the more modern ones... please forgive me if I'm missing something? Xn4 01:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hallowed be that name. You either find it funny or not, but to me, notwithstanding its venerable tradition, the combination "studying Divinity" has a ring of New-Ageness. Ā --Lambiam 07:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay to laugh at studying Divinity, which indeed is a mix of old and new. We'll also let you laugh when we say divvers. Xn4 16:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And certain Anglican prelates are referred to as divines. -- JackofOz 03:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Stacey. I'm not sure about the UK, but in the United States, a religious studies major would study religion, while a religious education major would notionally be preparing to teach in a religious primary or secondary school. Of course, many of the religious education programs are junk and lack accreditation. See, for example, "Dr." Kent Hovind's alma mater, Patriot Bible University. ObiterDicta ( pleadings ā¢ errata ā¢ appeals ) 05:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference, at least in the UK. Religious Studies is learning about religions, but not attempting to convince you of their rightness. At my secondary school, for example, we studied Sikhism, Buddism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity (and it's various components) and a little bit on a few others. When we came to the GCSE, the teacher picked modules on Christianity because they thought we'd find them easiest, since we knew more bits and pieces about it than other religions. Religious Education is more concerned with teaching you about your religion, or the religion you are assumed to have. Hence it has more of an 'insider' aspect. Religious Instruction is the same, but more so. RI is an older term, rarely used nowadays (at least in state schools). This is further confused by people sometimes saying RE when they mean RS. Skittle 13:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perception of Sociology
I was wondering if anyone knew what sort of perception Universities/businesses(?) had of Sociology. I'm taking a degree in it shortly (not that it'll affect my enjoyment of the subject or my studies, I'm just curious). I've heard from various places that it's considered an "easy" A Level (and degree) or a "Mickey Mouse" subject along with some others. --Staceytalk 19:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Social science is such a broad subject, I suspect that universities would find an A-level in Sociology an excellent preparatory subject for degrees in things like social-science, international studies, politics, economics, etc. I don't think businesses consider it an 'easy' subejct. Much is made of reducing certain degrees to easy compared to others being hard. The degree you study is valued dependent on the job you wish to pursue. A degree in a highly specialised subject such as medicine will suit you brilliantly for medical-based careers but its appeal for, say, a marketing role would be less-so - particularly compared to someone with a marketing degree. Obviously this is a generalisation and some will value the 'tougher' (so called) degrees over the more relevant one because they think it shows more potential/capacity to learn. To that end this article by Boris Johnson is of interest and (as always) an enjoyable read (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/23/do2301.xml). ny156uk 22:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that was interestingĀ :) --Staceytalk 00:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stacey, my boyfriend has a degree in sociology. He is now a stockbroker; so anything, and everything, is possible! Get the most out of your studies. All else will follow. Clio the Muse 22:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know! It's also nice to know that there are male who take Sociology (unfortunately, I believe there was about 5 in my college and over 100 girls)! --Staceytalk 00:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard of its being a crip class ("cripple class") or no account degree, but it's poorly defined in most minds. It's either viewed as so like Anthropology as to be almost the same or so close to Psychology as to be almost the same or so close to Economics as to be a poor version. I.e. its methods and foci are such that people can't quite be sure what's in it and what's outside of it. Most of the schools I attended saw Psychology and Criminology as the "easy A" degrees (among the classic University, that is; Education, Journalism, and Communications suffer a poor reputation as well). Sociology just seems to be difficult for anyone to get a bead on. Geogre 02:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not regarding the subject itself, but in the early 1970s when I was an undergraduate at UCLA and a student advisor for its College of Letters and Science, of the 45 classes required for graduation (180 units min. at 4 units/class), the Sociology major had the fewest required classes, at 15; at the high end of the scale were Astrophysics and Music (31 and 30 respectively). With freedom of choice a premium value of the zeitgeist, Soc. was accordingly popular - not the least as a suitable pre-law major (law studies being post-B.A.). Incidentally, at that time Psychology was changed from a Social Science to a Life Science (with the addition of Statistics courses), and edged out English Literature as most popular undergrad major. -- Deborahjay 06:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That, by the way, is why Psych. was the "easy major" at the U's I attended. It required the fewest hours in the major concentration, and so it became the catch-all for pre-meds who met their match in Organic Chemistry, pre-laws who managed to get dissuaded, and the various others. This was in addition to a reputation as being wishy-washy in its classes. One would suppose that the professional organizations of Sociology would work in concert to up the course loads, where I'm not sure that the APA would or has. Utgard Loki 15:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duke Of Wellington - what did he forbid his men to take into battle?
Ā§This is a pub quiz question which is driving us mad!!! I have found out that it may have come from a Mastermind programme in 1976 when a specialist subject was the Duke of Wellington. we have tried rifles, muskets, their wives, love letters, the Bible all to no avail. Help someone!!!!!! āPreceding unsigned comment added by Misty26 (talk ā¢ contribs) 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an answer to this question see humanities section" Duke of Wellington" Sept 10,2007
Need Information? Ask A Librarian!
Note that the suggested answer at that time was "rifles", which the questioner says is incorrect. --Dweller 10:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speculating... perhaps he took inspiration from Gideon and forbade fear? --Dweller 11:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beef which was not enclosed in a pastry shell. Gzuckier 14:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obligation vs. Responsibility vs. Duty
What is the difference among obligation, responsibility, and duty? āPreceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.176.4 (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the single best-known and greatest(General supremacy ,actually most people can communicate with ,a perfect style ,powerful intelligence and creativity in whole layers and excellent technical characteristics, and no matter what it's genre is anyway its expressive and impressive.)episodes of radio dramas of all time?(for example I know Orson Welles-directed adaptation of The War of the Worlds.Flakture 06:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, War of the Worlds(radio) by Orson Wells 1938, although if you count non-fiction World War II wins hands down. I heard some of the Edward R. Murrow reels [CBS Broadcasting], very intense--with war background sounds. I assume the speeches by Goebbel's were pretty intense on the VolksempfƤnger --i am the kwisatz haderach 20:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
World War II weapon "superiority"
In the RefDesk's opinion, which nations in WWII (Soviets, Germany, Britain, US, maybe Japanese) not sure had the "best" (subjective, I know) of each type of firearm:
I have seen some reports of Allied soldiers picking up the MP38 as it was superior to their own submachine guns. The SG44 was also a vast technological improvement, as the first real "assault rifle". I've browsed our "list of weapons of X in World War II" articles to try to answer this question, but wikilink at will! -WootyĀ [Woot?]Ā [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 09:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot answer the question, but I can muddy the waters with two notes of caution:
1. Military technology advanced rapidly from 1939-1945, so the answers change as the war progresses.
2. Sometimes the "best" weapon is the one that you can manufacture by the truckload and teach a 17 year-old how to use in a day -- even if that weapon has technical flaws. --M@rÄino 15:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, essentially I'm looking for weapons that were the most unique and technologically advanced for their time, not necessarily the most effective in a general sense. This is for a game mod that will have some "unique units" beyond simple general rifles and machine guns and such for each side. -WootyĀ [Woot?]Ā [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 23:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's unique you're after, I am unable to resist mentioning the Great Panjandrum, which may have been militarily impracticable, but looks like enormously good fun. DuncanHill 23:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you defining as "technologically advanced"? Again ā beware your own normative prejudices, without analyzing them, at least! Interchangable parts is a form of technological advance, even though it looks more "simple" than a laser; the philosophy about what an "advanced" weapon is varied greatly between the USA and the USSR, for example (the former, in comparison with the latter, valued precision and power over cost and repairability, for example). --24.147.86.187 13:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmph, I knew I'd get that! Suppose you're an average Axis or Allied soldier in the field and you had a choice of what weapon to use of each category, assuming that your commanders had a infinite supply of every weapon available in the entire span of the war (even if it had not been invented yet)? -WootyĀ [Woot?]Ā [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the dissolution of the east india company what were the other outcomes of the Indian mutiny? 86.132.5.31 09:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This rebellion brought about the end of both the East India Company's rule in India and the Timurid dynasty replacing it [them, surely? - ed.] with direct rule by the British government (British Raj) of much of the Indian subcontinent for the next 90 years, although some states retained nominal independence under their respective Rajas, or kings.
ā
More particularly the Reorganisation subsection in the Aftermath section, mentions the creation of an India Office with a Secretary of State for India, and of the title of Viceroy of India, a program of reform to try to integrate the Indian higher castes and rulers into the government, bringing Indians in the administration (Satyendra Prasanno Sinha is a later outstanding example) and preventing the worst excesses of the earlier administrations, and reform of the army in India. -- !!?? 13:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The very first thing to happen after the deposition of Bahadur Shah, marking the final end of the Mughal Empire, was that Victoria was declared to be Queen of India in August 1858. In January 1877 the titles was altered to that of Empress of India. Essentially the old East India Company bureaucracy remained, though there was a major shift in attitudes. In looking for the causes of the Mutiny the authorities alighted on two things: religion and the economy. On religion it was felt that there had been too much interference with indigenous traditions, both Hindu and Muslim. On the economy it was now believed that the previous attempts by the Company to introduce free market competition had undermined traditionl power structures and bonds of loyalty, placing the peasantry at the mercy of merchants and money-lenders. In consequence the new British Raj was constructed in part around a conservative agenda, based on a preservation of tradition and hierarchy.
The problem with this was that the whole Indian Army was also reconstraucted, giving it a much more European face. This had the effect of drawing in families and other civilians. Transport links thus had to be improved, as did communications in general, with a modern and European world arising alongside 'India in aspic', so to speak, making the contradictions and the tensions that much greater.
On a political level it was also felt that the previous lack of consultation between rulers and ruled had been yet another significant factor in contributing to the uprsiing. In consequences Indians were drawn into government at a local level. Though this was on a limited scale a crucial precedent had been set, with the creation of a new 'white collar' Indian elite, further stimulated by the opening of universities at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, a result of the Indian Universities Act. So, alongside the values of traditional and ancient India, a new professional middle class was starting to arise, in no way bound by the values of the past. Their ambition can only have been stimulated by Victoria's Proclamation of November 1858, in which it is expressly stated that "We hold ourselves bound to the natives of our Indian territories by the same obligations of duty which bind us to our other subjects...it is our further will that...our subjects of whatever race or creed, be freely and impartially admitted to offices in our service, the duties of which they may be qualified by their education, ability and integrity, duly to discharge."
Acting on these sentiments, Lord Ripon, vice-roy from 1880 to 1885, extended the powers of local self-government and sought to remove racial practices in the law courts by the IIbert Bill. But a policy at once liberal and progressive at one turn was reactionary and backward at the next, creating new elites and confirming old attitudes. The IIbert Bill only had the effect of causing a 'White Mutiny', and the end of the prospect of perfect equality before the law. In 1886 measures were adopted, moreover, to restrict Indian entry into the civil service. The worship of 'Indian Tradition' was to go hand-in-hand with new forms of European exclusivenes and racism. Doors had opened, only to be shut again. With the formation of the Congress Indians began to look away from the new Mughal Empire, Kipling's realm of the Babu and the Sahib, towards their own authentic past-and to their own authentic future. Clio the Muse 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
toyota in Europe
Hi,
i was reading your article on toyota which says that toyota's market share in Europe isn't that great. Why then, given that, and also given that Europe (I'm really thinking of the UK) has exorbitantly expensive petrol (especially when compared to the US) do Toyota not market more hybrids here? We currently have the Prius and one Lexus but you guys have loads! Any factors i'm missing? 195.195.248.252 10:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess it's because they're competing with other Asian and European car manufacturers, who produce equally fuel-efficient cars. Random Nonsense 10:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This more emphasizes the above point than contradicts it -- Citroen does not sell any cars in America. Based on what I know about them, their strengths are very similar those of Toyota (and Honda, the other big fuel-efficient brand in the US). --M@rÄino 14:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From an American perspective, the strengths of Citroen (fuel efficiency) are similar to those of Toyota and Honda, but in Europe, fuel efficiency in American terms is a given. So cars compete on other terms. For example, Citroen produces some very small models that are even more fuel efficient than most Toyotas or Hondas. Based on my limited experience, I think that European drivers often value a level of performance that Toyota does not generally offer outside of their expensive Lexus brand. (Honda might be a little better in this regard, but not clearly better than several European brands.) Marco polo 14:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marco, I guess it depends on what you mean by "performance", but if you mean that Europeans care more about the craftsmanship of their cars, that would not explain why American companies have larger market shares than the Japanese companies. --M@rÄino 15:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also there is 'appeal'. Certainly most people acknowledge that Toyotas are very well made, reliable cars but they are also often considered quite boring (save for their t-sport/sports coupes). Things like the Toyota Corolla (now Auris?) are considered 'old' people cars so lose a beat against things like the Peugoet 307, Citreon C3 and other cars in the class. These brands have to market their cars with more 'toys' as standard (air-con/electric heated screen etc.) than their counterparts that can sell for more with less spec because of prestige/curb appeal. The mpg for Toyotas are not particularly outstanding compared to their rivals in the uk market. As noted above it seems that the US market is very different in its wants to the Uk/European market. Style, quality of interior, performance, prestige - all seem to vary. ny156uk 16:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Toyota doesn't market "loads" of hybrid models in the U.S. The Prius makes up the largest part of all hybrid sales here. Other than that there is the Hybrid Camry, the lower selling hybrid Highlander and three Lexus models: Lexus RX 400h, Lexus GS 450h, and the $100,000+ Lexus LS 600h/LS 600hL. (Comparison of Toyota hybrids and Hybrid Synergy Drive). Ok, that's two more than I remembered but is six "loads"? We also have Ford, GM, and Honda hybrids on sale here which adds up to loads, though, right? Rmhermen 20:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does the Dept. of Agriculture have to do with my gas?
