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 24

Coat of arms infos

I have a (monochromatic) coat of arms I'm trying to find out some information on, but don't know if there are any sites that are good for this or what (I'm a flag person). It's NOT a country, so the massive numbers of pages on them here won't help me any. I would describe it as 5 ermines on a chevron, on a crosshatched field, with two 6-pointed mullets above the chevron, one below. (Sorry for the bad blazonry). Any help? Thanx. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The cross-hatching may be a conventional symbol for black, in which case the blazon is Sable, a chevron ermine between three mullets/stars argent; in French, De sable au chevron d'hermine accompagné de trois étoiles d'argent. (Note that in early armory a mullet could be displayed indifferently with five or six points. In France and Scotland a mullet is pierced and the unpierced figure is a star; in England a pierced mullet is a spur-rowel.) Both chevrons and stars (of all subspecies) are more likely to be found in French and British armory than elsewhere. You might get lucky in Papworth's Ordinary, a reverse index of Burke's General Armory and other sources. There is a similar index for Rietstap (a bigger continental armory) but I forget its name; there's also http://www.blazonsearch.com/search.php but I don't know if it works. —Tamfang (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Poem interpretation

How can this Emily Dickinson poem (871) be interpreted?

The Sun and Moon must make their haste —
The Stars express around
For in the Zones of Paradise
The Lord alone is burned —

His Eye, it is the East and West —
The North and South when He
Do concentrate His Countenance
Like Glow Worms, flee away —

Oh Poor and Far —
Oh Hindred Eye
That hunted for the Day —
The Lord a Candle entertains
Entirely for Thee — (from Wikisource)

Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The raw symbolism seems to be the heavenly bodies as lesser lights, their light being no more than a superficial expression of the Lord's true light. The Lord is burned, just as we are, to make light, but we burn like a candle here on Earth, soon to run out. The poor, far, hindred [hindered?] eye is the person the poem is written to, and the candle "entirely for thee" is Dickenson, who will be a light in the darkness for her correspondent, and for us. True light is hope, knowledge, salvation. The sun, moon, and stars are the irreligious ideas of men shedding only false light on an ignorant earth, leaving us to "hunt for the day", the day being knowledge of God.

That's all just a guess, mind you, but nobody was answering. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That helps explain a lot. How about the “Do concentrate His Countenance/Like Glow Worms, flee away —” line? That one has me especially confused. Is “He” god and are we like glow worms? And why the sudden change of tone? --S.dedalus (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So now I'm an authority on Dickenson? I'm a Shelley man, myself. The sun, moon, and stars are the glow worms that flee the Lord's countenance when he do [does] concentrate his countenance. That accounts for their apparent movement across the sky—a homely nonce cosmology of the poet's to sustain the allegory—and emphasizes the subordination of man's ideas to God's knowledge. The tone changes almost by accident in keeping with the deepening of the allegory. I'm guessing my ass off here. If the poet can't be mystifying in an understandable manner, he or she is screwing up. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The poem makes a lot more sense now. --S.dedalus (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Education

How did the Nazis use primary and secondary education to bolster their view of the world? Bel Carres (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• As far as Jewish people were concerned they used to bring Jewish students to the front of the class to serve as "life objects" and the teacher would comment on their appearance, so as to distinguish Jew from gentile, and also as an act of humbling the Jews. Nazi education for really small people about Germany's racial policies is most heavily hinted at in Julius Streicher's novel Der Giftpilz (The poison mushroom). The novel compared good people, the Germans, as all the fresh mushrooms that grew in the forest, and noted that Jews were the "poisonous" mushrooms. A transcrip of the novel and its short stories can be found here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) 13:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The ethos, Bel, was laid down by Wilhelm Frick, Minister of the Interior, who said in December 1934 that "the political task of the school is the education of youth in the service of the nation and state in the National Socialist spirit". This was supplemented by Bernhard Rust, Minister of Education, who said that the purpose of school textbooks was to achieve "the ideological education of young German people, so as to develop them into fit members of the national community." The techniques used became less and less subtle with the passage of time, and it is difficult often to distinguish educational material from pure propaganda. Primers often contained stories and poems about Hitler, along the lines of "Herr Hitler is a good man/He lives in Berlin./If it was not quite so far/I'd go and visit him." The German Reader for Elementary Schools, published in 1936, tells the story of a distressed family, rescued from unemployment and want by the Nazis. Another, Happy Beginnings, deals with the Eintopf, the one-pot Sunday meal that German families were encouraged to eat once a month, in order to save money to be devoted to the state.

The idealisation of motherhood is also a regular theme, as are aspects of the bucolic life. Blood and ancestory are important issues, as can be expected, making repeated appearances. In You and Your Ancestors pupils are asked "Do you know what kind of blood runs through your veins?" This is all presented in a colourful and accesible fashion, with poems and stories about hereditary and kinship. Inclusion was important; but not nearly as important as exclusion. The Poisonous Mushroom of 1938 was by far the most invidious example of this particular genre. Indoctrination is even to be found in supposedly neutral subjects, like arithmetic. In one pupils are given the following information;

Every day, the state spends 6 Marks on one cripple; 4 1/4 Marks on one mentally-ill person; 5 1/2 Marks on one deaf and dumb person; 5 3/5 Marks on one feeble-minded person; 3 1/2 Marks on one alcoholic; 4 4/5 Marks on one pupil in care; 2 1/20 Marks on one pupil at a special school, and 9/20 of a Mark on one pupil at a normal school.

Pupils are then asked questions on the basis of this, along the lines of "What total cost do one cripple and one feeble-minded person create if it takes a lifespan of forty-five years for each?", all intended at one obvious conclusion. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Race v Ethnicity

I'm having trouble separating the two in my head. Can anybody tell me an easy way to distinguish between race and ethnicity? Also, could being Hispanic, Middle Eastern, etc be considered a race?

• From our article, race refers to the concept of dividing people into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of characteristics and beliefs about common ancestry. Ethnicity, on the other hand is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry. See our articles on race and ethnicity for further information --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 13:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Though if it makes you feel better, both are nebulous and fuzzy terms. Race is a bit fuzzier, being older, and can mean easily a dozen different things, but ethnicity doesn't easily add up anyway. Middle Eastern and Hispanic are not considered racial designations, no—one only denotes a region (in which many different "races" live) and is like saying "North American", the other indicates a shared culture and/or language but with some biological ties, which is not really the same thing as race though there are some tie-ins. The US census currently considers them different but potentially overlapping categories; historically "ethnicity" and "ethnic groups" have been used as euphemisms/replacements for "race" (see Ethnicity#Ethnicity_and_race). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As commonly understood and inferred from the U.S. census, a "race" is a collection of ethnicities. For example, the Irish, Basque, French, Italian and Finnish ethnicities are all part of the white "race." The Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Laotian ethnicities, among others, are part of what they used to call the "Mongoloid race." Just how many "races" there are is disputable, in part because of the fuzziness of the whole concept of race. Many people would refer to groups of "whites, blacks and Hispanics." But the U.S. Census Bureau does not consider Hispanics to be a race. In the U.S. census, Hispanics have to choose between the wite, black, Asian, American Indian or "other" races. Many choose "other." Race is basically a cultural construct and not a scientific term. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Emperor Charles V

What were the qualities that made Charles V of the HRE an effective commander? Should Pavia be considered his greatest victory?217.42.104.162 (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He was the kind of commander always beloved by soldiers: one who aimed at victory at the minimum cost in blood. He was always present in the field, moreover, even when troubled by gout, and aimed at defeating his enemies without humiliating them. His particular skill was in the arts of siege warfare, the preferred mode of combat of the day. But he also showed his talents in full-scale battles, though these were few and far between. Pavia was certainly important, 217.42, but his greatest victory must surely be the Battle of Mühlberg. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Military in Myanmar

Why have the military in Myanmar/Burma been in control for so long? K Limura (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding flippant, probably because they have all the guns. And, at the risk of sounding serious, probably because around a third of the population is enrolled in the military, and so everyone (aside from those from persecuted minorities) has a close relative in the army - so it really is an institution that is greatly integrated into the society. Ninebucks (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The answer, K. Limura, is part historical, part strategic and part political. To begin with the army played a crucial part in Burma's struggle for independence, far more military-based than in most other parts of the British Empire. Even today the leader of the democratic opposition, Aung San Suu Kyi, derives much of her authority from the fact that she is the daughter of General Aung San, the Burmese national hero. So, you have a paradox: that the legacy, and example, of the same man sustains both government and opposition. The military found itself at the front of the independence movement because of the weaknesses in Burmese civil society. During colonial days the British replaced much of the traditional civil administration with their own people, either directly from England or English-educated Indians. Although a Burmese middle-class did start to develop it was almost completely destroyed in the Depression of the 1930s. Moreover, because Burma was conquered in stages, with the Burmese-speaking areas being the last to fall, recruits to the army and police force were drawn from the national minorities. The point is that the shape of present day Burma owes much to the conquests of the old monarchy between the seventeenth and the nineteenth centuries, with up to two-thirds of the national territory occupied by non-Burmese speaking minorities. When an essentially Burmese National Army took shape in the Second World War, first as an ally then as an enemy of the Japanese, it had to define and defend the very concept of the historic Burmese nation. The army thus became the guardian not only of independence but of the integrity of the whole state. From the outset it was faced with rebellion, some of which continues to the present day. Hence, military dictatorship, transient elsewhere, has become a steady feature of Burmese politics. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Cluilian Trenches - Rome

When was the Cluilian trenches made and for how long did they last? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.102.226 (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The Albans first invaded the Roman territories with a large army. They pitched their camp not more than five miles from the city, and surrounded it with a trench, which, for several ages, was called the Cluilian trench, from the name of the general, till, by lapse of time, the name, as well as the event itself, was forgotten. In that camp Cluilius, the Alban king, died: the Albans created Mettius Fufetius dictator. Livy's Roman History [1]
This appears to have happened in the time of Tullus : Romulus reigned thirty-seven years, Numa forty-three: the state was both strong and attempered by the arts both of war and peace. Upon the death of Numa, the administration returned again to an interregnum. After that the people appointed as King Tullus Hostilius, the grandson of that Hostilius who had made the noble stand against the Sabines at the foot of the citadel: the fathers confirmed the choice.SaundersW (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Dante's popes

In the Divine Comedy Dante places several popes in the Inferno, or predicts that is where they are bound. Are there any in Purgatory or Paradise, apart, that is, from the leaders of the early Christian church? 81.129.83.162 (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Dante places seven Popes in Hell. From my notes there are only three other Popes in The Divine Comedy: Pope Celestine V is encountered just outside the gates of Hell (although it is argued that it is actually Pontius Pilate). Pope Adrian IV is described as being in the fifth circle of Purgatory, while Pope Martin IV is met in the sixth circle. As I say these are my own notes, there may be more... Lord Foppington (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Lord Foppington, are you sure it is Adrian IV? I was under the impression that it was Adrian V, along with Martin. 81. 129 you will find John XXI-Peter the Spaniard- in Paradise (Paradiso XII, 134), the only Pope to be so elevated by Dante apart from the early martyrs. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Clio the Muse, I thank you, I stand corrected: it is Adrian IV (Purgatorio XIX, 97) - perhaps I was being biased towards the English? The reference for Martin IV is Purgatorio XXIV, 21. Dante helpfully never explictly names either. Adrian's sin was worldly ambition while Martin's was gluttony (especially eels) Lord Foppington (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Second Battle of Flanders

In a German narrative on the First World War I found a reference to the second battle of Flanders without further explanation. What might this be? Qurious Cat (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The Second Battle of Ypres, perhaps? (First Battle of Ypres = Battle of Flanders) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's the Battle of Passchendaele, or the Third Battle of Ypres. It is referred to as the Second Battle of Flanders in Ernst Jünger's In Stahlgewittern. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that usage might have changed since Junger's day and now be in line with British naming, if (and it is an if) we can believe the editors of the German Wikipedia. de:Dritte Flandernschlacht begins "Die Dritte Flandernschlacht...begann am 31. Juli 1917...". Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick footnote - British naming is more complex than our article reflects. The Third Battle of Ypres was 31st July to 10th November, and included a number of seperately named battles - Polygon Wood from 26/9 to 3/10, for example. Official nomenclature (I'm going off the honours list here) notes the Battle of Paaschendaele as being in two parts; first on 12/10 and secondly from 26/10 to 10/11. Because the second one was so famous, it tends to get used to refer to the whole of Third Ypres, but strictly speaking this doesn't seem to be the case. Shimgray | talk | 13:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Literature: Stone Angel

What are the themes in "Stone Angel"? This is a homework question and I have read it but, I want to know what is the theme? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.131.122 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Feminity, death (especially the fear of death) and the treatment of the elderly - all are general themes that can act as a starting point for further analysis. Don't be tricked into thinking there is one "definitive" theme! Lord Foppington (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Secession

Is there any clause in the U.S. Constitution that would allow secession?--24.58.159.152 (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Tenth Amendment and arguably the Ninth. —Tamfang (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The case law is against you there, I fear. Algebraist 01:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Since Lincoln openly violated the Constitution to save his tax base the sacred Union, the events of his reign are irrelevant to the question as asked, which is about the Constitution. —Tamfang (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In the ratification of the Constitution, when the independent states joined the union, it was not at all clear that they thereby abandoned their ability to ever leave that union. The idea that you join voluntarily, but are subject to armed violence if you ever try to leave, sounds more like a street gang than a rational political process. Arguments to this effect can be found among politicians of various parts of the country before the American Civil War. "Erring Sisters, Depart in Peace" was a viewpoint expressed in the north in 1860. The attack on Fort Sumter and other federal properties was the casus belli for Lincoln to attack the South. Edison (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL You think the Morrill Tariff was the cause of the Civil War. lots of issues | leave me a message 10:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotsofissues (talk • contribs)

It's important to distinguish between the South's motives for seceding, on one hand, and the Union's motives for fighting the secession. Are you saying neither side was concerned with the federal budget? —Tamfang (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

From my understanding, the 10th Amendment is talking about the delegation of powers between the federal and state governments, not about the states' 'right' to withdraw from the Union. But I am not very knowledgeable on Constitutional Law, which is why I am asking Wikipedia ;) --24.58.159.152 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The first phrase of the Tenth ("Those powers not delegated to the United States by this Constitution") is obviously about distribution of powers between the two loci; there's a reasonable argument that the second phrase ("nor prohibited by it to the States") is also about distribution, but it's not quite so clear, is it? Besides, at the time of its adoption I don't think the Constitution was understood to be the last word on everything; Publius goes on at some length about how its purposes are limited. —Tamfang (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The answer is in Texas v. White; that is, "The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States." Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

One would rarely expect judges employed by an entity that has just won a war to rule that the war was illegitimate. — I wonder whether anything short of winning an actual war – e.g. an uncontested declaration of independence – would constitute a legally valid "revolution" as contemplated in the sentence quoted above. — According to the article: "The main rationale for the argument that states could not legally secede was derived from the Articles of Confederation's description of the American Union as perpetual." But compare Article VII of the Constitution of 1787, which allows it to come into force when only nine States have ratified (and in fact it began to function with eleven), with Article XIII of the Confederation, which requires that any changes be unanimous. Is it proper to repudiate one clause of an agreement and then rely on another? I think not. —Tamfang (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Gastronomy Wars: Italy vs France!

It seems to be an article of faith among Italians that France stole its culinary glory from Italy, when Marie de Medicis wed the King of France and "kidnapped" the finest cream of Italian cooks and brought them north of the Alps.

As a Frenchman, I instinctively cry calumny...but can a more objective gastronome among Wikipedia's wise multitude comment on this surprising version of la haute cuisine in history? Rhinoracer (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, nothing in history of pizza supports this theory. Xn4 21:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The culinary traditions of both France and Italy have evolved considerably since the time of Marie de Medicis/Maria de'Medici. Both have no doubt borrowed heavily from each other over the centuries. However, both have produced independent innovations as well. It would be ridiculous to say that French cuisine is merely derivative of Italian cuisine but equally unreasonable to doubt that Marie had some influence on the haute cuisine of her day. Marco polo (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

So much has happened since c. 1550 to break any genuine continuities, very roughly in chronological order: the introduction of the tomato into Spanish realms of Italy, polenta made with corn meal, potatoes, the invention of modern vegetables by the Dutch, the universal rise of cheap sugar, the French Revolution of Carême, the invention of the haute cuisine restaurant in post-Napoleonic France, chocolate as something to eat not drink, and the revolutionising technologies that began with refrigeration. Comparisons with Catherine de' Medici's day are distracting. --Wetman (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

God is man's greatest creation

Who first said "God is man's greatest creation"? I am looking for an author, a book title, or both. Thanks.

~seuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seuss2 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The physicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar is widely quoted as saying "God is man's greatest invention". But see also Plato: "He was a wise man who invented God." Xn4 21:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit

What is the evidence that Henry Chettle (and not Greene himself) wrote any or all of Robert Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit? AndyJones (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He certainly prepared it for publication; I wasn't aware that it was also being suggested that he wrote it. You may find more. Andy, in Harold Jenkins' The Life and Work of Henry Chettle. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume it's a new theory. Our article on Greene says (unsourced - sigh) that there's some question on the subject. I was prompted to ask because I was reading an essay by Diana E. Henderson, published this year, which says Shakespeare "was perceived as an "upstart"; in lines attributed by Henry Chettle to Robert Greene..." which seems to suggest Henderson has accepted the theory without needing to qualify it. AndyJones (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My worry, Andy, is that all too often a definition of a 'reliable source' seems to be no more than the speculations of a published writer, not reducible to original documentation. By this means a theory is translated, via Wikipedia, into a 'fact', a point I tried to make in the discussion page for the article on James I-rather a waste of time, I'm sorry to report. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

November 25

Cost of items in 1849

what was the cost of everyday items during the year 184? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.197.214 (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Where? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And you did mean 1849, not 184, right? --Anon, 05:45 UTC, November 25.

• Without a country or general geographic area, it's impossible to answer. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Without knowing what the above mention it'll be tough to answer. BUT you could start by looking at article such as Retail price index or Consumer price inflation. I found this (http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/faculty-research/sahr/sahr.htm) site that might be of use. Seems figures going back to 1849 are around for some countries, but how accurate they are I have no idea. It won't say 'bread was 1p then and £1 now though, at least not the RPI indexes i've looked at. ny156uk (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

A question about religion

If someone is an atheist but believes in God (but not Jesus, the Bible, etc.), they are no longer an atheist because they believe in God right? What are they called then?-- Penubag  05:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Deist is the word you're looking for. —Kevin Myers 06:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for answering my question. i owe you. -- Penubag  06:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Or they might be a muslim or a jew or something. There are really quite a lot of ways of believing in God but not being a christian. Algebraist 12:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Religious Jews have a Bible, last time I checked. The questioner was probably asking about belief in God outside of established religions, implied in the "etc." part of the question. —Kevin Myers 18:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The only general enough term I can think of for anyone who "believes in God" is theist, and, if it's one god and no others, monotheist. Of course these terms will also include the Christian believer. Wareh (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Were the founding fathers spoiled brats?

Were they spoiled brats?

I accept they fought for their rights under the English Constitution (representation in tax matters, due process, etc.) But before 1774, could the overbearing British be described as tyrannical? I see the American responses to the escalations in the conflict as always disproportionate in force.

Didn't they feel un-gentlemanly about not paying the tax? The burden wasn't terrible. They should have accepted it as a reaonable cost of Imperial victory and protection.

Discuss.

67.170.241.199 (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well apart from this sounding homework (and a poor question at that), this is surely opinion and cannot be evidenced with fact? One persons reasonable refusal to do something is another persons acting spoilt/being awkward for the sake of being awkward. It would seem that if the choices of not paying tax could be likened to other political stands. Such as in the Uk in around 2000 we had a fuel crisis. This was created by truck-drivers taking a stand against the taxation of fuel. This led to a relatively small group causing a rather large impact on the country. SImilarly things have happened at places like Woomera immigration facility in Australia. I've little to know knowledge of the founding fathers but presume that their actions were consider (to them) acts of defiance rather than being spoilt/unreasonable. ny156uk (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, of course this isn't hw. Can you imagine this being a HW question? I'm sure opinion on this question can be evidenced by fact. 67.170.241.199 (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible it's an exam question? Many such questions conclude with "Discuss". -- JackofOz (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

---

From a purely political point of view (leaving aside specifics of personalities and specific parliamentary measures concerning taxation, etc.), the colonials active in the agitations of the 1760's and the beginning of the 1770's often wanted one of these two things within the British system:

1) Direct representation in the Parliament in London, so that those in the British North American colonies could have an effective voice and vote on actions of parliament which affected themselves. -OR-

2) Some kind of institutionally-entrenched "constitutional" safeguards for certain colonial rights and privileges, so that these rights could not be cavalierly obliterated in future by a simple bare-majority vote of Parliament after the next change of ministries in London.

It seems to me to be a rather striking failure of political imagination that no powerful British politician even very seriously considered either one of these two possible reforms -- which meant that British politicians weren't offering the colonials any solution to their greivances other than to trust in the benevolence of future parliaments, even though the meaning of the crises of the 1760's and early 1770's was exactly that a large number of North American colonials had lost all trust in the British parliament.

If you compare the 13 colonies in 1775 to various examples of oppressed nations throughout history, then you might conclude that the North American colonials really didn't have it so bad -- but people rarely decide either to revolt or submit based on such far-ranging pan-historical comparisons. What was far more important (and immediately relevant) was that there were significant irritants or friction points in the colonial-London relationship, and the politicians in London simply refused to offer any solutions to these problems which were acceptable to the colonials over the long term. Therefore if the colonials considered these problems to be important enough to revolt over, and judged that a revolt would have a significant probability of success, then there was a good likelihood that they would end up revolting... AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that many people in the world today would revolt for the same reason that the US Founding Fathers did. No one could enjoy being taxed by a legislature that you had no role in electing, especially when you already had a local legislature in which you were represented. Some thought that a small tax was even worse than a large one, because people might accept a small tax and therefore accept the principle that a legislature not of their choosing could tax them. Taxation was not the central issue, of course: it was a flash point of the underlying constitutional question of sovereignty. Most Americans before 1775 were willing to share a king—but not Parliament—with the British. The American view was, "thanks but we have our own parliaments." This made no sense to the Brits, who had come to the conclusion that Parliament was the sovereign. But the Americans were effectively asking for sovereignty to be divided between Parliament and their provincial assemblies. The British thought that this was not logically possible; they could not foresee Commonwealth realms. With these irreconcilable visions of the British empire, conflict became inevitable. —Kevin Myers 17:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I added "dicuss" myself because as you can tell my question is not much of a question. 67.170.241.199 (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

“Rebellion is only treason in the third person — ‘their rebellion’ — never in the first person — ‘our rebellion,’” said Benjamin Franklin. — Michael J 01:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I might be tempted to answer your question in the affirmative, 67.170, though I would not have chosen the same phrasing; I might say that that the level of tax being asked for was the minimum required for imperial defence; I might say that the British had gone to considerable expense in securing the Americas and had offered the colonialists valuable assistance as recently as the French and Indian War; I might even say that the decision to cast off British rule came when all other dangers had been removed. But, of course, I won't say any of these things, for I have no desire to be cast in the role of the 'tyrant' George(ina) III. Now, who would want that?! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

For many colonists, as I understand it, the good feeling toward Britain following the French and Indian War, which effectively removed a major and old barrier to westward expansion, was offset by the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Britain had of course invested quite a lot in fighting the French in North America, but so too had the colonists. The prize, for many colonists, both pioneer and land speculator types, was the trans-Appalachian land. In addition, for well over a century the Native American tribes had been playing the French and British off against each other, making it difficult for either to gain leverage against the Natives. With the French out of the picture, the west seemed to suddenly lie open. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was seen, as I understand it, as essentially substituting the British for the previous French role in supporting the Native Americans and blocking colonial ambitions to the west. In other words, the assistance given to the colonists during the French and Indian War was not so much defensive as offensive. The colonies were little threatened by the French. It was the frontier that was being fought over. The French were defeated and the frontier was won -- but then withheld from the colonists. In short (and probably overly simplified), assistance in the fight, but unwillingness in sharing the prize. Pfly (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this explanation is that the Proclamation Line of 1763 was moved radically westward by 1768 with the help royal officials from Sir William Johnson to Lord Dunmore to Thomas Walpole. While many colonists certainly resented the Proclamation, it was more than just future Revolutionaries who wanted Native American land. It doesn't appear to be an issue that fundamentally divided Royals and Rebels. —Kevin Myers 09:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Unifying Germany

Why did the national revolution of 1848 fail in the attempt to create a unified German state? Your page on the Revolution in the German states is, forgive me, somewhat fragmented, and does not appear to fully address this question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.39.51 (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The real reason for the revolution's failure was that coercive military power remained in the hands of monarchs opposed to unification in most of the German states. While the revolutionaries had gained control of the government in Baden, this state was no match militarily for Prussia, where revolutionaries had briefly shaken but not dislodged the autocratic monarchy. When the Frankfurt Parliament offered the king of Prussia the crown of a constitutional monarchy of Germany, the king refused to accept their offer. He said that he did not want a crown offered by revolutionaries and opposed by his fellow monarchs. He also rejected the ideal of a constitutional monarchy. Within a few weeks, Prussian troops had overthrown the revolutionary government of Baden and mostly restored the conservative pre-revolutionary order. Marco polo (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What basis was there for uniting what was, after all, more political sentiment than reality? The German Confederation was as much a framework for division as integration; a collection of states and statelets, divided by more than they were united. A common language was certainly one argument in defence of political unity. So, what, then, was to happen to those areas of the Confederation and the wider Habsburg and Hohenzolleran lands that did not speak German at all? If one looks also at the debates within the Frankfurt Parliament itself it's possible to detect a whole series of supplementary political issues which divided 'Liberal' opinion far more than it united; issues over the franchise; issues over legal, religious, civil and economic rights. There were, beyond this, all sorts of questions arising over the proposed structure of the new Germany; over the relationship between the national authority and the local state. How, and in what manner, were Austria and Prussia, the two most powerful states, to surrender part of their autonomy, and would this mean losing control of their armies? Was the new Germany to be a radical democracy or a conservative monarchy? If Austria was excluded on account of all of its non-German possessions would this not simply mean an unacceptable increase in Prussian power? Would a Prussian Germany not simply be a Protestant Germany? Do we not, in the end, despite all of the subsequent lamentations about a great lost opportunity, simply have a Gordian Knot? To cut through that did one not need another Alexander? Clio the Muse (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Edith Stein

Is it true that Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross may have been betrayed by elements within the Catholic church? Chaz B. (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is what we know for sure, Chaz. Edith Stein, from 1936 onwards, repeatedly asked to be transferred to the safety of Carmelite foundation in Bethlehem. However, one Pater Herman Keller, a Benedictine monk, previously acquainted with Edith while she was based in the convent in Cologne, was already in Palestine. We now know now just how dubious an individual Keller was. He was known at the time to have denounced the Archabbot of the Bendedictine monastery at Beuron, Edith's spiritual counsellor and patron, to the Gestapo. It was subsequently discovered that he was an agent working at one and the same time for the Abwehr, the Sicherheitsdienst and the Egyptian government. He was also well-connected with Hitler's ally, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Might he have been responsible for the decision to refuse Edith access to Palestine? It's possible, though it is a matter not subject to any test of proof. Although a refuge was found for her in Echt in the Netherlands, ultimately she was to be no safer there than in Germany. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Clio. Chaz B. (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Napoleon's war in Spain

Why did Napoleon attack Spain? Why Spain had to fight with mostly guerrillas and the British army when during the XVIII it still had some noticeable power? In other words, where did the Spanish army "go"? :) --Taraborn (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Napoleon's big difficulties in Spain began when he tried to depose the hereditary Spanish monarch and place his own brother on the Spanish throne instead, and this particular cynical imperialistic maneuver was widely and violently rejected by the Spanish people. I'm sure this is detailed in the relevant Wikipedia articles... AnonMoos (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with my question. --Taraborn (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Peninsular War#Invasion by stealth (February–July 1808) might help. Basically the Spanish forces were spread out in peacetime stations, and around a sixth of the Spanish army - probably the most prepared sixth at that - was in Denmark. Sizable numbers of troops were captured early in the campaign, by which time the French controlled northern and central Spain. This map shows the early part of the campaign and the this the later. You'll see that the surviving Spanish forces were concentrated in Galica, Andalucia, and Valencia. As the article says, the popular revolt retook a number of locations from the French, and the Spanish victory at the Battle of Bailén was a major blow. So, while there were a lot of guerillas, there were also sizable regular Spanish armies in the north-west, south, and south-east of Spain. The victory at Bailén was, unfortunately for the Spanish, rather against the run of play in 1808-1809. The Spanish were defeated, in no particular order, at the battle of Medina del Rio Seco, at Burgos, Tudela, Medellín, and Valls, at the battle of Alba de Tormes, at Espinosa, María, and Somosierra, at the battle of Almonacid, and probably worst of all at the battle of Ocana. The Spanish armies were, as the list suggests, regularly beaten, but they kept fighting, and sometimes they did win. Hope this helps, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Taraborn. First, why did Napoleon attack Spain? The simple answer is imperial ambition; for the invasion of Spain came at just the point where the French war, hitherto largely defensive in nature, turned into one of opportunist expansion. After his victory over the Allies in the War of the Third Coalition Napoleon started to consider other projects, including joint action with Austria and Russia against the Ottoman Empire; and from thence through Persia on to British India. In the end politics and circumstances threw Spain into the path of his ambition instead. Angered by the British seizure of the Danish fleet at Copenhagen in 1807, he decided to take similar action against Portugal, a long-standing ally of England. Free passage across Spanish territory was given by Manuel Godoy, chief minister of Charles IV, and effective ruler of the country. But as more and more French troops crossed the Pyrenees, Spain and its huge world-wide empire became the greater temptation. A dispute over the throne between Charles and his son Ferdinand gave him the ideal excuse to interfere directly in Spanish politics, getting rid of the Bourbons altogether. In relation to this he wrote;

If this thing were going to cost me 80,000 men I wouldn't do it; but it won't take 12,000; it's mere child's play. I don't want to hurt anybody, but when my my great political chariot is rolling, it's as well to stand from under the wheels.

It was an adventure, nothing more, one which cost him not 12,000 men, not even 80,000 men, but much, much more.

Although both the monarchy and the government had effectively been kidnapped, and Spain was without any central leadership, including military leadership, resistance, which began almost immediately, was aided by the fact that Spain was less of a nation in the modern sense, and more a series of regions and localities, united solely by their loyalty to the crown. The various local juntas which sprang up to resist the French all maintained, or attempted to maintain, regular forces to some degree or other; and where they could not wage a 'large war' they opted for a little or guerilla war.

To some extent this latter aspect of the struggle-the guerilla war-has tended to overshadow the conventional war, particularly among foreign historians. Looking at the matter purely in a Spanish context there were many who had a poor opinion of the efforts of the partidas, supported-and idealised-in the main by the Liberals, much as the International Brigades were by a later generation. Conservatives-and regular officers-tended to be much more critical, with every justification, of the guerillas, one even describing their actions during the 1811 siege of Saragossa as little better than those of 'thieves and bandits' who should be 'exterminated.'

Despite the defeats detailed above by Angus conventional Spanish forces continued to operate throughout the war, though their effectivness was limited as the French occupied more and more territory. By 1810 often the most Spanish generals could do, apart from continuing to garrison the towns they still held, was to launch small harassing actions. After the fall of Tarragona in 1811 the entire Army of Catalonia was reduced to operating after the manner of the guerrillas. Similarly in Andalucia General Ballesteros led his regular division on raids and skirmishes into French controlled territory for most of 1811 and 1812. But there was a two-way process at work: as the army adapted itself to guerrilla tactics, the guerrillas were increasingly subject to military control and organisation. The answer to your concluding question is that the Spanish army did not 'go' anywhere; it simply adapted to circumstances. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much to both for your awesome responses, especially yours, Clio :) --Taraborn (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bank of England on Inflation

Why is the Bank Of England so dead set at keeping (what I assume is) retail price inflation at 2%? Surely as long as wage inflation is matching it there is no problem.

Should they not be more concerned with growth?

Is this just because of Government targets and therefore Brown's fault? Was inflation such a focus before independence?

Thank you for any insight. I'm interested simply because, anecdotally, I feel cost-of-living has gone up far more than 2% a year, and far more with respect to wages, and yet the only thing the Bank cares about is the cost of a basket of shopping. Caffm8 (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The Bank of England no longer relies primarily on a retail price index for tracking inflation. Instead, it relies on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). While the CPI is currently at an annual rate of 2.1%, the former official inflation index, the Retail Price Index excluding mortgage interest (RPIX), is at 3.1%, and the RPI including mortgage interest stands at 4.2%. Like the U.S. Consumer Price Index, the UK CPI is adjusted using a technique called hedonic regression [2]. This adjustment takes into account the likelihood, for example, that if steak becomes too expensive, a percentage of consumers will buy ground beef or even ground turkey instead. The RPI does not take this substitution into account. The UK CPI may also understate the real impact of inflation by underweighting some expenses. For example, as the graph on page 21 of this document shows, the CPI weights housing costs at only 10%. In fact, most households spend considerably more than 10% of their budgets on housing. Some economists have criticized the use of hedonic adjustments because they tend to mask real price increases that are a sign of inflation. Governments have an interest in understating inflation mainly because it allows them to minimize expenditures keyed to inflation but also because a government gains political points for keeping published inflation low and because the central bank has more leeway to lower interest rates when the published rate of inflation is lower than the real rate at which prices are rising.

