Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

WP:RD/H C #eee #f5f5f5 #eee #aaa #aaa #aaa #00f #00f #000 #00f humanities Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities Humanities WP:RD/H

Welcome to the humanities reference desk. Want a faster answer? Main page: Help searching Wikipedia     How can I get my question answered? Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right). Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question. Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when. Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here. Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context. Note: We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice. We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point. We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need. Ready? Ask a new question! After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. How do I answer a question? Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

Choose a topic: Computing desk Science desk Mathematics desk Humanities desk Language desk Entertainment desk Miscellaneous desk Archives   See also: Help desk Village pump Help Manual   skip to bottom

November 16

National Convention

Why was the National Convention established during the French Revolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.202 (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The National Convention was the executive authority established after the monarchy was suspended and then abolished in September 1792. It was charged with drawing up a constitution for the new republic. Clio the Muse 01:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There's an interesting comparison with the English Convention Parliament of 1689, which followed the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The King having fled, a more regular parliament could not be summoned. Xn4 02:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Financial index

What is a financial liquidity weighted index? How may it be constructed, eg using equity assets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.27.213 (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

An equity market index is a composite value calculated from the market prices of a basket of consituent equities. Instead of assigning each constituent stock an equal weight in the calculation, some indices weight stocks in proportion to their total issued market value or market capitalisation. A liquidity weighted index might mean that stocks are weighted in proportion to their liquidity, which is typically measured by the number of shares traded in a given period. Alternatively, it might mean an index in which constituents are weighted by capitalistion but selected by liquidity, as is the case for these LPX Private Equity Indices. Gandalf61 14:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Habsburg lip

Is the deformity known as "Habsburg lip" still around? Does any living person of Habsburg descent show it? If not, who was last noted for it (assuming that's a meaningful question)? —Tamfang 04:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What I found at this site [1] was the following text: "Marie Louise . . . had a large and generous mouth with full lips, the lower one being the true “Hapsburg lip,” slightly pendulous–a feature which has remained for generation after generation as a sure sign of Hapsburg blood. One sees it in the present emperor of Austria, in the late Queen Regent of Spain, and in the present King of Spain, Alfonso". I believe the reference is to Alfonso XIII, grandfather of the current King Juan Carlos I of Spain. I checked some images of Alfonso XIII on Google, but, if he had the same jaw as shown in portraits of Charles II (who also had a number of problems quite aside from the infamous jaw that was so defoprmed he could not chew), he also had remarkable photographers. It appears that there is a "Hapsburg lip" as described in the quote and also a "Hapsburg jaw" which is a much more marked deformity with a strong forward thrust, although the terms refer one to the other in many cases. Bielle 05:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

See Prognathism. Is it around? Yes; it's a form of mandibular prognathism. It is notable in the Habsburgs only because it is so easily traceable in such a royal family where everybody had pictures painted of them. Today it would be treated with orthodontics. ---- 24.147.86.187 (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Habsbourg lip fullness was theorised to have been caused by a slight negroid interbreeding within the Habsbourg family per Jonathan Swift and others. Belicia (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Barefootedness

Was barefootedness associated with being God in Greek or Roman periods? Do you have good, citeable web articles for this ? I knw that Augustus of Prima Porta was barefooted but do we know when it started or somwething? I wikilink to a specific article about being unshod and its relation to rligious deities would be helpful as well. Thank you. --Kushal^t 05:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

this should be able to help you a bit, search for The Bare Feet Speak: Nonverbal Messages of Barefootedness for the relevant info. Sorry, I am not aware of anything onwiki regarding this, other than in the different articles related to Greek mythology and which gods were always depicted as barefoot. Dureo 12:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kushal^t 17:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't help remembering that Tolkien's Hobbits nearly always went barefoot. See also History of nudity. Xn4 01:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Mozart's juvenilia

What year is considered the end of Mozart's juvenilia works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeeganB (talk • contribs) 07:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Implying that you can cut up a composer's career into years... It is doubtful whether you can say: "Then and there it ended" (whatever "it" may be, in the context). Thus, 1773 is sometimes called a turning point (second Italian visit), but then, Bastien und Bastienne had been written earlier. Periods are not something you snap out of, after all. Bessel Dekker 12:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Roosevelt and De Gaulle

What was it specifically that caused Roosevelt to be so hostile and distrustful towards General De Gaulle? 81.151.6.70 08:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Dakar perhaps? See Battle of Dakar and [2] Bessel Dekker 12:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think in general Roosevelt was rather wary of the idea of sacrificing U.S. troops in order to enhance De Gaulle's personal political power, or to maintain or restore France's pre-war colonial empire. AnonMoos 14:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of it had to do with the political differences among French exiles after the Fall of France. The people who went to, or remained in, the USA were often not well disposed towards the Free French in London who could reasonably be described as a rather disparate and desperate bunch, about whom Roosevelt would hear little that was positive, and much - and all of it true - that was not. Jean Monnet, one of several Frenchmen whom Roosevelt knew and trusted, was a late supporter of Free France. Poet and diplomat Saint-John Perse was another who had little time for the jumped-up General and his Cagoulard, and later Communist, collaborators, and never became any sort of Gaullist. Where the majority of the exiles differed from Roosevelt was in accepting the inevitable much sooner. Monnet joined the CFLN in 1943, rather late in the day but not quite the eleventh hour. Roosevelt never entirely came to terms with the idea of De Gaulle leading France. Still, FDR's view of De Gaulle makes more sense if we forego hindsight and consider just how bizarre it must have seemed that a mere brigadier, with no meaningful political or administrative experience, should head the government in exile of France. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In general Roosevelt considered De Gaulle to be military adventurer and a political libility, more likely to alienate the French than to bring them over to the Allied cause. Indeed, even after the commencement of Operation Torch, the Allied invasion of Vichy territory in North Africa, the United States remained hopeful that the government of Marshal Petain could be brought over to an anti-German view. De Gaulle, full of his own importance, only stood in the way. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Cromwell and Manchester

I should like to know the exact reason for the dispute between Cromwell and the Earl of Manchester? Also why was Cromwell exempted from the terms of the Self-Denying Ordinance when Machester, Essex and Waller were not? Tower Raven 10:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's asking too much to want the exact reason. As his second-in-command in the east of England, and later, Cromwell saw Manchester at close quarters and built up a low opinion of him as a military commander. And from the political point of view of Cromwell and his 'war party', Manchester was altogether too negative about the prospects of the civil war - see, for instance, Manchester's famous remark "If we beat the King ninety-nine times, yet he is King still; but if the King beat us once, we shall all be hanged." Cromwell became the leading opponent of Manchester in Parliament.

On the Self-denying Ordinance, Cromwell wasn't entirely exempted from it to begin with, but the Committee of Both Kingdoms found him so invaluable that it kept on extending his commission for forty days at a time. In the end, his position was so strong that this device was no longer needed. Xn4 00:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are really serious about this, Tower Raven, you will find many of the relevant documents in The Quarrel between the Earl of Manchester and Oliver Cromwell edited by J. Bruce and D. Masson, published by the Camden Society in 1875. There were growing differences over religion, politics and the conduct of the war. The whole struggle was passing beyond the limits that Manchester was prepared to contemplate. For Cromwell the old Eastern Association no longer served the purpose; only a New Model Army would do. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nazi literature

In 1933 many prominent writers left Germany after Hitler came to power. In April of that same year Goebbels organised the burning of 'degenerate' books. My question is what came in its place? What was the literary form embraced by the Third Reich? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.15.240 (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, so-called "degenerate" books are not a literary form.
• During WWII, there is usually thought to have been no independent literature in Germany at all. Authors who had fled the country, wrote Exilliteratur ("Exile literature"), which, again, cannot be described as a form.
• After the war, literature started all over again from what has been called a Stunde Null ("Zero Hour"). Bessel Dekker 14:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What came in its place, 193.130? What is usually left after a bonfire? Why, ashes. Speaking at the burning of the books (which came in May 1933, incidentally, not April) Goebbels announced that "The soul of the German people can express itself again. The flames not only illuminate the end of the old era, they also light up the new." The 'old era' consisted of some 2,500 writers, many of international renown. To fill the gap Goebbels delegated control of literature to Department VIII of his own Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment. The Department quickly set up a set of standards, to which all aspiring writers were obliged to conform. Work had to be produced in any one of four categories: Fronterlebnis, stressing the camraderie of war; Weltanschauung, refecting the Nazis world view; Heimatroman, stressing the national mystique of the German localities; Rassenkunde, reflecting Nazi views on race.

I am sure it will come as no surprise for you to learn that those who operated within this straight-jacket were disinguished by their mediocrity; people like Werner Bumelburg, who wrote mawkishly sentimental novels about comradeship in the Great War; Rudolf Binding and Bōrries von Münchausen, who wrote tiresome pseudo-Medieval epics. The few writers who stood out against this apotheosis of the second rate included Hans Grimm and Gottfried Benn, who though initially supportive of National Socialism, later turned hostile. Others like Ernst Jünger, though a hero of the German right, had always maintained a sense of personal distance. Goebbels' phoenix was nothing more than a turkey. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've included parts of this reply in the article Nazi book burnings. Thanks! Sandstein (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Clio is spot on. In short, what filled the gap was mostly worthless propaganda. Goebbels famously said "We can build autobahns, we can revive the economy and create a new army, but we can't build new dramatists." Xn4 01:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert on German literature, but what about German film in the Nazi period? What about films like Das Bad auf der Tenne by Volker von Collande? Corvus cornix (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not all bad, Corvus, because Goebbels took a far less instrumental view of film than he did of the written word. You will find very little obvious propaganda and a lot of escapism, very much in the Hollywood style of the day. Thinking purely in terms of cinematic technique, some of the progaganda and documentary material that was produced is superb, and here I am thinking specifically of Leni Reifenstahl's Triumph of the Will and Olympia. Anyway, have a look at Nazism and cinema and List of films made in the Third Reich. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Autors are for example: Historical fiction: Waldemar Glaser, Alfred Karrasch, Hans Friedrich Blunck

fiction about farmers:Joseph Georg Oberkofler, Felix Nabor,

fiction about seetlers:Josef Ponten, Ulrich Sander

fiction about the war:Otto Paust, Edwin Erich Dwinger

fiction for woman:Kuni Tremel-Eggert, Wilhelm Schmidtbonn

Drama: Hanns Johst,Hans Rehbergs

Thingspiel(: Eberhard Wolfgang Möller, Richard Euringer.

Lyric poetry:Herybert Menzel, Herbert Böhme, Gerhard Schumann

source: One important songwriter of the Hitler youth was Hans Baumann.

Ernst Jünger is a difficult person: He was no Nazi. He was between National Bolshevism and Nationalrevolutionär. In 1927 and 1933 the NSDAP wanted him to become a member of the Reichtag for their party, but he said no. In 1933 his house was searched and seizured by the Gestapo because of his contacts to communists and Ernst Niekisch. 1933 he should become member of the Dichterakademie and he said no again. And again the Gestapo searched his house. In 1939 his book Auf den Marmorklippen was published and it is said to be a resitance book by a lot of people and was read as one i.e. by former members of the German youth movement(Jünger was one). But Ernst Jünger always said that Auf den Marmorklippen is not a resitance book. 1939 he had to become a officier in the Wehrmacht. In France he became contacts to to the Widerstand within the Wehrmacht and collected for them documents about conflicts between NSDAP and Wehrmacht administration in France. 1942 he was send to the Caucasus, it is said to found óut how the German soldiers in there would act after a Assassination of Hitler. He was send there by Karl-Heinrich von Stülpnagel, a member of the Widerstand. 1942 he started his book Der Friede. Ein Wort an die Jugend Europas und an die Jugend der Welt, that should be published after Hitler lost power and supported a united Europe. Jünger knew a lot of the people involved in 20th July 1944 plot(i.e.there were several peopleof the German youth movement. When the Wehrmacht lost France Ernst Jünger went back to Germany with his troops. In Germany he was put out of active service. In 1945 he was commander of the Volksturm of the village Kirchhorst/Lower Saxonia. In this function he send the soldiers (boys and old people) home when the allied forces came near the village. In 1944 his son penal military unit, because of animadversion/ comments he made. After 1945 refused to write in the Denazification papers.-Phips (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Freikorps

Why did the Weimar Republic turn to the Freikorps for its initial defence? Who were the men who joined these formations and what motivated them? 193.130.15.240 13:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems. Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Thank you. -- kainaw™ 14:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And thank you. Neither this, nor my previous question, have anything to do with homework. Might I suggest, Kainaw, that if you have nothing to say that it is best to say nothing. 193.130.15.240 14:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear anonymous writer, Kainaw has a valid point. Your questions are phrased in such a way that they are difficult to answer, and while we are quite happy to help (see my reply above), some of the groundwork has to be done by yourself. It might be helpful if you think carefully about what exactly it is you want to know. This might at the same time provide you with some ideas about finding better answers to your questions yourself: some questions are more "answerable" than others. Bessel Dekker 14:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Also it doesn't really help to be rude 193.130.15.240, it just discourages others from helping you, which when trying to have your homework done for you is really a bad idea. Do my homework for me while I insult you doesn't get you very far. Lanfear's Bane | t 16:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lanfear's Bane: "it just discourages others from helping you, which when trying to have your homework done for you is really a bad idea." Why did you write this? The OP has specifically stated that this is not a homework question. Assume good faith. -- Malcolm Starkey (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to apologise to the original poster for the uncivil and bitey way in which he/she has been treated. I assure you that not all refdesk contributors are as rude as Lanfear's Bane and Kainaw. -- DuncanHill (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The template Template:dyoh has been reworked many times to ensure that it is not rude. If you still believe that it is rude, then fix it instead of simply claiming that it is rude. My experience is that those who take offense to it are those who are it is made for - people who asked homework questions and hate being told not to ask homework questions. They always say, "You are mean/rude! This is not a homework question!" -- kainaw™ 19:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Kainaw - it is not the template I am complaining about - it is your behaviour in using it when you have absolutely no proof that a homework question was being asked. Your claim that anyone who takes offence is actually someone asking a homework question is also profoundly rude and makes an entirely unjustifiable assumption about refdesk users. "Good manners cost nothing" - and if you find it offensive to read questions, why do you come here? -- DuncanHill (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How can you claim that a question about a historical event that is rarely discussed outside the classroom, phrased in the way a teacher would put it in a homework essay question, is in absolutely no way a homework question? The template states clearly that it appears to be a homework question. It then apologizes if it is not. I did not go an extreme of claiming it is 100% certainly a homework question. You have gone to the extreme of demanding that it is 100% certainly not a homework question and anyone who could possibly think that it is a homework question must hate reading questions and should go away (ie: "why do you come here?"). I assume you do not consider that to be the "rude behavior" that you are complaining about. -- kainaw™ 20:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that there is no reason to assume that it is a homework question. Please stop lying about what I have said. -- DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And I am saying that there is reason to assume that it may be a homework question. It is about a topic rarely discussed by English-speaking people outside of the classroom. It is phrased in the manner which would be used if it is an essay assignment. You did state that it is not a homework question and there is no reason to assume that it is a homework question. You state that as fact, not opinion. It is, in fact, an opinion. You state that I am rude for stating that it may be a homework question and replying with a cookie cutter template that states that it appears that it may be a homework question and apologizes if it is not. You did state that I am offended to read questions and questioned why I even visit the Reference Desk. Now, you claim that all of this is a lie. No matter how much you believe your opinion, it doesn't make it fact and it doesn't mean that people with other opinions are wrong, rude, and should go away. -- kainaw™ 23:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My, my; what a lot of heat for precious little light. Anyway, 193.130 if you have not been completely discouraged by the above let's see if it is possible to cast a little illumination on the matter at hand.

First of all, you have to consider the political circumstances in Germany in November and December of 1918, where an old system of rule had died but a new one was yet to be born. Friedrich Ebert, the new Social Democratic Chancellor, stressed that the task before him, the object of the German Revolution itself, was to create a stable parliamentary democracy. The challenge to this came not from the right but from the left; from people like Rosa Luxembourg, who responded sarcastically "Oh how German this German Revolution is! How proper, how pedantic, how lacking in verve and grandeur." This was a view shared by her comrades in the extreme left Spartacist League, soon to be reconstituted as the Communist Party of Germany. Over much of Germany the fragile republic came under challenge, with major risings in Berlin in January and March 1919. At first Ebert and his Minister of Defence, Gustav Noske looked to their allies in the trade union movement to provide militia forces. When no such support was offered they were obliged to turn elsewhere. It was Kurt von Schleicher, a career officer, who offered a solution to a serious problem-and that solution was the newly-organised Freikorps.

Who were they? Young men, essentially, uprooted by war, who had grown in a cult of violence; men with no past employment and no family; men who were motivated, first and foremost, not by politics, but by the apppeal of adventure. A great many of them had actually been trained as Stormtroopers, the elite strike force of the Imperial Army, who wished to continue in service, or whose opportunity to serve had been frustrated by the sudden end of the war. Politically, the natural home for many of these individuals was in the nationalist right, though only a minority joined the new formations for political reasons alone. As many as 25% of the Freikorps volunteers had trained as officers. A large number of these were men of middle class origin who had received battlefield commissions, and were unhappy about losing the social and personal prestige associated with this. Even more were students or cadets, too young to have served, but anxious for the chance of action. They were, in essence the same men who had served in the Italian Arditi or the British Black and Tans. Though most really wanted to fight in the east to defend the Reich's uncertain frontiers against the Poles or the Russians, action for the sake of action was the supreme imperative. Communists, Russians or Poles: in the end it made little real difference who the enemy was. Hope that helps. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Panayotes Danglis

Who, in Greek history, is Panayotes Danglis? Apolla Delphinos 14:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

More usual spelling of name is Panagiotis... AnonMoos 14:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And of course it is Panagiotis Danglis that you are looking for! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Iraq

Could the planners of the 2003 invasion of Iraq have learned anything from the British experience at the end of the First World War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.6.70 (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably. - Eron^Talk 16:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a homework but if you're struggling...Suffice to say they could have learned of the difficulties of rebuilding nations, the problems that can be caused by continuing regional problems and the general trend for groups to use the 'rebirth' of the country as an opportunity to increase their strength/power and raise their profile. Add in that the costs almost always increase beyond what is predicted (why predictions are so poor is an inability to comprehend how quick costs escalate if things don't go to plan). Since it is the first world war you can also note the dangers of being too stern with the people you have fought, potentially leading to a populist backlash that could end up giving power/public support to the very type of people you were trying to prevent controlling the country in the first place. -- ny156uk (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Do politicians ever learn anything from history? All we can do is echo, in the voice of Cassandra, the words of George Santayana-"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." And how! On March 12 1917, the day after Baghdad was occupied by the British, a proclamation was issued by Lieutenant-General Sir Stanley Maude, saying "Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators." But in place of the Ottoman vacuum the British created an imperial authority, which completely failed to take account of local tribal and religious differences, or to pay proper attention to Arab nationalism. From the outset the British had based their assumptions that the tribes constituted a homogenous bloc. In the end I can think of no better summary of the situation than that of Gertrude Bell, an expert on Arab affairs, who said "I suppose we have really underestimated the fact that this country is really an incohate mass of tribes which can't as yet be reduced to a system." Here we are a hundred years later with a country that still cannot 'be reduced to a system'. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you know of the rejoinder to Santayana? Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it—true—but those who can remember it are condemned to repeat it just as well! (I first saw a variation of this in Michael Herr's Dispatches though I would not be surprised if it had earlier origins.) --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Cholera is caused by polluted water. Lack of regulation (in certain manifestations) leads to stock exchange crashes. Dismantling a country's infrastructure will cause it to collapse. These are a few of the myriad things we can learn, and have learnt, from the past. Certain events will decidedly resemble repetitions of the past—but as often as not, they are unavoidable variations. We are capable of learning, even if we do not always make good use of our abilities. Bessel Dekker (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do, and there is some truth to this, 24.147; but is just as well to keep one's mind free of comforting illusions! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

hipaa privacy policy

Deleted repeat of Question 5.16, above -- Bielle (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Persistent Vegetative State (PVS): How many people in America currently in a PVS are under the age of 30?-- Bryantmoore (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I was at a conference recently where someone made the statement: of the people currently in a persistent vegetative state in America, 80% of them are under the age of 30.

Is there any documentation or articles out there that justifies this statement? And if so, what are the statistics? This would really help my study.

Thanks! -- Bryantmoore (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This Study (Life Expectancy and Median Survival Time in the Permanent Vegetative State) gives approximately 89% of PVS sufferers as being below 30 (the exact stats are given in table 1) - mostly because younger people are morely like to survive comatose for extended periods than old people. Laïka 00:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder, and I have no specific knowledge on which to base this thought, if one of the lesser reasons might be that the younger the patient the more leeway the medical establishment, and even family members, is prepared to extend before deciding on any drastic action to terminate treatment. Bielle (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth considering that the sort of traumatic brain injury that can lead to PVS may happen more frequently in younger people than older, given they are more likely to engage in high-risk activities. I recognize these are not the only causes of PVS but this may be significant. - Eron^Talk 15:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

November 17

French Revolution

All of them are not homework. I swear. Please, answer them.

In what specific way did the National Assembly dismantle the old regime?

We don't do your homework. --Anon, 02:27 UTC, November 17, 2007.

French Revolution 2

It's not homework.

Where did the opposition to the French Revolution come from?

We're opposed to doing your homework. --Anon, 02:27 UTC, November 17, 2007.

French Revolution 3

What was democratic about the revolution?

We're revolting against the idea of doing your homework. --Anon, 02:27 UTC, November 17, 2007.

There's a democratic consensus against it. —Tamfang (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

French Revolution 4

What was tyrannical or dictatorial about the revolution?

We're tyrannical about it. We don't do your homework. --Anon, 02:27 UTC, November 17, 2007.

French Revolution 5

Which of these forces was most important in shaping the course of events in the revolution?

