Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 7

Mahatma Gandhi

Some people say that Mahatma Gandhi changed the law. How did he change the law and did he believed that he need to change it and what were his methods? This is not a homework question. Please, answer it. Thank you. February 06, 2008 7:41 p.m. Toronto. Don Mustafa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 00:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your question, Don Mustafa, is awfully vague. Which people, which law and where? Ghandi himself never enjoyed direct political power, and was thus not in a position to change any law. He certainly had an impact on the operation of certain laws. On this I would refer you to his campaign against the discriminatory pass laws during his time in South Africa. His method was to promote a sustained campaign of non-violent civil disobedience among the Indian community. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that how did he change the law when he was in India and South Africa? What did he believed that he need to change the law? February 08, 2008 6:36 p.m. Toronto Don Mustafa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 23:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

He did not change 'the law' in India. As for his campaign in South Africa, and the reasons for it, you could do no better than read the links I have provided. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jacob Burkardt / coining of "Renaissance style."

The following appears in a 19th-century manuscript for an entry dated August 1855: "St. Michael, a large Gothic church, has a front of more recent date composed of Grecian details in the style called the 'Renaissance'." The article on Jacob Burkhardt in Wikipedia states that Der Cicerone was not published until 1855. I don't think the author read German. My Oxford Universal Dictionary on Historical Principles (1955) gives a date of 1840 for the use of Renaissance in the context of style. If a date is 1840 is correct, in what publication (of Burkhardt?) did it appear? LShecut2nd (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Jacob Burckhardt's first book, a study of Belgian art and architecture, was published in 1842, the year before he took his doctorate. However, in his 1847 revision of Franz Kugler's Handbuch der Geschichte der Maleri, he placed new importance on the Renaissance over the Romantic style. I can offer no comment on the (vague) 1840 reference given in your handbook, LShecut2nd. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The dictionary cited before defines Renaissance thus: "I. The revival of art and letters, under the influence of classical models, which began in Italy in the 14th c. ; the period during which this movement was in progress 1845. b. ellipt. The style of art or architecture developed in, and characteristic of, this period 1840." Strangely the Renaissance "period" idea is dated 1845 while the Renaissance "style" built upon the "period" is dated five years before. My author, Frederick Hubbard, mentions the Renaissance style in an entry dated August 1855. Possibly the dictionary date should have been 1860 instead of 1840, and Frederick Hubbard, compliling his notes possibly as late as the 1870's, entered an anachronism in his finished "Notes on Travel." If someone could provide a definitive date for "Renaissance style" (in English or French), then I could be more certain. In the mean time, I can only add a footnote stating that the term was still new at the time of the author, without indicating how new. Thanks to all. LShecut2nd (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your quotes are exactly those in SOED. But what precisely is the question? If it concerns the originator of the word Renaissance (in English, not German, presumably), I am afraid I cannot help. I wonder whether it is necessary to postulate 1860 as a date. On the contrary, it is quite likely that the term was first applied in a more concrete way (to a style or manner) and only subsequently to the period. After all, periods do not exist in their own right, but are a function of artefacts, occurrences and the like. So the "linguistic origination order" style...period is not surprising.

While Burckhardt's work of 1860 popularized the word, it had already been used by Vasari 1n ?1568. Which leaves open the question who first used the word, in either sense, in English. But cf. [1]. [BTW, as Clio will no doubt be aware, the title reads Handbuch der Geschichte der Malerei.] Bessel Dekker (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

True! Incidentally, the word 'Renaissance' is actually French, Bessel Dekker, a term given its first modern usage, I believe, by the historian Jules Michelet Clio the Muse (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct, and that was in 1855. However, [2], in French the term in its modern sense (allied to humanism, not Christianity) is alternatively said to date from the 18th century. Michelet n'a pas créé le mot Renaissance mais l'a transformé en notion historique. (ibid.) Vasari's term, of course, was in its Italian form: Rinascita. All in all, there seems to be no reason to assume that the word was first used in English as late as 1860. Bessel Dekker (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Waz up i neeed help On a report!!!

Okies iam doing a report on george washington and i do really in depth reports but i like to through in a good twist that most ppl dont really notice Can anyone help me find some stuff that shows a darker side to george washington.

Sethivere ^.^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethivere (talk • contribs) 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Do your own homework, turkey. But consider the angle that he was, in a lot of senses, a traitor to his country -- he was a successful military officer, trusted, and highly regarded by his country, and he wound up turning traitor, joining a militia, and doing immeasurable harm to his homeland's economic and military future. If he had failed, he would have been Timothy McVeigh or maybe even Guy Fawkes... Just a thought, anyway. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya but consider that fact that the guy was a serious jerk in many ways, and people say he was a great general...haha the guy was a joke he sucked!he had now way of fighting inteligently...and as for a trusted man i agree and Woundering a traitor W/e the man killed anyone that ran away in battle even if it was to save himself or another the man was cruel and a racist as well i can look at the good things but i dont mean to be a down strider but damn the guy had alot of bad things to him as well but im looking for fresh material and i cant find any :p i will have you know im an excelling student that doese alot of research...and at the moment is to tired to spell or add puncuation

Respectfully Setivere!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.208.206 (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

To find the desired dark side of George Washingron you seek, remark on the fact that he owned slaves. Then take every opportunuity to apply 21st-century moralizing to this 18th-century Virginian, with numerous self-righteous asides. --Wetman (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

People really should learn to do their own research and their own homework. Taking the time to spell is also not a bad move. If Washington shot deserters, I don't see how that is different from any other army or general, including modern ones. Washington wasn't a brilliant general but he was an inspiring leader. Not perfect by any means, but he deserves better than to be judged by our standards.AllenHansen (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

He slept around. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's time to dig out the "do your own homework" template. And if you can't be bothered to spell or add punctuation, why should we be bothered to do anything to help you? 80.254.147.52 (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't WP:BITE. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why be so mean to the kid? He/she did say that he needed help and that he did look around didnt they? And all they need was fresh material right... well I can help you. >.< —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blarp (talk • contribs) 17:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he is not a born English speaker (to be fair).--Johnluckie (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I heard several biographers discuss George Washington at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. They stressed that he was not as well educated as the other Founding Fathers. He was unable to attend college. The most re75Janice (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)markable thing he did was to return home after the Revolutionary War and after his presidency. The founders were well versed in classical history. Achieving democracy was easy compared to keeping it. Congress deliberately short funded the military fearing a coup d'etat. George Washinton discovered such a plot and confronted his unpaid officers. Napoleon, for one, has total scorn for George. He remarked when captured that they expected him to do a Washington. Having read several biographies, I was impressed that he was not as mediocre as urban legend depicts. I even wonder if there were something in his personality that led members of Congress to trust him.75Janice (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Movie screenwriting

Could you please show me a sample of a written script. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.19.216 (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds available via this simple google search --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the Metatron really the voice of God or is Alan Rickman lying to me?

I am trying to find information pertaining to the actual responsibilities and duties of the Metatron. So far I have only been able to find very vague information that deals more with where he came from and not what he does.

I understand that he holds the throne next to God, but what does he do specifically?

If the Metatron really is the voice and hand of God, doesn't that mean that it was he who spoke to Adam and Even instead of God and forced Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden?

--StatusQuo87 (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You really shouldn't be getting your theology from a movie. You may want to have a look at our article on Metatron, who appears only in post-scriptural esoteric sources. There is no general agreement on any aspect of anything relating to Metatron, from his existence to his nature and attributes, or to his role. So he can be pretty much anything you or a film script writer wants him to be. - Nunh-huh 07:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought Megatron was really the voice of Elrond and Agent Smith? I'm confused. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The author was using a comical title to get people's attention, but his question is a valid one. Is Metatron the voice of God? And/or did he expel Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden? I think reseach into specifics of demonology, and Medieval transcripts of theology may provide some answer, but as they are not Biblical per se, the answer is not "official" per se. Zidel333 (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As I noted, Metatron appears only in post-scriptural esoteric sources. There can be no answer to any question about what he "really" is. - Nunh-huh 03:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Senator vs Senator

In the upcoming U.S. presidential election, both the Republican and Democratic candidates will be serving in the senate. I think this is the first presidential election in which each party will nominate a sitting senator. Can anyone confirm or deny my suspicion? Lantzy ^talk 05:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite the media hype, we don't yet know that the Republican nominee will be a Senator. But before 1952 at least (there has been an incumbent President or VP in each since then) Rmhermen (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Using the list of Presidents who were Senators on List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_political_occupation#Senators as a starting point, I didn't find any time that two Senators of any parties ran against each other as major candidates. Perhaps I missed one though, I have a baby screaming in my ear right now. Rmhermen (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The only senator-on-senator contest that I can find is the 1960 election between Nixon and Kennedy, but Nixon wasn't serving in 1960. Lantzy ^talk 01:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, if it's OK to include a former senator, then in addition to 1960:
  • In 1964, former senator Johnson ran against current senator Goldwater.
  • In 1968, former senator Nixon ran against former senator Humphrey.
  • In 1972, former senator Nixon ran against current senator McGovern.
  • ...plus several prior to 1960.
• But if we're just talking about current senators running against each other, then the problem is that we almost never have two candidates, neither of whom is the sitting president or vice-president. As noted above, that last happened in 1952, when Gov. Stevenson lost to Gen. Eisenhower. Before that, the elections of 1928 and 1920, 1908, 1896, 1884, 1880, 1876, and 1868, did not involve an incumbent, but also didn't involve two Senators.
• Which brings us to the curious case of 1860. This election did involve a sitting Vice-President, John C. Breckinridge. The famous victor was non-Senator Abraham Lincoln. And yet the election featured 2 senators: John Bell (Tennessee politician) left the Senate in 1859 and took no other office between then and his presidential run (3rd in electoral vote, 4th in popular vote); while Stephen A. Douglas was a real sitting senator (4th in electoral vote, 2nd in popular vote). If only John Bell had been able to secure re-election in 1859!
• We also have non-incumbent races in 1856, 1848, 1844, but no cigar...
• Bringing us to the truly bizarre 1836 election. In addition to famously being the last election until 1988 to result in the elevation of an incumbent Vice President to the nation's highest office, the election also featured Senator Hugh Lawson White (3rd in electoral votes), Senator Daniel Webster (4th), and Senator Willie Person Mangum (5th). Why? The Whig Party's why-not strategy of running 4 different presidential candidates.
• OK, so that's technically not a "presidential election in which each party (nominated) a sitting senator". But it's the closest you'll get. In the other non-incumbent elections, 1824, 1816, and 1808, the sitting-senator issue doesn't come up.
• So there you have it -- either the answer is "twice before: 1836 and 1860" or, "this is the first time ever." (takes a bow) --M@rēino 20:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How to become a Muslim?

I want to become a Muslim because I like Allah, Islamic words, and the religion of Islam. I was born Buddhist. I'm no longer Buddhist. My family are all Buddhist and if I become a Muslim, I will be the only Muslim in the family. My family may want to take me to a Buddhist temple even I'm a Muslim. What should I do if they take me to an Buddhist temple? Please no Islamophobia answers and/or comments. Jet (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, it is makruh for a Muslim to enter a non-Muslim place of worship, be it a church, synagogue, or a Buddhist temple, unless some extraordinary benefit outweighs the harm (al-Fatwa al-Hindiyya, 5:346). So while it is not haram, it is not the sort of thing to be undertaken casually. It is acceptable to attend the funeral of a non-Muslim friend, relative, or associate. "And one may follow [the non-Muslim's] funeral from afar" (al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 2:205). However, it is haram to take an active role in a non-Muslim funerary rite, especially if it involves praying for non-Muslims. "It is not for the Prophet and those who believe to pray for the forgiveness of idolaters even though they may be near of kin after it has become clear that they are people of hell-fire." (At-Tawba, verse 113). For this reason, Muhammad himself was forbidden to pray for his beloved uncle Abu Talib. Lantzy ^talk 06:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So what are the consequences of a Muslim entering a non-Islamic place of worship? I know Hui Chinese people who are nominally Muslim but (at least) enter Buddhist or Taoist places of worship. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is makruh, then it carries no formal penalty. However, it may damage one's standing in the eyes of other Muslims. More importantly, it is supposed to incur divine annoyance. Of course, some Muslims are more lenient than others. It is very unlikely that conservative religious Hui in northwestern China would ever enter a Buddhist or Taoist temple, but it would not be remarkable among the Hui of northeastern China, who have also been known to drink, smoke, and eat pork. It is more a matter of personal orthodoxy than of denomination. Lantzy ^talk 07:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Some Muslims do not subscribe to a specific "School of Law", but ultimately consider the way they interpret God's Law and attempt to live according to it a matter between God and themselves – a liberal notion many other Muslims find unacceptable, though.  --Lambiam 07:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a mosque near you? Take your questions there, because they'll be able to give you a better answer than any wikipedist.AllenHansen (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that taking the question to a local mosque is a good idea. It would, however, surprise me if that idea has not occurred to the OP. To me, the answers that the question received here appear to be both insightful and well referenced. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 10:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your local Mullah is the man to speak to. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear to me where you live or what your age is. If you live in Australia for example and are of such an age where you are no longer a guardian (18?) then you would be fully entitled to leave your parents or other guardians if they don't respect your personal desire not to go to a Buddhist temple. This may be possible if you are not of legal age but it will be much more difficult. However before you try anything this drastic I would recommend you try talking to your parents/guardians about your feelings in this matter. Perhaps you may want to bring a friend, preferably an adult (e.g. a teacher) and someone who is not a Muslim (so that your parents/guardian don't think this person is unfairly influencing you) to help you in this matter. Indeed you could even try talking to someone in the Buddhist temple about this matter, they may be more then willing to help you since there is a fair chance they don't want someone being made to attend the temple who doesn't want to. N.B. I'm not saying you should take this matter this seriously. Personally I'm agnostic and have no problem entering any place of worship nor do I think people should have a problem. But if you do feel you don't wish to enter a place of worship outside of your religion then definitely you should stand up for yourself IMHO. Nil Einne (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Presidential candidates losing their home state

Another question about the US presidential elections: how many times has it happened that a presidential candidate of one of the leading parties didn't win in his home state? I came across George McGovern not winning South Dakota in 1972, but have there been any other cases? Aecis^Brievenbus 15:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, we have an article List of major-party United States presidential candidates who lost their home state. FiggyBee (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The most notable one recently, of course, was Al Gore in 2000, who would have won the presidency had he won his home state. —Kevin Myers 15:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Florida? ;) Aecis^Brievenbus 15:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Everybody knows he won Florida. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't.  ;) --Emery (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which: I just noticed that both candidates in the 1920 election were from Ohio. Time for more listcruft? :) Aecis^Brievenbus 00:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Turks in Germany

Why are there so many people of Turkish origin in Germany? I can understand the preference for South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis) to migrate to the UK due to the fact that those places were part of the British Empire. The same for North African Arabs in France, due to the French control of Morroco and other places there. But what link is there between Turkey and Germany? The only thing I can think of is that the Ottoman Empire was allied with Germany in the 1st World War, but that seems a little farfetched. --81.158.148.64 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The articles Germany-Turkey relations and Turks in Germany may be a starting point. FiggyBee (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

According to our article on Gastarbeiter, Germany signed official agreements with several countries during its economic boom in the 1950s and '60s whereby citizens of those countries could easily move to Germany as temporary workers. Turkey was the third country whose citizens were invited to work in Germany under the Gastarbeiter program, and it was by far the poorest and most populous country taking part in this program. As such, the scale of the Turkish migration was larger than the migrations from other Gastarbeiter homelands. As it turned out, many of the Gastarbeiter stayed on to become permanent residents and raise children in Germany. Turks were more likely to stay on as residents of Germany than citizens of Italy, Greece, or Portugal, because those three countries developed rapidly from the 1960s through the 1980s as members of the European Union (or its predecessor the European Community). So citizens of those countries were likely to return to their home countries to take advantage of opportunities there. By contrast, Turkey still remains outside the EU, and it remains relatively poor. If you look at the numbers in the table on page 83 of this document, you will see that Turks are the largest foreign nationality in Germany. However, if you add up the numbers for countries that were formerly part of Yugoslavia, you will see that collectively they are not so far behind. Like Turkey, the former Yugoslavian countries (with the exception of Slovenia) remain relatively poor and outside of the EU. Marco polo (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Names and backgrounds of wives of the Karaite exilarchs

What where the names and backgrounds of the wives of the Karaite exilarchs Hezekiah ben Solomon and Hasdai ben Hezekiah? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Name of a symbol?

Could anyone identify the symbol on the bottom left of this image? Thanks. http://z.about.com/d/graphicssoft/1/0/H/N/1/Small_BW_patterns.gif 213.167.126.215 (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fleur-de-lis? --169.230.94.28 (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! 213.167.126.215 (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Mayan artifact?

I happened to see this listing on Craigs List [3], and I wonder if any of the varied and wise minds on Wikipedia have any thoughts about it. Thanks. --76.16.186.86 (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

God's Name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.220.73 (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A price tag of $2500 and the non-claim of "could be Mayan, not sure" sounds like a scam. Also, if it is genuine, then chances are it belongs to the Mexican Government and anyone buying or selling it in the US is at risk of criminal prosecution. FiggyBee (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if it was found while traveling (where? unburied how? the lack of even basic details makes this extra sketchy), there's no evidence here that it's worth anything at all. It might not be old at all—there is an entire modern market of such trinkets today. I wouldn't drop thousands of dollars on something like that without some authentication being done. Of course, if the authentication was done, then it might not be legal to own. A classic catch-22. (As a side note, I seem to recall that once there was a case where someone alleged fraud in the purchasing of something illegal and it was decided that it was, indeed fraud, or something like that. Anyone know what I'm talking about?) --98.217.18.109 (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a touristy souvenier!!! Someone is probably trying to get $2500 for what cost them no more than $50. AllenHansen (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Allen. --Wetman (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Musical Comedy Murders of 1940

Where can I find an online performance of the play The Musical Comedy Murders of 1940, by John Bishop? Thanks for all the help, it's much appreciated. --Emery (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

An online copy of the script would be much appreciated too. --Emery (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

February 8

Software business

I am in the process of producing a medical educational software program for a newly created software production company. This company does not have the resources to market or distribute the program once it is released. Therefore, we wish to sell rights to publish the program, once it is completed, to another company. Right now we are in the pre production stage.

• How do I proceed in attempting to sell rights to this program?
• Who would be interested buying rights?
• Is a better idea to wait before or after the program is created to begin attempting to sell rights to it?
• I would be interested in any other advice on this matter anyone wishes to give.

Thank you - Ben-Gurion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.239.144 (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Until an expert appears, you could approach the equivalent of a small business enterprise centre or small business advisory agency of some kind to explore handling this kind of situation unless you can afford legal advice. Perhaps also Google something like "production company startup advice" etc? --Julia Rossi (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider patenting your idea before approaching any interested parties, so as to exclude others from "borrowing" it and levaing you empty-handed. Bessel Dekker (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote from an Aboriginal

Who was the Aboriginal in Canada's Praries who, realizing it was too late to resist white expansion in the 1890's, make an exclamation similar to "The iron tracks [Canadian Pacific Railroad] stretch from sunrise to sundown...the talking poles [telegraph poles] dot the ground...It is too late now." It was in the episode of Canada: A People's History covering the period from confederation to the twentieth century. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Big Bear, possibly? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read similar, possibly apochryphal utterances, attributed to other Native Americans. Edison (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Berlin and the cold war

Please help with information on this question. To what extent is the history of Berlin after 1945 the history of the rise and fall of the Cold War? Please answer soon. Thank you very much. Clare Z (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a homework question. But take a look at Cold War, History of Berlin, West Berlin, East Berlin, Berlin Blockade, Berlin Wall, Ich bin ein Berliner, and other relevant articles. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 07:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Rumi

What is the stereotype of Americans who are into Rumi poetry? New agers? --S.dedalus (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dirty hippies, the lot of them! Does this occur often enough to form a stereotype? Everyone I know who is into Rumi is a student in Middle Eastern studies in some capacity. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Rumi is well enough known in the United States for a stereotype to have formed. Americans who like Rumi would generally be more highly educated than average. Marco polo (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Tale of two Revolutions

I would like to know why the Communists succceeded in taking power in Russia in 1917 but failed to do so in Germany in 1919 when the circumstances were so very similar (defeat in war, collapse of the old order, military personnel in revolt and so on). Was it because the Russians were better organised or were there other factors at work? Was there anything the Provisional Government in Russia could have done to prevent the Communist takeover, or was this inevitable? This may sound like a compare and contrast question but I assure you it is not homework but simple curiosity. Helphand (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, you might want to review our articles German Revolution and Russian Revolution (1917). They do not directly answer your question. A short answer would be that Russia was a much poorer country before the war, and the war devastated living standards in Russia to a greater extent than in Germany. Ordinary Russians were in a desperate state and more open to radical solutions than Germans. As a result, the Bolsheviks managed to win widespread support among workers, peasants, and—importantly—soldiers in Russia, and they were committed to monopolizing state power through essentially undemocratic means. By contrast, in Germany, many workers supported the SPD, which aimed for power through democratic means and had more moderate political goals. A smaller minority supported the USPD and its more radical offshoot, the KPD, which aimed for a communist revolution like that in Russia. The German communists did not succeed in attracting widespread support among troops returning from the front. When the communists took to the streets and attempted an revolt, the SPD-dominated government used troops to put it down. So, in effect, the communists failed in Germany because the socialist left was divided as it was not in Russia. Having offered this brief explanation, I await Clio, who is likely to offer a more insightful and thorough response. Marco polo (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not really that much to add to what Marco has already written, other than to say that there is one crucial difference between the Russian and the German Revolutions: in Russia the army lost all discipline and cohesion; in Germany it did not. By November 1917 Alexander Kerensky, heading the Provisional Government, could call on the support of only a few loyal units. Most of the soldiers still in arms owed their first loyalty to the Soviets, and these were increasingly dominated by the Bolsheviks, hungry for power and full of ruthless determination. Practically speaking, by the time they launched the attack on the Winter Palace in Petrograd, the Russian state had all but ceased to exist. Lenin and his party effectively took power in a vacuum.