While fueling up the Jeep this a.m., I noticed a shiny gold colored sticker on the gas pump that read "Vermont Department of Agriculture" across the top. It had what appeared to be the state seal in the center and then the words "Customer Assurance" at the bottom. Thinking, "This has to be something someone just jokingly stuck on this one particular pump", I went 'round to the pump on the other side. The other pump had this as well, though the top of this sticker was in a bit better shape. It had a series of years at the top where, presumably, someone could mark down what year the sticker was placed there such as "2005|2006|2007|2008". This second sticker also differed in the words at the bottom of the sticker; it said "Customer Protection". So what are these stickers for? And what does the VT Dept. of Ag. have to do with gas pumps? Dismas|(talk) 10:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page [7] at their website suggests that "weights and measures" are part of their consumer protection responsibilities. DuncanHill 11:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on DuncanHill's research, it sounds like this responsibility goes back to the days when the only weights and measures that people cared about where those of agricultural products. --M@rÄino 14:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Agriculture needs to determine the size of a gallon, because someone selling a gallon of milk needs regulation. This is particularly true in a dairy state. Similarly, the state needs to specify exactly what makes a bushel, an acre, etc., so that buying and selling of food (which has yet to be antiquated) could be on the level. Thus, they might well be the ones involved in determining the "gallon" of gasoline the pump is putting out is an official gallon, and darned glad of it you should be. Utgard Loki 15:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Templates
Does anyone know how to change/get changed templates?
The template I have in mind is {{ME-ref}} , specifically I would like added optional sections for <chaptername> <chapternumber> <subbookname> <subbookchapter> <publisher> <edition> <imprint> <volume>
The term 'subbookname' refers to a one 'book' of a number of 'books' contained in a single bound edition - someone may know a better description for this. Thanks.87.102.5.137 10:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please ask this question at Template talk:ME-ref. The reference desk is not for this sort of question. If no-one answers at the template talk page, you should try Wikipedia:Help Desk. Carcharoth 11:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to learn how to create/edit a template for literature citation, for a specific project. The {{cite-book}} doesn't have enough fields for my purposes.
It isn't quite clear whether you want a table (or infobox) designed for a particular page or a new template to be used on a series of related pages. If the first, you can pick up a basic infobox from a page which has its own (there's one on Norwich School, for instance) and adjust it. If the second, if I were you I should start by looking at all the existing templates in Category:Citation templates to see if there's one which suits your purpose. If there isn't, then you can go into the edit page for an existing citation template (such as {{cite-book}}), copy and paste what's there into a new template, and adjust that. You create a new template just like any other new page. Please let me know on my talk page if you need more help. Xn4 16:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed the comments at Templates above by Carcharoth and CBD, pointing you to Template talk:ME-ref. I'm sure that's a better place to get advice on these matters. Xn4 16:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Size of American home
I have not seen any American house. Just want to know what would be the size of an average American home in square feet of carpet area. Also tell me how much would an average home cost. Please explain.-Sandhya āPreceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.123.194 (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What did you mean by "carpet area"? Did you mean interiors, or did you mean to exclude something? In some cultures, carpets are not used in certain rooms, like bathrooms and toilets... did you mean to exclude them? Or were you just using a euphemism for "indoors"? --Dweller 13:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly many homes and apartments are still small, or have a lot of people in a modest sized home. People can buy land in the country and build huge homes, but many need to be in a suburb from which they can commute to a city job. The suburbs may have been divided into building lots of a size which, with line setback restrictions and height restrictions, limit the ultimate size of dwelling that can be constructed. Homes on large lots in desirable suburbs are often considered "teardowns." Even though they might be nice enough older homes, perhaps architecturally distinguished, they are apt to be torn down and replaced by huge new homes. New homes in the U.S. are larger than new homes were in the post-World War 2 era, and cost more. There has been a trend toward people desiring larger and larger homes, up to 6,000 square feet in some cases for a family of 3 or 4. This would not be unusual for the wealthy's palaces or country homes in other countries or other eras, but the modern American "McMansions" or "starter castles" tend not to have the live-in help that would have been thought necessary in the former cases. Edison 13:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a reliable number for the median square footage of all American homes. You can find such claims as "The median size for a new single family home in 2003 was about 2300 square feet (National Association of Home Builders)." I am suspicious of the NPR number quoted above, because elsewhere (1995 report) we read "While all units average 1,732 square feet, those built in the last 4 years have an average of 1,920 square feet." Is it really possible that in the last dozen years, the average of all the country's housing stock has gone up 36%? But again, a median number would be more interesting than the average, which is inflated by the McMansions Edison mentions. Wareh 13:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lest any UK readers be confused, the term 'average' tends to be used in the USA only to refer to the mean. Skittle 20:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took "carpeted area" to mean what in the US they usually call "heated area". --Sean 14:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New houses being built today are certainly larger, on average, than the existing housing stock. I am certain that the median single-family house has less than 2,000 square feet (185 m3) of floor area. In older urban areas, 1,200ā1,400 square feet (110ā130 m3) is typical. Urban apartments (flats) probably average around 1,000 square feet (93 m3), with two bedrooms and one toilet. The cost of an average single-family house ranges from around $70,000 in depressed cities and rural areas to $700,000 in San Francisco and its suburbs. Outside of the west coast and the Northeast, I would think that $180,000 is close to average. Prices are two to three times higher on the west coast, in the Northeast, and a few other places with high-paying jobs, such as Denver, Colorado. Condominiums (basically, flats) also count as homes, and they typically cost about 40% less than a single-family house in the same area, though they also typically offer less floor space. Marco polo 14:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find that hard to imagine, I'm sure some inventive cavepeoples would have given it a shot. She may or may not have popularised it though.. I'll leave that to the better informed inhabitants of the desk to comment on... Capuchin 14:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Invent? There really isn't that much technology involved, for most people, and the equipment is not modified in the process. If we haven't documents discussing the act, that does not mean that the act was not going on. Cleopatra had huge tracts of land, and that made her very, very attractive. She was the Kansas of the ancient world, plus the Baltimore, and controlling her was controlling reliable food supplies, huge navigational and naval assets, and massive numbers of people, and any attempt to explain her "mystery" in terms of particular sexual acts is just more smoke. Utgard Loki 15:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly implied in the song "Cleopatra" from the Adam and the Ants album Dirk Wears White Sox. It goes on about her wide mouth, and how "she gave a service with a smile". Stuart Goddard's reliability as a historical source is, however, doubtful. 80.254.147.52 16:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had heard it was "invented" by Caesar. Yet I somehow doubt that they invented something which has probably been done for millenia. The Evil Spartan 18:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Catullus (who predates Cleopatra by a few years) wrote about homosexual oral sex...we have an amusing article about the famous Catullus 16, actually. The Romans also borrowed the Greek word "cinaedus" which refers to (or can in one sense refer to) male-on-male oral, and you know those Greeks, a bunch of effeminate pederasts...I'm sure they had come up with it hundreds of years before Cleopatra. I wouldn't know where to look for a Greek source for it though. I don't know about the sex practises of any other ancient cultures, but I'm pretty sure anything you can think of doing, they would have already done, and more. Adam Bishop 20:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have long argued that every great invention has a thousand fathers (or mothers) and every failure is an orphan. To substantiate that someone invented some useful thing, I like there to be a record of them patenting it, and of their having given well publicized public demonstrations before learned societies. Is there such evidence in this case? Edison 22:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe they give public demonstrations at zoos all the time. Alas, I doubt they filed a patent in the requisite amount of time, but it's rather easy to show prior art in this case! -- Kesh 14:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Parents of Suresh Peters
Suresh Peters is a famous music composer.
I want to know which country Suresh Peters belongs to. Where he was born? Was he born to American White father and Indian mother? Or was he born to two persons of Indian origin who stayed in USA when he was born? What is his mother tongue? āPreceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.115.22 (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hearts and Minds
During the present campaign in Iraq there have been attempts-not very successful-by the west to win over Muslim opinion. Are there any past examples of this process? āPreceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.245.163 (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The expression "hearts and minds" is closely associated with the Vietnam war; according to our article Hearts and Minds (Vietnam), Lyndon B. Johnson used it 28 times in his speeches. Still, the Vietnamese remained unconvinced. Skarioffszky 19:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean specifically the West winning over Muslims, then there is the Algerian War. Recury 20:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to bear in mind with these campaigns is that they fail to entirely succeed, but this does not mean that they have entirely failed. First, it's desperately hard to measure success. One never knows how many guerrilla's didn't take to the hills, how many bits of sabotage didn't take place. If one bomber detonates a bomb, it looks like a town is against the occupiers. That said, these efforts tend, when successful, to lead to emigration rather than quietism, and none of them can possibly persuade a people that they are not being invaded or occupied. Anyone who sets out those things as goals for a psychological operation is a fool, and I do not doubt that some of these fools are in office now. Geogre 20:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are there past examples of this form of propaganda? Yes, there are. When Napoleon landed in Egypt in 1798 he brought a printing press with him, with the specific intention of disseminating literature justifying his invasion among the Muslim people. When the British came the same way in 1956 they also distributed leaflets, saying that the quarrel was not with the Egyptian people, but with the 'dictator', Gamal Abdel Nasser.
Napoleon's proclamation is particularly interesting. Clearly concerned that his campaign would recall the ancient Crusader campaign of Louis IX, it was declared that the French army, far from coming to 'eliminate your religion', are themselves 'sincere Muslims', evidenced by the recent invasion of the Papal States. General Bonaparte himself, it was further declared, worshipped Allah and revered the Quar'an. His only enemy was the Mameluk regime. Abd al Rahman al-Jabarti, a local chronicler, found the whole thing 'illiterate and insincere', though he admired the discipline of the French troops while deploring their personal hygiene! But in fact the economic cost of the occupation was quick to turn the local people against the invader, with riots breaking out in Cairo in the October following the occupation. Order was restored, though the resentment continued. After Napoleon left both of his successors were assassinated. Clio the Muse 00:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clio, you've reminded me of Greenmantle, which involves the Kaiser's very similar pronouncements to Muslims in the First German War. DuncanHill 00:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Hopkirk's On Secret Service East of Constantinople is rather good on Haji Wilhelm Mohammed's nefarious shenanigans.I shall now have to re-read it! DuncanHill 00:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
European baby
Who was the first European baby born in America? āPreceding unsigned comment added by Shihpoo (talk ā¢ contribs) 20:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to a) sign your posts and b) create a new heading for your question. I have done the second one for you. And the answer to your question can be found hereĀ :) SGGHspeak! 21:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some would dare to mention the first child born in the Americas to English parents. The Spanish were here first, and there might have been children born to them. Some scientists who espouse the Solutrean hypothesis believe that Europeans came to America long before the Vikings, from 17,000 to 15,000 years ago, travelling in watercraft similar to those used by Eskimos, and hunting seals along the ice which covered the North Atlantic, providing the basis for the stone tools known as Clovis culture. So "unknown Spanish child" or "unknown Solutrean child" are also possible answers. See also Kennewick Man , Models of migration to the New World , and Pre-Siberian American Aborigines. Edison 21:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The key to this question is surely that Greenland is geographically part of North America. Edison's "unknown Solutrean child" is certainly arguable, but the alternative to it (and the only answer for which there is clear evidence) is that the first European-American child was born to Norse settlers in Greenland in about 986, probably at BrattahlĆĆ°. According to the Icelandic sagas, 985 was the year the first colony was established there, by a fleet from Iceland under Erik the Red. Twenty-five ships set out, and fourteen arrived safely in Greenland. See History of Greenland: Norse settlement and Vinland. Xn4 08:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If "America" means the USA, then "unknown Spanish child" is MartĆn de ArgĆ¼elles (referred to in first white child); but presumably other children of Spanish descent were born elsewhere in the Americas before him.
