all help appreciated <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/164.107.248.161|164.107.248.161]] ([[User talk:164.107.248.161|talk]]) 05:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
all help appreciated <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/164.107.248.161|164.107.248.161]] ([[User talk:164.107.248.161|talk]]) 05:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Mad monarchs ==
We must all be aware of the madness of King George. I was wondering if there were any other mad monarchs living around the same time, or are monarchs all mad? Anyway, if any were mad did they show the same symptoms as poor old George? [[User:Kaiser Will|Kaiser Will]] 06:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You are quite correct, Clio, in describing some of the aspects of how the Third Reich was run under Hitler. However, I would like to fill out the picture more. It is true that Hitler woke late, but so did Churchill. It is also true that the Third Reich had many chaotic bureaucratic entanglements, but the same can be said for Stalinist Russia and even the UK and the US at that time. It was a matter of degree, perhaps, but Nazi Germany was not inordinately and dramatically different in its bureaucracy than the other industrialized nations of the time. Perhaps it led the pack, but it wasn't a big lead...
In some ways the Third Reich was actually a model of highly organized (almost engineered) precision, at least on paper. In practice it fell far short of its high goals of efficiency. It is interesting to compare the organization of society under the Nazis and under the Soviets. There are similarities, but differences, too. I have in my personal collection a collection of some of the Nazi Party's highly acclaimed feature magazine called "Signal". The Nazis published Signal not only in German, but in English and I think a couple of other languages as well. The copies I have are in English. In one of these magazines is an article written in 1940 that describes the organization of society and the government under the National Socialist German Workers' Party (the Nazis, for short). This is of course propaganda, but it is interesting to see what the Nazis had to say for themselves. It represents, perhaps the ideal that they were striving for. Here are some excerpts from this article:
"A Survey of the Marvel of the Party Organization. The organization of the Party originated in the practical requirements of the period of struggle, but from the very commencement it as moulded in accordance with the Party's great state conception, the idea of embracing every individual in order to employ him in furthering the good of the community which naturally also means his own personal well-being...The smallest unit is the block, which is followed according to size by the cell, the local group, the district, and the province. The family forms the centre of the block, the cell embraces the life of one or more streets, the boundaries of the local group include whole communities, and in towns it comprises a number of areas. In a district, for example, there may be a middle-sized town of about 250,000 inhabitants, in country regions, there are a number of villages or small towns. The province, of course, is of some considerable size and there is more than one province in Germany which is more extensive or has a larger population than some of the smaller European states. The province is the largest administrative unit in the Party organization. The initiative is transmitted directly to the province from the Reich administration. It is here that the political power - as it were - is distributed from the high power electrical network to the districts under the control of the separate provinces. The districts in their turn transform the current according to local requirements and convey it to the local groups. Here the wires once again divide and a "cable" runs to each cell which supplies the street and house groups. In the block, however, the current flows into each seaparate house, so that in the end every individual in the nation which numbers 80 millions has his "connexion". The whole network is connected up in such a manner that - to continue the illustration - any short-circuit which may occur is almost automatically registered in the nearest central station, and can be reported to the Reich administration. This system of organization in the Party is sufficiently strong and adaptable to cover every conceivable, politially important reaction of a great nation, and at the same time, it can bring new impulses to bear in every sphere of life. The system brings all the tasks allotted to the Party to their conclusion. Any creative initiative to be introduced in health and hygiene, the training of youth, welfare work on behalf of the working man (as, for example, improvement in working conditions, embellishment of workshops, etc., convalescent homes, holiday and wage questions, etc.) whatever revolutionary idea is to be introduced into the crafts, industry, trade or among the peasantry, all flows through the channels of the Party organization."
"1. The Block (there are 539,774 blocks) consists of 30 to 40 households. It is the smallest unit coming under the care of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The block supervisor, a member of the Party, helps the families in his block and aids thme in cases of illnes,death and economic distress, inspects the housing conditions, and forwards inquiries and compalints to the appropriate Party office. In wartime he sees to the distribution of the food cards."
"2. The Cell (there are 121,406 cells) consists of 4 to 6 blocks, i. e. approximately 200 households. The block supervisors are responsible to the cell leader. He sees to the Party notice boards, as well as to help given by one neighbour to another where people are aged or ill, welfare work for tiny tots and in wartime also to the cleanliness of the footpaths, the collection of waste paper and scrap material, the removal of garbage and unloading of lorries and the air raid precautions."
"3. The Local Group (there are 30,601 local groups) This consists in large towns of from 1500 to 3000 households, and in country districts, of several parishes. The local group leader organizes the work of the block supervisors and cell leaders. He is also responsible for the street collections in aid of the Winter Welfare Work, the collection on hot-pot day which occurs once a month, Party exhibitions and meetings on a small scale and the sports and school work in his area."
"4. The District (there are 890 districts) This consists of whole towns or in large towns of several areas, and in the country it consists of a number of villages. The district leader applies the orders coming from the provincial headquarters in the appropriate form to his own distrinct. His specialist advisers give there attention for example, to beautiful recreation rooms and bright clean workshops in industrial concerns, to the development of small holdings, to the theatre, art exhibitions and special film shows, to health and hygiene, the Press, education, physical exercise, etc."
"5. The Province (there are 43 provinces) This is the largest unit in Germany. The provincial leader receives his instructions directly from the Führer and in accordance with them carries the great social, cultural, economic and propagandistic projects into operation. The drawing (not included in this quote) showns: a Strength through Joy seaside resort, a parade at a national celebration, an employees' convalescent home, a convalescent home for mothers, a Hitler Youth political training college, a large-scale settlement belonging to an industrial works, a recently constucted waterway, etc."
So you can see form this the basic organization under the Nazis. It is interesting to compare it to the Soviet system, I believe, of which more has been written. As the war progressed, this system began to develop serious leakages and problems, as can be imagined. But for the most part it was a pretty efficient model. Saukkomies 18:37, 3 December 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [1]). Pastordavid (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. ---Sluzzelintalk01:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
UPDATE...I have added objective data about Ulrich Fleischhauer in a new individual wikipedia entry, posted on 6 August 2009. If others have information about Fleishhauer, Weltdienst/World Service, etc. I would appreciate hearing from you. I am especially interested in finding a picture, biographical details on his family history, and insights into World Service operations in the United States. Thank you. Richard Alan Nelson, Ph.D., Professor, Manship School of Mass Communication, Louisiana State University, Rnelson@LSU.edu
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Actually it isn't a church building or Scietology building but is in fact the ruins of "Desert Gardens Ranch" nudist resort. Pierson Blvd from Desert Hot Springs going west was the route into the resort. The "Highland Falls" project blocked off Pierson and so no one can access the site. talk13:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Lambiam11:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference a person can make in the infinitely long term
Have any theorems yet been proven that constrain the possible value of
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? NeonMerlin05:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Mors05:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? --Lambiam10:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. NeonMerlin19:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How much is 1 util, roughly, in, say, Big Mac equivalents or some other measure for which I have some intuition? Is it possible to give bounds on the quality of life of a single individual, ranging over all theoretically possible circumstances (from being giving 400 whip lashes and rubbed with salt each day while being alternately waterboarded and force-fed on live cockroaches, to being surrounded by a loving and most loveable collection of exquisitely beautiful creatures whose greatest happiness is to cater for your every wish)? --Lambiam15:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An answer in any version of the util would be fine, as long as that version is fully specified. I was actually expecting that any finite non-zero answers would be in terms of other constants. A util could be equivalent to (taking into account diminishing marginal utility) the first Big Mac of the year, or to negative the first 400 whip lashes of the day, or whatever. NeonMerlin07:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming lower and upper bounds on the quality of life of a single individual, the difference between the two has to be a bound on the happiness per capita. I would not trust a proof that this bound is not sharp; that would depend on some unprovable belief. Exercise: determine how many first Big Macs of the year are needed to balance the first 400 whip lashes of the day. --Lambiam16:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about the mathematics, but a good example from history of the impact of a single individual would be Alexander the Great of Macedon. I would hazard a guess that no other single person - that can be historically verified to have actually lived - has had such an enormous impact on the lives of so many people as Alexander. -- Saukkomies 09:06, 2 December 2007 (EST)
Well, for starters, democracy, the fact that we have mathematics, schools, science, technology above the level of the iron age, etc. Alexander spread Greek learning and culture throughout the lands he conquered, making it so that Greek learning was picked up by other peoples and carried forward. Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Pythagorus, etc - all of these men are known about today because of Alexander's spreading of Greek influence throughout much of the known world of his day. It would be almost impossible to imagine what the world would be like today had Alexander not lived. Saukkomies 03:06, 4 December 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." --Lambiam10:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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."