In Germany, despite the shock of the Armistice, the apparatus of the state was still fully functional. Power had merely slipped sideways, from the old Conservative elites to the Socialist moderates, people like Philipp Scheidemann and Friedrich Ebert, Kerenskys rather than Lenins. The closest Germany had to Lenin and Trotsky was Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht, but they were far less ruthless politically and far less organised. They were also unconvinced by the putchist nature of the Russian Revolution, and were pushed into half-hearted and uncoordinated risings against their better judgement. The efforts of the Spartacist League-subsequently the KPD-were certainly hampered by divisions on the left, though these same divisions were also present in Russia, where the Social Revolutionaries and even the Mensheviks were stronger than the Bolsheviks. But most crucial of all there was no power vacuum in Germany. The army returned from the front in good order, and, in the shape of the newly formed Freikorps, helped to sustain state authority against the radical left. In Russia the White Guard came into existence after the Communists had taken power; in Germany the White Guard served to prevent the social revolution.

As far as your final question is concerned, Helphand, it is almost certain that the only way that the Provisional Government could have prevented the Bolshevik coup was, paradoxically, to adopt a Bolshevik programme-that of peace, bread and land. It would, of course, have meant withdrawing Russia from the alliance with the western powers at a crucial stage in the war, before the Americans has arrived in any numbers and while the French army was still reeling from a series of mutinies. If the Germans had been able to switch their eastern reserves west by the summer of 1917, as they did in the spring of 1918, the war might very well have been lost. So the actions of Georgy Lvov and Alexander Kerensky in keeping Russia in the war were of crucial importance, even though they and their country were to pay the highest of political prices. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's also not forget that in one crucial way, the circumstances were not the same: The war was over at the time of the Spartacist Uprising, but it was still raging in 1917. The Bolsheviks and their partners, the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries were the only political forces in Russia who were both unabashedly against the war and were assertive enough to demand power. In Germany, there was no ongoing detested war to attract the masses to the far left. It's also worth contrasting the performance of Friedrich Ebert and Alexander Kerensky. The former managed to walk a careful balance between left and right, while the latter managed to completely alienate both. Thus, while Ebert's government had right-wing defenders against the Spartacist Uprising and left-wing defenders against the Kapp Putsch, hardly anyone came to the defense of the provisional government when the Bolsheviks launched the October Revolution. The rightists, too infuriated by the Kornilov affair and the social changes of 1917 to rescue Kerensky, retreated to the Ukraine and Siberia and launched a counterrevolution instead.

Could the provisional government have prevented the Communist takeover? Perhaps -- but keep in mind that it was a provisional government. Unlike the soviets, which at least were elected by soldiers and factory employees, the provisional government had little legitimacy. A truly elected government based on broad suffrage might have had more support in 1917, but the provisional government kept delaying elections. By the time the Russian Constituent Assembly finally met, the Bolsheviks had already taken over. Germany also had a provisional government after its revolution, but it quickly called elections for the Weimar National Assembly -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lowest paying jobs in America

Any idea of a few low paying jobs? Does anyone know how much a house maid earns in America? And how much do those doing these low paying jobs get? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.23.56 (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think domestic servants are excluded from U.S. minimum-wage laws. AnonMoos (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Farm workers, especially migrant farm workers, also often get less than the minimum wage. I think that typical wages for these kinds of workers are around $3 per hour. Marco polo (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Workers who get tips are often subject to much lower minimum wages - like the $2.63 for service (tipped) employees, $1.60 for agricultural employees in Massachusetts. (see U.S. minimum wage for more) Rmhermen (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Migrant pickers and other farm workers get way more than $3 per hour. An article in the Independent (UK) said Florida migrant pickers were paid piecework, so pay depended on productivity, but very hard work earned about $5 per hour. Their labor is essential to the farmer getting his crop raised and marketed, and they can go elsewhere for more money (except for those who are literally enslaved, as related in the Independent story. At the same time I have heard of them getting well over $10 per hour in construction work and I have heard of areas of the country where they get well above $5 per hour for farm work. Per the Oakland Tribune, [4]] farmers in California at times pay as much as $15 per hour to migrant workers when they absolutely must get the work done, and migrants make about 8 times as much as for comparable work in Mexico. As for the Canada part of "America" migrants there got $7 per hour back in 2001 per a CBC story [5]. Edison (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This (old) article suggests US$80 for a 7 day week isn't uncommon for tomato pickers[6]. This suggests things are getting better for some [7] but not all Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is Cletus?

I've seen several US tv shows that include a rather stupid character called Cletus. Are these all copied from each other? And there actually American people today called Cletus?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How about a Liberian (Cletus Wotorson), a Swede (Cletus Andersson), a Nigerian (Cletus Ibeto), a Canadian (Cletus Dunn), and...drumroll please...American former child actor Robert Cletus Driscoll? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It has long been a common US given name. No real implication of stupidity. In the 1930 US Census there were 6,570 individuals with first name Cletus, born from the mid 19th century through the date of the census, and born in most US states as well as many European countries. Some towns had several individuals with that name. This is out of approximately 123,000,000 individuals in the census. (This is the most recent census with individual data released). It was used as a first name for some women as well. This does not include variant spellings such as Clete, Clitus, Clytus, Cleto, Cletious, etc. Edison (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture, it has become a stereotypical redneck or hillbilly name. Recury (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would not call it a "common" given name in the United States. I have lived in the United States almost all my life, and I have never met anyone named Cletus. If you check the Social Security Administration's lists of the most popular names for boys going back to 1950, you will not find Cletus on any of them. Marco polo (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The "slack-jawed yokel" of the Simpsons is named Cletus Spuckler. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised the name has not been more common, particularly among Roman Catholics. St Cletus is one of the select handful of people who were mentioned by name in the pre-1962 Latin Mass [8], which was celebrated for over 1,500 years. (But then, St Chrysogonus was also mentioned, and that name didn't seem to catch on either). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the original question is yes, there are many people in the US named Cletus, and there have been for over a century. From the 1930 census cited above and from the present day www.whowhere.com [9] with 2308 "Cletuses" around the country, it is not that rare a name. Certainly it is not a trendy name or a super-popular one. I would not generalize from the name assigned a yokel on the Simpsons to people in general. It is still more common, per Whowhere, than "Abner" with 829 or "Lum" with 119 entries (as in Lum and Abner), "Mortimer" with 358 as in Mortimer Snerd; or "Gomer" with 126 as inGomer Pyle. Edison (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

King Richard III

I was intrigued to learn from your page on Richard III of England that he continues to have supporters and societies dedicted to his name, quite remarkable for a man who died over five hundred years ago. Is there any reason for this? Was he not as bad as depicted by Shakespeare and was he not responsible for the murder of his nephews? What do you history buffs think? 217.42.103.119 (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

He was portrayed by Shakespeare basically as a hunchbacked leering melodrama villain, so of course authentic history will be more nuanced. He has many fervent supporters (including on the Internet), but the basic facts remain that the princes in the tower died under Richard's custody, and he was the main one who would benefit from their deaths... AnonMoos (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a fact tag above. That's speculation. Henry VII had even more to gain from the deaths of the princes, since he couldnt' very well claim that his own wife, their sister, was illegimate, whereas Richard had been named the legitimate heir based on the alleged illegitimacy of the princes and all of their siblings. Corvus cornix_talk 19:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Henry VII was in no position to kill them until he took London after Bosworth in 1485. The princes weren't seen in public after 1483, and rumors were already spreading by 1484 -- rumors which Richard could have easily put an end to by displaying them in public. The simplest explanation for why he didn't is that he couldn't. By the way, there's an article on Ricardian (Richard III)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

All the same, it's far, far easier to find sources who say that Richard killed the princes than otherwise. Take Rubin's The Hollow Crown as an example, mainly because it was the first general book on the period I could lay my hands on. Rubin reckons Edward's sons were killed around 24 June and quotes Mancini and Dafydd ap Llewellyn to that end. I haven't read much on the Wars of the Roses, but I seem to recall that Hicks argued that Richard feloniously and with malice aforethought, determined on the death of his nephews before he ever came south. Personally I never saw the big deal. English kings were murdered and deposed with tedious regularity in the High Middle Ages. I'm sure whig history had a positive spin to put on this unpleasant English pastime, but I'm damned if I know what it was. Anyway, if it was well done for Henry Bolingbroke to murder his cousin, why shouldn't Richard kill his nephews? Treason doth never prosper ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Given the ruthless politics of the day no usurper, no matter how wide his base of support, was content to allow a rival source of authority and legitimacy to live, which would have been a dangerous political miscalculation. It cannot be proved with certainty that Mortimer and Isabella ordered the murder of Edward II, just as it cannot be proved that Henry IV ordered the death of Richard II; but murdered they were and for obvious political reasons, as was Henry VI.

Now, as far as Richard and his nephews are concerned we have no direct evidence that he ordered their murder, and we are unlikely ever to have such evidence. But to assume that he allowed them to live would reverse all we know about the dynastic politics of the day. No serious historian of the period has any doubts that, on the balance of probability, he ordered their deaths. To argue, as the Ricardians do, that they survived into the reign of Henry VII, in dark obscurity, is to stretch what is credible to breaking point, and beyond.

What I can say-and those of you familiar with the Close Rolls, Pipe Rolls and Exchequer Rolls will understand this point-is that English records contain an amazing amount of detail on financial grants, wardship, maintenance allowances, even laundry bills and the like, often for some of the most obscure individuals. For important state prisoners, like Edward and Richard of York, the detail is especially fulsome. The little Princes are there in abundance until the summer of 1483, when all mention of them ends. As far as the official records are concerned they had, by this time, ceased to exist. If they ceased to exist in record there is no surer guarantee that they had ceased to exist in fact. They were dead.

As far as the more general point raised by the questioner is concerned, no, I do not think that Richard was as bad a king, and as dark a tyrant, as made out by Sir Thomas More and his Tudor contemporaries. As Duke of Gloucester he had been an able lieutenant to his brother Edward IV; an able soldier, an able administrator and an able judge. He went on to be an able king, ruthless, yes, but no more so than any other monarch of the day. But, save for the circumstances of his coming, and of his going, his short reign is one of the least memorable in all of English history. It is almost certain that if it had not been for the hunchback villain created by Shakespeare that his reign would be little more than a footnote in the general record, of concern only to specialists. But as the dark monster-or the maligned hero-he will live for ever in the popular imagination. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I love Richard III debates, and am a Ricardian at heart, I do admit. I won't go into all those wonderful theories here, but I do want to suggest an answer to the OP's Why? Partly, we all love a good mystery and want to solve it (like the Jack the Ripper enthusiasts), but the main reason this rift/debate remains is, I believe, a result of the Wars of the Roses: for many years people remained firmly allied with their "side" and would argue the case strongly. These traditions have been passed down. Visit Middleham, at one point Richard's home, and you would think he was a national hero: they even have a pub called Richard III. There were many supporters of Richard III in the north, and that allegiance has remained. Brought up to believe that Richard III was "a good man", people get wound up when some poncy southern academic tells them he was "a bad man". Gwinva (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Addit: I think the controversy was given fresh food with Shakespeare's politically-motivated play, which was written in part to endorse/vindicate the Tudor line; consequently, the anti-Tudors jumped on the Ricardian bandwagon. The issue became a bit of a shibboleth. Nasty Mr Shakespeare; just think what he did to that poor Scottish king, too. In some ways, the causes of / motivation behind the debate are as interesting as the debate itself. Gwinva (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Which of the 48 States has the cheapest residential real estate?

Which of the 48 USA continental States has the cheapest residential real estate? --Jscheiner (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Residential" is a very general term. Alone, the answer would probably be California. The Mojave has land that is extremely cheap. It is so cheap that you are required to put a house on it if you buy some - just to keep people from buying it just to buy it. However, I believe you are asking for "residential property with full access to utilities." -- kainaw™ 14:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

According to this source (click on median sale price), the state with the lowest median sale price for homes is Kansas, with a median price of $59,000. Close behind is Indiana, at $64,000. Often prices will vary widely among different parts of a state. This document shows median sale prices for single-family houses by metropolitan area. Of course, prices are generally lower in non-metropolitan (remote rural) areas. Also, the second document lists median prices of single-family houses, which are generally higher than median prices for "homes", which may include condominiums, so the two sources aren't directly comparable. However, if you want to be in a metropolitan area, the ones with the lowest median sale prices (for houses) are Youngstown, Ohio ($81,600); Saginaw, Michigan ($84,900); Decatur, Illinois ($85,900); Elmira, New York ($93,300); and South Bend, Indiana ($95,200). All other metropolitan areas have median sale prices above $100,000, though some not by much. Marco polo (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the other places, but Elmira, New York, is hardly metropolitan. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 00:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

These are small metropolitan areas (metropolitan statistical areas) according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The Elmira MSA is number 414 in this table. Marco polo (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There are some incredibly cheap residential homes around where we live in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The reason being that this is an area which is losing population every census. It's a real buyers' market. Here's a real estate agency that offers properties around here, just search for residential properties and put no minimum price and see what you come up with. -- Saukkomies 03:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Summary of Human History

What is the summary of human history in a BRIEF paragraph.

I'm NOT looking for some smart-alec tongue in cheek sentence but a SERIOUS paragraph that ACTUALLY summarizes Human History. Thank you!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.27 (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Human History is... the timeline of human evolution, history, technology, and the fate of human societies from the first appearance of Homo sapiens to the present. Think outside the box 17:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's cool, but recursive! You include the world 'history' (between evolution and technology). So, with that term expanded, how should the paragraph actually read...? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.27 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The story of the human species is one of expansion from Africa to the rest of the Old World and the Americas and the mastery of ever more complex technologies that brought ever more complete control over the human environment. Recorded history is but the most recent stage in the story of humanity. It documents the development and expansion of complex societies that made use of new technologies with an increasingly detailed division of labor. The most recent chapter of human history has been one of accelerating scientific discovery, technological advance, use of nonliving sources of energy, economic activity, and population growth. These trends have coincided with the spread of technologies and ideas from western Europe around the world such that the entire world is now more or less part of a single civilization. These trends have also for the first time raised the possibility that humanity could bring about its own demise, through the use of technologically advanced weapons, through the exhaustion of limited natural resources, or through the pollution of the environment with the wastes of human material and energy consumption. Marco polo (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Marco polo: I am awed. Masterful! You do justice to your name and, again...wow. Just, wow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.27 (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Human history is the history of class struggle...or so says one of the Marx Brothers...or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santegeezhe (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, something to report home in the Galaxy 29X5 of the 59th century. --Kvasir (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about economic stimulus package

As reported on CNN.com and virtually all other news sources, the House and Senate have approved the $167B economic stimulus package and President Bush is anticipated to sign it. From the CNN article: The package, which passed the Senate 81-16, will send rebate checks to 130 million Americans in amounts of $300 to $600 for people who have an income between $3,000 and $75,000, plus $300 per child. Couples earning up to $150,000 would get $1,200.

Is the income amount gross or adjusted? In other words, if someone made $100K last year but after deductions paid taxes on $70K, are they eligible for this rebate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanthalas39 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This article at MSNBC mentions that "[c]ontributions to IRA and 401(k) retirement accounts and health savings accounts would not count toward the income limit." I haven't yet located anything that mentions any other adjustments. --LarryMac | Talk 19:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The sidebar on that article lists some scenarios. While it doesn't list my specific one (single, income over $75K), it does refer to "Adjusted Gross Incomes" when comparing to the various thresholds, which implies (to me) that deductions such as mortgage interest, taxes, etc. aren't taken into account. Tanthalas39 (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) OK, a little more searching and I found this article at the SF Gate with some questions and answers, which led me to this PDF at the US Dept of Treasury site with some example calculations. A couple things that stood out for me - 1) you have to file a 2007 tax return (i.e. the one due by April 15 of this year) to be eligible; 2) specific reference is made to "adjusted gross income" (aka AGI). If I remember correctly, that figure is computed before taking the standard or itemized deductions (see Form 1040 PDF here). So the AGI is, in general, larger that the amount on which you pay taxes. Also, I should point out that the SF Gate article is from 31 January, so the final bill might have slightly different terms. --LarryMac | Talk 19:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to file a tax return if you're on Social Security or are a wounded combat vet and otherwise don't qualify for filing taxes. Those people will be eligible for a $300 rebate check vs. the $600 check that tax filers will be getting. Corvus cornix_talk 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If only I had added a disclaimer about that one article being a week old. Oh wait, I did. --LarryMac | Talk 21:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your point being? Where did I say, "LarryMac, you're wrong". Corvus cornix_talk 21:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

the presidential election

I would like to know how the election works. I am not clear on the how the delegates from each state impact the election. Are the peoples votes what elects or is the winner based on the delegates votes from each state? Please explain this whole process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.220.70.64 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What is going on now is not the Presidential election. It is merely the party primaries. The Democrat and Republican parties are trying to find a candidate to back in hopes that the candidate will go on to win the Presidential Election at the end of the year. -- kainaw™ 18:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Each party in each state has its own rules for selecting delegates to the party's presidential nominating convention. In some states, one or both parties hold caucuses or meetings, typically at the county level, to select delegates to the convention. In other states, presidential primaries are held. Again, the rules in each state are different. In some Republican primaries, the candidate with the most votes gets all of the state's delegates. In Democratic and some Republican primaries, delegates are awarded proportionally to the number of votes received, though formulas are sometimes complex. Delegates may be awarded by congressional district based on that district's number of voters registered in the party, so there is not necessarily a direct correspondence between the percentage of votes a candidate won in a given state and the percentage of that state's delegates that he or she wins. Once each state has selected its delegates to the nominating conventions, each convention selects its party's candidate, based on the delegates' votes. The presidential candidates compete in the United States presidential election. Again, the results are determined state by state. The candidate who wins the largest number of popular votes wins all of that state's delegates to the United States Electoral College, who are known as electors. It is the electoral vote, not the popular vote, that determines who becomes president. This can occasionally produce the result—as in the 2000 presidential election—that one candidate wins the popular vote while another wins the popular vote and becomes president despite losing the popular vote. Marco polo (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The caucuses are actually precinct caucuses to elect delegates to the county caucuses. Sometime later in the year, the county caucuses, consisting of the previously-elected precinct delegates, will convene to choose delegates to the state caucuses or conventions. At the state conventions, delegates to the national party nominating conventions will be chosen. I also believe that there are a couple of states who choose the electoral college representation based on percentage of popular vote, so that it isn't winner-take-all in those states, but I don't have the names of the states. Corvus cornix_talk 19:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Maine and Nebraska are not "winner take all" according to our article on the United States Electoral College. Also don't forget the effect that faithless elector could have. Rmhermen (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Electoral College isn't involved in primaries, and the states which hold primaries are selecting delegates, not electors. To see which primaries are winner-takes-all, & which are closed, I suggest here for Republican primaries and here for Democratic primaries. The Democrats seem not to have any winner-takes-all contests. And they also have "super-delegates", who can vote any way they want-they're designed to be "faithless" delegates. - Nunh-huh 02:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Gaaaa. Corvus cornix_talk 03:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a simple graph:

Primaries/caucuses --> Convention --> General election --> Electoral College --> Winner

The primaries and caucuses elect delegates to the conventions, which choose the candidates for the general election. The voters in the general election choose electors to the Electoral College, which chooses the winning candidate. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Does animals have nationality?

For example Knut (polar bear). Is it German? or Ah Meng, Sumatran Orangutan, Is it Indonesian?. Should we categorize them together with nationality? Frankedjsjs (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Governments may opt to enforce a national ownership over animals, but the animals themselves rarely regard this enforced ownership as part of their identity. -- kainaw™ 18:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying that Knut is German does not imply that he is a German nacional. So as you can say that Berlin is a German city, Knut is a German bear. Mr.K. (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A pleasant instance of polysemy. German may mean, among other things, (1) "having the German nationality" and (2) "of, pertaining to, originating from Germany". These shades of meaning obviously differ from one another (or else they would not be shades). It is unlikely that a piece of Swiss cheese would be issued with a Swiss passport on application. Bessel Dekker (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Our article states: "Nationality is a relationship between a person and their state of origin, culture, association, affiliation and/or loyalty. Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person, and affords the person the protection of the state. Traditionally under international law and conflict of laws principles, it is the right of each state to determine who its nationals are."

If we accept this, the question boils down to whether a non-human animal is a person or not. A closely related question has been tested in court in Austria, see here and here. The chimpanzee Hiasl was denied the right of having a legal guardian. I have not read the ruling documents, but one reason it was denied, was that acceptance of a chimp having a legal guardian could ‘create the public perception that humans with court-appointed legal guardians are at the same level as animals’. Wild animals cross borders without passports. How would you define the nationality of a migratory bird? So, IMO the answer is no, non-human animals do not have a nationality in any legal sense. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 12:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Losing Popular Vote in US Primary elections?

Has any US Presidential candidate ever won the majority of popular votes cast in a primary, and yet still lost the nomination of his party. Has anyone ever won the nomination without having the plurality of votes casts? --Gary123 (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, in your first question you are asking whether any candidate has won a majority of popular votes in a primary season and lost the nomination of his or her party. Of course candidates have won a majority in an individual state primary and lost the nomination. Hillary Clinton won a majority of votes in New York's Democratic primary, and Barack Obama won a majority of votes in Georgia's Democratic primary, but only one of them will be the Democratic nominee. Whether any candidate has ever won a majority of votes over an entire primary season but failed to win the nomination, I'm not sure. As for your second question, yes, occasionally a candidate will win the nomination without winning a plurality of votes over the primary season. Such a candidate is typically known as a dark horse. Marco polo (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've looked into this some more, and it turns out that the system of presidential primaries has come to dominate the nominating process only since 1968. In the 1968 election, for example, most states did not hold primary elections. As a result, Hubert Humphrey won the Democratic nomination without winning any of the primaries in the few states that held them. This must have happened regularly in elections before 1968, since most states did not hold primaries until the 1970s. I don't think that there has been a case since then when a candidate has won the nomination without winning a plurality of votes in the primaries. Marco polo (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

see Brokered convention Rmhermen (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

According to this page, the closest the original poster's scenario has come to happening since 1976 was in 1984, when Walter Mondale won 37.8 percent of the national primary vote to Gary Hart's 36.1 percent. Since not all states use primaries, the popular-vote figures are not necessarily a foolproof indicator of the candidates' support. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Heraldry: Order of blazoned Fields

Looking at the Blazon of the (St Ouen) de Carteret family arms, I cannot imagine the order of the described fields. The Blazon begins as follows:

Quarterly I and 4.

