Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg

September 21

Japanese in Shanghai

Who was Captain Pick and what had he to do with Japanese espionage in Shanghai before and after 1937?K Limura —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Evgenij Pick (Captain Pick) is a character in the last section of Nowhere Man, a novel by Aleksandar Hemon. Pick is a charismatic Russian adventurer, impresario and raconteur who has fled from the Russian revolution and lives at the Cathay Hotel in Shanghai. As background material, Hemon cites Secret War in Shanghai: An Untold Story of Espionage, Intrigue, and Treason in World War II by Bernard Wasserstein. Xn4 18:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There's an interesting article by Bernard Wasserstein, "Collaborators and renegades in occupied Shanghai" in History Today, 48:9, September 1998, ISSN 0018-2753

"Captain" Eugene Pick alias Hovans alias "Doctor" Clige was born Evgeny Mihailovich Kojevnikoff either 1899 or 1900 in Riga, Latvia. He fought it the First World War and claimed to have been captured by and to have escaped the Germans eleven times. In 1925 he became an assistant to the Russian military mission in China and began working for the Comintern. In 1927 he provide a detailed report to British intelligence on the Comintern, a report which was well received at Whitehall, but according to a later U.S. intelligence account he had

..bled them [the British] for large sums of money for long and devious reports on Communist activities in China. When he had exhausted the British, subject [Pick] went to work for the US Treasury Department and doublecrossed them out of US$600 and sold a tip-off to the group the Department was after on his first assignment for $2,000.

In the following years, using the stage name Eugene Hovans, he became a stage manager, actor, opera singer, ballet dancer and opened his own theater the Far Eastern Grand Opera. In 1929 he was sentenced to nine months in jail for forgery, then a year for fraud and extortion in 1931 when he represented himself as a military adviser to the Chinese government in Canton in order to obtain arms contracts. He was accused of blackmailing an American judge who he found out was homosexual—the judge's body later found floating in the Whangpoo River, of white slavery, and of keeping a "house of assignation".

In 1937 he began working for the Japanese Naval Intelligence Bureau and organized ring of more than forty counter-intelligence agents to spy against British and American targets. In November of 1941 he was sentenced to a long jail term for murder, but released shortly after the Japanese attack on the international settlement and was appointed an advisor to the foreign affairs section of the Japanese Naval Intelligence Bureau. According to our author : "For the next three-and-a-half years he exploited this position to establish a veritable reign of terror over the foreign residents of Shanghai."

Near the wars end Pick fled to Japan, where he would later surrender to occupation authorities. He was returned to Shanghai where he was imprisoned by the Nationalists, but then released at the instigation of the American Counter-Intelligence Corps. In 1949 he escaped to Taiwan ahead of the Communist occupation of Shanghai, tried to sell his services there as an expert on Communism, but was soon jailed and was last heard of in a Taipei prison.

The article lists some further reading:

• Boyle, John Hunter (1972). China and Japan at War 1937-1945. OCLC 370332
• Elphick, Peter (1997). Far Eastern File: the intelligence war in the Far East, 1930-1945. OCLC 37794939
• Wakeman, Frederic Jr (1996). The Shanghai Badlands OCLC 61400598
• Wasserstein, Bernard (1998). Secret War in Shanghai OCLC 41503389
• Yeh, Wen-hsin (1998). Wartime Shanghai OCLC 39181233

—eric 20:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done! You'll be pasting all that into Evgeny Mihailovich Kojevnikoff, right? - Eron ^Talk 20:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a summary of a single article, so seems a bit plagiaristic to paste it as is?—eric 21:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's your call as to how direct a copy it is. If you are concerned that it is too close to the original I'd be happy to take a crack at summarizing your summary. He looks like an interesting and notable character and I think the encyclopedia would be improved by an article on him. - Eron ^Talk 21:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also welcome an article about this character. The proper title would be Yevgeny Kozhevnikov. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

myth in eugene o'neill's plays

I am conducting a paper on myth in some plays of Eugene o'Neill's plays. If anyone can help me he is welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.109.90.118 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a reference desk, rather than a homework-help service. If you have a specific question, please ask away! --Sean 15:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

British kings

Who fathered the most kings in the British Isles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.14.222 (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr and Mrs King, of course. Well, Mrs. King didn't exactly "father" them, but it takes two to tango, nudge nudge, wink wink. -88.111.190.248 14:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

King Ethelwulf (839-855), and King Edward the Elder (899-924), both of whom had 4 sons who were king at some point. In modern history, however, no one person has fathered more than 2 kings. Neil ム 14:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

British Isles? Well, that would be Niall of the Nine Hostages, who handily beats Æthelwulf and Edward the Elder in that his eight sons were all kings of something, allegedly.

Less mythically, for Irish kings a quick skim through Frank Byrne's Irish Kings and High Kings doesn't find any more than four, that for Murchad son of Bran Mut (d. 738) and Dúnlaing son of Tuathal (d. 1014), both of the Uí Dúnlainge of Leinster. In Anglo-Saxon kingdsoms, Oswiu may draw with Æthelwulf and Edward. In Scotland Máel Coluim mac Donnchada equals them with with four - Donnchad, Edgar, Alexander and David - and would once have been reckoned the outright winner with five, but Edmund is no longer thought to have been king. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

DLC

I've read the article about Driver's license Compact and I still cannot find an answer to my question. If I currently have an Arkansas license that is going to be suspended upon my conviction for a speeding ticket, can I move to Texas, get a license before the conviction/suspention (NOTE: I have checked and verified that I can get a Texas license), can then Arkasnas supend my Texas lisense even if I pay the fine ? (NOTE: There is no supension for points under the texas law as long as I pay a fee for each violation--I think) XM 17:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You have asked about this situation so many times, and people have very patiently tried to answer, with the clear caveat that we can't give legal advice. The best advice for you now is to consult a real lawyer, who can give you advice based on local knowledge and all the relevant information. SaundersW 18:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely someone on Wikipedia should know if the DLC honors suspension attempts by non-resident states made after the license is issued? It's not *that* hard of a question...XM 18:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, can't you find a suitable lawyer to advise you, XM? If you find the right person, you'll know where you stand in half an hour. Xn4 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're here because you are trying to get free legal advice, you should now that most localities in the United States offer free legal aid to the indigent. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you bothered to consider the possibility that regardless of whether or not Arkansas can suspend your Texas license driving when you have a suspended Arkansas license in Arkansas could easily be illegal. This is one of the many reasons why you should consult a lawyer Nil Einne 19:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please give it up.You fought the law and the law won...hotclaws 07:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comparative analysis of prison conditions

Which countries' prisons are thought to have the worst conditions? Which countries' prisons have the best?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the Cebu Detention and Rehabilitation Center in the Philippines is the best. -- kainaw™ 19:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Billy Jean is not my lover... she's just a girl who thinks that I am the one... but the kid is not my sonǃ--Mostargue 21:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking about specific or unique prisions. I'm talking about prison systems as a whole within certain countries.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You could try looking at some of the work by Amnesty International. From memory, I know they've published concerns about prisons in Thailand and Iran and have also called Guantanamo Bay detention camp one of the world's worst prisons. It used to be said that the USA's worst prisons were in Alabama, but if that was ever so, it may be out of date? Xn4 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Morris and Orwell

Are there any similarities between William Morris' utopian News From Nowhere and George Orwell's anti-utopian Nineteen Eighty-Four? Martinben 17:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not read both books and find out for yourself? AnonMoos 19:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What the two books have in common is that they are both set in the future, as seen from the writer's point of view, and aim to predict a completely new order of society. But Morris, writing in 1889 and 1890, was a socialist trying to set out the utopian possibilities of socialism, whereas Orwell, writing in 1948 and looking forward a generation to 1984, was a self-proclaimed revolutionary patriot of the left who was bitterly disillusioned by the socialism then being practised in the Soviet Union and wished to warn where it might all end. Morris's protagonist falls asleep at a political meeting and wakes up a generation later in a new world which Morris approves of. Orwell's (born during the Second World War and christened 'Winston') is an independent thinker who finds himself barely surviving in a totalitarian state run in the name of Big Brother. Morris holds out hope, whereas Orwell gives us a terrible warning. Xn4 19:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Its a very long time since I read them, but as far as I recall NFN was a utopia, NEF was a dystopia. William Morris was in favour of hand-made crafts and nature, so NFN would be set in a nature setting, while NEF was in an industrial setting. I read NFN so long ago I cannot remember anything about the plot or characters, so that may not be reliable. As someone else suggested, try reading them. 62.253.52.156 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The first similarity is that they were both written by professed socialists, though one is optimistic and the other pessimistic. Orwell's pessimism was born of the times he lived through; a time of betrayal, of cynicism, of brutality and of dictatorship. Perhaps if he had been born a generation or two earlier he would have taken the same hopeful view of a potential future than Morris. And who can say that if Morris had witnessed the Moscow Trials and the ideological contortions of the Nazi-Soviet Pact then Nineteen Eighty-Four may have come more easily than News from Nowhere.