We also don't do incomplete questions from your homework. --Anon, 02:27 UTC, November 17, 2007.

Reign of terror

What led of the establishment of the committee of public of safety?

We don't do question 6 of your homework either. --Anon, 02:27 UTC, November 17, 2007.

But ve do ev nice articool, m'sieur: French Revolution

Robespierre

Do you think Robespierre an idealist or terrorist?

Do you think you'll get the idea soon? We don't do your homework. --Anon, 02:33 UTC, November 17, 2007.

Hint: maybe he's an idealist and a terrorist. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It often takes an idealist to rationalize such crimes. —Tamfang (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe this revolutionary deluge is homework; it's a mission, one which I personally am no longer prepared to take seriously; sorry. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A mission? What sort of mission? —Tamfang (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Strategic questions—and strategic replies

• Very sorry for harping on the same string again: but does it really matter whether this is a homework question? After all, we can only speculate whether it is or not.
• What matters, rather, is the quality of the question. I would suggest that if the questioner is after facts which (s)he could easily find out for themselves, given some exertion, we shouldn't bother doing their work for them, whether home or garden. Likewise, if the question is so poorly thought out that any sort of answer will do (as a few subheads earlier), help them do their work more properly: tell them how to think, how to rephrase their questions, how to work out what it is they are curious about, and how to develop a proper search strategy.
• Questioners are better helped if they are referred to German literature or to French Revolution than if their shoelaces are tied for them.
• And no, my intentions in saying this are neither discourteous nor mendacious. I may be accused of both, as to my surprise others have been: but why not assume good faith in any circumstances, or at least until the opposite is proven? Even editors reply in good faith, if sometimes somewhat frostily, and none of us are significantly more monstrous than others (are we?). Bessel Dekker (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter if it is homework? Only if they expect us to do their work for them. We've helped plenty of people doing homework in the past, but usually they've put some work into it first, announced their intentions, and asked for steps to help clarify some things. Which is a perfectly good use of a reference desk. Going to a reference desk and saying, "Here are my questions, get me the answers" is completely unacceptable. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all right, but I think you will find that this is more or less exactly what I am saying. In addition, I see no harm in helping people with their question strategy—what used to be called "the art of asking questions". Bessel Dekker (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I check the French Revolution article but, it doesn't say about how democratic it was, it doesn't say about the opposition to the French Revolution, it doesn't say how National Assembly dismantle the old regime, it doesn't say anything to my questions and these questions are my own. So, please answer them and thank you.

Okay, I'll assume that you're fairly new to the mysteries of how to research topics using the internet. All of us were new at some point, although for me that was so long ago that the process now seems natural. There are more advanced techniques, but here are two quick and simple pointers. 1) Follow links that sound like they might relate to the topic. For instance, in the article French Revolution there is a section on the National Assembly. Notice that there is a link provided for the main article, National Assembly (French Revolution). That means there is more detailed information on another page and someone has provided a link to that page. Click on that link. 2) If you don't find the information you're looking for on one site, search for others. Google is a great tool for this job. Just type in the key words of the topic. Sometimes you'll have to sift through some pages that aren't related all that closely, but if you've chosen good key words you should soon find what you're looking for. For instance, you could search on "opposition to the French Revolution" or "French Revolution reign terror committee public safety" or some such. Finally, when a question asks for an opinion, that means the teacher expects you to read the material and draw your own conclusions. The reason for this type of question is that, in order to answer it honestly (and by yourself), you must have read the material and given it some thought. That is why we don't do homework for others. Doing so would deprive them of an opportunity to learn. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if I misjudged you, anon, but I confess my suspicions were aroused by the machine-gun like rapidity of your questions. It might help if you slowed down somewhat and thought a little more about the subject. I've looked over the article on the French Revolution and am fairly confident that it, and the associated links, covers all of the matters you have raised in the above. As far as democracy and the role of the National Assembly is concerned just think about it for a moment. Under the old absolutist regime there was no popular representation at all, no way for people to express a view on the actions of the state. Any National Assembly, no matter how limited the franchise, is, I would say almost by definition alone, bound to be more democratic than that. The National Assembly and all of its variations were thus the very antithesis of the Ancien Regime. The problem came with the incompatibility of continuing revolutionary violence and stable government. Hence the institutionalised Terror; hence the rule of the executive committees; hence the evolving dictatorship. I hope this is enough for you, but if you do have any more questions, please, one at a time! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, but really, it didn't help either because none of you read the questions seriously.

muntaber

saya perlu bantuan data tentang muntaber untuk penugasan FKM. Artinya, akibatnya, pencegahannya & perawatannya.

Yes, but take at closer look at the muntaber and you will see it isn't rally akibatnya. Hope that helps! 161.222.160.8 (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What??? Esskater11 04:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Online translation tools for Indonesian to English give this as (approximately) "I need help finding the data about muntaber for an assignment I have to do for FKM. And information on it's prevention & treatment." muntaber is defined as "diarrhoea and vomiting, especially as cholera symptoms" in translation dictionaries. So all in all a homework question not in English. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• The translation should run: "I need help finding data on diarrhoea-cum-vomiting as an FKM assignment. This means: its causes, prevention, and treatment". It is true that muntaber is especially associated with cholera. So in line with my sermon above, I suggest, not answering the question, but pointing the way, as follows.
• Kepada penanya yang terhormat: Pertanyaan itu tak bisa kami menjawabkan dengan pasti, akan tetapi biasanya, muntaber itu berhubungan dengan penyakit kolera. Apakah Saudara sudah membaca artikel ttg Cholera, baik dalam wiki Inggris dan Indonesia? (Ada pranala disana juga.) Dan apakah Saudara sudah memakai Google memasuk perkataan-perkataan muntaber bersama treatment atau perawatan? Harap berhasil! Bessel Dekker (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• (This refers them to the article indicated, to its external links, and to a Google strategy.) Bessel Dekker (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

one volume edition of Shakespeare

Hi folks. I recently (last 4-6 months) came across a one volume edition of Shakespeare complete, which had both major versions of Lear (the History and the Tragedy, I think from the Quarto and Folio texts) side by side for the first 2 or 3 acts, after which they were conflated into a single text. Does anyone know what this edition is? I live in Perth Western Australia, if that's any help, though I expect it's probably a relatively recent worldwide release. 203.221.126.137 (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The title page will tell you the editor, publisher, place of publication and date. --Wetman (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that 203.221 does not possess the copy, and would like to find out its vital statistics in order to retrieve it. How about consulting a specialist library, whose staff are pre-eminently equipped to answer this sort of retrieval questions? Bessel Dekker (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which edition you saw. Apparently Wells&Taylor's Oxford Complete Works contains both versions of King Lear, though, if that helps. AndyJones (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those suggestions. I'm surprised no one seems to have come across the exact version (I was, of course, interested in retrieval, thanx Bessel). I'll look for that Oxford version, but the one I'm interested in doesn't have the complete text of both, just the two side by side for comparison for the first three acts or so. 203.221.126.252 (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ten Thousand Swedes

What are the rest of the words for the poem/song: "Ten Thousand Swedes ran through the reeds, chased by one Norwegian [Naarvagan], but it twerent no use, coz they spit the juice in the Battle of Copenhagen."???

Why doesn't it seem complete to you as it stands? See Quatrain. --Wetman (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

While reading these lines does instill in the reader a sense of closure, at the same time not all quatrains, or indeed four-liners, are complete in themselves. If that were true, no sonnet would be possible, to name the most obvious example. Unfortunately, Google seems unwilling to provide further information. Bessel Dekker (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a few variants, all keeping to the same form and length, such as "Ten thousand Swedes ran through the reeds, Chased by one Norwegian. Ten thousand more ran to the shore, In the battle of Copenhagen." The ditty is based on events of The assault on Copenhagen. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A version passed around among Oregon woodsmen: "Ten thousand Swedes ran through the reeds, chased by one big Norwegian. The dust from the reeds furnished snus for the Swedes at the battle of Copenhagen.

Help enforcing blog copyright

The following discussion was copied to a user subpage of the original author. Please do not modify this version. Thanks, Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 04:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, after months of contributing I have a question to ask. I've noticed several copies of many of my blog posts on sites across the Internet. My question is, is there any way I can easily get them removed, without resorting to paper communications or a lawyer? I haven't the money for a lawyer, and paper just frustrates me (hence my always being here :P ). I don't know if this falls under the Legal Disclaimer linked at the top of this page, but I thought it was worth asking anyway. Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 11:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

(This is not, and should not be construed as, legal advice) The Digital Millennium Copyright Act might be useful. Algebraist 15:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking when people want things taken down from the internet for copyright reasons they file a DMCA takedown request. You file it with the ISP who hosts the sites. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A number of questions suggest themselves:

1. Do you object to these copies for copyright reasons or for reasons of privacy?
2. Where (in which jurisdiction) are the sites that copy your blog posts located?

In some countries, when privacy is at stake, people are advised as a fist step to approach the owner of the site and request removal. Needless to say, such requests may be ignored, but at least by making them you can later prove that you have done your best to solve the matter amicably. Bessel Dekker (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no privacy involved here, as far as I know, since my name does not appear within the posts (though my pristine Internet pseudonym does). Admittedly, one of the sites is only using excerpts, which may weaken my case against them, but the other has copied the entire post and framed it with ads. The first site appears to be registered in Russia; the second, in Germany (based on WHOIS queries).

As one site is a squatter (holding onto a misspelling of propeller.com) and hosts pornographic content, I especially object to that association, but that's the one using excerpts. I can send C&D letters via email and see if they listen, and then contact the hosting providers, I guess. Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 16:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Very unpleasant indeed. However, I should not think that the use of excerpts weakens your case: they are still your texts, and obviously are not used for purposes of review or critical demonstration. I think that the two steps you mention, would be best to begin with. Chances are that nothing comes out of them, it should be said in fairness, but after a reasonable interval of time, further steps could be taken. Keep us posted! Bessel Dekker (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I will. Fact is, I'll probably post another question if those two steps fail. You can also keep track of status on my blog (link in UBX on user page), where I will be posting about this problem, and once a day or two has gone by and this thread is moved the RD archives, I'll copy to a subpage for posterity. Thanks for the advice, all! Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 16:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Consider yourself bookmarked! Bessel Dekker (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[Cue The Jeffersons theme] Who knows, you might even decide to subscribe. :) Your edit summary threw me for a loop there. BM doesn't mean "bookmarked" in the popular culture I know. :P Took me a little bit, but I did get it. Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 03:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The preceding discussion was copied to a user subpage of the original author. Please do not modify this version. Thanks, Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 04:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan´s nuclear weapons

I heard that Musharraf is defending his emergency rule saying that Pakistan´s nuclear weapons could fall into the wrong hands. Just how easily could control of the nuclear weaponry they have really fall into eg: fundamentalists´ or even terrorists´ hands (or is he exaggerating), and what kind of damage could be done here (could they reach Europe?). Also, which bright spark sold Pakistan WMDs in the first place??? Thanks for info. --AlexSuricata (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

At least some background can be found here: Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. --Edcolins (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would be terrible if they fell into the hands of a military dictator who suspends the constitution and locks up judges and democracy campaigners and... oh... whoops! DuncanHill (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Edcolins' link is a good one. As to your final question: no sale was concluded, but Dr Khan "imported" knowledge from the Netherlands (as a Dutchman, this fails to make my bosom swell with pride). This knowledge is now alleged to have been sold to buyers willing to pay enough, so that would suggest that the technology could easily fall into hands in need of washing. As for their ability to reach Europe, the question would be: Why not? Of course all of this leaves wide open yet another question: With all due respect, is President Musharraf to be trusted, more so than any alternative rulers, politicians and soldiers? This is a political question, and seems legitimate, but not one to be answered by an encyclopaedia, I should think. Bessel Dekker (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody sold Pakistan nuclear weapons on purpose; the road to their nukes is a long and twisted one, going over decades of time and involving a good deal of subterfuge. You might take a look at our page on A. Q. Khan, the "father" of the Pakistani nuclear program (as well as the "father" of the nuclear black market), for more information—it's a fascinating story.

As for Musharraf—it's clear that martial law is not improving the stability of the country in either the short or long term. And it is also clear that he has focused his efforts under martial law in oppressing his liberal political opponents, not terrorists or fundamentalists. Personally I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

As for the safety of the nukes—it's really hard to say without knowing technical details. If they have Permissive Action Links then they are presumably difficult to use in an unauthorized fashion. In any case though the unauthorized acquisition of nuclear weapons by anybody is a bad, bad thing. They needn't be able to hit Europe with them by rockets to smuggle one in. Depending on the type of fuel used in the weapon, they might not even need to detonate it using its preexisting hardware—they could extract the fissile material and just re-fashion it into a crude nuke, which would be bad enough (something like this occurs in the movie Sum of All Fears). Anyway, it's hard to say exactly how hard it would be for someone to re-use Pakistan's nukes without knowing more about them, but the fact that they are likely made out of enriched uranium bodes ill in any case, as that is the easiest fissile material to re-use.

Now, is that a justification for the martial law? Certainly not. Musharraf put in martial law not because of his fear of fundamentalists or terrorists—he's actually been scarily lenient with them—he put it into place because the Supreme Court was going to rule against his ability to run rigged elections. As noted he has used it primarily to suppress lawyers and the judiciary branch, not radicals. The current Pakistani military government is formed out of the conspiracies of the Pakistani ISI (secret service), one of the more notorious state-funded terrorist organizations. I wouldn't trust them at all, personally—I'm not sure it is any less scary that they are the ones who have control of the nuclear weapons at the moment! There is little doubt in my mind that the Pakistani military government had something to do with the suicide attack against of Benazir Bhutto last month—it is entirely keeping in character with the style and history of the ISI, and the lack of any serious investigation into the incident makes it especially clear who is behind it. (And if the Taliban goes to the trouble of denying complicity in a successful attack, you know something is up.) --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: It seems that Pakistani nukes do not have PALs; meaning, in non-wonkese, that they would not be hard to detonate. Bad news. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the U.S. government shares at least some concerns over the security of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal [3]. Azi Like a Fox (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Guinness Book of World Records 2006 UK edition

Relisted to generate more input. --Edcolins (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

In the article on Maurizio Giuliano, "Guinness Book of World Records 2006 (UK edition), page 126" is given as source for supporting that he was "the youngest person to visit all independent nations" at 23. I cannot verify this though. I have no access to this book. If anybody has such book, could he check what it is the precise wording of the alleged record, so that the article can be verified and improved? Thanks a lot. (Google Books does not offer to search inside this version). --Edcolins 19:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The exact name of the book might rather be Guinness World Records. --Edcolins (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You can search The Guiness World Records on-line and the name of Maurizio Giuliano does not appear in the GWR web-site through the site search engine. I have just read an article written in 2004 saying that he was on his way to the GWR to present his claim to the adjudicators. Either he is taking the pretty route or his claim has not been accepted, (or possibly the search engine is faulty!!) Richard Avery (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the search engine is not exhaustive. It seems to be limited to some entries (otherwise many wouldn't buy the book...). Does anyone possess the book Guiness World Records 2006 UK edition? (or just page 126 of this book? - that would be sufficient!) Please... For the sake of verifying unverified claims on Wikipedia. --Edcolins (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Mental health

I have to write an essay (2500 words) on the following question and would be very greatful if someone could discuss with me how they would tackle this question?

'Consider the extent to which the admission and discharge provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983 safeguard the patient’s right to protection from arbitrary detention as required by Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.'

My starting point would be article 5, and stating what the admission and discharge provisions are.

But I don't know what else to include aside from analysing the extent to which these provisions safeguard a patients protection. Should I be considering for example, why it is so important to uphold article 5 so far as possible, and should I include an brief analysis of the extent to which article 5 is upheld once an individual is detained? Treatment for example can be forced upon an individual with capacity or not if compulsarily detained, so therefore it is vitally important that the provisions of admission and discharge safeguard the patients rights, and that there is a high threshold in order to detain, and a lower one to release once detained?

I would be very grateful if you could suggest some pertinent articles for me to have a look at, i'm finding it difficult to find relevant reading

Many thanks xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.138.54 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 17 November 2007

No doubt someone will be along soon to suggest that we can't do your homework for you. However, I think you have raised your question in an appropriate way, asking for some feedback and pointers to information.

I think you are on the right track. Your starting point seems like the right one; you need to clearly define the two things you are comparing. Then you should analyze them to determine to what extent - if any - the A&D provisions represent arbitrary detention. If you decide that they do, you may want to then consider the extent to which such a detention is justifiable in order to protect the public, or - as is sometimes the case with mental illness - the detained person herself. This is one of those areas where rights come into conflict.

I don't know what level of schooling you are in right now, but 2500 words isn't really a lot - you don't want to try and cover too many points because you won't be able to do all of them justice.

You might want to read the articles here on Mental illness and European Convention on Human Rights, but only as a starting point. Use them to find external links and sources. I am not sure you need a whole lot beyond the the Act and the Convention you are studying, to be honest - perhaps a couple of analysis pieces, or reports on detentions that have taken place under the Act. But the question is looking for your analysis.

I hope these comments are helpful. - Eron^Talk 14:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Im university level so I need to read some journal articles really, but im finding it hard to get any relevant ones. I dont want someone to answer the question for me, just point me in the right direction!

Really I need to know which specific provisions of A&D to focus on, as they are both wide concepts and with the word limit so low I wont have the time to look at everything! Thanks xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.138.54 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 17 November 2007

As it turns out we also have an article on the Mental Health Act 1983 which includes some journal articles in the references section. Those will probably be a good starting point. - Eron^Talk 15:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This, of course, has little to do with a homework question. That said, what is the assignment about? It seems to me, a complete layman, that two aspects stand out:

• the admission and discharge provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983
• the patient’s right to protection from arbitrary detention as required by Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This would suggest (1) listing the relevant provisions in the Act (2) formulating how the Convention defines "arbitrary detention" (so that the reader knows what it is we are talking about) (3) examining each provision to see whether it safeguards (or perhaps easier: infringes) the definition. This could be succinct, descriptive, no prescriptive additions on your part needed. (Of course, there could be a spate of other approaches, and your suggestion that you depart from art. 5 is equally tenable, in fact rather similar.) Bessel Dekker (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are at the university level and need journal articles, take advantage of the subscription resources at your institution's library. You pay for them with your tuition, and you can register to access them online. --Jowitono (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Attempted coup in the United Kingdom

I remember reading something once about an attempted military coup in Britain, some time in the 1970's and I think under Harold Wilson's second government. I don't remember anything else, so I've not been able to find any details about it. Could someone help me find out if this is fiction, or just well concealed? Moyabrit (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to be a matter of (pleasantly heated) debate whether this is a conspiracy theory or a cover up. We can, of course, provide you with our own private and very interesting views, but at the end of the day, you would have to make up your own mind in view of the rather extensive literature. It might be interesting to plough through a number of enjoyable publications found here: [4]. One cautionary remark: conspiracy theories are often much more attractive than sober analysis, so do exercise your critical faculties. Have fun. Bessel Dekker Bessel Dekker (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do read and enjoy A Very British Coup. As for the conspiracy theories, best treat these with a considerable degree of critical detachment. Such rare plants tend to be forced in intelligence hothouses, like that of MI5 and, I suppose, in the minds of paranoid Prime Ministers! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 50 of Philip Ziegler's life of Mountbatten may be of help to Moyabrit. It involved Mountbatten, Solly Zuckerman, Cecil King and Hugh Cudlipp. Accounts of what was said differ, but Mountbatten's diary refers to the talk as "dangerous nonsense!" DuncanHill (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Try David Leigh's book The Wilson Plot, Beckett's Pinochet in Piccadilly and the article on Walter Walker.--Johnbull (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Witch hunting

When and why did mass witch Hunting come to an end in Europe? 86.147.191.76 (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Have you consulted the Wikipedia article on the subject? Bessel Dekker (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I can help/start you with this. In the UK one of the key people was

Francis Hutchinson (1660-1739), bishop of Down and Connor, second son of Edward Hitchinson, was born on 2 Jan. 1660 at Carsington, Derbyshire. He had his career held back because he published books about how witchcraft was hocum.

I'm just writing an article on him although there is stuff out there. In western Europe there is a guy called Cornelius Loos who was involved towards the end. Do note that witchcraft was invented and ended over a few hundred years. The Salem trials in America is where they went crazy about the idea. Victuallers (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Mass witch-hunting was largely over by 1700, though it is important to understand that it always had a local or a regional rather than continental character. There was never, in other words, a European witch-hunt as such. The reasons for decline are really to do with official attitudes, the growing belief in both church and state that the whole thing was socially disruptive and counter-productive. In England by the middle of the eighteenth century people were more likely to be prosecuted for attacks on alleged witches than for being witches themselves. The decline in interest is further evidenced by the actions of the Paris parlement, which increasingly upheld appeals against witchcraft. In Spain the Inquisition set a standard of proof so high that prosecutions all but ended in the early part of the seventeenth century. In Germany the mass witch-hunt was a phenomenon closely related to the economic, social and political upheavals that followed from the Thirty Years War. The return to normality, and the establishment of more settled religious boundaries, ended the need for the pursuit of scapegoats. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well...not entirely... GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Helen Duncan was indicted under the Witchcraft Act of 1735, which shifted the emphasis in law away from prosecutions for witchcraft to prosecutions for fraudulent claims of witchcraft, or extraordinary powers of any kind. Duncan, moreover, was perceived less as a scapegoat and more as a security risk. Besides, GeeJo, I hardly think she can be said to constitute a 'mass'! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing Gee Jo was thinking along the lines of Arthur Miller, Clio. 203.221.126.252 (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Euro vs dollar

Nowadays the dollar is falling like a stone against the euro. It peaked at a crazy 1.47$ = 1€. What are the expectations? Will the dollar recover somewhat in a period of 6-12 months or is this considered to be unlikely? Thanks. --Taraborn (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Whose expectations? Any experts I have read/heard would answer your questions as follows: Negative. No it won't and yes it is. Then of course, nothing is more unpredictable than the future. Bessel Dekker (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely the past and the present are more unpredictable than the future? Xn4 02:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really, Xn4, not really. Who can predict what supernova will tomorrow be seen to have exploded aeons ago? Bessel Dekker (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a truly brilliant escape, Bessel Dekker! It leaves Houdini standing. Xn4 14:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Aha, so nobody's got a clue. I thought that, perhaps, our knowledge of economy was applicable to predict, with a certain margin of error, of course, those things. --[[User:Tarabornhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&action=submit

Editing Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities - Preview - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia|Taraborn]] (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, some people think they have a clue. That is the basis of trading currency on a Forward market, those that are skilled (or lucky) can make money, those are are not lose money.