Now, to answer your questions more directly, central banks tend to target prices rather than wages at least partly because targeting wages would make central banks seem to be the instruments of employers, who have an interest in minimizing wage increases, regardless of prices. In fact, as you observe, prices have been rising more quickly than wages. If the Bank of England were to ignore price increases merely because (median) wages have not risen quickly, it would be sanctioning a redistribution of income from employees to employers, a decline in the standard of living, and an erosion in the purchasing power of the pound, which would reduce its reliability as a store of value and an instrument for saving. The primary responsibility of a central bank is to defend the value of its currency. That said, the pound has been rising steadily relative to the dollar and some other currencies, and so its buying power does not seem to be in jeopardy abroad. On the other hand, there has been a steady inflation of asset values in the UK, particularly in real estate values. This inflation in asset values has facilitated a rapid increase in speculative lending, leveraged on what seem to be inflated asset values. The Bank of England, and other central banks today, are anxious about leaving interest rates low enough to allow asset bubbles to continue to inflate because of the danger that asset values will rise so far beyond incomes that insolvency spreads, and along with it the dangerous credit crunch that has destabilized financial markets since last summer. So, central banks face a dilemma: either they keep interest rates moderately high and stop the dangerous inflation of bubbles, with a risk that a serious recession could result, or they lower interest rates and allow asset prices to resume their inflation, with the danger of an even more serious financial crisis further down the road, which could bring a repeat of the conditions in the 1920s and '30s that brought depression.

While the Bank of England might have felt more pressure to lower interest rates if it had not gained independence from the government, it would still have faced this dilemma. Marco polo (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

So the Bank can't really do anything to ensure that prices stay inline with wages since the only thing they can do is adjust interest rates and this leads to asset inflation? What do various people suggest is done about it? Do the government try to do anything (such as lower individual tax burden maybe)? And is there a different index that the government use to measure these factors?

Or is the issue of the low wage inflation less important to the economy than other factors? Caffm8 (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention yet another scenario, namely that the current credit crunch and wave of insolvency is already too far gone to avoid a deep recession and that keeping interest rates as high as they are will only further deepen it. Nobody, not even a central banker, has perfect knowledge of the economy's state or how best to safeguard it. As to what the Bank of England or government can do to keep prices in line with wages (without price controls, which could cause serious economic distortions), that is beyond my depth. Presumably, if someone knew, they would have proposed it. Cutting the tax burden would force the government either to cut services or to run a deficit, which tends to cause wage and price inflation.

There a couple of processes at work that current central banking theory and practice struggle to grapple with: 1) The days of national economies and financial systems that can be controlled by a single nation's central bank (the Bank of England in the case of the UK) are over. We now have a global economy and financial system that largely lies outside the control of individual central banks. Only concerted action by the world's central banks and financial regulatory institutions could hope to control the expansion (or contraction) of credit and the movement of prices globally. 2) The world's economy has increasingly become dependent on the ever-increasing expansion of credit and debt at a rate that now exceeds the growth of the real economy. However, debt cannot expand faster than economic output indefinitely without an eventual bout of debt failure and insolvency, such as we are seeing this year. It is hard for me to see an alternative to a painful cure of the global economy's addiction to ever-expanding debt (through a possibly severe recession), which would allow the economy to return to a sounder footing. Still, I hope that I am wrong and that an alternative will be found. Marco polo (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, very interesting. I suppose it's obvious that in a global economy inflation can't match wages because you can't increase the cost of your services just because prices you pay for things go up, unless of course your selling your services to the people who sell the things your buying.

Cutting the tax burden and increasing the deficit is I suppose what Thatcher did, and we all know how well that turned out.

Rather grim picture you paint though, dark times indeed. Caffm8 (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you any evidence that Thatcher increased the deficit? I thought the statistic showed that in 1987/88 the budget was in a surplus (public sector debt repayment). This after eight years of tax cutting--Johnbull (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about Economics, but I do watch the News... and I think I'm correct in saying that when the British Government devolved the power to set interest rates to the Bank of England, their remit was to do so with control of inflation as their only ambition. Therefore, they're not supposed to worry about unemployment, international trade, currency valuations etc. All of those things may indirectly affect inflation in their turn, but they're supposed to remain somewhat myopic. However, reminding everyone of my initial disclaimer, I may have misunderstood (or misremembered). --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Book in universal history

Are there any modern time equivalent books to Toynbee's "A Study of History"?217.168.3.246 (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Universal history is pretty unpopular these days—the idea that you can find simple models that can apply to civilizations and cultures vastly distant in time and space has been roundly criticized since Toynbee's time. That being said, you can sometimes find what might be called semi-popular books which do such a thing, Guns, Germs, and Steel being one such things. I've always thought Keegan's A History of Warfare had a wonderful pre-postmodern sensibility to it; the book could have just as easily been written in the early 1920s (barring, of course, the achronological implications) rather than the 1990s, as he happily groups all civilizations under common rubrics in making vast, sweeping claims about the nature of warfare from the more "primitive" of societies upwards to the most "advanced". Even though that this is not very fashionable, when done right it can be very compelling, and certainly quite fun to read. --24.147.86.187 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The field of historical sociology has not entirely given up sweeping comparative studies. For example, Michael Mann's Sources of Social Power. Then, there's Big History, which from its somewhat advertisement-like Wikipedia article I suspect of being a fad. Wareh (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, could someone suggest a comprehensive book of world history or an encyclopedia of history?217.168.3.246 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Have a look over The New Penguin History of the World by J. M. Roberts. It may just be what you are looking for, though it was originally published some thirty years ago. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat uncomfortable recommending a book I haven't read yet, but Civilizations by Felipe Fernandez-Armesto is supposed to be good. Random Nonsense (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice suggestions, thank you all. 217.168.1.146 (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Smoking

When did the legal age to smoke cigarettes become 18 years old ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.133.249 (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If you mean in the UK, it was 1st of October 2007, [3]. And of course that's the age to buy cigarettes rather than smoke them, or more specifically the age at which people can sell cigarettes to. Caffm8 (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the United States, it is a state-by-state issue. In states the minimum it is 19 years old. By 1998, no states had anything less than 18 as the minimum age. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In the US is it just regulating the sale, the purchase, or the physical act of smoking? Caffm8 (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends. In some states, if I recall, they regulate possession, which is included in the physical act of smoking, obviously. In California it is a minor offense (you get basically a ticket) to possess tobacco products if you are under age, at least it was about 7 years ago (I knew someone who got in trouble for it). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, See Smoking age Caffm8 (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Riots and Shakespeare

I do not understand. What is the connection between Shakespeare's Coriolanus and the French riots of February, 1934? 86.148.39.232 (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

According to this [4]: Early in 1934, when the French socialist government was close to collapse, a new translation of Coriolanus was staged at the Comédie Française in Paris. The production was perceived as an attack on democratic institutions. SaundersW (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this in reference to a specific passage that you don't understand? A new translation of Shakespeare's Coriolanus by René-Louis Piachaud had been mounted by Émile Fabre at the Comédie Française in December 1933. In January 1934 Camille Chautemps resigned, and was succeeded by Edouard Daladier, following the Stavisky financial scandal, and in that context, the production of Coriloanus was interpreted as right-wing propaganda against democratic institutions, particularly the Daladier government. Deladier (stupidly) fired Fabre and replaced him as general administrator of the Comédie Française; rioting started during a 4 February 1934 performance, and the theatre had to be closed. Fabre was reinstated the next day. The immediate precipitant of the riots of 6 February 1934 was the dismissal of Jean Chiappe. Daladier resigned in the wake of the riots. Coriolanus reopened in March 1934 without incident; its incendiary character was completely predicated on the political situation in which it was presented. - Nunh-huh 19:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It might also help you to know, 86.148, that the Daladier government was reacting to an anti-parliamentary interpretation that had been placed on Coriolanus by the right-wing pressure group, Action Française. In the growing heat engendered by the Stavisky Affair members of the group appeared in the theatre in force, cheering on the play's denunciations of political leaders. In Action Française, the movement's newspaper, praise of Coriolanus was used as an excuse to attack French democracy; to hurl accusations of corruption and villainy against the republic and its institutions in the light of every fresh revelation about Stavisky. Circulation shot up as Action Française urged people to come and protest in large numbers at the Chamber of Deputies, the first time in history, so far as I am aware, that Shakespeare contributed towards a major political riot-and a French one at that! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

To give some background on the actual play, it can easily be construed as anti-democratic. There are countless references within it to the problems the masses pose to the rulers of countries. The people are portrayed as a mob with fickle preferences, easily swayed by men of questionable character. It just ain't nice to the little folk. Wrad (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Male/Female Relationships

Wondering if there is any literature/research on particular female's tendancies to date men who are "jerks" (for lack of a better term). I'm not the victim nor the perpetrator of such a relationship, I was just wondering why some girls are attracted to "assholes" (again, for lack of a better term). If there is any information about this as to why or whatever, it'd be great.

Thanks!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.94.51 (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Some research has been done on the subject, but not much. See this news article. And as with any type of romance subject, numerous websites are available to inform others of potentially bad relationship choices such as liarscheatsandbastards.com with the intention of naming and shaming abusive or cheating former partners. 84.69.61.236 (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I do recall hearing about some research on that. The sociobiology/evolutionary psychology hypothesis, as I understand it, is in essence that aggressiveness and dominance are good qualities for offspring to have, making males with those qualities more desirable mates. However, those same qualities make them less desirable long-term partners and fathers, so that, as a biology-student friend of mine observes, 'women date schmucks but cheat on them with assholes'.

A quick search on scholar.google.com turns up this promising find: http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak_download&id_clanak_jezik=14203 and I'm sure there are other papers out there... Random Nonsense (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A good introduction to the subject is The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating by David Buss.--droptone (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Dr. Drew, young women who date jerks do so because their father (or father figure) was a jerk. Without really thinking about it, the girl is attracted to someone like her father, even if she hated dear old Dad. And then she has a couple of babies with the jerk, and the cycle begins again. I heard it on the radio so it must be true. —Kevin Myers 01:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

See also article Nice_guy... AnonMoos (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

alot of women seem to be attracted to the badboy image. why? I dunno, if they dated ppl like you and I the world would be a much better place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think that we're all nice guys? :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Too easily trusting? There's your answer! Wrad (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Literature: Stone Angel 2

the theme of this book is pride and I want to know if there are any book whose theme is pride? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.207 (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

...and Prejudice! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Pride is one of the great themes of literature as a character flaw. This stems from Ancient Greek theories of writing and especially drama, pertaining to works of Tragedy. The technical term for it in scholarly works is "hubris". Our article includes an (unsourced) claim that "It was considered the greatest sin of the ancient Greek world." You'll need to read the article to see how the definition of it was somewhat broader than our modern understanding. Notwithstanding this, hubris is the cause of the fall from power/grace/love/happiness of countless protagonists in equally countless works of fiction (especially drama) in just about any language you can imagine. The hubris article might help push you to various titles, but you'll be best off examining it in drama; it's a theme in many Shakespeare tragedies. --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

All I ask was list some books whose theme was based on pride. please give me some names of the books whose theme is based on pride. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.212 (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Candide
• Pride and Prejudice, as already mentioned
• The Crucible
• A Doll's House
• The Old Man and the Sea

...I could go on ... Corvus cornix_talk 19:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Inheritance tax (US)

I'm writing a paper on the justification of the inheritance tax. I want to get my facts straight before I babble. If I inherit a large sum of income from my parents but my parents have a large amount of debt too. However, if the debt is larger than the income i receive than the income (meaning i lose money rather than gain anything) will i still be taxed on the income I "received"? --74.73.3.71 (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No. What you receive is the proportion of your intended inheritance that has gone through the process of probate, through which claims on a deceased person's estate are settled. Debts are settled before the estate is divided among heirs. If the debts exceed the amount of the estate, then the heirs receive nothing (apart perhaps from personal items of limited value, such as a wedding dress). Heirs are taxed only on the amount that they actually receive after an estate is settled. In the United States, only estates exceeding $2,000,000 are subject to this tax. See Estate tax in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, inheritance taxes are taxes on capital, not income. AndyJones (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

November 26

A History of the English-Speaking Peoples

How does Churchill manage to write such bombastic prose yet appear eloquent?

Would any contemporary writer, no matter how talented, be laughed at as a pompous windbag for writing in that style?

lots of issues | leave me a message 00:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Because he is eloquent, though his eloquence is both original and that of a different age- arguably a more literate age-a little florid, perhaps, for present-day usage. I have to say, though, that the 'bombastic' quality to which you refer is something I associate more with his public speeches, rather than his historical writing, which proceeds more with simple narrative force. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree. Please look over volume 1 again if you think his writing "proceeds more with simple narrative force". lots of issues | leave me a message 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotsofissues (talk • contribs)

Regional Carbonated Beverage Preferences

I am from Texas. I like to drink Dr. Pepper the most. I also sometimes have a Coca-Cola. Recently I traveled a bit, namely to New York City and Seattle, Washington. While there I noticed some that there just WASN'T any Dr. Pepper. Not a single restaurant I went to had a Dr. Pepper. A lot didn't have Coke. Instead I was offered Pepsi. Why? Dr. Pepper is a profitable company with many customers. What makes the restaurants in The North think that northerners wouldn't want some Dr. Pepper? Just struck me as strange. On a side-note, I also noticed that it no one calls a carbonated beverage a soda in The North. Pop. That's what it is called. 'You want a pop?' I don't get that either. Thanks for any insight into this perplexing mystery. schyler (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Restaurants want to make money. If people regularly ask for Dr Pepper or Vimto or Sarsparilla or Dandelion and burdock or Lucozade or Cream soda or Ginger beer or Tizer or Orangina or Irn Bru they'll have them. Otherwise they won't because it would be a waste of money stocking something that nobody but the occasional tourist from Texas, or Yorkshire, or Scotland, would drink. I'm not a Northerner (well, not in the way you mean), but Dr Pepper and Sarsparilla remind me of the horrid cough medicines I used to be given as a kid. Bleh! Different places have different kinds of food and drink and sometimes different names for the same kinds. Potato chips are not the same thing everywhere, and I've been told that some people confuse fried bread and french toast. Sometimes regional delicacies are simply unobtainable elsewhere. For example, there are some benighted foreign lands where pickled eggs or pickled walnuts have never yet been seen. Now there's a terrifying thought. Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

While your 'make money' argument and 'cough medicine' explanation both make sense to me, WHY would the restaurants not make money if they offered Dr. Pepper? Thanks. schyler (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't answer most of these questions, but here is a map of regional terms for soft drinks. Note first that the map is the result of a rather informal survey, and second that while the map makes it look like "pop" dominates much of the north one should look at the percentages too -- "Soda" makes up over 50% of all replies. Also, the map makes it look like "pop" is the normal in the northwest, but I find that hard to believe. I grew up in Buffalo, where "pop" was definitely the norm, but now live in Seattle and almost always hear "soda" instead. Each reply is mapped by itself as well -- since many dots overlap one another the individual maps show where that occurs. There are other such maps, and full on studies of this on the Internet, but my google-fu is failing at the moment. As for why "pop", one could ask why "soda"? Both terms strike me as having obvious connections to the way carbonated drinks are made and how they behave. The mainly New England "tonic" strikes me as revealing how carbonated drinks have been around for a long time -- time enough for many terms to gain regional usage. There are many other examples of dialects by region in the US at that website, main map index here. Fun fun.. Pfly (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Just replace "Dr. Pepper" here with some other soda that isn't expected to be sold in restaurants by people in a region. Why not Barq's Root Beer? Why not Fanta? Why not Mountain Dew? Why not Sierra Mist? All of these are widely distributed soft drinks (I purposely chose ones distributed by Coke and Pepsi, so it's not an issue of them being obscure) and can be purchased at any well-equipped convenience store. But none of them are common in restaurants (at least not where I live, in the "North"). What's more interesting to me is why Dr. Pepper became popular in your region (no doubt because it was originally based there, yes?) as something other than "cola" or "non-cola" (Sprite, 7-Up, whatever), the two standard options for soft drinks. (Personally I'm in the "Dr. Pepper tastes like cough syrup" camp, but my wife loves it.) --24.147.86.187 (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It can also be a company thing,the restaurants may have contracts with certain suppliers who do not carry certain produces and therefore even if there is a demand,they would never be stocked...hotclaws 12:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC).