Do we have any evidence to date the first children born to the Norse settlers in Greenland? -- !!?? 10:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best is in the GrÅnlendinga saga, which mentions the birth of Eric the Red's own children, including Leif Ericson. Frankly, the dates are hard to pin down, but we're in the 970s and 980s. Xn4 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were almost certainly half-Spanish babies born on Hispaniola in the 1490s, since the men had lots of sexual relations (consensual and non-consensual) with the Arawaks. --M@rÄino 20:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did the Ku Klux Klan burn crosses?
I know they did it to invoke fear, but why the christian cross?
And why burn it?
Were they religious?
Cross burning didn't originate with the original, Reconstruction-era Klan. The article on cross burning states that it may have come from the early-20th century novels of Thomas Dixon Jr.. In The Clansman, which was set during Reconstruction and told of the Klan of that era, he described a cross burning and wrote "in olden times when the Chieftain of our people summoned the clan on an errand of life and death, the Fiery Cross, extinguished in sacrificial blood, was sent by swift courier from village to villageā¦ The ancient symbol of an unconquered race of men." Dixon may have been inspired by the works of Sir Walter Scott. When the Klan was revived in subsequent years - inspired in part by Dixon's novels and the movie Birth of a Nation, which was based on them - they adopted the practice. A modern "justification" for the practice can be found here. (Follow that link with care if you have a low tolerance for hate.) - EronTalk 22:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were (are) religious and specifically Protestant. Rmhermen 20:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
September 6
How democratic were the colonies? (And in particular: Algeria during the Fourth Republic)
Hello, I have been going through some of the articles on this site but I still haven't been able to find an answer for these questions:
- I know Algeria was an integral part of the French fourth republic after the second world war, but did everything get to vote? Or only those who had been given the French nationality? And if so, were they only "white" settlers, or did many Arabs get it as well? (I know that almost a million "French people" left Algeria and headed for France when the colony became independent.
- How about the rest of the parts of Africa ruled by France (and other countries in general)?
Thank you,Evilbu 00:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WHY WAS THERE ONLY A SMALL NUMBER OF AFRICAN SLAVES IN THE CARIBBEAN IN THE EARLY 1500'S āPreceding unsigned comment added by 200.1.106.82 (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because only a small number had arrived by that time, which is the blindingly obvious answer. Anyway, have a look at the Atlantic Slave TradeClio the Muse 01:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the answer it depends on what you mean by "small number" and by "early 1500s".
Atlantic slave trade says that "The first slaves to arrive as part of a labor force appeared in 1502 on the island of Hispaniola" (only 10 years after Columbus found it note - although presumably a few African slaves could have arrived before 1502 with their European masters) and "Only slightly more than 3 percent of the slaves exported were traded between 1450 and 1600, 16% percent in the 17th century. More than half of them were exported in the 18th century, the remaining 28.5% in the 19th century." So 'only' a few hundred thousand slaves were transported in the following 150 years (compared to the total of c.10 million who are estimated to have arrived in the Americas).
But then, how many Europeans were there in the Carribean in the few decades after Columbus, and how many indigenous people? See Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Population history of American indigenous peoples. Epidemics of influenza and smallpox, and maltreatment, almost eradicated the local populace on the islands, even before the larger epidemics on the mainland in the 1520s. Around 80% of the TaĆno died in about 30 years, and more quickly afterwards, leaving perhaps only a few thousands or tens of thousands out of the hundreds of thoudands before the Europeans arrived. The slaves were imported to provide labour after the local pool had evaporated, and could quite quickly have formed a significant proportion of the population, when only a few hundreds or thousands had arrived. -- !!?? 20:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also a question on French Algeria
I have been reading about the war of liberation against the French and came across a puzzling reference to the 'day of the tomatoes', someting that seesm to have happened in the year 1956. What is the day of the tomatoes and what does it mean? Philip the Arab 06:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
does acontract survive evn after the termination of the agreement its a art of, i had done some research on it an had put it on wikipidia.. but wanna have a detailed view on it....... āPreceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.120.38 (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Song ID help
I heard a song by eminem today in the Union building; it was set the basic tune of song "just lose it"; however, this song was definately not "just lose it". I know eminem sung the chorus, but he may have had a guest rapper for the middle parts. Any ideas on what the song may have been named? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bookish question (trivia)
In the late 70's (UK) a paperback could be made out of a quite thin, smooth, white paper. Nowadays the equivalent paperback seems to be made out of a poorer quality thicker paper that is quite rough.
Question. What are the types of paper called?
Question 2. What happened to the older 'nice paper'?87.102.17.39 10:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A huge variety of papers is available today, and nice paper is plentiful but no longer used regularly for paperback books. Paperbacks today often use recycled paper and so-called "woodfree" papers. See paper.--Shantavira|feed me 15:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about the horrible paper, anyone know what that is? (should I be asking on the science desk?)87.102.17.39 17:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"African-American"
How do Americans refer to black people who aren't American? I see in African-American that one reporter did actually refer to some black French people as "African-Americans", but this surely isn't standard? --86.132.151.17 11:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no single standard. When the demonym suggests dark skin by default, it can be completely avoided, "Cameroonian" for example. Otherwise, and if it's important for the reader to know the person's skin color, the choices are "Black xyz-ian", "African-xyz-ian" or "Afro-xyz-ian", depending on usage and the author or publisher's preference. I randomly picked the letter "C", and sure enough, there's Black Canadian, African-Caribbean, and Afro-Cuban. The term African-American is reserved for people from the United States and applying it to citizens of any other country, including Antigua, Brazil, or Canada in the Americas, is misleading. Calling French people "African-Americans" is false. Typing Black French into the search box redirects to Afro-European. ---Sluzzelintalk 12:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, in the mainstream U.S. media, you will encounter the term "African American" as a fairly glib substitute for the term "black" (i.e., Definition One:A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.). The former term acting as a direct substitute for the latter, as popularized by Jesse Jackson.
Of course, under the reasoning implied in your question; and for the reason that not everyone born on the continent of Africa meets Definition One above; and because "Africa" designates an entire continent (and not a nationality or ethnicity, such as "French", "Italian", "Serbian", and so forth). This terminology (although quite common in the U.S.) is imprecise and misleading at best, and in the extreme instance, incorrect. Nevertheless, that's what you can expect to find. dr.ef.tymac 14:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a professor once who referred to Djimon Hounsou's character in Gladiator as "African American". Adam Bishop 14:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This comes up regularly in my workplace. The preferred term is "Black", not "African-American". Most of the black people here are from Africa and are not Americans. The one I work with most often is Nigerian. He is married to a white British woman. He complains that calling him African-American fits him about as well as it fits his wife. There is also an undertone of ire for Americans who want to call themselves African without ever visiting the continent. If you leave tiny pockets of multi-nationalities like my workplace, the preferred term is always "African-American" for anyone who is black, regardless of nationality. -- kainawā¢ 15:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
African-Americans are just Americans that are black. I'm white, but my heritage is Dutch. Please don't call me Dutch-American because I'm not Dutch. I'm just a white American. Beekone 16:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen people tongue-in-cheek referring to Charlize Theron as African-American. Ā :) Corvus cornix 17:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I have seen the paladin character in Diablo II described as African-American. Do I win a prize? Algebraist 18:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I move to Nairobi I want to be referred to as American-African. Seriously. =] HYENASTE 22:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more: someone here at the ref desk once mentioned that Nelson Mandela was once referred to as an 'African American' by an interviewer. I suppose the term is so common that people no longer realise what it literally means. A related issue is what to call whites. "European American'? And what about the 'Indians' (another misnomer). Are they 'American Americans'? And speaking of misnomers - whites are often referred to as Caucasians, but the real Caucasians (from the Caucasus) are rather dark-skinned, I've heard. DirkvdM 18:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Philhellenism
Can Philhellenism really be dated no further back than the nineteenth century? Philoctetes M 11:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one contrasts it with Hellenism, the Alexandrine ideal, specifically as the rise of Nationalism, which took place in the 19th century in most nations in the West. Utgard Loki 17:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adamantios Korais
Another Greek question, if I may. The Wikipedia entry on Adamantios Korais has nothing on his political writing, the most significant part of his contribution to the Greek national movement. Who has knowledge of this? Philoctetes M 12:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there more at the Greek language Wikipedia? I can't read [8]. Corvus cornix 17:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His political writing really begins with the publication at the opening of the nineteenth century of Asma Polemistirion (War Chant) and Salipsma Polemistirion (Military Bugal Call), celebrating the presence of Greek troops fighting alongside the French in Egypt. Earler he had attacked the Greek Patriarch of Jerusulem for urging the Sultan's Christian subjects to support him in the war against the 'atheistic' French. Korais went on to publish in 1803 his Report on the Present State of Civilization in Greece, based on a series of lectures he had given in Paris, extolling the link between the rise of a new Greek mercantile class and the advance of Neo-Hellenism. In What should we Greeks do in the Present Circumstances?, a work of 1805, he tried to win his compatriots over to Napoleon and away from the cause of their Russian co-religionists. In later years, though, his enthusiasm for the French Emperor diminished, and he ended by referring to him as the 'tyrant of tyrants.'
Away from contemporary politics, Kotais did much to revive the idea of Greece with the creation of the Hellenic Library, devoted to new editions of some of the classic texts, starting with Homer in 1805. Over the following twenty years many others appeared, with lengthy prefaces by Kotais entitled 'Impromptu Reflections', with his views on political, educational and linguistic matters. Although the broad mass of the Greek people was beyond his reach, he played an important part in the shaping of a new consciousness among the intelligentsia, which was to play a part in the creation of a new national movement. Clio the Muse 02:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidated city-counties
Even after reading Consolidated city-county, I'm still not very sure how they work in places where some independent municipalities exist, such as Marion County, Indiana or Wyandotte County, Kansas. I don't understand really what it's like, for example, in Indianapolis' suburbs, such as Southport, Indiana: if the county and the city are consolidated, how is it that Southport is part of one but not part of the other? Can the city council tell Southport what to do, even though it's not part of the city? Do Southport residents have Bart Peterson as their mayor, as well as Nannette Tunget? Or is it somewhat like (not to say that it's Communist) the USSR in its later years, in which the non-Russian republics were less linked to the USSR than was Russia; for example, Russia not having its own Communist Party organisation, as did the others ā in other words, Indianapolis in a roundabout way actually has fewer rights than the other municipalities? I've talked with friends of mine in Indianapolis, and I still can't quite understand it. Nyttend 15:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it works like this: Under Indiana law, counties have some competencies, and municipalities have others. Most of the municipalities in Marion County have ceded their competencies to the consolidated city-county. Apparently, Indianapolis has ceded many, but not all, of its competencies to the consolidated city-county. However, a few municipalities, such as Southport, have not conceded their municipal competencies to the consolidated government. The consolidated government has jurisdiction in these municipalities only over county-specific matters, while these municipalities have full jurisdiction in municipality-specific matters, such as policing. Marco polo 16:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The even shorter answer: the USA has never had a standard way of allocating power among the various sub-components of a state. Each state is free to experiment wildly, and many do. --M@rÄino 20:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michel Tournier researchers' forum
good morning. i am doing doctoral research on the works of the french writer Michel Tournier on the theme of quest. i would like to know if there are any forum where i can meet other researchers who do research on the same authour or similar subject. thank you āPreceding unsigned comment added by 61.11.44.148 (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of one, although there's a Talk page for the Tournier wikibiography with nothing on it yet except formal notices. Similar discussion pages for articles on other writers have developed into the kind of forum you may be looking for (see Talk:Arthur Conan Doyle, for example). By chance, we answered a question about Gemini on the Language desk this week (see Gemini by Michel Tournier). Xn4 21:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Body Thievin'
I just finished Anne Rice's #IV book in The Vampire Chronicles series The_Tale_of_the_Body_Thief. Basically the main character Lestat de Lioncourt switches bodies with a sort of guru mystery man named Raglan James. I'm not ruining the story with spoilers considering the title. The book goes into details on how the procedure is done. Afterwards I did my WikiResearch onBody_swap & Mind_transfer, I also read the articles on, and I forgot the medical terminology for these, nor can I recall my search, the pyschological cases of people thinking their loved ones or others are not the same person. there were a list of these terms, and research done on the person with that thought, but not on the actual individuals that were questioned. My question is, is there any records or stories of people that actually said they were switched? --i am the kwisatz haderach 17:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An actor [9] of SCTV fame has recently been found guilty of criminal harassment in respect of his wife and children. The defence pled Capgras delusion on his behalf. It is a psychiatric syndrome that has the sufferer believe that those close to him/her are imposters. Bielle 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If by "stories", you mean fiction, there is everything from Invasion of the body snatchers to Granny Weatherwax in Terry Pratchet's Discword science-fantasy series who "borrows" the minds of anilmals. Bielle 18:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Capras delusion you mentioned reminded me of the others Fregoli delusion, Intermetamorphosis, Cotard delusion =found under the Delusional misidentification syndrome page. These are all syndromes that do relate to psychotics, but my question (and on non-fiction actual event) is whether or not someone has claimed to have acheived this Body Switching? I guess it could fall under Possession, but I wanted to know if researchers ever investigated the people accused of being someone else? And if the accused confessed? I don't seem to find any actual cases, short of the Salem Witch Trials, but that was something else. --i am the kwisatz haderach 19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Political Theory National Schizophrenia
Wiki's Schizophrenia mentions the Greek roots being "to split" "mind". Could an entire nation have this split mind, lets say one half thinks wholey-minded and sound, and the other half a totally different wholey-minded soundness, but when the two are next/or against each other, then comes the bizarre delusions or disorganized speech and thinking? --i am the kwisatz haderach 17:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A nation could be schizophrenic only metaphorically, since it has not a single mind but a myriad of minds. Marco polo 17:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was a poll question in the USA a few years back about whether George W. Bush was a uniter or a divider. 50% said uniter, 50% said divider. John Z 18:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might find the work of Lloyd deMause interesting ā in his Foundations of Psychohistory he talks a lot about the idea of nations suffering from delusions or from massive psychological disorders and the like, if I remember correctly (group fantasy?). I think it is mostly trash, personallyāit seems to have no intellectual rigor whatsoever from what I can tell. --140.247.242.79 19:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nelson Mandela's terrorism
to what extent was Nelson Mandela involved in the terrorist actvities of MK before his imprisonment? what sort of stuff was he trying to do? how apologetic has he been for what he did/planned? his wikipedia page has very little, and his autobiography is written by him (obviously) so from an NPOV, what were his crimes?