David Ignatius' explains the possibilities from different market perspectives:

The Adam Smith version: As the dollar falls, China and other Asian nations will begin adjusting their portfolios so that they accumulate fewer dollars. The value of their artificially pegged currencies will finally rise against the dollar. Over time, the U.S. trade deficit will shrink, and the dollar eventually will begin to rise again. Then there's the Jim Cramer version: As the dollar falls, the gradual adjustment will turn into a stampede, with investors fleeing dollars for the safety of other currencies. The Fed will have to raise interest rates, consumers will stop spending and America will sink into recession. [5] Do you trust Smith or Cramer's interpretation of market behaviour? Rockpocket 21:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do so few laypeople seem to have heard of the Efficient Markets Hypothesis, which makes it clear that you cannot predict the value of currencies or stocks in the future? 80.0.102.131 (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"Clear" if you believe Fama's theory. Others promote a behavioral finance paradigm that suggests human biases permit insight into market decisions, which would then be predictable (to some extent). Rockpocket 23:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm with our friend from Hampshire. The markets are efficient. If the dollar were certain to continue falling, it would have fallen already. --M@rēino 03:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Most laypeople have heard of the EMH, I believe. This does not necessarily mean that they agree with vague concepts such as "all known information". BTW, if the dollar had fallen already, it would be certain to have reached its bottom by now. Which once more opens the door to behavioural finance, or, for that matter, technical analysis. Bessel Dekker (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha... Just passing by, I will point at a famous phrase: "There are two kinds of economist: The ones that don't know how to make predictions, and the ones that don't know that they don't know kow to make predictions..." Pallida  Mors 03:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Inquisition

Can the Spanish Inquisition be seen as an early modern form of a secret police force? 86.147.191.76 (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Have you consulted the Wikipedia article Inquisition on the subject? Bessel Dekker (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If he's asking here it's because he has. That applies to every question which doesn't obviously imply otherwise. If you don't know the answer, don't reply. --Taraborn (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can assume the questionner has read the article, but neither can you assume that he/she hasn't. This would be true with almost any question on the Ref Desk, absent any specific information to the contrary, unless the questionner is recognized as a long-time or sophisticated user of Wikipedia. Politely asking the question helps to qualify the questionner and may save the respondent considerable time in drafting an answer. I can't see that Bessel Dekker deserves Taraborn's chastisement here. Bielle (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Inasmuch as it was an agency of state power which often operated in an inscrutable fashion, yes, I suppose it can. Yet, despite its fearsome reputation, the Inquisition did not have the resources to create a nation-wide apparatus of terror. Its purges, if anything, had a partial and peripatetic character. They were also uneven, worse at some periods than at others. Now compare that with the techniques, practices and omnipresence of police forces in modern totalitarian states. I can only agree with Charles Petrie, who said in his Philip II of Spain that the "Inquisition was a very mild affair by contrast with the NKVD or the Gestapo." Clio the Muse (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Taraborn is completely ignorant of the fact that the answer to the question was implied in the article (as was the case in an earlier question, two subheads above). He also misses the point that I wrote my comment in light of previous discussions. All this, I suppose, is his prerogative. In light of this, however, his inference that I should not "know the answer" is quite bizarre.

That said, Clio the Muse's explanation is admirably generous. Bessel Dekker (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To you two: First, it's "questioner", not "*questionner", unless you wanted to spell it in French. On the other hand, I guess you are not familiar with Presumption of innocence. Read the article. I assume people are doing their best unless the contrary is suggested by evidence. And no, you do not need to be a renowned benefactor to deserve this treatment. By the way, don't expect me to reply again, I don't feel it's worth my time. --Taraborn (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you had presumed "innocence" (what a misapplication here) you would not have typed "If you don't know the answer, don't reply." And it doesn't get any lamer than pointing out typos. 77.56.97.105 (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations... but you have just proven yourself to be a moron, because you have understood nothing, but don't take this as a personal attack, this is just my opinion of you, don't hate me for this. And yeah, making 3 times the same typo in a paragraph is indeed "just a typo", which is even more suspicious when you mistake a double consonant for a single one. Well, at least you guys gave me a big laugh. --Taraborn (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, "questionner" is a misspelling of "questioner". The original mistake was mine, repeated three times, as Taraborn has so carefully counted for us. Mea culpa; mea culpa; mea maxima culpa. I think I was in fourth grade the last time a spelling mistake was the focus of such derision, and I am sorry that 77.56.97.105, who was doubtless intending to be kind to me in sggesting it was a typo, took the brunt of Taraborn's sarcastic "congratulations". There is a singular absence of WP:AGF in these exchanges. I am hoping the questioner can just skip around the "friendly fire" to find Clio's answer. Bielle (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said Bielle. DuncanHill (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's particularly bizarre, as I didn't think 'questioner' was a standard word; rather I thought it was a handy creation we sometimes use on these desks. In that sense, can it have an incorrect spelling, provided the meaning is clear? If someone has created a word to convey a clear meaning, could they not make different decisions as to how it should best be represented? 'Questioner' and 'questionner' both look 'right' to me, with the double-n ensuring the 'o' is short (something that might be assumed, knowing the root of the word). Skittle (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody expected this question!199.76.174.112 (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism in France and Italy

In the Second World War why was the official policy towards the Jews so much worse in Vichy than in Fascist Italy? Pere Duchesne (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pere. The simple answer is ideology. Vichy was under the control of Nazi Germany, and feared for its own people if it did not comply with German orders. Nazism is a peculiar brand of Fascism which emphasises the importance of eugenics and race; in most other 'brands' of fascism this is not so much the case. If you were to contrast Nazism with Italian fascism then you will see the difference. Mussolini sought to create an antithesis to the ideal 'Italian man', and came to light on the Jews. By contrast, Hitler fervently believed in the intrinsic genetic inferiority of the Jewish people, and sought to destroy them absolutely.

Vichy, with Nazi rather than Italian fascist masters, was therefore more involved in the 'Final Solution to the Jewish Problem' than Italy.

Chrisfow (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no; ideology is only part of the answer; the full answer is politics. There was indeed a strong ideological underpinning to anti-semitism in France, going back to the Dreyfus Affair and before. Even so, the conduct of the Vichy state cannot be explained simply by reference to a pre-history of a prejudice, nor, indeed, by the presence of German troops on French soil. This question raises a complex set of issues, but let me simplify it to this: the action of the Petain government in relation to the Jews was conditioned, more than anything else, by a determination to preserve French autonomy and freedom of action, paradoxical as it sounds. For example, the first Jewish Statute of October 1940 owed nothing whatsoever to German pressure. More than this, when the Germans started to adopt their own policy in the Occupied Zone Vichy followed closely on, not because it 'feared' for its own people, but because of concerns over the disunity of France, over divergence between the free and the occupied zones.

Remember, Vichy claimed authority, or attempted to claim authority, over all of France, not just the south. Admiral Darlan, Prime Minister of France from December 1940 to April 1942, created the Commissariat-General for Jewish Affairs in March 1941 entirely on his own initiative, for the simple reason that he wanted to preempt a German plan to set up their own agency, operating in the north alone. Also the General Union of the Israelites of France, a Jewish umbrella organisation on the lines of the Eastern European Judenräte, was established by Vichy in November 1941 solely to steal a march on the Germans. This attempt to keep up with the Germans, to ensure policy that applied to the whole and not the part, meant that anti-semitism moved in an ever more radical spiral. But it was urged on by men like Pierre Laval, who replaced Darlan as Prime Minister in April 1942, and René Bousquet, who had responsibility for the police, men who were not ideologically anti-semitic, for political and organistational reasons; for reasons, in other words, of national prestige and autonomy. This does nothing to lessen the moral turpitude involved in a policy that ensured greater safety for French Jews in areas under the control of the Italian Fascists, areas where they were safe from their own police. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Six Questions to your favorite author

If, you could ask six questions to your favorite author what would they be.

Please do not cross-post the same question to multiple reference desks. -- kainaw™ 21:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, X_____: what would be the six questions that you would ask of your favourite author? Clio the Muse (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• 1)where do you get your ideas from?

2)don't the people around you mind you putting them in your books? 3)which one are you in your books? 4)I could write a book.Will you read my manuscript? 5)will you get it published for me? 6)how much do you get paid?Bet it's loads,eh?..hotclaws 00:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We had this same thread on the desk less than two weeks ago. See Six Questions to your favorite author posted on November 9, 2007. Xn4 01:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The habit of referring questioners to articles where answers may be found seems to go out of fashion, so I'll refrain from mentioning Publishing (which might enlighten him on some of the points he raises). Apologies for this sarcasm, which was inspired by a previous exchange and is in no way directed against the present questioner. But seriously, there is a problem here: These questions cannot be answered sensibly. Experienced authors would reply as follows, if they were honest:

1. Sigh. I've been asked this at every WI meeting and in each library I visited, and I'm sorry but I don't know.
2. I do not write (auto)biographies.
3. All of them.
4. No. Nor will most publishers (they may leaf through it): this may disappoint you but it is a fact.
5. Will you take the risk of bankruptcy for me?
6. Royalties are usually some 10 per cent of sales, and if you want to make "loads", it might be more advisable to find a nine-to-five job, surprising as this may seem.

Unfortunately, these are the general questions that all too often crop up. Understandably. But authors prefer being asked about their work more specifically. A few guidelines might be as follows. Show an interest in their output. Demonstrate that you have read them attentively. Phrase your questions accordingly. Their replies to specific questions might be both polite and instructive. (And after all, if you have not read them, how can you expect them to read your manuscript?) Bessel Dekker (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry,I was being sarcastic..hotclaws 11:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(1)what's it like in the afterlife? (2) bet you didn't see an afterlife coming, did you? (3) now that you're in the hereafter, do you have any insights for us on how to save all those endangered species? (4) are we really mostly harmless, or are we endangering ourselves? (5) what could Wikipedia stand to learn from H2G2? (6) what is The Question? --M@rēino 03:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• And in that case, what is The Answer? Ask not what Wikipedia can learn from the afterlife, ask what the afterlife can learn from Wikipedia. Bessel Dekker (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Creationism

Hey everybody, I just wanna know if I'm crazy, and I'm sure consensus will show that I am. I think, in relation to creationism, that nothing has been created ever. Because I don't understand how anything can be created from nothing, and how G-d can be created also. So is it feesable that all that we experience is the world's greatest illusion. If not, could somebody explain how "creation" can occur when it begins with nothing. Sorry for posing such an awkward question --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 21:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Creationism is, at best, a pseudoscience and hence doesn't follow any strict scientific method or logic. At the very basis of creationist belief is just that, belief. Of course, irrespective of how you believe the multiverse started, its natural to propose that it came from somewhere and before that there was.... what? Nothing (whatever that is)? So unless the multiverse is temporally and spatially infinite, at some point something was created from nothing. The idea that reality is an illusion has been pondered by others, see Nick Bostrom for example. Rockpocket 22:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You might find the article Anthropic principle interesting. It doesn't bear directly on creation itself, but more on our ability to think about it. I take comfort in the thought that I don't even understand relativity or quantum mechanics, so the limits of my math leave me out of the race to find the answer to life, the universe, and everything. The universe has already been shown to be inaccessible to intuition and metaphysics. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian theology (like most other kinds) generally holds that God has always existed. And as I understand it - though no doubt someone else can say more on this than I can - it's arguable in theoretical physics that all sub-atomic particles have always existed in some form. Put those two together with our knowledge, such as it is, of the nature of the universe, and perhaps you aren't crazy? Xn4 01:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Milkbreath's link to Anthropic principle is very enlightening. In addition, all this touches on the idea of solipsism (we can only know our own mind), which comes close to your idea of experience as an illusion. Dr Johnson's famous reply to this, however, was that anyone who kicked a heavy stone would soon come to his senses. And that is the practical counter-argument. If our experience is an illusion, this should not stop us from breathing, for example.

As for creation (from nothing) as opposed to making (from something), surely that concept is difficult to grasp. See Existence of God for related ideas: God as the Creator or First Mover raises the question as to whether He had always existed, and what "always" means in the context.

Incidentally, similar questions are raised by the Big Bang theory. We cannot know, apparently, what preceded the Big Bang, nor do we know how many expansions and contractions of the universe preceded it.

It is true, I believe, that particles have always existed—because without matter, there is no time. So when particles did not exist, there was no time, and "always" only began when matter began. And before that? Nothing. Perhaps it is easier to accept the concept of complete nothingness than to grasp it. Bessel Dekker (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins compared asking what was before the Big Bang to asking what's north of the North Pole. When you ask what's before time, you're using a relative measure based on a concept/dimension/what have you that hadn't come into existence yet. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 05:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• You're not crazy. Your ideas remind me of Last Thursdayism. --M@rēino 03:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian theology in a nutshell says that since God is that great of a being, common rules such as "everything has to be created in the beginning" doesn't apply. God breaks all the rules, sort of. This argument is good only if you believed in God in the first place, but it won't convince non-theists or those who are skeptical.128.163.224.198 (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There's the apparent impossibility of matter having always been in existence vs. the apparent impossibility of creating something out of nothing. Either matter always was, or it had to be created by some entity at some point. Science seems happy with the former, believers prefer the latter - and imo nobody will ever know which is true. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And God, of course, can stand outside time, unlike matter. Bessel Dekker doubts the meaning of always, and the same must go for ever. I can't help thinking of those great lines of T. S. Eliot's - "What we call the beginning is often the end. And to make an end is to make a beginning. The end is where we start from." Xn4 14:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I never could understand the notion that God can stand outside time. Sure, He can be outside the 'universe's' time, but God is still bound by "his own" time. While God may not occupy a physical space, the mere idea of existing means that he's occupying some kind of space (again, not a physical space). Any being that exists can't escape time. If time does not apply to God, does that mean the idea of sequentiality does not apply? For example, as a human I can think of, say, ordering Chinese food. But moments later, I change my mind and decide to order pizza. Changing my mind implies that there's sequentiality, and sequentiality implies I'm bound by time. If God is outside any kind of time, then there is no such thing as sequentiality to him. But how is that possible? Wasn't there a "time" where God sat there doing nothing, and wasn't there a moment in "time" that he decided to create the universe? If so, then he doesn't stand outside his own time.199.76.174.112 (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

'One measures a circle, starting anywhere' or whatever the phrase is. Skittle (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

199.76, I understand your problem. You have to factor in the concept that God has always existed. There was never a time before which he didn't exist. This is easier for me to conceptualise than the concept that matter has always existed (which I disagree with) - God isn't made of matter, but was the creator of all matter. The concept that God has always existed is fundamental to a belief in God. If there was ever a time before which he didn't exist, then who or what created him, and precisely when did this happen? If there is an answer to these questions, then this other entity is more powerful than God himself, a contradiction in terms. Hence, God has always existed. Hence, he has no need for time in order to measure things from any particular starting point - because there was no starting point for him. Hence he's outside time. We mere humans try in our feeble way to understand him in human terms, including imposing time on him, which will always fail. Does the painting ever really understand the painter, or insist he use water colours rather than oils? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not my belief that the religion of my fellow humans must be respected. A brief browse in the OT seems to indicate, that the omniscient and omnipotent perfectionist creator is an entity who "smites", murders and kills for rather arbitrary reasons. Barely is Genesis over, are the little kiddies in Egypt killed, the sinners of Sodom and Gomorrah vanish, the vast majority of humankind - including animals and plants - are drowned in a Great Flood, some poor guy who invents coitus interruptus snuffs it, a competitor (the mildly atheistic protagonist of the NT) dies miserably, and, and, and...

If there is a God, then God help us, since the next holocaust to rid humankind of yet more sinners is surely on the horizon. His divine operation "Global Warming" - aka the Great Deluge / Mark II - will presumably be mentioned in Testament Numero 3 as His next attempt at "ethic cleansing".

Any person who believes in this Abrahamic God is either foolish, ignorant or evil. If sanity and reason prevails, we should murder this entity, before He kills us all.

As to creating something out of "nothing" or "living" in an engineered reality, well, some already do it. Religion is a prime example, as it has created a God out of nothing and stages a great holodeck show with devils, saints, heaven, sin, prayer and salvation.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

All fine, except that a belief in the existence of God does not depend on anything whatsover to do with religions of any kind or with any parts of the Christian, Jewish or any other bibles or sacred texts. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

November 18

Bibliographic query

This one's been annoying me for a little while, and I've had no luck sorting out an answer.

At the bottom of The Secret Battle, I've a tidy bibliography of all the editions (at least, all the English-language ones) I know to exist. What I can't find - and it's been irritating me for a little while - is a publication date for the sixth Methuen edition. I know the fifth was 1930 and seventh 1936, from long dredging through library catalogues, but I haven't been able to nail down an edition explicitly catalogued as "5th edition" with a date, or one dated 1931-1935 which could be presumed to be the 5th.

If anyone with more bibliography-fu than me wants to give this a shot, I'd be curious to know what you get. Shimgray | talk | 00:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Surely in your last sentence but one, you mean 6th rather than 5th? So far, I have not been able to hunt out a 6th, sorry. Bessel Dekker (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure there was a sixth edition? Sometimes publishers withdraw an edition, or they skip a publication number for various reasons.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure - mainly, the late twenties early thirties were a big boom period for this type of "realistic" war novel, and it doesn't seem likely that Methuen would have had it out of print that long. In theory I ought to be able to get it from the publication dates, which usually give earlier editions, on the back of the title page, but the only Methuen edition I have to hand is the third. Hmm. Wonder if a local library has a ninth, or something. Shimgray | talk | 15:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The British Library holds a number of copies of varying editions - [6] - you could always ask them for advice. Or better yet, contact the publishers - Methuen Publishing - directly. 84.65.107.232 (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. I've been through BL (and the other deposit library) holdings via COPAC - lots of editions, not that missing one. Digging through the local catalogues, there's an eighth up at Somerville, which probably has the details on the reverse; I don't have reader access there but I could probably drop them an email and ask if I could come by one afternoon to consult it. Shimgray | talk | 16:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Editions? or simply printings? A popular novel goes through many printings but it it goes through numerous editions, you might call it a classic novel. --Wetman (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't done a detailed comparison of changes between editions, but if the publishers actually called it one, that's good enough for me :-) Shimgray | talk | 22:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Got it! Thanks all. Shimgray | talk | 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Soldier returns from war and starts attacking people.

Once I stumbled upon an article about a soldier who returned from war (I can't remember which war) and he started attacking people because he thought they wanted to attack him. I can't find the article anymore, and I hope you can help me!

Sincerely

Esther

First Blood? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking either the movie or the novel: First Blood (novel). We don't have an article on the movie Ruckus with Dirk Benedict, but then again, no one died in that movie. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but it wasn't (based on) a movie though, it actually happened.

There were a number of cases of returning vets reacting with violence, probably related to PTSD, esp. from the Vietnam war (one psychologist suggests that this was particular acute in the case of Vietnam because 1. the time between being in the war zone and being back at home was reduced to mere hours by fast aircraft, in contrast to the slow boats that they used in WWII and Korea, 2. the improved Pavlovian methods of teaching how to kill created people who were doing more killing than they were psychologically prepared to do, 3. the lack of support at home for the veterans and the blaming of them for the war). I don't know the particular article you are referring to, but there have been a number of such cases. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Sepi perhaps?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

Would it be true to say that the defeat of the Republic in the Spanish Civil War was caused by weakness in the organisation and command structure of their professional army?86.147.184.248 (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your homework question was "To what extent was the defeat of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War caused by weakness in the organisation and command structure of their professional army?" --Wetman (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this a very interesting question for the simple reason that the focus on the army of the Republic is almost always on the International Brigades, a tiny part of the forces available. There was weakness at the outset in the Republican army for the simple reason that so many of the officer class had defected to the Nationalists, though a larger proportion adhered to the side of the government than was one time assumed. It's as well to remember that a significant number of officers were Freemasons, an organisation loathed by the Francoists and the rest of the Spanish right. By far the greatest weakness on the Republican side was that military command was always subject to political and ideological supervision, almost completely absent among the Nationalists. The whole officer class, including those newly created to deal with the emergency, were under scrutiny by political commissars, who operated at all levels of command. Staff work and tactical planning among the senior command, particularly that of General Vicente Rojo Lluch, was good, but operations on the ground often failed because of the inexperience of many of the junior officers. Perhaps the most decisive weakness of all was the way in which politics and ideology impacted on organisation. Conflicts between the Communist commitment to a traditionally disciplined force and the Anarchist ideal of a revolutionary army, ended with a combination of organisational rigidity, on the one hand, and poor discipline, on the other. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Punishment of War Criminals along History

Many people - and probably even war criminals themselves - believe that war criminals will never be put on trial. Although it might be realistic to expect no punishment, since they have all the power on their hands, things turned ugly for many of them. Along history several war criminals often have had problems with legal tribunals: Pinochet was about 500 days under house arrest, Milosevic died expecting trial, the fate of many nazis was not better, Pol Pot, Saddam, Savimbi,... just to cite some, somehow paid for their crimes.