Most restaurants only offer a limited number of drinks 'on tap' as the equipment for storing, chilling and serving them is relatively expensive while a convenience store selling bottled drinks can offer a lot more variety. Here in the UK, Dr Pepper is pretty popular and can be found in most stores that sell fizzy drinks (as we generally call them, pop is sometimes used bu soda is quite a rare term except for specific types of drink, ie [Cream Soda]) but I've never seen it in a restaurant, the common choices are Coca Cola or Pepsi, a diet or max version of the same, Fanta or Tango (nearly always the orange version) and Sprite. Pubs generally sell lemonade instead of Sprite. As a previous person said, a lot of restaurants are tied into contracts with specific brands and are forbidden from selling rival products. GaryReggae (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I live near Seattle and go there occasionally for holidays and such, never had a problem getting a Dr. Pepper. You must have gone to the wrong places :p -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 14:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that restaurants that carry pop/soda in can or bottle form tend to have a larger selection than those that use "soda fountain" dispensers. There's a couple of reasons for that. First, cans and bottles tend to have a larger shelf lives (meaning you can wait longer for someone to buy 'em). Second, the smallest syrup bags on market are 10L, with most being 20L. Even 10L of syrup makes for a LOT of pop - you've gotta be reasonably sure the stuff is going to move and once you pop the bag, the best-before is going to run out even faster. Thus, even small convenience stores that sell cans/bottles will have more variety than most restaurants.

Ultimately, the answer comes down to what Angus mentioned - there are hundreds of varieties of soda/pop to choose from. It costs money to stock each and each brand you stock will to some degree 'eat' the movement on your other stocks, so that adding an extra line of drinks may increase your total sales, but partially at the expense of your other lines. What you want is just enough lines to cover people's basic requests. Matt Deres (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Americans in general have a larger range of sodas (we say fizzy drink or soft drink) than we do in Australia. We get vanilla coke, diet coke and coke zero. We had lemon coke for a while but it didn't catch on. I haven't even heard of half the ones mentioned above. In China, Pepsi definitely has the upper hand over Coke. (oh, and for us, chips can mean potato chips or fries - mondo bizarro). Steewi (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Restaurants in America will generally have a cola (Coke or Pepsi), a diet cola (Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi) and a lemon-lime drink (Sprite, Sierra Mist or Seven-Up). They sometimes have root beer. In the Ohio-Pennsylvania area, anyway, Dr. Pepper is a relative rarity at restaurants. I've seen it on self-serve fountains at Subway franchises. I suppose it's more common in Texas because the old Dr. Pepper company was based there. While the trio of cola, diet cola and lemon-lime is consistent nationwide, the fourth and fifth soda options, when they exist, tend to differ across regions. I've seen Fresca in soda fountains on the East Coast -- you'd never see that in the Midwest. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Threat of nuclear weapons in North Korea

Shall we share the opinions on the topic above, on the threat of nuclear weapons in North Korea? What is your value points of view on it? Ahlong1234 (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I think it is in a pretty good situation at the moment, if I dare say so. The North Koreans have shown enough of their ability that the Americans and others are willing to take it seriously and stop much of the "hardline regime change" talk that gets nothing for anybody except entrenchment, yet at the same time the North Koreans have at best a very small plutonium-based arsenal (a much safer proliferation risk than enriched uranium one would be) and no real evidence that they have much knowledge of how to assemble weapons successfully (their only test was a dud). With any luck they'll trade their remaining plutonium for some valuable treaties and everybody will be a bit safer for the short term. Or, of course, the negotiations could break down in another awful Bolton-esque fashion but we can hope that the Bush administration won't let him tank their only diplomatic success of this term. I am not too worried about the bugaboo of terrorism or them using the nukes against anyone else—neither of which are in the DPRK's interests, both of which would be a sure way to get into a war they couldn't win. The one thing that Kim Jong-Il seems to respect is threats to his ability to maintain power, and that's exactly what would be most jeapordized if he started letting nuclear bombs go off with his plutonium in them. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy medium betweem altruism and egoism?

When it concerns consequentialist ethics, I keep hearing about egoism and altruism. The former proposes that we should think only of what would produce the best outcome for ourselves, while the latter asserts that we should think of everybody but ourselves. However, it can easily be argued that most people don't fall into either extreme. What is the term for a happy medium between egoism and altruism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.37.31 (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that there are two kinds of third ways between the two moral theories you propose:

• Utilitarianism: which roughly holds that one should look at everyone's concerns (including your own) equally. This is a much more accepted moral theory than egoism or altruism. It would demand that with every thing you do you figure out whether that course of action would make every one in the entire world happiest, if there is a course of action that would make the total happiness in the world higher one should pursue that: it would be undoable.
• Caring for one's kin: instead of caring for only oneself or the whole world one could look out for the wellbeing of one's next of kin, friends or personal circle. This would be a form of rule utilitarianism: if everyone would care for one's kin then the world would be happier than if everyone tried to care for everyone else, as utilitarianism demands.

I would advise you to read utilitarianism for more information about this. C mon (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hirohito's speech

(moved to Language Desk)Edison (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Boswell's Life of Johnson

I've recently finished reading Boswell's Life of Johnson and it's peaked my interest to find out more about it. I've found some seemingly contradicting comments and reviews though. Some places, such as wikipedia, claim it to be an important part of the development of the modern biography...even the greatest biography ever written in the english language. However, there are several places I've seen where writers/critics will not even allow it to be called a "biography" proper or something like that. I guess my question is: what criteria has to be met for a book to be considered a biography? Is there a recognized list by an organization like MLA or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.69.82 (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Though Greene opines that Boswell's Life of Johnson is best considered a memoir or "Conversation with Johnson", that's just quibbling; most people recognize the work as a biography (successful or not). There is certainly no "standard" that need be met, nor does MLA have anything to say about it. A biography is the story of a life; if a critic wishes to add supplemental requirements to that definition, he's obligated to tell you what his (idiosyncratic) criteria are, or his essay won't mean much. An additional, unsolicited comment: if in any formal setting you use the phrase "piqued my interest", make sure you spell it "piqued" and not "peaked" - it's from the French, piquer, indicating your interest has been aroused, much as if it had been poked with a pike. - Nunh-huh 08:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

...which is not as bad as when it's slapped with a trout.  --Lambiam 19:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

...or prodded with a perch. —Kevin Myers 19:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

catholic church and "heresy" (in 1752?)

When did the catholic church stop referring to (any) protestants as heretics? I'd be interested in the general question, but am also wondering more particularly: A papal bull called Pierre Comte de Vignory (also known as Peter Graf von Vignory) a "calvinist" in 1752 (probably completely baseless, but that's not the point). Did they thereby claim the person was a "heretic", or what was the meaning of the term? Was it "only" slander? I should add that the (self-declared) "Comte" had died almost a century earlier, so there was obviously no talk about persecuting him. So if it was simply a matter of condemning him and his deeds, I wonder what exactly constituted this "condemnation" etc. Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding (and I am not at all an expert on canon law) that an excommunication issued by either a council or the pope must be explicitly revoked to be considered voided. That is, in layman's terms, a person or view that is declared to be heretical continues to be so until such a time as the church declares otherwise. That said, the statement that a person is a calvinist mean a couple of different things, depending on what the rest of the papal bull says: (1) If it is a bull of exommunication, then the "calvinist" statement is probably listed among the reasons for excommunication, and he remains excommunicated unless the excommunication has been officially lifted, (2) if the document is not explicitly excommunicating him, he might not have been. I wasn't able to find any info on the person in question, so I cannot answer more explicitly than that. Pastordavid (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's already giving me some general idea. Yes, it'd be interesting to find out what the bull was really about. Which makes me wonder: How many papal bulls were actually issued in the 1750s? Would the Pope issue them for any minor issue, or would he try to put several topics into one, etc.? And generally, which importance had a bull at that time? "Just another" bull, or something relatively important? I've read in the Wikipedia article that they're today reserved for few occasions, but also that it used to be different...

As for the supposed calvinist, yes, he's not very well-represented on the internet. I've been looking through some books on books.google.com to find some references, and this (about his death) has been my only English find so far. I guess his only claim to fame, at least according to the French and German books I've found, is that he was the commander of occupied Trier from 1673 to 1675 and during this time demolished virtually all monasteries, churches, Roman ruins etc. around the town. Well, and arguably the story in the English book about him dying on the way to battle when his horse started and fell with him from a bridge.

Anyways, this German book mentions the papal bull, which made me curious. The reference for the bull is "K Abt.213 Nr. 248", which apparently designates the section about the monastery/chapter St. Paulin (Trier) in the State Archives in Koblenz. Too bad that google hasn't yet got the permission of the Vatican to scan all their documents... :o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, if we are talking about 1752, the bull was issued by Benedict XIV. Some info about the bulls he issued can be found in our article, but only the basics. He was, it seems quite prolific, and one bullarium devotes four volumes to Benedict's bullae. Perhaps the bull in question was related to the rise of Jansenism or Freemasonry in France, both of which were significant issues at the time. If your latin is any good, you may want to peruse the this list of the encyclicals of Benedict XIV and see if an encyclical is really meant instead of a bull. Pastordavid (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again! Too bad, I'm afraid my Latin is unfortunately almost non-existent... Anyways, yes, I wonder if the bull was actually about a different topic. I'm not sure, though, if it was related to heresy--as I wrote, the real reason to condemn this man seem to have been his actions against monasteries etc. (for military, not religious reasons). The author writing about the papal bull portrayed it as if the claim that de Vignory was a calvinist may have just been a way to vilify him. That's why I got curious... --Ibn Battuta (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Celtic this and that, an ethnicist contrivance of the 18th-20th centuries or not?

The ancient Britons surely knew who the Keltoi and Galatians were, so why did they not claim to be of this heritage, if true--considering the perks with being evangelized by St. Paul? The Britons cherished a mutual Trojan origin with the Latins and the Irish cherished their Scythian roots. So, is there any respect ever going to be given them for their own designations, like there is for other established ethnolinguistic groupings of Europe, or are they to fit like a square peg in a round hole, forever marginalized by disinformation and racial supremacist Teutonisms of the Victorian era? So are they doomed to be Nordicized forever, at the loss of their own acclaimed heritage, supplanted by the whims of foreign ideologies and hostile academia? Scholars like the "Venerable" Bede propagandized the righteousness of his pagan brethren at the expense of the Christian Britons, considered culpable for the failure of the repulsion of the Saxons by Gildas's own account of his people. In scholastics, Teutonic stories are given a human face of legitimacy, even if folk history and oral traditions over a much longer period without accompanying literature, whilst the British and Irish suffer the indignation of being told that their culture is a total sham of mythology. The Latin and Hellenic cultures as they continued to have existed elsewhere, lose credibility but still save face because of the hegemony they wielded. How fair for Saxon mythology to be lauded and Arthur said to be a fraud? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You ask a lot of questions... and it's not clear which of them are genuine questions, as some read as rhetorical questions and soapboxing. I'll assume good faith and break down and simplify what I perceive as being your questions (and forgive me if I misunderstand some - others or you are welcome to edit this list) to aid answerers:

1. Why did the Ancient Britons choose to claim to be descendants of Trojans, rather than more salubrious peoples?
2. Given that they did claim to be descendants of the Trojans, why do modern scholars ignore this and designate them as Nordic?
3. Why do scholars deride the Arthurian legends as myth, but accept Saxon tales as rooted in fact? --Dweller (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Some attempted answers:

1. Overlooking the temptation to say that the British penchant for supporting the underdogs is clearly well-established, and assuming that the claim was a falsification by someone/s at some point (as your question seems to imply) perhaps this is to with the well-known tale of Rome's origins coming from the same source (cf the Aeneid) and therefore a parallel with the traditions of validity, civility and imperium. But more than anything, this question is almost impossible to answer without speculating, as the earliest surviving relevant texts may well significantly post-date the "creation" of the legend.
2. Are you referring in this section to the racial origins of Britons or the British? The British people, like their language and landscape, are a palimpsest. The Briton strand has been overlaid by so many "invasions" its importance, even if your assertion is true, is much diminished by the passing of millennia.
3. Which Saxon tales are you referring to? Also, I'm unsure of your characterisation of the Arthurian tales. I've seen many scholarly workings of the Arthurian legend, attempting to give historical validity to elements of it in a variety of different periods/cultures/locations.

Hope that's helpful. --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, why does anybody take the "Celtic" category seriously, if without foundation? Why is the Trojan heritage of the Latins accepted, but not the Britons? I guess I'm looking for systemic bias to leave the Britons alone. For centuries upon end, the Britons and Europeans in general accepted these stories, until the Protestant Reformation. I was essentially asking, why not give the Britons respect for their traditional history, even at the basics of what they mean, with the Mediterranean origins of this people? The Cornish also have a tale of Phoenicians as being some root of their heritage. Everyone in the British Isles is supposed to laud or accept the Saxon story as their own. Why is that there is a lot of uncritical support for their own stories? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've removed the soapboxing elements of your last post. Please do not soapbox here. This board is for asking and answering questions. --Dweller (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, to understand your questions, it might even be helpful to hear your assumptions given that they seem to differ quite a bit from common historic assumptions. On the other hand, I'm not sure if this is a good forum for long descriptions of people's opinions... - From what I understand from your "questions", however, I'd like at least to question your assumption that "the Trojan heritage of the Latins [is] accepted". Yes, there is an old and beautiful tale about Aeneas travelling to Italy after being beaten out of Turkey. But neither genetically nor culturally, the Romans are today "accepted" to be Trojan. Regarding historic facts of the Arthurian tales, Dweller has already said what there is to say. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Celtic" is a linguistic category, and a perfectly valid one. Welsh, Irish, Cornish, Scots Gaelic, Manx and Breton are related to ancient Gaulish, Galatian and Celtiberian. This is well established. However, despite sensationalist newspaper reporting, it's fairly irrelevant to genetic origins. Languages can spread without large-scale population movement. A large majority of the gene pool of Britain and Ireland is believed to have arrived in the islands shortly after the Ice Age, with subsequent "invasions" contributing rather small proportions. The Norman conquest was very small in terms of people, but Norman French had a massive influence on the English language. The Normans, incidentally, were Germanic-speaking only a few generations earlier.

The British legend of Trojan origin is fairly obviously cribbed from the Aeneid, and very likely derives from a cultural cringe to the Romans, like those Pacific islanders who worship the Duke of Edinburgh (nobody, incidentally, gives much credence to the Roman myth of Trojan origins these days - that was more a cultural cringe to the ancient Greeks. All Roman history before Polybius's time is now considered unreliable legend, and more unreliable the further back you go). The Irish origin legends start at the Tower of Babel, takes in Egypt at the time of Moses, Scythia, a period of wandering in the Mediterranean (including Sirens!), a period in Spain, and finally invading Ireland, and is equally obviously cobbled together from the Aeneid, the Bible, and late antique Christian histories by the likes of Jerome and Isidore. The only element of it that seems likely to derive from genuine native tradition is that Ireland was settled from Spain. I also don't think the tales of Hengist and Horsa, with their clearly symbolic names, are taken any more seriously than those of Arthur these days. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

St bede, in proving English wrote poetry in their own langugae

What did St. bede the Venerable use to prove that there is an evidence that the English wrote poetry in their own language (not in English words)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.91.246 (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The story of Caedmon, in Book IV, Chapter 24 of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, which you can read here in Latin (where it is actually in chapter 22), or here in English. Our own Caedmon article should be useful enough though, it is a Featured Article. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

West Saxon, as quoted by Bede:

Nū sculon herigean heofonrīces Weard.
Meotodes meahte ond his mōdgeþanc.
weorc Wuldorfæder, swā hē wundra gehwæs.
ēce Drihten. ōr onstealde.
Hē ǣrest sceōp eorðan bearnum
heofon to hrōfe. hālig Scyppend;
þā middangeard monncynnes Weard.
ēce Drihten. æfter tēode,
fīrum foldan, Frēa ælmihtig.

Anglian, as presumably originally spoken:

Nū scylun hergan heafænrīcaes Uard.
Metudæs maecti end his mōdgidanc.
uerc Uuldurfadur, swē hē uundra gihuaes.
ēci Dryctin. ōr āstelidæ.
Hē ǣrist scōp aelda barnum
heben til hrōfe. hāleg Scepen;
thā middungeard moncynnæs Uard.
ēce Dryctin. æfter tīadǣ,
fīrum foldan, Frēa allmectig.