thanks 81.109.5.212 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell from Nelson Mandela and Umkhonto we Sizwe before he was arrested most of the attacks were intended to sabotage rather then taking lives and were directed at the apartheid government and military. You'll likely find they don't fid many modern definitions of terrorism. MK does appear to have committed terrorist attacks in the 80s particularly but this was when Mandela was already imprisoned. He apparently did plan a guerrilla warfare campaign and so some of the later activities may have been partially inspired by his plans but I don't think you could say he planned them Nil Einne 15:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the word terrorism is extremely vague. It seems the UN doesn't even have a definition of it because they can't agree on what it means. It's basically name-calling. One could just as well call the former South African government a terrorist organisation. One reason they weren't called that is that it was the official representation of a country. Even Hitler wasn't called a terrorist. Along this line of reasoning, one should call the resistance groups of WWII terrorist organisations, which was quite a point of debate here in the Netherlands after Bush started his 'war on terrorism'. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." (or how did that go again?) So when you ask what Mandela's crimes were, you should first define 'crime'. One could also call him a crime-fighter. DirkvdM 18:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mussolini's corpse
While we are on the subject of 'body thevin' I heard that Mussolini's had a particularly bizarre 'political postmortem'. There is a little info. on his page, though not very much. What's the story here? Captainhardy 18:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the "[his body] was stolen briefly in the late 1950s by neo-fascists, then again returned to Predappio" bit? That seems clear, if brief. His body was briefly stolen by neo-facists. Just think what they would have done with Hitler's body if he hadn't ordered his body to be burnt. Carcharoth 20:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have only a vague memory of all this, but it's pretty small beer compared with what was done to the remains of Oliver Cromwell after the Restoration! Xn4 21:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the politics of the dead, a subject which reveals so much about the living, whether it be over the fate of Evita in Argentina or Lenin in Russia. The perambulations of the dead Duce gives wonderful insight into the political health of post-war Italy.
After his death, and the display of his corpse in Milan, Mussolini was buried in an unmarked grave in Musocco, the municipal cemetery to the north of the city. On Easter Sunday 22 April 1946 (not the 1950s!) his body was located and dug up by Domenico Leccisi and two other neo-Fascists. Makang off with their hero, they left a bizarre message on the open grave "Finally, O Duce, you are with us. We will cover you with roses, but the smell of your virtue will overpower the smell of those roses." On the loose for months-and a cause of grteat anxiety to the new Italian democracy-the Duce was finally 'recaptured' in August, hiding in a small trunk at the Certosa di Pavia, just outside Milan. Two Fransciscan brother's were subsequently charged with concealing the corpse, though it was discovered on further investigation that he had been constantly on the move!
However, the Duce found was just as much of an embarrassment as the Duce lost to the fragile Italian government. This was a subject that divided the nation into mutually hostile camps; and unsure what to do, the authorities held the remains in a kind of political limbo for ten years, before agreeing to allow them to be re-interred at Predappio in Emila, his birth place, after a campaign headed by Leccisi and the Movimento Sociale Italiano. Leccisi, now a fascist deputy, went on to write his autobiography, With Mussolini Before and After Piazzale Loreto. In the end it was, once again, all down to politics. Adone Zoli, the Prime Minister of the day, contacted Donna Rachelle, the former dictator's widow, to tell her he was returning the remains. He did so for one simple reason: he needed the support of the far-right in parliament, including Leccisi himself.
In Predappio Mussolini's tomb has become something of a fascist Mecca, constantly guarded by grim-faced, black-caped attendants. The whole thing is really quite vulgar, with Fascist kitsch on sale to the hordes of people who come to pay their respects, a source of both embarrassment and income to the left-wing local authorities! Clio the Muse 01:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, Richard I of England (heart buried in Rouen), Robert the Bruce (his heart was removed, taken on Crusade, then buried at Melrose Abbey), and the best story of all, with James II of England: "James' body was not actually buried - but remained in a coffin for a transfer to Westminster Abbey that never happened. His brain went the Scots College in Paris, his heart to the Convent of the Visitandine Nuns at Chaillot, and his bowels to the English Church of St. Omer and the parish church of St. Germain-en-Laye. All the body parts were lost during the French Revolution except the praecordia which was rediscovered in 1824 at the parish church of St. Germain-en-Laye, where it still remains." Fascinating! Carcharoth 14:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paintings depicting battle, death and war
I've been making a list of Wikipedia articles on paintings depicting battle, death and war. See User:Carcharoth/Paintings depicting battle, death and war. I'm after more articles on paintings like those ones. Not just any old painting, but ones we have articles on, or ones you think we should have articles on. I found those ones in Category:Paintings and its subcategories. Can anyone think of, or find, any other painting articles on these themes? Bonus points for contributing new entries to the much narrower-in-scope Category:Paintings of people crossing geographical features. Carcharoth 20:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There should definitely be an article about Vereshchagin's Apotheosis of War (1871), supposedly inspired by an episode from Tamerlane's wars of conquest. --Ghirla-ŃŃŃŠæ- 19:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My god there must be hundreds, now does the death have to be a war death - otherwise there are many more such as The_Death_of_Marat
I must have seen hundreds relating to napoleonic battles eg see Battle of Austerlitz there's a few in there. I could go on - luckily War artist may do a lot of the heavy lifting for you post 1900.
The bayeux tapestry is an odd one though not a painting - worth considering..
Geographic features - there must be more than a few biblical ones - specifically - israelites crossing the red sea stands out.83.100.254.70 21:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paolo Uccello has some good ones including a 'st george and dragon' - the dragon dies - does that count.83.100.254.70 21:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for Bayeux Tapestry - I'd forgotten that. The Death of Marat, The Fighting Temeraire and Guernica (painting) were already on my lists. The other ones are nice, but really, as I said, I'm looking for cases where we already have an article on the painting, not on the battle or war. On the other hand, maybe some of those deserve articles? The Turner painting of Hannibal Crossing the Alps is definitely a link I hope will turn blue some day. Carcharoth 22:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tended to avoid the martyrdom ones at first, but then included a smattering. I avoided all the crucifixion of Christ ones, and that would form its own, rather extensive, subset. I noticed the category of surrealist paintings, but couldn't understand what most of them were symbolising... The anatomy corpse ann the Bacon ones are interesting. The Commons categories are also interesting. I thought it would be fairly simple to group battle and death paintings, but it seems there is quite a large grey area on the boundaries. Carcharoth 00:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Humanities-Religious-Locations of SAKTI PEEDAMS IN INDIA.-How many are thereĀ ?
I understand that some parts of Goddess Parvati- the other half of LORD SHIVA ,fell in various parts of India & these places were later considered as the places consecrated by the Goddess SAKTI & known as SAKTI peedams. I want to know the exact locations of these places & how many such peedams are there in India or elsewhere.I shall be grateful for a complete answer.If possible send the answer to my Email ID <email deleted> āPreceding unsigned comment added by Vrkrishnan (talk ā¢ contribs) 20:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford
When does the academic year begin again at Oxford University āPreceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know a famous piece of clarinet music however the only thing I know about it is that it is frequently played in tv etc with scenes or images of new york im not sure if this helps at all.
One likely candidate is the introduction to Rhapsody in Blue, starting out with the famous solo clarinet glissando. Woody Allen's b&w movie Manhattan opens with cityscapes and this piece of music. ---Sluzzelintalk 21:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the 1! been bugging me for ages! Thanks! āPreceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.221.207 (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The trivia section indicates that the opening glissando's style was dictated by how the clarinetist played it in rehearsal, but I remember hearing somewhere that the whole glissando in fact arrives from the fact that the clarinetist did that trick before the piece was even written. It might be nice to track that down. The citation that is offered seems a bit dubious to me. Donald Hosek 00:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smooth guys in the classical world...
Ok, so this is a REALLY weird question, but I would like some names of people from the classical world that were like master seductionists (or are famous for getting the ladies), either real or fictional. So far I've got Lothario, Casanova, Don Juan, Romeo, and depending on kinkyness, Marquis De Sade. Can someone spot me a couple of names? --Oskar 21:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, ohh, Henry VIII maybe? --Oskar 21:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what Romeo is doing in this list; according to Willy the Shake, Romeo rather famously did not get the lady. Bielle 21:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, but if someone's real hot, you call him a "Romeo"Ā :) That's the kind of thing I'm looking for --Oskar 22:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Classical World' is normally used as a term to describe ancient Greece and Rome, a period full of mythical lovers and seducers of one kind or another. I confine myself to just two: Paris who brought Helen to Troy, an launched thereby one of the great epics of human history; and not to forget the 'randy goat' himself, the Great God Pan! But the greatest real seducer of history was not male at all; she is the incomparable Cleopatra, of whom John Keats once wrote "She makes an impression the same as the Beauty of a Leopardess...I should like her to ruin me." Cleopatra, Oskar, was famous for getting the men! Clio the Muse 23:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what a tempest she was! Clio the Muse 00:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For less glamorous examples, I thought of the rakes in literature, the article lists a few. For classical myth, I heard Zeus was no slouch either, though he used powers beyond seduction. ---Sluzzelintalk 00:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ovid thought he was pretty hot stuff (see Ars Amatoria). For a medieval, rather than classical, example, Andronicus I Comnenus managed to bag anyone he came across, including two cousins and the prepubescent widow of the emperor he deposed. Adam Bishop 01:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Classical world"? Surely Alcibiades is the man you are looking for! --Ghirla-ŃŃŃŠæ- 20:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hitler's entrance music
I've seen some old footage of Hitler rallies and he alwys seems to enter the hall or wherever to the same piece of music. At first I thought this was a coincidence but after the third time I began to think it was a kind of presidential march, a bit like hail to the chief. Was this specially composed for him and does anyone have any idea what it is called?80.177.38.137 22:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not the Horst Wessel Lied; it's the Badenweiler Marsch, which is really quite good, if you can divorce it from its political associations. Clio the Muse 23:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You also hear an anthem tune by Haydn frequently played in historical films about Nazi Germany. It has been used as a German and Austrian national anthem and a hymn tune. Edison 13:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia sociology experiment
I recently changed the color of my sig from the default blue to an annoying red. Suddenly, I'm noticed. I get a barnstar. I've got emails through Wikipedia. I've had comments about my user page - even a complaint about my use of ā¢. So, I'm wondering if coloring a sig really makes a lot of difference. This is sort of the same idea as the studies that have shown that you get more tickets if you drive a red car. Has anyone else experienced something like this? Anyone actually experimented with different colors to see if makes much difference what color you choose? -- kainawā¢ 23:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even wikilink mine for a while, and got a few comments. If you don't link to your userpage, people tend to contact you via email or even hunt you down via Google. If I didn't have to use a link (as Kainaw pointed out), I wouldn't. But instead I just get to use this terrible redlink. HYENASTE 01:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't tried anything other than plain old blue yet. Your experience doesn't surprise me in the least. In my synesthetic little world, I never associated "kainaw" with red, now I'm suddenly forced to, and it's irritating.Ā ;-) The article on color symbolism and psychology, to be taken with a grain of salt, says red suggests passion, strength, energy, fire, love, sex, excitement, speed, heat, arrogance, ambition, leadership, masculinity, power, danger, gaudiness, blood, war, anger, revolution, radicalism, socialism, communism, aggression, summer, autumn, stop ... and stimulates our appetite! In addition, I've seen users comment negatively on any colored identifier beyond the blue unbolded monochrome, likening the choice of a colorful signature to attention seeking. I even saw one user change his short name, because other users had accused him of "trying to be special". ---Sluzzelintalk 01:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mine lacks a "talk" link partially to say, "I've been here so long that I got my account when no one did that with their signatures." The subtext is, "I do not give a flying fig for your template, box, and project endeavors." This gets misunderstood as unfriendliness as often as not. Geogre 01:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we able to insert fancy code into our signiatures if we aren't supposed to do that? The main purpose of a signiature is to make you contactable. I don't link to my userpage, because that's blank. That only redirects to my talk. And put it this way: don't most people following my signiature link do so to tell me something? That is why a signiature which doesn't link isn't much use, you have to type into the search box "user:xyz". I think making it red is partly to do with freedom of speech, though.martianlostinspaceemail me 16:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the first part, there might be practical reasons for some editors. Having a name that sticks out allows you to scroll faster while searching a thread to which you had posted and signed. I noticed this the first time with a user's magenta font in capital letters - it really stuck out even when scrolling at high speed. As for the talk, I added it one day, because I sometimes post gigantic pictures on my user page, and I don't want users to be forced to go through the loading. When you think about it, it is surprising, our impatience accelerating along with technology. How long is a click? Yet every additional click is a nuisance.Ā :-) ---Sluzzelintalk 06:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Americans studying in Cuba.