But look a little more deeply and it is possible to detect other similarities between Orwell and Morris, similarities beyond that of mere politics. Both have a vision that might almost be said to be 'reactionary' in the literal sense of the term, where looking forward is looking back. Both writers are alert to what is being lost in the modern world, a world where traditional values, rural values, it might even be said, are being destroyed under an urban juggernaut, which pollutes and dehumanises at one and the same time. The only thing that lightens the darkness of Nineteen Eighty-Four is the myth, the dream of the 'Golden Country.' Morris would certainly have been sympathetic to this rural idyll. Among the first things his narrator notices on waking in the future is that the Thames is free of pollution and full of salmon; and is this not the same world that George Bowling saw destroyed in Coming Up For Air, Orwell's pessimistic 'prequel' to Nineteen Eighty-Four? Morris and Orwell have, in other words, the same pastoral dream of perfection. It may be barely discernable in Nineteen Eighty-Four-but it's still there. And is it any surprise that the one toast that Winston Smith chooses to make is to the past, a place as 'idylic', and as elusive, as Morris' future. Clio the Muse 02:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an awful moment in Coming up for Air when George Bowling arrives at the end of his journey back into his childhood, the lovely hidden lake in the woods with big fish in it he has dreamed all his life of catching, to find the lake has gone, turned into a Pixie Glade for a new housing estate. Xn4 02:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Germany and Vichy France

Was the relationship between Germany and the France of Marshall Petain as close as usually assumed?86.147.191.30 17:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In short, yes, although he had less complete authority than his titles and your question may imply. Certainly, after the Second World War the French considered him to be a traitor: he was tried for treason and convicted to be guillotined, although this was commuted to life imprisonment. He lived to be ninety-five and died in prison on the Île d'Yeu. It's arguable that Pétain was treated very harshly, in all the circumstances. There are some articles you will find useful at Philippe Pétain, Battle of France, Vichy France, Révolution nationale, Free French and Charles de Gaulle. Xn4 19:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful if I broadened the focus slightly, thinking more generally of Vichy and Germany, rather than the career of Pétain specifically. The important thing to understand here is that France and Germany only signed an armistice at Compiègne in June 1940, and were thus still technically in a state of war, attempts at collaboration notwithstanding. Even though Germany occupied two-thirds of metropolitan France after the armistice, this was still only 10% of the total French territory, including the overseas empire. The French also retained control of a powerful navy.

So, for this reason, and others, France continued to be viewed as a potential threat, and was monitored as such, not just by the control commission allowed for by the Compiègne agreement, but by agents sent in to the unoccupied zone by both the Sicherheitsdienst and the Abwehr. Ironically, the Germans were aware of the Versailles precedent, and were determined that the French should be given none of the 'loopholes' that they themselves were formerly accorded by the victorious powers. They were also alert to the possibility of clandestine rearmament, for any sign of a French version of the Black Reichswehr. Of particular concern here was arms dumps in North Africa, French troop movements and even the rate of recruitment into the French Foreign Legion.

Senior Vichy politicians, even Pierre Laval himself, generally reckoned to be one of the architects of Franco-German collaboration, were kept under close scrutiny. Much of Laval's correspondence was forwarded to the Abwehr by an agent in his office. German intelligence agents, and locally recruited operatives, were active at all levels of government and adminstration, from Laval downwards. The French were alert to this and set up their own, highly effective, counter-intelligence operation. Indeed, there was something of a proxy war going on between the Germans and the French at the level of espionage. In the two years after the armistice close on 2000 people were arrested in the unoccupied zone, charged with spying for the Germans, some of whom were executed as traitors. This last vestige of political sovereignty only ended with the German occupation of southern France in November 1942. Clio the Muse 01:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Petain was sentenced to be executed by firing squad, not by guillotine, although his sentence was commuted. Pierre Laval was executed by firing squad.

If you guys don't mind.

What three things led to the growth of government in ancient Egypt? I read everything in the Ancient Egypt but I couldn't find anything so I would like some help.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A very regular flood of the Nile helped - they could coherently organize agriculture, and when people weren't busy with that, they could be recruited to build monuments. If it happened more randomly the government would not have been able to develop their authority like that. A written language was definitely useful, they could organize an effective bureaucracy with it. And I suppose their relative isolation...it was difficult for their neighbours to cross the deserts or the sea to attack them. Thus the government was (usually) stable and peaceful. At least, this is what I remember from high school Ancient Civilizations class, where we had pretty much the same question on a test, but that was a long time ago. Adam Bishop 18:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would humbly disagree with the previous answer... A regular flood of the Nile wasn't a requirement: States arose in many different regions of the world, even where there weren't regularly flooding rivers. Also, written language in Egypt was a result, not a prerequisite, of state formation. In some other parts of the world, complex societies managed without written language. I would also not call Egypt isolated: there was plenty of trade and regular conflict with other nearby polities. My answer would be: a (relatively) stable agricultural surplus, internal and external competition, and a very powerful and flexible ideology. Random Nonsense 21:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The regular flooding of the Nile is what spawned EGYPTIAN culture - it created a fertile place for them to settle and develop agriculture. In other regions of the world, there are other conditions - in desert regions without regular flooding of rivers, you tend to get nomadic civilizations since there's no reason to stay put if you don't have any crops. Non-desert regions, of course, tend to have fertile soil that doesn't need flooding. If it flooded at random, though, their crops would go under. Kuronue | Talk 22:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no argument there - I'm just questioning whether the rise of the Egyptian state depended on the flooding's regularity, as Adam Bishop argued. It depended on a surplus of food, yes, and the regularity of the Nile affected the shape of the Egyptian state, massively, and was a cause of its longevity, sure... But for its rise, its emergence, no, the river's regularity was not responsible. As in Mesopotamia, where the rivers were way more irregular, a state could still have developed. Random Nonsense 11:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

William IV's heir

If Edward, Duke of Kent had not managed to sire a daughter, Victoria, who would have succeeded William IV as the British monarch? Would it have been Ernest Augustus I of Hanover? Corvus cornix 18:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, after Victoria, her father the Duke of Kent's younger brother Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale was the next heir to the British throne. He did, in fact, inherit the throne of Hanover, the succession to which was subject to the Salic law - that is, women were excluded. Ernest Augustus was the Heir presumptive to the British throne until the birth of Victoria, Princess Royal, in 1840. Xn4 19:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

a specific inquiry after reading "Cinema of Korea"

"A slow rebirth of the domestic film industry led to South Korea, by 2005, being one of only three nations to watch more domestic than imported films in theatres[1], though this situation has recently changed."

I am curious to know what the other two nations are.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.130.232.98 (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably India and the United States. Corvus cornix 20:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

See also: Bollywood and Hollywood. dr.ef.tymac 22:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

India AFAIK makes about 730 films/year - more than any other country. Note that Bollywood isn't India as a whole, only Bombay.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 22:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Child Support in Canada

So this is just a question, I'm not searching for legal advice. In Canada, is there a point where one parent can ask for child support from let's say 5 years ago, 10 years ago, that is...if the child is still a minor at the time child support is being asked for, and get the money? Or is there a point in time where child support has to have been requested for it to be accepted, and after that period, it is no longer valid?

207.161.45.11 22:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

September 22

Mussolini an anti-semite?

Was Mussolini anti-semitic? I bet Clio knows the answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnie X (talk • contribs) 03:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, he certainly wasn't always anti-semitic, having had a Jewish mistress for several years. However, as that article states, she became somehing of a hindrance when Mussolini began climbing the political ladder. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism doesn't preclude having sex with a Jew or even liking one particular Jew. Most haters in the world have exceptions for a few "good" members of the hated group who "aren't like the rest". --24.147.86.187 19:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Does Clio know? Well, let's see!

This is an interesting question about an interesring subject, Barnie, because it raises all sorts of supplementary issues about the nature of Italian Fascism. Margherita Sarfatti is often mentioned to counter the suggestion that Mussolini was anti-Semitic; but did you know, GeeJo, that Sarfatti herself was a racist, promoting arguments warning of the dangers presented to European civilization by the black and yellow races? Even after she left for the United States in 1938 she continued her campaign, urging the Americans to save what she was pleased to term 'White Civilization'.

Mussolini rarely expressed himself in quite such blunt terms as his Jewish mistress on such matters. In the deepesr sense, Fascism, as conceived and practiced by Mussolini, was never more than opportunism translated into an ideeology; revolutionary, reactionary, religious and racist by turns. It certainly became anti-Jewish as Mussolini fell under the influence of Hitler; but even then it showed few of the pathological qualities of its German counterpart. In practice, Fascist policy in this area was considerably more lax than even that pursued by the Vichy regime.