Gules, for fusils conjoined in fesse, argent, for de Carteret.

Gules, three round buckles, or, a crecent in chief, argent, for difference, for Mallet.

Quaretering:

Argent, a chevron gule, on a chief, azurem three etoiels, or, in base a thistle slipped, ppr. for Le Maistre.

Gules, three escallops, or, a mullet, for difference, for Dumaresq.

Gules, four Fusils conjoined in fesse, argent, for de Carteret.

Gules, a chevron between three towers, triple towered, for St. Ouen.

and so on: There are, all in all, about 25 different fields. No information about there position follows after this.

What is the order of the fields? Linke this?

____________________________________________________________
| de Carteret  | Mallet       | Le Maistre, Dumaresq,      |
|              |              | and all the others         |
|              |              | in smaller fields:         |
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|______________|______________|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
\Le Maistre, Dumaresq,        |de Carteret   | Mallet      /
 \ and all the others again   |              |            /
  \ Or other smaller fields   |              |           /
   \ not shown in Quarter II?_|              |          /
    \|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |         /
     \__|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |        /
      \_|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |       /
       \|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |      /
        \__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |     /
         \_|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |    /
          \|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |   /
           \__|__|__|__|__|___|              |  /
            \_|__|__|__|__|___|              | /
             \|__|__|__|__|___|              |/
              \__|__|__|__|___|              /
               \_|__|__|__|___|             /
                \|__|__|__|___|____________/

This way?

____________________________________________________________
| de Carteret  | Mallet       |As above._|__|__|__|__|__|__|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|--------------|--------------|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
| Mallet       | de Carteret  |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|______________|______________|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
\_|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|de Carteret   | Mallet      /
 \|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |            /
  \__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |           /
   \_|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |          /
    \|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |         /
     \__|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|--------------|--------/
      \_|__|__|__|__|__|__|___| Mallet       | de C. /
       \|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |      /
        \__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |     /
         \_|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |    /
          \|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |   /
           \__|__|__|__|__|___|              |  /
            \_|__|__|__|__|___|              | /
             \|__|__|__|__|___|              |/
              \__|__|__|__|___|              /
               \_|__|__|__|___|             /
                \|__|__|__|___|____________/

Are the first mentinoned fields shown in an inescutcheon?

____________________________________________________________
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|de      |Mallet  |__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|Carteret|        |__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|        |        |__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|        |        |__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
\_|__|__|__|__|__|___|        |        |__|__|__|__|__|__|_/
 \|__|__|__|__|__|___|        |        |__|__|__|__|__|__|/
  \__|__|__|__|__|___|--------|--------|__|__|__|__|__|__/
   \_|__|__|__|__|___|Mallet  |de      |__|__|__|__|__|_/
    \|__|__|__|__|___\        |Carteret/__|__|__|__|__|/
     \__|__|__|__|__|_\       |       /|__|__|__|__|__/
      \_|__|__|__|__|__\      |      /_|__|__|__|__|_/
       \|__|__|__|__|__|\_____|_____/__|__|__|__|__|/
        \__|__|__|__|__|__|___|__|__|__|__|__|__|__/
         \_|__|__|__|__|__|___|__|__|__|__|__|__|_/
          \|__|__|__|__|__|___|__|__|__|__|__|__|/
           \__|__|__|__|__|___|__|__|__|__|__|__/
            \_|__|__|__|__|___|__|__|__|__|__|_/
             \|__|__|__|__|___|__|__|__|__|__|/
              \__|__|__|__|___|__|__|__|__|__/
               \_|__|__|__|___|__|__|__|__|_/
                \|__|__|__|___|__|__|__|__|/

Or is the order totally different? Please help me.--Hannesde Correct me! 21:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Family name question

A friend of mine wanted to know what his last name means. Its "Kunk" and is apparently German. I put it through the Google translator, and it came up with nothing. And I'm not finding any major G-hits with the phrase. Any help? Thanks!! Zidel333 (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be a re-spelling of "Kunc" (pronounced koonts - with a short oo as in book), a Czech variant of "Kunz" , the German word for "art". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that the German word for "art" is Kunst, not Kunz. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 00:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. It must be Saturday, my brain's day off. Ta, Angr. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It may also be a misspelling of Küng, which appears to be a Swiss surname. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The surname Kunk seems to come from northern Germany. Before the 20th century, the commonly spoken language in that region was Low German. There is a place in the northern German village of Ankum called "Kunkheide" (according to this source), which suggests that Kunk may be a place name or part of a place name. According to this dictionary of Low German, Kunkel means "swamp" in that language. The ending -el is sometimes diminutive, so Kunk could mean something like wetland or marshy ground. Possibly the name was given to a family who lived in such a place. Marco polo (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of surnames lacks Kunk, but has Kunkel and Gunkel, occupational name for spinner or maker of spindles, from German Kunkel, spindle or distaff (which, although this may be a red herring, has a genealogic/heraldic meaning for the female side, in English at least). Gwinva (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Music translation: notation for bells

Can someone translate these flute notes into notes for the bells?

e d b c b g e d e g e
d e f g a b c b e d e f g a b c d e
d e f g a b c b e
d c e d f e g f a g b a c b c d a b --76.176.130.141 (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

dong bong tee clang tee ding dong bong dong ding dong

bong dong bing ding tin tee clang tee dong bong dong bing ding tin tee clang bong dong

bong dong bing ding tin tee clang tee dong

bong clang dong bong bing dong ding bing tin ding tee tin clang tee clang bong tin tee --212.51.122.27 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 00:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A valiant try, 212.51.122.27!

So you want these notes presented in some notation used in campanology? We don't seem have an article that will help: at least not one with obvious links from anywhere else. Also, the sequence you have given is ambiguous, since we can't tell if the notes are going up or down, and sometimes the context doesn't help to resolve this.

The query really belongs at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities. Should we move it there?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay I will.--76.176.130.141 (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I mean the percussion insturment. Not something like a school bell.--76.176.130.141 (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Which percussion instrument exactly? The tubular bell, or something else?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Glockenspiel, it's also known as Orchestra Bells.--76.176.130.141 (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The standard Western flute is not a transposing instrument; and music for the glockenspiel sounds two octaves higher than written. So for example, if your first note, e, is the lowest e that the flute can play, then it would be written for flute on the lowest line of a treble-clef stave. The very same note written for the glockenspiel would appear as an e on the first leger line below a bass-clef stave.

In short, the answer to your question is this:

e d b c b g e d e g e

d e f g a b c b e d e f g a b c d e

d e f g a b c b e

d c e d f e g f a g b a c b c d a b

Written two octaves lower: but you haven't accurately shown us which octaves these flute notes are in! You really should make a better effort to let us know what you want.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 02:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

February 9

Can't reinsert trombone tuning slide

Can someone please tell me how to properly reinsert a tuning slide?! Usually they just slide in, but today I've already spent an hour trying put my tuning slide back into my trombone after cleaning. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 03:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Lubricate correctly; chill the end that is to be inserted with ice (packed so that it is dry); try again, not forcing, but rotating for a different orientation as necessary.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If it somehow got bent, by all means take it to a repair shop rather than trying brute force. Brass is easily damaged. As a side not, what is the point of having a tuning slide in a trombone? Edison (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I remember from Middle School, the trombone is played with the slide in various position, and position "0" is with the main slide (the playing one, not the tuning one) fully closed. You'd want that note to be well tuned, as well as all the positions further out the slide to be in the same place each time. Likewise any non-fretted string instrument, for open strings and for consistency of position. jeffjon (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a 'Follower effect,' or something to that extent?

Hello, I'm looking for a name to describe the human tendency to subconciously want somebody to lead them when in a perilous situation. Does anyone know of a name for that? 71.130.92.51 (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Eric Hoffer's "True Believer"? AnonMoos (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The wish for a strongman (which somebody now is threatening to move to strongperson, see Discussion). But I do not know of any one word to describe this wish. Bessel Dekker (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sheeple? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just old plain Obedience_(human_behavior). The Milgram experiment has investigated obedience in a series of experiments. Take a look at this article and at the further links. Mr.K. (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I won't look at it. <zap>. No! <Zap>. Noooo!!! <ZAP> ... Clarityfiend (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarityfiend: I am an unknown guy in the internet, I can't be wrong. Just believe me and follow that link. Mr.K. (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

...Follow us, Clarityfield...Mr.K. will lead us to salavation...everyone's doing it... --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

salivation, more likely.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead on, Macduff.... er I mean "Lay on Macduff, and damn'd be him that first cries, 'Hold, enough!'" Julia Rossi (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Bible on Marijuana.

I just wanted to share my discovery that Mark 4:20 reads "And these are they which are sown on good ground." (King James). That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.26 (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention 2 Corinthians 11:25, where Paul of Tarsus admits, "once I was stoned." —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

And 2 Kings 4:41, "And there was no harm in the pot." Adam Bishop (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've heard several times that there are close links between cannabis (and magic mushrooms) and the bible. Ideas like the burning incense originally being made of hash (and Moses having his revelations in a smoky room), the baptised being anointed with oil and cannabis extracts (later replaced by water), early christian temples with mosaics depicting bowls with mushrooms used as part of the ritual. This points to some shamanistic aspects of early christian rituals that have been faded out or were banned at some point during the 1st 3 centuries of christianity. I don't know who specificaly defends these interpretations though. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is beginning to sound a bit too much like John Allegro's trippy period. The bit about hemp smoke in a tent was reported by Herodotus about the Scythians... AnonMoos (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

But did he inhale? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You can say anything you like, but what is the evidence for anointing by cannabis extracts, which early Christian mosaics showed mushrooms being used as part of the ritual, were they really mushrooms and is there any reason assume that they are anything but a represantation of bounty. Where does the idea of Moses and the smoky room come from and why are we assume that Biblical incense was hash and not frankincense and myrrh, the use of which is well attested to?

Surely the original poster of the Mark verse was pulling our legs. AllenHansen (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

who are mid-May's other children?

who are mid-May's other children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.26 (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Keats unfortunately doesn't seem to have clarified this point. May 15#births should get you started. Algebraist 14:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

English Civil War, Glorious Revolution & Act of Settlement

How come the line of Mary Tudor, Queen of France wasn't involved? What were they doing at this time that prevented them from being put onto the throne rather than the Cromwells or Stuarts? Lady Jane Grey and her husband's clique, were after all, the original Puritans. Furthermore, the Seymours were unimpeachable in this regard (already with Protector experience), while the Stanleys would have meant the full assimilation of the Isle of Man, another kingdom incorporated into the Crown much later under the Hanoverians instead. In addition to that of Mary Tudor, the Hastings family had the line of George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence and this would have reconciled the oppositional descents. In light of future events, would this have been wise, rather than having to depose the Stuarts a second time and then inviting others of the Stuart line (through Elizabeth of Bohemia, object of affection to the Gunpowder Plot), needlessly involving England in European wars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.11.149 (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Mary had no children with Louis XII, her eldest son the Earl of Lincoln died with no children, that put Frances Brandon as the next in line, the attempt to put Frances's daughter Jane Grey on the throne attainted the whole line. Corvus cornix_talk 23:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the French king; that is the article's title on Mary. Yes, Lady Jane's faction was seen as treasonous to the Catholic Howards, being the exact opposite. This would make them be the perfect candidates (over a dark horse like Cromwell and the return of the hated Stuarts), it would even seem righteous revenge for what happened to the Greys/Dudleys, if the Civil War was between the lines of Margaret and Mary, the latter favoured by both Henry VIII and Edward VI (certainly not Mary I and evidently not Elizabeth I) as representing the Anglican (e.g. Protestant) Succession that James V and his successors found so difficult to maintain. I find it strange that Parliament should respect the wishes of heiresses over men, with respect to the time period. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

24.255, you give every sign of being the same 'Lord Loxely' who appeared here some time ago with a 'question' about the Gunpowder Plot. Well, here we are again; the same hectoring style, the same confusion over basic historical facts; the same tendentious polemic, masquerading as a question. Please forgive me for being so woundingly direct, but you have simply tied an intellectual Gordian Knot, too tiresome even for the sword of Alexander. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem with asking why the Marian line, mostly Puritan, was not invited to take up the title of Protector or King? Didn't the English and Scots hate eachother a whole lot until the time of Victoria and wouldn't it have been more favourable to have an English dynasty take over the Scots than vice versa? Part of the "question", was wondering whether I had the right sense of the situation and you only answered that aspect of it, in the negative I assume. It is apparent that there is ignorance on your part regarding the main element of curiosity to the events which repetitively unfolded by rejection of the Stuarts, or that there is no data, assuming you "know it all". You will get nothing obsequious from me, because it is apparent in a proper household, that you should have been taught by your elders; "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all". 24.255.11.149 (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

did the portuguese discover the Americas first before Columbus??

My wife says that by the time Columbus was trying to raise money for his first trip "east" (eventually thereby 'discovering' America, which he thought till the day he died was India.), the Portouguese had had a well-established and thriving colonial system in the Americas, relationships with the Incas, the Mayas, etc. Which obviously would mean they had discovered the New World long before Columbus...

Is this true? I can't find a reference... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.70.107 (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I never heard of a well-established and thriving colonial system, but there are some theories about Portuguese contact with the Americas before Columbus. See Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact#Portuguese. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. Could you give me a better reference than [10], which is some page that looks like the moon hoax pages......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.70.107 (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The section of the article referenced above cites "From Cabot to Cartier: The Early Exploration of Eastern North America, 1497-1543", JSTOR should provide you with at least partial access to that article.--VectorPotential^Talk 18:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

One point: Columbus always believed he'd found China, not India. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's why he and his crew called the native americans "Chinamen", a word sometimes still used today to refer to the American aboriginese... er... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.22 (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Columbus went to his grave believing he had reached the shores of Cathay ..."

• "To his death, Columbus believed that he had discovered new land, however he believed it to be near China"

• "Columbus believed that China lay a short distance to the northwest of South America".

• 1421 hypothesis says (you have to read the whole passage to know what the "attack" is about): "Columbus actually believed he had reached India and he thought the people he saw were Indians. This attack is not without its own flaws, though, for in Columbus' time China was referred to as "India" by Europeans."

• For an alternative opinion on the origin of "Indian", and although in need of a citation, Native Americans in the United States# Terminology differences says: "It is a common mistake to believe when Christopher Columbus arrived in the "New World", he described the people he encountered as Indians because he believed that he had reached the Indies, the original destination of his voyage. This is false. The term "Indian" comes from Christopher Columbus, but it wasn't because he thought he reached India. The region of the Indian subcontinent where India now lies was referred to as Hindustan. Christopher Columbus called the Native Americans "Indians" because in the language Columbus spoke (Genoese Italian & crude Spanish/Portuguese), "In Deos" meant "From God". Columbus saw the Native Americans as beautiful creatures delivered to Earth from God". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

... which paragraph I'm tempted to remove. It was added on 25 January by User:67.185.108.168, whose sole contributions to WP are that edit and a similar one in Native American name controversy the same day. (Of course, it's possible that this is a more prolific user who has never happened to get that IP address before). Both are unreferenced, and a Google search for '"In Deos" Columbus' gives a number of hits, most of them on rather dubious sites, and none that I've found with any references (I haven't looked at them all). Certainly the OED does not mention this idea, and gives examples of 'India' meaning the new world going back to 1553 (though 'Indian' in that sense not so early). But this has all the hallmarks of etymythology: reject a straightforward and obvious derivation in favour of a more fanciful concoction, especially if it bolsters some argument you want to make. --ColinFine (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Highly dubious and I doubt that the originator of the theory speaks Spanish or Italian. AllenHansen (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm defending that particular editor or his/her edits, but "straightforward" and, particularly, "obvious" derivations are often the lifeblood of folk etymology. What's "obviously" true often turns out to be completely false. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but not especially relevant. Folk etymology distinguishes two different phenomena, and I suggest that your argument applies principally to the second class, where a relatively unfamiliar word is changes to match a supposed origin. Any perusal of a site such as www.worldwidewords.org will show lots of examples of the first type (wrong or at least unverifiable origin for a phrase), and many of these are IMHO very convoluted. --ColinFine (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Orleanism and French politics

Would it be true to say that Orleanism was a new factor in French politics in 1830, or was the advent of Louis Phillipe a convenient way for a narrowly based elite to save the principle of monarchy after the disgrace of Charles X of France? Does this explain the ultimate fall of the July monarchy in the revolution of 1848? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.241.32 (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be true to say that Orleanism was a new factor in French politics, 86.151, though its roots go further back than 1830: all the way back to Philippe Égalité, father of Louis Philippe, who came to represent a liberal alternative to the absolutism of his Bourbon cousins. In the July Revolution of 1830 his son offered a way beyond the reactionary 'Throne and Alter' politics of Charles X; a new departure that placed its greatest emphasis on press freedom, the legality of opposition, and an end to the dominance of the old aristocratic elites. It was a rational and modern alternative to rule by tradition. For the French liberals Louis Philippe came to represent the same position in French history as William of Orange did in that of England, just as Charles was cast in the role of James II. In 1830 Louis Philippe also offered an alternative to the anarchy and bloodshed that followed the creation of the First French Republic.

Unfortunately, in the end, Orleanism never quite grew beyond the appearance of being a 'party monarchy', not much loved by the majority of the French people. It became narrow sclerotic and self-regarding, with its unheroic and pear-shaped king fatally wounded by the brilliant caricatures of Daumier, forced to resort to older methods of censorship and repression. But for all its faults the 'liberal monarchy', the last in French history, was considerably better than the forms of government that were to follow its departure. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Procopius and the Secret History

Your page on Procopius says that he wrote The Secret History because of dissolusionment with the court of Justinian and Theodora. But the text is so venemous that their must surely have been some other process at work? T Jarvie (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the best verdict ever passed on The Secret History, T. Jarvie, was that supplied by Procopius himself, who wrote of his fear that later generations would condemn him as "a narrator of myths...neither credible nor probable." And he is quite right: parts of it are so fantastic that they quite simply defy belief. It is perhaps best seen as a bad-tempered narrative, a corrective to his public adulation of Justinian, that of necessity had to remain secret, pointing out the various failures of his reign, including the superficial nature of his western reconquests. Unfortunately he goes too far in his anger, mixing the critical with the fantastic.

But the real source of his animus can be traced to the great transitions in Roman society, transitions that saw the decline of traditional elites and the older self-reliant forms of urban government. For Procopius the source of this moral and political decay is to be found at the very heart of Justinian's government, particularly in the power and influence enjoyed by women like Antonina, wife of Belisarius, and, above all, the Empress Theodora, both of whom, in defiance of all of the ancient traditions, had been admitted to senatorial rank. It is in his descriptions of Theodora that Procopius is at his most scurrilous, his most vindictive, his most pornographic...and his most misogynist. And it is this-simple misogyny-that provides one of the most important keys for reading a work that was written as an intellectual safety valve for an angry and frustrated man. Theodora has become in his eyes the personification of all that is wrong with the Roman world. The irony is that his invective simply served to make her one of the most memorable figures in Byzantine history. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Clio the Muse. You are brilliant. T Jarvie (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Where does Hegel outline his theory of tragedy?