Is it realistic to expect that presumed American war criminals like Kissinger, Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney or George W. Bush will face a tribunal?

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" Bielle (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The questioner didn´t say all these people were indeed war criminals, but just that there is reason to suspect them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.159.194 (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See the article The Trial of Tony Blair about a BBC Channel Four satire on this topic from a UK perspective. The programme itself is funny and unmerciful, worth a look. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Trial of Tony Blair was a Channel Four programme. Channel Four has nothing to do with the BBC. Please do not assume that all British television programmes are made by the BBC. Malcolm Starkey (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just like a Yank. I saw it on BBC America, so I naturally assumed.... I especially liked the bit where she took the lightbulbs. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I doubt that you'll get Rumsfeld, Cheney or George W Bush on trial as war-criminals. Apart from some anti-war groups wishful thinking it is unlikely in the extreme that such individuals will come to be consider war-criminals by any meaningful international body. Whether one agrees with the war or not, there is little value in this long-continued fantasy of having them in court on question of war crime. What they have done was generally accepted by every major international group that could plausibly do anything about it. Add to this the inherent weakness of international law and you've got very little opportunity for such things to occur. ny156uk (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If nobody thought that they should put Curtis LeMay up for war criminal hearings, nobody's going to bother with any of those guys. Even LeMay knew he was a war criminal. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you check the article again, you will find that Curtis LeMay did not admit to being a war criminal. Instead he said that if the Japanese were to have won the war, he expected that he would have been tried as a war criminal. To accept the likelihood of being tried is not the same thing as to admit to being guilty. Are there cases in history where the "winners" try their own, or even one of their own, as a "war criminal" after the cessation of formal hostilities? Bielle (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from both the article and other sources that he knew that his actions, if judged by anyone but the victors, would have been considered war crimes. He, of course, didn't care that such was the case. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps they cannot be processes for war crimes, but what about all those cases of torture? Could be any legal complication for them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.159.194 (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to expect that many administration figures will abstain from international travel (Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc. excepted) when the Bush administration comes to its conclusion, especially if the next president is a Democrat. If the next president were to be Denis Kucinich, I'd expect them to go into exile at a friendly mideastern emirate, but that's the only scenario where I could see them being voluntarily handed over for war crimes trials (or anything else related). Depending on what comes out after the Bush crew leaves, they may face domestic criminal penalties, but this seems unlikely and many may get Ford-style pardons during the last hours of the Bush presidency. Donald Hosek (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as they stay away from any country with an extradition treaty with Belgium, which has war crimes prosecutions without regional or jurisdictional constraint, they'll be OK. Kissinger has to do it, and he gets about a bit. Relata refero (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Pre and post-war appartments

If an appartment was built between 1939 and 1945 is it pre- or post-war?

It's a wartime apartment. 209.202.28.97 (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S., anything before December 7, 1941 is pre-war. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Jorg Friedrich

How valid is Jorg Friedrich's critique of the Allied air offensive in WWII?

I don't know the specific critique, but our page on him says that he "describes the English bombing of civilian targets during World War II as systematic mass murder". Personally I would find it hard to consider it much else; the deliberate targeting of civilian targets, and the purposeful erasure of any distinction between civilian and solider, is systematic mass murder by any other name. It is a war crime at the very least; it is morally unjustifiable by any measure. I am not sure what sort of true defense one could do of it—the Nazis did of course also target civilians, but on a much smaller scale, and in any case, one should hardly be trying to justify one's actions based on those of the Nazis (two very bad wrongs to not make a right). On top of everything else, it is now known that such campaigns had almost no effect on the war effort—it was clear very early on that carpet bombing of civilians neither destroyed morale nor significantly halted the war industry. At the beginning of the war, the British were deploring the Germans for accidentally bombing a schoolhouse; by the end of the war, the British and the Americans were reducing entire cities to slurries of burning flesh and metal. A massacre is a massacre. As Vonnegut said, one should never be proud of atrocities, even against ones enemies. At best it becomes a game of either "we didn't know" or "they did it too," none of which are legitimate moral stances. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What can I say about The Fire: The Bombing of Germany 1940-1945? Is it good narrative? Yes, it is. More to the point, is it good history? Hmm....let me say this much: it comes in the form of accusation, accusation without strategic or political context. Not just my view, I hasten to add, but that of Bruce Kent, pacifist and anti-nuclear campaigner. Besides, recent research has done much to counter the argument that the Allied bombing campaign did little to weaken the German capacity to wage war. For those who have read, or intend to read, Friedrich's book might also, as a corrective, care to dip into Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction: The making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy (2006). Tooze concludes by saying "If the war was right-and surely it was-then the only criterion is whether bombing helped win it effectively. And in my view it did." There was horror, yes; but the real horror was the war itself. The responsibility for that lay not with Bomber Harris or any other British commander. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Tooze's work so I can't comment on the economic argument, though I can say that "the ends justify the means" is a specifically amoral argument. What makes a just war is not simply the initial stakes, but the terms on which it is fought; what makes one just is not simpy how unjust one's enemies are. Just because the Nazis were unquestionably unjust does not mean the Allies have carte blanche to act like monsters. The war did not compel the slaughter of innocents—that was a choice deliberately taken, a line deliberately crossed that they had the high mindedness to find repulsive at the beginning of the war, and indeed many thought it repulsive throughout and after the war. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is war ever moral; has it ever been moral? War is, by its very nature, a nasty business, that has never, ever discriminated between the innocent and the guilty. The way it which it is fought, the methods used and the tone set, rather depends on the circumstances. There are some wars that can only be fought, if they are fought at all, with an absolute intention to win, regardless of the cost, regardless of the methods. There are wars, in other words, that do not permit the luxury of moral reflection. It might even be said that to stop and think is already to have lost. So, 24.147, you believe that the Allies were 'monsters' for the 'slaughter of innocents' by aerial bombardment? Fine, that is your prerogative, though I personally am not comfortable with the emotive use of language. Bombing is just a form of aerial artillery. More 'innocents' were killed in the ground bombardment and assault on places like Budapest, Breslau and Berlin than in the bombing campaign of the western Allies. Should the Russians, then, have stood back and considered the amorality of their actions; that they were crossing a line into the repulsive? Indeed, the war did not compel the slaughter of the innocents; but it was not the Poles, nor the British, nor the French, nor the Danes, nor the Dutch, nor the Russians, and so on and so on, who started that war. If the Nazis had finished it the innocent would all have been on one side and the 'guilty' all on the other, regardless of age or military status. Unlike you, I am not comfortable with value judgements, not comfortable with depicting men who risked their lives, men who died in unusually high numbers serving their country and doing their duty, as 'monsters'. In the main I prefer taking a strictly empirical approach in answering questions here, not revealing all that much about my personal feelings. On this question, though, I am prepared to make them plain: the Second World War was a just war and the bombing campaign played an essential part in securing victory. The campaign was absolutely justified and the men of Bomber Command deserve all honour for the part they played. There is no more for me to add here that would serve any constructive purpose. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I consider the "war is always nasty" to be the ultimate cop-out. There are better and worse ways to fight a war; the British could have fought their war without liquidating Dresden, the Americans could have fought theirs without liquidating most Japanese cities. There is a distinct difference between deliberating targeting a populace and collateral damage, in my view—it is both a difference in tactics and in intentions. I believe that the Allies could have won the war without sinking to the level of massacre, yes. I do not, however, blame the pilots or the bombers themselves—from 20,000 feet in the air it is hard to see what one is doing or to have the sense to protest. I do blame the tacticians, however—whether they put their lives on the line to commit massacres matters not, as the SS men put theirs on the line as well. When one takes the position that "ends justify the means" then one allows anything, any atrocity, any perversity; to allow such is to lose any ability to distinguish between moral and immoral actions, between good and bad policy. This is not only contrary to civilized values, it is bad policy as well: there is a reason that German soldiers would willingly surrender in droves to the US troops but not the Russians—if you have a reputation for brutality and for a lack of respect of any laws of war, you lose any secret admiration your enemies might have for you, you force them to see you as the monsters that you are, and we all know it is easier to kill monsters. In any case, it is not a purely post hoc determination—indeed there were many both in the British command and the British populace at the time who considered such strategies abhorrent and unnecessary; it was not the only option that could have been followed, it was not inevitable—it was a choice, an immoral one. I have no sentimentality about those who fight wars simply on the basis of their fighting (among which I count family members, like most Americans); I write them no blank checks to whatever they want, I excuse "only following orders" only so far. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course this mass bombings did also have military value to some degree. But considering the fact that german military production reached its record high in the last years, i kind of doubt it. Reasoning was to weaken german fighting will. which it didnt, just as it didnt work for the Germans when they tried the same with the Brits. The erasing of complete civilian neighbourhoods are in my opinion a waste of military ressource that could´ve put to a better use in other branches of the allied military. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tresckow (talk • contribs) 12:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tresckow. Please read Tooze's book. The impact of the bombing campaign on German industrial production was far greater than was at one time assumed. It is not quite true, moreover, that the offensive had no impact on morale. You might care to look in a little more detail at the attack on Hamburg in July, 1943, though I admit this was of an exceptional nature. On your wider point, concerning the best use of military resources, I would say that it is important to look at the whole bomber offensive in a far, far wider strategic context. By 1942 intensive RAF operations had forced the high command of the Luftwaffe to give up all hope of rebuilding their own bomber fleet and relaunching the blitz on the United Kingdom. More than this, the priority given to the defence of the Reich meant that much of the available air power had to be concentrated in central Europe, away from other battle fields, allowing the Allies to achieve operational air superiority at some decisive points. Without this the campaigns in Africa and Italy could not have succeeded and the D-Day landings would have been all but impossible. In the Eastern Front the German Army was steadily deprived of adequate air support, as squadrons were diverted to home defence. So the resources devoted to the air offensive were well used, a vital part in ensuring victory. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just an addition: in case anyone thinks that the Allied bombing campaign was considered the only option at the time, I recommend reading C.P. Snow's New Men in which he clearly lays out the fact that many within the government thought at the time that it was immoral and useless; of course, as he is labouring under a narrative compulsion in the book the objections to the (British) night bombing are only foreshadowing, in a larger sense, of the objections to the (American) nuclear bombs.

As to the question whether, if the war was right, should anything that would win it sooner be used, I think that most people, then and now, felt that it was important that certain differences be preserved between the sides, and both forms of bombing tended to dilute them.

Note also that the evidence is sharply divided; and also that it was believed at the time that the economic benefits to bombing the Reich at night would not be particularly great. Patrick Blackett focused on the lack of benefits rather than the moral considerations, and was overruled, as the expected effect on morale would make it worth it.

Relata refero (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Second coming

Will the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and coming of the Jewish Messiah be the same event or are they to be separate events at different times and with different people and different missions?

They've come and gone. What? Did you miss them? --Wetman (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the world's number one Dickhead, so I may be wrong on the details, but didn't PKD ponder the idea that the Second Coming happened around the year fifty or thereabouts in "If you think this world is bad..."? And now here we all are stuck in the Black Iron Prison. Now whether PKD's essays should be taken seriously is something else again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer this question seriously: Christians believe the "Jewish Messiah" has already come the first time. Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah; there cannot be a "Second Coming" because the first hasn't happened yet. So by definition, the two things you mention can't be the same. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ignoring those unhelpful responses: Some say Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah but the Jews failed to recognise him. Nobody else has yet turned up who fitted the bill, and afaik they're still waiting for a Messiah. Who knows what's going to happen if the Second Coming ever occurs, but I speculate the Jews would still say a returned Jesus isn't the Messiah. However, if they do acknowledge him this time, they'd have to also acknowledge he already came over 2000 years ago, in which case the coming of the Messiah and the Second Coming were events separated by 2000 years, and thus different events. Maybe a theologian can provide a more authoritative answer. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No messiah has ever been sent from God, nor will one be since God does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erica Perks (talk • contribs)

Thank you, God! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

God exists certainly by definition, although it may take (like the atom) special equipment for God to be seen. 71.100.160.132 (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Call me cynical but I do think its rather convenient for theists that these events have already occurred. Why didn't G-d wait a while before sending his son back to the earth, perhaps then somebody could videotape it and prove the existence of Jesus indefinately. If G-d is real, he should have nothing to worry about in doing this. After all that would be the sensible solution. It also seems rather convenient to me that G-d spoke to people after the creation of the world, but now he's gone all quiet, seems rather strange. Proof enough for me that he doesn't exist, or that he's given up on humanity --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 09:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Theists would reply that one of the things that distinguishes God from other entities is that he has no need to merely prove he exists. They would also say the evidence for his existence is nevertheless abundant and compelling, and certainly does not rely on videotape. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Questions concerning God and creationism have been asked many times on the reference desk, and so far this one seems to be heading in a political direction. Notably, the OP failed to sign, and we've had a bunch of political comments from various anonymous (IP address) users. For all those that wish to respond, please do not start a troll war, and stick to the topic. I believe this question has only been mildly answered and could still use the knowledge of someone versed in theology. Thanks :) Rfwoolf (talk)

Afrikaner nationalism

In what ways did defeat in the Second Boer War stimulate new forms of Afrikaner nationalism? Did Afrikaners consider themselves victims and does this explain the later politics of the Republic of South Africa? Cetawayo (talk)

That sounds alot like a homwork question. Id aswer but im afraid id give u a HW answer and plus i dont no the awnser. Esskater11 21:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly does sound like HW. Try reading the specific part of the relevent article: Second Boer War: The End of the Boer War.--Chrisfow (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

First, it left the Afrikaner community with a painful sense of victimhood, as you have suggested, Cetawayo, hardly surprising when one considers that some 28,000 of them died of disease and neglect in the concentration camps established by the British during the war. For a long time afterwards it was believed that this was part of a deliberate act of genocide. Second, the struggle itself, the heroism and sacrifice involved, took its place alongside the Great Trek and the Battle of Blood River as central myths in the Boer national epic. Having lost their political identity, the Boers placed ever greater emphasis on their culture, particularly on Afrikaans as a language distinct from Dutch, which finally achieved official recognition in 1925. It was in this, the language of the people, that Boer nationalism took its definitive shape, with more and more publications appearing on the subject of the war, particularly in the work of Gustav Preller. By the 1930s it is possible to detect the emergence of a distinct, one might say tribal, identity amongst the Afrikaans-speaking peoples, transcending the divisions of class and status, comparable, perhaps, in a British context to the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. To an extent this mood was kept under a degree of control by respected leaders like Jan Smuts, who identified with the wider Imperial project, but it came to the fore with the victory of the National Party in the election of 1948, the beginning of the long rule of the white tribe of Africa. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Help identify this short story

I think it's by a relatively well-known author. It's probably from sometime between the 17th and 19th century. The story is about three caretakers who tell lies to a sick mother that her daughter isn't dying. The caretakers were described in the beginning as strict moralists who shun any kind of lying. But they did start to lie to make the mother feel better, but the little lies turned into big lies as the daughter worsened in health and died. 128.163.224.198 (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

departing from convention

what do people think are some examples of writing that depart from or challenge typical writing conventions? 130.49.58.198 (talk)

The work of E.E. Cummings springs immediately to mind. He often ignored the conventional rules of capitalization and punctuation. GreatManTheory (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I hesitate to offer up leet speak and, god forbid, AOLspeak. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks, those are cool ideas, but I was thinking more about an existing prose work instead of poetry or a language/dialect. 130.49.58.198 (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How about anything by James Joyce, or is he now his own convention? Bielle (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC) If you want a specific title, then Ulysses would offer the most challenges, I would think. Bielle (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, Bielle. That would have to be Finnegans Wake, a real adventure in language and syntax! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right, of course, Clio. I only ever got to about page 75 in FW which is my excuse for having overlooked it here. That's my story, and I am sticking to it! Bielle (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Years ago I tried to read Finnegans Wake, but it was all too much. I prefer the jam of my weirdnesses spread a little thinner, with large smearings of the butter of convention. Then Bloomsday 2004 came around and I thought, this is the perfect day to sally forth into Ulysses. I sat down, determined to read it from cover to cover. I got to about page 15 and gave up. I'm not claiming he's not a great writer, because I've hardly read anything of his, but for me, unfortunately, he's virtually unreadable. Chacun à son goût. I know exactly what John Le Carré was talking about when he wrote in the introduction to The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes (2004): As a reader, I insist on being beguiled early or not at all, which is why many of the books on my shelves remain mysteriously unread after page 20. But once I submit to the author's thrall, he can do me no wrong. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear this, Jack; for I love Joyce; I love his playfulness, his feeling for language, his encycolpedic understanding of the psychology, history, poetry, traditions and consciousness of his nation. As far as I am concerned Ulysses is one of the greatest books ever written. It is best not tackled, though, in a 'cover to cover' fashion. I read slowly, and digested even more slowly, punctuated by diversions into more conventional routes. You tried and you gave up, that's fine; so have a great many other people. I would not be so arrogant to persuade you back over old roads. But you might care, out of simple curiosity, to dip into the section headed Oxen of the Sun, my favourite part of the whole book. In this Joyce moves through the minds of various authors, using their forms of language, their modes of expression, their peculiarities, their literary idiosyncrasies, all with astonishing, almost intuitive insight. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Clio. I will keep it in mind, but I think I disposed of my copy of Ulysses in the belief that I'd never read it so why keep it. As for reading slowly, that's not my way. I prefer to read a book in as few sittings as I can manage, otherwise I tend to become distracted and never get back to it. But I will take your advice about Oxen of the Sun and see if it leads me to reading the whole book. A friend of mine once called me a "bad-ass word guy", an appellation I have since worn as a badge of honour. It has often struck me as strange that the little I read of Finnegans Wake, renowned as the ultimate book for lovers of word-play like me, left me so unimpressed. Maybe I'll give it another go now that I'm older and allegedly wiser. Cheers -- JackofOz (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Kurt Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions qualifies. In it Vonnegut suffers recurring, relapsing breakdowns in auctorial distance in defiance of standard operating procedure for novelists. It's been a long, long time since I read it, so don't ask for particulars. I only clearly remember his description of the junkyard dog. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I just remembered. In His Own Write by John Lennon. Excerpt here. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• In its day i think that Pride and Prejudice strayed away from typical literary conventions because of its use of satire, and because of how it very subtly mocked the upper class, for example its opening words; "It is a truth universally acknowledged that any man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a good wife". The novel very carefully played on the idiotic viewpoints of the British aristocracy. A really entertaining read, Mrs. Bennet is often the most satirized character as she is relentlessly trying to marry her daughters off to wealthy men with no regard for their happiness --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 09:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hunter S. Thompson was a pioneer of gonzo journalism. He's probably best known for Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, but, for purposes of your question (or, I'm guessing, your professor's question), a better example would be Fear and Loathing:On the Campaign Trail '72. In 1972, Thompson covered a U.S. presidential campaign for Rolling Stone. He rode the campaign buses with the reporters for the mainstream daily newspapers, but his pieces were so different from the conventions of political journalism that I was tempted to put "covered" in quotation marks. JamesMLane t c 10:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Surprised no-one has yet mentioned Tristram Shandy. This was without a doubt the first experimental novel in English, with all kinds of formal trickery going on. It's a great book, too. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I recommend two of Brian O'Nolan's novels written under the pen-name of Flann O'Brien - At Swim-Two-Birds and The Third Policeman. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Any lipogrammatic work or other constrained writing should qualify. --Sean 14:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Part of Feersum Endjinn by Iain M Banks is written in an idiosyncratic phonetic style, and many of his books as Iain Banks are innovative to a greater or lesser extent. You might also consider graphic novels as challenging accepted literary standards. SaundersW (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Though not that novel an idea, epistolary novels can give you a formal break from convention. Amos Oz's Black Box for a more recent example I liked a lot, or David Mamet's Wilson: a Consideration of the Sources for a very cryptic one I did not enjoy as much. Other interesting forms of narratological departure include the unreliable narrator, metafiction, or reviews on unwritten books, such as Stanisław Lem's A Perfect Vacuum, or Borges's An Examination of the Work of Herbert Quain. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Dracula is also an epistolary novel. All of the chapters are letters, journal entries, and, novel for the time, transcriptions of phonograph recordings. Corvus cornix (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you accept film? The film Memento centers on a man who loses all of his memories when he falls asleep, and has to keep writing in a journal to help himself to know what has been happening to him. And the story is told backwards, so the first scene in the movie is the last scene, chronologically. Corvus cornix (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If we are including film, then we must mention Peter Greenaway, especially Drowning by Numbers. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, High Noon. Not a strongly unconventional film (by today's standards), but it very strongly challenged the conventions of the western genre. I also want to point out that that isn't the most accurate summary of Memento I've ever read. risk (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think anything by William Burroughs or Thomas Pynchon would qualify. Why, oh why does the name of that american author who travelled England in a campervan with his family and fell in extasy before a religious work of art in a church inspiring him an amazing after-the-bomb novel in new-Eglish escapes me? Ah it's too far stored away in boxes.