I am an American. Can I study in Cuba for anything besides medicine? I do not want to be a doctor. I am of Cuban heritage, and I feel a great desire to return to the country of my family. I know medical students can study there, but for any other majors...? And I am a senior in High School, how would I go about with my guidance to applying there?! āPreceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.220.165 (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reading numerous websites, I think that the situation is like this: American citizens are prohibited from traveling to Cuba and engaging in commercial transactions or spending money there, except for limited exceptions, such as visiting family members (for no more than 2 weeks) or conducting research. Enrolling in a Cuban university would apparently be illegal if it involved paying tuition or other fees and if you spent any money while you were there. (So, if you don't need to eat and can get a full scholarship, you may be all set.) The medical study program seems to be an exception because students receive a free education (and perhaps free room and board) from the Cuban government. The one possibility legally open to you is enrolling at a U.S. university that offers a study abroad program in Cuba. A few U.S. universities have licenses to offer such programs, which must last for at least a semester. Your guidance office may be able to help you locate U.S. universities that offer such programs. Marco polo 01:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that you asked if you can, not if you're allowed to. No USians are allowed to travel to Cuba (well, they are, but they're not allowed to spend any money there, as Marco pointed out) but plenty do. Cuban immigration doesn't stamp passports - the visa is a loose leaflet (for this exact reason). And it seems US immigration doesn't make too much of an effort to find out if you've been there. Just make sure you first travel to another country (Mexico being an obvious choice) and only book the trip to Cuba there (and ditch the ticket before (if) you re-enter the US). Whether Cuba will let you study, I don't know, but I don't see why, if you pay the tuition fees. Especially if you're a 'lost son'.Ā :) DirkvdM 18:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dirk is wrong about the US not making an effort to find out who has traveled to Cuba. This article explains that the US government does try to catch Americans who have traveled to Cuba and to harrass them. Howeverāand this was news to meāthe government apparently backs down if you contest the fine and request a hearing in court because the government is afraid that it would lose a constitutional challenge in court. That said, there is a chance that you would face a degree of surveillance and legal peril under the USA PATRIOT Act. Since Wikipedia cannot offer legal advice, I recommend that you speak with a competent lawyer before embarking on a legally risky course. Marco polo 19:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little surprised by this, Marco, because the hotels I have stayed in in Havana (the quirky Ambos Mundos is my favourite) are simply full of Americans from all walks of life! And Dirk, unless things have changed since I was last there, the Cuban authorities do stamp passports on entrance and exit; pathetic little stamps, I admit, but stamps nonetheless. Clio the Muse 01:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My experiences are similar to Clio the Muse's. On each of three trips I have made to Cuba, there were many Americans on my flights out of Toronto. It was a relatively common way around the US embargo taken by students especially because, in the early days (20 years ago), Cuba was so very. very inexpensive. Evevn 5 years ago, Americans would get to Toronto (usually by bus or car from Buffalo) and then fly out of Toronto. I recall stamps in my passport and now that passports will soon have to be shown even by car and bus passengers at the US border, this approach may not work for much longer. Bielle 02:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Curious; my passport wasn't stamped. For the record, that was in december 2003. From the Rough Guide (2000 edition): "American citizens can travel to Cuba on tourist cards purchased in Canada, Mexico or other countries, and the Cuban authorities will on request stamp the card instead of your passport on entering and leaving Cuba." Maybe they sometimes give out separate tourist cards by default, also to non-USians, to play it safe, for those who might wish to travel to the US later on the same passport. I suppose non-USians would run into the same trouble as USians with a Cuban stamp in their passport because they will have spent money in Cuba and therefore violated the blockade.
For clarification, the reasoning behind this is that the Cubans 'stole' certain facilities when they nationalised them. And those are now part of the economy as a whole. So anything from Cuba is (likely to be) in part produced with stolen goods. So basically, when you have even the slightest financial dealings with Cuba, then you're a fence. I just realise that the same would apply to Venezuela, but also to many other countries that have done any nationalisation of companies in which US companies have invested. But then the US would have to blockade pretty much the rest of the world, effectively blockading themselves (that's an interesting thought - how would their economy fare under that?). Or is it that some compensation is generally given to shareholders or something along those lines? I vaguely recall Venezuela doing that. DirkvdM 06:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
September 7
carjacking
What South American capital city made it legal to run red lights between 10:00PM and 5:00AM to avoid carjackers. āPreceding unsigned comment added by 75.178.72.227 (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rio de Janeiro, apparently, in 1999. They didn't repeal the law, so far as I can tell; rather, they said they would not enforce it. grendel|khan 00:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What flag is depicted in this image? I couldn't find it on the list of national flags, or on flagid.org. What's the joke in the caption? grendel|khan 00:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the flag be supported by two little birds? DuncanHill 00:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, to keep it from falling down? --Anon, 01:08 UTC, September 7.
I do not wish to know that, kindly leave the stage............. I shall rephrase my question:- Is there any significance to the two little birds holding the flag? Are they in some way symbolic of Chicago? DuncanHill 01:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No there's no significance. I'm guessing that there was a tattoo template of birds holding a flag, and then she wanted a Chicago flag in the flag space. While I have to cop to having lived about 60% of my life in Chicago, I've never encountered another city where the flag is so prominently used both officially and as a fashion statement. As for the joke, I think that the caption writer just couldn't come up with some thing funny to say (having looked at all the other captions throughout the 32 pics). Donald Hosek 01:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you have to read the preceding comment to understand it: "What we did on our summer vacation: took pictures behind your back".martianlostinspaceemail me 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mythology
So I have been studying mythology lately, and one thing I have been wondering is what certain phrases used in the myths meant. Such as 'unable to bend Ulysses bow' and 'a chimearical scheme'. If you could help, my question is this, What do 'unable to bend Ulysses bow' and 'a chimearical scheme' mean, but put into todays saying? Thanks a lot! 69.244.250.232 02:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Katie[reply]
Hi, Katie. To begin with 'unable to bend Ulysses' bow' has the same literal meaning now as it did in the time of Homer. Penelope, troubled in her husband's long absence by unwanted suitors, finally agrees to marry the one who can bend and string Ulysses bow for an archery competition. The only person strong enough to do so is Ulysses himself, who comes home unrecognised. He promptly kills his rivals. To bend a bow like Ulysses simply means to be very strong. A Chimera in mythology is a monster made up of different animal parts. A 'chimerical scheme', which is of entirely modern usage, means something fanciful and unrealistic; a bit like Wikipedia! Clio the Muse 03:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The story about Ulysses' bow is told in summary in our article on the Odyssey, and can be found in full (in translation) in The Odyssey/Book XXI (search for "string the bow"). Odysseus and Ulysses are, respectively, the Greek and the Latin names for the same character. Wiktionary also has an entry chimerical; the word chimƦrical with Ʀ is an old-fashioned variant spelling. Ā --Lambiam 07:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In "modern usage," to say that someone is unable to bend Ulysses's bow would be to suggest, in a conceit, that the person is a loud/likely contender who is nevertheless not the proper/chosen. Like the noble youths of Ithaca who derided the "beggar," the person acts like a big deal but lacks the necessary character for the task. Utgard Loki 15:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, sites such as www.rootsweb.com and www.familysearch.org suggest that Adelina is not the child of Roger of Poitou.
Rather, these sites show no parents for Adelina, wife of William Peverel (father); they propose that it was his son, also named William Peverel, who married Avice, daughter of Roger of Poitou.
I recognize that www.rootsweb.com and www.familysearch.org are subject to errors because, like wikipedia, their content is supplied by volunteers and hobbyists (non professionals).
Perhaps you have access to more fact-based information that could clear up this conundrum. āPreceding unsigned comment added by Xelaquetzal (talk ā¢ contribs) 02:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mistakes do happen in medieval genealogy. By the way, to link to a Wikipedia article simply put the keyword in [[double square brackets]]: William Peverel, Roger of Poitou. Besides being concise, this has the advantage of turning red if the article doesn't exist. āTamfang 04:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opeth, because they have a few nice quiet songs as well as badass death metal, they play in cool time signatures, and because of Mikael Ć kerfeldt's voice (you can't even say his name properly without sounding demonic). āKeenan Pepper 03:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could give them a try. But I don't like anything too elaborate, symphonic, flowery, cheesy. Raw rock and roll is what I'm after. What song would you recommend? --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you listened to In Flames? IMHO melodic death metal doesn't get much better. . .but that's just me. Zain Ebrahim 08:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you're asking for opinions and if you read the terms of reference at the top of this page, that's not what this page is for. And even if it was, it would be a question for the Entertainment Ref Desk. --Dweller 12:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Humanities Reference Desk: History, Politics, Literature, Religion, Philosophy, Law, Finance and Economics, Art, Music, Society
And I'm sure there are plenty of reliable sources that might posit the greatest artist within this genre w/o editors having to resort to their personal opinions. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also the terms at the top of the page make reference to debates, soapboxes and diatribes, not opinions. I'm not debating anyone.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The funniest music I've ever heard in my life was My Dying Bride. I'm not really sure what "best" means in the context of death metalāif it's obliviousness to absurdity MDB takes the cake. --JayHenry 08:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oliver Cromwell in the Caribbean
Please tell me about his foreign policy and war on Spain. āPreceding unsigned comment added by Damballah (talk ā¢ contribs) 07:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we are talking specifically of Cromwell's policy in the Caribbean, then the pages you have linked here, JayHenry, fall well short of even a partial answer.
To begin with, Damballah, on the assumption that you have read the Wikipedia page on the Anglo-Spanish War, ignore the statement concerning Oliver Cromwell's alleged belief that it was 'God's will that Protestant religion should prevail in Europe.' It is both fatuous and bogus. Whatever Cromwell's personal commitment to Protestantism may have been he pursued a foreign policy that was at once pragmatic and realistic, allying himself with Catholic France against Catholic Spain. In essence, by going to war with Spain he was seeking a return to a policy of commercial opportunism pursued in the days of Elizabeth I and subsequently abandoned by the Stuarts. Cromwell's attack on Spanish trade and treasure routes immediately recalled the exploits of Francis Drake and Walter Ralegh; and it is not by accident that printed accounts of their activities began to circulate in England at this time. There was, however, one small but important difference: alongside silver and gold a new treasure was becoming ever more important-sugar. This meant occupation of territory, a step beyond the casual piracy pursued in Elizabethan days. Here, in outline, was Cromwell's 'Western Design.'