In which work does Hegel outline his theory of tragedy? --Jscheiner (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In his Lectures on Aesthetics. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Arab Muslim nations vs.civilization

Are Egypt(Ancient Egypt) and Iraq(Mesopotamia) the only Arab Muslim nations to have a ancient civilization? If not, what other Arab Muslim nations have which civilization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 21:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course they all did :) . I can't really say what they were, though, unless you say what you mean by ancient. Wrad (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Or what you mean by civilization. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jordan had an ancient civilization at Petra. The Queen of Sheba's court at Sheba was another ancient Arabic civilization. Corvus cornix_talk 23:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the modern "Arab" states "have" ancient civilisations - the Middle East is, afterall, the cradle of human civilisation. Simplistically identifying modern nations with ancient civilisations, we have: Lebanon was the home of the Phonecians, who also founded Carthage, now in Tunisia. The Assyrians and Hittites also ruled or lived in various parts of other modern Arab states. Iraq, as you said, contained the ancient civilisations of Mesopotamia, especially Babylon. Sudan contains ancient Nubia. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Phoenicians also founded Cadiz, now in Spain. And the Carthaginian civilization, the descendants of the Phoenicians, settled in Sicily. Corvus cornix_talk 21:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Arabian Peninsula had a highly developed culture even before Muhammad. AllenHansen (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Quran

Are Moses and Jesus the only prophets of Islam to face a pagan civilization, according to the Qur'an? If not, who else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad had to deal with the pagan Arabs. Algebraist 21:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ilyas. Wrad (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but can you tell me which ancient civilization did Ilyas face? You cannot tell me that Ilyas also faced a civilization. You have to say the name of that specific civilization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 14:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

:No one here "has" to say anything. If you follow Wrad's link, you will find your answer. Wrad is helping you to find the answer, so that you will understand it better. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He fought the pagan Canaanite civilization and their God Baal. He is pretty much the same as the Jewish Prophet Elijah. Wrad (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Country Song

I am trying to figure out the name of a country song I heard. I have no idea who sings it. These are the only words I can remember in it: "pass it on to the next generation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Henson Cargill - This Generation Shall Not Pass? Tanthalas39 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Superdelegates

Having looked at List of United States Democratic Party Superdelegates, is Teddy Kennedy not a superdelegate? Corvus cornix_talk 22:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a broken ref tag that made him and some others disappear from the list. It's been fixed. He is indeed a superdelegate as are all Democratic members of Congress. --Rajah (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 01:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

February 10

Men who lost virginity to prostitutes

Who are some famous historical figures who lost their virginity to prostitutes? --Jscheiner (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Does Anthony Kiedis count as a famous historical figure? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have heard that Peter Ustinov's father pursuaded his son to do so. Have no evidence though.--Johnluckie (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Upon further searching, apparently Anthony Kiedis was not with a prostitute, but his father's girlfriend. Ah well. However, googling "lost his virginity to a prostitute" turns up [11], which includes Steven Tyler, Jerry Springer, and Oliver Stone, as well as other results for James Joyce, Marvin Gaye, Dennis Rodman, Ricky Nelson, Chris De Burgh, Che Guevarra, Leo Tolstoy, Napoleon...I want to say that the further back in history you go, the more likely it is that a young man in the urban merchant class would have lost it to a prostitute, but I can't think of any examples to back that up (Benvenuto Cellini, perhaps? Or am I confusing artistic models and prostitutes...) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

David Niven. AllenHansen (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach's definition of God

What was Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach's definition and concept of God. How did he see Jesus and the trinity in relating to this idea. What is the major difference between is view of God or the Absolute and Hegels? --Gary123 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You will find some of the signposts towards an answer in the article on Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach, Gary, but if you want detailed insight you really have to read The Essence of Christianity, his most important book. For Feuerbach, religion was no more than a consciousness of the infinite, with God being an outward projection of humanity's own inward nature. For Hegel, the Creator, the Absolute or God is both in nature and greater than nature. In contrast, Feuerbach's beliefs come close to outright atheism, though he always denied this. His social anthropology of religion was a strong influence on David Strauss, author of The Life of Jesus Critically Examined. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Islands

How come the U.S. Virgin Islands hold a Democratic party caucus when they don't get to vote for President? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 07:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Residents of the USVI don't get to vote in the Presidential election, but the Democratic Party of the Virgin Islands and Republican Party of the Virgin Islands do get to send delegates to their respective national conventions. FiggyBee (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As do residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and Democrats Abroad. Republicans Abroad do not have representation at the convention. Corvus cornix_talk 21:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Democrats and Republicans abroad, though, at least can vote in the presidential election. It's just surprising that people who have no say in electing the president have a say in deciding who gets to run for president. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, anyone (well, any 35-year-old natural-born American who has lived in the US for 14 years and hasn't been President for more than 6 years or been impeached) can run. It's just that the Democratic and Republican nominees are the only people who have any chance of winning. FiggyBee (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

US-Canada relations; Parliamentarians and Royalists, not Whigs and Tories?

How much of the differing 17th century establishments went into making these two nations different, yet more or less composed of the same ethnic type of people? How much of Restoration government had sway over the American colonies? Was it only successfully re-established in what's now Canada, because those were planted during the French and Indian Wars, since the joint reign of William and Mary? (By the way, the Whig Party didn't last long in America, more to the probable evidence of post-Cromwellian influence having little impact.) In an American history textbook, it says that a Congressional committee proposed to address George Washington as: "His Highness the President of the United States and Protector of the Rights of the Same". Considering US involvement with the present day Commonwealth, how much is this country institutionally Cromwellian, vis a vis Caroline? It's a supposition by some theorists, whom are figuring it was typically diehard Jeffersonian Republican sentiment that kept the US out of the later Imperial Commonwealth after Cecil Rhodes envisioned a complete merger, much like the Irish secession. I'm asking for your perception on the matter. Did the US simply eschew both Monarchy and Protectorate, merely retaining a basic commonwealth ideal (as expressed in the title of ex-colony among some like Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, rather than state)? If the US is in fact a Cromwellian manifesto realized, then the tradition of appending Cromwell's personal coat of arms to those of the country seems to have been adopted when the District of Columbia was given Washington's arms. I'm delving into Hamiltonian Federalism here, which called for a strong executive and basically, aristocratic Puritan interests in economy. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh not again... you may find it helpful to google "how do I ask a question without rambling on and on about other things unrelated to the original question and without shoe-horning 20-30 other tangential questions into the same overall question in such a way as to make the reader of the created meta-spaghetti-question actually understand what you're saying for once instead of mentally crying out in anguish every time they see you post a question on the reference desk", HTH. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nasty is as nasty does. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, the question is wordy to the point that people won't want to bother parsing it and answering it. I'm surely not going to try. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr hotclaws 10:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would love to try to respond to your series of questions, 24.555..., but I really cannot figure out what you want to know. I think that you would get a better response if you could confine yourself to one question at a time. Try to decide the main question you want to ask, and just ask that, in a single sentence. I would be happy to respond. For now, I will just say that Canada and the United States have very different political histories. Each was founded at a different time and in a different historical context. Neither of them was founded at the time of Cromwell, so it is probably a mistake to analyze the constitutions and political cultures of either through the prism of the politics of more than a century earlier. As for Whigs and Tories, these two parties were in their infancy at the time of the founding of the United States, and they differed politically primarily over domestic British issues rather than over the relationship between Britain and its colonies when the United States gained independence. I'm not sure how useful it is to try to draw parallels between very distinct political and historical contexts. Marco polo (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a serious interest among academics and patriots who look for the ultimate source of framework behind America's government. It is assumed, although not taken for granted, that in the absence of monarchy, the Founding Fathers (known as Whigs) fell back upon the Cromwellian precedent. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

While I was considering a response to this, Clio expressed her alarm or exasperation. She is probably more knowledgeable about this than I, so it may be foolish for me to venture a response, but it seems here as if your question is "Did the Founding Fathers use the Cromwellian precedent as a basis for the U.S. presidency?" If this is the question, then I think that the answer is no. Certainly the Founding Fathers were familiar with the history of the English Commonwealth, but I hardly think that they saw it or Cromwell's role as a model. Cromwell took on dictatorial powers that the framers of the Constitution were at pains to avoid granting to the president. Instead, I think that their mental starting point was probably the contemporary constitutional monarchy of Britain. The president was to be a kind of elected constitutional monarch whose powers were carefully and explicitly limited by the constitution and for whose family there would be no question of hereditary status. In this, they were no doubt partly inspired by the "Whig canon", but I think that it would be farfetched to suppose that they saw Cromwell as a model. Rather, I think that they aimed to create a new institution informed by historical experience, not an institution simply modeled after a past precedent. Marco polo (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; that's more like it! Then, how about a Constitutional Protectorate and that the country itself would be inspired by the Commonwealth? Weren't there monarchist conspiracies with regards to possibly anointing members of the royal family, including even Bonnie Prince Charlie or some Continental European dynasties? I'm thinking that the Jeffersonians in particular, wanted no "taint" of monarchy and Washington himself went out of the way to dispell fears about his position. There was to be no "King of the United States", because at least three of the colonies viewed themselves as "commonwealths". The ex-colonists basically did not want to have Machiavelli's The Prince or the Hobbesian Leviathan (book) serve as the model for their government, right? Jefferson's gallomania and the French looking to the English Civil War for inspiration to their Revolutionary Wars is rather well known. Maybe then, the French failed to learn from the past, on the nature of republicanism. But with all this talk of republicanism, look here:

Hamilton's Plan

On June 18 Alexander Hamilton presented his own ideal plan of government. Erudite and polished, the speech, nevertheless, failed to win a following. It went too far. Calling the British government "the best in the world," Hamilton proposed a model strikingly similar an executive to serve during good behavior or life with veto power over all laws; a senate with members serving during good behavior; the legislature to have power to pass "all laws whatsoever." Hamilton later wrote to Washington that the people were now willing to accept "something not very remote from that which they have lately quitted." What the people had "lately quitted," of course, was monarchy. Some members of the convention fully expected the country to turn in this direction. Hugh Williamson of North Carolina, a wealthy physician, declared that it was "pretty certain . . . that we should at some time or other have a king." Newspaper accounts appeared in the summer of 1787 alleging that a plot was under way to invite the second son of George III, Frederick, Duke of York, the secular bishop of Osnaburgh in Prussia, to become "king of the United States."

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_history.html

• Prince_Henry_of_Prussia#Proposal_for_King_of_United_States
• Prince_Frederick,_Duke_of_York_and_Albany#Army

Having determined what the United States needed was a king, a powerful group of American political figures - James Monroe, Alexander Hamilton and Nathaniel Green, president of the Continental Congress, among others, wrote to 50-year-old Prince Henry of Prussia, younger brother of Frederick the Great, and invited him to become king of the United States (at the suggestion of Revolutionary War hero Baron von Steuben). Prince Henry vacillated, and by the time he gave his uncertain reply the Americans had decided to have an elected president rather than a constitutional monarch.

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1996/vp960811/08090635.htm

It appears that the UK gave up on reincorporating the US after the American Civil War, so allowed Canada to become its own country and proper relations of respect and equality between the UK & US were not established until the 20th century, some saying after the Spanish-American War, when the British Empire was actually impressed (and subsquently adopted the title Commonwealth, possibly to please the Americans). Until then, it appears that the American Presidency did not in fact have the respect or institutional bedrock it does today, but rested on shaky ground and prone to the loyalist sentiment of Anglomania. George Washington, after all, hoisted the Grand Union Flag just as other Continentals worked hard at the Olive Branch Petition. Apparently, it was the Jeffersonians who were determined to sever ties. So, my perception is that there was no official form for the presidency or the nature of the government until the American Civil War forced the issue on how things were going to be, decided on the battlefield. Before then, it was merely experimental, prone to being expressed along a wide spectrum of approach. This is similar to the evolution of the British Empire and now they are both part of this "Anglosphere", as partners. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Merry Monarch?

I've not long finished reading Antonia Fraser's biography of Charles II. In general I'm far less impressed than I was by her book on Cromwell, which seemed altogether more scholarly and detached. She says of Charles that he was "wity, kind graceful and tolerant and essentially loveable". This would certainly seem to be reflected in his "Merry Monarch" label, but what I would like to know is how acurate this view is, and how succesful Charles was as a ruler and as a politician? I would also like to undertake some more reading on the subject, and would be grateful for recommendations on more recent biographical treatments. Has Bean (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Has Bean, I have lived for so long with the Merry Monarch that I'm not really sure If I have the necessary objectivity to answer your question! However, I simply cannot resist a challenge.

To begin with you really have to set the Antonia Fraser view to one side. I should stress that this is not said out of intellectual snobbery, or through any sense of condescension towards a popular-justifiably popular-historian and writer. I, too, enjoyed Cromwell, Our Chief of Men. I enjoyed Mary Queen of Scots, one of the first history biographies I ever read, even more. However, as you have clearly understood, King Charles II is not among her best work. It's almost as if, having trudged with skill and sober determination through the life of Cromwell, she decided to have her own Restoration jamboree!

So, what was Charles really like as a man and a ruler? The early Whig historians had no doubt about this, going so far as to describe him as one of the most criminal princes in all of English history, whose reign was, in the words of one, 'a disgrace to our country.' The 'Merry Monarch' school grew up as a corrective to this rather dour reaction. The truth is closer, I suppose, to the Whig view: Charles was far from admirable as a man, showing many of the worst personality traits, including cynicism, meanness and simple dishonesty. His reign was also far from admirable, a time when England was at its lowest point in Europe, judged in political and military terms. He began his reign with every possible advantage, including a Parliament solidly behind the throne. Yet, within a few years of the Restoration, growing distrust of the court, and of Charles' motives and policies, led to a poisonous political atmosphere, which finally came to a head in the Popish Plot, the greatest political crisis of the reign. Charles' rule in Scotland, moreover, was marked by brutality and increasing religious persecution; a time when methods were used to suppress dissent later perfected on the Continent by Louis XIV. Above all, his foreign policy, and his military campaigns were disastrous. Writing about the Raid on the Medway, one poet managed to combine comment on this with the king's well-established reputation for debauchery;

So our great prince, when the Dutch fleet arriv'd

Saw his ships burn and, as they burn'd, he swiv'd.

So kind was he in our extremist need,

He would those flames extinguish with his seed.

Yet, having said this, while Charles was often responsible for the troubles of his reign, he had the political and personal skills to end these troubles to his advantage, skills which his father and his brother so obviously lacked. By this measure, and by this measure alone, his achievements are worthy of note, allowing him to end his reign in relative peace. He was at his best, his most skilful, during the tensions induced by the Popish Plot, giving way when he had to give way, standing strong when he had to stand strong. In the end he completely outmaneuvered his opponents, the great combination known as the Whigs, which had grown up to oppose the policies of the throne, and might very well have destroyed the monarchy itself. And this was no mean achievement; for it involved the defeat of Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, one of the first truly great party leaders in English history; a dangerous politician and a dangerous man.

Charles greatest talent, his genius, perhaps, was in his appreciation of the realities of political power within his three kingdoms. Here his sense of realism and, indeed, his cynicism, worked to best effect, allowing him to play the system to the advantage of the Crown. He was also arguably the first king in English history to understand the importance of appealing to and managing public opinion. He was a survivor, which is probably the greatest compliment one can make about any Stuart king on the English throne!

For a sobering antidote to Fraser's enthusiasm I would suggest you read Charles the Second; King of England, Scotland and Ireland by Ronald Hutton. I think you will find that it is worth the effort. Good luck! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, this is great!!! You really seem to know the subject. I will certainly make a point of looking for the book you mention. Has Bean (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

symbols

My literature teacher asked my class to find symbols of fear, but i couldn't find any.... can you help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.11 (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

does it have to a literary reference, or can it be a symbol in popular culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.117.186 (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

it can be a symbol in popular culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.11 (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If you mean symbols that inspire fear, image-wise look at skull and crossbones, Nazi swastika and other occupation symbols, nuclear waste (the three propellor kind), anything to do with death and disease like contamination signs. For auditory symbols, warning sirens; gestures are something else (see The Scream by Edvard Munch). Otherwise, you need to clarify. (BTW keep the thread together by clicking on the little blue edit link on the right of this section, opposite the heading, and write your answer at the bottom.) Julia Rossi (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As an interesting side note, it was recently determined by the IAEA that the nuclear radiation trefoil did not inspire fear in people who hadn't been sufficiently educated as to what it meant, and as a consequence they have adopted a new radiation warning symbol that more easily conveys its effects to people with less education (including children). --98.217.18.109 (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And, the article Hazard symbol. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Plewds and agitrons, especially together. See The Lexicon of Comicana. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The colour red has long been associated with a hightened sense of fear and anxiety. During the French Revolution the red flag was flown to denote a state of emergency, and was subsequently adopted by Socialist and Communist movements. There are also symbolic gestures in popular culture, intended to induce fear. I can think of a fist, clenched and shaken in anger, and a finger drawn across a throat. I'm sure there are others. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In a more literary way, the archetypal symbols of fear are ghosts. They represent man's fear of the unknown and uncontrollable, and are near universal in their use as symbols of something to flee from. Steewi (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Rabbi Moritz Gudemann's brother-in-law

Towards the end of June 1889, the Viennese Rabbi Dr. Moritz Gudemann's brother-in-law who lived in Magdeburg died. Can any user please tell me the name of this brother-in-law and the exact date of his death. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

First world war race riots

What was the reason for the racial tension and riots in the period 1917 to 1919 on both sides of the Atlantic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.83.191 (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The biggest U.S. riot was after the war (Chicago riot of 1919). There were a lot of particular local causes for such clashes, but you could say that part of the general background was that rising black expectations clashed with U.S. politics taking a hard right turn (see Palmer raid etc.). Not sure there were "race riots" in Europe -- there were abortive revolutions and ethnically motivated conflicts at various levels. AnonMoos (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the issues in the United States was that African American soldiers were returning from service in Europe and elsewhere. Many African Americans felt that since they had put their lives on the line for the United States, they deserved equal rights as citizens. The determination of the white majority and their political leaders to deny those rights led to some violent clashes. Marco polo (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

For the United States have a look at the page on the Red Summer of 1919, which lists the various riots and offers some explanation for their cause. The war had the effect of increasing patters of migration away from rural areas, especially in the South, towards the great northern industrial centres, like Chicago. It's estimated that as many as 450,000 black people (sorry, being English I simply cannot bring myself to write 'African-American!) migrated during the war, with the population in Chicago doubling in size, and that of New York by some 60%. In Britain and France, which called heavily on their colonies for labour and fighting men, the black population also increased sharply. Racial tensions caused serious incidents in Dijon and Brest in 1917. In Britain post war pressures over employment led to minor riots in Glasgow, Liverpool, Cardiff and elsewhere, port areas where there was a particularly heavy concentration of new migrant workers. Less severe than those in the United States, the causes were still very much the same: competition for jobs, competition for housing and competition for services. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sunni Madhhabs

What is the differences between Hanafis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis and Malikis? In what? Is their way of prayers are different, is their interpretation of the Qur'an is different? Is their rituals different? What is it that they are different from each other in order to claim themselves as Hanafis, Hanbalis, Shafi'is and Malikis? I know that Indonesians and Somalis are Shafi'i, I know that Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Iranians, Iraqis and Afghanis are Hanafis, I know that Saudis, Qataris and Emiratis are Hanbalis and Moroccan, Algerians and Tunisians are Malikis. Please answer my questions if you could with your of Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 14:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you look at Madhhab... AnonMoos (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It didn't say the differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 15:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

To find the differences, click on the blue use of each of the words Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi'i and Maliki, here or in the article Madhhab, you will likely find what you are looking for. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Culture of Somalia and Bangladesh

I heard that in Somalia, their culture in marriage is that a man can have four wives in one house, right? Then, what about Bangladesh, how many wives does a man can have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 15:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Googling "Bangladesh, # of wives" led to a U.S. State Department memo dated 2003 [12] that said:

Under the Muslim Family Ordinance, . . . (M)men are permitted to have up to four wives, although society strongly discourages , and it rarely is practiced. Laws provide some protection for women against arbitrary divorce and the taking of additional wives by husbands without the first wife's consent, but the protections generally apply only to registered marriages. Marriages in rural areas sometimes are not registered because of ignorance of the law. Under the law, a Muslim husband is required to pay his ex-wife alimony for 3 months, but this law is not always enforced.

How accurrate this is, I am not in a position to know. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, although Islamic moral codes do allow multiple wives, it comes with the warning that all wives must be provided for equally and properly as a restriction. Steewi (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Identifying a piece of music

There's a piece of well-known classical music I'm trying to identify - I hummed it here. Can anybody help me? --Ludraman (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the Rondo alla turca from Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 11. There's an audio file of it at the bottom of that article (it's the last one). —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. --Ludraman (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

hi, may i please have a nonexclusive right to make use of your rendition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.22 (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about the synthesized recording found at commons:Image:Rondo Alla Turka.ogg, it's in the public domain so you don't need to ask anyone's permission to use it. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe he's talking about the OP's delightfully hummed rendition of the song. --Emery (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Readable Classics

I have been attempting to read some classic literature, but I find that my choices are pretty hit and miss. For instance I read the Art of War in one sitting, while I found the Analects of Confucius to be interesting at first, but repetitive. Another example would be that I really enjoyed the Anabasis by Xenophon which was an interesting adventure, but found his Hellenica to be not so good, it seemed to be way too much about troop movements, an I just don't have time to slog through it to find parts that I might find more interesting. I also didn't particularly like Herodotus. So I guess what I am trying to say, is that would prefer works that are more pointed, and personal, and I am hoping that you experts might help suggest some works, and why you like them.