You could also try a google search for experimental books or our very own experimental literature article. Keria (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Riddley Walker by Russell Hoban? I was going to mention it myself, with the mention below of books in invented dialect. Skittle (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Skittle that's the one. I found Will Self's Book of Dave very similar in atmosphere, then he prefaced an edition of Riddley Walker I think. Insipiration, inspiration! Keria (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Reading the article of which makes me discover Ergodic literature which might help answer the questioner's query, which brings back the title of a recent book: House of Leaves that I was earlier mistakingly looking for under the title of Dead Leaves , which is a non-conventional japanese animation, which makes me think of yet another one called Mind Game. Where will this end? Keria (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• A Clockwork Orange makes good use of an invented argot, and Nabokov's Pale Fire is perhaps the only annotated-poem-as-novel. --Sean 20:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If on a Winter's Night a Traveller by Italo Calvino. I'm afraid I got annoyed with it after not many pages, but it certainly plays with the medium. Rather more enjoyable, in my opinion, are the works of Jasper Fforde :) Skittle (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If we're talking music, avant-garde composers such as John Cage and George Crumb immediately spring to mind. bibliomaniac15 23:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget about The Catcher in the Rye.risk (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest B. S. Johnson for breaking with the convention that the author decides which order the chapters are read, and House of Leaves for challenging the very look of a book in the best way I have ever found. Theediscerning (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"Comrade"

Do people in the former Soviet Union and other former Communist countries still refer to each other as "Comrade"? Or is some other term used these days? Do members of the British Labour Party regularly refer to each other as "Comrade"? Corvus cornix (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My Russian teachers all said that Comrade/Tovarishch was all pretty much un-cool in modern day Russia, that it invoked a pseudo-politically-correct desire to strip people of genders and titles and everything. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that any Labour Party member saying "comrade" is either a hardline devotee who was annoyingly ideological even in 1981, or doing it as a joke. Shimgray | talk | 01:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO "brother" was more usual in the Labour Party, however as it appears to have abandoned any attachment to ideals of fraternity, it also appears to have abandoned the epithet "brother". DuncanHill (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Australian former PM Gough Whitlam is well known here for calling his Labor colleagues "comrade". It's a joke in his case, stemming from his propensity to adopt pseudo-patrician forms of address and interpolate classical allusions wherever he can; he was never even remotely a Communist. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the British Labour Party freely used the C word, at party conferences at least, at one point in its history. It was probably in the good old, bad old pre-Blair years. I think I shall soon start using the BB-Before Blair-and AB-in the year of our Blair-designations! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I managed to miss the phrase "still saying", there. Certainly in the past, but now? I'd be waiting for them to grin. Shimgray | talk | 19:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The german SPD still uses it on party conferences and formal adresses within the party. However in the milder german Vwesion of Genosse as Kamerad is reserved for miltary and school.--Tresckow (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The old Serbo-Croatian language book I had gave the word "Drug" for "Comrade". I asked a Croatian friend about it, and he said that it was used for teachers, and for other state employees such as bus conductors. Nowadays it isn't used at all. SaundersW (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Drug" (rhymes with "book") is Russian for friend, and it pops up in other Slavic languages. It was the inspiration for the Droogs in "A Clockwork Orange". -- JackofOz (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it rhymes better with "nuke," "mook," "juke," "souk," or "kook." Wareh (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean like "druke" ? I'd have to disagree. There is no "oo" sound like that in any Russian I've ever heard. It's an elongated short "oo" sound, like in a slightly lengthened version of "book", "cook", "look", "nook", etc, but that lengthening doesn't change it to the flatter sound found in "juke". -- JackofOz (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, probably an issue of the difference between our English dialects, & the absence in either of the exact sound. Admittedly, my own rhyme words would sound heavily Russian-accented if pronounced with the vowel I'd use in Russian, but on the other hand the vowel in my American English "book" would leave me far more liable to being misunderstood if I were to use it in Russian. (As far as I can tell, our article seems to agree that the phoneme is closer to /u/ than to /ʊ/.) Wareh (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll still hear Tovarish used fairly regularly in Russia, but it's meant ironically or sarcastically. Koolbreez (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen in recent film clips, in the Russian military they still address each other as tovarich, as in "Yes, comrade colonel". The glory of the Red Army is a big deal for them.--Rallette (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the only place where it is still used unselfconsciously is in the appropriate political sections of English-speaking India. Relata refero (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult to discover which was the last Labour leader to be regularly referred to as Comrade X. I suspect it was Michael Foot, but of course a search for "Comrade Foot" will throw up too many references to his nephew Paul Foot of the Socialist Workers Party. The only member of Labour who will today happily use the terms is, of course Anthony Wedgwood Benn, paradoxically the least proletarian of them all in origin. Relata refero (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

November 19

OPEC

Why is OPEC based in Vienna? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erica Perks (talk • contribs)

Austria's neutrality in the Cold War made it a favored location for all kinds of international bodies. (See Declaration of Neutrality.) Wareh (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

tutti-fruiti

What is tutti-fruiti and where is our article on the subject? --Seans Potato Business 00:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Tutti frutti. Wareh (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected tutti-fruiti to Tutti frutti. Exxolon (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Womp-bomp-a-loom-op-a-womp-bam-boom! --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The God that failed

I would be interested to know why Marxist Communism, built around a notion of freedom and justice, ended as one of the most oppressive doctrines ever devised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.185.233 (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

well, but what is that big difference between marxist communism and leninist communism and maoist communism. The fact is, all communism have failed because communist economies were not that successfull growth economies and wealth creators as capitalist economies were. Meanwhile, who are you Mr/Ms.86.147.185.233 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.29.48 (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You could do worse than to read George Orwell's Animal Farm, 86.147.185.233. Its first target is Stalinism, but I think it will work for you. Xn4 14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Marxists would contest that ended, yet alone that it ended as one of the most oppressive doctrines ever devised. The USSR and its Empire is seen by many as somewhat of a false start, and that a true Marxist Revolution is still to come. Ninebucks (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Marxist revolutionaries are often "ends justify the means" types of folks, a philosophy justified largely through Marxist materialism though I doubt Marx would have read it in quite that way. The end result is that you often have had new regimes desiring to sweep aside old regime entirely, by any means necessary. The results are almost always grim and in no way prepare the country in question for being any sort of liberal political environment. All of which is a long way of saying that the motivations for those to start Marxist revolutions have often led the revolutionaries in question down very nasty paths, though I would have note that such has been the case in many non-Marxist revolutions as well. Additionally Marxism puts a strong priority on centralized control and rule of the state during its early phases (dictatorship of the proliteriat), and in practice phases never seem to end though in theory they are supposed to. Personally I consider the Marxist belief in the eventual dissolution of the state under Marxist rule to be something of the same character as the Christian belief in the second coming of Christ—it's always around the corner, it never happens, but it serves as a justification for all sorts of behaviors. But then again I'm something of a materialist myself, albeit a misanthropic yet empathetic one. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a mixture of ideology, of politics and of circumstances. There was always a millenarian dimension to Marxism, an assumption that history proceeded by great leaps; that an ideal society could only be achieved by turning the world upside down and inside out. The general optimism to be found in Marx's theory, that the new world would emerge from the womb of the old, carried to life, it might be said, by the 'dynamics' of history alone, was also accompanied and contradicted by a fearful realism based on a reading of historical events. For Marx, and for those who came after, most notably Lenin, the Paris Commune provided an example of what might and could go wrong in a 'proletarian' revolution; history might have brought it to life but there were those on the wings who cared nothing for the process of historical inevitability. If the revolution was to defend itself it had, therefore, to be as ruthless as its enemies.

After October 1917 Lenin, in defending the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', which in practice meant the dictatorship of the Bolshevik Party, used a Red Terror that was even more ruthless than the White Terror employed by Adolphe Thiers in 1871. But victory was achieved in direct contradiction to Marxist theory, including that of Lenin himself outlined in State and Revolution, that the state would 'wither away'. Instead the apparatus of coercion, the agencies of state power, grew stronger, not weaker. The Communists, moreover, though in isolation, and with an increasing siege-mentality, still held to the conviction that 'history' was on their side, which meant refashioning society in their own particular image, no matter the cost, in the forced collectivisation of agriculture and rapid industrialisation. The perceived intensification of the 'class struggle' that this process brought about deepened, still further, the coercive power of the state in the hands of Stalin. And so it continued in its own way, and with its own dynamics; through Mao, through Pol Pot, in ever decreasing circles, ever more murderously perverse; ever further from, or closer to, the Marxist ideal. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

what is the the average bill of a meal in USA

When I go to a restaurant near my home, I eat two idlys, two chappatis, a sambhar vadai and a roast. Even though they are neither healthy nor tasty, it is very cheap at Rs.42 or $1.1. And it is what most people in my state eat in restaurants. Meanwhile in USA, I just want to know how much does an average american spend in USA when that person goes to a restaurant in USA. You may have any meal or tiffin. But I just want to know how much is the average american's spend on an average day in a tiffin or meal. Is it say $5 or $10, like that. Please mention spends in various types of restaurants. For example, $X in 5 star hotel, $Y in an neighbourhood restaurant, $Z in Mcdonalds etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.29.48 (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Here in Tallahassee (medium-small city), I expect to spend $6 or $7 for lunch on average. My university has two cafeterias where you can eat an unlimited amount of food for about $7.50, so that's where I go when I'm really hungry. A fancy restaurant can be as much as $20 per person, or even more if you get a big steak or something. At some other places, you can get a filling meal for under $3 if you don't get a drink. —Keenan Pepper 13:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Keenan's "as much as" is underestimating the high end. I don't often go to high-end restaurants in the US, but I don't imagine it's hard to find prices over $30 for the main course alone. Of course prices will be higher in locations where real estate is expensive. --Anon, 18:15 UTC, November 19, 2007.

By the way, I know the question only mentioned the US, but if people elsewhere in the world want to chime in, I'd find it interesting, and I don't think anyone would mind. —Keenan Pepper 13:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• McDonald's and their ilk often have a single hamburger for 99 cents. That's usually about the cheapest from there. I have to say, I wish I could buy the royal feast you described for $1.10. I'd eat that every day, too! --c

In the UK, a single MacDonalds Hamburger is about 79p (about $1.60 at the moment). A decent meal (say, pizza or a curry) varies, although £6 or £7 (up to about $15) is about average. Fancy restaurants can be stupidly expensive - upwards of $40 per person. Then there's a of variation lot between that; it's normally a couple of pounds ($4 or so) for a full English breakfast at a café for example. A snack, the Western equivalent of Tiffin, varies, but a cup of coffee and a cake will normally cost £1.00 to £2.00 (about $4), although some people will pay a lot more than that for Starbucks or Costa coffee. Laïka 17:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The OP hasn't asked about the UK, but the most expensive meal I've ever had in a London restaurant came to more than £250 (about $500) per person. I'll quickly add that someone else was paying. With a little ingenuity and a large appetite, you can spend a lot more than that in a smart restaurant, and yet more in a night-club over here. On the other hand, tea at the Ritz in London is a snip at about £25 a head, so nowadays you need to book it, just like booking a dinner. Xn4 18:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Magazine The Economist has a big-mac index that charts the price of a big mac across the globe (http://www.economist.com/markets/Bigmac/Index.cfm) they also have a starbucks latte one I think. It's a good indicator of purchasing power - you'll get a better description from them...

"Burgernomics is based on the theory of purchasing-power parity, the notion that a dollar should buy the same amount in all countries. Thus in the long run, the exchange rate between two countries should move towards the rate that equalises the prices of an identical basket of goods and services in each country. Our "basket" is a McDonald's Big Mac, which is produced in about 120 countries. The Big Mac PPP is the exchange rate that would mean hamburgers cost the same in America as abroad. Comparing actual exchange rates with PPPs indicates whether a currency is under- or overvalued."

(http://www.economist.com/markets/bigmac/about.cfm) ny156uk (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We used to do a similar thing with Mars Bars when I was at school. DuncanHill (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You could have a look at Wikitravel, prices for dining out are usually on the various destination pages. Keria (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In Ontario, Canada, a foot-long (30 cm) tuna sandwich from Subway costs $6.83 when you include the 14% in federal and provincial taxes. On the other hand, the ingredients for a tuna sub sandwich at home will cost half of that, maybe. But you'd have to spend a lot more than $6.83 to have the choices of toppings Subway offers. Chinese take-out will run you about $11 or $12. A medium pizza with three toppings is about $12 or $13 after tax. A meal at a nice, not-fancy restaurant can easily run to $30 a person even before the wine. By the way, tiffin appears to be a word unique to India. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

When I was in India last year, I was amazed at the low price of restaurant meals. I was in Tamil Nadu and managed to have good meals for 35 rupees (less than $1 at the time). Here in Boston, which is more expensive than some other U.S. cities, a typical lunch (sandwich and soda) costs about $8.50. At McDonalds, you could have a reasonable lunch for around $3.50. For dinner at a modest restaurant here, you would pay about $16-20, not including beer or wine, but including tax and tip. For dinner at a restaurant with a better reputation, it would be more like $35-50. For dinner at the best restaurants in the city, you can easily pay $350 per person. Marco polo (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Food prices tend to vary drastically from country to country depending on the per-capita incomes of the places. In the Czech Republic (outside of the tourist areas), you can get a meal of soup, potatoes and a small cut of meat for about 3 euros. A whole pizza costs about the same. Beer is like 50 cents for a half-liter. After getting used to it, it was quite a shock coming back to North America and seeing how expensive food is! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't done dinner for two in Toronto for less than $130.00 in several years, though that does include a glass of house wine each. And, like Xn4, and doubtless many Londoners, and certainly those who visit there on a regular basis, I have eaten the $500 meal. (It was excellent, by the way, something not always true of the expensive places.) Bielle (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In New York, I paid $15 for a burger and $15 for a corned beef sandwich at Katz's Deli. Part of the experience, I guess. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In Australia, a filling take-away meal is US$6-8 (but start at about $4). Eating at a low end restaurant will cost about US$10-15. Prices go as high as you want to depending where you eat. In China, I could get a good meal for under US$1, even paying foreigner prices. Steewi (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Fruit sandwich available in all Mcdonalds stores in USA? how much does it cost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.140.137 (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to say no, as I have never seen one. And, in fact, am having trouble imagining one. You would put fruit on bread? They do have a small fruit salad and fruit in other salads (menu here:[7]). Rmhermen (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• shot in the dark* Might a Fruit Sandwich be related to a McDonalds applepie? Occasionally available in other varieties. Skittle (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Eisenhower

why was Eisenhower known as "Ike"? As far as I can see, none of his names were Isaac. DuncanHill (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Ike" is often used as a nickname for people whose name is Isaac. I guess somewhere along the line, it got applied to him because his last name was Eisenhower. I used to know I guy whose nickname was "Ike" because his first name was Dwight.  :) Corvus cornix (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Google Answers answers. I once read that all US presidents with names wider than X picas in headline-sized type will end up with a nickname (such as TR, FDR, Ike, JFK, LBJ, etc.). --Sean 20:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

But Eisenhower was called Ike while he was still an active duty soldier and before he got into politics. Corvus cornix (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Although I can't verify that. The earliest Time article which calls him Ike is from 1952 - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,859852,00.html Corvus cornix (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times has hits for "ike eisenhower" as early as 1942, though. In a number of stories about him from the 1940s they mention that his nickname is "Ike". --24.147.86.187 (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

See also [8]. "All six of the Eisenhower boys were at one time or another nicknamed Ike." --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't connect to the link provided. DuncanHill (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't connect to either of the links provided :( DuncanHill (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I can—sounds like an issue on your end? It fails at some sort of certificate check so you might try it in another browser or playing with your security settings. Or try the non-https version of the page. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't he borrow his brother's nickname? Edison (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There's an interesting New York Times story from 1953 in which Eisenhower says that he "likes Ike" too as a nickname; that he doesn't mind it when newspapers in particular use it in the headlines. The article points out that the name EISENHOWER is pretty long and hard to fit into a big headline; a lot harder than IKE anyway. I wonder if that didn't have something to do with it. It also notes that it is common in the army to get nicknames from your comrades that stick throughout your career. It also reports that, "The President was nicknamed 'Ike' as a boy despite his mother's best efforts. Like most mothers, Mrs. Eisenhower wanted her son called by his full name. He had been David Dwight, but she switched these names around to Dwight David so he would not be called Dave, all to no avail. At West Point the nickname was pinned on him for Good. After he became president of Columbia University a few years ago, he was asked if he would prefer to be called 'General' or 'President,' and his reply was, 'I'll always answer best to the name of 'Ike'." Reference: "Eisenhower Indicated He, Too, Likes 'Ike'; What's in a Nickname? Headline news", New York Times (17 December 1953): 24. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

World War One Air Aces

The air aces of the First World War have left a somewhat glamarous image as the last of the knight errants in the midst of an otherwise gruesome struggle. Is this really consistent with the facts? 217.42.104.171 (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What stage of the war are you interested in? The facts varied greatly over the course of the war. --Carnildo (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading Aces Falling: War above the Trenches, 1918 by Peter Hart, published this year by Weidenfeld and Nicholson. By the end of the conflict the 'material battle' that had for so long affected the forces on the ground had reached into the skies. All glamour ended in 1918, as the air offensive became little more than an auxilliary to the war on the ground. The chief emphasis was on countering enemy operations with straffing missions, skimming dangerously low over the trenches, or bombing raids, virtually around the clock. In Hart's words "The lustre of the war in the air slowly faded until it became just another slaughterhouse in the all-encompassing mayhem that was the Great War." Clio the Muse (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is the story of the duel of Ernst Udet and Georges Guynemer, two of the greatest aces in history. They had a chivalric duel in 1916 with Udet's gun jamming seemingly beyond repair. When Guynemer noticed this, he waved and flew away. It was the nature of the dogfight and the technology of the time that preserved chivalry. We didn't see this in future aerial wars because technology forced battles to become either extremely one-sided or manifest in overpowering numbers. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

More Freikorps

First of all I would like to thank Clio the Muse for the answer she gave to my Freikorps question (posted by 193.130.15.240), not only because it was so admirably complete but because she was the one person to take my request seriously. I now have other questions Clio on the Freikorps that I am sure you will be able to help me with. You said in your previous answer that they were not motivated chiefly by politics. If so, why did they take part in the 1920 Kapp Putsch? Also, having shown in this episode that their loyalty to the republic was uncertain, why were they not banned afterwards? Of course anyone else apart from Clio is welcome to provide an answer. I only ask that I am spared the lectures. Apolla Delphinos (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with Clio that their motives were not chiefly political. Members of the Freikorps shared a sympathy for militarism, nationalism, and authoritarianism. This amounts to a political posture. As Clio rightly said, they shared a desire to defend and uphold the prestige of the military, but I would argue that this is a profoundly political motive. The Kapp Putsch was a response by the Freikorps to a government order disbanding the Freikorps in general and the Marinebrigade Ehrhardt specifically. Of course, violent resistance to government policy and the attempted overthrow of a government are profoundly political acts. The government did make further efforts to ban the Freikorps after the putsch, but members of the government felt a need to tread carefully for fear of provoking further resistance. However, the failure of the putsch largely discredited the Freikorps, and they were not a serious threat to the republic after the defeat of the putsch (although many of their members drifted to the Nazi Party in subsequent years). Marco polo (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Apolla, in your new guise! Why did some Freikorps units take part in the Kapp Putsch? The simple reason is that they felt betrayed by the politicians, the victims of a second 'stab in the back.' Under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, signed the previous summer, the government had little choice but to reduce the armed forces, standing at some half a million soldiers, to 100,000 men by April of 1920. Most of those in the Freikorps had little prospect of obtaining employment in the new professional army. Their discontent was an opportunity for the politically motivated among them to energise and direct the rest. Ernst von Salomon, himself a Freikorps veteran, was to write about this "It was no inspired controversial political ideal that spurred us to protest. The actual cause lay in despair, which is never articulate."

The Freikorps, despite the Kapp Putsch, were not banned for the simple reason that they were still needed. No sooner had the Putsch collapsed that the Ruhr rose in revolt, with a Red Army made up, it is thought, of 80,000 men. Once again the volunteers were set in action, headed by the Ehrhardt Brigade, its role in the Kapp episode notwithstanding. They and the other formations were disbanded not long after, many subsequently disappearing into the Black Reichswehr.

And, Marco, you might be interested in reading "The Origins of the Freikorps: A Reevaluation" by B. Scott in the University of Sussex Journal of Contemporary History, 1 (2000), a interesting rebuttal to the argument of R. G. L. Waite in Vanguard of Nazism: The Freekorps Movement in postwar Germany, 1918-1923. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ring

My band recently got first in the nation at BOA and we are going to have the opportunity to get rings. I already have a class ring that I wear on my right hand ring finger. Is there a correct finger I should wear it on when I already am wearing a ring? Thanks, schyler (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are many rules about this, though your school may have some conventions. A lot of adult males wear "society" or "achievenment" rings on their little finger. In much of North America, no rings except for wedding rings, are worn on the fourth finger of the left hand, and I can't recall any male who was not a biker wearing rings on the forefinger of either hand, or on the thumb. For females, there are generally more choices, though the thumb is not usual, and the fourth finger of the left hand is also usually reserved for wedding (and/or engagement) rings. There may well be other views. Bielle (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a few practical considerations that you might take into account, though. You may or may not want to have a hand that is free of rings for some reason (eg not wanting them to catch on stuff when feeling into small spaces). On the other hand (no pun intended) rings worn on adjacent fingers can cause each other to wear, and also under certain circumstances they can give you a nasty nip in that sensitive web between the fingers. These are minor considerations though. Congratulations on your win! SaundersW (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

November 20

Term for theory of why we follow social rules

There is some single word for the idea that states: the reason we act within what society deems 'acceptable,' is the feeling that society is always watching us. I think it starts with the prefix "omni," and I'd like to read more about it... but having forgotten this word, I'm having a really hard time! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.137.117 (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like your trying to figure out a word on your vocab HW. No offenese Esskater11 —Preceding comment was added at 01:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Homework or not, it sounds interesting to me too :) schyler (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Bentham's Panopticon, which Michel Foucault, in Discipline and Punish, invoked as a metaphor for social surveillance that breeds self-discipline? Marco polo (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking about! That's a lot Marco polo. Also, I'm sorry to tell you Esskater11, It's not homework :) I'm an engineering student (guess where? It's not hard, with my ip...), and I've never taken any sociology course that would relate to that. It's just something that I remember reading about once a really long time ago on Wiki, and I happened to think about recently. Sorry if you feel let-down! I'm sure on this board you can snipe other people who are working on homework, so best of luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.137.117 (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Honest mistake, where im from it was 8:30 P.M on a monday. With the way you fraised it and the time and all being primo howework doing time you could imagine how i could think that, no? Esskater11 03:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

From the "is always watching us" and "omni" it could be omniscient but it doesn't really correspond to the definition you gave it. Keria (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Keira, omniscient doesn't quite capture it, as we can see from this discussion: the panopticon of Wikipedia that tries to zap "homework questions" is clearly not omniscient :-). 203.221.126.252 (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

:D Ah, I wish my last name was Knightley ;P But then I probably wouldn't be on the ref desk and I could pout my lips at the Panopticon. Strange that it is such a close translation to Omniscient, then the all-seeing eye of dog notion has I believe that exact same function. Keria (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC) ps and if I really was Keira my English would be better too!