So, what's the evidence for Mussolini's personal attitude towards Jewish people? Let's begin with the conversation he had with Emil Ludwig in 1932, where he declared, "Naturally there is no such as a pure race, not even a Jewish one...Race: it is a sentiment, not a reality: it is 95% sentiment. I don't believe that it is possible to prove biologically that a race is more or less pure...Anti-Semitism does not exist in Italy. The Jews have always behaved well as citizens, and as soldiers they have fought courageously." The 1932 edition of the Enciclopedia Italiana defined Judaism as a religion, not a race. In the entry on 'Race' in the 1935 edition of the same publication it is written "...a race does not exist, but only the people and an Italian nation. There does not exist a Jewish race or nation, but a Jewish people; there does not exist, the gravest error of all, an Aryan race."

Mussolini's first meeting with Hitler in Venice in 1934 was not a success. Soon after he wrote a series of articles in Il Popolo d'Italia, the main Fascist newspaper, making fun of Hitler's views on the superiority of the Nordic races, going so far as to say that the only pure race in Europe, by the Nazi measure, was the Lapps. That same year he had an altogether more successful encounter with Chaim Weizman, the Zionist leader, who was given a signed photograph and told to look after himself; for "We still have need of you."

There is, therefore, no evidence whatsoever of anti-Semitism in Mussolini's general outlook; just the contrary. The transition, the new phase of opportunism, comes in the period from 1937 onwards, when he began to both fear and admire the growth of German power. The first anti-Semitic laws were promulgated in September 1938. Life did indeed become difficult for Jewish people living in Italy, though not impossible, and the law was never applied with any degree of thoroughness. Amongst other things when Mussolini insisted that Roberto Farinacci dismiss his Jewish secretary, in case the Germans though his new laws a sham, he still gave him 50000 lira-a considerable sum for the day-to give to her in redundancy money.

And so it was to go on into the Second World War, a policy strong in theory but weak in practice. Yes, it was reprehensible; yes, it shows the worst forms of moral turpitude; but no, it does not display any deep-rooted anti-Semitism. I mention one final example. In February 1943, under pressure from Himmler and Ribbentrop, Mussolini agreed that the Jews in those areas of Croatia under Italian control should be rounded up and sent to Trieste, prior to onward deportation to Poland. Orders were duly issued to his commanders. A few days later a telegram followed, "It is true that I have been obliged to consent to the expulsion. But you can use all the excuses that you like, so as not to hand over a single Jew. Say that we don't have the means to transport them by sea to Trieste, and that transport by land is impossible". At about the same time commanders in those areas of France under Italian control received instructions from the High Command in Rome; "As regard the measures proposed by Il Duce in reference to the Jews: number 1 priority is to save the Jews living in French territory occupied by our troops whatever their nationality, be they Italian, French or foreigners." Clio the Muse 00:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I knew you would. Good on you, Clio the Sloane Ranger.Barnie X 06:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If most jamaicans are mixed of black and chinese and most trinidadians are mixed with african and indian(hindu), What are most haitians mixed of?

Come on now!! i know we are all of african descent, yeah, yeah, i know!!! but what are the haitians mixed of? we have been on the island from 1502- present there has to be some other kind of race they have to be mixed with instead of being just black and nothing else? with all the immigration from the people. but what are they mostly mixed of? carib indian? german? arab? polish? or anything?--arab 03:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a wealth of information. For most nations, you can type "Demographics of (name of nation)" into the search bar and find a pretty good article on the demographics of that nation. In this case, that would be Demographics of Haiti. 152.16.188.107 05:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The questioner is actually a regular editor of Demographics of Haiti. The question is somewhat meaningless, in the sense that everybody is a mixture of many groups. After all, you have two parents, four grandparents, ..., and if you go back three centuries you are descended from about two thousand ancestors; it is extremely unlikely that these are all from one same identifiable "pure" group. All you can say at best is what is predominant. Most Haitians are predominantly from African descent. The question is also based on a false premise. I don't know what makes the questioner believe about Haitians that "there has to be some other kind of race they have to be mixed with". Being black is not and has never been a race. The Africans who were brought to Haiti did not form a race; they were already quite mixed. We cannot totally exclude the possibility of Viking, Japanese, Polynesian and Inuit ancestors of present-day Haitians, but we can be sure the contribution is not significant. There is no specific evidence of any substantial mixing for most Haitians, and there is no reason to assume it "must" have taken place in recent history (and note that almost all Haitians descend from ancestors who were imported not in 1502, but in the 18th century).  --Lambiam 08:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it is also not the case that most Jamaicans are of mixed African and Chinese descent, and neither are most Trinidadians of mixed African and Indian descent. See Demographics of Jamaica and Demographics of Trinidad and Tobago.  --Lambiam 11:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Two Rebellions

Thinking of the rebellions against James II why did William of Orange succeed and Monmouth fail? Captain Beaky 06:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

See Glorious Revolution and Monmouth Rebellion for more detail. But it's hard to win when you lose your head. Rmhermen 14:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Success or failure was no doubt dependent on many specific particular historical circumstances, but some fairly obvious broad general factors were that Monmouth was illegitimate, while William was legitimate (and William's wife was even closer in legitimate succession to the English throne than he was), and William waited a few years until the English upper classes were significantly more alarmed and disgusted with James II than they had been at the time when Monmouth made his attempt. AnonMoos 14:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Monmouth Rebellion was really little more than a politically inept postscript to the Popish Plot, an assault on the Catholic and legitimate succession that had, by its excesses, alienated the Tory squirearchy, the backbone of England's rural administration. It was an adventure by a man who believed that an appeal to Protestant solidarity was sufficient; it was not. When that failed there was nothing left by a ragged army of west-country peasants. James and his Catholicism may not have been greatly liked, but he had done nothing as yet to alienate those who truly mattered in church and state, who, in any case, had little time for the mercurial Monmouth. By 1688 the situation was quite different. William may not have been an especially good soldier; but he was a skilled politician: even before he landed he already had sufficient guarantees of victory. But we cannot altogether discount the immediate reactions of James to both emergencies. In 1685 he acted as if victory was on his side; in 1688 his only companion was defeat. Clio the Muse 02:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sala Nova del Papa

What is the story behind the Sala Nova del Papa in siena's Palazzo Publico? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.14.30 (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It tells an odd tale of Medieval propaganda and political spin, sometimes better known as the Alexander Cycle. The particular focus is upon Pope Alexander III and his political struggle with the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick Barbarossa. It shows Alexander's defeat at the hands of the Emperor, and his subsequent victory, with the aid of Venice, over Frederick's son Otto in the naval battle of Punta Salvore. The second panel shows Otto submitting to the Pope, after which he is sent to intercede with his father, who in turn makes his own submission. Thereafter the party proceeds to Rome, the Emperor and the Doge of Venice leading the papal horse. In Rome Barbarossa is subject to the ultimate humiliation, lying prostrate before Alexander. There are also depictions of the Third Lateran Council, and some anti-popes are shown being burned alive. Wonderful stuff! There is only one small problem: it's a complete lie! Clio the Muse 02:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

André Antoine Bernard

Is anything known of this individual, active during the French Revolution? Pere Duchesne 14:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of him, and he doesn't have an article yet here or on the French Wikipedia, either, which is a pity. See Liste des membres de la Convention nationale par département, Liste des présidents de la Convention nationale and Ballard, Richard, The political apprenticeship of Bernard de Saintes in History Review, issue 54 (March 2006), pp 45-50. He was a man of many names. Originally André Antoine Bernard, before the revolution he added the name of a small property his family owned and became André Antoine Bernard de Jeuzines. Later he was Bernard de Saintes, the place he represented in the Legislative Assembly, though he changed that to Bernard de Xantes, which looked less religious, and even later he called himself Pioche-fer Bernard, or 'Pick-axe Bernard'. He was a lawyer and revolutionary, one of the 'new men' of 1789 who became one of the leading Jacobins, responsible for the Reign of Terror. In 1793 and 1794, he became notorious in the Haute-Saône and the Côte-d'Or arresting suspected "enemies of the people", sending them to the revolutionary tribunal and the guillotine. He's also credited with integrating the Duchy of Montbéliard into France, previously a possession of Württemberg. In the French revolutionary calendar, his name-day was on the Festival of the Iron Pick-axe, and he changed his first name to Pioche-fer. He was a member from Charente-Maritime of the National Convention (20 September, 1792, to 26 October, 1795). The National Convention had a rolling presidency, so he held the title of President of the National Convention for three weeks in September, 1794. When the revolutionary government was overthrown, he was imprisoned with many others but was not among those executed. He was later exiled from France for voting to execute Louis XVI, and lived on until 1818. There's a portrait of Bernard by Jacques-Louis David in the Getty Museum which is online here. Xn4 16:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Xn4. Can you please turn this into a stub article? I can't soince I don't have your reference available. Thanks. -Arch dude 16:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No trouble. See André Antoine Bernard. Xn4 21:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work! Clio the Muse 23:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

IGCSE history question on why did some industries not share in the 'boom'? this is during 1919-1941

Q1... explain how new technology affected some older industries?