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)[reply]
I would second Clio the Muse's opinion on this. I believe that the Egyptian Campaign was a horrendous mistake from a purely military perspective. It was a fore-taste of the Moscow campaign a dozen years later... ---Saukkomies 9:12, 2 December 2007 (EST)
Not to argue with the great Muse, but he made two great mistakes: The first, he made several times: The assumption that he, with a few good soldiers, could conquer any objective. The second he only made once, but he never seemed to notice he was wrong: The assumption that any size army could defeat a navy. With his first, he frittered away the cream of his people. With the second, he ensured that he could never win. Yes, that's oversimplified, but England/UK didn't need to out-build his army to win. They only needed to out-build his navy to never lose. -SandyJax23:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? --Richardrjtalk email08:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) [3]) and under federal law to be "under arrest" (see definition in the Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth) sec 23B(2) [4]). 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) [5] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Lambiam20:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Mors21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Mors00:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Lambiam19:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
November 29
Ancient Roman Consul - L. Volumnius Flamma Violens
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.Xn400:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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.[6] I found it interesting how rife the internet is with speculation and admiration over this. Wareh (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.[7]SaundersW (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I suspect no one has tackled this question because it is both enormous in scope and likely quite specific to your local area. Aside from cost, zoning will be a concern, as may be licensing, registration, availability of health professionals, local support, "competition" (being other similar private enterprises or government-finded operations) and the like. I would suggest spending some time with those who run shelters in the general, if not immediate, area, and finding out from them directly what is involved and how you might go about doing the most effective job with your funds. If you are a member of the Gates' family, however, you can likely get permission to do almost anything you want, short of housing 11 horses in a one-bedroom apartment in a city. In other words, the size of your budget will be a very significant part of what choices you have and how easy getting the appropriate permissions will be. If you are doing it all by yourself, and on limited funds, you may need to start small and build. I know of one bird sanctuary that started with an injured hawk that couldn't be kept in a local shelter. An employee took it home, and nursed it back to health. Now, some 20 years later, she is the local expert in "repairs" for raptors, has both flying and "nursing" cages housing about a hundred birds at any one time, and is a registered, charitable organization. Dreams can come true, though some take longer than others. Bielle22:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 ? Tintin16:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
From my reading of the relevant articles, it seems that is indeed how the process would work. Law of Return says that the 1970 ammendment "provides citizenship for anyone covered under the Nuremberg Laws." Reading Nuremberg Laws, we find that the Nazi definition of a Jew was anyone with three or four Jewish grandparents, which is not the halakic definition of a Jew. After several generations of patrilineal descent, those considering themselves Jews would not be Jews according to Halakha, nor could they claim three or four grandparents who would have been considered Jews according to Halakha. While they would still have other options for attaining Israeli citizenship, they would not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Law of Return. It seems the question of Who is a Jew? has been the matter of much debate and that many around the world who consider themselves Jews would not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Law of Return. 152.16.59.19005:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? --Lambiam00:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
I would suggest that they are not. The term replublican stems from the Latin 'res publica', meaning, roughly, 'public affairs' - but, the most radical of the Islamists, (Nasser, Qadaffi and Khomeini shouldn't be included in such a description), consider governance to be a purely theological issue, and that popular representation would do nothing but dillute the 'already perfect' constitution of the Qu'ran. Ninebucks21:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Unfortunately, Stalin and Hitler are (in my humble opinion) merely a couple of examples of the 20th Century's version of your typical tyrant. History is replete with examples of leaders who have done similar things to their own and to other populations. Josephus (for what he is worth) mentioned the Old Testament account of Joshua's genocide war against the Canaanites in which every single man, woman and child was put to death by the Hebrews. During the Middle Ages it was not infrequent that a tyrant ruler would go about systematically killing off entire segments of his population - a good example would be Ivan the Terrible of Russia, who established the notorious Oprichniks (which Tolkien based his "Dark Riders" on), who systematically waged war against the aristocracy of Russia. I could go on and on with this, but I'll save the bandwidth. Years ago when I first saw the movie "Schindler's List" I was struck by how similar Amon Göth, the SS Commandant of the Płaszów work camp, was to a more-or-less typical Medieval German Robber Baron. The Nazis were, again in my opinion, a throwback to an earlier, more savage, time in history, but perhaps not. Throughout the 20th Century there has been, at one place or another on the globe, ongoing genocide. It continues today in places like the Sudan and Somalia. So, in summation, evil tyrants such as Stalin, Hitler or the Turkish Ottomans are by no means a rare exception. Saukkomies12:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Islamic law actually requires a Muslim to obey the laws of the country they live in or visit, as long as this does not constitute rebellion against Allah. Sahih al-Bukhari 2796: It is related from Ibn 'Umar that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Hearing and obeying is a duty as long one is not commanded to rebellion (against Allah). When one is commanded to rebellion, then there is no hearing and obeying."[8] --Lambiam16:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 | Talk00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.Jpeob01:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it the Australian system is quite different from the UK system. While in the UK all the votes, including postal votes, have to be in by close of poll and are put into the count with the ballot boxes from polling stations, in the Australian :system the count on the night of the election is only of the polling station boxes and the postal votes are added later.
Lynton Crosby was on the Sky News Australia election night programme pointing out that the Coalition had processed many more postal votes than the ALP had, and therefore that some seats which appeared to be lost may still be recaptured. Certainly the ALP has fallen behind in Swan where it was in front on the election night, and John Howard has pulled ahead of Maxine McKew on first preference votes where he was previously behind. Another thing to note is that no seat has yet formally declared so Bennelong is not out of line. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that explains it perfectly. This (and an earlier question about how the PM was finally declared) leads me to remark that our Australian electoral system seems, to me, to be rather deficient in regard to the conduct of the election. Do elections take place on a specific day of the week (Britain habitually votes on a Thursday, some democracies by statute vote over the weekend)? Are other elections (local and regional) and measures voted on at the same time (a particular US favourite)? Are voters entitled to paid time off to vote? Where is polling conducted (schools? government offices?) and over what hours are the polling places open? Do voters receive a polling card in the mail? Are they required to provide identification when voting? Do voters receive a "voter's guide" (a al US)?
How does a voter physically vote (X in box, colour in square, punch hole, electronic, throw tinny can at chosen candidate...). Who is eligible for postal vote? How is the returning officer selected, and what are her duties? When, where, and how are votes counted? How, where, and when are declarations made, and what is the final process whereby a PM is selected and a new parliament installed? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk01:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finlay, you had me puzzled for a bit there! I thought you were saying you were Australian and you thought your electoral system was deficient! Then I realized that by "our" you meant "Wikipedia's article". --Anonymous, 23:14 UTC, December 1, 2007.
Let's see how much I remember from POLS1000;
Do elections take place on a specific day of the week (Britain habitually votes on a Thursday, some democracies by statute vote over the weekend)?
Federal elections are held on a Saturday, and usually not when something else major is happening that day (sport grand final, etc).
Are other elections (local and regional) and measures voted on at the same time (a particular US favourite)?
No. State elections are called by the state premier in a similar way to the way federal elections are called by the prime minister. Council elections (in Queensland, I don't know about other states) all happen on the same day across the state, under state law. "Measures" (called Referendums in Australia) are often voted on on the same day as a state or federal election, but they don't happen very often (Queensland has had 7 referendums in 147 years).
Are voters entitled to paid time off to vote?
No, but in Australia you can be fined if you're enrolled but don't vote. This is one reason why elections are held on Saturday, and also why there are a lot of pre, postal and absentee votes.
Where is polling conducted (schools? government offices?) and over what hours are the polling places open?
Churches and schools, mostly. 6am to 6pm.
Do voters receive a polling card in the mail?
They may recieve advertising material from the candidates. If you mean actual ballot papers, then no, you only get one of those after you turn up and get your name marked off.
I think he's talking about a card that says "There is a federal election on February 31. Your polling station is at Gryffindor House, 100 Hogwarts Avenue, 9¾th floor. Please bring this card with you." (And other details like voting hours, ID requirements, and advance polls.) In Canada we get something like that in the mail before every election, if we're on the voters' list already. --Anonymous, 23:21 UTC, December 1.
Are they required to provide identification when voting?
You can be. Usually they just ask you your address.
Do voters receive a "voter's guide" (a al US)?
Newly enrolled voters may recieve various information from the AEC shortly before an election.
How does a voter physically vote (X in box, colour in square, punch hole, electronic, throw tinny can at chosen candidate...).
Anyone who's interstate, overseas, working, or has a religious or health reason.
How is the returning officer selected, and what are her duties?
Returning officers are employees of the AEC, which has a Divisional Office in each electorate.
How, where, and when are declarations made, and what is the final process whereby a PM is selected and a new parliament installed?
The Declaration of Poll is made by the AEC when all votes have been counted. This can be no sooner than 13 days after the election, as that is how long they must wait for postal votes to come in. The PM and other ministers are appointed by the Governor-General (the Constitution only requires ministers to become MPs within 3 months of appointment, which is how Rudd and his ministers can be appointed despite the fact that the election results aren't official yet. Parliament won't sit until next year, long after the delarations). FiggyBee06:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can do a postal vote if you will be more than 8km from a polling station (in your electorate) on polling day, or if you will be unavoidably detained (i.e. in surgery), according to the AEC brochure we got before the election. Some editing would be good; if I had time, I'd dig out the brochure if I still have it). Steewi01:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Despite its military successes in the war, like Fehrbellin, Brandenburg has to leave all Hither Pomeranian conquests and return them to Sweden (Peace of Saint Germain-en-Laye). France succeeded to protect its ally Sweden in the negotiations and Brandenburg only gains a small strip of Land east of the Oder. The Great Elector was deeply disappointed by the lack of support by the Kaiser and Habsburg-Austria and re-orients his policy towards France.By the way, I somewhat doubt this claim: June 28th was a holiday that would be celebrated in Germany up until 1914, when on the same day, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, beginning World War I. --Tresckow16:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
...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)[reply]
Maybe not the intent of the question, but the Romans had many different kinds of swords. Did they carry more than one at a time or are they just from different time periods? I'm not sure. But swords were usually heavy and expensive, so they weren't likely to own two of them, and even if they did, they would still have to hold a shield in their other hand. Some medieval swords were even heavier and more expensive and both hands could be occupied carrying a single sword. (The little I know about medieval martial arts requires the use of just one sword.) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean one sword in each hand. I've never heard of an army that used that method. On the face of it, it does seem unlikely. You need a lot of room around you for that, room you wouldn't have in a line or a close melee. Melee fighters carried shields in the old days for many good reasons, not the least of which was defense against ranged weapons. --Milkbreath14:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think any military unit used dual-wielding. True, some Samurai used two swords, but they were few and far between. Most samurai had two swords, but used only one at a time. Without shields. In the west, when people wanted more OOMPH with their weapons they tended to selected bigger weapons rather than twin weapons. — Shinhan < talk > 14:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a plug for a great sport, if you're ever interested in learning to dual-wield swords you should look into kendo, in which there are many practitioners (some of the best, even) who compete with two blades. The most famous dual-sword samurai, and perhaps the most famous samurai overall, by the way, was Miyamoto Musashi. And in medieval fencing manuals, I have never seen a dual-weapon guide, incidentally, though it is true that later thrusting weapons were often accompanied by a parry dagger. SamuelRiv00:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Florentine is great for display but poor for combat. I once knew a rapier instructor who could put on a nice demonstration, but if hard pressed by an opponent he would drop the sword from his off-hand and use that arm/hand for parrying and disarming. Yes, he preferred to use a bare arm for parrying rather than a second full-length sword. Sword fighting is not only physically demanding, but it is also a strong mental workout. Trying to consciously direct two full-sized swords in an effective manner in combat (as opposed to an uncontested display) is more difficult, tiring and distracting than one-sword, sword-and-parrying-dagger or sword-and-shield styles. It looks good in the movies but if your life depended on winning a sword fight you wouldn't want to fight Florentine style. A member of the SCA seems to be of the opinion that Florentine was never an actual style used in medieval combat. 152.16.16.7501:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese martial arts has a style using two shorter swords, simply called '双剑 shuangjian' - double sword. I don't know how old the technique is. Maggie Cheung uses double sword for a while in combat with Zhang Ziyi in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which is not based on history, but the technique has some basis in martial arts theory. Steewi01:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well, for example I had a standard UK grammar school education in the late 50s/early sixties and I can appreciate its humour very easily, I think its a funny book, but not very funny. But then maybe I am missing some of the better jokes - if there are any. Richard Avery (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a satire on the view of history held by the educated middle classes as the British Empire went into decline. Unfortunately it is beyond the understanding of most of the UK population these days, because to appreciate the satire you have to have some appreciation of the original. Frances Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man seems to espouse the view or wish that "America became Top Nation, and history came to a .", so I presume he isn't familiar with it either. William Avery (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Richard I think it's a very funny book, full of good things, bad things and genuine dates. It's a wonderful foretaste of Horrible Histories-my favourite childhood reading-with lots of lovely 'facts', like "Hengist was thus the first English King, and his wife (or horse) Horsa, the first English Queen (or horse)". My friends and I had a whale of a time at school writing an updated version, that is to say with all the bits after America became top nation and history came to a . Of course it did not, which is to say that our history has to be a lot better than that of the silly Francis Fukayama! Clio the Muse02:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Clio for the endorsement of Horrible Histories. I came across it by accident in a second hand bookstore (specifically the Elizabethans) and was curious to know what our resident historians would think. Do you trust the series as reasonably accurate? Hoping for a brief reply, thanks if you can, 203.221.126.12115:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so far as I remember, 203.221, they are reasonably trustworthy. The real value, though, from my own perspective, is that they stimulated me to look more deeply into the various subject areas covered. And that's as brief as Clio gets! Clio the Muse00:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How long has the day of the week been universally agreed across Europe/Middle East? Can religious celebrations on a specfic day of the week be confident that they are following an exact multiple of seven days from their predecessors or could a "jump" have occurred at any point in the past? [I am interested from a context of astronomical dating] TheMathemagician (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
During the Roman Republic, there was traditionally an eight-day market cycle ("nundinum", see Roman_calendar#Nundinal_cycle). The seven-day week spread through the general Mediterranean area ca. the 1st century A.D., but oddly it spread from Egypt as an astrological-based cycle (with each of the seven days assigned to one of the seven classical "planets", including the sun and moon), rather than because of direct Jewish or Christian influence at that time.