If it were a true panopticon, it wouldn't need to zap them; they'd zap themselves! --24.147.86.187 (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You're in Toronto, 142.150.137.117? Xn4 01:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Biplob

What does "Biplob" mean in Bengali and what about "biplobi"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.212 (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Revolution and Revolutionary, respectively, which is a particularly apt name in Bengal. Relata refero (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Vaisakhi

Do Pakistani Punjabis celebrate Vaisakhi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.212 (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not particularly commemorated in Pakistan, although several individuals of the Sikh faith make pilgrimages there every year. Relata refero (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The effect of advancing military technology on the balance of military power within the nation of Asean?

Dear Sir,

Plese elaborate and throw some idea on it. Thank you

ajin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.102.255.222 (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I assume you are talking about the ASEAN bloc? Your question is an incredibly interesting one on a subject I would happily talk for hours about! The balance of military power (BoP) among ASEAN nations is a key factor which the states keep in mind while conducting their foreign and defence policy, and new military technologies have a large effect on this BoP. Singapore has really got to be your prime example of an advanced state in the bloc which is very aware of the effect that new military technology can have on a fragile BoP when making defence procurement decisions. Singapore has the most advanced and impressive military in the region, but it is careful to keep new military technologies which it has procured outside of the area - for example, after acquiring AH-64D helicopter gunships from the United States, it made a deal with the US to keep the hardware in the States rather than take delivery of it in Singapore, and the Republic of Singapore Air Force has only recently moved a few of these helicopters to the city state. All of Singapore's A-4SU Super Skyhawks are kept in France for 'Advanced Pilot Training', for the same reason, although the lack of training space in Singapore is also a factor. Finally as far as Singapore is concerned, they delayed deployment of the new AMRAAM, again bought from the US, because it far surpasses anything which fellow ASEAN nations yet have. I don't know whether it has yet been deployed.

The march of aeronautical technology is not the only factor in the ASEAN BoP. Given their geography, you can see that navies are very important to ASEAN nations. Indonesia, which until recently had a bad reputation as far as naval power is concerned (due to a number of factors such as outdated kit, corruption on a massive scale, too few resources etc) has upped the ante and bought a new class of corvette: the Sigma. These will be impressive vessels, possibly armed with Exocet bloc IIs, and they give Indonesia 'blue water capability', nominally at least. The next ten years will, in my opinion, see a rush by ASEAN states to attain blue water capability for their navies, and the acquisition of naval technology will play a large role in that. Something like this can't do anything but affect the balance of power, as states will come to worry that they can be surrounded by a blue-water capable navy of their neighbours.

Alas, I don't have time to go on more about this. The question sure does look like a homework assignment but I have to confess to my enjoyment in writing this answer! I hope it helps.

--Chrisfow (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Liberation to conquest

when and why did the french war of national liberation in the 1790s turn into one of conquest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winter Lion (talk • contribs) 14:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The French Revolutionary Wars certainly embraced a crusading ideal of liberation at an early stage, expressed in the Edict of Fraternity, issued by the National Convention in November 1792. Jacques Pierre Brissot, a leading Girondist, the faction keenest on war, said the the French offensive against the powers of 'Old Europe' would be a "crusade for universal liberty." It was an illusion, of course, the same one that effectively inspired Lenin and Trotsky in 1918: that 'liberation' at the hands of a foreign army was somehow better than rule by one's own domestic 'tyrants'. Brissot's hopes were exploded at an early stage. After the French occupied Belgium and the Rhineland in early 1793 most of the local people refused to participate in the elections they organised. It was ample confirmation of the view previously taken by Maximilien Robespierre, the chief opponent of the Girondists, that "No one loves armed missionaries" and "Liberty can never be established by the use of foreign force." Sobered by the failure in Belgium the National Convention revoked the November decree in April, after George Danton had argued that it appeared to commit the Republic "even to start a revolution in China" when the needs of France so clearly had to come first. When Robespierre and the Jacobins took power in September 1793 an entirely new approach was adopted. A war of liberation became a war of exploitation. Philanthropy, in other words, gave way to imperialism. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Napoleonic empire

how was the napoloeonic empire organised and how did subject people respond to his rule? Winter Lion (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We have articles Napoleon I of France and First French Empire which you will find informative for starters, and by clicking on the Wikilinks in those articles you can find additional information. See particularly First French Empire#The nature of Bonaparte's rule. If you have more specific questions, volunteers here will doubtless answer them. Edison (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

unification of germany and political integration of india

what were the similaritiea and differences in the methods adopted by Otto Von BIsmarck and Sardar Vallab bhai patel in the unification of germany and political integration of india —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.220.161 (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Unification of Germany and the political integration of India: compare and contrast (15 minutes, 40 points)"--Wetman (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

An interesting question, an interesting comparison, 59.91; different men, operating towards similar ends, using entirely different methods. And, yes, despite some superficial resemblences, the methods were quite different. Otto von Bismarck used force, and the threat of force, first and diplomacy second; or rather, for Bismarck, diplomacy was the adjutant of force. Sardar Patel, in contrast, used diplomacy first and second, with force coming in as a distant third. It would be true to say that Patel's diplomacy, the success of his diplomacy, was carried forward on the wave of a popular movement, a desire for India as a unified and distinct idea, that made any residual opposition from the rulers of the princely states a political irrelevance. In other words, the national movement came first and unity second. In Germany the kind of popular national movement represented by Congress in India had been defeated and demoralised by the failure of the Revolution of 1848. It was Bismarck who created a new national movement, not as a deliberate strategy, but as a by-product of his Prussian-based Realpolitik; one based on the deliberate limitation of the national ideal, and the magnification of Prussian power.

Patel was working towards the integration of all India, whereas Bismarck was working towards a more limited Germany, one which excluded Austria, previously the dominant power in the German Confederation. Patel invoked Indian patriotism to win over the princes. In Germany the princes already knew the price of defying Prussia. In the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, most of the other German states had sided with Austria. In consequence some, including Hanover, Hesse-Kassel and Nassau were annexed and their ruling houses ejected. Most of the others were shepherded into the North German Confederation under Prussian tutelage, a process that was once likened to the fleas uniting with the dog! Patel shows himself at his most Bismarckian, if it can be so expressed, in Operation Polo, the forced integration of Hyderabad into the Indian Union; but this came when all else failed, a last, not a first option. Bismarck's militant policy was at its most effective in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1, when the remaining independent German states in the south, headed by Bavaria, were urged forward into a Prussian-dominated German Empire, predicated on new forms of patriotism that emerged from Bismarck's politics of power. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Clio. I should add that Political integration of India is - or was, I haven't checked since it's main author left the project - a WP:Featured article of ours. Relata refero (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

People from middle eastern, south asian countries who have the last name, Khan

Some people from those areas, have the last name, Khan. Is this due to influence from the Mongolians, and Ghengis Khan? I also know some people of european descent who have the last name Khan. Is that possibly due to the Mongolian invasion of eastern Europe? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Causality loop. Khan. Lanfear's Bane | t 16:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. What does that have to do with my questions? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Should distinguish Kahn from Khan -- Kahn is usually a form of Cohen... AnonMoos (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Kahn/Cohen is found among European Jews and their overseas descendants, many of whom are in Israel (middle east). I doubt it would be much encountered in south Asian countries, where Khan is more prevalent and is from a different source. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The variation in South Asia and the Middle East dates to Turkish titles, which originally influenced the Mongols. The article Khan (name) has details. Relata refero (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why No Stuart M Kaminsky Article?

I am so pleased with Wikipedua, use it a lot, and find most everything I look for. I've been very puzzled as to how it is possible that there is no article on this prolific, prominent mystery writer author. I've followed all the instructions to find such an article, including the one on using Google with the special field regarding wikipedia, and that did result in an Italian site for Kaminsky that I accessed through Google and clicked on translate to English. But that is not the same as just entering Stuart M Kaminsky or some such into the Wikipedia search and getting a good article on Kamisky. Is there some policy, or is Kaminsky somehow preventing an article on Kaminsky for some reason, or...??? I realize one can create an artucle, but I don't have the knowledge and that is why I was searching for one to read and learn from. It would be so much easier, informative and productive to access an existing artcile rather than hunting and pecking through miscellaneous hits and marketing efforts through search engines. Thank you for any info/advice, etc. Ohiyesapr (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

From the many references to Kaminsky already in the encyclopedia, I'm pretty sure there would be no problem with a neutral and verifiable article on Kaminsky. If you think you can provide a starting stub, use the following link: Stuart M. Kaminsky. Wareh (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone is already working on one - User:ShelfSkewed/Sandbox2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't they use flamethrowers in Europe during the gunpowder age?

Not talking about WW1 and beyond if anyone doesn't know what the gunpowder age is... The technology was fairly simple. Simpler than a gun even. You just need a flammable liquid, a pump, and a pilot light. Against clustered infantry using single shot muskets, it would have devastated them. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Pre-modern pumps were very short range, large apparatus that required large crews. And would be very high priority targets for the opposing force - as flamethrower operators would find out. However don't forget much older tecnologies based on throwing flaming pitch, heated shot or Greek fire. Rmhermen (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a very short-range weapon, however... AnonMoos (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Range depends on the pump being used. Musket fire back then didn't have very good range either. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A pump of the time had a range of a few meters, a musket had a range of dozens of meters. A battle between a weapon that can shoot 10 m and a mass of trained infantry that can shoot 100 m will be a short battle. Rmhermen (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. You are assuming too much. Muskets back then were horribly inaccurate, were single shot, and took a long time to reload. Melee fighting took place when the two armies slowly closed in on each other. That was the point of the bayonet. It turned the musket into a spear. Having a few soldiers armed with flame throwers mixed into soldiers armed with muskets would be very helpful, and would be far superior at fighting soldiers armed with only bayonets. The Chinese actually did make good use of flamethrowers. The Europeans simply didn't have very good flamethrower technology until the late 1800s, and by then, guns were using rifling, and had higher rates of fire meaning close ranged combat became rare. It wasn't until WW1 did their flamethrower technology become truly useful. Malamockq (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually bayonet combat was exceptionally rare—bayonets were better as threats than as weapons; most people don't want to use them (it is a particularly nasty way to kill someone), and nobody wants to get stabbed by them (it is a particularly nasty way to get killed). Bayonet charges were effective as terror tactics, but actual combat was rare, as a number of military historians have noted. Don't confuse movies with real life. Chinese flamethrower technology was purely defensive; good for defending against siege machiens but totally impractical for mid-battlefield combat. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A primative flamethrower is only going to be of limited use. The Byzantines used Greek fire effectively against ships (where setting the thing on fire would have a tremendous effect) but as an infantry device it would only be useful if you could reliably shoot out very large powerful bursts of flames (the sort of thing you get when you are using high-pressure propane as your fuel). A hand-pumped weapon that shot flaming oil would likely not be very effective, at least in comparison to other weapons, and would have a high likelihood of blowing up whomever was using it. Even Greek fire often backfired, as our article points out, because it was hard to control. The modern flamethrower—the infantryman who can quickly produce a wall of flame—is the result of being able to release the inflammable liquid/gas with great speed, which requires understanding pressure and propane and etc., things which were not developed until well into the modern age, and is most useful when against enemies holed up in tight fortifications (not quite the early modern battlefield). There is a nice history of incendiary weapons here if you are curious. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Scots volunteers in France

Does anything about the Scots volunteers (the Army of Scotland) who fought in France during the Hundred Years War? I can't find an article. Thanks. John Morrison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.161.200 (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is some information in Battle of Baugé and in Auld Alliance. Rmhermen (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The section on the Scots in France in the Auld Alliance page more or less covers this, John, but in addition to the article on the Battle of Bauge you should also have a look at the Battle of Cravant, the Battle of Verneuil and the Battle of the Herrings. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I did intended, but never quite got round to it yet, to improve the articles on the Scots commanders, namely the Tineman and John Stewart, Earl of Buchan, using a little paper by Bernard Chevalier ("Les Alliés écossais au service du roi de France au XVe siècle", in Laidlaw (ed.), The Auld Alliance, France and Scotland over 700 years). It would be worth a look if there's a copy in a library near you. The French were rather ambivalent about their barbaric northern allies. A little ditty from the later Crusades period says "There are three things you'll find throughout the world: rats, fleas, and Scotsmen." Saint Louis didn't think much of the Scots: "I should rather a Scotsman come and govern well than that you, my son, should govern badly." By 1413 or before Étienne de Conty thought rather better of the Scots. Clearly, as we covered just the other day when discussing Robert Stewart, Duke of Albany, etc, poor old Étienne wasn't well informed on contemporary Scots politics: "You should know that in the said kingdom of Scotland there are warlike men, bold and loyal to their king. The Scots have always liked the French, and French the Scots; and the Scots, always faithful to God and to the Church, have conformed to France's example in matters of faith as in war."

It didn't take much experience of the Scots in France to change opinions for the worse. Thomas Basin, perhaps not the most credible witness, reported the plans of the Scots leaders before Verneuil: "So great, they say, was the presumption of the Scots - distrustful and disregarding of the French armies and power, which had been so weakened by civil war and foreign war - that they planned, had they but defeated the English, to kill all the nobles who remained in Anjou, Touraine, Berri, and the regions around them, and to seize their homes, their wives, their lands, and their rich possessions." [Caveat emptor: my translations are unlikely to be particularly good.] Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Scotland and France have been historic allies only because they shared a common overriding enemy, England. Your assertion that the Scots and French just "liked" each other is overly simplistic and supported by no authority. I could cite many sources going back to the 1300's of French knights fighting in Scotland (against England of course) who found Scotland (rightfully so perhaps) to be a dreary, backwards, and "uncivilized" land relative to their French homeland. Later in the 17th and 18th centuries Scotland became home to a fierce brand of protestantism, Calvinism, which held abhorrent the native Catholicism of France. There is "no love lost" between the Scots and the French, sir. Belicia (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Belicia, Angus is quoting Étienne de Conty when he speaks about "liking", not stating his own opinion. SaundersW (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

patient access to their medical records

what is the procedure patients have to take to access their medical records -bonnie tola —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.46.115 (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally, you write a letter to the person or organization that holds the records, requesting a copy. They may have a release form you have to sign, though really a letter usually suffices. They may also ask for copying charges, if there are a lot of pages you want. - Nunh-huh 21:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What country are you in? In some countries there's no obligation for them to let anyone (least of all you, the patient) see their records. In others, there's a statutory right. In the UK, we have a Freedom of Information Act. --Dweller (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Questione...

What du you think would happen if all the public defenders in a given judicial circuit filed "demands for speedy trial" at the same time on all their cases? Belicia (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't you answering? Do you hate me sir? Belicia (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't hate you - I expect nobody has come along yet who feels able to answer your question. I certainly don't know enough about legal procedures to try to answer, but please do be patient - there are lots of helpful people here, but sometimes it does take a while before you get an answer, best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the inbox for demands for speedy trial would overflow. For the rest, if I did not answer, it is not because I hate you, but because I don't even know what a demand for speedy trial is in the first place.  --Lambiam 12:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that speedy-trial requirements are routinely violated. I don't practice criminal law, but I'd be surprised if your assumption were correct. I think a competent public defender would keep track of the dates and would move to dismiss a case if the government didn't bring it to trial within the time allotted -- and I think such a motion would generally be granted. JamesMLane t c 10:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

November 21

The King said what?!

I recenty heard that the current King of Spain told the president of Venezuela the following quote "Why don't you just Shut Up?" after the Venezuelan president insulted him. So my question is as such:

What kind of political/international backlash would this create between Spain and other countries?

From the Spainsh perspective: The king did nothing wrong, he was insulted and the person was punished. On the other hand, The Venezuelans would be digusted with the king because the King should not be rude in ANY situation. Would this small (or large) incident cause tension between the wo countires? If so, who would be to blame?

Thanks! ♥ECH3LON♥ 00:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We have an article on the incident: ¿Por qué no te callas?. According to some news reports Chávez has recently demanded an apology, which he may not get. If so, any ideas what will happen then can, at this moment, only be speculation, and are as such not within the scope of the Reference desk. But you can follow the external links of our article to read a variety of opinions.  --Lambiam 00:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I foresee other world leaders insulting Chavez to his face in the near future actually. He already is the subject of ridicule over much of the world and this incident could open the floodgates for further "official" put-downs of this man. Belicia (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a modern notion that kings should smile and behave impeccably. Xn4 00:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Arms Race in South East Asia....Any view?

Jot some idea pls

[ajin] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.102.255.222 (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally think those people are still suffering from some sort of inferiority complex from their complete subjugation to the Japanese and then to the French. Belicia (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This kind of question/speculation isn't really appropriate on the reference desk. Malamockq (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Which would be fascinating, as most of them were ruled by the Dutch and the English. Relata refero (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Trotsky in 1905

Was Trotsky's role in the Petersburg Soviet of 1905 as significnt as he alleges? Zinoviev4 (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Zinoviev, it was not; he greatly exaggerated both his own role and minimised the independent attitude of the Soviet, which was always mindful of its own agenda and its own priorities. I will provide a more detailed answer if you wish, but not just at the present; I am simply too tired. Sorry! And so to bed. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the name of the cue?

the one used in billiards with a bracket at the end on which the other cue can be rested for long shots?

thanks, Adambrowne666 (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

They are called rests. DuncanHill (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Outside of Britain it is known as a Mechanical bridge or "bridge stick." Edison (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

wonderful - thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We called it a spider. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

wealth of average american

we all know that GDP and per capita income is not about wealth but it is all about annual production and annual consumption. It is around $40,000. I came across a world bank study, but that study was confusing. What is the wealth per capita of america? Is $500,000 said in that report correct? When you ask an american what is your wealth, it means something. I want to know that exactly and not a study which says about natural resources and forest wealth. Can you understand me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.137.63 (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand you clearly. But I will say that, like GDP per capita (or per capita income), a measure of wealth per capita might not show what is typical, because it is a mean. If you have 10 people making $30,000 per year and 10 children and elderly people not working, this group of people would have a per capita income of $300,000/20, or $15,000. If you add to that group of 20 people one person making $30,000,000 per year, you would have a per capita income of $30,300,000/21, or $1,442,857. Now, in this group of 21 people, 20 live with a very modest income (by American standards), but if you look at the statistic for the group, you might assume that they are all millionaires. The statistics for wealth are even more skewed, because wealth is even more concentrated in a few hands in the United States.

If you were to add up all of the real estate value and all of the financial and capital wealth in the United States (not including the intrinsic value of forests or minerals in the ground), you might well come up with a number close to $500,000 per person. However, the typical (or median) American does not have so much wealth. According to Census statistics, as cited here, U.S. median household net worth in 2004 was $93,100. With a median household size of about 2.5, this works out to a median net worth per capita of $37,240. Half of Americans had net worths (divided among household members) above this, half had net worths below. It is possible for both this median number and a mean number of $500,000 to be true, because there are approximately 3 million Americans with net worths over $1 million. Some of these Americans have net worths over $10 billion (or $10,000 million). Even though the vast majority of Americans have nothing remotely near this wealth, if you were to divide that wealth among all Americans, you might end up with a number close to $500,000.