Q2... explain what impact the tariff had on certain industries?

Q3... explain the reason why the wages of workers in certain industries remained low in comparison to profits.

Q4... why should the government have been concerned about poverty in the USA during the 1920's?

Q5... do you think the government would do anything to help these workers? why ?

Q6... explain whether you agree or disagree with this statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.69.179.16 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This looks like you're asking us questions from your history homework. You're welcome to search through our articles, such as the one on the Great Depression, but we're not going to do your homework for you. Please read the top of this page. If there is a specific part you don't understand, let us know, and we can try to point you in the right direction to find the answer yourself. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, the best place to look for answers is probably your course textbook. 203.221.126.101 18:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And man, if you're going to bother to type it all out, why include the last one? --24.147.86.187 23:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If the OP had included only Q6, that could be interesting. —Tamfang 01:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fenya- Russian Slang amongst Criminals.

Can anyone enlighten me on this? Wikipedia doesn't offer nearly enough and I can't find anything on other websites. I am writing a novel, and characters are part of Russian mafia, and I want them talking the right way, you know. Any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.2.91 (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Yes, Mr. Putin" and "Right away, Mr. Putin". Plasticup ^T/C 21:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is an article in the Jamestown Foundation Journal about Fenya, with examples. SaundersW 21:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Russian Wikipedia has a long list of "criminal slang" here. You could use the Google translations of the "meaning" side of the equation to trace up to good things on the "word" side of the equation that you might want to transliterate; if that makes sense. Most of the automatic translation is pretty bad though ("Give to the screwdriver sciences!"). --24.147.86.187 23:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

professions that historically were not paid

I've just read online (and in Imperium by Robert Harris) that Roman lawyers were not paid, at least in that they could not charge fees explicitly. This was apparently quite common for lawyers through to at least the Middle Ages, starting from the Ancient Greeks [1]. Are there any other professions that historically were not paid, which we would now take for granted as being so? 203.221.126.101 17:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Priests and vicars. Rhinoracer 18:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Politicians. Heads of state.  --Lambiam 20:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Early actors and what passed for directors. It used to be considered part of your civic duty; during the middle ages they started repaying you for the wages you lost due to rehearsal. Kuronue | Talk 05:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

African Boy at the 1904 World's Fair

Hi. I recently heard of an African boy at the World's Fair who was taken from Africa and made into a spectacle at the World's Fair. Can you find any information on this?69.69.206.67 19:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

See Ota Benga.--24.147.86.187 21:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

They used him as an example of "our" evolutionary link to other primates? Oh my God... Plasticup ^T/C 21:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. Though it is worth remembering—though it does not excuse much—that pygmies look very different from Europeans, and were one in a mood to be looking for "intermediate races" it is not surprising that they would be chosen as possible candidates in the early 1900s, when it was still not scientifically accepted that races could interbreed without creating sterile offspring, and the Civil Rights movement was still five decades off. --24.147.86.187 23:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Adrianople 378

please explain significance of battle of adrianople —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryinggame (talk • contribs) 22:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Battle of Adrianople? - Eron ^Talk 00:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not too much of an exaggeration, I think, to suggest that Adrianople was truly one of the decisive battles of the western world. Ammianus Marcellinus, the Roman historian, was to write of, "Those ever irreparable losses, so costly to the Roman state." It changed the character of the Empire: the Goths, though partly tamed by Theodosius I, were to remain as a distict entity within its frontiers; sometimes allies; other times enemies. Roman losses could only be made good by co-opting Barbarians into the army as Foederati under their own commanders; and, as always, military power has ways of translating into political influence. Adrianople also changed forever the essential character of the Roman military. It was to end the reliance on the infantry legions, the formations that had proved so formidable in the past, and upon which the Empire had been built in the first place. Less than a hundred years after the battle heavy cavalry had become the main offensive arm in the Imperial army, changing by stages into the Byzantine cataphracts and the armoured horsemen of the Middle Ages. Clio the Muse 01:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Samples of Middle Norwegian

Hi, I'm looking for samples of Middle Norwegian. Does anyone know where I could get images of Middle Norwegian documents, or links where I could get them? I would like as much as possible. Also, the wikipedia article titled "Norwegian language struggle" states "The last example found of an original Middle Norwegian document is from 1583.". That document is expecially important to me, and I hope I could get it. Thank you very much.70.74.35.53 23:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This question might have a better chance at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. Xn4 01:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Jena Six and Sacco And Vanzetti

Today ,I saw something on TV,about the Jena Six.And then I started thinking about Bruce Watson`s New book about Sacco and Vanzetti.Sacco and Vanzetti The Men,The Murders and The Judgement of Mankind.Then I started thinking are there paralells between the two cases.My Question is do you see any paralells between the case of Sacco and Vanzetti and The Jena Six. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan58 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. See also Scottsboro boys. Edison 03:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

At Jena there's rather little dispute about who did what when (which was the main issue in the Sacco and Vanzetti case), but instead a lot of concern about selective prosecution which appears to be selective along racial lines. By the way, a number of people who closely examined the SV case seem to have come to the conclusion that Vanzetti was probably innocent, but Sacco was very probably guilty of something violent (even if perhaps not exactly what he was charged with). AnonMoos 11:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

September 23

Wikipedia and Google searches

I use Wikipedia and Google search a lot by typing in the nouns that best summarize the information I'm after. This can be hit or miss, and I would therefore like to hear about more effective and intelligent ways of obtaining information.72.75.96.28 03:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)superiorolive

I added a title for you. The Wikipedia search sometimes isn't that great. If you want to search Wikipedia using Google you can add "site:en.wikipedia.org" to your search terms, this will tend to give you better results. However, I think everyone has this problem with searching for information on the web, the main cause is probably just the sheer volume of information available. There are a few refinements you can make to Google searches (and probably to searches using other search engines), for example you can use "alexander -great" to find out about people called Alexander who aren't Alexander the Great (bad example, I know). Bistromathic 12:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Google is a search engine. An encyclopedia is great for general knowledge, but useless for, say, finding local stationery suppliers or checking train times. For most purposes it should be obvious whether you need a search engine or an encyclopedia, although you might often want to use one to get to the other. For example, Wikipedia is often better than Google at directing you to the most informative websites on specific topics, whereas Google will usually suggest the most popular websites (as well as what it calls "sponsored" links).

In my opinion Wikipedia would be better off without the "Search" button. Always use the "Go" button. If it doesn't have an article with the title you're looking for, it will default to search mode anyway and suggest a list of articles. So type into Wikipedia only those noun phrases that are likely to be the title of an article. For example, if you wanted to know who painted the Mona Lisa, you would type "Mona Lisa" and click "Go". If you were Googling for the same information, you would probably get better results by searching for a phrase you would be likely to find in the answer, such as "Mona Lisa was painted by".

What sort of information is it that you are looking for?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

For Google, I use phrases (between quotes) a lot. Especially when there are many hits most of which seem irrelevant, I try adding phrases to the search terms that are likely to occur in relevant material.  --Lambiam 22:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've taken to using single words in quotes for Google. Google didn't used to return variations on the search term like plurals and participles, but now it does. Another useful technique is to weed out the unwanted hits with minus signs. If you search on "St. Bernard" and you want the saint, add a -dog. If the first page shows five hits on a "St. Bernard Hotel", add -hotel and re-search, and so on. I use advanced search pretty often, and if I want to check the prevalent spelling of three-dollar words among scholars, I add site:edu and get counts on the variations. The :site thing is good for restricting a search to likely sites like govs when that's what you want. I'll sometimes throw it over to google image hoping that sites with a pertinent illustration will have what I need. --Milkbreath 03:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Scotland and the Stuarts

The Stuart dynasty was more a burden than a benefit to Scotland. How true is this statement in the period after the Union of the Crowns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.101.202 (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please remember we will not answer your homework questions for you. I would suggest you read House of Stuart and Union of the Crowns for a start, then look at the references / external links / further reading sections if you need more information. Exxolon 13:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's as true before the Union as it is after, and I cannot think of a dynasty more deserving of the honour of being known as Les Rois Maudits, the Accursed Kings. Now, I'm probably exaggerating slightly-and I certainly do not want to hurt Scottish feelings-but the family was notorious for its bad luck and ill-fortune, leaving Scotland with one troubelsome minority after another. Even James IV, in some ways the brightest star in the Stuart heavens, was to lead his country into arguably the most unecessary war in its history, where no Scottish interst was threatened and none served; the occasion for the most devastating defeat. In the end even the French, most consistent in the support of the exiled Stuarts after the Glorious Revolution had enough of them. Louis XVI described them as an 'unlucky family' and refused to extend them any further political support.

Anyway, 217.42, this is getting too far away from the point of your question. Yes, they were a burden to Scotland after 1603. James VI, probably the last of the Stuarts who really understood his native land, left for London in 1603, promising to come back at regular intervals. He returned just once. Scotland could be safely 'governed by pen', as he put it, which meant that he could impose unpopular religious policies, like the Five Articles of Perth, without any real degree of consensus; a policy that was to be a serious source of future trouble.