The Seven Day Week began in ancient Mesopotamia. It was developed in part due to the fact that human settlements take on a hexagonal pattern when there are no geological or other disruptions.
On the great plain of the Tigris/Euphrates Rivers this settlement pattern was allowed to develop with minimal disruption during this time period when towns and villages first began to appear. To visualize this, think in terms of how far a farmer would be willing to travel to sell his produce or grain in a market, and in turn to buy needed supplies while there, and then to return to his home. The farmer would want to travel to the nearest market where he could sell his produce at a reasonable price. Anywhere that there would be a marketplace set up would begin to draw people from an extended radius, thus creating a circle of economic influence around it, which in turn would create optimal conditions for a town to develop. Due to pure geometrical mathematics, the resulting settlement pattern across a large fertile flat plain would begin to have these towns that were set up on a hexagonal grid system, due to their radiating economic footprints. One may see this pattern in a number of places around the earth, including the North American Midwest, and the Steppes of Russia/Ukraine.
Additionally, there is another factor involved with these settlement patterns, in that settlements of different sizes are set up along roughly hexagonal patterns as well. This means that large towns would be distributed over a larger geographic hexagonal grid than small towns are. And the same may be applied to cities as well. This is difficult to explain, but think of how one travels across flat cultivated country. One must go through many smaller towns before coming to a larger town. And then more smaller towns again. Likewise, one would travel through many larger towns before coming to a city. All of the smaller towns would be inclined to naturally develop along hexagonal grids (as described above). Same with the larger towns and cities. The larger the settlement, the larger its economic footprint is. So someone who wishes to go to a location where there would be a much larger marketplace than what would be encountered in the local small village would be willing to travel further to get there. This is why larger towns and cities are spread out in equal distances from one another.
In the ancient Fertile Crescent what would take place was that there would be traveling merchants who would make a circuit of the surrounding smaller towns' marketplaces, but would then return to the large town or city to take advantage of the bigger marketplace. To coordinate this, each of the surrounding smaller towns would have its own designated market day. And then the central city or large town would have its turn, too. Because of the hexagonal settlements, a large town or city would have six smaller towns around it. Thus each of the smaller towns would take turns holding their market day - providing a six day recurring cycle. On the seventh day the central large town or city would have its much larger market day, which would also be accompanied by a religious observance such as performing sacrifices at the temple, etc. The seventh day was the high market day - and also the most significant religious day - of this repeating cycle.
The fact that there are roughly four seven-day periods in a lunar month also made the seven day week attractive, since there would be a week for the waxing, full, waning, and new moon phases to accompany each week of the month. This is problematic, though, because it is not very accurate - the lunar month is longer than 28 days. There is also an explanation that says that the seven days of the week came about because each day was named for one of the known planets in the Ancient World (the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn). However, the problem with this is that this theory places the horse before the cart. The seven day week was already in existence before the days were named after planets or gods.
So social geographers and historians mostly go with the economic explanation for how the seven day week was set up. Of course, it is still conjecture, but there is some evidence to support this. Some references to look for more information on this subject would be in any good Human Geography textbook, or here are some others:
The seven day week is just one of many influences we have in our modern world from the ancient Fertile Crescent. It's a fascinating subject, and one that always is fun to research. --Saukkomies 20:20, 2 December, 2007 (UTC)
I can give you some basic facts, 81.156, and leave it to you to make up your own mind. Edward maintained a correspondence with Oswald Mosley, the English Fascist leader, both during and after the Abdication Crisis. Afterwards Mosley was to write, "The King already had a strong aversion to war with Germany. We would have told Hitler that he could do what he liked in the East. If he wanted the Ukraine, he could have it as far as we were concerned, but we would have told him not to touach the west." In October 1937 the Windsors meat Hitler in Berlin 'to express their gratitude for the moral support Germany had shown during the abdication crisis'. At the sime time they dined with Rudolf Hess, discussing the idea of a new world order. The following November Robert Bruce Lockhart, diplomat and spy, informed the Foreign Office in London that the Nazis were convinced that Edward would come back as 'a social-equalizing King' to inaugurate an 'English form of Fascism in alliance with Germany.' Wishful thinking? Perhaps. But there is little doubt that Edward was bitter over the circumstances of the abdication, and the subsequent direction of British foreign policy. In May 1939 he met in Paris José de Lequerica, Franco's ambassador to France, who sent a report to Madrid of a lengthy conversation they had at a dinner party at the Argentinian embassy; "...the Duke...has political opinions which run contrary to the country he once governed. He believes war to be a complete catastrophe, and the triumph of Moscow...he attributes the policy of war and of alliance with Russia to the influence of the Jews, who are extremly powerful in his country." He went on, according to de Lequerica, to attribute his loss of the throne to the same influence. Clio the Muse02:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone want to read a law school personal statement and DESTROY IT?
I'm a poor writer. I need help! I have a first draft of a law school statement. Would anyone be kind enough to destroy it? Leave an email please.
Lucky me! Far too thick to detect any dismissiveness (if it were there, that is), and I hope somone comes along and explains what needs to be destroyed and why. ---Sluzzelintalk02:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a little harsh. Soliciting feedback is something that even great writers do; it is not a sign of weakness. And personal statements require much more careful writing than most academic papers do, believe it or not—once you are in the door you are given a benefit of the doubt that you are not when you are still outside the door. In any case, I don't have the time to read other people's personal statements—I recommend to the OP to force it upon people who have some stronger investment in you than random strangers, or else pay someone to take a look at it. :-) --24.147.86.18718:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much the request for the aid of an editorial eye that perplexed me, which is reasonable enough in itself, more the desire for demolition. Is there some humour here that I am missing? But I agree, 24.147, that, on a matter as important as this, Lotsofissues is better advised to call elsewhere for assistance. Clio the Muse00:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly Nunh! Adam, virtually everyone is a poor writer. The gift of narrative is a rarely found talent. I ask the humanities desk for help because there are excellent writers, and my peers are just as deficient in writing. I will pay anybody here with professional experience (broadly interpret) $45 by paypal to copyedit and advise two times.132.239.90.8301:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there no one nearby who can talk to you in person to edit your work? I think someone who knows you would be able to give you more advice on what to say and what you probably shouldn't mention. My suggestions would be a respected teacher (your English teacher, maybe) who can give you advice on writing clearly and precisely, or someone who you know has gotten into law school already, who knows what the readers will be looking for. Interesting thought, but I wouldn't expect a bite from here. Good luck with your application. Steewi01:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lotsofissues, I can't but echo Steewi here. You will get a more trustworthy and honest opinion, I feel sure, from someone you know, a friend or a professional contact, rather than from some casual responder over the internet. There should be no need for money; but if you are determined to pay for such a service, I urge you not to do so online. Please believe me when I say that I wish you nothing but the best. Clio the Muse02:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andres Ortiz
Please Wikipedia do you have any page on Andres Ortiz a Spanish anarchist executed in the 1930s? I need to know his life and reasons for execution. Was it for political activities? Thank you for anything you can tell. TheLostPrince14:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mato Dukovac was born in October 1918 in Surcin. He enlisted in the Croation Air Force soon after the country was declared independent in 1941. After training he was posted to the Kuban front in Russia with the Croat Legion, flying his first mission on 29 October 1942. After scoring some early combat successes against the Soviet Air Force, his potential was recognised by Cvitan Galić, the leading Croatian ace at the time. Thereafter the two men partnered one another in a pair formation, known as a Rotte, together becoming the two most successful Croatian pilots. In February 1944 Dukovac flew his 250th mission, scoring his 37th confirmed kill, for which he was awarded the German Gold Cross by Field Marshal Wolfran von Richthofen in person. Later that year, during the Russian ofensive in the Crimea, his tally of kills rose to 40, making him the number one Croatian ace ahead of Galić. In August 1944 he was promoted to the rank of captain and sent with a contingent of the Croatian Legion to Eichwalde in East Prussia. While training in the use of the latest models of the ME-109 in September 1944 he deserted to the Soviets. He served as a time as a flying instructor with the Soviet Air Force before being sent with other Yugoslavs to Panoveco in Serbia, also as a flying instructor. In February 1945, under threat of arrest for his previous service with the Axis, he flew to Italy, where he surrendered to the Americans. He later served in the Syrian Air Force during the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, before moving to Canada, where he died in September 1990. Clio the Muse01:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently discovered that Frederick the Great of Prussia, among his other talents, was a writer. One of his published works was a treatise on Machiavelli. I imagine he must have been in favour of his ideas, considering his own approach to statecraft and international relations, but I would be pleased for some enlightenment. Danke! Hugo McGoogle18:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
" Frederick the Great of Prussia - "I have always considered Machiavelli's Prince as one of the most dangerous works ever to be disseminated in the world" - The Anti Machiavel (1740-41). Definitely sounds a though he was a disciple! SaundersW20:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However in his Polititcal Testament, he commented that he was wrong and Machiavelli was right. If you consider his pacifistic attitude when he was younger and his disrespect towards the military a rather remarkable change. Many of his problems with his father came from his "effeminate" and squeamish attitude. Just think of his reference towards the uniform as "dying smock".--Tresckow21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Machiavel is a dissertation on government; at once a work of idealist political philosophy and of hard-nosed realism. What Frederick found particularly distasteful in the pages of Machiavelli was the dishonesty and the cynicism, a cynicism based on the abandonment of conventional morality. As far as he was concerned, contrary to the precepts of Machiavelli, a ruler must in all things be just, which was the only way, in his estimation, to gain the assent of the governed. He must also be tolerant of all shades of opinion, an enemy of bigotry and sectarianism of all kinds. He was determined that Prussia should maintain the highest standards of rectitude. It should be a state governed by law; a Rechstaat as well as a Kulturstaat.