Are all those languages up there in Old English?

18th century music

can you please tell me exactly what would constitute 18th Century Musical STYLE? Schwalbe1 (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to European classical music, major developments took place during the 18th century, and there is no single 18th century music style. The 18th century begins in the heydays of Baroque music, with composers like Antonio Vivaldi, George Frederick Handel, and Johann Sebastian Bach. Through a transitional period, with innovators like Domenico Scarlatti and Christoph Willibald Gluck, this segues into the Classical period, with composers like Johann Christian Bach, Franz Joseph Haydn, and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. The articles linked to contain further information.  --Lambiam 19:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the 18th century musical style was mostly baroque, moving into classical. Baroque style's most overt characteristic was the ornamentation on the melody, which was not completely notated, but a proper musician would be expected to be able to properly ornament a piece from looking at the melody. Steewi (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Himmler's Economy

Please tell me how, why, and by what means, the German SS attempted to develop its own system of business and finance. Thank you very much. Jane Hardy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.38.201 (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Jane, it is a story of mass expropriation as well as one of mass murder. From the very beginning Heinrich Himmler had an eye out for commercial and financial opportunities, designed to support and extend his SS empire. There was a certain degree of necessity to this, inasmuch as the organistaion from the very beginning was expected to be largely self-financing. Even after the seizure of power in 1933 matters did not noticeably improve. Wilhelm Frick, the man who controlled state funds, was an old enemy of the Reichsfüher; and Franz Xaver Schwarz, the man who controlled party funds, was notoriously tight-fisted. Though the SS was given the task of running the new concentration camps, these were expected to be run at no cost to the state, with prisoners even required to buy their own bowls and spoons. Before the war it was even possible for those rich enough to buy their freedom.

The outbreak of war opened fresh commercial opportunities, with Himmler taking control of several confiscated enterprises. In 1942 he began a campaign against beer consumption in Germany, aimed, so it was said, at reducing drunkenness by promoting mineral water. The truth is that by this time the SS was the main distributer of mineral water in Europe. The more mineral water consumed, the higher the profits for Himmler; it's as cynical as that.

But the real break comes with the formal launch of the Holocaust. The purpose of the infamous Wannsee Conference was not to announce the mass-murder of Europe's Jews-that was already in progress-but to discuss and co-ordinate strategy and financing. Adolf Eichman was given the task of ensuring that the mass deportations would proceed with the minimum financial burden to the organisation. He did this by getting people to pay for their own transports. In other words, the deportees would be carried to the death camps with tickets paid for by themselves, at special excursion rates agreed with the Reichsbahn, half-price for children.

Of greater interest to Himmler was the disposable wealth that these people would leave behind, which is why, a few weeks after the meeting at Wansee, the SS Wirtschaft und Verwaltungshauptampt (Economic and Administrative Head Office) or WVHA was set up. With Operation Reinhard underway Odilo Globocnik was also given the task of accounting for the wealth that would naturally fall to the SS administration. Under Globocnik's direction the Reichsbank had to open seventy-six separate acconts to cope with the huge deposits accrued. By January 1944 he estimated in a report to Himmler that Aktion Reinhard had yielded up 178.7 million marks in cash and gold coins, as well as 16,000 carats in diamonds. What he did not say was that he, along with a great many others, was on the take, keeping one set of books for himself, and another set for the organisation.

But despite the skimming SS enterprises was now operating at a profit. The whole camp system was now functioning as one huge commercial enterprise, where wealth, if not stolen, was created by slave labour, worked to death in the process. Workers were also leased-out to adjacent businesses in the private sector, I. G. Farben being among the biggest of these customers. The whole thing was the economy of death. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Jacobite questions

I have some questions relating to the Scottish Jacobites and would be grateful for your help. First, why do so many Jacobite portraits feature a green ribbon? Was this a party badge? Second, Who is red John of the Battles? Third, what does a black ribbon signify? Thanks. David C Bruce (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe "Red John of the Battles" was John Campbell, 2nd Duke of Argyll. DuncanHill (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A green ribbon was part of the insignia of a Knight of the Thistle, which is of course a Scottish Order. DuncanHill (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The black ribbon you are refering to could be the sash of the Order of the Garter. See the description in the article. Pastordavid (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The black ribbon, usually bunched into a cockade, was the badge worn by the clans loyal to the house of Hanover. The green ribbon does indeed refer to the Order of the Thistle, founded by James VII, from whose name the term Jacobite comes. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Black cockade Hanoverian, white cockade Jacobite. (I am now whistling Gone with the laddie in the white cockade...) Shimgray | talk | 01:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Mcferran is highly steeped in Jacobite lore... AnonMoos (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Rome and Constantinople

Why did the eastern Roman Empire survive the onslaughts of the fifth century and the western did not? Pacific231 (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Because the foederatii were in collusion with the Huns, so they could win the spoils of Rome by feasting on her remains through such double-agency. This led to the creation of the Holy Roman Empire. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, not exactly, the HRE was not created until long after the fifth century. Some sweeping generalities are that the East was far richer than the West and could pay off the barbarians (or hire them as foederatii, as mentioned), the West was neglected because the real capital had been moved to Constantinople and Rome (or Milan or Ravenna) was the seat of the weaker of the two emperors, Italy is geographically more vulnerable than Thrace (Constantinople is surrounded by water on three sides, and the Germanic/Hunnic tribes were not seafaring people; even then the Theodosian Walls made the land side almost impenetrable; the Carpathians and the Danube make travelling further west the more attractive option), most of the land in the East was in Anatolia, Asia, and Egypt, which the Germanic/Hunnic tribes never reached (but they were extremely vulnerable to the Arabs shortly afterwards; although remember that the other areas of the East, Greece and Illyria, were similarly overrun by Slavs), etc...that's a start, anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Still, the HRE was the ultimate end of the barbarian infiltration in the West, although they had to prove themselves capable of ruling and were eventually, tentatively given the honor of imperium by the Papacy, which was trying to continue Rome and keep the religious status quo on par with the stability of the East. What of the Aurelian Walls? Wasn't Rome much more built up than Constantinople through the centuries that led to its making? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The east had a stable agriculture, while the west was running dry, hurting their economy and standard of living. Wrad (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• That's not entirely true, since the largest grain sources were from the Province of Africa in the Prefecture of Italy, while Gaul and Britain had no particular shortage of crops either. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The crisis for both parts of the Empire really begins with the defeat and death of the Emperor Valens at the Battle of Adrianople in 378AD. Theodosius the Great managed to stabilise the situation for a time by co-opting the semi-independent barbarian tribes into the army as foederatii. As a strategy this was not new; the Romans had been in the practice of absorbing potentially useful auxiliaries for centuries. The problem was on this occasion there were simply too many, and the conventional Roman forces were too weak to deal with these new allies if the turned troublesome, as they did after the death of Theodosius in 395. The commander of the Visigoths, Alaric, declared himself a king and started to ravage the eastern provinces. This came at an especially bad time, for the empire was divided between two particularly weak rulers, Arcadius in the east and Honorius in the west, whose governments intrigued shamelessly, one against the other. Caring nothing for the wider welfare of the Empire, and anxious only to be rid of Alaric, the chamberlain Eutropius, chief minister to Arcadius, tempted Alaric to the west by granting him the top command of the province of Illyricum. Now another dangerous precedent had been set; for Alaric was both Barbarian king and Roman general, well placed to exploit the political divisions within the empire.

Eutropius' actions had, with deliberation, created huge problems for Stilicho, guardian of Honorius and a talented soldier, who was viewed in the east as a political enemy. To defend Italy Stilicho was forced to find troops wherever he could, abandoning Britain, and weakening the Rhine fortresses, which added still further to his problems by allowing new groups of barbarians to cross the river in force, entering Gaul virtually without opposition. They were never to be removed. Stilicho's enemies used this as an excuse to have him executed, causing thousands of troops loyal to him only to join up with Alaric, who entered Rome itself in 410AD.

The east learned quickly from the process of disintegration and collapse in the west by closing ranks among the leading political class, thus avoiding the destructive public struggles which was doing so much to weaken the remainder of the empire. Barbarian commanders in the eastern army were, in time to come, not allowed to become too powerful, usually by keeping them seperate from a foederatii power base. In the west-what was left of the west-stability could only be achieved by granting ever greater concessions to barbarian strongmen, and by allowing ever larger foederatii 'kingdoms'. In the east power was transmitted through established bureaucratic structures in church and state; in the west much depended on the transitory and uncertain authority of a single strongman, like Stilicho, Flavius Aetius and then Ricimer. By this means a serious gap grew up between the nominal authority of the Emperor, usually hidden away in Ravenna, and the real authority of a virtual military dictator. When the Attila and the Huns came there was nothing at all in the west to deter their progress, no great strategic barrier like Constantinople in the east. At the Battle of Chalons in 451, the last epic contest of the Roman west, one barbarain army faced another barbarian army; the barbarians won.

After the murder of Aetius the empire in the west was really no more that a series of dying fragments, with almost no tax base, where the fate of one shadowy emperor after another lay in the hands of Ricimer, before the last was sent packing by yet another ambitious commander in 476. In the east the great gate of Constantinople kept the Huns and others out of the rich and populated provinces of Anatolia and beyond, safe for as long as relations were good with the Persian Empire. The east was certainly saved by its shorter frontiers, by its greater wealth and by its strategically placed capital. But in the end perhaps the only thing that really mattered was that it had a far higher degree of statecraft; a reliance not on the strength of generals but the cunning of politicians. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

See Romulus Augustus for information on the end of the empire in the west. See Fall of Constantinople for information on the end of the empire in the west. Edison (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of an article on the Battle of the Winter Palace ...?

Because Wikipedia is so good on this kind of stuff I was surprised not to find an entry for the Battle of the Winter Palace early in the Russian Revolution. Further, there appears to be no explicit entry in the index for the Battle, even though it is mentioned twice in the entry for the Russian Revolution.

Assuming I'm not missing something, I hope someone who knows the details from the White Russian side can write something. (I once had a friend whose father was a 17 year old cadet in the Czar's Army, and he fought in that battle.)

The American version is described by John Reed at http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/bolshevik.htm .

Again, my hat is off to Wikipedia and those who create and edit the entries.

-- Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark S. Tuttle (talk • contribs) 21:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Mark. I suppose the thing is that the Bolshevik attack on the Winter Palace was in every sense anti-climatic; more of a walk-in than a battle. Anyone whose view of the event is shaped by retrospective depictions, like that of Sergei Eisenstein's October, is almost certain to be disappointed by just how pedestrian the whole thing actually was. This point is made in the existing article on the October Revolution. You can, if you wish, expand it a little to introduce some more detail, though I am not convinced that it deserves a separate page, certainly not one with such a grand title!

I hope you don't mind if I draw your attention to one or two small inaccuracies in your submission. First, your friend's father may very well have served as a cadet in the Tsar's army, but if he was present in the Winter Palace in October/November 1917 he would, of course, have been fighting for the Russian Provisional Government, headed at the time by Alexander Kerensky. The last Tsar, Nicholas II, had abdicated in February/March. Second, it is not really correct to describe the defenders of the Palace, such as they were, as 'White Russians'. The term 'White Guard' emerges later during the Russian Civil War as another term for the counter-revolutionary Volunteer Army, which had nothing at all to do with Kerensky, or the liberals and socialists who dominated the Provisional Government. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Does the pedestrian nature of the battle make it significant enough to warrant an article? I would imagine that such a soft battle wouldn't occur very often. Steewi (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Although he never in any real sense ruled Russia, Nicholas II's brother Michael was at least briefly the last Tsar. See Russian Provisional Government. Xn4 03:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

November 27

Republican single-party ambitions?

Earlier this year I saw an essay or position paper asserting Republican ambitions for permanent control of the Presidency and Congress. It listed most of the major players at the American Enterprise Institute as participants. It may have been an AEI document, an article in American Spectator, or something in TrueOut — I've looked at all three but can't find the article. Can anyone help identify it? I'd like to find a copy if possible. Faucon24 (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the phrase for this plan is the "Permanent Republican majority", if that helps. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Would that be Project for the New American Century? Or perhaps, Contract with America? Corvus cornix_talk 19:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The person most closely associated with the plan for a "permanent Republic majority" is Karl Rove, as discussed in this Slate article. However, I don't think that this phrase is the title of a document. Instead, it is just Rove's name for his political goal and the strategy he outlined to reach it. Marco polo (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Nazism and Stalinism

What were the main structural differences, if any, between the Nazi and the Stalinist states?217.43.14.232 (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The first, one might say, was 'dictatorship by consensus', the other 'dictatorship by coercion'. That is to say, the Nazis were lifted to power on a wave of solid electoral support; and that while terror was employed, and continued to be employed, against opponents and outsiders, notably the Jewish community, there was otherwise an element of predictability about the whole thing. The Bolsheviks, in contrast, had seized power, and held on to it, in isolation from the population at large. This meant, in effect, that in achieving their political ends terror was central to the whole system of change and development; that no section of the community was exempt from a process that was arbitrary and unpredictable at all levels, and at most times. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And though I'd be the first to admit I don't know a ton about the basic power structures of either, my general impression from what I do know is that the Soviet state was at all points excessively bureaucratic (committees that oversaw committees that oversaw committees that oversaw committees) whereas the brief Nazi state was extremely streamlined (cf. Gleichschaltung) with much clearly delineation of power. As a consequence, if i were to draw sweeping conclusions from very little data here, I would say that in all areas except that of direct prosecution by secret police, the Nazi state was characterized more by quick action while the Soviet state was at almost all time characterized by muddling, red tape, and an almost deadening bureaucratic weight. (Again, when you are talking about secret police, the Soviets were no slackers, but in other areas...) --24.147.86.187 (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You may be surprised, 24.147, by just how 'uncoordinated' the Nazi state really was, a jungle of overlapping and competing authorities and interests. In the area of foreign policy, for example, there were, at one time, no fewer than three mutually antagonstic agencies at work; the Foreign Office itself as well as separate offices reporting to Joachim von Ribbentrop and Alfred Rosenberg. Unlike the Stalinist system, which proceeded along clear and predictable channels, the Nazi dictatorship was chaotically ill-organised, a reflection of Hitler's dislike of rational decision-making and bureaucratic order of any kind. Albert Speer has said of this 'I would often ask myself did he really work? Little was left of the day; he rose late in the morning and conducted one or two official conferences; but from the subsequent dinner on he more or less wasted his time until the early hours of the evening. His rare appointments in the late afternoon were imperiled by his passion for looking at building plans. The adjutants often asked me: "please don't show any plans today."' Clio the Muse (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's true, especially about Hitler's fondness for mutually competing/overlapping organizations. There were some instances in the Soviet state of this sort of behavior but I think you're right that it is more indicative of Hitler's management scheme than the Soviet one. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism has extended discussion of this... AnonMoos (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Longest postal strike in Canada?

Anyone know when it was and how long it was??