The fleet sent to the West Indies in 1655 under Admiral William Penn was one of the strongest ever to sail from England, with some 3000 marines under the command of General Robert Venables, further reinforced in Barbados, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis. Although Cromwell had previously been interested in the possible acqusition of Hispaniola, the expedition's commanders were given the freedom to determine their own priorities in the circumstances they faced on arrival. Several options were considered, including a landing on the coast of Guatemala or on Cuba. Both were discounted, as Penn and Venables decided to attempt to repeat Drake's attack on Santo Dominigo on Hispaniola. However, the assault failed because the Spanish had improved their defences in the face of Dutch attacks earlier in the century. Weakened by fever, the English force then sailed west for Jamaica, the only place where the Spanish did not have new defensive works. They landed in May 1655 at a place called Santiago de la Vega, now Spanish Town. They came, and they stayed, in the face of prolonged local resistence, reinforced by troops sent from Spain and Mexico. For England Jamaica was to be the 'dagger pointed at the heart of the Spanish Empire.' Cromwell, despite all difficulties, was determined that the presence should remain, sending reinforcements and supplies. The Western Design's anti-Spanish purpose even survived the Protectorate itself, later to be revived in the raids of Henry Morgan. Clio the Muse 23:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under Milk Wood
Oh please help! For the last year I've been searching with an increasing sense of desperation for any work of literature comparable to Under Milk Wood by Dylan Thomas with its metaphors, rhythms, made-up words, and internal rhymes. And well, all of it:
"To begin at the beginning:
It is spring, moonless night in the small town, starless and bible-black, the cobblestreets silent and the hunched, courters'-and-rabbits' wood limping invisible down to the sloeblack, slow, black, crowblack, fishingboat-bobbing sea. The houses are blind as moles (though moles see fine tonight in the snouting, velvet dingles) or blind as Captain Cat there in the muffled middle by the pump and the town clock, the shops in mourning, the Welfare Hall in widows' weeds. And all the people of the lulled and dumbfound town are sleeping now."
If you can name anyone else who writes like this, or with a style comparable to that of ee cummings or Joyce, I will be eternally grateful. Thanks so much! 66.112.241.211 08:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish[reply]
A number of American English exam papers refer to comparisons between Thomas' style and Emily Dickinson's "Because I Could Not Stop For Death", but I'm not sure how comparable they are. Might help though. SGGHspeak! 10:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look Homeward, Angel is in the same general ballpark, but Thomas's style is his own style. Truman Capote's A Christmas Memory is somewhat close as well, but not in Thomas's own style. Utgard Loki 15:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kublai Khan
1. who were the several Europeans that visited Kublai khan?
2. where did Kublai Khan get born and where did he die? āPreceding shawn comment added by 121.222.127.58 (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second part of your question is answered in our article on Kublai Khan. I don't understand the first part of your question.--Shantavira|feed me 12:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP means 'who were'. In which case Marco Polo is the obvious one. Algebraist 13:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? I always assumed they were the same guy! Algebraist 19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
who else than Marco Polo.
Why is Lyon no longer called Lyons?
Is there any particular reason (particular, that is, to the case of Lyon or of names of places in France) the English name Lyons is no longer used (much) for the city of Lyon?--Rallette 10:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a gradual shift over the past century or so from "conventional English" names of less prominent European cities to the local forms of those names (in writing, with the closest possible pronunciation using English phonology). Commonly used convential English place names, such as Rome or Munich remain in use for more prominent cities, but perhaps through increasing travel, English speakers are more likely to know the local forms of more obscure place names than the old conventional English forms. Examples include Regensburg rather than Ratisbon, Livorno rather than Leghorn, Speyer rather than Spires, and Lille rather than Lisle. Arguably, Lyon is nearly as prominent as Munich or Cologne, but the demise of "Lyons" suggests another factor. While the pronunciation of Lyon in French is fairly easy for an English speaker to approximate (apart from the nasal vowel), the German pronunciation of MĆ¼nchen or Kƶln is much more difficult. This may have promoted the survival of the conventional English names for those places. On the other hand, conventional English forms may have fallen out of use for places that have declined in relative importance and hence are less part of everyday English discourse, in the way that Rome still is. For example, in late medieval and early modern times, there would have been direct trade between England and "Leghorn" or "Lyons", which would have supported the use of an Anglicized name for those places. Now those names seem quaint, fussy, and provincial. Marco polo 13:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(After edit conflict, my version of the same point.) In general, there has been a trend towards using current foreign-language forms (and pronunciations), away from the traditional English forms that have evolved over a long period of usage by English-speakers. Obviously, if you want to read Tristram Shandy aloud ("I could...sometimes not so much as see even a Lyons-waistcoat, but this remembrance...would present itself") or hear the voice of Thomas Gray in a letter ("The houses here are so high, and the streets so narrow, as would be sufficient to render Lyons the dismallest place in the world, but the number of people, and the face of commerce diffused about it, are, at least, as sufficient to make it the liveliest"), you have to treat it as an English word (pronounced like the noun lions). People often act as if it as a sign of respect towards foreigners to copy their spellings and pronunciations (usually imperfectly). But I see it the other way around: Lyons is such an important place in France, that we even have a special word in the English language for it. This puts Lyons is the company of Caesar, and France itself. If English speakers use Latin & French pronunciations for "Caesar" and "France," surely it would be felt as gross pretension & a demotion of familiar & important ideas to the status of exotica? To instance the trend: Wikipedia has an article on Chalkidiki, not Chalcidice, which is the name under which the place has had the kind of importance for centuries of English speakers that they continued to speak of it (and change their pronunciation of it together with the phonological changes of their native words) & put it in their encyclopedias. Wareh 13:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the combined insistence of two kinds of localists: foreigners who don't understand the demotion they are pressing for and aggressive English-speakers unfamiliar with the larger world.--Wetman 17:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That assumes you agree with the idea that something needs to have an English word to be important or familiar. Many people would disagree. Note also that language is continually evolving. I question whether you can say that evolving towards more accurate pronounciations and spellings is somehow a less worthy evolution then other aspects of the evolution of language. If anything, I would argue it's part of a continuous trend. Traditionally most English speakers didn't bother at all to try and preserve spelling and pronounciation of foreign names and so you got some very odd spellings and pronounciations for 'exotic' names. These evolved to slightly more accurate spellings and pronounciations over time until eventually we reached where we are today. Nil Einne 00:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Futurism and Fascism
Benedetto Croce, the Italian philosopher, saw the ideological origins in Fascism in Futurism. How accurate is this?John O'Glen āPreceding unsigned comment added by John O'Glen (talk ā¢ contribs) 11:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can see this at oswaldmosley.com (validity of the site not attested) for a discussion of D'Annunzio and his substantial influence on the early fascists. They certainly are related, if not nearly the same. It amazes some people to find out just how tied to an art movement fascism was. Utgard Loki 15:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Italian futurism was one of the early influences in Italian fascism ā it was one of the main branches of Italian fascist thought, but that being said it was just one of a number of branches. The others don't all immediately to mind ā I took a poli sci class on fascism as an undergrad with a total lunatic years ago, where I had to read all about it. I think one of them had to do with corporatism and the another had to do with the Actual Idealism of Giovanni Gentile). You might try looking at Italian fascism and seeing if that is helpful at all. Note that the National Socialists in Germany did some things quite differently than the Italians, so you often have to forget about them for a moment when thinking about Italian fascism, as hard as it can be. But yes ā futurism is a major theme in early Italian fascism in particular, and many of the concerns of the futurists ā but not all! ā can be seen in some of the behaviors and philosophy of fascism in practice, in Italy and abroad. --24.147.86.187 20:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if anyone has every dipped into Filippo Marinetti's wonderful Futurist cookbook? It contains such meal plans as salami immersed in a bath; coffee flavoured with eau-de-Cologne; and for desert, pineapple and sardines! He once suggested to Mussolini that pasta be banned because it made the Italians lazy. Sorry; this is utterly beside the point.
Anyway, Futurism and Fascism, the terrible twins. Or are they? Though he broke with Mussolini politically in 1920 Marinetti went on to support his regime, claiming that it had fulfilled Futurism's minimum programme. In 1929 he even became the secretary of the Fascist Writer's Union, and remained loyal to Mussolini up to his death in 1944. You may remember, 24.147, from your studies with Gregor, that he attributes Mussolini's success in taking power to his adoption of a 'Futurist style', which, so he claims, served as a 'fundamental organizing and moblizing instrument in the Fascist armarium.' (The Fascist Persuasian in Radical Politics, 1974) At a superficial level this may be true, as the Fascists certainly relished action as an end in itself, and adopted some of the more extrovert aspects of the 'Futurist technique'. Yet, look again; look at the manifesto of the Futurist party which Marinetti published in early 1918, calling for the eight hour day; equal pay for women; expulsion of the Pope and the King from Italy; nationalisation of land, to be distributed among war veterans; high taxation on wealth; easy divorce and free love. Not much in the way of Fascist ideology there!
Marinetti, a great self-publicist, but not much of a politician, joined Mussolini in the formation of the Fasci italiani di combattimento in March 1919, though, as the movement grew, the Futurists remained a small and isolated element. More than that, some of his clownish antics, like the so-called 'Battle of Via Mercanti', did more harm than good to the emerging movement, which was almost destroyed in the elections of November 1919. The kind of direct action, the energizing myth favoured by Marinetti was bringing Mussolini no political benefits whatsoever. What did was the emergence in 1920 of rural Squadrismo, a reactionary force that represented everything that Futurism did not. It was this turn towards rural conservatism that caused Marinetti to resign from the party in a mood of disgust. Of this Mussolini said that Marinetti was "an eccentric buffoon who wants to play politics and whom no one in Italy, least of all me , takes seriously." Fascism was carried to power on a wave of brutish reaction, not in a Futurist carnival. Clio the Muse 01:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Russian art in the 1920s
What impact did the New Economic Policy have on Soviet art? John O'Glen 11:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a time of relative freedom, though opportunities for self-expression were still determined by one's attitudes towards the legitimacy of 'Soviet power.' Marc Chagall was to leave Russia in 1921, having been accused of being insufficiently commited to 'socialist values' and clinging to 'bourgeois ideals.' It was the time of Proletkult, a rather misguided attempt to discover a truly 'proletarian' art. It also saw the high tide of Constructivism, embracing both the poetry of Vladimir Mayakovsky and the architecture of Vladimir Tatlin. It was also the high water-mark of the whole of the Russian avant-garde. In writing some of the greatest authors of the twentieth century emerged, including Isaac Babel, Mikhail Bulgakov and Yevgeny Zamyatin. Zamyatin was even able to publish abroad We, his brilliant and prophetic novel, which was to influence both Aldous Huxley and George Orwell, though the book was not allowed to circulate in Russia itself. Freedom, limited as it was, ended with the 'proletarian cultural revolution' that began in 1928 with the emergence of Socialist Realism. Forced into silence, Isaac Babel was to say in an exercise in 'sef-criticism' that the "Party has denied us the right to write badly." But deny this right then all right is denied. Clio the Muse 02:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the effect on the art itself, not the artists, then keep in mind that the interbellum was a time of change around the world (out with the old, in with the new), so any changes in the USSR might as well be caused by that (although one could argue the the NEP was itself an exponent of that). For example, atonal music got a 'second wind' around that time (another misguided attempt). Which makes me wonder, how was atonal music viewed in the USSR? Nicely egalitarian or decadent western? The article says "In Nazi Germany, atonal music was attacked as 'Bolshevik' ". But that need have little to do with what the Soviets themselves thought of it. Ironically, the egalitarian aspect is in keeping with the communist ideal, but it could also be seen as democratic (all the notes get an equal say), which was not in keeping with the totalitarian reality. DirkvdM 06:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Music? Well, in January 1936 Stalin walked out of a performance of Dimitri Shostakovich's opera Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District. The day after an editorial appeared in Pravda, thought to be by Stalin himself, with the heading 'Muddle not Music.' Shostakovich, it proceeded, had written "an ugly flood of confusing sound...a pandemonium of creaking, shrieking and crashes...an unadulterated cacophony." In the most menancing touch of all the reviewer added that "things could end very badly for the composer."