To a large extent Frederick was consistent in pursuit of these aims, though there was also a note of Machiavellian cynicism to his own character which got progressively stronger over time. His approach to war and diplomacy, for instance, were always tinged with Prince-like opportunism, even when his actions were draped in the garb of necessity. In the end he was to agree with Machiavelli that in the game of international power politics that a state that remained disinterested was a state that was likely to perish-"I'm obliged to confess that Machiavelli was right." Clio the Muse01:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jurors and special knowledge
(This is a question about the law, but I'm not looking for legal advice. It's purely hypothetical. I'm not a juror on a trial or anything like that.)
Say I'm a juror in a murder trial, in which it is alleged that Mrs. Jones killed her husband Mr. Jones by poisoning him.
Testimony has established that Mr. Jones died of thiotimoline poisoning, that the substance was found in Mr. Jones' morning coffee, and that Mrs. Jones prepared the coffee. We the jury go for our deliberations, and it looks like an airtight case against Mrs. Jones.
But: it so happens that I'm a biochemist, and because of that, I happen to know that the LD50 of thiotimoline for oral dose is 500 g/kg in humans - far too much to be administered in a cup of coffee. This fact wasn't presented to the jury. I think therefore Mr. Jones was much more likely to have been killed by his lover, Ms. Smith, who's a nurse and could have injected him with the stuff, since that requires a much lower dose for toxicity.
Now, I've heard told that (at least in the UK), as a juror I would not be allowed to use that information in my deliberations - it's "special knowledge" that the average person wouldn't know, and I can only consider it if an expert witness presented that information. Is that actually true? If so, is it even possible to truly discard such a pertinent fact while thinking about the case? Would I have any option to make the fact known, like sending a message to the judge? --Bob Mellish22:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I juror, I think you have the right to ask questions. So you could say in court, "Just what is the lethal dose of xxxxx." Once answered, it wouldn't be special knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.128.42 (talk • contribs)
I can't speak to the (barbaric heathen unwashed) English legal system, but I've been a juror in Scotland. The limit of voi dire was "do you know any of the people on this list" (the defendant and the witnesses). Less like L.A. Law you couldn't have got. I can't (contempt of court) discuss the particular case, but certainly the Sheriff gave no guidance in court regarding prior general or professional knowledge jurors might have (what knowledge they did have is between me and those 14 other people). And regarding 138.163.128.42's point: there were no obvious opportunities at which a juror could have interjected such a question - a brave juror could have spoken up, I imagine. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk01:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Members of the jury in Australia (and I presume in the UK) can't ask direct questions in court. They can, however, ask the jury usher to pass a note to the judge if they find some evidence puzzling. FiggyBee03:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From my own limited experience of Jury duty in England - I know that jurors can choose acquit or convict a defendant on any grounds they wish. Judges prefer deliberations to be done on the case but if you don't like the look of someone then there is nothing stopping you from lodging a vote to send them down (you'd have to browbeat the others though). 86.21.74.4002:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the U.S. it would be very rare for a jury to get to ask their own questions. The most we were allowed when I was on a jury was to ask for portions of the testimony to be reread by the court reporter after deliberations started. As for special knowledge, the jury is not required to check their brains and life experiences at the door. They might make their own judgements about the ability of a witness to see events on a moonless night, or to read a license plate from a block away, or for a small person to beat a big person to death. A great concern is, though, when a juror proclaims that he is an expert and has an undue influence on the jury, since he was never vetted in court as to his degree of expertise, and might be misinformed or lying. The voir dire gave the attorneys an opportunity to learn the profession of each juror. If one of them says he is a vacuum cleaner salesman and gets on the jury, then in deliberation in a case involving brain surgery he announces he used to be a neurosurgeon and the facts presented in court are wrong, or that he is a firearms expert and the killer could not possibly have hit the victim from the range claimed, it seems like a miscarriage of justice. Another juror can send a note to the judge when there is juror misbehavior like this, and sometimes the problem juror is removed and replaced by an alternate, and the deliberation resumes from the start. A mistrial is another possibility. Courts absolutely do not want jurors to visit the crime scene, or to Google the persons involved in the case, or to check out the scientific testimony in Wikipedia, or to ask their friend the doctor about the medical testimony. Edison03:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why was there no Czech War in 1939?
After Hitler broke the Munich Pact and marched into Prague why did the Czech national army not defend the borders? (I'm not referring to the negotiated 1938 Sudetenland occupation) --Gosplan23:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Czechoslovakia had lost all of its border fortifications as a result of the Munich Agreement. In March 1939 a separate Slovak state was created, led by Josef Tiso and under German patronage. The rump Czech republic was surrounded by hostile territory on all sides with no allies. It was not defensible. Clio the Muse23:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Czechs might have had a chance to slow down the Nazi advance if not defeat it entirely. I understand the country had a triple line of defense -- the first two were ceded to Germany after Munich, but the third was still there. But Hitler and Goering told Emil Hacha that if he refused to sign the papers turning over his country to the Nazis, the Luftwaffe would immediately start bombing Prague. Aware of what happened to Guernica, Hacha complied. Keep in mind that the Czechs had come to the conclusion in 1938 that it could not win a war against Germany without Allied support. That was when they still had the mountains. As for the Allies, Britain and France refused to declare war in March 1939 because they claimed no "unprovoked aggression" had taken place against the Czechs. Six years later, Nuremburg prosecutors would argue very differently. -- Mwalcoff00:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is axiomatic that resistance, any level of resistance, would have slowed the German entry into Prague. But the rump Czech state, with its centres of industry and population minutes away from Luftwaffe bases in Germany and Austria, would have been destroyed by overwhelming force. In simple strategic terms the Czech republic in March 1939 was like a 'pocket', cut off from all external sources of support, surrounded by hostile forces, facing a Cannae-like battle of annihilation. I come back to my essential point: the country was not defensible. Clio the Muse02:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't doubting you, Clio, just adding more detail. As I said, if the Czechs felt they couldn't win without the Allies in '38, they certainly wouldn't have changed their mind in '39. The failure of Britain and France to honor their "guarantee" to the Czechs in '39 is just one more example of Western perfidy toward Central Europe, as in '38, '45, '56 and '61. -- Mwalcoff16:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
December 1
Romanticism: Literature
I know it may sound like homework but it isn't. What are the major works of Heinrich Heine, John Keats, Percy Bysshe Shelly, SIr Walter Scoot, Honore de Balzac, Stendhal and Mary Shelly. Please, answer them and by the way, I read the articles but you didn't mention some of their work as "major".
Well, it's all there; it really just depends what you are looking for. With Mary Shelly only Frankenstein has been of lasting significance; but with the others there is a whole 'oeuvre' to be considered; anything from Balzac's La Comédie Humaine to Scott'sWaverley Novels. Some are better than others, though I'm not sure it's all that meaningful to isolate the good from the bad. For the poets, the 'pure' poets, or the 'purely' poets, just have a look through their collected works. Clio the Muse03:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for Heine, it is his poetry that has received most literary attention and recognition. Three grand collections are at your disposition: Book of Songs (including the very famous "Lore-Lei" (in "Die Heimkehr"), "Belsazar", and "Die Grenadiere" ("The Grenadiers") ), Germany. A Winter's Tale, and finally Romanzero (including "Alte Rose" ("Old Rose") among others). Two other famous poems from his legacy are "Nachtgedanken" ("Night Thoughts", opening with the often quoted lines "Should I think of Germany at night/it puts all thought of sleep to flight"), and "Wo wird einst des Wandermüden letzte Ruhestätte sein ...", which is also Heine's epitaph. Heine's astute and acerbic essays, travel reports, and letters are worth reading as well, even if they haven't entered the literary canon to the same degree his poems have. ---Sluzzelintalk12:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stendhal's "big book" is le Rouge et le Noir, usually translated as Scarlet and Black, or the Red and the Black, but la Chartreuse de Parme, translated as the Charterhouse of Parma, and also as the Green and the Pink, also worth reading. Both are written in the "realist" spirit, so there is no feeling that life should make sense or consist of anything more than random and unjust events. (In view of your heading: Stendhal is profoundly anti-romantic.) SaundersW14:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Scott, surely The Heart of Midlothian is now considered his best work. As for Keats, no doubt the Ode to Autumn, the Ode on a Grecian Urn and the Ode to a Nightingale are pre-eminent poems, as is On First Looking into Chapman's Homer.
As a footnote to the (very expert) discussion of Heine above, I would mention his Buch der Lieder and Romanzero as very well-known poetry titles; Reisebilder (notably Die Harzreize) for prose, and the famous essay on Die romantische Schule. Bessel Dekker15:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the author of this painting? / Unrecognizable signature
There is a signature on this painting but I am unable to recognize/read it. This painting has been in my attic for the last 20 years. I got it as a gift from an old lady who said it was made by a reknowed Swedish artist. What does the signature say, or who is the painter? Which kind of movement is it? --Funper00:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was never good at reading handwriting, my knowledge of Swedish painters is less than tiny, and I'm really going out on a thin little twig here, but it's not entirely different from some of Siri Derkert's later work, and she seems to have changed her style and signature throughout the course of her artistic career. Here's the homepage's gallery. Good luck in finding your artist! ---Sluzzelintalk02:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sluzzelin! I looked a little closer and the signature seems to be "Siri der[kert]". It is an oil on panel. --Funper14:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FDR said that LEnd LEase was like giving a garden hose to a neighbor's house on fire. Saying he doesn't want $$ just the hose back when the fires done. Was all the war material given to the Allies returned to the USA when the war was over??? --Gosplan00:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Lend-Lease. When the war ended, much of the materiél was sold to the nations rather than sent back - transit was expensive, and the US army would have little use for 15,000,000 pairs of used boots. I'm not sure about other nations, but the UK finally repaid the Lend-Lease loans, which were made to pay for the equipment, last year. There was also the reverse lend lease (where other Allies provided materiél for American soldiers stationed there - worth roughly 20% of the US contributions), which partially offset the US donations. The return of lend-lease items was contested on both sides; the Europeans didn't want to lose all the equipment they had received, while the USA did not want an influx of second-hand war materials, which would harm US defence contractors.[15][16]Laïka00:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why the black population is still growing in Sub-Saharan Africa?