P.S. No need to restrict yourselves to ancient times, but I am not particularly interested in writings by modern writers. I guess, in the end I am looking for works that allow me to see the world through the eyes of people of the past. Thanks, --Czmtzc (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You could try The Pillow Book by Sei Shōnagon, a collection of poetic observations, anecdotes and musings by a very intelligent, erudite, brilliant and extremely snobbish ("the way carpenters eat is not very charming..." [13]) Japanese court lady (Sei Shōnagon, The Pillow Book, London, UK: Penguin Books, ISBN 0140448063). 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm very much enjoying Don Quixote, which has what you're looking for and some delicious slapstick to boot. Random Nonsense (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I almost never agree with reading an abridged of a book, but Don Quixote is one book I think it is forgivable to read in abridgment. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It may help if you can read them in the original language...I find it difficult to read classics in translation. They're so boring, especially translations from Latin. Virgil and Catullus are completely dreadful in translation. But oh well. Roman historians can be pretty interesting, when they're talking more about social history than military or political stuff (like Livy, sometimes). How about a Renaissance Man? I just mentioned him elsewhere on the RD - Benvenuto Cellini, who wrote a bizarre autobiography in the 16th century. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a brilliant Penguin edition of Arabian Nights out at the moment. It's riduculously gripping as a text, and you find your self quite at home in an ancient world without even noticing you've gone there. (ISBN: 0140442898.) Joshua.c.j (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You might try the writings of Julius Caesar. Corvus cornix_talk 21:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Corvus, did you actually enjoy reading Caesar? In which case I commend you for it: you are the only person I have ever come across who has! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to confess that I haven't read much of it.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 02:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note about Confucian analects and other Chinese classics: the books themselves may seem short for their significance, and that's because often what is just as important as - or even more important than - the text itself is the commentary, built up over the centuries by scholars in the field, elaborating and expanding on the idea of the original text. Traditional version of the texts would come with a particular version of inline commentary. I don't know how many translations preserve this. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse
• The Bhagavad Gita
• The Tao Te Ching
• Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri
• The Iliad and the Odyssey by Homer
• Metamorphoses by Ovid
• Aeneid by Virgil

For something slightly more modern you might so try War and Peace; a wonderful and enthralling novel despite its reputation for being difficult. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Czmtzc, did you read my response to the above question on The Secret History by Procopius? I'm not altogether sure what exactly it is that you are looking for, but this is one of the raciest, most scurrilous political texts in all of classical literature; no, sorry, in all literature. Try to imagine, if you will, coming across a work of pornography written by an eminent modern historian under a pseudonym. Then you might begin to understand something of the impact of this little book, a real page-turner! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add Beowulf, Njal's Saga and Les Miserables. I haven't read Njal's Saga, but I understand it's one of the more important of the Norse Sagas. Steewi (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Among other things, I like to dip into Marcus Aurelius' Meditations – he's strangely modern in the way he reflects on going through stuff. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

For a compulsively readable book giving insight into a past era, I always like to recommend Histoire de ma vie by Giacomo Casanova. To get some other ideas, you might have a look at the books Classics for Pleasure by Michael Dirda and Classics Revisited and More Classics Revisited by Kenneth Rexroth. Deor (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll stick to the pedantically classic, ie from the classical world. How about the fabulously filthy Catullus? If you enjoy a good snigger, he's your man. Martial's wit survives well. Pliny the Younger is mostly a bit tiresomely jumped up and priggish for my taste (even Trajan gets a bit fed up with him, as Pliny faithfully records) but his letter describing the eruption of Vesuvius is jaw-dropping. Similarly with Josephus, who would happily have editwarred on Wikipedia, given his problems with POV, but whose description of the siege of Masada is extraordinary. I agree with you about Herodotus... I find him difficult to follow, so I'd suggest you avoid Tacitus who's (for my taste) even drier, despite the fact that the events he describes are so juicy, and Caesar who invented self-promotion. Anyway, enjoy! --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your input. Although I have read some of these suggestions, many of them do seem very interesting, and I look forward to trying them. Thanks, --Czmtzc (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons, deontology, and utilitarianism

Can someone point me to a specific Simpsons episode that demonstrates or draws out the tension between Kantian Deontological ethics and Utilitarianism? Thank you, Llamabr (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

just google 'it's the thought that counts' i'm sure they have a good retort somewhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.22 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the input, but I'm afraid I don't understand your advice. I'm looking for a particular episode. Thanks, Llamabr (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How about Blood Feud (The Simpsons)? Thylacoleo (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't really see it. Because Marge will want him to do it because of some duty, and Homer wants him to do it for the reward? I guess that's right. I was hoping for the dilemma to be more central to the story, though. Thanks for the suggestion. Llamabr (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not a bad example, but I think a better illustration would be Lisa the Iconoclast, because its plot is essentially the story of Lisa's journey from Kantian to Utilitarian. When she discovers that town founder Jebediah Springfield is a fraud, her deontological commitment to truth impels her to attack the townspeople's treasured misconceptions. However, after seeing Springfield united by the celebration, she decides that even a lie can have beneficial effects: "Regardless of who said it, a noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." By the end of the episode, she has accepted the cromulence of Consequentialism. Lantzy ^talk 11:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That's closer to what I was thinking. Can I get another example, though, before I decide? Cromulence. Llamabr (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are some more miscellaneous examples picked from my Simpsons-cluttered mind, but I still think the Jebediah episode is the best illustration. In The Boy Who Knew Too Much, Mayor Quimby's obnoxious nephew Freddie is on trial for beating up a waiter. Bart knows he is innocent, but hesitates to come forward because doing so will reveal that he was cutting class. As Lisa says, "because of you, a horrible yet innocent person is going to jail." Bart's decision to come forward is based on a deontological respect for the truth, not a desire to exonerate the horrible Freddie Quimby. Marge is extremely Kantian, especially in early episodes: in Bart Gets Hit by a Car, she is too honest to con an evil millionaire who ran over her son. It is interesting to note that of all the major characters, Homer is the only one who almost never acts out of a Kantian sense of duty. In A Star is Burns, Homer vs. Patty & Selma, The Cartridge Family, and many other episodes, his good deeds are simply attempts to earn Marge's approval. When Homer obeys a categorical imperative, it is usually bizarre, morally dubious, and used for comedic effect: in Bart Carny, he is inexplicably loyal to carnival folk, even after they have squatted in his house; in Homer's Phobia, he is homophobic; in Much Apu About Nothing, he is obsessed with illegal immigrants. Lantzy ^talk 19:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon and Germany

Would it be true to say that Napoleon was the single most important figure in the rise of modern Germany? Jill Hope (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Otto von Bismarck. User:Krator (t c) 19:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Jill, have a look at Napoleon and German Identity by Tim Blanning, published in History Today, April 1998. The short answer is, yes, Napoleon was in many ways a decisive influence in the formation of modern Germany, as decisive in some ways as Bismarck.

It is by no accident that the Thomas Nipperday, the German historian, begins his greatest work with the words "In the beginning was Napoleon." It was Napoleon, by his military victories, and his political realignments, who exorcised a Medieval ghost, giving Germany a new and modern shape in the Confederation of the Rhine, which survived his defeat, it might be said, in the enhanced form of the German Confederation. It was from this point forward that Europe was faced with the 'German question', to which Bismarck and Prussia finally provided an answer. The Holy Roman Empire had been, since the days of Louis XIV, one of the least effective barriers to French ambition. In consigning it to the grave Napoleon gave a kick start to German power, perhaps his most significant legacy to his own nation. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

From Homer to Henry James - What's this narrative technique called?

In a wide range of literature, from Homer's Odyssey to the works of Hnery James and Joseph Conrad, authors employ a technique by which the narrative is enclosed within another narrative. Specifically, the story is told by a character in the story.

Is there a literary term for this technique? It's as old as rocks, but I can't find an accepted term. I've come accross 'oblique narrative technique', but this googles about six results. Anything more widely-used? Go on, make me happy! Joshua.c.j (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Frame narrative. David Šenek 19:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Frame story is OK. The article links to Story within a story. Think also of play within a play (especially in Hamlet); and my own favourite, nested narratives. This seems to be the most general term available.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

YAY! Thanks everyone! Joshua.c.j (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

How did Bridget Bishop come to be charged with witchcraft in Salem Village?

At her exam, Bridget claims that she has never been to Salem Village and doesn't know the people accusing her. If this is the case, how did her name come up as a suspect and why exactly was she charged? Were the girls claiming to be bewitched name her by name? How would that have been possible? --Courtdog (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Bridget Bishop? Corvus cornix_talk 21:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Read it? I recently did an update and corrected bad information. So do you care to help me find an answer?--Courtdog (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It says right there that she may have been charged on trumped up charges by her inlaws. Corvus cornix_talk 00:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That deals with her first witchcraft trial where she was found not guilty. I'm asking about her second trial where she was convicted and executed. Bishop didn't live in Salem Village and didn't know the girls who made the initial complaints. Does anyone know how she came to the attention of the authorities the second time? Was she just arrested because of the prior charges and perhaps the girls just reacted from that?--Courtdog (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The basis of her arrest on April 18, 1692 seems to have been accusations by Mercy Lewis and Ann Putnam. The girls would have known about Bridget Bishop not only because of her former arrest for witchcraft, and the (if they had not ultimately been tragic), absurd rumors resulting therefrom; but also because her house on the Ipswich Road had become "a place of late-night conviviality where she sold cider manufactured from apples grown in her private orchard" - that is, an unlicensed tavern that was "a rendezvous for local youths". The Ipswich Road was used by residents of Salem Village to travel into Salem Town, so Bridget's establishment - and the rumors of her witchcraft - would have been known to the Villagers though Bridget herself never ventured into the Village proper. Many of the anti-Parris faction (those most likely to be accused of witchcraft) lived along the Ipswich road. 142 persons were named as witches in 1692; only about 25 lived in Salem Village or its environs. Witchcraft was an accusation chiefly hurled at outsiders. It was, in short, gossip that killed Bridget Bishop: that she dressed provocatively, in scarlet, that she played shovel board, that she publicly fought with her husband, that she corrupted the youth and seemed sexy to teenage boys; that she paid a man thruppence which vanished from his pocket, that she was standing in the road when a cart became stuck in the mud; that her spectre laid upon Richard Coman and John Louder in bed; that she visited the Shattucks when their eldest child was dying; rumors with basis and without, rumors which in the mouths of young girls empowered by those in authority became fatal weapons. - Nunh-huh 04:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

frankenstein

what qualities does the creature in frankenstein have that make him a monster?70.116.19.49 (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC) a few qualities would be helpful

None. He becomes monstrous in consequence of rejection, isolation and alienation, the very things that turn ordinary people into monsters. Hatred at his own existence turns to hatred against his creator, Victor Frankenstein, especially after he refuses to create a companion to end the creature's loneliness. Why not read the book and find out for yourself? Clio the Muse (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but you could argue that his extreme physical repulsiveness is the cause of his isolation - not a quality of character, but rather a quality of appearance. Also, the creature might not have been telling the truth in its narration, and the doctor could have been right to refuse to build a companion... Random Nonsense (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman mystery

In my youth I had some psychic abilities. I lost them as I grew older. Since high school Latin, I had a great affinity for Rome. I was in my thirties when my dream was realized and I was in Rome. I made several trips to Rome thanks to a professor at New York University. It may have been on my fourth trip to Rome that I had a most unusual experience. I was sleeping in an albergo built over stage left of the Theatre of Pompey. I had a dream in which three women were gathered around me. Their heads were covered but not their faces. One was rubbing my forehead repeating (phonetically) ee-shakul-tay / ee-shakul-tay. I awoke my travelling companion who heard me repeating ee-shakul-tay / ee-shakul-tay. He is a professor of Latin and Greek and could make no sense of it. I am a gay man and in no way was eroticism involved, yet I felt I was in company of like persons. I have read that travellers sometimes have strange dreams due to stress. Can anyone make sense of the warning or command of the women?LShecut2nd (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither Latin nor Greek had any "sh" sound... AnonMoos (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

For that sense of lost psychic abilities, see Wordsworth's "Ode: Intimations of Immortality". --Wetman (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

For the phonetics and possible meaning, you could ask at the Language desk. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't -- it's pretty certain that that particular pronunciation doesn't have any meaning in Greek or Latin. However, I suppose it could be a garbling of Exultate or Exaltate... AnonMoos (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am no expert in Aramaic by any means, but I think in Aramaic, "Ee shakul tay" would mean "If you take it". Very hard to be sure, given written transliteration, especially when you bear in mind that I might pronounce that group of English letter differently to you. Take it to the Languages Desk - and wait for them to laugh at my ignorant suggestion ;-) NB You might encourage skeptics to answer you if you drop the whole dream/other life bit and just ask what the phrase might mean in any language. --Dweller (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2008(UTC)

NB Married Jewish women would have covered their heads in Roman times and in that period would probably have spoken Hebrew and/or Aramaic; there's some scholarly dispute about the transfer of the Jewish vernacular between the two languages, depending on period and location. --Dweller (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just musing here, but there are the three Fates who are three women, unless yours were related to theatre; and Dweller's translation has echoes of St Augustine's message[14] from an unseen child to take and read... at a time of personal crisis. Interesting though. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I know that there were many "foreign" religions in Rome during it's days of empire. There were many extraordinary events in the environs of theatres. There was even a temple to Venus attached to the Theatre of Pompey. The dream was more like a trance, for I was actually speaking the words the woman was saying and my travelling companion heard them. I still love Rome (though I could do without the thieves on the No. 64 bus!). My first arrival was on a late afternoon. I had spaghetti alla carbonara (al fresco) facing the Palazzo Farnese. It was one of the highlights of my life.LShecut2nd (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I highly recommend a copy of Rodolfo Lanciani's "Forma Urbis Romae" for anyone serious about walks in Rome.LShecut2nd (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

the spanish and dutch empires

one of spain's most effictive weapoins during its attacks in mexico was its —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.212.16 (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Germs. Corvus cornix_talk 23:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have asked this question and two other three similar questions over at Wikipedia:Help desk, in the form of three multiple choice questions. If this is some kind of school assignment, please do your own homework or read the articles we have on the subjects. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Our three most "effictive weapoins" are fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope -- wait, our four (oh never mind). AnonMoos (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Where does the Dutch Empire fit in here?! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The most effictive weapon would be the Aztec myth of a god returning from over the sea, which was manipulated to Spanish advantage. --Wetman (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The alliances with Aztec subject states were also pretty useful. --Carnildo (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In case you were puzzled by AnonMoos' response, what he means is that the Aztecs didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

February 11

HISTORY

WHAT YEAR WAS GEORGE T SAMPSON BORN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.193.12 (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Person here aksed and got an answer. schyler (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Are haitians Afro french while Dominican Republic are Hispanic?

--arab 04:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Afro-French would indicate residence in or nationality of France, so although most Haitians are Black and speak a French-based creole I don't think "Afro-French" is appropriate (after all, "African Americans" are not "Afro-English"). The articles Dominican Republic#Demographics and Haiti#Demographics may be of interest. FiggyBee (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The questioner has edited these articles[15][16][17][18][19] and is certainly aware of them. He has regularly been asking questions about the ethnicity of Haitians and Dominicans since August 2007.[20]  --Lambiam 09:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Culturally, you are partially right. Haitians have an Afro-French heritage and the Dominica Republic a Hispanic and African background. However, if you are trying to refer to their race, Hispanic is somehow confusing since it refers to members of a culture, but is also used to refer to its race - although Hispanics are of different races. The term Afro-French seems to refer only to a culture. Anyway, Mr.K. (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Valentine's day greetings

If I love a woman, but unhappily have no relationship deeper than friendship with her, should I greet her for Valentine's day? After all, it is the day of the lovers, and that could include Platonic lovers, right?Mr.K. (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It tends to be about romantic love, actually. Maybe you could make her day by sending her an anonymous greeting? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, this way she could think that a psychopath is stalking her. Mr.K. (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why she would necessarily come to the conclusion that anonymous greeting equals psychopath. Dismas|^(talk) 07:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You could just wish her "Happy Valentine's Day". But don't give her a dozen red roses and heart-shaped box of chocolates (or condoms). —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 07:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Unrequited love is so romantic. **sigh** ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My only experience of sending someone (a woman, amazingly enough) an anonymous Valentine was a bad one. She objected on principle to anonymous messages (I didn't know this at the time), and she was very, very annoyed. She suspected it was me and asked me if I was the sender. I of course denied it with the last breath in my body, but she still suspected me. Nothing was ever quite the same between us after that. Ah, well. (sighs dolefully) Next! -- JackofOz (talk) 08:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you learned to stay away from 'em after that... —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 08:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to any female Wikipedians reading this: if you ever feel like demonstrating that not all women object to anonymous Valentine's, you could always send me one :-) --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If only, Angr. I actually got married the following year (to a different woman). It took fourteen years of marriage to finally show me the true way. Call me a plodder if you like, but I got there in the end.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I vehemently object giving anything to someone you are not romantically involved with on Valentine's Day. Please, don't give in the the rampant commercial bastardisation of the day. Also, forgive my wretched grammar. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So, sending an anonymous Valentine to someone you fancy is giving in to the day's commercialisation, but sending a Valentine to your lover isn't? How does that work? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A real Valentine is not bought in a store. But what I'm really talking about is all the generic cards for your mom, dad, uncle, dog that they sell along with spewing out candy hearts and chocolates ad nauseum that they expect you to give to everyone including your boss. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd imagine it depends quite strongly on the country you're in, what your circle of friends usually do, etc. These things are not carved in granite. For example, in Japan Valentine's day is about women/girls giving presents to men/boys, and doesn't necessarily involve romance. Daughters give their fathers presents. 130.88.140.112 (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr K, if there is someone you admire, my suggestion would be to do something nice for them on a day other than Valentine's Day. It will seem more genuine, and will have no sense of forced attention (or obligation). But then, I find Valentine's Day the most unromantic day around; being contrary by nature, I cannot feel romantic on a day I am told to be romantic. (Anniversaries are the same). (On a side note, I was going to use the word "perverse" (in the senses of contrary to that which is accepted or expected) there, which is better than contrary (which implies two minds), but the context renders it inappropriate. "Intercourse" is another word it is difficult to use these days. Am I alone in missing these words?) Gwinva (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just use them and enjoy watching people's faces light up as you give them the means to make a joke. They feel clever, you feel warm inside from making them happy, and you know you used the most appropriate word. Everyone wins. Skittle (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Almost as bad as the loss of such words is the pronounciation of the holiday as "Valentime's Day". 206.252.74.48 (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Gwinva, I don't know where you live, but have you ever considered moving to Australia? If you ever do, there's a place that seems just right for you.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The West Wing

Quick question: how many rooms does the West Wing of the White House have? Thanks Batmanand | Talk 08:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to say. One man's hall is another man's room. If you'd like to count them yourself, see:

• ground floor
• first floor
• second floor

One of them has a link to a comparison of the set of The West Wing to the real thing. The set is nicer. - Nunh-huh 10:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

But that doesn't include any of the secret basements? Ninebucks (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect there are several secrets not included. - Nunh-huh 03:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

When is the poll close of 3 states election in 12 February 2008?

I'm search all over the Wikipedia. But I don't hunt it... When is the 3states poll close tomorrow? and where is the poll close page? 121.124.4.120 (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• From what I can find, Virginia closes at 7 p.m., and Maryland and Washington, D.C. close at 8 p.m. (All times Eastern.) However, if you are in one of these states or district and need to get to your polling place and vote this evening, please confirm this with a more official source than somebody posting on the Wikipedia reference desk. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the Hegelian triad thesis-antithesis-synthesis really a myth?

Is the Hegelian triad thesis-antithesis-synthesis really a myth? The Hegelian triad has been repeatedly debunked as a myth and its been fairly will proven that neither Hegel, Marx, or Engels ever used it except as a term of insult. Nevertheless upon reading Hegel's logic it seems that the term very aptly describes Hegel's method of reasoning and deduction. Can someone please explain to me what is incorrect about the triad, and how Hegel's method is actually different. --Jacobin1949 (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Read Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Thesis, antithesis, synthesis again if neccessary. The second link explains what (if anything) is 'wrong' with the triad - mostly in this context what is wrong is that Hegel isn't considered to have really used it (except in chapter headings..)

The try specifically Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#Reading_Hegel last paragraph - quotation from Hegel - where he expressed doubts that 'any philosophy worth the name' would be refuted by a later thought system..

(and thanks to whossoever wrote the article - I enjoyed that)87.102.79.203 (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the triad can be more clearly attributed to other thinkers or those that have analysed hegels work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.79.203 (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Tears

what makes people cry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.62.228 (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you read tears? English Wikipedia doesn't have a separate article on crying/weeping, but if you can read German, Esperanto, or Russian, take a look at de:Weinen, eo:Ploro, or ru:Плач. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Extreme happiness or sadness. Sentimental and/or romantic movies/stories like August Rush, Rudy, or P.S. I Love You. Social conditioning can tell you when it is appropriate to cry, for example, women stereotypically do it more than men because it is more socially accepted. Also, onions :) . Wrad (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And in the case of P.S. I Love You, one might cry in pain/disgust/embarrassment rather than extreme happiness or sadness. --Emery (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Military Vicar

Isn´t there an american vicar that was or is going to be beatificated?--85.180.16.119 (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You may be thinking of Vincent Robert Capodanno, who was a U.S. Navy chaplain during the Vietnam war. His Cause was opened in 2002 and he is now a Servant of God, the first stage towards being recognized as a saint. A declaration as Venerable comes next and may be followed by Beatification and canonization. Xn4 12:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Deafblind

What are the steps that at deafblind person goes through when learning to communicate? How would they start to associate symbolic language with real world events/objects? Sancho 14:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I found a nice description of what I was looking for here. Sancho 17:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Brookmyre Wikipedia entry

In the Bibliography section of the Christopher Brookmyre Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Brookmyre), all the books listed, except "Not the End of the World" have an asterisk after them. See list below:

Quite Ugly One Morning, 1996 * Country of the Blind, 1997 * Not the End of the World, 1998 One Fine Day in the Middle of the Night, 1999* Boiling a Frog, 2000* A Big Boy did it and Ran Away, 2001 * The Sacred Art of Stealing, 2003* Be My Enemy, 2004 * All Fun and Games until Somebody Loses an Eye, 2005 * A Tale Etched in Blood and Hard Black Pencil, 2006 * The Attack of the Unsinkable Rubber Ducks 2007

However there is no explantion of what the asterisk represents, which is confusing.

Can you please explain the relevance of the astersik?

Eltonstoney (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The asterisks were added (without explanation that I can find) by Copygir1. You might want to ask her what they're about. Algebraist 16:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the person who put them there: Copygirl. Saudade7 17:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Different forms of Nazism during WW2 (Germany, Italy and Japan)

Dear Sir / Madam,

I am a University undergraduate studying International Relations at University of Sussex in the UK and was wondering if you could inform me on parts of a presentation I am doing comparing the Nazi regimes in Germany, Italy and Japan before WW2 and up to the end of the war.

I'm dividing my presentation in three parts:

1. The differences in its origin between the 3 countries 2. The differences in the use of terror 3. The difference in the use of the millitary

What i'm really looking for are facts, pictures and examples as opposed to conceptual differences.

Would you be able to give me some fruitful information on:

1. The impact of catholism on fascism in Italy 2. The origin of Japan's millitary tradition 3. The political force of the Industrial-millitary complex in Germany

I hope you will be able to answer or certainly give an outline answer to my questions. I also hope this could benefit the site itself with useful information on the discrepancies within fascist regimes and ideologies.

Moreover, I would be more than happy to send you my presentation once it is finished so that you can use it to the benefit of the site.

Thank you in advance for any help you can provide me with.

(email removed) Kind regards,

Mitchell Mcmanus Schouchana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.132 (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all only germany was 'nazi'. Suggest reading fascism and nazism for italy and germany respectively. For Japan I'm not sure where to start but try History of Japan and take it from there (also try History of Japan#Early Shōwa (1926-1937) - Militarization and imperialist ambitions and Japanese fascism and Militarism-Socialism in Showa Japan) these articles should answer the bulk of your question.87.102.79.203 (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese ideology is usually described as "militarism" - though all three are sometimes grouped together as "fascism". Nazism is usually used only in reference to the Nazis, i.e. in Germany. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

An interesting and ambitious project, Mitchell, but I'm not at all sure how you are going to produce a worthwhile answer without examining conceptual differences, or in what manner your work will be aided by 'pictures.' Also, I am not sure that the use of 'terror' is a valid basis for comparison. Terror is terror; it was merely a question of degree.