Marco polo (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I just would like to add some commemts. GDP is not only about production and consumption. It is also about earnings (well, there is some difference between earning and the other concepts, because you must count some taxes out). It measures a flow, while wealth may be considered a stock derived from income (and comsumption, of course). Marco polo's comments are very useful in regard to distintion between mean and median. You may also like to check out these articles: income distribution and lorentz curve: Also useful could be median income. Pallida  Mors 22:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

per capita income and life

If USA's per capita income is 30 times that of north korea, then is an average american 30 times happier than an average north korean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.137.63 (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to judge happiness, but most recent studies have indicated that the level of happiness as measured by various polls/psychological evaluations depends less on income than on other factors. However, those other factors might be indirectly correlated with income. See Happiness economics, which has a pretty map. Relata refero (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of other factors, too, as you no doubt know. What that amount of imcome will purchase is just one of them. Does the North Korean number cover food, housing, fuel, transportation, medical care, education etc. etc. as compared with the American number? Perhaps the North Koreans are better "covered" by the smaller income. Not only are there huge differences between North America and Asia, but between, say, England and North America and even with individual countries. My experience with London, for example, is that an GB pound buys about what a dollar buys, but, I have to pay about two dollars to buy the pound. So, on just that basis, a Londoner has to make, looked at in American dollars, twice as much as an American does. But London is a special case . . . and so on and so on. Not only is the question largely unanswerable, except perhaps in individual terms, but it is almost too complex even to draw up the factors affecting "happiness". Now it's the turn of someone who has the stats and knows the appropriate study. :-) Bielle (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Anschluss

Why did none of the European powers, Italy in particular, come to Austria's aid in 1938? Mustapha Fag (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Austria's aid" makes it sound like Austria was an unwilling victim. Are you sure that's an accurate depiction? And why would "Italy in particular" want in 1938, to antagonise Germany? --Dweller (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Austria and Germany, as far as my knowledge goes, tells me that Germany and Austria have always been strong allies; hence, why the leader of Germany was an Austrian. A better question may be why did none of the European powers come to the aid of the Jews of Austria, who were forced to scrub streets with Acid and clean toilets with their blouses - their blouses were subsequently rubbed in their face. See Martin Gilbert's the Holocaust: the Jewish tragedy for further details of the harrassment of the Jews after the Anschluss. Hope that helps --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 13:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In Austria at 1918 most people and parties wanted to join Germany. The monarchists and some conservatives wanted a Danubefederation or Austria ruled by Charles and later by Otto. In 1933 there when Hitler became the "Führer" the Conservatives tried to show Austria as the "better Germany", a Christian German State (see i.e."Sei gesegnet ohne Ende" the national anthem or Dollfuss speech at the Katholikentag 1933 in Vienna)and also the monarchists became more influence again. The socialists, communists and NSDAP was banned in 1933. But there was still the "Großdeutsche", which still wanted to become part of Germany. In 1934 chancellor Engelbert Dollfuß was shot by members of the NSDAP. Until 1936 Italy was the protector of Austrian Independence and supported the Heimwehr under Starhemberg,Dollfuß and Schuschnigg. In 1936 Germany and Italy become allies and so Austria lost its protector. In the Austrian population there were illegal Nazis (especially in Carinthia and Styria), there were the "Großdeutschen"(but the lost a lot of their followers to the NSDAP), there were the conservatives and monarchists.Especially the Austrian Jews, the monarchists, most of the conservatives and also among the Catholics there was a strong sympathy for an independent Austria. After Anschluss Jews, Austrian politiacians, members of the "Vaterländische Front",members of the Civil society (i.e.Georg von Reininghaus, president of the Catholic Austrian Boy Scouts), monarchists were arrested shortly of the Germans came to Austria. The day before the Germans came there were demonstrations in Salzburg und Innsbruck to show the independence will of Austria. There was also resistance against the German occupation. This resitance came from monarchists, communists, socialst, communists and Slovenians in Carinthia (see de:Widerstand gegen den Nationalsozialismus), but his were not the majority. There were also about 12.000 Austrians killed in action fighting in Allied Armies. In exile they had the big problem that there was a strong fragmentation between the groups (communists, socialists, monarchists).And that the socialists had strong sympathy for beining a part of Germany. See: http://www.doew.at/thema/exil/exiloeid.html (in German). So there were not able to set up an Austrian Goverment in Exile and an Exile Army. The fragmentation was also a problem of the resitance in Austria. At the end of the war there were movements, which crossed the parties or sub-cultures (catholic, socialistic...) such as O5 or the Austrian movement of Liberation in Innsbruck.

International protested only Mexico at the League of Nations and gave asylum up to 10.000 refugees from Austria and Europe. Also protests came from Red Spain (Rot Spanien, Chile, China and the UdSSR) (seeDer mexikanische Protest und seine Vorgeschichte(in German)) (see:bei akustische-chronik.at (in German)

See also österreichische bei AEIOU-Österreichlexikon (in German)

@Hadseys: not always they were strong allies: wars between them were in 1740–1742,1756 to 1763,in 1809 Bavaria and France fought against the Tyroleans and in 1866 Austro-Prussian War.

Hitler served in WWI in the German Army (16th Bavarian Reserve Regiment), in 1925 he gave away Austrian citizenship, in February 1932 he became German citizen, between 1925 and 1932 he was stateless. Hitler is in 1933 a German citizen born in Austria. -Phips (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Dweller, I hope you do not mind me saying so, but I think your view of Austria does not quite accord with the facts; there is every reason to suppose that Austria was an unwilling victim in 1938. The enthusiasm for Anschluss comes after the event. Beforehand Kurt von Schuschnigg, the Austrian Chancellor, had arranged for a plebiscite that almost certainly would have given its support for continuing Austrian independence. It was to prevent this that Hitler presented his ultimatum on 11 March, with German troops crossing the border soon after. Later during the Second World War the Allies had an ambivalent attitude towards Austria, and the degree of its participation in the crimes of the Third Reich, though they accepted at a conference held in Moscow in 1943 that the country had been the first to fall victim to Hitler's expansionist ambitions.

Mustapha, Italy was , indeed, the chief protector of Austrian independence, and had effectively prevented Anschluss in 1934, after the Nazis murdered Engelbert Dollfuss, by moving troops to the Brenner Pass. But by 1938, as Phips has pointed out, a great deal had changed. In 1935-6 Italy's involvement in the conquest of Ethiopa had alienated it from its former allies in the Stresa Front and made it more economically dependent on Germany, particularly for essential supplies like coal. Mussolini's change in attitude to his former protectorate was evidenced in May 1936, when he sent a note to Vienna calling for the dismissal of Prince Starhemberg, the most anti-Nazi member of the Austrian cabinet. Hitler was more than adept at the continuing seduction of the Duce, being among the first to recognise the new Italian Empire in East Africa. Not long after this the Austro-German Agreement was signed on 11 July 1936, which had the effect of drawing the Nazi Trojan Horse through the gates of the city. Nazi newspapers were allowed into the country and two crypto-Nazis, Glaise-Horstenau and Guido Schmidt, allowed into the government. The conclusion of the Rome-Berlin Axis and the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War brought the two Fascist powers still closer together, casting Austria still further into the shade. In the end Austria could call on no assistance in the defence of its independence. The British government did send a note of protest over the Anschluss, but was effectively told that the matter was none of its business. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course I don't mind. Serves me right for pontificating outside my period. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Appeasement

Churchill said that an appeaser is one who feeds a crocidile, hoping it will eat him last. Is this an apt description of Chamberlain's policy in 1938-9? Was the notion of collective security quite dead in his mind? If not the League of Nations would an alternative to pacifying Hitler not have been to call on the power of France and its eastern European allies and possibly even a military alliance between the west and the Soviet Union? Thank you. Mustapha Fag (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In whose mind, Churchill or Chamberlain? France's "power" (or, more accurately, lack thereof) was made quite clear in the ensuing Blitzkrieg. And it's hard to make an alliance with someone who has a greater vested interest in allying with the person you're trying to make an alliance against. What could the western European powers offer Stalin that would have been more enticing than a fat chunk of Poland? --Dweller (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is also by no means certain that a majority of the Conservative parliamentary party would have welcomed an alliance with Stalin even to control Hitler before the war. The Conservative reaction to the Spanish Civil War is instructive to those wondering which of the two expansive ideologies of the time they were particularly averse to. Relata refero (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Chamberlain thought that once Hitler's demands had been met (military equality, German unification) then peace would be ensured because grievances would be cured. He did not see that Germany was aiming to dominate Europe again and that the rational policy was a system of alliances with France, Russia, etc to constrain German ambitions: Chamberlain wanted to avoid encircling Germany at almost all costs until it was too late. Chamberlain was just too idealistic; he trusted Hitler and when sending a British delegation to Russia to negotiate an Anglo-Russian alliance he did not sanction Russian troops to go through Poland to fight Germany and so Russia allied to Germany who gave them all they wanted. He was not cut out for balance of power politics.--Johnbull (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Churchill, as always, was a master of Emglish prose, always managing to coin a striking phrase. But, no, his assessment of Chamberlain's motives, of the intention behind appeasement, is woefully inaccurate. It was always Chanberlain's intention to preserve the peace; to sacrifice only as much felt had to be sacrificed in this process. At the time it was considered by the vast majority of people to be an entirely reasonable position. Only in retrospect does it seem to be morally bereft.

There were three seperate roads to the preservation of peace: collective security through the League of Nations; an alliance with the anti-Axis powers outwith the auspices of the League; and appeasement.

By 1938 there was little confidence in the authority of the League. It had coped with the 'little crises' in its early years, but the 'big crises' of the late 1930s were quite beyond its power and its authority. "What country in Europe today if threatened by large power can rely on the League for protection?", Chamberlain asked in Parliament in March 1938. The answer was obvious to all, "None."

What, then, of an agreement among the powers to arrest German expansion? The United States was effectively precluded by the Neutrality Act of 1935, which in practice limited President Roosevelt to expressions of sympathy alone. Britain and France stood side by side, though by no firm treaty of alliance. France was certainly still a strong power military terms, though no longer what it once was. Besides, many British Conservatives held the Popular Front government in deep suspicion. Even if the French had been prepared to act, and there is no guarantee of this, the country was seriously weakened at the time by industrial, social and political conflict.

The Soviet Union was a possibility, and Dweller is quite wrong in suggesting that Stalin was not interested in a western alliance. He had been deeply unsettled by the Nazi seizure of power in Germany-which came in the face of the Comintern's ultra-left Third Period strategy-seriously weakening his position in Europe. Thereafter he became a late convert to collective security, with the Soviet Union joining the League of Nations and entering into the Franco-Soviet pact in 1935. No territorial concessions were demanded as part of this bargain. However, for Chamberlain and his party, Soviet Russia was not a reliable partner, and not just for the obvious political reasons. In 1937 the Soviet officer corps was all but destroyed in the purges, leaving justified suspicions of the effectivness of the military.

So, in the end, appeasement was the policy of political and strategic realism. It was based on an illusion, of course, a misreading of Hitler and his true intentions. But it had the press and it had the nation behind it, Churchill's Cassandra-like warnings notwithstanding. Even Lloyd George was convinced of Hitler's honourable intentions. Besides, what was the alternative: Churchill and war? If Britain had gone to war in 1938 it is almost certain, on the basis of the information that we have, that defeat, real defeat, would have followed. Appeasement, if nothing else, bought time. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Clio, I agree with your comments about Stalin, but I would go further. My recollection, from reading long ago and perhaps dimly remembered, is that Stalin was much more aware of the danger posed by Hitler than were the leaders of Western Europe. After Anschluss, Stalin's attitude was that the USSR and the smaller countries in eastern Europe should work together to check Hitler's expansionism. The Poles, however, motivated by traditional hostility toward Russia, and emboldened by Russia's defeat in World War I, disdained any such cooperation; the Western allies, despite Stalin's urgings, refused to pressure Poland on the subject. (I think the prevailing attitude was that the USSR should help defend Poland but that no Soviet troops should enter Polish territory, a strategy that would have required some king-hell artillery.) Stalin was not represented at Munich. The agreement reached there represented a mortal blow to his vision, and led him to give up on trying to rouse the West to the gravity of the Nazi threat. As Relata refero points out, there was considerable anti-Communism in the West, which impeded the cooperation that was needed from the point of view of anti-Nazism. JamesMLane t c 10:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of making myself look even more dumb by talking outside my preferred period, I think it's almost impossible to gauge what Stalin wanted, because the man was so impossible to judge and as variable as a weather cock. However, I maintain that the opportunity to slice up Eastern Europe between himself and even a leader he would rather have opposed would have been too sweet an inducement for Stalin. Not many of the influential figures on the world stage seem to have got the measure of Stalin. I've read somewhere that Churchill thought Roosevelt was way off in his dealings with him, while C himself was self-admittedly bemused by him. Hitler seems to have understood Stalin only patchily - I think he underestimated Stalin (and the Russians') grim resolve and ruthlessness. Patton seems to have been one of the few to understand what Stalin was about, but no-one had the stomach for Patton's inevitably militaristic answers to the problems Stalin posed. --Dweller (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Philippines' name before Spaniards came

Can you tell me the name of the Philippines before the Spaniards came? 122.53.209.135 (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The question seems to be something of an anachronism. The Spaniards seem to have arrived before the Philippines developed an identity as a Nation-state. Our History of the Philippines article includes the line "Neither the political state concept of the Muslim rulers nor the limited territorial concept of the sedentary rice farmers of Luzon, however, spread beyond the areas where they originated.". The comment is referenced to [url=http://countrystudies.us/philippines/3.htm this site]. Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

To expand on Dweller's answer, from the perspective of a rice farmer or his local chief on, say, Luzon, he did not live in the same country as a rice farmer in Mindanao. So the island group did not have a common local name. Even from the perspective of Chinese or Malay merchants who may have visited the Philippines, there was little to distinguish the Philippine islands from Borneo or other East Indian islands. So those languages did not have a name that applied to the island group as a whole. Marco polo (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Potsdam Conference

Please forgive me for imposing upon your hospitality for a third time but I have one further question on an aspect of international relations in the mid twentieth century, this time on the period following on the defeat of Germany. It is this: why did Britain and the United States not make a stronger stand against Stalin at the Potsdam conference in 1945? Why was so much conceded? Thanks. Mustapha Fag (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons; I am sure Clio will be able to give a much better answer than I, but here goes one small attempt: one major factor is that the USSR was already in a strong military position in Eastern Europe and was not interested in backing out. It's hard to imagine the Allied forces forcing them out without another war, which nobody wanted or was willing to wage at that point. Additionally much of the tougher points had been set at the Yalta Conference which already gave Stalin a lot, as the US expected to need his help in the invasion of Japan and out of Roosevelt's concern for giving Russia what they "deserved" due to their major sacrifices in troops and civilians, and the desire to make them a participant in the new United Nations. Add to it that two of the negotiating powers were new to it (Truman had no diplomatic experience; the British had a change of leadership in the middle of the conference, I don't know about Atlee's abilities) against an experienced devil like Stalin, and you're asking for a lot for them to have been able to take a hard stand, even though I don't think anyone was deceived by Stalin's intentions. From Russia's point of view, they had a lot of incentive to push for as much as they could, wary of Western invaders (with good reason, frankly) and with full knowledge of the US and UK's secret atomic developments ahead of time (and as such well aware that the US and the UK did not consider the USSR to be a full partner, despite the essential role the USSR had played in the war). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think your answer leaves little to be improved upon, 24.147. I really only have one or two additional points to make in support.

Both Churchill and Truman, Mustpha, came to Potsdam with the intention of toughening up their stand over the western border of Poland, which the Yalta Conference agreed should be the Oder-Neisse Line. Stalin wanted this to be the Western Neisse, but the Western Allies tried to insist that the Eastern Neisse was meant, whch would have left a good bit of Silesia still part of Germany. The Americans were also keen to stop Polish expansion in Pomerania to the north, well to the east of the port of Stettin. But Stalin was obdurate, and obduracy prevailed.

I have to say that I think little is to be gained by apportioning blame. For Stalin possession was indeed nine points of the law, and there was little anyone could do to alter the strategic realities. I'm not really sure that Churchill's departure made that much difference, though Clement Atlee had not the same degree of experience. I do think, though, that Harry Truman was extraordinarily naive in many ways. He seemed to have no idea what was going on in Eastern Europe and made no attempt to find out. He was also prepared to accept rather bland assurances that all outstanding matters, all areas of disagreement, would be settled by a final peace conference that was never to come. Could Truman have held out for a more concrete agreement at the time, for more concessions from the Soviets? Yes, he probably could, for he was still in a reasonably strong bargaining position. The Americans had control of Thuringia and much of Saxony, areas which were to fall within the Soviet zone of control. Stalin got everything and gave little in return. Did America really need Soviet participation in the war in the Far East? On balance, probably not. In my view he best verdict on Potsdam was that passed by the diplomat George F. Kennan-"I cannot recall any political document the reading of which filled me with a greater sense of depression than the communiqué to which President Truman set his name at the conclusion of these confused and uneal discussions." Clio the Muse (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If I recall, Truman encouraged the Soviets not to proceed too quickly in the Far East, whereas Roosevelt had thought they would need their help. I think it clear that by the time late 1945 came around, it was the Soviets who wanted to get their hands in the Far East to get a piece of that pie as well, hence their last-minute invasion of Manchuria (which was just as big news at the time in US papers as the bombing of Nagasaki). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam, Gar Alperovitz argues that Truman was waiting for the dropping of the atomic bomb. Truman's hope was that, with this powerful weapon having been demonstrated, he would have more leverage against Stalin. (Contrary to 24.147.86.187's reference to Stalin's "full knowledge" of atomic developments, Alperovitz believes that Truman was deliberately vague about the project in his communications to Stalin, preferring to wait until after the actual bombing.) Although Mustapha Fag's original question refers to the concessions that were made, Alperovitz emphasizes the scope of matters that were left unresolved at Potsdam -- because, in his view, the U.S. preferred to resolve them later, from a stronger bargaining position.

In fact, Alperovitz suggests that the desire to intimidate the USSR was a major factor in the decision to drop the bomb. That view, of course, explains why the U.S. didn't simply wait a week or two, to see whether the impending Russian declaration of war on Japan (scheduled for early August, 90 days after V-E Day), would induce a Japanese surrender. Some U.S. policymakers may have been so overwhelmed by the unprecedented power of the new weapon that they believed that they would easily get their way in any post-bombing negotiation. That belief would affect the American negotiating stance at Potsdam. JamesMLane t c 11:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Denazification

After the second world war, and after the abolition of the Nazi regime, did anti-Jewish legislation such as the Nuremberg laws and the Civil Service act still apply, or were they immediately rescinded after the death of Hitler. Not that I can imagine many Jewish people wanted to return to Germany, I'm just wondering if the racial policy's implemented by the Nazi's still applied. Thanks --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 13:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that when the various occupational governments took over that the previous Nazis laws, especially the racial ones, would have been immediately rescinded, though I confess to not know this for a fact or know much of the details of the hand over. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In Austria the Military Administrations of the United Kingdom, France, the United States and the UdSSR arrested members of NSDAP and SS and put them to special prisons (i.e.Glasenbach)>>starting in April/Mai 1945. New laws were made by the Military Administrations and the Austrian bodies (Regional goverments, Federal goverment (Landesregierungen, Bundesregierung). The Laws you mentioned were put out of order in 1945 (starting in April/Mai 1945). It is to mention that a lot Austrian politician in 1945 had been prisoners in the Nazi concentrationscamps as well (i.e.Leopold Figl),came back from the exile (i.e. Johann Koplenig) or were members of the resistance (i.e. Adolf Schärf,Karl Gruber)so why should people like them stick on the Nazi Laws.-Phips (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

From our article End of World War II in Europe: "Debellation - On 5 July 1945 the four powers signed [a four-power document, the Declaration Regarding the Defeat of Germany] in Berlin and the de facto became the de jure. In July/August 1945, the Allied leaders planned the new postwar German government, resettled war territory boundaries, ordered German demilitarization, denazification, and settlements of war reparations at the Potsdam Conference." The Declaration contains, in Article 6 (b), the clause "The German authorities and people will in like manner provide for and release ... all other persons who may be confined, interned or otherwise under restraint for political reasons or as a result of any Nazi action, law or regulation which discriminates on the ground of race, colour, creed or political belief."[9] From a purely legalistic point of view, at least until then the laws of the Third Reich were nominally in force.  --Lambiam 19:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there may be some confusion here over the date of the Berlin meeting, which I understood to have been on 5 June. I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that business concluded on the same day? Anyway, the full title of the document signed by Eisenhower, Montgomery, de Lattre de Tassigny, Zhukov and others was the Declaration of Defeat and Assumption of Authority. The precise form of the Allied Control Council that was to rule Germany was also agreed at this time. Forgive me if I appear to be splitting hairs, but the emphasis in the Wikipedia aricle is quite wrong. The Allies did not meet at Potsdam 'to plan the the new post war German government' but the post-war government of Germany, two quite different things. Anyway, the German state ceased to exist by the Berlin declaration; so German law no longer applied. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

German author - Wickenstein?

I was told to look into works by wickenstein...except i can't find it anywhere. i believe he writes about the words and their significance and uses. i think i may be mispelling it. can someone help me find his work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.8.90 (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost certainly they meant Ludwig Wittgenstein, a noted philosopher of language, among other things. He's Austrian, incidentally. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

thank you!

At least some of his works were written in German, so in that sense he's a "German author". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If the aspect of his work you are more interested in is "words and their meaning" you might be interested in reading first his Philosophical Investigations. If your interest lies more in aspects of logic in relation to language than his Tractatus might be for you (not without a companion book though). I would specially recommend to the philosophically minded his short On Certitude (not for the anxious person) and the posthumous editions of his personal notebook (not the blue and brown book but I think it was published under the title Culture and value) is a great read too. Any biography of him reads like a novel. Enjoy your read! Keria (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Since Karl Popper is mentioned in the question below I thought I might mention the book Wittgenstein's Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers which has a lot of background information on Wittgenstein and is a very enjoyable read too! Lord Foppington (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Marxism

I thought the responses to the earlier question on Marxism and tyranny very interesting indeed (The God that failed-19 November). I now have a question of my own arising from this. Is there a fundamental intellectual weakness in Marxism as a body of thought that somehow leads to a process of degeneration? Was the worm already in the bud? I hope my question is not too vague. Stockmann (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

On a slight tangent I've always thought Communism could be summed up in six words - 'Great in theory, lousy in practice' Exxolon (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would reccommend Karl Popper to anyone interested in the intellectual hole at the centre of Marxist theory. The Poverty of Historicism is as good a place to start as any, but The Open Society and its Enemies is better. DuncanHill (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just been struck by the thought that the historian whose writings I enjoy most is A. L. Rowse, a lifelong Marxist, and the philosopher whose writings I most enjoy is Karl Popper. Odd that. DuncanHill (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a big difference between Marxism as a body of thought and Marxism as a philosophy of the state. There are plenty of smart Marxists (though I find most Marxists to be a bit narrow, not all are), but there have been pretty much zero successful/non-totalitarian Marxist states. If I were to do a rather off-the-cuff sort of assessment, I'd say that Marxism (and Marx himself) does best when it is providing analysis and critique of the capitalist/imperialist state, but is absolutely miserable if not lousy when suggesting what ought to be done about it. It's a great way for looking at how states work (one of many ways, to be sure—don't believe anybody when they tell you there's only one way to look at things that is correct), but it's a really, really lousy formula for how to run a state. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent point 24.147.86.187 (or may I call you 24?). I think one could say that Rowse found Marxism a useful tool in analysing historical power relationships, while Popper concentrated on how Marxist policies impacted on personal freedoms. DuncanHill (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Is the (rather extreme) version of historicism that Popper sets up and then attacks really a hallmark of Marxism and Marx's theory of history? If I remember correctly (it has been a long time), he never defines what philosophy he sees as being Marxism, but the (mostly side-ways) attacks on Marxism appear directed at Marxism-Leninism, which has more to do with Stalin than with Marx. I also don't see how Plato's political ideas apply to Marxism; to me they appear rather antithetical to it. I can see how they apply to ideologies with a fascist tinge, such as corporatism.  --Lambiam 23:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's reduce this question, Stockmann, to the most basic terms. What is Marxism? Oh, I know what the standard answer is: it's a synthesis of German idealism, French politics and English economics. But at an even more basic level Marxism is no more than the intellectual process behind this supposed synthesis. Marxism, in other words, is Pallas Athena emerging fully armed from the head of Karl Marx in the shape of a nineteenth century Zeus. He conceived and he encompased in one mortal life a doctrine which supposedly explains the whole procees of human history and evolution. In this shape it is as absolute as the most doctrinare of Medieval scholasticism, because it envisiges and embraces the end of history itself. This, in all of its appealing simplicity, is its strength; and this, in all of its ambition and arrogance, is its weakness. For the process of degeneration, or, better still, the process of ossification, begins with the death in 1883 of the prophet himself. You see, while Karl Marx stopped, history did not. Clearly, with the master no longer present, the doctrine required interpretation and adjustment. The canon was safe for a time with Friedrich Engels in the role of Aaron. But with Engels's departure in 1895 there is no sure path left, no way of adjusting Marx to the continuing evolutions of history.