Though Charles I, James's son and successor, was born in Scotland, and spent the first few years of his life there, he inderstood almost nothing about the country. Indeed, he troubled himself so little about his northern kingdom that his Scottish coronation only came in 1633, some eight years after that in England. His arrogance towards the Scots became particularly pronounced in his religious policy. Heeding no advice, he insisted on certain Anglican-style 'reforms' in the Scottish Church which lead in the Covenanter Movement to a national revolution, a crisis that proceeded through the Bishops' Wars to the Wars of the Three Kingdoms.

Under Charles II the Scots fared even worse. He came to Scotland in 1650 with the clear intention of using the country to recover the English throne. In the end he led another disastrous and ill-advised invasion of England, like James IV, which crashed to defeat at the Battle of Worcester. Charles managed to escape but Scotland was, for the first time in its history, thoroughly and completely conquered, prior to absorbtion into the English Protectorate.

Though nominal independence was recovered on Charles' Restoration in 1660 he showed very little gratitude for the Scots' former sacrifices. Once again a policy of religious coercion was introduced, the cause years of trouble and oppression in the Lowlands, punctuated by sudden bursts of violence, like that at Rullion Green in 1666 and Bothwell Bridge in 1679. The repression continued through the so-called Killing Time.

Though the Stuarts had never shown any great sympathy for the Highland clans, their support for the exiled James VII and the whole Jacobite cause was, in the end, to contribute directly towards the destruction of their whole way of life.

For the later Stuarts Scotland was nothing more than the backdoor into England; never more so than for Charles Edward Stuart, James' grandson, who was the cause of the 1745 rebellion, a military and political adventure of the worst kind, which ended at Culloden in 1746. Charles got away, but the consequences for the Highlands were considerably worse than that which followed his grand-uncle's gamble in 1651. The romance later assocaited with 'Bonnie Prince Charlie' has always seemed to me to be astonishingly misplaced; as if a comforting fiction is felt to be somehow better than a rather sordid reality.

To the above I would add one further 'burden': the reign of William of Orange, partially Stuart and married to a Stuart. His was the time of the Glencoe Massacre, the Darien Disaster; a time of famine; a time of deep national self-doubt. One could, indeed, wish for a better set of princes! Clio the Muse 23:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

First Civilisation

When was the first recorded evidence of structured civilisation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.88.210 (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

See Sumer. 152.16.16.75 09:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to drive a wedge into your answer, but aren't ancient China and Egypt also contenders for the oldest civilization ? StuRat 18:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph of Sumer indicates that Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley Civilization are also contenders. The linked articles don't refer back to Sumer, however, and that is why I linked to that particular article. Good point about Ancient China, though - those records do go back about the same length of time. 152.16.188.107 23:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Difference between Lutheran and Hindu

I need to know what the major differences are between Lutheranism and Hinduism are? Can anyone out there help me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.239.181 (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: lots. Did you try reading Lutheranism and Hinduism? For a start, Lutheranism is a branch of Christianity founded in sixteenth-century Germany by Martin Luther, Hinduism is an ancient Indian religion, and I doubt whether anyone knows much about who founded it, when or where. Nowadays, there are nearly 70 million Lutherans (or 82.6 million, depending on which bit of the article you want to believe) and about a billion Hindus. Are there any specific areas in which you want to compare these religions? Bistromathic 11:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You're basically comparing apples and oranges here. It would be harder (and maybe more fruitful) to look for similarities rather than differences, since there will be precious few of the former and just about everything else will be in the latter. --24.147.86.187 15:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea you're pulling our leg, 24.117.239.181! Xn4 15:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And the leg will not be pulled! Clio the Muse 00:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Empedocles

What are the names of Empedocles's teachers?Flakture 11:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the article linked to your title, "Empedocles was a pupil of Pythagoras" SaundersW 12:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no good answer to the question. The assertion in the article goes back to Timaeus (historian) but is not credible. If you want the name of a predecessor who can safely be taken as important to Empedocles' thinking (not what you asked), Parmenides. It does seem reasonable to say that Pythagoreanism left its mark on Empedocles, and since that is more the point of the passage in Diogenes cited, I may change the article to reflect this. Wareh 14:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wales and the Civil Wars

The Welsh were generally loyal to the crown during the English Civil War. Why? Thomas J Jones 14:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There were various reasons why people took one side or the other in the English Civil War, including personal loyalties, grudges and antagonisms, economic issues like taxes and royal charters, and political issues such as the notion of the Divine right of kings, but the most important factors were probably religion and the influence of the clergy of the established church, other preachers and ministers of religion, and people with local influence such as the gentry and other employers. Most Puritans supported Parliament because they had been badly at odds with Charles I and saw it as their hope of a better future. On the other hand, if they had to choose, most Anglicans and most Catholics backed the King. There were also influential people who benefited from royal monopolies who had a vested interest in supporting the King. But as in any civil war, most people tried to go on leading their lives undisturbed, if they could, and that was especially true in Wales.

In the rural areas, most land was part of a great estate, and country people were much influenced by the local clergy and gentry. They were also less likely to have seen anything of dissenting preachers, whose strongholds were in the towns and cities. Almost all Church of England clergymen were hostile to Puritanism, so supported the King, and many (but by no means all) landowners also supported him and were able to rally some of their tenants and workmen to follow the royal cause.

In the case of Wales, most great landowners took the side of the King. These Royalists included Richard Vaughan, 2nd Earl of Carbery, Henry Somerset, 1st Marquess of Worcester, Francis Lennard, 14th Baron Dacre, and William Feilding, 1st Earl of Denbigh.

On the other hand, there were exceptions, and those who supported parliament included Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke, the owner of Cardiff Castle, Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex, and Sir Thomas Myddelton, the Younger, of Chirk Castle, who was a committed Puritan.

In 1642, Charles I himself visited North Wales to recruit volunteers, with notable success. Together with the men recruited by his leading supporters, a very large part of the King's army consisted of Welshmen led by English officers.

The Puritans were strong in several of the Welsh towns, but they generally found it harder to get their followers to volunteer to fight, and Pembroke was the only Welsh town which declared itself for Parliament.

The Parliamentarians blundered in Wales by distributing large numbers of broadsheets promoting their cause, all in English, which was a language most Welshmen of the 17th century didn't understand.

More than a hundred Welshwomen were killed at the Battle of Naseby (1645). The parliamentarians claimed that as the women didn't speak English, they took them for Irishwomen.

There was a lot of fighting in Wales, and as the Civil War went along the successes of arms went one way and then the other. Both the Royalists and the Parliamentarians did things in Wales which caused them to lose Welsh support, but all that's beyond the scope of an answer to your question in a few paragraphs. Xn4 17:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There are one or two extra points that I think should be added to Xn4's interesting outline here. It is generally true to say that Parliamentary support was more concentrated in the economically advanced parts of England, areas that had been receptive to the Puritan message and new ideas in general. This was not true of Wales, which, generally speaking, was much more backwards in economic and social terms. Besides, the Welsh, particularly the lower gentry, had done not too badly out of the Acts of Union, and, unlike the Scots, and many of the English, had no particular quarrel with the crown. Wales, moreover, were generally much more accepting of the existing Anglican Church, a loyalty that the first translation of the Bible into Welsh in 1588 had done much to ensure. Puritanism made almost no progress in the conservative Welsh countryside. To this we have to add the neglect of Wales by the Parliamentary party in London. For Charles I, in contrast, it was a vital hinterland, the 'nursery of his infantry', not too distant from his capital at Oxford, and one which he took trouble to cultivate. But in the end it has to be said that a great many of the Welsh people were drawn into a war against their inclination, a war whose causes they barely understood. Clio the Muse 00:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Painting Identification

I'm attempting to solve a puzzle and this image was given as a clue: Portrait. If anyone recognizes who this is a painting of I would be very appreciative if you would post an answer. 71.56.140.34 17:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not Bernardo Dovizi (see article for similar style biretta), but it looks like a cardinal. Wareh 17:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. We eventually figured it out to be Carlo Borromeo. 71.56.140.34 19:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The oldest borderline?