Barksducks (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Torpedos

Does anyone have any further information on supposed British 'torpedo' attacks on Boulogne during the Napoleonic Wars? Qurious Cat (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The torpedo was developed by Robert Fulton, the steamboat and submarine guy. As you can see from this picture here at the National Maritime Museum website it bore no resemblance to a modern torpedo. H. W. Dickinson's Robert Fulton, Engineer and Artist (1913) is available here at Rochester University and the torpedo episodes are in Chapter 8. Short version: the torpedo was not a great success and Fulton was not happy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There were three attacks on Boulogne in all, one in October-resulting in the destruction of a pinnace-and a further two in November. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The CROWN of James VI and I

I am trying to find out which crown James I would have worn at his coronation in England; because as far as i can find out, all of the crown jewels of the day were destroyed by Oliver Cromwell, including all of those of the house of Stewart. I am assuming that in Scotland the crown jewels would have been the same as the those of his mother Mary Queen of Scots, but i am struggling to find any visual clues as to what his coronation set would have been like, or what jewels/motifs they included. I cannot find anything about his coronation in englands, and as he ascended the throne in scotland at only 1 year old, i cant imagine he wore very much! any advise or references on where to look would be greatly appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janinej (talk • contribs) 16:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

James VI and I undoubtedly wore the more ancient of the English Crown Jewels, as he ascended to the English throne in 1603; prior to that, when crowned as king of Scotland in 1567, he probably donned the Honours of Scotland. Cromwell came into power in 1653, and did indeed melt down almost all of the crown jewels, which have since been replaced with new pieces (beginning in 1661). Pastordavid (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

By what method was he able to melt jewels? Edison (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The term "Crown Jewels" includes their settings; it's no challenge to melt a crown, sword, or orb. - Nunh-huh 23:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The collection was broken up, the jewels sold off and the metal melted down. The gold was sent to the mint for coining. As far as the Scottish regalia are concerned, Janine, these were hidden from Cromwell, first at Dunnottar Castle, and then in the parish church of Kinneff, where they remained until the Restoration in 1660. They were last used in full ceremony during the Scottish coronation of Charles II at Scone in January 1651. Today the Honours of Scotland, the oldest surviving crown jewels in the United Kingdom, are on display at Edinburgh Castle. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fascism and malaria

Mussolini and his government highlighted the draining of the Pontine marshes and the eradication of malaria as one of its successes. How successful were they, or is this all myth? Witch of the West (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As with so many other aspects of the Fascist state there is a lot of bombast and little real substance. Some progress was made in the early days against malaria-though at no greater rate than that previously made by the Liberal regime-but this slowed considerably in the 1930s. By the Second World War malaria in southern Italy was as bad as ever. The first serious inroads against the disease came with the arrival of the Americans, armed with DDT. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

English succession

Prior to the treaty of London in 1604 had the Spanish given up all hope of placing a catholic on the throne of England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.83.237 (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Philip III had given some serious consideration of pushing the claim of his half-sister, the Infanta Isabella, who had a tenuous claim through descent from John of Gaunt, though neither she nor her husband, Albert, Archduke of Austria, had any desire to interfere in the English succession. Although by the time Elizabeth I died in March 1603 Philip had given up on Isabella he and his counsellors were still thinking of a suitable alternative candidate for the vacant throne, possibly from within the English Catholic community. Philip was hopeful that, once the exercise was succesful, the grateful Catholics would pay for the expense of an invasion and even cede the Isle of Wight to Spain, to allow him a suitable base to keep an eye on both England and France. This fantasy came to and end when Isabella and Albert sent an envoy to England to congratulate James on his peaceful succession. Philip felt obliged to follow their example. The Treaty of London was the political corollary of this, ending some twenty years of warfare. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ulrich Fleischhauer

Please can anyone tell me any more about this individual? Chaz B. (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite an interesting figure, it seems. A retired Lt. Colonel, Ulrich Fleischhauer was part of the Nazi propaganda machine and ran the Nazi World Service (Weltdienst). In 1935, while admiting that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a forgery, he published a 4 volume work based on the Protocals, the Dictionary of Jewish Atrocities (mentioned in Time [5]). Pastordavid (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Pastordavid, I'm a little puzzled by what you have written here. Do you have a reference for Fleischhauer's 1935 admission that the Protocols were a forgery? He could have hardly have made such a claim and remained an official of the Nazi state. Do you have in mind the action of 1934-5 in Berne against the Swiss publishers of the Protocols? On this occasion Fleischauer appeared latterly as a witness for the defence, supporting the veracity of the forgery in written and oral evidence. The Swiss court was certainly not convinced, but I was not aware that Fleischauer had been forced to retract his defence? He certainly remained in charge of the Weltdienst until 1939, when it was taken over by Alfred Rosenberg. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Clio, if you have access to sources about the Berne trial, could you help with the following question, which I have also posted at the article talk page?

The article makes reference to a "Cantonal Court of Bern" and to a "Swiss Court of Appeal". As a Swiss jurist, I'm puzzled, because to my knowledge no such courts exist or have existed. I guess that the trial court was either a District Court (Kreisgericht) or a single judge (Gerichtspräsident), although they may have been called differently in 1934; or (for some reason) the Supreme Court of the Canton of Berne (Obergericht des Kantons Bern). The "Swiss Court of Appeal" is almost certainly the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgericht). Can anyone verify this from the original sources? Sandstein (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Sandstein; the only source I have on the Berne trial is in a biography of the French anti-semite, Louis Darquier de Pellepoix, which says nothing about the type of court in question. The action, however, was brought by the Berne Jewish community against Swiss and German Nazis 'for publishing and distributing improper literature.' Would there not, perhaps, be a standard judicial proceedure for dealing with slanderous or inflamatory material? Clio the Muse (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein, this project's abstract (can't log in, sorry) mentions trials at the "Amtsgericht Bern (1933-35)" and the "Obergericht Bern" (1937). According to this site, the main hearings began in November 1933 in the "Richteramt V". Then there is also Traugott Zimmerli's paranoid critique of reports on the trials' history which were broadcast by radio DRS II, and printed in the weeklies WoZ and Der Beobachter in 1997/98. This angry and rambling rebuttal goes into some detail, specifically on Loosli and Fleischhauer's respective bias, allegedly quotes trial minutes, though out of context, but it might help you find the right primary or secondary sources. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Clio and Sluzzelin. It's as I supposed: the Richteramt was the general criminal court of first instance, equivalent to today's Gerichtspräsident, and would have dealt with libel and slander cases. The case would then have been appealed to the Obergericht, and from there possibly to the Bundesgericht. Since I am in Berne, I'll check whether there are more detailed dead-tree sources, such as court records, in the local university library that could be used to correct the article. Sandstein (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Clio, I inferred it (perhaps incorrectly) from the 1935 time article linked to above: Not disconcerted by the fact that the Protocols are forgeries, Colonel Fleischhauer thundered, "They are in the Jewish spirit! Who can deny Jews aspire to that world domination set forth in the Protocols? Jews take world domination by Jews for granted!" I took that to mean that Colonel Fleischauer accepted the fact in question, but did not let it alter his views. Pastordavid (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Pastordavid. I think I would take this statement as a celebration of the document, rather than an admission that it was of dubious provenance. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Social reform in Prussia

To what extent did the social reforms of Otto von Manteuffel anticipate the later policy of Bismarck? Bel Carres (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, Bel, quite an important figure in Prussian history, though not much known now in the Anglo-Saxon world beyond academic circles. As Minister of the Interior, and then Minister President during the reign of Frederick William IV, it was his intention to detach the working people of Prussia, both peasant and proletariat, from the liberal bourgeoisie. It was under his guidance that that the small tenant farmers to the west of the Elbe were freed of their remaining feudal obligations. In industry, uniform wage rates were introduced and inspectors appointed to monitor factory conditions. Arbitration courts were created to oversee industrial disputes, holidays enforced, and legislation enacted to prevent the employment of children under the age of twelve. It was in these areas of social legislation that Prussia under Manteuffel took in lead in Europe at the time. The aim was to ensure that Prussia would be a well-governed state in the interests of all of its people, who would, in consequence, be bound in loyalty to the crown, and less attracted to the ideologies of the liberals and the socialists, with their sectional, class-based, politics. Manteuffel thus set the parameters of future Prussian and German social policy, later developed still further by Albrecht von Roon and then Bismarck. It explains why universal manhood suffrage was first adopted by the conservative elites, though paradoxically still held in much suspicion by the supposedly more progressive liberal movement. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

south africa

In 1939, was the Union of South Africa a constitutional monarchie? I know that they were a dominion governed by by britain, and had their own prime minister and everything, but i just want to make sure. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.215.174 (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was. It remained, as the Union of South Africa, a dominion under the crown until May, 1961, when the Republic of South Africa was created. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

November 28

Socialist economy

Would a socialist economy similar to the Soviet Union's be able to prosper in the modern age? From reading Wikipedia, it seems that the USSR had a very strong economy in the 1940's and 1950's, but that it eventually failed because business decisions were too numerous and had to be made too quickly for the five-year plans to handle. --Bowlhover (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as they were following Lysenkoism in the 1940s, their agricultural system was doomed for failure.--droptone (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to see, Bowlhover, how the Stalinist 'command model' could ever prosper in a technically advanced world, where one economy is deeply linked to another. It can, and did, work as a path to development and modernisation in an economically backward society like Russia in the 1930s, though at an extraordinarily high human cost. Even so, while building an impressive industrial base, the Soviet system created some severe long-term problems in both the agricultural and consumer sectors, weaknesses which led in the end to the collapse of the whole unstable structure. But the greatest weakness of all, as you clearly understand, is that a modern economy, and modern forms of economic development, demand a high degree of initiative and flexibility in decision-making and the optimum use of resources, not allowed for in the top-down Stalinist model. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This Is Not A Homework Question.

I swear to god, this is not a physics question I read this question in a physics magazine. A plane accelerates from at a rate of10.0 m/s How far will the plane travel in one second. The Knowns

are Vi=U.O MS Vf-10.0 MS t- 1s

Unknownn d= Formula VF Vi tat Please, help I know you have a policy aganist homework question but this is NOT one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.102.229 (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You've apparently misread the question. "m/s" is "meters per second". It is a velocity, not an acceleration. It appears that the initial speed is 0.0 m/s and the final velocity is 10.0 m/s after 1 second. That would make the acceleration 10 m/s² (change in velocity over time). Calculating the distance traveled is pretty much a calculus problem, but the formula has been reduced to simple algebra as ut + 1/2 at². Your initial velocity (u) is zero, so ignore the ut. The 1/2 at² = 1/2 10m/s² (1s)² = 5m. -- kainaw™ 02:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think Kainaw's advice is correct. In the future, though, I recommend using Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science for questions like this, as you're more likely to find people who understand physics equations on that page. --M@rēino 16:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nude Bowl location

I've been searching the Internet for a source containing the location of the Nude Bowl. I know it was destroyed about 15 years ago and there is a housing development being built on top of where it was. I want to verify that where I remember it being located is the actual spot it was located. Did anyone here visit it and remember how you got there? I know the chance of finding a bunch of people who skated in southern CA in the mid 80's and now frequents the Wikipedia RD is asking for a lot. -- kainaw™ 02:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw on the talk page that you have tried to locate it via satellite imagery and have a candidate site. Why don't you give me the coordinates of the site you think it is at? I'll happily look through older satellite photos from the 1990s of the same place and see if it looked different then. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, if the housing development you refer to is that large white area to the west of Joshua Tree, from what I can tell that wasn't there until 2006 or so. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The link is here. I believe that is 33.961462,-116.59885. When it was there (before 1993), you should be able to see the kidney bean shaped pool and at least 3 rectangular building foundations. -- kainaw™ 04:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing jumps out at me in the 1996 map. Could it be a bit farther up the mountain? If you go up about a mile and a half you come across this interesting structure, which looks more correct to my unknowing eye. It was there in 1996 too.--24.147.86.187 (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The "interesting" structure is not the Nude Bowl. It is a Church of Scientology building - I drove past that area many times. I was looking around the area - which was difficult because it kept snapping back to 2007 every time I touched the map. I couldn't find anything and then I remembered that it was destroyed in 1993 - so it wouldn't be on a 1996 map. -- kainaw™ 13:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting about the Scientology building—good to know! Yeah, that site's interface sucks. I would have hoped that some remnants of the destroyed site would still be there (the foundations should be visible from the air, for example). I'll poke around and see if I can find earlier photos of the area; I don't know why but for some reason I want to find it!! --24.147.86.187 (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What make of guitar is this?

I suppose this is the right part of the Reference Desk, as this is a question related to music - I was recently watching Blancmange's peformance of "Living on the Ceiling" on the DVD of The Tube and noticed that Neil Arthur was playing some sort of guitar I didn't recognise.

Here's a screen capture (the best one I could get from the clip). I'm pretty certain that it's some form of Epiphone, as I believe that's their logo I see underneath the strings. If anyone could tell me what sort of Epiphone it is, I'd be very grateful. 211.30.58.79 (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a Coronet to me. Mid 60s. I'm not an Epiphone expert, so I can't pinpoint the year. -- kainaw™ 02:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This does not look like an epiphone to me but rather like a squire or fender or some sort of remake there of. However, it does seem to have a scalloped neck which indicates to me the it is probably a top of the rang Fender, as scalloped necked guitars are rare, expensive, and oh so beautiful, please excuse me while I drool. you migyt want to check out www.driskill.com. some of the most beautiful axes EVER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I checked with a coworker here (who is the closest thing to a guitar expert I have access to). He said it is definitely a 1965 Epiphone Coronet which came in a reddish-brown cherry-wood finish. Your image has the color messed up, showing it as brown. I did a google image search for 1965 Epiphone Coronet and found many images that were identical. -- kainaw™ 17:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

energy efficient houses & normal houses

How much energy does the average energy efficient house use each year? How much energy does the average normal house use each year?thanks--76.235.183.66 (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You should probably ask this on the Science reference desk, but you'll need to give more specific information if you want a decent answer. "Average" worldwide, or for a particular country, or particular city? And how are you distinguishing between "energy-efficient" and "normal"? There are many things that can be done in various degrees to increase energy efficiency; it's not an all-or-nothing split. --Anonymous, edited 04:04 UTC, November 28.

• According to the US Green Building Council (a sort of government-business partnership that's widely respected), "people who live in green homes save money by consuming 40% less energy and 50% less water than standard homes". Now apparently the average US house uses 8,900 kilowatt-hours, so the Green Building Council is suggesting the average green home re-build can get down to about 3,500 Kw-h. If you really want to sink your teeth into the details, the unchallenged experts are the Rocky Mountain Institute, who have a whole series on Household Energy Efficiency. Rocky Mountain Institute has done some truly mind-boggling feats of engineering, including their famous headquarters, which is about as close to zero net electricity as you can get without being a log cabin. --M@rēino 17:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank u so much--76.235.183.66 (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Flags at sea

Question (Someone already asked and I didn't know): What's the point of a maritime/marine flag? Couldn't civilian ships just fly the official national flag? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

See maritime flag. They have more meaning than just the nationality of the ship. -- kainaw™ 03:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The slaves of haiti came from the entire alantic slave trade?

The labor for these plantations was provided by an estimated 790,000 African slaves (accounting in 1783-1791 for a third of the entire Atlantic slave trade) they got them from all these regions:

Senegambia (Senegal and The Gambia): 4.8% Upper Guinea (Guinea-Bissau, Guinea and Sierra Leone): 4.1% Windward Coast (Liberia and Cote d' Ivoire): 1.8% Gold Coast (Ghana): 10.4% Bight of Benin (Togo, Benin and Nigeria west of the Niger Delta): 20.2% Bight of Biafra (Nigeria east of the Niger Delta, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon): 14.6% West Central Africa (Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo and Angola): 39.4% Southeastern Africa (Mozambique and Madagascar): 4.7% —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerrorSonghai (talk • contribs) 03:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the question here? --24.147.86.187 (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The same question he always asks, probably. Slaves in Haiti came from all over West Africa, which did not yet have its modern countries with their modern borders. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In this case I think the question is as follows. Sourced data on a breakdown of the provenance of slaves are given in the section "Slave Market Regions and Participation" of our article Atlantic slave trade (and replicated in the posting). Can this breakdown be assumed to also apply to the provenance of Haitian slaves? The answer to this question is, of course, no. There are all kinds of possible reasons why the sources for a more specific target location may be different from the average.  --Lambiam 11:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The difference a person can make in the infinitely long term

Have any theorems yet been proven that constrain the possible value of

?UNIQ7a3caf4365ca67d-math-00000001-QINU?

where f(t) is the utility or happiness per capita of all people in the world at time t; f'(t) is the utility or happiness per capita they would have at time t, ceteris paribus, had a particular person never existed; and t = 0 represents the time of that person's death? Are there any theorems on how that person must live in order to maximize the above quantity? NeonMerlin 05:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea about that specific formula, but can any semi-rigorous looking theory that relies on hypotheticals like "had the particular person never existed" possibly be anything more than pseudoscience? --24.147.86.187 (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to make any strong assertion if functions f and f' are not specified: I suggest, in any case, that you take a look onto this topic. Pallida  Mors 05:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, some comments I hope are helpful: If the integral converges (which means it has a concrete value less than infinity), then the limit you are seeking is zero. If the integral diverges, but has a linear asymptotic behavior [ie is O(t) in big-oh notation], then the final limit is a real number. Pallida  Mors 05:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why a part of your question was written in the Latin language? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

See Ceteris paribus. The clause is commonly used when making predictions about causality. GreatManTheory (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone told you "Yes, I have a proof that −9.3 is a lower bound and 13.6 is an upper bound", what would you know then in pragmatic terms that you don't know already?  --Lambiam 10:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It would mean that in the infinitely long run, neither I nor anyone else ran any risk of harming the average quality of life in this world by more than 9.6 utils per person per day, nor had any hope of improving it by more than 13.6 utils per person per day. NeonMerlin 19:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Malthus the monster

Was Thomas Malthus as cold hearted as usually depicted? Cryinggame (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Although our article on Thomas Malthus does not pay specific attention, one way or another, to the warmth or coldness of his personal character, the statement that his students affectionately referred to him as "Pop" can be interpreted as implying that they at least did not view him as a monster. Furthermore, his epitaph contains this sentence: "The spotless integrity of his principles, the equity and candour of his nature, his sweetness of temper, urbanity of manners and tenderness of heart, his benevolence and his piety are still dearer recollections of his family and friends."  --Lambiam 10:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Malthus usually depicted as cold hearted ? I thought he was simply pointing out the logical consequences of unchecked population growth. I don't think he saw a Malthusian catastrophe as a desirable outcome or even as an inevitable fate. It was something that humanity should strive to avoid through appropriate social engineeering. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't answer your question, but it reminds me of these lines of C. S. Lewis's, writing approvingly of Walter Scott and Samuel Taylor Coleridge -

"An England at that time half numbed to death

With Paley's, Bentham's, Malthus' wintry breath."