A comparison between the three regimes is most certainly a valid task, but do be careful; they were divided by as much, if not more, than they were united. Only Germany, as has already been pointed out, can be described as a Nazi power. So, the only basis of comparison, in the broadest and loosest sense of the term, is 'Fascism', a grossly overworked label, that really only serves to describe a political style. To complicate matters still further, it is uncertain if Japan in the late 1930s fits the Fascist model at all: there was simply no place for the 'charismatic leader'-one of the features of European Fascism-alongside the divine Emperor. There was no mass party-another Fascist characteristic-with only the unimportant Japan Fascism League (Nippon Fascism Remmei) adopting the European style.

Anyway, I would respond to the specific areas you have highlighted as follows;

• Fascism in Italy had a strong element of social radicalism, including anti-clericalism, to begin with, attracting people like Marinetti, a prominent artist, iconoclast and comic-opera revolutionary. However, with the rightward shift in the movement in keeping with the more reactionary forms of Rural Fascism, represented by the likes of Roberto Farinacci, a more cautious and accommodating stance towards the church was taken by Mussolini. In a country like Italy the church was always going to be an alternative source of authority and legitimacy to a mass action movement like Fascism. Mussolini was sensible enough to recognise this, abandoning his former hostility to the church, and reaching agreement in the Lateran Pacts, ending a seventy-year old dispute between the Vatican and the Italian state. This served to give his regime a new legitimacy, both at home and abroad. But it was not a stable alliance. The church remained critical of the National Fascist Party and wary at attempts at further radicalisation. There were disputes over youth movements and other issues, with the church becoming ever more critical of the regime from the late 1930s onwards. In the end the Church was as an important source of resistance to the Fascist state as the Communist Party.

• The origins of Japan’s military tradition lie deep in its history. I would suggest, with respect, that this is not the most fruitful area of investigation for the kind of comparative study you have in mind. Rather, it would be altogether more meaningful to examine the increasing radicalism of the Japanese military establishment from 1930 onwards; the alliance between the military and militant nationalism; the military’s role in the promotion of new forms of rapacious imperialism at the expense of China, and the increasing role of terror in Japanese domestic politics. A useful basis for comparison would be in what way the economic crisis of the 1930s impacted on all three countries, and in what the Japanese military responded to the countries deteriorating domestic and international position. No mass party, no charismatic leader, but a military determined on an uncompromising foreign policy, one which placed considerable importance on national integration and greater state control. This was far more than simple militarism.

• I'm not quite sure what you mean by the 'political force' of the industrial-military complex in Germany. To be honest with you I am uncertain of the explanatory value of expressions like 'industrial-military complex'-another overworked term-in relation to Nazi Germany. Hitler's regime began, like that of Mussolini in Italy, as an alliance between traditional elites and radical outsiders, but unlike Italy-where the alliance was always evenly balanced-the radical outsiders in Germany soon superseded the traditional elites, taking both industry and army in a direction they did not necessarily wish to go. By the mid-1930s Hitler was being warned by the experts that his rearmament drive was in danger of seriously unsettling the national economy. His response was to remove the experts. In the end he was to launch the kind of war for which neither the German economy, nor the German military, was properly prepared.

I can recommend further reading, if you so wish. In the meantime, the best of luck with your project. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Prince Potemkin's English village

Does anyone know anything about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.241.214 (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Try here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village) ny156uk (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not a Potemkin Village in the sense we have come to understand this term, 86.151. It was, rather, a project, sponsored by Prince Potemkin, involving Jeremy Bentham and his brother, Samuel. Samuel, who was living in Russia at the time, was approached by the Russian nobleman in early 1784, with a proposal to develop his western estates at Krichev in Belorussia, bringing in English tradesmen, experts and artisans of all sorts for the purpose. Samuel wrote to his brother in England, asking for his assistance on recruitment, anything from head of the planned botanic gardens down to milkmaids! Those selected began to arrive in Riga from the summer of 1785. Jeremy was as anxious as his brother that the whole scheme should be a success, seeing it as a way of putting his utilitarian ideas into practice. He himself came to Krichev in February 1786. The 'English-village' took shape, but it was as far from the Benthamite ideal as it was possible to get, owing to the uneven quality of the arrivals from England, many of whom came from Newcastle, and were rather rougher than poor old Jeremy had anticipated! The venture finally came to an end in 1787, when Potemkin sold the estate. You will find the details of this episode in Simon Sebag Monteifiore's Prince of Princes: the Life of Potemkin. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Marines fighting and dying for our Right to Free Speech...

Okay, I am living in Berkeley and although not involved in the episode (wherein Berkeley City Counsel voted to run the Marine Recruiting Office out of town) my friend and I still got in a (civil) argument about the issue this morning. I happen to think that it is a fallacy to say that we owe our freedom of speech to the Marines, and thought so even when General Pertraeus (sp?) trotted out that cliche in response to the MoveOn ad in the NYT.

My good friend always invokes the fact that the Marines defeated the Nazis and the Japanese in WWII and, had they not, we would all be dead or else our rights to free speech would be severely limited, Constitution destroyed etc. I just have a strong sense that the Right to Free Speech is a Right that is decided by a group of people, internally and conventionally, and that no one needs to die for it (although it may be the case that the people exercising their agreed-upon right to free speech would die without the Marines, but I kind of doubt that too). To say the U.S. Constitution that the Marines (presumably) fight for is the guarantee of Free Speech seems fallacious also in that, last time I checked, people in Europe and Australia etc. seem to have the right to say whatever they want too (except in some instances Nazi hate speech). Also, I am not so sure that we actually have free speech in the U.S. anymore, what with the patriot act, or that if we do it doesn't matter because the people don't own the airwaves etc....but that is an aside.

The main question is, What would be the name of the argumentative/logical fallacy that would apply to the statement that people have free speech because the Marines fought and died for it?

(Dittoheads and other flag wavers, while certainly free to express their anger at my question, need to know that they will not change my mind or hurt my feelings by attacking me.) Thanks in advance. Saudade7 18:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You're presupposing that there is a logical fallacy in that argument, but I think you're trying to say that the argument is based on a false premise. Whether or not this is true is a separate discussion. Sancho 18:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. Depending on the facts of the world, the statement that "people have free speech because the Marines fought and died for it" could be true and it could be false. Either way, from a logical point of view there is nothing wrong with it. In logic, a false statement is not the same thing as a fallacy. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

From my reading this is a mistaken consideration of cause and effect. The person seems to decide the two are linked and that without one the other wouldn't exist. It is incorrect in so much as A) There is no evidence that without the marines the allied forces would have lost B) Had the allied forces lost freedom of speech would be hugely different C) That the continuation of free speech is a result of the allied forces winning. I may well have got this wrong but that's my interpretation ny156uk (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for responding. I guess I *felt* (not very rational!) that there was some kind of fallacy at play, but the fact that I couldn't pinpoint it should have clued me in to its absence. I think it is right to say, as 194.171.56.13 did, that it is a false statement, predicated on false premises (tautology?) as Sancho said. And I liked ny156uk's breakdown of the problems. My problem is that my friend called me at 8am (I went to sleep about 3) and imagines I am lucid enough to debate! Then, the invocation of Nazis! Always with the Nazis! Don't get me wrong, I hate the Nazis, I hate fascism. But I don't think they are a valid argument for the Marines being behind our Right to free speech! I really thought there had to be some fallacy I could invoke and get back to sleep! Thanks! Saudade7 19:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it is also a factual error. Even if what happened in WWII has undoubtly impacted the world after WWII -in my humble opinion towards a more liberal world-, marines have not fought and died alone. They were relevant principally in the Pacific theater. Mr.K. (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Several possibilities exist, depending on how you phrase your question in logic. For example, the most direct form:

• The marines have died for free speech.
• Thus we 'owe' free speech to them.

This is a type of sunk cost fallacy. User:Krator (t c) 20:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure the RAF, Royal Navy, British Army, RAAF, RNZAF, Gurkhas, Royal Canadian Air Force, United States Air Force, Free French Forces, French Resistance, MTC, Royal Indian Navy,Land Army, WAAF, Argentine squadron, Royal Australian Navy, Brazilian Expeditionary Force, Royal Canadian Navy, Royal New Zealand Navy, Ceylon Garrison Artillery, Fiji Defence Force, Royal Indian Air Force, Royal Netherlands Navy, South African Army and all the other armies, navies, air forces, divisions and support crews of the Allies are suitably grateful to the Marines for their noble sacrifice. Gwinva (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

To say nothing of all of the other branches of the American armed forces! But, yes, you are quite right, Gwinva, and this kind of silly conceit drives me nuts as well. My right to free speech owes nothing whatsoever to the 'Marines', I am more than happy to declare! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's quite a blanket statement to make, Clio. As much as I enjoy your normally well-researched and well-reasoned answers, I think this one is way off base. Do you really have proof that the United States Marine Corps had absolutely no part in the defeat of Nazi Germany, and hence the preservation of liberal rights such as the freedom of speech? I think it is highly probable, almost to a certainty, that they had at least a tiny effect, which makes your assertion seem a little foolish. I must ask, do you believe the British military had an effect on preserving your right to free speech? If you do, and yet claim the Marines had "nothing whatsoever" to contribute, I must accuse you of "silly conceit" as well. GreatManTheory (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be incorrect to say the U.S Marines were solely responsible for the Allied victory in World War 2. But the U.S. Marines were an important part of the Allied forces which defeated the Axis powers in World War 2. I would be interested to see any reliable sources which disclose that the participation of the U.S. Marines did not aid in the defeat of the Axis, and that indeed the Allied victory was assured without the participation of the U.S. Marines. If The Nazis and their allies had won the war because there were insufficient volunteers in the U.S. marines (and the other Allied fighting forces) the right to free speech in the Western democracies would likely have been extinguished. What part of this is hard to understand? Was there free speech in Japan, Italy, Germany, or the conquered lands during WW2, compared to the somewhat diminished degree of free speech in the U.S., Australia, Great Britain, Canada, etc during the same period, and the even greater free speech in the decades after? If The Axis had won, we would only have the right to parrot the official lines. It would be comparable to the freedom of speech enjoyed by inhabitants of Russia during the Communist epoch, or that in Iraq while Hussein was in power. What blinders people wear who assume their personal freedom of the present day has no relation to the sacrifices of soldiers in World War 2. Instead of the fighting (primarily in the Pacific) described in [21], they could have just stayed home. Edison (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between the right of free expression, and the ability (or lack thereof) to express oneself freely. The Marines et al certainly contributed to the Allied cause and enabled some people who were unable to speak their minds for fear of the consequences, to do so. But those people always had the right to say whatever they wanted; it just would have been foolish or fatal to do so. But history is full of people who took a stand and spoke out, despite knowing the risk they were taking. They spoke out because they had a right to, a right that is unalienable. The Marines could no more restore that right than the Nazis could ever have removed it in the first place. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There certainly is a difference. I was under the impression we were talking about a legal right, as opposed to what you might call a "human right." Whereas we will always have the human right to speech, it is probable that an Axis victory would have meant an end to the legal right to do so. GreatManTheory (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Without the Marines and other American troops, at the present time Clio the Muse would only have a right/ability of free speech in German. Britain was on the edge of collapse at the time of the US intervention.Mr.K. (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really true. The Germans screwed themselves when they decided to attack two fronts at once. While the US definitely helped and no one knows what would have happened if they had not taken part, the idea what the Allies would have lost were it not for the US is IMHO not one shared by a great number of people outside the US. We just don't know and there is ample evidence to suggest the war wasn't as hopeless as people in the US seem to like to think. Also presuming that Nazi Germany would have lasted forever even if the Allies did collapse is just plain silly. The reality is, no one knows what the world would be like if the US hadn't intervened and anyone who claims otherwise should be ignored Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh hotclaws 07:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh, that's an incitement to violence! I hope you're ducking, Mr K; there might be a backlash coming... Gwinva (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Alas, Gwinva; there is a fog of ignorance, sometimes so thick, that not even Clio has the power to disperse it! Anyway, I have to ask myself if I am destined, almost in the style of Cassandra, always to have my words misinterpreted and misunderstood. I addressed my above remarks to the proposition that we have free speech because the United States Marines fought for it, which is patently absurd. One might as well say we have free speech because John Wayne fought for it, which, for some people, might very well amount to the same thing. I most assuredly did not address myself to the subsequent qualifications; that the Marines contributed to the defeat of the Axis powers, an empirical and exact statement with which I have no argument. I do have an argument with the arrogant self-regard that is on occasions embraced by some Americans, and reflected in the original bald proposition. I would only ask you to remember that there are worlds and histories beyond yours; and if your inward-looking conceit angers your friends, just think what effect it has on your enemies!

I don't really want to belabour the point; but I am a historian and will treat the statement that the Marines saved free speech as empirical assertion, which was not my original intention, rather than a glib and silly slogan. Well, they did not save free speech in my country, which was never directly threatened by a Japanese invasion. Did they save free-speech in the United States? I was under the impression that the Japanese strategic objective was to create a large defensive perimeter around their conquests in the eastern Pacific, rather than invade mainland America. In contrast, the British were defending liberty by checking the Axis advance, time, after time after time, while the United States was still immersed in the dreams of isolationism. Anyway, I tell you what, my American cousins, for the sake of balance I will trade conceits with you, silly, foolish, or otherwise: that your liberty and your freedom are due to the sacrifice made by the Grenadier Guards, a regiment in which both my grandfather and my great-grandfather served with distinction. I hope that makes you all happy and suitably grateful! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this post is still being monitored, but I'll respond to a couple of points just for the sake of argument. Perhaps I misunderstood, but stating that the USMC had "nothing whatsoever" to do with the freedom of speech does sound awfully close to claiming they made no contribution to its defense. If you are no longer arguing that point, then we have no disagreement. As I'm sure you're aware, most Americans are fiercely patriotic, but claiming that our Marines are responsible for our own country's freedom of speech (which is how the OP presented the argument) in no way denies the contributions of other nations. I for one am very grateful for the contribution of all Allied nations.

I do want to make one final point, however. Even if the Marines engaged in no battles in the European theater, their heroic efforts in the Pacific did contribute to a victory in Europe as well. Because the Marine Corps dealt with the Japanese military, the U.S. Army was free to focus its energy in Europe, helping defeat an enemy that certainly threatened your basic rights. Therefore, it is not patently absurd to claim the Marines contributed to the defeat of the Axis powers. GreatManTheory (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is rather certain that the Marines who were operating the Marine Recruiting Office in Berkeley were not the same Marines who died in World War II, since the former were alive while the latter were dead. A valid reason for being grateful to the latter does not automatically transfer to the former.  --Lambiam 09:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Also being grateful does not require that you submit completely to the people you are grateful to. For example, despite what you often hear from the US, people in Europe are in fact largely grateful for the US, as well as British, Soviet etc involvement in WW2. It doesn't mean they have to submit and be the slaves of the US, the UK etc (and clearly they didn't do that for the Soviets), they are still perfectly entitled to disagree with and even go against those they are grateful to. Just because someone has done one good thing doesn't mean everything they do is good or right Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Standard response to the "we saved your asses" argument is to wonder aloud just what the Marines and their colleagues were doing between September 1939 and December 1941. Better late than never and all that, but the party had been in full swing for quite a while before America turned up.

Personally, I feel I owe my freedom of speech to that motley crew of barons and clerics who forced a bad king to sign a certain document on the banks of (or possibly on an island in the middle of) the Thames, thus securing their freedom from scutage and the removal of all fish weirs. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is that life and war are too complicated to ever be able to trace a linear cause and effect, and to hold one event or action as being solely responsible for an eventual outcome is a nonsense. An equal nonsense is to work back from what we have achieved and assume we could not have achieved it if one step on the path had been different. I believe we must honour and respect all those who fought in WWII, and be grateful for what they did, but we cannot attribute every aspect of our current lives to their intervention; as Gandalf hints above, there is a bigger picture. Wellington once famously remarked that any accurate written description of Waterloo would as impossible as decribing the movements of a company at a ball. If a 4-day battle is impossible to fully map, then a 6-year war is equally elusive. Focussing on any one aspect will show you incredible and vital activity, and it is possible to make a case for many or any to be crucial. As just one example, I have read essays which "prove" that the Royal Navy won the Battle of Britain and prevented the invasion of Britain. (Without which victory, the war could well have been lost whatever the Americans fancied doing a few years later.) To return to our Waterloo example again, I can place the victory in one man's hands only, if you wish: Cpl James Graham. He closed the North Gate at Hougoumont Farm following a French attack. A small act? But Wellington wrote afterwards: "The success of the battle of Waterloo depended on the closing on the gates", and when a vicar left his money in his will to "the bravest man at Waterloo", Wellington named Cpl Graham. So, then, our freedom rests in James Graham's hands. (And the poor man doesn't even have a Wikipedia article). Gwinva (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC) He does now, although it's still in its infancy. Gwinva (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Clio, when you say "..the British were defending liberty by checking the Axis advance, time, after time after time, while the United States was still immersed in the dreams of isolationism," please balance this against Chamberlain's appeasement policies of 1938 which greatly strengthened Hitler's military might by handing over an impressive military and industrial base in Czechloslovakia, and which may have squandered a chance to stifle his overreaching ambitions before the events of 1939-1945 became necessary. The British forces also did not have much success checking the Nazi advances in France during the summer of 1940. Edison (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely this just supports Gwinva's point? Maybe I'm being dense, but I fail to see how it's really relevant. Seems to have strayed into whose country is 'best' a little... Skittle (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Edison, but that is all beside the essential point. And, Skittle, my intention was not one-upmanship, but to challenge a silly and inaccurate statement. I have been forced on to wider paths against my better judgement. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert (read: clueless), but it seems unlikely that Nazi Germany could have conquered America, which would seem a prerequisite to taking away our free speech. (I'm assuming the original questioner was American because of their specific mention of the US Marines). Britain was at serious risk of being conquered; I'm not convinced America's "heartland" (the actual states, not including Pacific islands or Alaska/Hawaii which were not states during WWII) was ever at serious risk. It would have been insanely difficult to mount a large-scale invasion across the Atlantic; our American troops were working with massive support and bases provided by Britain and other European Allies. Vultur (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• The reason you don't owe your free speech to the Marines has nothing to do with their involvement in World War II or any other war. The Marines have done an exemplary in every war that I can think of, and they have played a major role in the successful defense of the United States. But even if the Marines were the only thing standing between you and Nazi/Commie/Qaeda thugs, you still would not owe your free speech to them, because the Marines are sworn to uphold the United States Constitution, and under that Constitution the Marines must protect your right to speech. They will give any civilian that right whether they think he deserves it or not. The Marine gives all and demands nothing. And if you're not impressed with that argument, then you don't know the Marines. Article VI of the Marine Code of Conduct says, "I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America." You just try and find a Marine who will disobey Article VI. --M@rēino 05:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Turkey after WWI

Further to a documentary I saw on British TV tonight I would be interested to know how Turkey managed to emerge from the WWI in better shape than the other central powers? Canaris (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not really a meaningful question. Modern Turkey did not exist as such before 1923, and the country that controlled the land during WWI, the Ottoman Empire, was taken to pieces in the aftermath of the war. --Carnildo (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Canaris, it emerged in worse shape, as you will see if you look at the Treaty of Sevres, which essentially carved up the territory of the old Ottoman Empire along what might be described as colonial lines. It was in reaction to this treaty that the Turkish national Movement was formed, which in turn led to the Turkish War of Independence and the creation of the Turkish Republic by Kemal Ataturk, a soldier and politician of outstanding brilliance. Sevres was set aside, to be replaced by the altogether fairer Treaty of Lausanne, in the negotiations for which Turkey was admitted as an equal, in sharp contrast to the manner in which the former Central Powers were handled in the peace process of 1919-1920. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

LGBT or Straight?