What is the oldest peaceful borderline in the world? So far I have not found any older ones than the one between Sweden and Finland (1809). TuoppiP 18:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends. Do the countries on both sides have to be fully independent of one another? If not, even without looking outside the borders of my own country (England), there hasn't been any serious fighting across the Anglo-Scottish border for a fair while now (the last pitched battle on British soil was (I think) the Battle of Culloden, though someone is bound to prove me wrong :) ), and it's been even longer since there were any battles between England and Wales. I'm certain other states have managed far longer periods of apposition without opposition. Sadly, my formal history education was of the rather restrictive "Hitler and the Henries" variety still in vogue at English state schools, so I wouldn't really be able to speak with any authority. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

On this local side issue, perhaps it depends what you mean by 'pitched battle' and 'British soil'. The last invasion of Great Britain was a French landing in Pembrokeshire in 1797, when some 1,400 men of the French 'Black Legion' did a little looting and then surrendered. In the course of rounding them up, Jemima Nicholas did some good work with a pitch-fork. Beyond the shores of the island of Great Britain proper, there has been other fighting, including the German seizure of the Channel Islands in 1940. Xn4 23:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• See List of land borders by date of establishment (Wikipedia has an article for everything!) It's not very well maintained, but it can lead you to the History of Andorra, where you'll learn that, according to the Andorran government, Andorra's borders have remained unchanged since 1278. Now mind you, it's been occupied several times, but the borders never changed.--M@rēino 15:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• How long has the border between Spain and Portugal been peaceful? The French invasion ended 1812, but how was the borderline doing that time?TuoppiP 18:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Helen Gahagan Douglas

Hello. I would be grateful for some more background on the career of Helen Gahagan Douglas, the former actress, particularly on her political career, especially her role in the senatorial contest of 1950. Thank you. Bel Carres 19:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello right back, Bel! I suppose if people remember Helen Douglas at all it is because of her contest with Richard Nixon in the Senate election of 1950, a contest not marked for its observation of the highest of political morals!

Douglas first became seriously interested in politics, both domestic and international, in the late 1930s, when she joined the Holywood Anti-Nazi League. In the domestic sphere it was the problem of migrant labour that first caught her attention. She and her husband. Melvyn Douglas, became close friends of the Roosevelts, and Helen was drawn deeper into the politics of the Democratic Party. She rose quickly through the party ranks in California, becoming Democratic National Committee-woman snd director of the Women's Division. It was this that helped her build up a political base.

In 1944 she was elected to Congress from the fourteenth district of Los Angeles, an area with a large black population, by her firm advocacy of liberal and New Deal principles. She was re-elected with increased majorities in 1946 and 1948, known for her advocacy of such causes as low-cost housing, civil rights and price controls. She was also involved in the Foreign Affairs Committee, helping to give shape to the international programme of President Truman. Douglas was one of the sponsors of the 1946 Atomic Energy Act and Truman appointed her in the same year as an alternate delegate to the General Assembly of the United Nations. She was a popular speaker, touring the country with her liberal message. This was the peak of her political career. Her 'downfall' came with her decision to run for the Senate, promted by her hostility towards fellow-Democrat Sheridan Downey, the senior senator from California, too closely identified in her mind with corporate interests.

Douglas knew she was vulnerable to accusations of Communist sympathies because of the kind of causes she had favoured. She even had opponents in the Democratic Party, and it was one of these, Manchester Boddy, her main competator in the Democratic primaries, who first referred to her as the 'Pink Lady', not Richard Nixon, though the term was to stick and carry across to the Republican camp.

If Douglas' struggle with Boddy had been troubelsome it was nothing compared with that against Nixon, who was as calculating as Caligula, playing the Red theme at every opportunity, deflecting his opponent from her main platform. She even attempted her own counter-accusations, accusing Nixon of failing to understand the danger of Communism in his vote against the Korean Aid Bill. Both resorted to name calling, though Nixon was in every way more of a street-fighter; he was also far better funded. Amongst other things, California electors received anonymous telephone calls, with the message that "I think you should know that Helen Douglas is a Communist." It has been estimated that as many as half a million such calls were made in the run up to the election. Against this level of organisation, and against this level of ruthlessness, Douglas, and her liberal idealism, had little real chance. Clio the Muse 02:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Clio! Thanks for such a great answer. You could probably write a biography of the woman. Did you study American political history at school? Bel Carres 11:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Highland regiment forgotten in Africa?

I read a small reference once to a strange note in British Army history. It claimed that a Highland regiment (or part of one) was ordered to a duty station in the interior of Africa and somehow forgotten by the War Office. Apparently they had vague orders and weren't supposed to come out until relieved. Of course they weren't and finally reported back after many years had passed. There is also supposed to be a Scots poem about them reporting back with uniforms so worn that their "breekies" were open in back. I am sure that this is outrageously exaggerated, but I am looking for someone who can tell me the origin of the story.

Charley6alphacharley 21:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Charley, the British War Office could be stupid, but not that stupid! Besides, even if the army forgot them the soldiers would still have relatives at home who would have asked questions, especially of the officers. And if it was a Highland regiment the men would not have been wearing 'breekies' in the first place! As late as the First World War Highland soldiers wore kilts while on field duty. I can find no reference to the poem you mention, but if you can flesh out the context I will try to dig a little deeper. Clio the Muse 22:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There was any battle going on the year 142?

There was any battle going on the year 142 or that started in the year of 142? If not, and in the year of 142 BC?? Exdeathbr 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You might be able to claim that the seizure of the throne of the Seleucid kingdom by Diodotus Tryphon in 142 BC was a battle ... Corvus cornix 21:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

142 was around the time the Antonine Wall was built, so there were almost certainly some skirmishes between the Romans and the Britons in that year. Not sure about pitched battles though. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Diodotus Tryphon took over the Seleucid Empire in 142 and immediately set forth trying to control the empire by force - requiring some sort of battles, but nothing notable. -- kainaw™ 22:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is more difficult (if not outright impossible) to find a year in recorded history that didn't have a battle. Clarityfiend 03:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a quote that I've forgotten word-for-word as well as who wrote it. The point of the quote is that conflict is normal. Peace is the abnormal period between conflicts. -- kainaw™ 15:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I found this purportedly Russian proverb in my files: Eternal peace lasts only until the next war. —Tamfang 20:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Kushan Empire (India-Pakistan area) was probably at war in 142, but Indians from the pre-Islamic era generally avoided writing the sort of precise cronologies that could give you an exact date. --M@rēino 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

G.W Cooper

i really need help to find out who this is, i have searched on many different websites and not found a thing. i have a very old hand painted pot which is signed g.w. cooprer.

any help at all will be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.216.101 (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How old? Glazed? Stoneware or faience? Are you in UK or US? Is "G.W. Cooper" inscribed or painted? --Wetman 00:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

im in the uk, its at least 100 years old, its glazed and not stoneware. g w cooper is painted on the side and there is a markers stamp on the bottom but it is too faint for me to read what it says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.216.101 (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just making sure, but could it say "G.W. Copper", meaning something like "gross weight of copper", followed or preceded by a number ? StuRat 18:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

no, its definatley G.W Cooper and has no number after it, it is signed on the pot in the way that an artist would sign a painting. shame i cant make out the imprinted stamp on the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.216.101 (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Population change

How would it be possible for a population to continue growing for several generations if women immediately averaged 2 children each? --72.221.78.124 23:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not know of any closed populations on Earth. I believe that Iceland and Greenland are the closest to being closed - but are not completely closed. Therefore, if a population stopped having children all together, there would still be immigrants coming in. There would also be people leaving. So, it is a question of how many are coming in and how many are leaving. Now, if you close the population (nobody in/nobody out), there is the lifespan issue. Assume you have a population where everyone dies at 60 years of age. If the birth rate is exactly 2 people per woman over the 60 years, the population will remain steady. But, lifespans are getting longer. So, you have more births than deaths - increasing the population. Again, it is the same issue as above. How many people are dying and how many are being born? -- kainaw™ 23:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The short answers are (1) migration and (2) rising life-expectancy. Remember that many women have no children, and some children die before they can have children of their own, so without migration and without people living longer you need a birth rate well above 2.0 to keep the population steady. Xn4 23:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much to both of you, this had been frustrating me. --72.221.78.124 23:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility might be that the number doesn't actually rise, but the methods of finding people improve, so that the population count does go up. StuRat 18:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A late addition to the thread: Still another possibility is that for some reason a majority of the population is (and continues to be) female. This could arise through a mutation that affects the viability of sperm cells containing a Y chromosome, for example, or by a cultural practice of sex-selective abortion. You might have one generation comprising 1,000 men and 4,000 women, the next 1,600 men and 6,400 women, then 2,560 men and 10,240 women, and so on. In this example the women are averaging 2 children each, but the men are averaging 8 each. --Anonymous, 21:24 UTC, September 29, 2007.

September 24

excise tax

An excise tax creates inefficiency in that the number of transactions in a market is reduced. Because the tax discourages mutually beneficial transactions, there is _____ from a tax. 70.114.23.60 00:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the term you're looking for to fill that gap is excess burden, and after that you might like to say 'from the tax'. Xn4 01:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that this is a h _ _ _ work question. StuRat 18:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Mexico's view on Palestine

What was Mexico's view on Palestine right after WWI? Did they agree with the British Mandate passed by the League of Nations? And does anyone know if Mexico wanted Palestine to become an international zone or a Jewish State?