This is from a poem called 'To Roy Campbell'. Xn4 19:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he and his work certainly generated a lot of vilification and misunderstanding while he was alive, arguably more than any other comprable figure. I suppose his image is the equivalent, in the real world, to that of Charles Dicken's Gradgrind; calculating and rather joyless. He may have been 'Old Pop' to his pupils, but offended religionists called him the 'Malthusian Devil'. For Karl Marx he was a 'shameless sycophant of the ruling class.' Poets like Coleridge, Byron and Southey cast him in the role of the misanthrope; and for William Cobbett he was, quite simply, 'a monster.' But, as so often in cases like this, people, even highly informed people, fail to draw a distinction between the thinker and the thought. The thought is stark, cold and alarming so, too, must be the thinker. The evidence would suggest otherwise! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Napoleon's second greatest disaster

Before the advance on Moscow what was the greatest setback in Napoleon's military career? Stockmann (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You should check out Napoleon's article-Yamanbaiia (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there's an argument for the Battle of Trafalgar, which is a big and famous and significant event, the most pivotal naval battle of the Napoleonic Wars. In general terms, though, the reverses of the Peninsular War were surely a greater setback for Bonaparte, of which one major failure was thanks to the Lines of Torres Vedras. Sir Charles Oman suggests a big turning point when a French army led by Masséna arrived at Wellington's new line of forts to protect Lisbon in October 1810. In his History of the Peninsular War (Volume III), Oman says of a skirmish at Sobral de Monte Agraço, "On that misty October 14th morning, at Sobral, the Napoleonic tide attained its highest watermark."

I look forward to seeing Clio's thoughts on this. Xn4 20:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad!

Now, thinking here of campaigns actually lead by Napoleon in person, as opposed to French campaigns and reverses in the wider wars, I, as a personal choice, would have to select the whole ill-judged adventure of 1798 and 1799 in Egypt and the Middle East. It showed, for those of a mind to read the signs, all of Napoleon's worst defects as a soldier and as a man: his conviction in his own invincibility, that seduced him into the illusion that it only needed a few thousand Frenchmen under his command to bring down the whole of the Ottoman Empire; his impatience and improvisation, causing him to embark on expeditions with virtually no preparation; his ruthelessness and contempt for the welfare of his own men, who served no purpose but his greater glory. The advance to Acre in the spring of 1799 is a perfect foretaste of the advance on Moscow: vain, pointless, wasteful. He took 26,000 men into Palestine; only 5000 returned back across Sinai. Soon after he escaped back to France, leaving his army behind, there to report mirages as triumphs; to seize power on the road to ever greater vanities. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Les Miserables (by Victor Hugo) - Sequels?

I was online a few years back and read that there are sequels to Les Miserables (the sequels obviously not written by Victor Hugo); I was wondering what the titles of the sequels are and their authors? I'm pretty sure (from what i remember) there are at least two different sequels maybe more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.223.87 (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a few listed over at Les Misérables#Adaptations in other media-Yamanbaiia (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I read in the adaptations part of wikipedia article that there is a sequel titled "Cosette or The Time of Illusion" by Francois Cesera; but I have also heard that there is a sequel titled "Cosette" by a Laura Kalpakian - are these the only two sequels or are there more? And if so what are their titles and authors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.223.87 (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Teddy bear blasphemy case

A British teacher at Unity High School (Sudan) is in custody after her class named a teddy bear Muhammad. See the article for more details. As Muhammad (name) demonstrates, it's a very common name. So what exactly are the sensitivities surrounding the name? How does one differentiate between an image of the prophet Muhammad, which as I understand it is regarded as blasphemous, and an image of a person (or, for that matter, a teddy bear) named Muhammad, which would not be condemned? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind - I've now read this discussion of the issue. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The other thing, after you have read the article that Richardrj has kindly linked for us, is to bear in mind the political dynamics going on here with the UK looking to 'demonise' the radical Muslims who have allegedly been offended by the incident and the authorities in Sudan who are afraid of not doing the politically/religiously correct thing in their own country. Unless you're a radical muslim, or even a muslim, this incident may appear trivial but we all must respect the customs of countries we move to, especially in areas as sensitive as this. My personal belief is that this is an incident based on poor judgement and ignorance with no bad intention.Richard Avery (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, are you aware the OP and the second poster are the same person? Algebraist 02:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Cromwell and the radicals

Why did Oliver Cromwell become such an appealing model for nineteenth century radicals?217.43.14.123 (talk) 10:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Because he was a radical, in a way, in his own time? Overthrowing a several hundred year old state and killing the king (and living to enjoy the results of same) is probably what alot of 1800s radicals wished they could do (Or would happen); I'm guessing. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There is really no great surprise here. Vilified for centuries, he was resurrected as an icon for a new generation, who saw in him a kind of metaphor for their own struggles and for their own victories; who saw in him what the eye has means of seeing. And some, perhaps, my understand that these particular words are not chosen at random; for it was Thomas Carlyle in his 1841 essay in Heroes and Hero-Worship, followed a few years later by his edition of Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches who presented him afresh to a modern audience, a new and self-confident middle-class; newly enfranchised and newly powerful. It was Carlyle's myth of Cromwell as the self-made man that was so appealing to the political ambitions of his Victorian counterpart. This was also a Cromwell 'without history' it might be said, a symbol who could appeal to the industrial capitalist, on the one hand, and the radical Chartist, on the other. He was a hero for a new heroic age, massacre, dictatorship, betrayal and intolerance all conveniently forgotten. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Soviet campaign against the Church

I hope I've come to the right place. I'm looking for an article, if there are any, on the early soviet campaign against the church in Russia, in the time before Stalin. What specific action was taken? Freedom of conscience had been part of the Communist programme in 1917. Why was this not observed? Thank you for your patience. Pompey Bum (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Check Russian Orthodox Church. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Bezbozhniki... AnonMoos (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of conscience enjoyed a brief season in early Soviet Russia, and even the Salvation Army was to be found in Moscow up until 1920. No such tolerance was ever extended to the Orthodox Church because it was perceived always in political rather than in confessional terms, a prop of the old Tsarist regime. It was the last institution of any size, moreover, to have any hold on the loyalties of the population at large, a competitor to the Bolshevik Party. During the famine of 1921 the Church was even refused permission to organise relief operations. The emergency provided a perfect excuse, though, to rob it of much of its remaining assets and sacred relecs, a campaign organised by the Cheka under the direction of Felix Dzerzhinsky, a doctrinare atheist. When parishioners tried to prevent the despoliation of their local churches, Lenin supported extreme measures against them. Many peasants were executed by the Cheka in consequence.

In the campaign that followed some 2,700 priests and 5,000 monks and nuns perished. In March 1922 Tikhon, the Patriarch of Moscow, was imprisoned as a 'saboteur.' Trotsky even suggested arresting the whole of the Holy Synod. In Moscow fifty-four senior clerics and senior parishioners were put on trial, eleven of whom were sentenced to death. In Petrograd Bishop Veniamin was 'tried' and shot on the urging of Grigory Zinoviev, even though he had offered no resistance to the seizure of church property. Vyacheslav Menzhinsky, the party's leading blasphemer, organised a press campaign after Patriarch Tikon's death in 1925, against Piotr Poliansky, his designated successor. He also set up an anti-religious commission and a worker's organisation called the Society of the Godless. And so it continued, to greater or lesser degrees of intensity, into the imperium of Stalin. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There are approximately ten billion short stories called "Summer Heat"

And I'm looking for a specific one, and don't know the author!

I read it ages ago for a class. It's about a wackjob artist who kills a mason. Or perhaps it was a mason who killed an artist. And it takes place in late 19th or early 20th century Britain or North America.

And now you see why I cannot track it down, heh.

Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.56.80.38 (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you remember ANY specific proper noun in in? The Mason's name, the artists, a place location, a building name, a specific turn of phrase used, etc.? Googling <"Summer Heat" [Remembered name]> will probably help alot. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The actual title is "August Heat". I don't recall the author's name, but it was, I believe , in the first volume of the Pan Book of Horror Stories. And the mason kills the artist. Rhinoracer (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This one? [6] Interesting tale. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Law question - holding suspects without charge

With the recent plans in the UK to extend the amount of time suspects can be held without charge (from 28 to 90 days), I wondered if this is detailed anywhere here, and how the UK compares with other countries worldwide. I've searched for variations on the phrase but can't turn anything up. Is there a name for this aspect of the criminal justice system? Widsith (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The relevant legislation is at Terrorism Act 2006#Extending the period of detention without charge. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted accidental double-post.

• I don't know the answer to your question, but I am pretty sure that if anyone collects data on that, Human Rights Watch would. --M@rēino 20:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Israel have a vaguely similar system called administrative detention. Algebraist 02:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• As far as the position in Australia is concerned, the police have no power to detain a person for the purpose of questioning or investigation, or to hold them pending inquiries. In theory, if the police wish to hold anyone under compulsion for the purpose of questioning in relation to the person's alleged involvement in the commission of an offence, they must arrest that person if they have the requisite belief in or knowledge of the commission of a crime to justify an arrest. However, both state and federal law recognise that, in reality, a person who voluntarily enters a police car, or accompanies police to a police station or some other place, or who voluntarily surrenders to police in relation to an alleged crime may not thereafter be free to leave police custody, though they may not have been arrested or formally charged with any crime. Under state law, suspects in this situation are deemed to be "in custody" (see definition in the Crimes Act 1958 (Victoria) sec 464(1)(c) [7]) and under federal law to be "under arrest" (see definition in the Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth) sec 23B(2) [8]). They are entitled to the same procedures and protections as available to arrested persons. Having said that, there is an exception contained in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth) [9] with respect to terrorism offences. In particular, sec 34S provides that Pt III Div D (which deals with certain obligations and protections relating to questioning and detention warrants) "does not authorise a person to be detained for a continuous period of more than 168 hours" (equivalent to 7 days). --60.240.112.112 (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Pitch notation in Spanish.

Language desk? Humanities desk? Hmm.

I recently saw a tango music performance, and was interested in some unusual characteristics that the bassist's instrument had. He spoke only Spanish, and mine is a little rusty, but enough to work. One thing I noticed is that he didn't seem to understand when I asked about pitches in terms of A, B, C..., and instead corrected me using solfege syllables. For example, "this is the 'mi' string, this is the 'la' string..." and so on. The Spanish page on Escala musical seems to do the same.

Solfege#Fixed_Do_solfege looks similar, but doesn't seem sufficient for musical purposes beyond teaching children a scale. How is absolute pitch referred to in Spanish? Is "Do" always equivalent to C? How would I refer to an G major chord in a G major song, and is it different than the same absolute pitch in a C major song? jeffjon (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Having scanned the Spanish articles Nota musical and Escala musical, I think that the absolute pitches that are designated in English with letters (A, B, C, D, etc.) are designated in Spanish by the solfege names. The relative pitches in a scale that might be designated in English with solfege names seem to be designated in Spanish with numbered intervals, though it may be more common to use the solfege terms referring to the relevant absoute pitches. Marco polo (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So, to answer your final questions, yes, it seems that Do is always equivalent to C. A G major chord would be Sol mayor whether it occurs in a G major piece or a C major piece. Marco polo (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the way notes are said and understood in Spanish. Do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, si for C, D, E....B. Notice that common ordering of them corresponds to the Ionian mode. Pallida  Mors 19:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that the solfege names are normally used in English exclusively in the context of teaching to sing. In explaining chords, you wouldn't say in English, if you want to indicate relative pitch, that a major tonic chord consists of a do, mi and sol, but use terms like third and fifth. Likewise in the Romance languages. Therefore, the risk of ambiguity there is practically absent.  --Lambiam 20:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

To give a final answer to your question, Jeff, Do is exactly C. And "La" over middle "Do" (Middle C) is (generally) fixed at 440 Hertz. Ups, that's exactly what Marco Polo has said above.

Though A-G English names for notes are hardly used, most musicians (especially young ones) are familiar with this nomenclature for chords: So they will understand Am as "La menor (minor)". Pallida  Mors 21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the middle-aged bassist gentleman at the cafe in Bariloche was an exception to that rule. So it would be comprehensible and correct to say "Hay un tercera mayor entre mi y so sostenido", and "Un acorde do mayor tiene do, mi, y so"? jeffjon (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, both right. Please note that the name for G is "sol". They wouldn't recognize "so" for that note. Two very small corrections: "un acorde de do mayor" and una tercera mayor. Pallida  Mors 00:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

romanian family

I need to know about the responsibilities, duties, jobs, usual lifestyle, of a Romanian family. For example: my duties in my family are to take out the garbage and wash the dishes. I need Parental jobs, responsibilities and child responsibilities and jobs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.33.228.216 (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Parental duties include raising the kids, if any, feeding them healthy meals, making sure they brush their teeth, are properly dressed when going out, and do their homework. In general it would be primarily the parents' responsibility to keep the house in order and clean, fixing things that are broken (or having them fixed), paying the bills, you name it. What else would you expect? Duties assigned to children are not a fixed formula but will depend very much on the family.  --Lambiam 19:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy

Does being charged with conspiracy (in English law) mean that the crime was never committed and was only planned? We are having trouble discerning the difference between accessory and conspiracy in the (fictional) case of a man who had planned lots of crimes but had sent his (now deceased) sons to do the dirty work. Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

From Accessory (legal_term)#Conspiracy: In some jurisdictions, a person generally cannot be charged as an accessory to a crime unless the crime has actually taken place, although there are exceptions. In some situations, a charge of conspiracy can be made even if the primary offense is never committed, so long as the plan has been made, and at least one overt act towards the crime has been committed by at least one of the conspirators. Thus, an accessory before the fact will often, but not always, also be considered a conspirator. A conspirator must have been a party to the planning the crime, rather than merely becoming aware of the plan to commit it and then helping in some way.--droptone (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting to know new people online

If I get to know new people online, am I in the Zeitgeist or do I lack basic social skills? 217.168.3.246 (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're an ethereal spirit. Xn4 00:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suspect if you meet them at all (And carry on a conversation) you can't completely lack basic social skills. At least I was always given to understand that they included communication. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I reformulate: if I get to know new people online, am I in the Zeitgeist or a loser?217.168.0.177 (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The two need not be incompatible. Random Nonsense (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is all a bit negative, 217! Meeting people online is more than Robinson Crusoe could do. Take this to its extreme, and you'll get to Pliny the Elder's famous dictum, optimum non nasci (not to be born is best). Xn4 01:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you all for the answers, but they are not conclusive. Should I go on and meet people online and don't be afraid that my social competence can get atrophied with time? Is it silly to have moral secondthought about it? Is it a kind of perversion or completely normal?217.168.1.39 (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as you don't neglect your 'real' social commitments you should be able to balance the 2 (real & virtual) quite nicely. Its not silly to have moral secondthought... we're all human, we have doubts and paranoias. I think the key is balance.Boomshanka (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You are asking this of people who answer questions from strangers online? And you will trust the answers? It's normal if we are.... SaundersW (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, casual use of the internet don't qualify you as socially awkward. Being online also doesn't mean that you don't know how meeting people online is evalutated in any society.217.168.3.246 (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

November 29

Ancient Roman Consul - L. Volumnius Flamma Violens

I understand he was a Roman politician and a consul at the same time as Appius Claudius Caecus at the end of the third century B.C. Is there any additional information on him in other references books? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.131.71 (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Livy's Ab Urbe condita, in 296 Claudius and Volumnius defeated a combined Etruscan and Samnite army which had invaded Campania, in a battle near the river Volturnus (for more details, see Livy's History, Book X, 20 here. A stub at the French Wikipedia (Lucius Volumnius Flamma Violens) says he was a Roman politician, a new man, the first member of his family to become a consul, in 307 and 296 BC. However, in Studies in the Romanization of Italy, Mario Torelli says "...the famous P [sic] Volumnius Flamma Violens, cos. 307 and 296 BC, could be among the (plebeian) descendants of P. Volumnius Amintinus Gallus, cos. 461." In a book review in The Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 62 (1972), pp. 187-188, John Briscoe says "The first plebeian consul known to have presided was L. Volumnius Flamma Violens in 296 [sic]." A note to an edition of Livy says: "Lucius Volumnius Flamma Violens, Verginia’s husband, ascended the cursus honorum as a plebeian to be elected consul twice, once in 307 BCE and again in 296, the very year in which the patrician matronae insult his wife by forbidding her access to the ceremony honoring the female virtue pudicitia.Xn4 00:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've started a new stub, Lucius Volumnius Flamma Violens. Xn4 04:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Cologne Cathedral: identify quote