I guess it's the right place to answer it. British serial killer Ian Brady raped and killed five children and teens. Three of them were boys and the last victim was a gay boy, he raped him. An user has put him into LGBT people from the UK category. Is it right?. Is he LGBT after raping three boys?. Thanks and forgive me if I'm not on the right page to answer it. If this answer isn't suitable here. Please, move my answer to the right page. Thanks. Ahmed987147 (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Does he self identify as LGBT? I would have thought a person's sexuality is defined by their preferences rather than a string of actual incidents, especially when they are violent sexual crimes. A person who is caught in a compromising position with a hot apple pie is not automatically a piephiliac by sexuality. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Rape and murder are acts of violence rather than sex acts. His decision to rape boys does not necessarily indicate a gay orientation. This sounds like a case of mental illness rather than sexual orientation. Unless reliable sources indicate that Brady identified as gay or was involved in gay sexual relationships (raping boys doesn't count), then I think that the LGBT label lacks substantiation and should be deleted. Marco polo (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I always heard the statistic that, for the most part, adult men who rape or otherwise sexually abuse young boys usually self-identify as straight and that is usually the role they conform to in society. Indeed many are married or are priests, etc. But you would have to research that statistic. That said, rape and murder aren't about getting your sexy on, they are about asserting power and control over the victim. Saudade7 03:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Actually I have to disagree with the responses so far. Make no mistake, if this was a case of calling someone gay in their article without a proper reference, then I'd have to concurr and say the label needs to go, but that's not the case here. The label in this case is Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies (read: studies), and applies only on the talk page. Charlize Theron for example has one on her talk page as do many more articles (and she is not gay). The label does not say he is gay/bisexual, but that the article is worthy of inclusion in the category. If you were looking for articles on the subject of LGBT, you might technically be interested in reading the one on Ian Brady or Charlize Theron. So it's not a label saying they're gay, but rather a label to say LGBT is relevant to editors. That said, the people at the LGBT studies project might have their own opinion as to whether the article falls within their scope, they might decide that it doesn't. Rfwoolf (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with woolf. I've got to ask a question, though. How can anyone be LGBT? That's like four things. You can't be gay and lesbian. The label seems to apply more to groups than to individuals. Wrad (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Rape-and-murder" pedophiles can't be classified as "straight", "gay", or anything else based on their choice of victims: it's an act of power, not of sex. --67.185.172.158 (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

@ Rfwoolf. Is it just interesting to "LGBT editors" because he raped a gay kid? Or because he was a man who raped boys? In the first case I guess it could be interesting to LGBT Es but in the second case is it just rather defamatory classification. Also, just in case the above comment by 67... was addressed to me - I didn't say that he was straight or gay based on his choice of victims, I said that most pedophiles consider themselves straight and self-identify that way. Their self-identifying as straight is a priori their first instance of rape or abuse of another person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saudade7 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not a member of the LGBT project I don't see any reason why it would be offensive. The fact that he raped boys may very well make this case of interest to LGBT editors. Not because a man raping boys has anything to do with LGBT but because a lot of people falsely attribute the problem to LGBT culture. For example, the various Catholic priest scandals have sometimes been misused by various commentators in homophobic ways ignoring the fact that it very likely had more to do with access then sexual preference and the reason it was a scandal was because of the age of the victims and position of trust of the offenders not to do with sex/gender of the victrims. (No one cares other the Catholic Church if priests are gay or regularly have sex with another man, what people do care about is when priests abuse underage children even worse when they abuse their position of trust to do so, regardless of the sex of the victims.) In other words even though the actual thing may have nothing to do with LGBT, because other people misuse the scandal to attack LGBT people and culture it may be of interest to LGBT editors so they can help monitor the article for biased edits. Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that Ahmed was in fact asking about this rather more questionable edit, which I undid apparently before the rest of you had read and answered this question. I've attempted to summarise the full reason why I undid it in the tiny edit summary box, but reading the above comments I think everyone here understands why. Skittle (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

All right, I agree with your revision; we cannot call *him* a LGBT person from the UK. The LGBT project on is talkpage, while I agree is questionable, has more integrity to remain. So I guess what I'm saying is that it's not okay to call him a LGBT person, but it's okay to make him part of the LGBT study group. Rfwoolf (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Anon above, "Rape-and-murder" criminals can't really be classified as "pedophiles" either. "Rape is about power, not sex" --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Amartya Sen

What's a good work of Amartya Sen to start with? I am mostly interested in political philosophy. Looking over the titles on his Wikipedia page, it seems a lot of them are practical works on development. I generally wouldn't like that, but am open minded. User:Krator (t c) 22:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Books on St.Francis of Assisi as diplomat and adventures in Egypt

I'm researching St.Francis of Assisi and I'm very intrigued by his efforts a peacemaker among the Italian city states and in Egypt. Does anyone know of any good books that examine this aspect of St. Francis' life. --Frsoroad (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about his adventures in Italy, but Francisology is pretty extensive so I'm sure it's covered somewhere. For Egypt, there is Maximiliano Roncaglia's "St. Francis of Assisi and the Middle East", but I must admit I do not know the book; it was published in 1957 so it may be out of date. The best source is probably James Powell, in various works, published over the last couple of decades. His "Anatomy of a Crusade", a history of the Fifth Crusade, deals with Francis briefly, but it would be good background for what Francis was doing there. He also wrote a couple of relevant articles, "Francesco d'Assisi e la Quinta Crociata: Una missione di pace", in Schede Medievali 4 (1983), and "St. Francis of Assisi's Way of Peace" in Medieval Encounters 13, no. 2 (2007). Adam Bishop 02:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk)

February 12

Murder, She Spoke

Person "A" tells person "B" something, knowing that by doing so they will cause person "B" to kill person "C". Has person "A" committed a crime, and if so, what? --67.185.172.158 (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's solicitation to commit murder. Corvus cornix_talk 04:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, solicitation means making a specific request, and does not cover things like "Joe slept with your wife". --67.185.172.158 (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not taking into account special circumstances such as soldiers in war time or various psychological problems that persons A or B may have... How would person A know for a fact that person B would in fact kill person C? Dismas|^(talk) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably incitement to violence, but it would depend on the nature of what A tells B, and the nature of the killing. If A is an influential person who whips up B into a homicidal fervor against members of C's ethnic group, then A's crime would certainly be incitement. If, however, A tells B to turn on a trash compactor, knowing that C is inside it, then A would have committed murder, while B would not have committed any crime at all. If A tells B that he is being cuckolded by C, and B then kills C, then I'm not sure what crime A has committed. How can he know for sure that the information would lead B to commit a crime? Lantzy ^talk 04:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter how they know, so long as person "A" is speaking with the intent of causing person "B" to kill "C"? --67.185.172.158 (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Great question, however it's a legal question (and no I'm not about to spurt out that we don't dish out legal advice, because nobody's advising you of anything, yet). Someone knowledgable on laws may be able to think of some possible crimes. I must say that it's difficult to think of a scenario where A would be sure that B would actually try to kill C, just by saying something. My layperson's answer is that first of all the police would have to find out, then it would be up to a prosecutor to try and charge A with a crime, and they would only do so if they felt a jury or judge would rule in their favour.
I can think of an example where A *tells* B to kill C, then that's conspiracy to murder, does that count? What if Mikkie Blue-Eyes the gangster king-pin, tells Vinny The Tulip that Charlie killed his father, knowing full well that Vinny will rub him out? What if Mikkie was lying? What if Mikkie was simply telling the truth? Rfwoolf (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In descending order of magnitude, you could have:

• crime itself (here, murder)
• attempt
• conspiracy
• incitement
• accessory

(Not sure about the order of the last two)

This ranges from the theoretically possible but realistically highly improbable scenario of you saying things to another person, intentionally or recklessly knowing that that person has no will of their own at all and will act automatically to kill the other person or at least cause them grievous bodily harm (in which case there is an unbroken chain of causation so that you are guilty of the murder itself - and the wielder of the blade is a mere automaton acting solely on your command), to telling the person something, intending that they should go and kill the victim and knowing that they would have the necessary intention or recklessness of murder - that would be incitement to murder.

The articles on those inchoate crimes should have further details on the degree of mens rea necessary for each. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

U.S. election primaries and conventions

Unless I misunderstood the story I was listening to on NPR today, when the Democrats finally get together in their convention to choose either Clinton or Obama to run for president they can go against all the primary results and things and just choose who they want. Do I have this right? If so, what's the use of having primaries if they can just choose whoever the hell they want without having to take into account the millions of voters who chose a particular candidate over another candidate? This may very well surpass my confusion over the point of the electoral system... Dismas|^(talk) 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's due to the Superdelegates. They are not pledged to any candidate and can vote for whomever they want to. Even if Obama, say, has the most pledged delegates, if he doesn't have a majority, the superdelegates can turn the convention for Clinton. Or vice versa. That's why both sides are making lots of calls to the superdelegates to try to convince them. Corvus cornix_talk 04:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I should really stop learning anything about the political process in this country. Every time I do it seems to be even more of a backwards and convoluted system. Thanks for the response though. Dismas|^(talk) 04:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Most of the delegates are pledged to vote for a certain candidate based on the primary/caucus results. It's only if the race is close that the superdelegates can swing the decision. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the delegates are "pledged" but even that doesn't mean that they are required to vote for that candidate. Just like faithless electors in the electoral college, any delegate can break his pledge and vote for another candidate. This may even be required if there is a brokered convention. Rmhermen (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is perhaps worth remembering, Dismas, that the primary season is a function of the political parties rather than something constitutionally established like the electoral college. Because of that, I'll try to draw a private industry analogy. Consider television networks, which use ratings systems to evaluate what shows are highly-watched. Networks, though, remain free to make decisions contrary to ratings data. One popular show may be discontinued while a lesser one is retained. Similarly, the primaries really serve as a tool for parties to test their candidates' electability. The current trend is for the primaries to mandate a large degree of the process, but there's nothing about it that couldn't be overridden by the parties at their own discretion. — Lomn 16:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would point out that even if a delegate's pledge is not binding, normally one would seek to become a delegate to the national convention on behalf of Obama or Clinton only if one were really, really committed to that candidate. Most of the pledged delegates are likely to stay faithful until they are released by their candidates (or unless the convention has to go to a second ballot). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The process by which parties in the United States select candidates is actually more democratic than the corresponding processes in most countries. In most otherwise democratic countries, there are no primaries at all, and the leading operatives of a party simply meet, wheel and deal, and then vote on candidates to lead the party in the next round of elections. The principle behind having superdelegates seems to me a sound one. These are people who are experienced in politics and who are probably better able to judge than many ordinary voters which candidate has the best chance of winning in the general election and advancing the party's interests. Also, they can wait to make their decision until relatively late in the election season and can respond to recent developments, whereas our front-loaded primary season forces many primary voters to choose a candidate nine months or more before the general election. Let's say, for example, that Clinton led in delegates at the end of April, but it was discovered in May that she was having an affair with Osama bin Laden. Then the superdelegates could swing behind Obama to save the party's prospects in the general election. Marco polo (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What a giggle. It would take the Republican camp all of 5 seconds to encourage people to believe they'd heard "Hillary and Osama having an affair" (utterly unbelievable) as "Hillary and Obama having an affair" (only marginally less believable, but still within the bounds of possibility), as a way of doing damage to both their leading opponents in one go.  :) ---- JackofOz (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• One last thing: when one person has a wide majority of the delegates, it's common for the losing candidates to free their delegates so that the "floor vote" will look unanimous (or close to it), even though the actual result was not. That's just a bit of having fun for the TV cameras, and shouldn't be interpreted as a faithless delegate situation. --M@rēino 20:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am considering asking the Democratic National Committee if there is archival material relating to the superdelegate apportionment. This morning's New York Times states that the purpose of superdelegates is debatable. The Clinton camp is arguing their purpose is to nominate someone who will shore up the party elite and win the general election. The Obama camp is arguing that the superdelegates must shadow the will of the majority of Democrats who voted in caucauses and primaries. As an antiwar activist in the 1960's, I remember the battles on the floor and outside the convention. I am shocked - or perhaps angry - is more correct. The DNC is still in establishment hands instead of reflecting the reforms imposed b/c of the 1960s. People who take the time to vote, people who volunteer time and cash - we are the party. I am a lawyer. I cannot believe that documentary evidence of intent does not exist. If my vote is meaningless to the party establishment, I can certainly decide to become an independent. 75Janice (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's notable that, like the Electoral College, nothing like superdelegates exist for any other type of election in the U.S. Ordinarily, the winner of the primary is the party's candidate, end of story. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Except in those states where the candidates for statewide office are chosen by caucus, not primary. Then, it's quite possible for the winning candidate to be someone who wins because of support from the "establishment" rather than the voting population as a whole. --M@rēino 14:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

stalin the leader

why did stalin become communist leader when he was a grey blur and they were so many others like trotsky more inteligent and better than him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by P B S D (talk • contribs) 06:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What does intelligence have to do with taking power? George W. Bush is President and Albert Einstein wasn't (of Israel). It's a matter of ambition, inclination and circumstances. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 1#Stalin-was there an alternative?
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 1#Trotsky's book on Stalin
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 7#Trotsky, Stalin and the terror
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 June 13#Lenin's testament
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 23#Trotsky or Stalin?
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 September 10#Stalin and the system

 --Lambiam 09:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well grubbed, old mole! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

On what basis do you assume that Trotsky was more intelligent, let alone 'better' (whatever that means) than Stalin? Trostsky was better educated, yes, but Stalin was no slouch. I think Stalin had a real talent for exploiting situations to his own advantage, combined with ruthlessness and a good, vindictive memory. It could well be argued that Stalin was 'better' than Trotsky, on the basis that one was able to take power and hold it, while the other failed. AllenHansen (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to Israeli/Palestinian conflict

I would like to become better acquainted with the Israel/Palestine conflict. Could anybody recommend some good books that present an impartial introduction to the subject please? Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Walter Laqueur's "The Israel-Arab Reader" contains a large collection of historical documents which give both the Israel and Arab viewpoints. Simonschaim (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Documents are a good idea. Another way to do this is to read partial histories from both sides' perspectives. At least that way the bias is up front and your reading will be instinctively critical. I'm guessing that you're a student of music, not history, but forgive me if I state the obvious; there are precious few secondary histories that are entirely impartial. Part of the skill of the historian when reading secondary (and, for that matter, primary) sources is in wheedling out the bias, so it's helpful if it's in your face. --Dweller (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of good books that I could recommend, depending how deep you want to go, but I will confine myself to two: Mark Tessler's tome-like A History of the Israeli-Palestine Conflict, and the more recent, and slightly less demanding, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History by David Lesch. I suppose you could also try Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents by Charles Smith. The documents and the maps are good, though the author finds if difficult to hide his bias. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Russian Revolution and the working class

Hi, Clio!! Remember me? LOL. I have to prepare for a debate in my history class on the theme did the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 advance or hinder the cause of the European working class. I can't really find what I am looking for in the encyclopedia (Russian Revolution etc.) and would be grateful for any hints and leads to help me along the road. Thanx. Kathy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathy Burns (talk • contribs) 09:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha, well, let's just say that's highly contentious. Basically you're asking if Communism in Europe actually helped the working class throughout Europe. It was always been my opinion, and certainly seems to be backed up by statistics even acknowledged by many far-left (i.e., Communist) sources, that Communism actually puts a dent in the economy, and hurts the lower class more than it helps it. When you end up robbing from the people who propel the economy, you bring the whole thing down. That being said, others might be able to argue convincingly that a socialist-ward movement in Western/Central Europe helped the lower classes in those regions. But to answer your question, the fact that communism was widely unpopular throughout Eastern Europe, even by the lower classes, should show it wasn't that effective. Even the Russians weren't that pro-Communism by the 1990s. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You could make the argument (and the argument has been made) that the specter of a communist revolution was one concern that prompted the more progressive capitalists of Western Europe and North America to support Keynesian policies that improved the lot of the working classes through public works and social welfare programs, particularly during and after the 1930s. The existence of a revolutionary communist movement and the precedent of the Russian Revolution probably also made centrist and liberal politicians more wiling to "do business" with social democrats and to enact laws protecting the interests of the working class. Marco polo (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Kathy, I remember you. I think this is a very interesting subject, and I'm sure you will be able to construct a good argument. I think you are probably best to look at it in the historical short term. To consider, in other words, the immediate impact of the Russian Revolution on the post-war history of the European left, rather than looking at the more widely based effects of Communism. Taking that perspective, think of it this way; the history of the inter-war period is, it might be said, the history of reaction to the Bolshevik Revolution; that the victory of the Communists-which Lenin and Trotsky believed would be the spark for revolution across the Continent-was only the first stage in a new civil war, a new class war, if you prefer, in which the left saw defeat, after defeat, after defeat. Not only did the Bolshevik victory cause a permanent division between the Communists and the moderate Socialists, but it was one of the most important factors in the shaping of Fascism and right-wing authoritarianism, first in Italy and then across the rest of Europe. Fear of Communism, in other words, was the greatest single force in galvanizing the right, from Horthy to Hitler.

So, you already have an international labour movement divided and weakened by the emergence of vigorous forms of right-wing reaction. To make matters even worse, a large section of the left looked to the Third International in Moscow for political direction, which most often results in a 'general line', regardless of local conditions. Looking beyond Europe, the United Front strategy of the 1920s obliged those loyal to Moscow to enter into alliances with so-called bourgeoisie liberation movements, which almost led to the ruin of the Chinese Communist Party in 1927, when it was purged by Chang Kai-shek. Having learned nothing from this, the Comintern then adopted the ultra-left Third Period line, favoured by Stalin, which insisted that revolution was immanent, and that the real enemy was not the Fascist right but the moderate left, the so-called 'Social Fascists'. It was against this background that Hitler came to power in 1933, bringing the destruction of the KPD, the largest Communist party in Europe outside Russia.

Now, with the whole of the European left in disarray, and Stalin in a state of shock, the Comintern made yet another rapid change, this time in favour of Popular Fronts, intended to unite all on the left, Communists and Socialists, with moderate liberals, in a common effort against the further advance of Fascism. But the Popular Front in France only added to that country's deepening political divisions, while the Popular Front in Spain led to the outbreak of the Civil War and the victory of Francisco Franco, yet another serious defeat of the left.

So, what is your conclusion? Simply this: that the Bolshevik Revolution created the raison d'etre for Fascism and, by dividing the left, weakened the capacity of the working classes to resist its advance. It was a disaster in whichever way you care to look at it, in Russia and beyond. That's it. Make of that what you will, and the very best of luck! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

emilian school

Reading up on Guido Reni I learn that he belonged to the 'Emilian School' of painters. Have found others in this group, mainly northern italian C17 period, but cannot find a clear definition. I gather there is a language or dialect called Emilano-Romagnolo in this area. Is there a connection? is it possible to define and clearly identify this school please? Namronwoh (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Namronwoh

Reni was born in Bologna, which is one of the major cities in the old Italian region of Emilia, an area now incorporated into the modern region of Emilia-Romagna. The school is also known as the Bolognese School (painting) and other important members were Annibale Carracci and Giovanni Lanfranco. SaundersW (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Iliad and Odyssey

What are the best translated versions for American-english speaking readers? --AtTheAbyss (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what you are looking for. If you want poetry, I recommend Alexander Pope's translations ([22], [23]; not exactly American English!). If you prefer a very literal prose translation, the Loeb Classical Library is probably the best choice. See also English translations of Homer. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would go for Robert Fagles. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My own readings, and all my previous professors seem to endorse Robert Fitzgerald for literal translation, and beauty of language. His Aeneid is lovely. But please, resist the Dover Thrift Editions, their low price is not worth the translations they find.... Zidel333 (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In university we used the translations by Richmond Lattimore. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson said of Pope's beautiful translation of the Iliad that it was "a performance which no age or nation could hope to equal", while Richard Bentley said "It is a pretty poem, Mr Pope, but you must not call it Homer." Xn4 12:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm quite a few differing opinions. I was considering Robert Fagle's versions when I asked, so I might go with that. Of course, Pope's version looks okay too...hmmm...ANyway, thanks for your help and time. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Royal charter

In the Commonwealth, is being granted the royal charter the same or at least part of having the right to include the word "Royal" in the name of the organisation or corporation? --Kvasir (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not the same: many bodies (cities and universities, for example) with a royal charter do not use the word 'royal' in their name. I don't know if a royal charter is necessary for an organisation to call itself royal. Algebraist 17:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. I'm looking for the word of the process that grant the right to use the word "royal". Also are there laws governing the use of the word in the name. Say, would i be allowed to incoporate an organisation called: "Royal Wikipedia Society of Canada" or build a hospital called "Royal Elizabeth Hospital". --Kvasir (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The granting of charters in the UK is done by Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, their FAQ gives information on the 'Royal' usage and notes that it's administered by the Department of Constitutional Affairs. It also notes that the use of Royal doesn't necessarily mean a company/org holds a charter but seems to give the impression to me that it's still a royal decree - "The use of the prefix 'Royal' does not necessarily denote the existence of a Charter, it can be granted at the prerogative of the Monarch, and the Privy Council is not involved in the process. For example, Queen Victoria gave permission for 'The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' to become 'The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' in 1840." Anyway, a number of Commonwealth countries have their own privy councils that may administer charters in their countries or enforce Royal usage. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What priveleges, if any, do these organisations have? Tax break? right to use heraldric arms? I see it's the same department that grant the right to use arms and the right to use the word Royal. On what merits are the decision based?

On similar note, what about these products seemingly endorsed by the monarchy like Worcestershire sauce, "By appointment of Her Majesty... etc" What does it mean? --Kvasir (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It means Her Majesty has given them permission to use that wording. --Carnildo (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It means Her Majesty has agreed to be part of their advertising in order to obtain a really good price on some generally high quality and otherwise rather expensive goods :) - Nunh-huh 03:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See Royal Warrant. Foxhill (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oo thanks! and a list of royal endorsed products! --Kvasir (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Back to my original question, sounds like letters patent is what I'm looking for? --Kvasir (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are asking whether letters patent grant "Royal" prefixes - generlaly letters patent are legislative instruments - and can even have constitution-like status. I thought "Royal" is granted by proclamation. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Europe's opinion of Barack Obama for president?

Are there any polls or studys on Europeans thoughts about Obama as the next US president? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There sure are. Here's one such example, and many more can be easily found with search strings like "europe obama poll". — Lomn 19:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This site offers a review of European newspapers: [[24]]. It appears quite biased, and seems to misrepresent the articles it quotes. However, I'd say it's essentially correct in that there's generally a (slight) bias for the Democrats/Obama. Random Nonsense (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• In Britain, The Economist is officially undecided. In their most recent editorial on the matter, they stated, "a Democrat may yet impress us more, but first they must put their own house in order." --M@rēino 20:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In Canada, a last week study (from Radio-Canada / CBC I think) had the result that 95% canadians would prefer any Democrat candidate against only 5% for Republican 142.169.252.84 (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Obama is without doubt favoured in the Netherlands, except some women, who sometimes favour Clinton for obvious reasons. User:Krator (t c) 21:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the general feeling in Europe (perhaps with the exception of Italy and Poland) is ABB, Anybody But Bush. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not all Europeans are Democrats! The Spectator has come down firmly on the side of John McCain in its 9 February lead. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And who said they were? The only comments I see anywhere close to saying that are Random Nonsense's 'generally a (slight) bias' and the anon telling us what Canada (in a rather generous extension of Europe) thinks. While most of us are democrats, I don't think anyone was claiming we were all Democrats.