-Cindy

Cindy, I cannot say for certain what Mexico's view was on the British Mandate over Palestine, established in 1923, though I suspect that it did not figure high among the country's international preoccupations. After the Second World War Mexico was one of a small group of countries that abstained in the vote on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, calling for the partition of Palestine. Clio the Muse 03:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed a difficult and curious question; Mexico was probably a bit more preoccupied by the aftermath of their own revolution. By the way, Baja California had been one of the sites the Zionists had considered for a national home; I don't think the local opposition was considered too strong. The mandate had to be and was approved unanimously by the Council of the League of Nations in 1922, but Mexico was not on the Council or in the League at the time. Chaim Weizmann in his autobiography relates that the two nations whose votes the Zionists were concerned about were Brazil and Spain, because of their insignificant Jewish populations (also true of Mexico), while some last minute opposition came from the Papal Nuncios. Spain decided to help the Zionists and helped persuade Brazil. These facts of meagre relevance make me speculate that if Mexico had had anything to say about it, it is a little more likely that it would have voted yes rather than no - they would probably have done the opposite of anything any nuncio wanted.John Z 04:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think, John, that may come close to being a certainty! Clio the Muse 04:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The only time that Mexico's middle-east policy became an important issue (as far as I'm aware) was during the ca. 1975-1976 tourism boycott triggered by Mexico coming out in support of the infamous and notorious Resolution 3379. AnonMoos 11:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth I

I am having trouble finding information about Elizabeth I's education. I just need to know the basics really. Thanks!75.54.129.38 01:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

She was, as were all royal children at this time, privately tutored. Her most important governess was Katherine Champernowne, who taught Elizabeth astronomy, geography, history, mathematics, French, Flemish, Italian and Spanish. as well as needlework, dancing, riding and deportment. Quite a curriculum; quite a teacher; quite a pupil! Clio the Muse 02:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Switch from Information Technology to History.

Hello, I am currently working in IT as a programmer. My mind wanders in the logic of the codes, but my heart yearns for the mysteries of history ! (A poor try at a poem). But that is exactly the dilemma i am facing. Am thinking of a career change from IT to History. But want to know like what kind of work do you guys do? What's involved in being a historian etc . Could anyone please help.

Thanks & Regards, Nikhil. Illogical Programmer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.136.234 (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In some ways this is quite a difficult question to answer, as 'doing history' is, for me, a little like 'doing breathing'; it is part of me; it is part of what I am. I have become, or am in the process of becoming, a professional historian, teacher and writer, though most of the people who studied alongside me as undergraduates at Cambridge have gone on to other things; anything from banking, journalism, government to management. Anyway, Nikhil, what's involved in being a historian is reading, researching and investigation. It involves tracing sources and examining documents; behaving, in many respects, as if you are a detective in search of clues. It involves taking nothing for granted, but building up a picture, using forms of cross-referencing and authentication. Above all, it entails a love for the past and a desire to present it to the present with all of the intellectual honesty and moral integrity of which one is capable. It's a good choice. Go for it! Clio the Muse 04:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

All my fellow undergraduate historians went to teacher's college, aside from the few of us who went to grad school :) If you want to be a professional historian, then it involves just what Clio said, but also teaching, researching and writing articles and books (of varying quality, if you need to fill a quota), moving around from school to school until someone gives you a tenured position, attending conferences and arguing with fellow historians over obscure topics, while being misunderstood or simply ignored by the vast majority of people who neither know nor care what you are talking about, because you haven't turned it into a overly-dramatized movie for them. But if you love it, you love it, and all this certainly doesn't discourage me, or Clio, or the other student-historians here! Adam Bishop 05:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Those insights were really very helpful. Thank you very much Clio & Adam for your acts. And hopefully you would be joined by another historian shortly.....

What period/society/other niche are you particularly interested in studying? <sarcasm alert> One of the first lessons you learn as an Historian is to reply "not my period" when people talk to you about History. The sneer is optional, but always a popular option. It's essential for you to believe that what you are studying is not only the most important "bit" of History (ever) but that actually, it's more important than any other field of study. Proving or disproving that the Sicilian Normans laid the first plank of a certain ship in 1211 or 1212 is actually a life or death matter. Dandruff and appalling dress sense and dreadful thick rimmed glasses are also useful accessories to consider. <end of sarcasm> Actually, many of the stereotypes or out of date (how appropriate) or were never true. Language skills will be very useful (which languages and to what extent depends on your eventual speciality, but even if you wish to focus on, say, the modern history of an English speaking country, for which most primary sources may be in English, you may still wish to read what Russian historians say about the same subject) Most of all, an open mind and an ability to honestly appraise what you uncover, even if it uncomfortably negates your opinion will hold you in good stead. --Dweller 11:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC) I escaped, but I kinda wish I hadn't

My suggestion (as a PhD student in a field of history that gets a lot of non-historians applying) is to figure out what specific sub-field is most attractive to you at this point (you can change it later once you get your foot in the door) and then getting in touch with someone from that field who is willing to forward you a few suggestions from their "canon", just so you will have some idea what the salient issues are and what the general mindset is. It is often quite different than any popular perception of it, or what is reflected in more popular works on the subject. This is assuming you are interested in an academic pursuit of it, of course. Much of academic history is predicated on first understanding what has already been written, and then figuring out how you will add to it or do something different — you don't do the latter without showing some mastery of the former. Once you have a little experience with it and can say what you like or don't like with some greater specificity, then you are a bit more ready to try and convince someone (a university program, for example), that you would be a good investment for them to take on. --24.147.86.187 15:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge Five

I've been reading your stuff on the Cambridge Five and the individual biographies of the people in question. I think I understand 'how', as Orwell might have said, but not 'why'. There were many Communists who did not become outright traitors. Was there some other factor at work? 217.42.110.172 11:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify - are you asking what tipped them over the edge into treachery, rather than just sympathising? --Dweller 11:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you are, it would be hard to answer the question, because each of the four known members of the Five would have had a complex web of motivations, as with most life-changing decisions. Clearly, the passion for communism would have been a motivator, as you indicate. --Dweller 11:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning, I'm about to get into stating an opinion which is based on no sources. One factor must be that the four confirmed members of the Cambridge Five were all from privileged backgrounds - Philby from Westminster School and Trinity College, Cambridge, Maclean from Gresham's and Trinity Hall, Cambridge (and the son of a former Leader of the Liberal Party), Burgess from Eton and (again) Trinity, and Blunt from Marlborough and (yet again) Trinity. They weren't treacherous rogues, they were idealists whose main motivation, in the beginning, was determined opposition to fascism and Nazi Germany, rather than a pure love of Communism, and they saw their own class appeasing the fascists, while the forces of the Left stood up to them. Having cast their lot in with the Soviets, they clearly saw them through rose-tinted spectacles. None of them had the disillusioning experiences of (say) George Orwell, who saw the sharp end of Stalinism for himself. One characteristic (sometimes a noble and endearing one, but sometimes maddening) of the English ruling class is that its members stick to their guns and go the whole hog, they get an idea into their heads and nothing will shift it. Rather like the English Roman Catholic martyrs of the 16th century, the Cambridge Five believed they had a higher loyalty than to their own country. Xn4 00:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There is, perhaps, another dimension to this, Xn4. Struggling to find the right words, I would define it as the exclusive within the exclusive, clumsy, I know, but it may go some way to offering a slightly fuller explanation. You see, as far as I can determine, it was not all down to politics: it was down to being different; to feeling different from one's class and one's community, and taking pride in this difference. The individuals in question were the ideal candidates for the Soviet intelligence service; in the British establishment but not of the British establishment. There the were, marked by birth and background; marked by membership of the Cambridge Apostles, marked by forms of sexuality that emphasised a further dimension of alienation from many of their peers. They were 'outside insiders', flattered by the attentions of the Soviets; pleased to be serving a wider cause; pleased, in the end, to be serving themsleves, their egos and their particular, narrowly-defined ends. Empty vessels waiting to be filled, they were the Swallows; all the others were the Amazons. It was a game: once begun, it could not be stopped. Clio the Muse 02:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I like your Swallows and Amazons. So as well as being about politics it was all a game? I can buy that, and it takes us back to Cyril Connolly's Theory of Permanent Adolescence - "... the greater part of the ruling class remains adolescent, school-minded, self-conscious, cowardly, sentimental, and in the last analysis homosexual." As I said once before, the painful word in that is 'cowardly'. I'd be surprised if any of the Cambridge Five failed to read Enemies of Promise when it came out in 1938. I wonder, did the word 'cowardly' get to them? Xn4 05:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Or as Isaiah Berlin put it: "the trouble with Anthony (Blunt) is that he wanted both to run with the hare and ride with the hounds". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalie West (talk • contribs) 10:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Business Environment