Sub-Saharan Africa is faced with famine, wars and AIDS. But why the black population is still growing in Sub-Saharan Africa along with all these problems that are happening? 99.245.20.22406:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert, so I might venture only a guess. First off, mild poverty actually ends up creating a larger birth rate than riches because people are less worried about making a career (i.e., the abysmal birth rate of Japan vs. that of India). Also, Africa may be the poorest continent in the world, but it's most certainly enjoyed the explosion of wealth that the rest of the world has seen in the past 100 years, the past few decades especially. Thus, while the poverty in Africa is bad, it's by no means omnipresent (most Africans live in cities, just as in the West, not in rural slums). The Evil Spartan06:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also not an expert, but with iffy health conditions and few or no social safety nets for old age, you want to have as many children as you can so that at least some live to pass on your genes and take care of you if you manage to survive to become an old geezer. Clarityfiend09:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even before that, you would want as many children as possible to help in agriculture or to alleviate your poverty by getting paying jobs. Girls don't count because there are few non-laborious jobs in poor areas. --Bowlhover14:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In (South east) Asia, children are regarded as an insurance for old age. Although many now survive, and may in certain cases become a liability rather than an asset, government propaganda and other discouraging influences seem only partly effective in changing traditional views. Bessel Dekker15:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know Sub-Saharan Africa is poor and people have many children. But Sub-Saharan Africa is affected with wars and AIDS which are supposed to reduce the population. So then wars and AIDS have no impacts, right? 99.245.20.22416:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could only draw such a conclusion if you consider in this case, solely, the net effect on the number of living people as meaning "war and AIDS have no impacts". They have huge impacts on social and family systems, on medical care, on indivdual lives, on the quality of life generally, on specific economies, and on and on. The net number of people may rise, but those numbers include children orphaned by either or both, the sick, the wounded and the dying (often over prolonged periods, during which they can do little to help themselves or others) which likely represent a higher percentage of the population than they would be in peaceful times, with no epidemic. I am not sure where you are going with this conclusion, but what you have said equates, on an individual level, as if I were to say that a woman whose 3 children are killed in a fire, where all her worldy possessions are also lost, and her husband is injured so severely as to not be able to work again, has 3 more children, two of whom have serious ailments because of poor nutrition and an inability to access medecine and medical care, had suffered no impact from the fire. But yes, the "population" of her family has not decreased and the fire had "no impact" on that total number. (If this is an inappropriate "rant", please feel free to delete it.) Bielle19:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though AIDS is a terrible scourge, health conditions have actually improved overall in Africa over the last century. There are fewer deaths from childhood diseases (and fewer women die in childbirth), which means more people survive to become parents.--Pharos08:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If by modern form, you mean the semi-secular, heavily commercial form, then it largely dates back to the Great Depression; the US economy was weak as people weren't buying luxuries - as this meant that shops took less profit, they couldn't afford to pay staff as much, so they staff got less money and so could not buy luxuries - a vicious circle. To break it, Franklin D. Roosevelt had the American Thanksgiving moved to form one extra-long shopping season which basically lasted all of December, to encourage people to buy more luxuries.[17] However, the concept of buying presents dates back to the great Victorian Christmas literature - as well as A Christmas Carol, there's the classic poem A Visit from Saint Nicholas ("Twas the Night Before Christmas"), which popularised the idea of Father Christmas as a gift-bringer (imported from older traditions such as Sinterklaas), and The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon a (largely made-up) travelogue by Washington Irving which introduced ancient British Christmas traditions such as Yule logs, mistletoe and the great Christmas dinner to America (and reintroduced them to the UK). Indeed, people complained about the commercialisation even back in the 1850s; in "The First Christmas in New England", Harriet Beecher Stowe complains that the "true meaning of Christmas" is being lost in shopping. Laïka14:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Stephen Nissenbaum [18] the poem "The night before Christmas" (pub 1823) was formative in the tradition of Santa Claus entering houses to give gifts to children, replacing an older tradition of buying off drunken wassailers in the streets of New York with gifts. I thought that Hobsbawm's the Invention of Tradition dealt with Christmas customs, but can only find a mention of Carols in the introduction. SaundersW14:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Queen's Christmas tree at Osborne HouseFor the Christmas tree in the modern Anglo-Saxon tradition, our article states: "Images of the royal family with their Christmas tree at Osborne House were illustrated in English magazines, initially as a woodcut in the Illustrated London News of December 1848, and copied in the United States at Christmas 1850. Such patriotic prints of the British royal family at Christmas celebrations helped popularise the Christmas tree in Britain and among the Anglophile American upper class." While there is a large degree of continuity in the traditions as they evolved and continue to (d)evolve, it would appear that a recognizably modern form arose among the upper and middle classes in the second half of the 19th century, with no single event being a water shed. --Lambiam15:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this is true for other (sub)cultures. In the Netherlands, we used to think that Christmas trees were a continuous survival from heathen times (celebrating the return of light, of course) until research showed that their common use dates from the twentieth century. Bessel Dekker15:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't seem to recognise any of the above as descriptive of modern Christmas. Some nice nostalgic descriptions of fanciful Victorian middle class celebrations. Surely modern Christmas is an (almost) commercial event driven by social competativeness and designed to relieve customers of as much money as possible. Am I a tad cynical or is this really the way we are? Richard Avery15:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I say above, the hyper-commercial Christmas was largely a product of the tail-end of the Great Depression. This combined with the development of Christmas advertising (esp. Coca-Cola) and the definition of Christmas and the New Year as official holidays, produced a season which inspired positive feelings in the population, was well established, and allowed people to leave work to spend time (and hence money) with their families - fertile ground for businesses to move into (businesses will always move into gaps in the market, especially if they can markup goods and encourage consumers to pull a Deadweight loss by buying unnecessary tat (Marginal cost > Marginal benefit)). Laïka16:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well, the Christmas tree is said to be brought from by Prince Albert and thus introduced in Victorian Britain from where it spread to th US.--Tresckow18:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's become something of a cliché to say that the modern concept of Christmas-and here I am talking about its essential design, not its later permutations-is a creation of the Victorians; of Prince Albert and Ebenezer Scrooge. Cliché it may be; but it also happens to be true, by and large. Actually, what is closer to the truth is that the Victorians did not so much invent Christmas as repackage and update some fairly well-worn themes. What they did invent, if that is the right word, is nostalgia, a reverence for the past, for a tradition that never existed in the form that they understood. It took its modern shape in the 1840s, a time of great change and transition in English society, when the middle-classes looked to create a cosy ritual of family and togetherness, a defense against the anonimity and rootlessness of modern urban society. The attitude here was perfectly expressed by Thomas K Hervey in his 1836 publication, The Book of Christmas;
If the old festivals and commemorations in which our land was once so abundant-and which obtained for her, many a long day since, the name of 'merrie England'-had no other recommendation than their convivial character, the community of enjoyment which they imply, they would on that account be worthy of all promotion, as an antidote to the cold and selfish spirit which is tainting the life-blood and freezing the pulses of society.
Sentimentality, strong family feeling, goodwill towards others, consumption and expenditure, fun and games, feasting and drinking-it's all there by the 1840s, an odd mixture of old and new. And if anyone wants to know how a real Christamas is celebrated, and by that I mean an English Christmas, you could do no better than refer to Remaining Christmas, an essay by Hilaire Belloc, a little taste of which follows below.
This is how Christmas eve is spent in this house. On the morning of that Eve, large quantities of holly and laurel are collected from nearby trees and lots of the farm. Every room in the house is decorated with fresh smelling leaves, berries, needles, and boughs. A Christmas tree twice the size of a man is set up, to which little candles are affixed. Presents are there for all the children of the village, household members, and guests.
At five o'clock, already dark in England that time of year, the village children come into the house with the candles burning on the tree. There is first a common meal. Next the children come to the tree where each is given a silver coin and a present. Then the children dance and sing game songs. The tradition of Christmas here is what it should be everywhere, knit into the very stuff of the place; so that I fancy the little children, when they think of Bethlehem, see it in their minds as though it were in the winter depths of England, which is as it should be. The coming of Christ to Bethlehem is also His coming to the winter depths of England.
One of the primary factors in the creation of the modern version of Christmas was surprisingly the Unitarian Church. Up until the beginning of the 19th Century, Christmas was celebrated in English speaking countries as a baudy drinking holiday where drunken youths would wander from door to door singing drinking songs disguised as carols, and begging for ale or wine from peoples' homes. As this changed to become a holiday focused on gift giving, some people began to feel that the result was an over-commercialization of the holiday that served to spoil children. In this article http://www.uuchelmsford.org/Sermon031214.htm concerning the creation of Christmas the author (who is a Unitarian minister) describes how the Unitarians began making changes to the traditions - first by introducing to New England the tradition of the Christmas Tree, and then by focusing on children giving gifts in addition to receiving them, which was seen as a way of removing the focus on the receiving of gifts only. -- Saukkomies 09:23 2 December 2007 (EST)
A Christmas Carol was published in 1843. The "Spirit of Christmas Past" section shows a great deal of nostalgia for the Christmas celebrations of Scrooge's youth, surely the 180s or 1820s, at the latest. Was Dickens inventing the Christmas celebrations of those periods, or was he reflecting reality? Corvus cornixtalk21:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Fezziwig, alive again! It may just be a case, Corvus, of selective memory, or, rather, giving a single episode from the past a more general character of significance. Christmas was always there, though in the past-the time before Dickens-it was more marked by degrees of disorder, perhaps, rather than domestic, middle-class cosiness. Clio the Muse02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marius, or The Fugitive - in English?
A Francois Ceresa wrote "Cosette, or The Time of Illusions" (a sequel to "Les Miserables" by Victor Hugo) then he wrote a sequel to his "Cosette, or The Time of Illusions" titled "Marius, or The Fugitive". It looks like Cosette was translated into English (they were written in French) but I can't find Marius in English anywhere. Was it not translated into English; and if not, is there any reason?