The Nazis were, indeed, in the practice of condemning all cultural innovation as 'Bolshevism.' (Not just them, though: in reviewing UlyssesH. G. Wells described Joyce's novel as 'cultural Bolshevism'!) However, while the subject matter may have been different, the aesthetics and techniques favoured by the Nazis and the Communists, especially in the phase of Socialist Realism, were remarkably similar: vulgar, monumental and diminishing. Clio the Muse 01:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that piece (I can't stand the way operas are usually sung - I can only just bear the performance of Tres Picos I'm listening to now because it's Spanish) and the article doesn't comment on its syle. Is it atonal (to me opera always sound atonalĀ :) )? And what do you mean by 'diminishing'? Shostakovich is rather on the edge, sometimes brilliant, sometimes unintelligible. Btw, this use of the word 'Bolshevik' by the Nazis is ironic - the word means 'majority', so they condemned the majority.Ā :) DirkvdM 06:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
meditation
hi..i want to know how to do meditation...can we practice it on our own or do we need any instructor for that...what are its benefits? thank you.. āPreceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.48.25 (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instructors can help, but they cannot force you to meditate. No matter how you do it, it is simply a matter of clearing your mind. Stop thinking about things. This is very difficult for most people. So an alternative is to focus all your thoughts on one mundane item - such as a small object sitting in the room with you. As for benefits, see Health applications and clinical studies of meditation -- kainawā¢ 13:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transcendental Meditation the book was a major help for folks in the 1970's, but meditation, as Kainaw says, is a simple enough practice, and it's as venerable in the west as the east. Eastern methods of controlled breathing and the like are very efficacious at inducing the meditative state, although many people prefer something more meaningful or spiritual. Utgard Loki 15:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These were the instructions I was given:
You may want a minimal ritual that sets the mood for you, like lighting a candle. Then sit down with your feet on the floor in front of you and your back comfortably upright and your hands open in your lap. Start a timer for 30 minutes, and close your eyes. Now be quiet, saying a word in rhythm with your breath, the same word over and over. If you lose concentration, simply recall yourself to the word. The objest is not to DO anything, just to BE. When the timer sounds, let yourself return to the world and sit quietly until you are ready to start doing again. It's a discipline that is used in many faiths: thisis a page on Christian meditation. SaundersW 16:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was taught to meditate by starting off lying down in a still, dimly-lit room. Then I'd begin at my head and say to myself, "Your head is starting to relax, your head is relaxing, your head is relaxed". Then you work down through all of your body to your feet. Then you can let your mind wander to where it wants to go. Corvus cornix 16:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A similar technique I learned is to lie down on a firm bed without a pillow, but with a slight support in the lower back and a somewhat bigger one in the neck (once you start to relax you'll notice why and why it is important to get the size and position of the support right). Then tense up (or what's the word?) first the muscles in your toes, then in your feet and up and up, letting muscle tension flow up your body up to your neck and then down your arms until you let the tension flow out of your fingertips. Then, following the same route, relax first your toes, then your feet, etc. This should take about a minute (maybe two). After this, your body will be relaxed and you can 'concentrate' (not really the right word) on relaxing your mind, the difficult bit. If you do this often, it will become ever easier to reach a certain state, until after a year's practise or so you can completely relax almost instantly. Which probably saved my life once, when I was stuck halfway up a cliff, looked down and panicked. I 'anchored' myself against the rocks, closed my eyes and started meditating. Haven't a clue for how long, but when I opened my eyes again, I was capable to rationally concentrate on the right way to get out of my predicament (making sure not to look down again). A book I can recommend, even though it is not specifically about meditation, is Siddhartha (novel). Btw, reading about meditation is no help at first, but when you learn to meditate, you might on occasion think 'Ah, so that's what they meant', which will be a hint that you're on the right track. Which is also the reason you'll get ever better at it - you have to 'recall' the state you're supposed to reach and the more you've experienced it, the sooner you'll recognise it. Because the thing is, every time you start to meditate you need to remember the state you want to reach. Also, keep in mind that meditation isn't hard - it's supposed to be quite the opposite. But that's the hard thing - making it easy.Ā :) Once you're in the meditative state, it's so obvious, but when you start a new meditation session it isn't. Odd as that may be. DirkvdM 19:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a guided meditation here which I tried having had no experience of meditation before. I found it very effective and I believe it's quite a common way of going about it. --bodnotbod 21:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deikman, an academic researcher [13][14] did an experiment in the 1960's in which subjects meditated by focussing on a simple blue vase, with remarkable results, reminiscent of meditation by religious persons. The person meditating can become depersonalized. [15]Edison 00:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I would want to push religion (far from it), but I can imagine that believing in one absolute and absract entity gives one a great focus-point for meditation. That may be why meditation is so often associated with religion. DirkvdM 06:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Boyhood of Raleigh (Moved from computing desk)
i have what i can only asume is a copy of millais picture :THE BOYHOOD OF RALIEGH .CAN YOU PLEASE GIVE ME ANY INFORMATION
RELATING TO THIS PICTURE/ PRINT, THANK YOU āPreceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.28.159 (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can only assume you mean "The Boyhood of Raleigh" as in the header rather than as spelled in the question - please check your spelling, and please don't use ALL CAPS - it's not good nettiquette. A basic description can be found here [16] - also this question would be better asked on the humanities desk, so that's where I've moved it to. Exxolon 12:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must clarify, Exx: before this was moved, it was me who added this title and not the poster, as there was no title in the first place. Apparently I have mis-spelt from his/er original question! [17] "the boyhood of raleigh" (97,000 results) and [18] "the boyhood of raliegh" (500 results) seem to confirm this.martianlostinspaceemail me 16:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Denying the Middle Ages (the time period, not the stage of life)
Several years ago I seem to recall hearing or seeing on TV this crackpot "historian" who felt that the time between, say, Julius Caesar's birth and today had been artificially lengthened by two or three hundred years. I don't recall exactly what time period he'd decided was false; it may in fact have been pre-Middle Ages. Basically, his thesis was that the "real" year was only about 1750 or so and that an extra two hundred or three hundred years had been inserted into European history in the past. Any idea who this may have been and what might have led him to such an idea? Matt Deres 14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know but what about people outside Europe? Were they part of this conspiracy or did he just ignore them completely Nil Einne 15:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, that guy. I'm sure someone will come along with his name, but I was hoping that you were going to ask about the dissent to the term "medieval" and "middle ages" themselves. That is interesting, but the crackpot (who suggested, I think, that some medieval authority (church, of course) invented a leap of centuries to gain authority) isn't all that interesting. How he gets on TV is more of a story than he is. Utgard Loki 15:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After a minute or two of Googling I came across this [19] about this guy de:Heribert Illig (de has an article about him we don't) and his crackpot Phantom time hypothesis which I guess is what we're talking about Nil Einne 15:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps it was one of the ones in the see also since the German guy's stuff appears to have been ignored by the English speaking world (thankfully) Nil Einne 15:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That description sounds like Illig...we used to have an article about him, apparently it has been redirected now. There are lots of others with similar views; Anatoly Fomenko is another good one. Category:Pseudohistory might have more as well. Adam Bishop 17:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses guys; Illig is probably the guy I was thinking of. That's some imagination... Matt Deres 20:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone interested in the idea of "missing years" might also find interesting the notion of "prochronism" as discussed by Philip Henry Gosse in Omphalos (book) (1857) p125 available online at [20]. He sought to reconcile geology with the Bible by proposing that all the fossil animals never actually lived, so the world could have been created a few thousand years ago, complete with geological evidence of ancient plants and animals. By the same logic, it could have been created 5 seconds ago, complete with half-typed edits. Kinda fails for scientists due to lack of falsibility as a scientific theory, and never made the religionists happy either. But died-in-the-wool Bible literalists have to explain: if God created a mighty oak tree in the Garden of Eden, did it have tree rings inside suggesting a prochronic existence of many years, and if he created a fish did it have scales with rings suggesting previous prochronic existence. Edison 00:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And literalists have no problem at all replying that Adam and Eve had tummy buttons, the chicken came before the egg, the first trees had tree rings, etc. After all, people have wondered these things for a long time; they have pat answers and see no problemĀ :) 86.149.189.229 03:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eagles Song?
I know this might go better in the Entertainment Reference Desk, but this one gets much more attention so I thought I'd ask here. I seem to remember back in the late 70's or early 80's a song that I could have sworn was the Eagles, but I can't find it anywhere and I haven't heard it in years. The lyrics are "You're either going to have to stop what you're doing to me right now...or you're going to have to keep doing it all night long". I can sing that line and in my mind it's Don Henley singing it, but I googled that line and came up with nothing. Any help? --SGTTex 17:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it, "Heartache Tonight?" (Even that is better than "Entertainment Tonight.") Utgard Loki 18:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but no that's not the right song. Any other guesses? --SGTTex 19:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's Sure Feels Like Love by Larry Gaitlin. He doesn't seem to have a page on WP, but you can Google the words "You're either going to have to stop what you're doing to me right now" (in quotes) plus the word "lyrics" to get the words (the spamblocker won't let me just give ya the page). Matt Deres 20:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could also try Googling Wikipedia for phrases such as "remained a virgin", which throws up a few suggestions.--Shantavira|feed me 17:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Googling "list of virgins" gives some pages that seem to be mirrors of the deleted article (good riddance, btw). Skarioffszky 19:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone suggests the Virgin Queen, we should bear in mind the warning of the schoolboy essay which began "Queen Elizabeth I was the Virgin Queen. As a Queen, she was a great success." Xn4 01:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I knew her before she became a virgin" has been applied to Grace Kelly and Doris Day. -- JackofOz 01:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can provide a copy of our deleted list temporarily (sans any contents with WP:BLP problems - though you have to wonder how times have changed when assertions of being virgin could be an issue) if you like. Drop me a note on my talkpage of where in namespace you would like the contents moved to. Rockpocket 01:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hesse-Darmstadt in the War of the Austrian Succession
Can anyone tell me the position of the Landgraviate of Hesse-Darmstadt in the War of the Austrian Succession? Was it neutral throughout the conflict, or aligned with Austria (and Britain) or Prussia (and France) throughout or during different parts of the conflict? Also, were any battles fought on the territory of Hesse-Darmstadt? Thank you. Marco polo 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to answer. Hours of fruitless searching prompted the questions, but then it occurred to me to try the 1911 Britannica, which states that Hesse-Darmstadt was allied with Austria. Sorry for the distraction. Marco polo 17:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Augustus of Prima Porta
I am doing a short piece on the aforementioned topic and wanted to have any input that you have on it. Anything ... --Click me! 17:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the organization that gives out awards based on album sales in Canada? (I'm thinking something like the RIAA) Smokizzy (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of careers are availible in Chinese Law?
I'm a US citizen interested in pursuing a law career in China either as part of the state or with businesses aligned with the state. There isn't that much information available on this career field so I'd appreciate general info. Are there American lawyers who work for the Chinese government? How does China select the foreign lawyers who represent them in international court? What are some businesses organizations or law firms that have operations with or in China? --Gosplan 22:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about this but as for the question "how does China select the..." I would presume you'd need to have vast experience with international law. As to how you get that, you'd likely start in the country you're a citizen of i.e. the US. In any case from a general sense, being able to speak and read Mandarin to a resonable degree may be essential or at least a major advantage Nil Einne 00:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
September 8
transverse juror
I just got a notice for jury duty as a "transverse juror". What is a "transverse juror" - I can't find it anywhere? Bubba73(talk), 00:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Websearch finds several copies of a news item from 1963: the Columbia County (Georgia?) Transverse Jury awarded damages in what appears to be an eminent domain case. Are you in Georgia? āTamfang 01:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more usually called a "traverse juror". A traverse jury is a trial jury in a criminal case. In practical terms, it means you may be needed for several days. Xn4 01:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am in Georgia. And you are right - it is "traverse juror" (my error). Bubba73(talk), 01:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing about traverse juries is that they normally have the traditional number of twelve members, so they are petit juries as opposed to grand juries, which are bigger. Xn4 02:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this will be my first time as a juror. I just don't want to be the foreman - I don't think I'm ready for that. Bubba73(talk), 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing attitudes towards Communism/ideology
This is something that has interested me immensely, I was wondering if there were any tangible and documented rehabilitation of the Communist era, most pertinently in Eastern Europe, whereby a sense of nostalgia and desire for the stability of the decades of Communist rule overrides the privations that era entailed? Any articles would be greatly helpful.