By the turn of the nineteeth century the German Social Democrats, by far the strongest Marxist party in the world, had turned the doctrine into sacred text rather than living practice, something to be visited on high days and holy days, and largely disregarded thereafter. It was Eduard Bernstein who recognised that Marxism, as it stood, was becoming historically obsolete, and was bold enough to suggest that there was a better, more modern way of dealing with the problems the party faced. He was attacked for his challenge to accepted orthodoxy by Karl Kautsky, the guardian of the sacred flame, though, for all his efforts, the theory became steadily more instrumental and less relevant. There was no one left to say, with authority, what Marxism was, and what it was not-at least not until Lenin took it in an entirely different direction from the Social Democrats-and from Karl Marx.

With Lenin Marxism moves in steadily decreasing circles; no longer the doctrine based historical inevitability and the mass party, but a doctrine of political action embraced by a self-selecting and conspiratorial elite. Lenin wins in Russia by a process that in no way corresponds to Marx's historical model; but political victory brings intellectual authority. Alternative views, like that of Rosa Luxembourg or Julius Martov are disregarded, because Marxism has now become predicated on political success; it becomes, in turns, what Lenin, or Trotsky, or Bukharin or Stalin say it is, with authority always and everywhere derived from power, and power alone. In the end it becomes no more than an intellectual excuse, cynically exploited to justify the power and practice of the Soviet state. And so it continues, fragmenting and dividing, finding homes further and further from its origins, degenerating to ever more oppressive and ever more murderous forms. It is one of history's greatest frauds, a supreme exercise in bad thinking and bad faith; bad as theory, worse as practice. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Clio is right that it all depends on what is meant by "Marxism". If by "Marxism" one means Marx's theory of capitalism as a "mode of production", or way of organizing economic life, and the body of theory that builds on his work in this area, then I question whether a body of theory exists with better explanatory power for the workings of capitalism. If by "Marxism" one means the quasi-religious belief in Marx's grotesque theory of history and the practice of totalitarian politics masquerading as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" that Marx prescribed, then I agree with Clio that it is a fraudulent and oppressive ideology. Marco polo (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have to agree that some aspects of Marxist theory are not totally worthless; indeed, much of historical and economic work has adopted them (often without crediting them)—the idea of the superstructure and a core, things like commodity fetishism and the labor theory of value, the idea that values shape around the modes and forces of production, etc. Whether one individually finds such an approach useful or not (in my work, I don't), those theoretical questions and elements aren't fraudulent, and much of the Marxian approach to things has been assimilated into our modern approach to big questions about society, labor relations, etc. Again, I would draw the distinction between Marxism as a tool for analysis and a Marxism as an ideology—the latter is the fraud, the latter is piss-poor, the latter is the producer of bores at best (there is nothing more dull than a committed Marxist) and maniacs at worst. But the former is something quite different, so let's not tar all of Marx with the same brush as all of his followers, just as we would not with Christ. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Marxism as a 'body of thought' would encompass several things: Marxian economics, Marxist political theory and marxist historiography - here generally with a lowercase 'm'.

Of the three, the first, like all economic theory, is extremely sensitive to assumptions. The assumptions made by Marx when he was writing in the high noon of Victorian capitalism were that monopolies would continue to increase, and that value would be added essentially through the production of real goods. These assumptions failed: monopolies never spread naturally beyond those industries which are natural monopolies and a vastly increasing proportion of national income came from the production of services.

The second, Marxist political theory, was unfortunately dependent upon Marxian economics; in the absence of the clear class-based confrontations that Marxian economics predicted, Marxist political theory began to make no sense whatsoever. Hence the wild attempts to fit facts to theory: the creations of categories of "temporary allies" of the proletariat in the bourgeoisie, the replacement of the changing of relative prices with outright expropriation as a method of transferring funds from agriculture to industrialisation, and, as Clio points out, the prioritisation of the 'party' and radical intellectuals, when Marx himself would have been hard put to make a theoretical distinction between the party and the proletariat. So that was doomed to failure.

The third, marxist historiography, is alive and well. As 86.187 says above, much of our social analysis is carried out using tools of class-based analysis. Interestingly, neoclassical economics, which one would think is the traditional enemy of Marxism, would agree completely with that tradition's approach to rational analysis of broad movements using technical progress as the initial motive factor.

To sum up, the only problem with Marxism is that Marx died. Like any large, diverse body of work being used for political purposes, those with an interest in a particular interpretation would focus on that; and because of the diversity of the man's entire body of work, any particular hypothesis would find support somewhere, through some form of esoteric textual analysis. If this reminds you of certain religions, you would not be the first to make that comparison. The intellectual flaw in Marxism is that there was a sacred text to start off with; the flaws in its application are flaws that would emerge in any such project, regardless of the context of the text. Relata refero (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad quote

I've been looking for a ref for this statement and can't seem to find it:

Muhammad is reliably quoted in a hadith as saying that “water, greenery, and a beautiful face” were three universally good things.

Anybody got one? I'm pretty sure it's true, as I've found sources that allude to this, but I haven't found any that quote it exactly and attribute it to Muhammad. Wrad (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the statement appears in Green, and a citation for it has been requested there. A hadith is an oral tradition. philiptaaffe.info quotes it in this form: " Three things of this world are acceptable: water, greenery, and a beautiful face. — Hadith (attributed to the Prophet Muhammad)". Xn4 00:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the green article is what I'm working on. Thanks. Wrad (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There are loads of sayings "attributed" to Jesus and the Buddha which turn out to have no basis in fact. People are very fond of attributing something to a respected religious leader to give it some authority. I've no doubt the same thing happens with Muhammed.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, mainstream Christianity has a "closed canon", so if anything claimed to be said by Jesus isn't included in the Bible, then it isn't considered to be particularly important by Christian theologians, and certainly isn't accepted as authoritative for faith and morality.

By contrast, a significant part of traditional Islamic scholarship has been assembling and evaluating huge collections of thousands upon thousands of purported sayings of Muhammad, or hadith, some of which are very important in establishing Muslim religious practice and legal precedents, others of which are discredited and considered useless according to the consensus of Muslim religious-legal scholars, and many of which are of disputed authenticity. Any purported hadith which isn't found in the Six major Hadith collections would be considered irrelevant according to the consensus of traditional Sunni scholarship... AnonMoos (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Just how hard the Sitar?

Please give every detail on the difficulty, I am very interested in Sitars but the difficulty scares me. MalwareSmarts (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not too much detail as far as I know, but it would depend on your musical background. If you can play a guitar, you will have an advantage already. It is also an advantage if you know soemthing about Indian music theory, as the production of music in the Indian tradition is somewhat different to our Western traditions. Steewi (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The hard part is listening to it. ;-) —Kevin Myers 16:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

November 22

Trying to identify a book bout dirigibles.

I'm trying to locate a book I read about recently. I may have even read about it here on the Reference Desk, but I can't find it in the archive.

If I recall correctly is was either by or about a dirigible pilot describing the experience of piloting a dirigible. That's all I have to go on. I just remember making a mental note to remember this book and try to locate a copy. If anyone could tell me the title or author of the book I'm thinking of, or of something similar, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. APL (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Forensic Psychology

What is an example of a case in which forensic psychology helped solve a crime? --Candy-Panda (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The key here is determining if the psychological profiling really helped, or not. A good deconstruction of criminal profiling can be found in this recent New Yorker article. Many of the techniques employed are similar to cold reading. -- Kesh (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Medical and legal advice

How can I find/choose/select a lawyer or doctor to get advice (no matter what country)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 01:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry we are not even allowed to give medical or legal advice on how to obtain legal or medical advice according to the rules —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.162.232 (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Try the yellow pages or your local equivalent. —Nricardo (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am reformulating the question: how can we assess the quality of services like legal or medical professionals? Of course I could get a list of doctors and lawyer by myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 04:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Best way is to ask around and get some recommendations. If you don't have any friends or colleagues who have used the services of these professionals recently, see if there is a community message board in your area and post a question there asking for recommendations. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, isn't there a better (=> more systematic) way of assessing quality in these professions? I suppose some institution could gather information at least about unprofessional conduct, won/lost processes, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 14:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In many countries there is a restriction on who can practice as a lawyer or doctor. If you want to practice you must register your qualification. If you are uncertain as to a particular practitioner's qualifications, the local registry would be able to tell you if they are registered or not. As to gauging their specific skills, other than incompetence, which would be notable by their being charged with incompetence or having no customers, it is mostly word of mouth that will give you an answer. There isn't (as far as I know) an ongoing skills-testing schema in place anywhere to monitor such things. You can ask a lawyer about his success rate in winning cases, but remember also that the type and circumstances of a case are important, too. A lawyer can win all of his cases if they are all cases of obvious innocence, but a lawyer who takes on challenging cases may be very good at his job, but have a worse record because of the cases he takes. Steewi (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic breakdown of Toronto

Which part of Toronto has the most Arabs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.214 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Which part of Toronto has the most Turkishes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.214 (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that Toronto is multicultural city, but which part of Toronto that has the most numbers of White people and I mean native Canadians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.214 (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on this map from the 2001 census, you can see that the "whitest" areas of Toronto are the wealthy districts near Yonge Street between Bloor Street and Highway 401, such as Rosedale, as well as the area near the Humber River in southern Etobicoke. The map doesn't differentiate between native-born and immigrant whites, but I think it's fair to say the areas mentioned above also have smaller-than-average immigrant populations for Toronto. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors

Did the title "Roman Emperor", through the inheritance of Ferdinand and Isabel, pass and settle into the Spanish, or the Holy Roman line? When Charles V abdicated, did it go to his brother Ferdinand, in order to append further legitimacy to the Holy Roman title, by uniting the two titles--since while the two titles had been held by two different individuals, it lessened the legitimacy of each one--with the Holy Roman one at a natural disadvantage? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Emperor of the holy Roman empire was actually an elective office, so technically it wasn't inherited at all... AnonMoos (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You answered your own question. Charles V's brother became Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor and ruler of the Austrian lands while his son Philip became ruler of the Spanish, Italians, and Burgundian lands. Yes, as AnonMoos said, Emperor was an elective office, but the Habsburgs were pretty well entrenched long before Charles died. The early modern office of Holy Roman Emperor was quite unconnected to the Byzantine Empire, or the Roman Empire, and it had very little in common with the empire of Charlemagne or Otto I. Holy Roman Empire is perhaps misleading: it should be read along with translatio imperii. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I was referring to the selling or willing of the Byzantine title to the Catholic Monarchs, which descended to the Habsburgs. Wikipedia currently shows the title as having gone down permanently with the Spanish Royal Family, but I think that is inaccurate. Charles would have transferred the Byzantine imperial title to his brother Ferdinand, rather than his son Philip. It would unite the two imperial titles for some kind of legitimacy, but User:John Kenney tells me that neither the House of Trastamara nor the Holy Roman Emperors claimed the title of Roman Emperor, of the Byzantine line. Wikipedia has to make sense and it just isn't. I want clarification. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, the last hereditary claimant to the Byzantine imperial throne tried unsuccessfully to sell his title for cash throughout the late 15th C. He died as a pauper in Italy (fittingly enough) sometime around 1500. Dppowell (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Then why does Wikipedia list the Spanish monarchs as pretenders of the Byzantine version of Rome? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish king claims a whole lot of wacky titles, including king of Jerusalem and Cyprus. The son of the last Byzantine emperor made his way to Italy and sold his (now empty) title to someone or other, and I guess that title eventually passed to Spain, but it is completely meaningless. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

24.255, I would urge you not to let this piece of royal trivia detain you overmuch. Crowns tend to attract titles in the way that magnets attract iron. It would take a good few minutes to recite all of the titles and dignities of the last Tsar of Russia! Even if the Spanish crown did acquire the Byzantine title it was, as Adam has said, quite meaningless. The Emperor Charles needed no added legitimacy, and is more than likely have been quite content for the empty honour to pass to his son Philip. There is no earthly reason why Ferdinand would have wanted the title, and I can find no mention at all of this in any of the sources I have on the Holy Roman Empire. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the origin of wishing upon a star?

When did the tradition start? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitalistroadster (talk • contribs) 09:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It certainly goes back as far as this song from Walt Disney's Pinocchio (1940), but it may well predate that. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Niggas vs. Black People

I've seen footage of this routine. It's hard to laugh and have one's mouth hanging open in shock at the same time, yet I managed it. Anyway, I am curious what impact (if any) it had on African-American society? I presume at the time some black community leaders were outraged at the characterisation and some nodded sagely and agreed that comedy is a mirror on life and Chris Rock had made some good points. Am I right? What kind of response was there from the black community? And, now that some time has passed, has the routine made any kind of impact? Has anything changed? If he were writing the routine today, would Chris Rock omit any of the characterisations because they're no longer accurate (if indeed they ever were)? --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Eishin Ryu Mon?

Not sure whether this question goes under humanities or misc, but here goes:

I've noticed that this mon seems to be worn by quite a few Eishin Ryu iaidoka. Why is this? What's the history of it? How did it become associated with Eishin Ryu? Thanks! 81.11.148.226 (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Origins of the Cold War

I've been highly encouraged by the superb and erudite responses to my questions on international relations, so much so that I shall risk another. Would it be true to say that the Cold War arose from a series of mutual misunderstandings, or was one side more at fault than the other? Did the Soviet Union really aim at ideological expansion after 1947? I look forward to your responses. Many thanks. Mustapha Fag (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Cold War was in essence a struggle for power and a struggle to maintain or expand spheres of influence. It did not arise from misunderstandings but from conflicting interests. The Soviet Union wanted to maintain a buffer territory under its domination in eastern Europe and aimed to bring nations in Africa, Latin America, and Asia (many of them newly independent) into its camp partly to gain trade partners, partly out of ideological evangelism, partly to limit the power of the West. Meanwhile, the West aimed to contain and roll back the Soviet sphere of influence in Europe and to prevent the expansion of their influence in the Third World (a term that originated during the Cold War for the parts of the world that were neither part of the West, or First World, nor of the Soviet sphere, or the Second World). The Soviet Union did aim for "ideological expansion", but this was secondary to its aim to project and augment its geopolitical power. Marco polo (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

George Kennan's "Long Telegram" may provide you with some answers. Of course, it is not a third party perspective to the conflict, but it was written before the conception of the Cold War. Communism's ambition (just like any other grand narrative of the 20th century)to concur the world is beyond speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyeditor (talk • contribs) 16:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you have misread or misunderstood the Long Telegram. It does not say that Communism's ambition was world conquest. It says instead that the USSR had legitimate security interests at heart, was essentially weak, and could be economically contained without a massive military build up. Even Kennan agreed that the eventual Cold War policy taken by the USA—as set forth in NSC-68—had little to do with Kennan's assessment or suggestions. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

One early irritant in the immediate aftermath of WW2 was that Stalin didn't keep his promise, made by him personally to Roosevelt, to allow free elections to be held in Poland. Of course, Stalin never had any intention of keeping that promise... AnonMoos (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to chalk it up to just "misunderstanding"—Stalin was not willing to trust the US (and with good reason), and the US was not willing to trust Stalin (again, with good reason). I think both sides understood quite well that what was in the interest of one was not likely in the interest of the other. The US had drawn up plans to drop atomic bombs on the Soviet Union even before World War II had really ended (of course, they didn't have enough bombs to drop, but that's a different story); it was not exactly like either side had a whole lot of reason to trust the other or that either side was assuming good faith (and with good reason). If a misunderstanding is to be had, it was mutual: both sides saw the other side as wanting nothing more than the destruction of their country and way of life (an essentially offensive view of the other). In reality I think both sides were more interested in their own security than anything else (an essentially defensive view), and could have obtained that through less drastic measures if they were able to work out protocols for doing so, but the lack of trust by both sides made anything like that impossible. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You ask what the Cold War arose from. Here is a map of the final positions of the front lines upon Germany's surrender in 1945. Here is a map showing the Iron Curtain. Swap the Czechs for the Austrians, and there it is. No, there was no misunderstanding. America had "sphere of influence" after the war, the Soviet Union had a vast prison. The people of eastern Europe understand better than I do, though. I hope to hear from them here. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What is Maltese and how valuable is it?

Between 1523 and 1530 the Knights of Hospitaller lacked a permanent home, until Charles V of Spain offered them Malta and Gozo in return for one maltese falcon sent annually to the Viceroy of Sicily and a solemn mass to be celebrated on All Saints Day.

What is maltese and how valuable is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.32.75 (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A Maltese Falcon is a a bird of the genus Falco peregrinus brookei, the Mediterranean region subspecies of the Peregrine Falcon. As to their worth, it has been estimated that the value of a Falcon in early mediaeval Britain was £4,800. Those falcons which are not endangered and appear on the open market fetch prices today of £500 for a male and £500-1000 for a female (depending on pedigree). 86.21.74.40 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Our article on Peregrine Falcons in popular culture also states that - "The Mediterranean Peregrine Falcon, was the annual rent required by Holy Roman Emperor Charles V when he donated the Island of Malta to the Knights Hospitaller in 1530." As Malta is part of a large number of birds' migratory patterns, the capture and sale of birds has been a long practised art. When I last visited Valletta in 2001 during market day they still had two/three streets purely selling captured birds. Foxhill (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Precisely zero. The Maltese Falcon is a fictional story, and the object was made up for it. It does not exist, nor are there real legends about such an object. Since then, several facsimilis have been created and sold, either for the amusement of the buyer or by unscrupulous dealers taking advantage of someone. -- Kesh (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you weren't aware, Maltese is an adjective that derives from the name Malta, ie it's describing a xxxxxx that comes from Malta. --Dweller (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Such as Corto Maltese! Keria (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Maltese Falcon was a MacGuffin. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Stab in the back

In 1918 the German army claimed that it had lost the war because it had been stabbed in the back by political opponents at home. did the generals really believe this and could they have gone on fighting?86.151.241.98 (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In 1918, Germany was practically a military dictatorship ruled by Hindenburg and Ludendorff. Thus it was the generals that decided to make peace. They decided to first hand over power to a civilian government which would have to sign the actual armistice expressly so that civilians could be seen as to blame for the defeat. See Stab-in-the-back legend. Algebraist 18:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a convenient excuse, a way of passing responsibility for surrender on to the civilians, though both Hindenburg and Ludendorff were well aware of the strategic realities. The Spring Offensive of 1918 had been their last great gamble, the one hope of breaking the Allies in the west before American reserves arrived in even greater numbers. As early as 7 August the Kaiser said to Ludendorff that "We have reached the limits of our capacity. The war must be ended." At that stage it was still hoped that it would be possible to do so on the crest of some military advantage. But the position continued to deteriorate day by day, so much so that at the meeting of the Imperial Council at Spa on 14 August Ludendorff recommended immediate peace negotiations.

The situation in the west grew steadily worse throughout September. In early October both Hindenburg and Ludendorff were pressing for an immediate truce, telling the Kaiser that the army could not wait for another forty-eight hours. To this Max von Baden repled that if the situation was so desperate it was for the army 'to raise the white flag in the field'. Ludedorff raised no white flag, but he sent a telegram to Berlin on 2 October, saying that the heavy losses of the last few days were impossible to make good, and an armistice was therefore imperative, " to spare the German people and its allies further useless sacrifice." Later in the month, as the Allied advance slowed, his nerve steadied somewhat, and he was even talking of the possibility of another offensive in the west in 1919. It was fantasy, of course. The collapse of the Salonika Front put the supply of oil from Romania at risk, without which the German army could only fight for another six weeks, as General Heinrich Scheüch, the War Minister, pointed out. The game was played and lost before a single red flag had been raised. The stab was in the front, not the back. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Stalin and De Gaulle

What was Stalin's attitude towards General de Gaulle? Pere Duchesne (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a lot better than Roosevelt's attitude! Stalin had originally denounced the Free French as 'British mercenaries' during his honeymoon with Hitler. Much had changed, though, by the time De Gaulle came to Moscow in December 1944 for their one and only meeting. For Stalin France was a useful 'window on the west', a way breaking the Anglo-American monopoly. The two countries also shared important security concerns, and looked to one another for future mutual assurance, in effect a revival of the old Franco-Russian Alliance of 1894-1917. Stalin was well aware how uneasy De Gaulle's relationship was with both Roosevelt and Churchill and took full advantage. As early as September 1941 he had recognised the French leader in far more fulsome terms than the British or the Americans ever did. By the autumn of 1944, already preparing for the shape of post-war Europe, De Gaulle was a useful ally. Though there were differences, notably over Poland, the two men established a reasonably good understanding. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation help

How is Edgar Degas' name pronounced? --John (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)