Amazon carries the French version only and I was unable to locate an English version anywhere. The reviews of Cosette, from professionals and laymen alike, were consistent in denouncing it. Thus, most of the potential target audience for the sequel already had reason not to want to risk their time or money on another sequel by the same author. It seems that Marius had an initial printing of 250,000 but disappointing sales. In other words, it flopped - and in the native language of the author, no less. I doubt that it was ever translated into English. 152.16.59.19009:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching a DVD of the old British TV series The Great War, and am now at the part dealing with the development of trench warfare. It's not quite clear to me from the commentary if this condition of stalemate, which prevailed over the course of most of the war, was the fault of the commanders or not? I would welcome some educated opinion on the matter. Many thanks. General Joffre13:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From a tactical point of view, the main reason that WW1 evovled into the incredible slaughter of the trenches is that the machine gun was already invented while the tank was not invented yet (or rather, that machine guns had already entered mass production while tanks were still in the very infancy of their development and were available only in very small numbers) which gave an immense advantage to the defensive over the offensive. In simple terms, World War 1 had trench warfare because a defensive position with machine guns is almost impossible to attack by infantry alone; World War 2 didn't have trench warfare because tanks are very effective at breaking such defensive positions. From a political point of view, things look a bit different, of course: when you realize that you can hold your defensive position practically indefinitely but have no chance of mounting a decisive attack because your opponent can also hold his defensive position indefinitely, the logical thing to do would be to seek peace negotiations because it should be obvious that nobody can win such a war and it will end in a giant battle of attrition with millions dead, but apparently such was not the mindset of the time -- Ferkelparadeπ14:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, they didn't just use infantry alone—heavy shelling and aerial attacks were possibilities as well. Keegan has some sort of awful statistic about the amount of shells fired at Verdun versus the amount used in previous wars, but I can't find my copy of History of Warfare just this moment (I fear I lent it out to someone!). But yeah—I think in this case you can put a pretty strong amount of blame on the technologies of warfare themselves creating tactics of this sort. Attempts were made to gain decisive advantages by introducing new technologies (notably gas warfare) but in each case countermeasures were quickly adopted (e.g. gas masks) and the opposing forces adopted similar weapons, the result being a whole lot of slaughter and no ground gained. --24.147.86.18722:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edited)There was prolonged static trench warfare in the American Civil War, at such places as Vicksburg and Petersburg [19] (page 208) and in the Atlanta campaign. Atlanta fell basically because the greater manpower of the Union forces allowed them to extend the opposing trenches to the point that the defending Confederated were spread too thin to mount an effective defense. There were no machineguns, but rifle fire and grapeshot were effective substitutes. If anyone stuck his head above the earthworks of a rifle trench [20] a sniper would likely end his life. [21] A charge across the no mans land would result in great carnage. Similar to WW1. Sharpened sticks set in logs were the precursor to barbed wire. There were desparate charges across the hundreds of yards between the trenches, with axmen to try and chop a way through the abatis under fire. Edison03:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Great War is tremendous, is it not? It must surely count as one of the greatest TV documentary series ever made. Anyway, as far as your question is concerned, General Joffre, I do not believe that the generals were responsible for the stalemate. Some, it is true, were more limited in imagination than others, but all were dealing with some unique circumstances. The size of the armies, and the length of the fronts-some 475 miles in the west-meant that the the outflanking manoeuvre, the classic way of defeating an enemy in battle, simply was no longer available. The only way to win was to fight through the opponent's defensive system, and this entailed disastrously high casualties. It would take time, and technical advance, to work a way through this problem. In the meantime stalemate was inevitable. There was already a foretaste of this during the Crimean War and in the American Civil War, both in the examples given above by Edison and in the 1864-5 Siege of Petersburg. Clio the Muse03:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I respect Clio's opinion on this, I wanted to offer a second opinion on the subject to help round the discussion out. I actually did not like the documentary The Great War. I thought it was very heavily biased toward the British point of view. It glossed over the many British blunders made during the war, while making the most of those of the Germans, French and Americans. The documentary did not talk very much at all of some of the major battles of the war such as Verdun that did not include the British, and it also downplayed the very important role that the Americans played when they entered the war. Instead, it made them appear to be Johnny-Come-Latelies that happened to show up just as the glorious British Army was wrapping things up neatly. The one thing I did like about the documentary was its coverage of the worldwide aspects of the war, especially in Africa. But this hardly would warrant it being recommended as "one of the greatest TV documentary series ever made".
On another note, trench warfare did not take place in World War II, but not solely due to the implementation of the tank and other armoured vehicles. After WWI the infantry was re-examined by the major powers, and tactics were developed to help infantry break through entrenched enemy lines. A very good example of these tactics is shown in the movie "Saving Private Ryan", in which the American forces landing on Normandy in D-Day had to go up against some incredibly well-fortified positions with no tank support. The fluidity of the new infantry tactics played heavily on the use of focusing the attack on seizing machine gun nests FIRST, and then removing the heavier artillery positions later, allowing the armoured vehicles to then come forward and push through the lines to do what they did best - to speed up the enemy's retreat. --Saukkomies 11:37, 2 December 2007 (EST)
Thanks, Saukkomies. I'm sorry you did not like The Great War. I stand by by estimation, though, that it is indeed one of the greatest TV documentaries ever made. Only The World at War and The Civil War, so far as I am concerned, stand any direct comparison. But The Great War was the first. Made as long ago as 1964, it covers the whole conflict in 26 forty minute episodes, with hours of original footage, quotations from a large variety of contemporary sources, eye-witness accounts and a wonderful narrative voice-over by Michael Redgrave. It is, I admit, ever so slightly skewed to a British perspective, at least insofar as most of the eye-witnesses are British, though I believe that an effective balance is maintained in the best traditions of the BBC.
I must say I'm perplexed by some of what you have written in the above, which makes me think that you may possibly have misremembered some of the episodes, or, indeed, have been watching a different series altogether? There is absolutely no attempt made to disguise the British 'blunders', as you put it. The failures of the Gallipoli campaign are fully explored as are other missed opportunities, including Sir John French's failure to have his reserves sufficiently close to the front to exploit the initial advantage gained by Sir Douglas Haig at the Battle of Loos. I completely fail to detect any attempt to emphasise unfairly the mistakes made by other armies. As for not 'talking very much' about some of the other major battles, well all of episode eleven-"Hell cannot be so terrible"-is devoted to the Battle of Verdun, whereas only part of episode thirteen-"The Devil is coming"-is devoted to The Battle of the Somme. All of the other battle fronts are covered, with due emphasis given to the importance of the Brusilov Offensive. There is also plenty of coverage given to American involvement, with all of episode sixteen-"Right is more precious than peace"-given over to the political build-up to the declaration of war in April 1917, just as episode eighteen-"Fat Rodzyanko has sent me some nonsense"-is given over to the Russian Revolution. Your final estimation about the 'glorious British army' is-and I am sorry, I have to be blunt-grossly misleading, making the whole thing appear like propaganda, which it is not, by any degree, or by any reasonable measure. Anyway, I would urge all of you who are interested in the First World War, in good history, in good documentry and, above all, in good film-making to get a hold of the DVD and make up your own minds. It's worth it; believe me. Clio the Muse00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clio, I must apologize. It just goes to show that one ought to look at the links before opening one's mouth (or typing on one's keyboard) about something. It turns out that there are MANY different documentaries that have the title "The Great War". I looked just now at the documentary that you had been talking about, and to my chagrine it is NOT the one I had thought it to be when I wrote my previous comment! The documentary I had seen recently that also was called "The Great War" was atrocious! So I do offer you my sincerest apologies, and also my thanks - because now I have a new documentary series to watch! Saukkomies03:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the words of Tracy Worcester, "Although there are some brave politicians who are prepared to risk something, most of them keep behind the party lines and are bent on the never-ending, short-term task of winning votes." Appeasement was amazingly popular in a country still shaken by the Great War and further weakened by the economic recession of the 1930s, and one would expect democratic politicians to respond to that. In particular, from the point of view of a Conservative British government, Stalin's Soviet Union was undoubtedly seen as the greater enemy, so to appease Hitler served the double purpose of (1) seeking to avoid a war in which British lives and capital would be sacrificed and (2) looking for a proxy to keep Soviet communism at bay. I hesitate to say this, but appeasement (without the benefit of hindsight) was an entirely rational policy, in its day.
Let me briefly put the argument for the appeasers, perhaps as devil's advocate. Pre-war Germany treated several of its minorities very badly (especially Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and the mentally ill), but its worst excesses, including what we call the Holocaust, were made possible by the War. Even on the point on which the British Empire and the French Republic went to war in September 1939, the freedom of Poland, the war was unsuccessful. After it, Poland remained partitioned, with huge parts of its territory being gained by the Soviet republics (whose successors still hold them today) and with what remained Polish, together with other great swathes of central and eastern Europe, being under Soviet domination for two generations. The deaths of fighting men and women were of the order of twenty million, and civilian deaths something like fifty million more (see World War II casualties). No doubt the alternative to all this, without the second world war being fought, was a central and eastern Europe dominated for perhaps as long by aggressive extremism of another kind. Those who promoted appeasement, weak, short-sighted and foolish though they seem to us now, had a strong case at the time which perhaps was not entirely destroyed by the out-turn of events. Xn401:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite frank, 217.42, there is an awful lot of retrospective justification in Churchill's political career. From the hindsight of history we know that appeasement was a doomed policy; but there was simply no way of knowing this at the time. I personally am far less hesitant on this issue than Xn4, and will go so far as to say that appeasement was a rational and understandable policy taking all of the political, diplomatic and strategic factors into account. It was unheroic, yes, but it was necessarily unheroic. Neither Britain nor France were ready for war in 1936, or 1937, or 1938. They were only just ready in 1939, largely thanks to the time that Neville Chamberlain had bought at Munich. For along with seemingly spineless concessions to Hitler-and the unprincipled sacrifice of a central European ally-went a steady process of rearmament, particularly important for the RAF, which was to be the decisive defensive wing in 1940. Rearmament was not, of course, Chamberlain' chief aim; for that was simply to secure the peace. He failed, but it was not a failure without consequence.