In Moldova, the communist party tends to get about half the votes, which is a big anomaly in a multi-party country without a winner-take-all democracy (such as the US). And the Communist Party of the Russian Federation got up to 1/3 of the votes in the 1990s and their presidential candidate has always come in second. Note that the 'safety before freedom' idea is not specifically a state socialist thing; it's always (?) been advocated by right-wing parties (Franco was revered by many in Spain for the safety he brought) and is gaining a very strong foothold in the world since the US discovered terrorism. DirkvdM 06:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fancy a night in a genuine Stasi prison, anyone? The ultimate experience in Ostalgie! [25]]. Just imagine the complaints at check-out: 'That plank bed wasn't hard enough'; 'The food was too good'; 'The staff were not rude enough', and so on and so forth. I must say I am a little disappointed by the Wikipedia page on the movie Good Bye Lenin!; the plot is a lot more subtle than suggested. Christiane is not an 'ardent supporter' of the Socialist Unity Party, and some of her observations on aspects of life in the GDR are biting in their irony. In the end what happens is the momentary creation of an ideal, between dead bureaucratic socialism, on the one hand, and empty capitalist materialism, on the other. Clio the Muse 01:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me. Are you sure you posted this in the right thread? DirkvdM 07:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propaganda in the war of the Roses
how important was propaganda in wars of the roses? R D York 06:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is not quite true, Eamonn, or at least the evidence shows that governments of the day were more than anxious to 'get the message across', so to say, in one form or another; by written hand-bills, or by public pronouncements; most often from church pulpits or from the market cross. But it is during the Wars of the Roses that the process of passing on information is given a new twist in the form of political propaganda. It was particularly important for Richard III, who had acquired the throne by such questionable means. He even employed theologians to debate his title publicly, and proclaim the illegitimacy of Edward V, his nephew. In 1485, with Henry Tudor about to invade, Richard issued a proclamation against him and his followers, denounced as "open murderers, adulterers, and extortioners, who contrary to the pleasure of God, and against all truth, honour and nature, have forsaken their natural country." Written propaganda, sometimes in Latin, but increasingly in English, had been appearing since the early days of the dynastic struggle. Clio the Muse 02:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone give me a detailed, maybe even contemporary account of what a noble groom and bride might have worn to their wedding in mid seventeenth century France? Thanks Adambrowne666 09:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They would have dressed very much as if they were to appear at Court. No veil for the bride. The young duchesse de Bourgogne simply happens to be in white and gold: the "white wedding dress" is a C19 tradition. --Wetman 18:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, Wetman - interesting painting by the way - it looks as if people are depicted larger according to rank - the bride is tiny. Adambrowne666 21:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bulgarian Massacres
Why did Gladstone and Disraeli take such opposite views over the Bulgarian Massacre of 1876? Pacific231 10:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See April Uprising, National awakening of Bulgaria and Russo-Turkish War (1877ā1878). Gladstone, in opposition, robustly condemned the atrocities and supported Bulgarian independence, leading much of public opinion in Britain. Disraeli's views weren't exactly opposite on the question of the massacres - he didn't support them - but in government he took the more pragmatic view that in the long term there was a greater threat to British interests from the expansionist intentions of the Russian Empire than from the status quo in the Balkans. This had also been the British view at the time of the Crimean War. Disraeli thought (and correctly) that by supporting the Ottomans he could also extract concessions from them on the humanitarian front. In the longer term, of course, the fall-out from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in Europe led to disaster, though it may be fanciful to see Disraeli as having anticipated it all. Xn4 22:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was the contrast between what is most commonly viewed as the 'ethics of opposition' and the 'pragmatism of power.' William Ewart Gladstone famously called for the Turks to be removed 'bag and baggage' from the areas they had devastated in the Batak massacre; Benjamin Disraeli, the Prime Minister of the day, held steady to to the established British position in maintaining the Ottoman Empire as a counter to the expansionist ambitions of Russia. Would Gladstone in office, it is fair to ask, have behaved any differently? Yes, I think he may very well have, and not purely for reasons of moral outrage. There was simply no reason to suppose, as Disraeli did, that an independent Bulgaria would have been little more than a Russian puppet. In fact, there was a pragmatic dimension to Gladstone's whole perception of the issue, and it is this: a line of vigorous independent Balkan nations would, in the long run, have served the British purpose far better than a weak and weakening Turkish Empire.
Not many years after the Treaty of Berlin had greatly reduced the Bulgarian borders previously established at San Stephano the country was behaving in a determindly independant manner, much to the frustration of the Russians. Indeed, when Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia joined to together in 1885, in defiance of the Treaty of Berlin, the move was opposed by Russia, though it was supported by Lord Salisbury, the British Prime Minister, who had been Disraeli's Foreign Secretary at Berlin Thus the diplomatic world was turned upside down. So, in the end, even the Tories recognised that the Grand Old Man had not been entirely wrong! Clio the Muse 03:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
business communication
what is the impact of communication on organisational performance?
what is consumer behaviour?
what is market segmentation?
what is marketing environment? āPreceding unsigned comment added by Akinmusi (talk ā¢ contribs) 10:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some good places to start would be our articles consumer behaviour and market segmentation, as well as our article marketing. Please feel free to return and ask any further questions you have after reading them. DuncanHill 23:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Roman chair" history
Is the Roman chair (a piece of exercise equipment; no article yet, I may write one if I find sources) so called because it was used by the ancient Romans? āKeenan Pepper 14:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. On seeing the header I (not being that familiar with the exercise equipment) instantly thought of the Curule chair, but I'm not really sure that the two are related. GeeJo(t)ā(c) ā¢Ā 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images of a modern "Roman chair" are more suggestive of a piece of torture equipment. Ā --Lambiam 06:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finding a person looking for a job
This is a bit of a complicated one. My brother runs a granite/marble countertop business, and he's looking for a prospective manager. Where could he find someone interested in and qualified for that job? Thanks.--The Ninth Bright Shiner 16:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While reading about the killing of children in present-day Africa as suspected witches I came across a passing reference to the story of the witch girl of Rothenburg, a case that dates to the Thirty Years War in seventeenth century Europe. I came here looking for further information, though I have not been able to find any mention of this on your witchcraft pages. Does anyone know any more? Admiratio 17:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This site (unfortunately in German) has a bit more: Between 1500 and 1700, 65 people were involved in 28 witch trials in Rothenburg o.d. T. Of these, three were executed as witches. A Margaretha Horn of Bettenfeld is mentioned who was tried for witchcraft and developed an extraordinarily complex strategy of resistance during her cross-examination in Rothenburg's prison. This happened in 1652, after the war. One famous witch trial before and into the Thirty years war, happened in Leonberg, not that far away from Rothenburg. Katharina Kepler, Johannes Kepler's mother was indicted for witchcraft along with 14 other women. Her son did all he could, took her away to Linz for a while, but when she returned to Leonberg, she was arrested and imprisoned for a few months, until Kepler was able to effect her release in october 1620, shortly before one the War's famous early battles. ---Sluzzelintalk 21:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rothenburg to Leonberg is not thaaat clos. More like close to 160km.--Tresckow 21:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that close in far away times, not that far closer to now, 150.7 km from center to center, according to MapPoint. One and a half hours by car, two days on horseback or even more on foot. You have a point, the aside on Kepler was just that and off-topic. ---Sluzzelintalk 21:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know of this case: the little girl in question was seven-year-old Brigitta Hƶrner, who lived in Rothenburg ob der Tauber. In the summer of 1639 she began to make claims that she was a witch; that she had attended sabbats, flying to these occasions on a fire-iron. She further claimed that while there she had promised herself to the devil, who was present dressed in black. The devil, so said Brigitta, told her to curse rather than pray. The little girl further said that she had no choice but to become a witch, because she had been baptised in the name of Satan rather than God by the pastor of Spielbach, the village where she was born. In much the same fashion that was appear later that century during the Salem witch trials Brigitta began to identify the members of her 'coven', adults from both Rothenburg and Spielbach. This added to the social tensions in the area, with people asking her to identify those whom they suspected of witchcraft. It was concerns over public order that caused the city council of Rothenburg to have Brigitta arrested on 8 July. She was now widely known in the area as the 'Little Witch Girl.'
It's an altogether tragic story. We simply do not know why she began to tell these tales, though Alison Rowlands in her work on the subject, alluded to by Sluzzelin above, suggests that it was simply attention seeking born of neglect. Brigitta's mother and father were both dead, and her remaining relatives, including an uncle by the name of Hans Hƶrner, did not want to take responsibility for her, leaving her to wander around Rothenburg, managing as best she could. Her stories gave her some degree of power over an uncaring adult world.
The city councillors treated her kindly. After a brief interrogation they decided that her stories were not plausible. She was released into the care of the local hospital, a charitable institution used in the support orphans and the elderly. In the official report on the matter, Georg Walther, lawyer to the council, wrote that Brigitta's stories were a fantasy, most likely caused by the influence of the devil on her imagination, which is quite remarkably when one considers that was a time when the witch-craze across central Europe was at its height; a time when children were used without hesitation-as they were at Salem-to implicate an ever widening circle of people; a time when even the youngest children could be executed on a charge of witchcraft. Brigitta was simply told not to repeat her stories and take religious instruction from the hospital's pastor.
Sadly, poor little Brigitta only remained in the custody of the authorities for three months, whereupon she was released into the care of her uncle, Hans. An unwanted responsibility, she was passed between him and other relatives for some time after. Hƶrner started to beat her to force her out of the city. She was later discovered dead in a barn near Rothenburg in October 1640. Clio the Muse 00:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PA State Law
Which Pennsylvania criminal case established whether PA would follow Wardlow v. Illinois? āPreceding unsigned comment added by Jjohn10e (talk ā¢ contribs) 18:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One point that is not entirely clear is whether you know that such a case exists, and you are just looking for the citation in order to refresh your memory, or whether there is some other purpose you have in mind. If it is the former instance, you should have no trouble finding it with a Pennsylvania Citator and a reference to 528 U.S. 119. Any good PA-specific reference on Criminal procedure should also prove adequate. Just ask your nearest law librarian. dr.ef.tymac 01:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Civil rights vs. civil liberties
What is the difference between civil rights and civil liberties? (Is there a difference? Could the articles be made clearer to explain both concepts and distinguish between them?) Many thanks in advance. 86.56.48.12 20:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that civil rights give a citizen influence over his government, while civil liberties keep the government from overly influencing his life. EamonnPKeane 20:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Electric bike specification limits in California
Electric bike are designated consumer products rather than motor vehicles if they conform to 1. retain functional pedals, 2. are limited to 750 watts and 3. are limited to a top speed of 20 MPH. In California the state has increased the top speed limit to 30 MPH. Does anyone know if the State of California has increased the wattage limit as well? āPreceding unsigned comment added by Kadiddlehopper (talk ā¢ contribs) 20:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a lot of power: for a sustained period it would take about 4 ordinary perple or 1.5 world class athletes to produce it. Edison 01:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
US Governors
Does the US have an equivalent of the EU's Council of Ministers made up of
State governors? If such a body exists what are its powers and is it strong enough to influence Congress and the Senate. On a related note, is there a formal body in which State legislatures co-operate and co-ordinate activities, I've found National Conference of State Legislatures but that seems to be a lobbying thinktank type body rather than a practical body. Thanks.KTo288 21:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No there is no body with legal powers. There is the National Governors Association[26] and smaller groups like the New England Governors Conference and the Southern Governors Conference. Rmhermen 21:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.KTo288 22:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. Senate originally was something along those lines at first, since each state had the same number of senators, and they were appointed by the state legislatures. The 17th Amendment established direct election of senators by the people. But the US has never had a "council of states" simplar to the German Bundesrat. That may be in part because the states, like the US federal government, do not have European-style "governments" that can speak with a single voice, but rather governors and legislatures that are often at odds with each other. -- Mwalcoff 00:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's this painting?
Hello, I've got an art identification question here. What is the name of this painting, as seen on this [27] book cover? I've seen it a million times, but I have no idea what it's called. Thanks, GhostPirate 21:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed; and isn't it a fascinating painting, full of threat and hidden meaning. Why is the street so empty? Who is the unseen figure casting the shadow? Is this a parent or protector waiting for the little girl, or is it something altogether more sinister? It's really creepy! Clio the Muse 23:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
art history
what is the difference between the likeness of an object and the representation of it?
To illustrate, one could say that this Picasso painting is a valid artistic representation of women, but is not a very good likeness of them because no women actually look like that. -- JackofOz 01:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some women who have been in car wrecks or plane crashes or have been the subjects of experiments by demented surgeons have perhaps looked a bit like some of the Picasso paintings. Edison 01:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
September 9
US States by Percent Urbanized
Hello,
I'm trying to find a list of US States by the percent of their population that lives in an urban area.
![[27]](http://www.geocities.com/gotefridus/andersen2006/images/1293435648subtleknife.jpg){kind=link}