On the subject of what Europe thinks, I have found the Times and the Guardian's coverage of the candidates rather amusing, as they give their own slants. Each time a result comes in, is the story that someone won or that someone lost? But generally they have been covering the Democrat candidates in more detail than the Republican candidates, even though they disagree as to which candidate they notice most. I suppose the Guardian plumping for a Democrat is no more surprising than the Spectory picking a Republican, but I've noticed much less coverage of Republican candidates in other news services too. Skittle (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been a complaint of GOPers in America, too. But, quite frankly, the Clinton-Obama race is just more compelling than the Republican one. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(After quick search of encyclopedia) GOPers = Republicans? Skittle (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, short for Grand Old Party. — Lomn 15:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As a european I can say I couldn't pick between them (though Juliani (sic) seemed like a joke .. but he's gone now) The most bemusing thing is that americans think that Obama is black? eh?87.102.114.245 (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We've got the one-drop rule. --Sean 14:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like something out of apartheid south africa.. Still it's your country - you know best. Ron Paul doesn't even get mentioned over here. The candidates seem normal... 87.102.114.245 (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC) I've got to say that Obama seems to lack the 'maturity' quality.. he's got that just married look.87.102.114.245 (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Did the Clintons remove items from the White House that did not belong to them?

A mudslinging email came my way and one of the items was that the Clintons took things from the White House that were not theirs and damaged other items. How much truth is there to this? I don't find a definitive source one way or the other anywhere, not even Snopes. Thank you, Mooney12.146.184.9 (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I recall reading about things like nasty messages being left in lipstick on computer monitor screens and trash being left around, but I do not think that it was much worse than that. Perhaps a few boxes of paper clips were taken from a cabinet. If it had been a serious matter, surely charges would have been filed. Marco polo (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I should stress that I never saw any evidence that the Clintons themselves were aware of or involved in the adolescent trashing I have just described. My understanding is that a few staffers did it at the last minute, very likely without the knowledge of the Clintons. Marco polo (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, do you have any sources? Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is an old article from the Guardian about the subject. A few things to note in that article: it says some of the information came from the Drudge Report website, referred to as "sometime uncorroborated." It also used the Washington Times as a source, the Times is not known to be the most impartial and reliable source. Most of the blame, such as it is, is placed on staff members, not the Clintons; and finally, it is mentioned that the incoming staff in 1993 found some surprises as well. --LarryMac | Talk 20:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is another article on the subject. Marco polo (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks folks. Cheers, Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) While reading these articles, I noted that the GAO investigated. I've been searching for the report of the investigation (audit, inquiry) on their website but no luck. I do find several quotes regarding the staff vandalism of the offices in various news archives, but nothing on the alleged furniture, china, art, etc, that were allegedly taken. Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I heard at the time, that from all the computer keyboards, the letter 'W' had been removed ... 200.127.59.151 (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Ow, my bad, it's mentionned in the linked articles. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That is actually true. The Ws were removed from some, (not all), keyboards and there was some other vandalism. What was unusual about THAT was that the the incoming administration made such a fuss about it as it's apparently de rigeur for the outgoing staff to cause some mischief. Cheers, Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• According to this Salon.com article, about 95% was a hoax and/or media over-reaction. As Mooney said, the vandalism was pretty minor in the annals of White House practical jokes. --M@rēino 21:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I really need to learn to ask my questions better. Everyone here is extremely helpful and I should be more clear when I'm looking for answers.

I am specifically looking for sourced information regarding the allegation that the Clintons personally took items that belonged to the White House inventory to furnish their own personal homes and offices with once their tenure was over. Thanks for the help though, y'all are the cheese. Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is some reference to this matter in Carl Bernstein's biography of Hillary Clinton. I read a library copy so I cannot reference it now. There was a misunderstanding regarding gifts. He mentioned it. Even people who are as reviled as the Clintons do make innocent mistakes. There were more important insights into character, both positive and negative, than misplaced items.75Janice (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)75Janice

It occurs to me that Republican researchers may want our help in finding mud to sling at Democrats. Marco polo (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's an interesting thought but other than helping kids with their homework why place restrictions on the type of question asked or limit the research performed to answer it? Where would the line be drawn? (I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm truly curious as to why you might be inclined to censor certain types of questions.) Cheers, Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly possible, but then, who knows what our questioners do with any of the answers we give here? I think we must extend the assumption of good faith to our questioners, in the absence of any positive evidence to the contrary. We certainly can't impose conditions like "We'll only answer if you undertake not to use the information in ways that we here at Wikipedia would not approve of". Also, an unknown number of people unrelated to the questioner read and use our answers in ways we never get to hear about. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'm more or less neutral about it. I get emails from both (divorced) parents. One is a "big C" Conservative Republican, the other a "big L" Liberal Democrat, (Just one reason for complete and utter incompatiblity :). As you might guess knowing that tidbit, I'm smack in the middle and I tend to fact check the glurge that comes out of both sides. I couldn't find anything either way other than people who state, "Yes, yes! They took everything that wasn't red hot or nailed down!", without any source to back it up. Cheers, Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that the Ref Desk censor questions probing for dirt on candidates. I was just pointing out that campaign operatives might find the Ref Desk a useful resource. Whether an editor chooses to answer questions of that nature would be up to the editor. Marco polo (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

True that, but if we're dealing in facts then we can only hope that the facts will ultimately speak for themselves.... Cheers, Mooney 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Iris Habib Elmasry

Hello. I am a contributor (User:Dhatier) of the Wikipedia french edition, trying to translate the page about Iris Habib Elmasry. It is written in it that «...in 1955, she went to the London Gallery to obtain further materials and documents». What about this «London Gallery»? When searching or that name in Google or similar, I just find a store for antique furniture, or National gallery, paintings museum. Thank you 142.169.252.84 (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have asked User:Ghaly, who added that piece of information. I'd assume it was the National Gallery, but I can find no reference to the gallery being called that, especially as late as 1955. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lady Macbeth's Sin

Hello. Was Lady Macbeth's suicide a Christian sin in Shakespearean times if she has done so? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC) moved from Language desk. Gwinva (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say probably so. According to Religious views of suicide#Christianity, suicide was considered sinful by the 6th century; those who committed suicide were denied a Christian burial. I don't know whether insanity was considered a mitigating circumstance, though; nor do I know if Lady Macbeth would have been considered sufficiently insane for such an exception (if it existed) to apply to her. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Religious views of suicide#Early Christianity says yes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

See how Shakespeare treats Ophelia's suicide in Hamlet. And Hamlet himself remarks that God set "his canon 'gainst self-slaughter". Rhinoracer (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Capitalist

I'm looking at a sheet from the 1900 U.S. census, and a 45-year-old man in Fitchburg, Massachusetts, lists his occupation as "capitalist". What did that mean back then? I've looked in the OED and I've searched Wikipedia, but the closest I can come to an answer is that it meant something like "investor" would now. The trouble is that he had a job in the paper mill at the time. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Could it be something in the realm of accountancy? Aecis^Brievenbus 22:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's someone who was employed solely to make sure capital-letters were used in the correct place for books???? I'm guessing capitalist would mean investor of some form - like a venture capitalist. ny156uk (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

a dictionary quote: "the creation of the factory system by nineteenth-century capitalists" looks like he would have been an investor or entrepreneur. I guess it would have involved a lot of accountancy. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A capitalist is a person who owns and derives income from capital - i.e. money, plant, assets. From a modern perspective, we might think of this person as an active investor or owner-operator of a business enterprise - some of whom would also be called "industrialists". What was this person's job at the mill? If he is a director, chairman, managing director, etc, then he is probably at the same time a major shareholder. There is nothing stopping one from being employed by a company that one owns or part owns: e.g. modern-day employee stock purcahse plans. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In that same census, an old lady I know of from genealogy research owned a small piece of farmland she rented for a small sum. She, too entered "Capitalist" as her occupation, just as if she were J.P. Morgan. Some may have enterd it half in jest, when "No occupation" or "Keeping house" might have been more accurate. It might have been a pretension to a higher status, or pure whimsy. It's not like one needed a charter or license or a certain amount of capital to purport to be a capitalist. Edison (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(And she *is* a capitalist in the truest sense of the word! She owns capital (land - as real an asset as you can get) derives income by allowing others to use it in production.) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There is reason to suppose he was labor and not management at the mill, and his holdings, if holdings he held, were not considerable. He did own a house, though. So it's starting to look like what I suspected, that people were fond of fancying themselves that at that time on the slightest pretext. I'd still like to be surer, though. Asking here was the last cyber-step before hitting the books. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I rather think the word was coined by Karl Marx in Das Kapital (1867-1894). He often used it contemptously - for instance, see this passage in volume 1, part 2 - "Der Kapitalist weiß, daß alle Waren, wie lumpig sie immer aussehn oder wie schlecht sie immer riechen, im Glauben und in der Wahrheit Geld, innerlich beschnittne Juden sind, und zudem wundertätige Mittel, um aus Geld mehr Geld zu machen." (The capitalist knows that all commodities, however scurvy they may look or however bad they may smell, are in belief and in truth money, inwardly circumcised Jews, and, what is more, a wonderful means to turn money to make more money). I find it a little comical to see people a few years later starting to use the word capitalist to state their occupation. An almost equivalent standard term in use in England at the time (seen in censuses, for instance) is of independent means, which was understood to mean that the person concerned had enough income to live on from property and/or investments, so had no need to work. Xn4 12:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

astrology question!! yay!!

hi guys...what does it mean to have a certain amount of 'aspects' (triunes, sextiles, oppositions, squares) in one's chart? if anything? what does it say about two people if one has 14 aspects and the other has like 10... who is better? or more complicated? is it better to be more complicated and to nhave more aspects to your chart? or is it better to be more simple and toghether with less opposing influences tearing you appart?.... if it has to do with evolution, who is more evolved? the one with more aspects? the one with less?

thank u! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.188.77 (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My vote goes to the chart that's simple and with less influences tearing you apart. But I guess there's more to it, especially when you add minor aspects, Uranian midpoints, Arabic parts and fixed stars, any chart can get pretty busy. Lots of blue lines are postive even enviable, and red lines or tough aspects are more challenging, but IMO it's hard to tell if the simper or more positive chart is about being more "evolved" or whether a complicated chart is a challenge to a person who's already evolved. Happy wandering through our Astrology articles. I tried to link to Soft aspect (Astrology) and Hard aspect (Astrology) but you'll have to enter them in the search box for them to work. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Soft aspect (astrology); hard aspect (astrology). But astrological aspect is a considerably more useful article. As a rule, the more aspects the better, as that person should find it easier to usefully integrate their various energies. However, it is really the type and strength (closeness) of aspect that is significant, rather than the number.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

February 13

Government and market economy

What is the proper role of the government in a market economy? Or else, ideally, what should the government do? I'm trying to justify the "invisible hand" concept from the Wealth of Nations, but there doesnt seem to be anything that refutes it. or maybe, is it not thr right thing for the government to do if it wants to keep its economy stable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.204.3 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is really a matter of opinion. Different economists and people with different political positions would argue for different degrees of government involvement in the economy. Anarcho-capitalists would argue that the government has no proper role in the economy. Radical libertarians would argue that the state has no proper role beyond guaranteeing the sanctity of contracts and perhaps safeguarding the integrity of the currency. Social democrats, who generally favor a limited place for a market economy, nonetheless believe that the state has a legitimate right to intervene in the market in almost any way needed to safeguard the welfare of workers and those without property. Most fall somewhere between social democrats and libertarians in backing a more or less limited role for the state, generally involving some regulation of markets. Some also support minimal intervention in the market economy to provide for the social welfare of the less advantaged. Marco polo (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

This is an opinion question and there's no one correct answer. I would say government should get involved to address the problem of collective action. For example, say there's a product everyone uses. It can be produced in an environmentally unfriendly manner for $5 or a friendly manner for $10. There is no other difference between the two products. Call the first Product A and the second Product B. If one person switches from Product A to Product B, the effect on the environment is too small to measure. But if everyone switches, the effect is enormous.

Let's say, theoretically, 100% of people support the use of Product B and are willing to pay more for it. But without government getting involved, there's no rational reason for anyone to switch to Product B. That's because no one's going to be the sucker who's going to pay double for something when his or her individual purchase doesn't make a difference. I'm willing to contribute to environmental friendliness by paying more, but only if everyone else does. Even if the companies that make the products all support Product B, they're not going to produce Product B because there won't be a market for it. This is where the government has to step in and mandate the switch to Product B. That way, there won't be any free riders who will keep using Product A to save money at everyone else's expense.

Of course, in real life no situation is that clear-cut. There are some people who will buy expensive, environmentally friendly products to make themselves feel good, not really considering the drop-in-the-bucket nature of their personal contributions. And, as we all know, there's never 100% unanimity in anything. But the collective-action problem does manifest itself often in politics, in issues of taxation, labor relations, land-use and other environmental regulation, safety rules and what not. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mwalcoff's answer is good, but controversial: small government advocates and anarchists generally think this is one of the things governments should not do. Their reasoning behind that amounts to the fact that the market mechanism would solve the problem. In the example, once people realise the total environmental damage done to them per product produced is, say, $6, they effectively "earn" a dollar if they buy the other product.

More uncontroversial government roles are alleviating information asymmetry, for example, making people realise the environmental damage done to them is in fact $6. A more real example include the mandatory "risk warnings" on high-risk products my government (Netherlands) has. Another relatively uncontroversial thing the government steps into is factor immobility (it's a shame Wikipedia doesn't have an article, see [25] if you don't know what it is). Finally, competition law is another important aspect of government intervention into the economy that's relatively uncontroversial, in the sense that people agree something has to be done here, but don't agree on what that should be. A combination of the information asymmetry and the collective action problems plays a role there. User:Krator (t c) 12:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ello Friends

Ok...i love wikipedia and the internet, however im kinda stuck i was looking for hot new things on john adams that most people dont hear about can anyone point me in a direction or give me some pointers!? My Thanks to all!

Respectfully Inutasha De Fallen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inutasha De Fallen (talk • contribs) 01:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Listed in the "References" section at the bottom of our article John Adams, is the following book:

McCullough, David. John Adams. (2002). Best-selling popular biography, stressing Adams's character and his marriage with Abigail over his ideas and constitutional thoughts. Winner of the 2002 Pulitzer Prize in Biography.

The hardcover came out in 2001. You can probably get your hands on a copy at your local library. Marco polo (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless s/he means John Adams (composer). . . --S.dedalus (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

One factoid about Adams: when he moved into the newly built White House, his bedroom was on the second floor and the servants were in the ground floor. He ordered a system of bell pulls put in, with wiring concealed in the walls. This was harder than putting in electrical wiring, because the wires had to run smoothly over pulleys through long runs with twists and turns. Then he could yank on the bell pull in the middle of the night and get hot cocoa or whatever comfort he craved. Edison (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Obamicans

Barack Obama just gave a speech in which he claimed there was a growing group of "Obamicans" backing him. In other words, Republicans who supported his candidacy. It got me wondering if this is a term that might become catching, like "Reagan Democrats". What does history tell us about the likelihood of this becoming a more popular term? Is there any other precedent? Wrad (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The only other example I can think of is Mugwump. Lantzy ^talk 06:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And there's Dixiecrat, but I think Wrad is looking for eponyms. --ShelfSkewed Talk 06:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, there are the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian Democrats, although they were not cross-overs in the same sense as the Mugwumps and Reagan Democrats. Obama is unusual (and probably savvy) in that he has explicitly coined a term for his crossover supporters. There is a long tradition in American politics of parties forming organizations for crossover members of the opposing party, and it is generally doubtful to what extent these are spontaneous manifestations of transpartisan sentiment, rather than merely astroturfing. In any case, they tend to have boring, generic names. In the last election Republicans for Kerry sold a lot of bumper stickers, but the idea of "Kerry Republicans" never took hold. Nor do we ever hear about "Clinton Republicans", although a lot of them must have voted for him. Some other notable crossover organizations were Democrats for Nixon, led by Kennedy's fellow passenger John Connally, and Republicans for Roosevelt, which bizarrely consisted mostly of western isolationists: "Dissident Republicans, too, such as Hiram Johnson, Borah of Idaho, and George Norris of Nebraska, [...] if not exactly fellow travellers with Roosevelt, ... were conspicuous nontravelers with Hoover. The "Republicans for Roosevelt" clubs were an important adjunct of the Democratic campaign." There were also Democrats for Dewey and Republicans for Stevenson, both unsurprisingly obscure. Before that, there were Republicans for Wilson and Democrats for Taft. Lantzy ^talk 11:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A google search for Obamicans shows about 450 hits. Wrad (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Obamacan" seems to be the canonical spelling, and returns 1,560 hits. Lantzy ^talk 16:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the definition of a shatterbelt?

There is no wikipedia article on the subject and some quick googling provides no answer. I'm particularly interested in what it means and also how it relates to domino theory. Thanks. -24.82.140.138 (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Saul Cohen, in his 1973 work Geography and Politics in a World Divided, described two-levels of division of the world into regions. Geostrategic regions with global importance, and subcontinental geopolitical regions. There were two geostrategic regions: the trade dominated Maritime World, and the Eurasian Continental World; and ten geopolitical regions. Most geopolitical regions fell under the obvious sphere of influence of one or the other geostrategic regions. One, South Asia, was termed independent; potential a new geostrategic region in formation. The rest were "shatterbelts", potential areas of competition and conflict. (Taylor, Peter. (1996) "Unity and Division in Global Political Geography." Companion Encyclopedia of Geography. p. 341)

O'Loughlin, John (1994) Dictionary of Geopolitics defines 'shatterbelt' as "a region that combines internal cultural, economic and political diversity and conflict proneness, with competing external (superpower) involvements without clear spheres of influence."

That's good, thanks. -24.82.140.138 (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Sales

Is there a site on the net where you can view sales/performance of microsoft in different countries? 60.241.113.35 (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely. Like any other company, Microsoft keeps its sales figures secret. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Microsoft is a public company, which means they're required by law to publish financial reports. FiggyBee (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely - and you'll most likely find what you're looking for somewhere here. Happy flipping. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but I was assuming the questioner was asking for detailed information on the sales of specific Microsoft products in different countries. A quick look at the financial information provided in the above link gives nothing so detailed, just aggregated information on worldwide income. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A flip through the latest annual report showed some comments about emerging markets and other such general segments. If the OP was asking for the kind of detail you are describing - then I agree with you: probably nobody would know except Microsoft and their financial advisors. Companies sometimes provide that kind of breakdown in investor presentations and suchlike, but it is up to the practices of each firm. I thought if these presentations were anywhere, they'd be in the investor relations section. Our inquisitive friend might just have to try his luck and trawl through the website. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Inscriptions on Paris building

I wonder if anyone can help me identify a Paris building based on the following? The building in question is to the left of the Panthéon (Paris) as you face it, and on the outside walls, fairly high up but visible from the street below, are inscribed the names of many eminent scientists and authors and philosophers from throughout history. I will try and upload a picture I have somewhere, but if anyone can help identify the building, that would be great! My best bet is that it is some sort of French institute, but I'm having trouble identifying the building on maps of the area. The building in question can be seen on this Google Maps link. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Managed to find it! From the map at fr:Place du Panthéon (the article was only created last year, after my last attempt to identify this building), I got to fr:Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, and from there to Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève. Have a look at Image:Bibliothèque St Geneviève Paris.jpg and you can see the rows of names, though the picture is not good enough to see the names. Maybe I should upload my picture that is a close-up of some of the names. It was interesting trying to recognise names on the wall! Carcharoth (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Police in France

For a project on the emergence of modern forms of law and order I have chosen to look at the development of the French police force from the Revolution of 1789 to the time of Napoleon III. I'm hoping someone here may be able to give me a kick start. Suggestions for an explanatory framework would be useful as well as suggestions on sources. I can give you my email address if you need it. Thank you. James Blair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.13.29 (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Journey from Vienna to Magdeburg in 1889

I would be grateful if a user could please answer the following question. If in 1889, one needed to travel quickly from Vienna to Magdeburg, what method of transport would one have used and how long would the journey have taken? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I imagine by 1889 the quickest, most efficient way of traveling from Vienna to Magdeburg would have been by train. It's over 800 km, so it probably would have taken about two days. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the quickest means of transport at that time would have been the railroad, but rail speeds were not much greater than 50 km/hour even on major rail lines. Even though this is probably faster than the average speed on a rail journey from Vienna to Magdeburg would have been in 1889, we can use this as a starting point for an estimate. The rail distance from Vienna to Magdeburg (by way of Prague, Dresden, Leipzig, and Halle) is 866 km. This would have taken (a minimum of) 17 hours and 20 minutes not including layovers. There would likely have been at least three layovers, probably of more than an hour each. Adding this all together, I think that we can safely say that it was at least a day's journey by train from Vienna to Magdeburg, and probably a few hours more. Marco polo (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Peerages

See the last entries on List of Life Peers. They take a title, such as Baron Smith of Anytown, but the column to the right of that lists somewhere completely unrelated, such as of the town of Anyvillage in the county of Anyshire. What is the connection, how are these places (both!) chosen? Some people (see the page's penultimate entry) even have three places involved; why is this? Thanks, --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is Potter so Popular?

I love Harry Potter, but I was really surprised to know that it has sold the most copies in the world, even more than the Bible, which used to hold that title. Maube it's something about the books that makes them so popular. What do my fellow Wikipedians think it is? I think it's because it's about a seemingly normal boy living in a bizarre world.--Princess Janay (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A good story is a good story. There are plenty of books that this could have happened to, but Harry Potter just happened to come in a time when a lot of translators and marketers could distribute it all over. Wrad (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My belief is that the books should well for the same reason The Da Vinci Code sold so well: plot twists. We all love plot twists. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of it had to do with them being children's books that don't talk down to their readers and that adults can enjoy too. Those are both very scarce commodities in children's books these days. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a review of of The Hidden Key to Harry Potter: Understanding the Meaning, Genius, and Popularity of Joanne Rowling's Harry Potter Novels here which explains the popularity as JK being a modern extension of the Inklings, and as successful as they were for much the same reasons. YMMV, of course. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)