Anyway, turning to your specific question, it is important to see Churchill's 'prescience' in a far wider political and personal context, which might help you to understand why he stood alone on this issue, as on so many others. You see, Churchill was not just opposed to the appeasement of Germany; he was opposed to all forms of appeasement. Put this another way, he was opposed to political compromise on issues of fundamental importance to the interests of the British Empire, as he conceived those interests. The emphasis here is important, for it entailed a refusal to entertain any kind of compromise, even in forms that most people, including the bulk of his own Party, considered perfectly reasonable. For example, he refused to entertain the proposal, again accepted by his own party, that India should aim for Dominion status within the Empire. For Churchill any understanding with Ghandi and Congress was, almost by definition, 'betrayal', attacked in the same way he was later to attack attempts to reach an undersatnding with Germany. Here was the arch-reactionary, the voice of the Tory ultras, whom no less a figure than Sir Samuel Hoare believed was aiming to smash the government and introduce some sort of undemorcatic and Fascist rule in Britain and the Empire. Ridiculous, of course; but it remains true that Churchill's 'warnings' over India and Europe began to seem more and more out of touch, more and more unreasonable and reactionary, the voice of the past. Hardly surprising when one considers that in the preface to My Early Life, written in the summer of 1930, he bemoaned all of the political and economic changes in British society since the Victorian era, including universal suffrage.
Even before Hitler, true to his unique style, he was warning against disarmament, a principle universally strived for, describing the 1932 Geneva talks on the subject as 'mush, slush and gush.' In the Commons his speeches came close to war-mongering, and were generally perceived as such. His seeming lack of judgement was confirmed in 1936 during the Abdication crisis, when he threatened to form a 'King's party', even though there were great constitutional issues at stake, even though almost all opinion in Parliament was against Edward. It was at this point that his political stock sank to its lowest. He subsequently sought to recover by pronouncements on foreign policy. But he now had the reputation of being 'unsound' on almost all issues. In the Commons his denunciation of the Munich Agreement was seem merely as more of the same old stuff; the same old uncompromising Winston, full of hot air and bellicose intentions, unrealistic in every degree. It was fortunate for him, and his future reputation that history, at least in this one instance, proved him to be in the right. Clio the Muse03:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly missed the 'playing for time' point, which is very important. Some of the appeasers (and I think it's fair to include Chamberlain among them) went along with the 'playing for time' notion but in their bones were against any new war with Germany. Even when it came to the crunch in September 1939, Chamberlain's cabinet had to make him declare war. I was hesitant above because it isn't self-evident that even that position can be defended. Xn404:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tresckow, there seems to be some confusion here. If you look at the page on Pinto you will note that it says that he introduced Anjiro to St. Francis Xavier in 1549, yet if you turn to that on Xavier it says that he first met the Japanese nobleman in Malacca in December 1547. They had already been in touch with one another as far back as 1545. St Francis's ship, with Anjiro on board, entered Japanese waters on 15 August 1549, at the port of Kagoshima. I think the reasonable deduction is that Ajiro first met Pinto at this time. Clio the Muse01:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The principal reason that almost all the recipes on the Net call for ready-made dough is that it is, by far, the hardest part to get right. A friend used to say that cooking was an art, but pastry is chemistry. The slightest difference, even in the temperature of the ingredients as you add them, can change delight to disaster. That being said, the doughs usually associated with this dish are puff pastry and phyllo dough. Both should result in the thin, multi-layered, delicate pastry that I think the French call "mille-feuille" (thousand leaves). Good puff pastry can take hours to make, and I have never had a result that was worth the effort. I have never tried to make phyllo, but I am sure someone reading this will be able to comment. I'd buy the ready-made puff pastry (though not the crescent-roll dough recommended in your recipe); my time is worth more than the difference in the cost, especially after I calculate the cost of the pastry ingredients. Bielle18:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only person I know who makes their own puff pastry was trained as a pastry chef—everyone else just buys the ready-made stuff. Just buy the ready-made stuff, unless you really undervalue what your time is worth and don't care whether the end-product is any good. (I've made a variation of this recipe that just used regular puff-pastry dough, which is easy to find and not all that expensive. It's a very easy recipe and a great hit at parties and big dinners. Google 'baked brie' for a dozen or so recipes.) --24.147.86.18718:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Croissant pastry is different from puff pastry (or mille-feuille), phyllo (or filo), as it uses yeast as a raising agent. Here's [22] a recipe for croissant (or crescent) dough. SaundersW21:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frederick the soldier
Thanks to those who responded to my previous question on Fredrick the Great. Now I would like to know how he compares with Napoleon as a soldier? Hugo McGoogle19:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was one important difference between the two men in the conduct of war. Frederick was very much a man of the eighteenth century, a soldier in the old tradition of limited warfare for limited aims. He would not have sympathised with, or understood, the Napoleonic style of struggle, based on national mobilisation, aiming at total victory. In the field the great Prussian king fought skilled campaigns of manouevre and counter-manouevre, wearing down his enemies by a series of widely separated attacks. He did not look for absolute victory in one big battle in the fashion of Napoleon. Still, he used deception, like Napoleon; he concentrated all of his artillery at decisive points in the battlefield, like Napoleon; he deployed all of his striking power at a single point of decision, again like Napoleon. Above all things, both men were acutely aware of the importance of terrain, and used it to full advantage. Frederick thought quickly and moved rapidly, another quality he shares with the French general. How would they have fared, one against the other? It's difficult to say, though I think it safe to conclude that Napoleon would have found the Prussian king difficult to pin down, and may have found himself under attack where he least expected. I think there is no better verdict than that he passed himself, after his victory at the Battle of Jena-Auerstedt, when he visited Frederick's tomb at Potsdam. Turning to his marshals he said "Hats off, gentlemen! If he were alive we would not be here." Clio the Muse01:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
painting as a response to flowers
Sorry to be vague: I think it might have been in an old documentary by Robert Hughes that he quoted someone who said something about painting being humanity's vain attempt to answer the beauty of flowers. Can anyone find the actual quote?
Yes, here's the original of that - "L'art, c'est l'effort inlassable d'égaler la beauté des fleurs sans jamais y arriver." (Literally, "Art is the unflagging effort to equal the beauty of the flowers, without ever getting there".) Xn400:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt this expression is weighty and profound, full of precise meaning. To me-unenlightened and untutored-it looks rather like socio-babble! Clio the Muse01:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like Bill O'Reilly and his "war" on the "secular progressives", its just a buzzword Dobbs uses to pejoratively label groups that that lobby and campaign for immigration reform (a societal issue that is central to ethnic minorities). These so-called political commentators realized that if they adopt a fancy, but vague term, they can use it to describe anyone that they disagree with. Thus, they only have to say the codewords "secular progressive special interests" or "socio ethnocentric special interests" and their audience knowns when to boo and hiss. Its no more than a argumentum ad hominem, but it seems to go down pretty well with the American public, particularly on the political right. There is a more academic meaning of the term, see ethnocentrism, but ironically enough, Dobbs' own political views would be better described as ethnocentric than those he uses the term to criticize. Rockpocket08:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that information, Rockpocket. There is clearly a whole dimension of American cultural experience and exchange that has yet to penetrate the quiter corners of rural Cambridgeshire! Thinking specifically of Mr Dobbs, though, I'm reminded of one of the quips of Grucho Marx-"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception." Clio the Muse23:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer coaxed me into reading the article on Lou Dobbs as well. I was surprised at the use of "populism" as a self-declared position in present day politics. I didn't know there was a Populist Party of America and of Maryland. In most European countries, or so I believe, populism is usually used in a crritical, sometimes even derogatory way, to characterize other politicians who play to the crowd. ---Sluzzelintalk23:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Populism" in the United States is a particular set of beliefs, not necessarily demogoguery. Its most identifiable characteristic is isolationism and opposition to free trade. Right-wing populism, such as that of Pat Buchanan, also takes a hard line on immigration, opposes affirmative action and is wary of the power of the federal government. Left-wing populism like that of Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader adds opposition to big corporations and is amenable to the welfare state. Lou Dobbs reflects a bit of both -- you can call him a centrist populist who, to a degree, reflects kind of the pre-1972 New Deal coalition, before the Democratic Party and progressive organizations adopted identity politics. -- Mwalcoff02:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An Allegory
I've been reading articles all week about Jean-Dominique Bauby. I have not read the book, nor watched the movie, but from everything I can surmise he was an exquisite human being. I tear up just thinking about his story. And so I ask, very humbly, if someone could please decipher the allegory behind the title: "The diving bell and the butterfly." Sappysap23:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"My diving bell becomes less oppressive, and my mind takes flight like a butterfly." The diving bell is a metaphor for the body in which the author is trapped following his stroke; the butterfly an image of his unfettered mind. - Nunh-huh00:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seasonal quiz help
Could one of you bright sparks help me with the answers to the following. 1) Which English possession was taken by the French on 7 January 1558? 2) Which English statesman died on 3 September 1658? 3) Which English king was crowned on Christmas Day? 4) Which British colony surrendered on Christmas Day? 5) Which stone disappeared on Christmas Day? 5) How is Rembrant's 1642 Masterpiece The Company of Frans Banning Cocq and Willem van Ruytenburch better known? 6) What epithet was given to Harold Macmillan's abrupt dismissal of seven members of his cabinet in July 1962? 6) Which English king was said to have died from a surfeit of lampreys? 7) In February 1429 Sir John Fastolf drove off a Franco-Scottish attack on an English supply convoy near Orleans. How is this action better known? 8) What did Henry VII do with the Yorkist imposter Lambert Simnel after capturing him in 1487? Thanks, y'all. Pope Hilarious23:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's best to add the answers in the following list:
8. (from our article Lambert Simnel): "He pardoned young Simnel (probably because he had mostly been a puppet in the hands of adults) and gave him a job in the royal kitchen as a spit-turner"
It's possible to answer these questions using Wikipedia or Google, if you know how to search. For example, typing in the year or the month-and-day combination will give you a list of events that occured in that year or on that month and day. Wikipedia also has an enormous number of articles, and searching using the textbox on the left (press "Search" if "Go" doesn't work) will usually give you useful results. --Bowlhover04:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
December 2
Can someone write me some poetry
for a girl that I can pretend I wrote. her name is Victoria/Vicki/Vic. Brown hair, blue eyes, cute (hmmm....). We're not together though I want us to be.
Sorry, bud, you're out of luck, at least with me. Depending on how old she is, you might be in just as good shape if you were straightforward with her or wrote it yourself. I believe there are other forums on the internet where people could help you better with your work. The Evil Spartan00:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You would be much better off looking at sites that have poetry...http://www.lovepoemsandquotes.com/ It needn't specifically use the name Victoria though, what matters is that you are expressing what you think to her - be it through carefully selecting some wonderfully worded classics or by your own attempts. Either way good luck ny156uk00:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love so much I may be sicky,
Please don't be too picky, Vicki.
How do I love thee, Vicki-wiki?
More than Minnie loves her Mickey!