I have come acros the following quote concerning the Cathedral in Cologne in a nineteenth-century manuscript and would like to know its source. It may even be from a guide-book. “Among all who live art for its own sake, a general conviction seems to be growing up that the most eloquent defence of their doctrines has been set forth on the banks of the Rhine. Universal consent appears to point to the fact that there stands the noblest and mightiest of all monuments of mediæval thought and skill. The Cathedral of Cologne, wasted by time and the elements, despoiled by French soldiery, despised by classic connoisseurs, and neglected by its own proper guardians, has come to be considered the most beautiful of poems which man’s hand has ever written in stone.”LShecut2nd (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your quotation can be found in the Civil Engineer and Architect's Journal, Scientific and Railway Gazette, vol. 10, February 1847, p. 33. Read it here, and find it in a nearby library here. Wareh (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that the campaign to complete Cologne Cathedral was undertaken in 1842, and work was in full swing at the time of the quote. --Wetman (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A quote

Not entirely sure whether this should go here or not, but it seemed like the best place:

This following quote was said at the begining and the end of NBC's show 'Life'. It sounded like a piece of philosophy, and considering that the main character 'practices' Zen, I thought it might be from there. Are there any Zen masters on Wikipedia who recognize something like this?:

We are none of us alone Even as we exhale it is inhaled by others The light that shines upon me shines upon my neighbor as well In this way everything is connected to everything else In this way I am connected to my friend Even as I am connected to my enemy In this way there is no difference between me and my friend In this way there is no difference between me and my enemy We are none of us alone

--24.58.159.152 (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "We are none of us alone" is established in a Christian context; Google Books shows multiple usages in the 19th c., as early as 1856.[10] I found it interesting how rife the internet is with speculation and admiration over this. Wareh (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentiment is very close to John Donne's "No man is an island : No man is an island. entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.[11] SaundersW (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Roman control in Egypt

How far south did Roman government in Egypt extend? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't say what period you're interested in. Our article History of Roman Egypt goes up to the Arab conquest of the 640s and has a list of references, some of which should help you. Xn4 05:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For most of the time between the reign of Claudius and the Arab conquest, the limit of direct Roman/Byzantine control was the First Cataract of the Nile, just upstream from (south of) Aswan (known to the Romans as Syene). Marco polo (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

War and Peace sequel?

Online I have found a few articles from the Moscow Times that speak of a sequel to Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace" titled "Pierre and Natasha" and the authors of the sequel were appearantly kept secret. Was this sequel ever published in English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.223.87 (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Not that I can find. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

ECONOMICS

What are the effects of globalization on indian industry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.244.4 (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Haven't we had this before? 203.221.127.239 (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In July, we had a similar question about Indian farming - see What is the negative and positive effects of globalization on Indian farming sector? Xn4 04:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

beginning research of a life long goal

I am in need of information concerning getting started a non-profit for animals in central Indiana. Names of books that break it down, sites that hook you up. Any and all. I know not much at all. But I am buying property and reaching out for any and all advice. This is my first time on this site and I found it very remarkable. Thank You Nichole —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.170.39 (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

RAFUR

In an obituary of Jack Meyer, I found this line : "He served in the RAFUR during the second world war" - RAFUR is in all capital letters. There is nothing in wikipedia or in the early pages in google about a place called RAFUR. What is it, or if it is a typo, what can it be ? Tintin 16:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Just realised that it is probably not a place but the RAF, though no idea what the UR is. Tintin 16:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick google shows it appearing on one of the current RAF application forms here. In that document it's shown as RAFUR(UAS), with the UAS referring to the University Air Squadron, the full RAFUR may then mean RAF University Regiment, since renamed the RAFVR(UAS) under Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Do amend the article. --Wetman (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Kaifeng Jews and Law of Return

The Kaifeng Jews article states the following: The current situation of Kaifeng Jewish descendants is complex. Within the framework of contemporary rabbinical Judaism, only matrilineal transmission of Jewishness is recognized (a Jew is a convert or someone whose mother is a Jew), while Chinese Jews recognized only patrilineal descent. They are not, therefore, recognized as Jews by other Jewish communities and are also ineligible for automatic Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return.

But the Law of Return article states that Israel follows Nuremberg Law standards. Could someone clarify? --Gary123 (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Are modern Islamic Revolutionaries Republican?

Do modern radical Islamic revolutionaries support republicanism? Nasser,Qudaffi and Khomeni all created Republican states but the Taliban and Osama have never reffered to themselves as republican. I believe Osama has referred to himself as Caliph and the Taliban as Emirate. Does anyone know the type of state Al Quda wishes to create, what technical political term they use? They seem to be the first revolutionary movement since 1848 to not at least call themselves Republic in name. --Jacobin1949 (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the political agenda of the revolutionary. Modern radical Islamic revolutionaries who are in favour of the republican form of government are more likely to support republicanism, while those who prefer a monarchy are usually monarchists. I don't think this is bound to a specific religion; it probably also holds if you replace "Islamic" by "Hindu" or "Christian". As to Bin Laden, I think he may indeed wish to see the return of the Caliphate, but I haven't heard he puts himself in the role of Caliph; do you have a source for that?  --Lambiam 00:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is a lot of talk of establishing a theocracy, under which shari'a law is practised. There is disagreement over whether there would be different Islamic states along the lines of current nation-states, or whether a pan-Islamic state should be established. I'm not sure whether a theocratic Islamic state could in practice coexist with a republic or not (but see Politics of Sudan and Politics of Egypt). Steewi (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Many people in Iran think of America as a Christian theocracy. Wrad (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

High gas prices.

I have done a lot of thinking and reading up on this subject. It seems like the higher costs for energy are the result of growing demand from India and China. This makes the extreme jump in gas prices a systemic problem outside the purview of the industrial "first" world and the U.S.A. I do have a feasible solution to these higher gas prices, however, it might be dismissed as overly cold or inhumane, but I guess we have to ask ourselves what lower gas prices are worth to us in the "first world."

The growing demand for oil from China and India can be reversed if the industrialized nations, primarily the U.S.A. (who seems willing to do most of the world's "dirty work" these days) were to launch "total war" upon these two nations and thus annihilate their populations and economies. In my research doing so would not substantially affect the Western economies, as India and China do not as of yet produce anything of quality necessary to U.S. trade. In order to further lower gas prices, the U.S. could take advantage of the confusion resulting from this global conflict and occupy Venezuala, a major oil producing nation within our own hemisphere.

I know that the "human cost" of all this might be a bit too "high" for some in the first world, but I think its time to start facing realistic solutions for dealing with the new energy crisis. Any suggestions or comments are appreciated. Thank you all for your time. Belicia (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Gasoline consumption in China and India is increasing significantly, as a proportion of their earlier use. The principal consumer of gasoline, and the principal driver of high prices, is the US car driver. The US consumes about 45% of all the gasoline produced in the world - with 5% of the population. That is the case despite increases in China and India. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As Geologyguy pointed out, the U.S. consumes nearly half the gasoline produced while barely accounting for 5% of the world population. If the U.S. were to be destroyed, 45% of the gasoline usage would go away while only getting rid of a mere 5% of the population. Obviously, you didn't truly think this through. -- kainaw™ 19:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how much fuel and other resources in China is dedicated to the manufacture of products exported to the U.S.? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A very interesting question, but whatever the exact number, it must be very small compared to consumption for fuel, just as in the US. Normal refining processes generate only 1.2 gallons of plastics and petrochemical feedstocks from the original 42-gallon barrel, so less than 3% of oil consumption in general goes to make plastics etc. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am having some difficulty with a "realistic solution" to cut down the cost of driving my car being to "annihilate" the "populations and economies" of India and China. That's baby, bathwater, bathroom, house, neighbourhood, country and world, all gone in one throw. Kainaw has an interesting perspective, though I live a little too close to the US border to be entirely happy with the proposal. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bielle (talk • contribs) 20:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a sense the question is meant as some kind of satire. At least I hope so. Anyway, if you're concerned about high gas prices, war is the worst possible thing to happen. The Yom Kippur War, Iran-Iraq War and Iraq War all led to increases in the price of oil. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the proportion of energy use by India and China as a percentage of worldwide demand has grown enormously over the past 5 years and is expected to continue growing as a proportion of worldwide demand. This is irrespective of American demand as a proportion of worldwide demand. Secondly, energy consumption from the U.S.and A. has declined as a proportion of worldwide demand over the last year. And thirdly, what I am talking about is a total war, to destroy completely the demand of India and China, not some regional conflict as the Yom Kippur War, et al. Therein lies the beauty of my proposal. Don't think it is too extreme for the American government to adopt in the future if gas prices get too high. Belicia (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want anyone to take your argument seriously, you need to produce references. Where did you find a valid reference that claims the U.S. usage of oil is decreasing? Where did you find a reference that claims China and India produce nothing of value for the U.S.? Where did you find a reference that claims waging a total war on two large countries will not increase the cost of oil as every previous war (or ever threat of war) has done? You claim to have worked on this argument but all you've provided are claims that are the opposite of every valid reference source I have ever seen. -- kainaw™ 02:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

united we stand

it is said that divisions on the left in germany helped the nazis into power. Is this true, would the communists and socialists have stopped hitler together and how would they have done this? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.190.180 (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to suppose that the SPD and the KPD would have been any more succesful in uniting to fight the Nazis than dividing to fight each other. Divisions on the left are not high among the reasons for the ascent of Nazism. The retrospective view among sections of the left that the only way of grappling with the Nazis, a movement which fed on violence, was more violence is, quite frankly, laughable in its absurdity. A united left is far more likely to have drawn the conservative elements in German society, a vital element in Hitler's elevation to the Chancellorship in 1933, much more quickly into alliance with the Nazis. Elsewhere in Europe Popular Fronts, alliances of the left, did very little to arrest the development of Fascism. The rise of Arturo Ui was less resistable than Brecht and his allies allow. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Likelihood of recession or depression

Considering the parallels with 1929, what are the chances that the current credit crisis could lead to a global recession or depression? 192.251.134.5 (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What on earth does this situation have to do with 1929? Belicia (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• I believe the poster is referring to the Wall Street Crash of 1929. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.41.139.85 (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

See Causes of the Great Depression. The US economy was weakening in early 1929, and there had been a financial bubble (perhaps comparable to the mortgage bubble of recent years) which had left banks overextended and vulnerable to an economic downturn. All of these conditions existed early in 1929, before the stock market peaked in September. For more than a month, stocks moved in a volatile but generally downward direction before the actual October crash. Obviously, there has not (yet) been a true crash on the New York or world stock markets. I am guessing that the questioner is referring to similarities between present conditions and those before the crash in 1929. Whether present conditions presage a crash or a serious recession, though, I have no idea. Marco polo (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman sultans & evil in history

Have just read the following passage from Dawkins' "The God Delusion" about Hitler and Stalin: "...Hitler´s ideas and intentions were not self-evidently more evil than those of Caligula - or some of the Ottoman sultans, whose staggering feats of nastiness are described in Noel Barber´s "Lords of the Golden Horn". Hitler had 20th Century weapons, and 20th Century technology at his disposal. Nevertheless, Hitler and Stalin were, by any standards, spectacularly evil men." My questions are: Is the Ottoman dynasty that historically famous for producing rulers with "feats of nastiness" or evil, and were they generally devout Muslims? What are considered the darkest periods of evil reigning in history? Thank you very much in advance for any info. --AlexSuricata (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Alex, I cannot conceive of any more malevolent period in history than that of the 'ideologically driven' mid-twentieth century. As far as your question about the sultans is concerned, they were as variable as any other human beings; some more devout than others; some more murderous than others. I have not read Barber's book, though I have never thought of the sultans as being any more, or less, nasty than any other set of powerful people. As far as Dawkin's contention is concerned that would seem to me to be quite wrong; the difference between Caligula and Hitler is not one of degree, but of intent; not one of mood, but of conception and design. In every conceivable sense it would seem to me that Hitler's ideas and intentions are self-evidently more evil than those of Caligula because they are born and sustained over time; not conceived in anger or sudden passion, but in cold calculation. Perhaps the worst kind of evil is not grand and tragic in the style of Caligula; it's numbing and mediocre in the style of Hitler. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

For the Ottomans specifically, take a look at Armenian Genocide. That took place under Ottoman rule and was pretty awful. I don't really like putting evil on a scale. Once you get to a certain point, it's just plain bad. Wrad (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorsing what Clio said: Caligula is to madness as Hitler is to evil. As for the time course of evil in the world, it is hard to see much advancement in the early 21st century compared to the 20th century, although the scale of warfare and of the slaughter of civilians has not thusfar equalled that of the 20th century. That said, the century is yet young, and more countries governed by short-sighted ideologues have nuclear weapons than in the last century. Edison (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Law

Are there any laws in western democratic countries (UK, US etc) that could be broken by someone who also followed Islamic (Sharia?) Law?. Could a person from an Islamic country fall fowl of our laws doing things that would be legal in their country.

I do appreciate that there isn't a strict "Islamic Law", so pick whatever country. Caffm8 (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For almost any pair of countries there are things that illegal in one but not in the other. Think of the official tolerance with respect to "soft drug" use in the Netherlands, or the sodomy laws in the United States. Specifically for Islam, polygyny comes to mind – although that is also outlawed today in many predominantly Islamic countries.  --Lambiam 23:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There are some aspects of Shari'a law which are probably considered illegal in the UK/US systems of law. For example, the method of punishment in Shari'a law (by some interpretations, for example in Sudan, Afghanistan under the Taliban) allows for death by stoning as a punishment, as well as the administration of punishment by a criminal's family or a victim's family. As Lambiam mentioned, polygyny is another area. Most "western" laws are also contained within Shari'a; that is, Shari'a is generally a stricter code. Steewi (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But is a person following Shari required to punish by stoning? Obviously the government of such a country would be violating laws.

Other areas relating to treatment of woman are the only issues I have a thought of. If a male required by law to prevent women leaving the house etc, this would violate laws in a country with protected rights. Caffm8 (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

November 30

Why hasn't Bennelong declared yet?

It's 5+ days since the Australian general election, yet Division of Bennelong appears still not to have formally declared a winner. It's apparently the size of a Westminster constituency, and appears to be largely urban. A comparable Westminster constituency would have declared in the early hours of the morning - even one with a razor thin majority would have declared (after two or three recounts) the following day. Why has it taken so long? Some kind of henging ched? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You can see breakdown of the seat on the AEC Website here. Not all postal votes have yet been counted, though McKew is sitting on 2-party preferred vote of 51.34% so one would imagine she has beaten John Howard. hope that helps somewhat.Jpeob 01:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one reason that McKew has been reluctant to call the result is that the postal vote result shows howard leading with a vote of 55.02%. I still think McKew will win. Jpeob 01:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Fehrbellin

The section on historic significance is rather poor and just gives the obvious information. Does somebody have deeper insight?--85.180.34.149 (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, 85.180, I'm not sure that there is an awful lot more that can be said about the significance of Fehrbellin, other than it began the advance of Brandenburg/Prussia into Pomerania. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dual Swords?

Was there any army in ancient times that had soldiers who fought with two swords? 67.42.180.114 (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by ancient times, exactly? Very early on, swords were very rare and not very reliable. Only a few soldiers would have had them, and to have two would be unthinkable. Wrad (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really ancient as such, but the most famous wielders of two swords were the samurai. Algebraist 03:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Anakin Skywalker used two lightsabers long ago in a galaxy far far away. :) Wrad (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

...By ancient times I meant any time before firearms that had a 95+% chance of not blowing up in your face. Thank you for the samurai info, this may be what I was thinking of... 67.42.180.114 (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. You might want to look into Arab culture as well. They were making good swords long before Europe. Wrad (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

1066 and all that

Just how much history do you have to know to appreciate the wit of Sellar and Yeatman? Is it beyond the understanding of most Americans? Is it beyond the understanding of most Brits.? Kaiser Will (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Da Vinci Code

What's the evidence for the Da Vinci Code? Kaiser Will (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)