Bobbie, speak from your heart, and in your own words. Girls can detect insincerity like a shark detects blood. Believe me! (PS. I did not pen the above ode!!!) Clio the Muse00:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Girls love insincerity! Here's my contribution. Use it as you see fit:
If you cannot write your own poetry, quote a famous poet and then explain how it makes you feel. It worked for Clinton - using Whitman to win the favor of many women. -- kainaw™03:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I am suddenly reminded of this bit from the opening monologue from Bull Durham: "You see, there's a certain amount of life wisdom I give these boys. I can expand their minds. Sometimes when I've got a ballplayer alone, I'll just read Emily Dickinson or Walt Whitman to him, and the guys are so sweet, they always stay and listen. — 'Course, a guy'll listen to anything if he thinks it's foreplay." --Anon, 11:18 UTC, Dec. 2, 2007.
Hey vicky, your so so icky, just the thought of being around you makes me oh so sickyyyy. lol you could do that though i dont think it will work. Esskater1104:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heed some of the advice given to you above, and beware, young Christian: Though she may be willing to lie to herself, your Roxane will eventually "see through all the generous counterfeit". And the young cadet's exit comes far too soon. ---Sluzzelintalk15:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Email this thread to her to indicate the depth of your infatuation, the sincerity of your love, the degree of your modesty, and the total loss of your common sense. (joke)--Eriastrum17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Potato and France
In the potato article, it says that the potato was unpopular in France while gaining popularity in Europe, but doesn't specify why. My Google research has lead to 2 reasons:
The French likened the potato plant to looking similar to a type of poisonous nightshade.
The French thought the potato was beneath them as a peasant food
Is there a predominant reason for the unpopularity? I know the tomato was also likened as a poisonous type of nightshade and was unpopular in Britain for a while because of it. I would've thought that that would take precedence to class stature, but of course, I wouldn't know any better.
Possible explanations: it is not mentionned in the bible and it grows realy easely so it might be the "plant of the devil", this might be further reinforced by its growing underground. There were rumours that it caused illness and was only used to feed livestock. It was a completely unknown plant and at first people didn't know what to call it. It was first called truffle or cartuffle before it became patate and earth apple both terms that are still used today the first considered more lower class.
There's the famous story of Parmentier's efforts to make the consumption of potatoes more widespread in France at the end of the 18th Century (about 2 centuries after it was first introduced) after he had come back from captivity in Prussia where he first ate the plant. He offered to Louis XVI the flowering plant and organised a banquet where all the meals had potatoe as a base ingredient thus popularizing it with the courtiers and the fashion of eating the tubercule raining down to the lower classes. He then planted a whole field of potatoes in Paris and had it guarded by soldiers. The rumour spread in the starving city that they were guarding a valuable plant and interest grew. Parmentier then kept the guards during the day and withdrew them at night. All the potatoes were gone in a matter of days! The king remarked to him then: "France will thank you one day for having invented the poor man's bread". Keria12:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Catholics under Elizabeth
I saw and enjoyed Elizabeth the Golden Age. I have two questions. Is it historically accurate? (I can't really believe that Elizabeth Carried on with Raleigh in the manner depicted!) Second, and more generally, if Catholics and Catholicism were so suspect how did people of this religion fare under the rule of Elizabeth? 86.148.38.11614:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your first question is one I have given before, 86.148; it is best not to look for accuracy in historical drama of this kind. There are too many absurdities to mention in detail; the burning Armada, being one, and the Queen still entertaining the prospect of marriage while in her fifties, being another. Enjoy the movie; forget the history.
As far as the Catholicism question is concerned, to begin with the situation was fairly fluid, with patterns of conformity and dissent dictated as much by local considerations as by national policy. It was quite possible for people to be Catholic in some aspects of their lives, though not in others; conformist and non-conformist at one and the same time. This flexibility gave way to more rigid attitudes in 1571, by which time the Church of England had given firm expression to its Protestant doctrine in the Thirty-Nine Articles, while the Council of Trent gave a far stricter definition of what it meant to be a Catholic, forbidding any kind of participation in heretical services. At that point the whole question moves from one of faith to one of politics: the conflict and contradiction between loyalty to one's faith and loyalty to one's nation. Even so, it is important not to place too much weight on Pius V's Regnans in Excelsis, declaring Elizabeth to be a pretender, as most English Catholics made open and sincere declarations of loyalty to the crown.
Still, for obvious reasons, it made the general position of recusants that much more problematic. The government became more vigilant, though action against priests was restricted to the new cohort emerging from Douai College, and not the surviving native or Marian priests, who were allowed to continue with minimum interference. In 1585 all priests ordained abroad and returning to England were declared guilty of high treason, and those who helped them of a felony. At the same time the pressure of the recusants became more systematic. It was possible for ordinary people to remain Catholic-and a great many did-though the financial penalties for doing so became ever more burdensome. By the end of Elizabeth's reign in 1603, while it is difficult to give precise figures, Catholics comprised no more than about 2% of the total population in England, more numerous in some places than in others. The most secure were the upper class and noble Catholics, those who could afford to pay the recusancy fines. But the faith survived also among sections of the working population. They survived, with difficulty, yes, but without the wholesale persecution that was the fate of religious minorities on the Continent. Clio the Muse01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratification of international treaties by France
The French National Assembly and Senate have autorized ratification of the London Agreement (a patent law treaty signed in 2000). However, the French government has not yet "deposited the instrument of ratification". Can we technically already say that the London Agreement has been ratified by France? (Note that I am not sure whether the terms actually matter much since the Agreement will only enter into force after the deposit of the instruments of ratification by France, but I am just wondering whether the present wording in the Wikipedia article is legally accurate). Any idea? Thanks. --Edcolins15:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use
Is it easy for a website with advertisements to claim fair use? I heard of a case where a website managed, but is that just a once off thing or is that likely to happen?--Phoenix-wiki(talk·contribs)15:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To start, this depends on the applicable jurisdiction(s), which are not always easy to determine for websites. Different countries have drastically different fair use criteria. Assuming that U.S. federal law applies, whether fair use can be rightfully claimed is a difficult balance between several factors that must be considered, including "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes". However, according to our article Fair use, this factor has recently been deemphasized in some Circuits since many, if not most, secondary uses seek at least some measure of commercial gain from their use. I think it is fair to say that it is probably not easy if the use of the copyrighted material is for blatantly commercial purposes, but if, for example, a for-profit website devoted to art sells posters, but also, as a public service, alerts its visitors to exhibitions in musea, and then uses a low-resolution copy of the museum poster to illustrate such an alert, one may imagine they might be successful in making the case that this constitutes fair use. --Lambiam19:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Military service is only obligatory for Swiss males, who have to serve for at least 260 days in the armed forces; conscripts receive 18 weeks of mandatory training, followed by seven 3-week intermittent recalls for training over the next 10 years.[23] See also our article Military of Switzerland. I can find no information suggesting that a male would not be admitted to university before having fulfilled this obligation; somehow I doubt that there is such a restriction. --Lambiam18:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read today in the UK Sunday Times a report from a current legal case. It would appear that the American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the rendition law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime. Rendition, or kidnapping, dates back to 19th-century bounty hunting and Washington believes it is still legitimate. During a hearing last month Lord Justice Moses, one of the Court of Appeal judges, asked Alun Jones QC, representing the US government, about its treatment of Gavin, Tollman’s nephew. Gavin Tollman was the subject of an attempted abduction during a visit to Canada in 2005. Jones replied that it was acceptable under American law to kidnap people if they were wanted for offences in America. “The United States does have a view about procuring people to its own shores which is not shared,” he said. He said that if a person was kidnapped by the US authorities in another country and was brought back to face charges in America, no US court could rule that the abduction was illegal and free him: “If you kidnap a person outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse — it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860s.”
Can anyone enlighten me on this subject? I would have thought that such actions would be unconstitutional on many levels, but the US legal system is rarely clear and concise!83.148.88.3719:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert but I am an American. From what I can gather, it comes down to the fact that George W. Bush is "The Decider". Therefore, laws, morals, ethics, diplomacy and rights only exist if Bush decides they exist. I don't know why this is hard to understand! It isn't relative, it's ABSOLUTE!
For my part though I hope someday G.W. Bush and his cronies come to France. If only the French had caught Kissinger! Then, the International War Crime Tribunal! I am ever ashamed of my country and the things it has done. For a good read, check out Harold Pinter's Nobel acceptance speech (Google it, it's online). It made me cry. Saudade723:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, my understanding is that in [parts of?] the US, you can arrest someone and bring them to court even if you're not a formal law enforcement officer - as long as there's a warrant, it's legitimate. As this is basically a form of arrest, which by definition is legal, the courts don't consider it kidnap or unlawful detention or the like. Doing it overseas is substantially more, uh, legally exotic, but as far as the courts are concerned, it's legal to them. If you break local law in doing it, that's your own problem, but the US court won't consider that a violation. (Usual disclaimers, mainly that I read about this years ago, apply) Shimgray | talk | 01:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problems in the aboriginal communities??
I would like to find a few articles on "problems in the aboriginal community" in Canada for my project. I need information and I need it fast. It would be nice to find a few articles on these topics:
Yes, is the short answer; for Nazis and Fascists of all sorts. According to Paul Preston, a specialist in Spanish history and biographer of Fransisco Franco, many were given asylum and a fresh identity in Spain at the end of the war. Franco himself connived at the escape of Leon Degrelle, the Belgian Fascist leader and SS general. Other major figures who obtained a safe haven in Spain included Otto Skorzeny and Louis Darquier de Pellepoix, head of Vichy's Jewish Agency, and instrumental in the deportation of many people to Auschwitz. In May 1946 it was estimated by a sub-committee set up by the United Nations Security Council that between 2-3000 German Nazi officials, agents and war criminals were living in Spain, along with several thousand members of the Vichy Milice. Clio the Muse00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baghdad in Afghanistan?
Is there a place called Baghdad in Afghanistan? It seems there is according to [24]. I could not find it myself. If it exists, is it notable enough to have its own article? Baghdad, Afghanistan
The article's title is incorrect and should read "Detained Nepalis in Iraq to be released soon" The Nepalis worked and were held as detainees in Baghdad, Iraq. ---Sluzzelintalk20:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, there is such a place: [25], [26]. This is also confirmed by the [NGA GEOnet Names Server, which classifies it as a "populated place". Google maps also knows a "Baghdad, Afghanistan", but the satellite images show nothing suggesting human habitation. --Lambiam21:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. Actually, its my fault for not researching thoroughly enough. Google Earth did show Baghdad, Vardak Afghanistan. The result is not in a very high resolution. However, the fact that it exists is all that matters at the moment.
We must all be aware of the madness of King George. I was wondering if there were any other mad monarchs living around the same time, or are monarchs all mad? Anyway, if any were mad did they show the same symptoms as poor old George? Kaiser Will06:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