I require answers to this question A term paper on joint stock company as a business formation unit and the consequences for the stakeholders —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjoy1 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So what is the question exactly? How to go about writing such a paper? You do some research on the topic of joint stock companies as a business formation unit and the consequences for the stakeholders, and you write down what you find in a coherent and cogent fashion as a paper.  --Lambiam 15:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_stock_company is a good starting point for background before proceeding to search engines and libraries. Note the large differences between different countries and states. It is not obvious in the article but, at least in the U.S., you will want to pay particular attention to the type of stock issued (preferred, common, etc.) and any particular conditions allowed by regulatory authorities in the approved issues. Lazyquasar 05:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

label for Eber

In the Old Testament Eber is said to have persevered the language by refusing to take part in construction of the Tower of Babel. Is there a name or phrase to describe such an "outrider" for lack of a better term, who refuses to take part in some activity and is then able to restore whatever might be lost as the result of the activity? Clem 13:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No such claim is made in the Old Testamant; rather, it appears to have its origins in the Talmud. [2] That said, I'm at a loss regarding the actual vocabulary question you've posed. — Lomn 13:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The facts are presented in the Old Testament (not Testamant) which support the "claim," right, even if such a claim is elaborated upon somewhere else? In military jargon I think the position or label of a person that is not part of the main body or column but off to the side is called the "flank" and on a Pacific Island canoe the thing that is extended out and floats to prevent the canoe from over turning is called an outrigger. In fact the whole rig is then called an outrigger canoe. In football I think they call or the label for the same position is an "end." So a "flanker" or an "end" comes close but not close enough. Clem 14:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

While it doesn't exactly capture what you're looking for, the phrase "a voice in the wilderness" is close. --Sean 13:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought "voice in (or from?) the wilderness" meant something else, depending upon the exact phrase I always thought it suggested a voice that no one could hear (in) or a cry for help (from) or a voice that no one listened to (from). Clem 14:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Vox clamantis in deserto... —Keenan Pepper 18:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Eber gets very little mention in the Old Testament (and don't be testy and pick people up on their spelling). Gen 10, 21-25 is the source. I'll give you King James translation:

21 Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born. Eber

22 The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.

23 And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash.

24 And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.

25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

And, that's it. I think the major sources for Eber as father of Hebrew are (Babylonian) Talmud Brachot, the Kuzari and Midrash, but I don't have any references to hand. --Dweller 15:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So then how would you label Eber in the context of what he did - not participating in the construction of the Tower of Babel but rather refusing to participate? Clem 15:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't know if there is a single term in English that covers the welter of meanings you would like it to. You could try the Language desk? There are specialists there. You might also find there's a word in a foreign language, if there's none in English. --Dweller 15:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "nonconformist", in terms of the one guy not following the crowd. That said, I still think the historical example is lousy -- at least in terms of citing the OT. In regard to your comment above, I don't see any "facts presented supporting the claim" any more than I see the claim itself. Given that, it's hard to nail down precise shades of meaning since the precise context of the example is in doubt. — Lomn 15:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The context is simply the reason Eber refused to cooperate or go along wiht the program or join everyone else. Perhaps "rebel" is the right term. As for lousy historical reference, I have a maid who is always right and never cleans a room that in her opinion contains nothing out of place. I've learned now that if I want a room cleaned it is best to enter first and assure that in her opinion something is out of place. Clem 21:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In this sense, probably the closest concept is that of the digital backup; in effect, by copying the data (teaching the language to Eber), and then keeping the data safe (away from God's wrath), Eber's brain stored a backup of the original language even after the file became corrupted. So perhaps the best term would be "human backup" or just "backup"? Laïka 16:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Another relevant military term would be "stay-behind".--Pharos 20:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How about the term "rebel" would that adequately describe what Eber was? Clem 21:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Curious understanding of "rebel". He rebelled against those who rebelling against God. I'd call him "righteous" or if you want a negative POV "goody goody". --Dweller 08:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this question? Is it for the Eber article? Some other reason? You won't get a good answer unless you explain what you want to put this to.--Pharos 22:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What would you call a person or a group of people who have set out to do what Eber did in ancient time? By that I mean for instance (and this is only an example) a person sees corruption in business and in government sufficient to merit, if not justify a nuclear attack. So they give up on trying to end the corruption and instead seek habitat in the wilderness which might survive a nuclear attack. In the '80's similar people were labeled as "survivalists" but that label does not apply to Eber because his motive was based on service to God. What is lacking in the Eber article is what everyone's motive was for doing what they were doing which finding the right label might clarify and resolve. Clem 09:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In biologic terms, Eber could be a reservoir. (Seems to me there could be a better title for that article.) —Tamfang 23:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Animals native to France?

We are looking at the country of France and want to know what animals are native to France. We have searched "Native Animals of France" and read the whole France article. Can you please help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbeyKatieMom (talk • contribs) 13:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's strange, we have tons of articles in the subcategories of Category:Fauna by country, but no categories specific to France. Recury 13:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In the search form on this page of the Fauna Europea database, you can select List species within Class, fill in for Class any of Actinopterygii (fish), Amphibia (amphibians), Aves (birds), Mammalia (mammals), and Reptilia (reptiles), select Country/region French mainland, press Display Species, and get a list of all native French species in the class. These are long lists, and you get the scientific names, which you then can look up on Wikipedia.  --Lambiam 15:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Totalitarianism

Hannah Arendt described Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany as forms of totalitarianism. Does this mean that there was no difference between the two? Bryson Bill 16:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No. The political spectrum has more than one dimension - see political compass, Nolan chart and Pournelle chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf61 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

they were both totalitarian. Just on opposite edges of the political spectrum. But better you wait for someone really competent like Clio.--Tresckow 17:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The political spectrum can be viewed as a circle, in which case (self-claiming) communist nations are right next to right-wing dictatorships. The difference is mainly one of ideology, not in practical terms. The communist governments can claim to value equality and other virtues, but, as George Orwell said in Animal Farm, "some are more equal than others". That book shows how the two really are the same in the end. Once the dictatorship of the evil farmer is replaced by communism, the ruling class (the pigs) soon establish their own dictatorship. StuRat 18:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So the real middle of the road is anarchism? (I've often said that libertarians are the true moderates, seeking to expand the grey area between the mandatory and the forbidden where others would narrow it.) —Tamfang 23:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Diamond and graphite are forms of carbon. Does this mean there is no difference between the two? —Tamfang 23:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In some ways, yes, it does mean there is no difference. In some ways there are differences. It depends how you are looking at them and why. Honestly, I'm not sure an analogy like that is very useful or clarifying. --24.147.86.187 00:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(Any given "political spectrum" is just one of many ways to think about the range of political opinions. Don't take any single political spectrum uncritically. Most of the "political compasses" which are popular on college campuses were designed by Libertarians in order to justify their ideology and condemn other ideologies.) For Arendt, the point was to emphasize their similarities in an era where Communism still had lots of appeal to many while Nazism was basically dead. Arendt certainly wanted to make the point that the differences between the two were superficial, as she basically regarded them as being the same form of governance, albeit perhaps justified differently. --24.147.86.187 00:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen at least three "political compasses" that were generated by seeking correlations in the opinions of real people: one based on votes in the US Congress over about a century (an animation of the data may still exist somewhere at http://www.voteview.com/), one based on votes in the last two Westminster Parliaments, and one based on a quiz taken by random people. —Tamfang 04:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Arendt could certainly draw on some strong authorities for her model of totalitarianism; for none other than Leon Trotsky had said that there was little to separate Stalin and Hitler one from the other, judging by the political techniques that they favoured. And he should know, should he not? There were similarities, of course there were similarities: both presided over one-party states; both favoured terror and both made fulsome use of propaganda and forms of mass mobliisation. But the analysis of Arendt-and of Trotsky-only serves to confuse more than it enlightens. In terms of both theory and of practice there were real and abiding differences between Hitlerism and Stalinism; between, what might be described as irrational and rational forms of dictatorship.

So, how is this essential difference to be defined? I can put it no better than this: when Martin Bormann's son asked what National Socialism was, he was told quite simply that it was "The will of the Führer." In other words, National Socialism, as a form of political practice, and as a style of government, is inconceivable without Hitler. The system of admistration Hitler favoured was devoid of all structure and method; of all lines of bureacratic authority. At root, it was little better than a form of Social Darwinism, without any discernable rational order. At one point, for example, no less than three separate agencies had an input into foreign policy, all with contradictory aims, and all with equal access to the Führer. As Ian Kershaw has expressed it, "Hitler's leadership was uttery incompatible with a rational decision-making process, or with a coherent, unified administration and the attainment of limited goals...its self-destructive capacity unmistakeable, its eventual demise certain."

If Hitler was Nazism, Stalin was most definitely not Communism. In other words, he did not create the system, nor did he shape it to match the ends of his own ambition. He worked within the existing structures of Soviet power, its ideology and its administrative procedures. This defined both the nature, and, let me stress this, the limitations of his power. There were some things, in other words, that even the great Stalin could not do: he always had to operate within, and pay homage to, a system established by Lenin, a system that went well beyond his authority and presence. Stalin did not destroy or pervert Leninism: he was its most perfect expression, the superlative bureaucrat, and the greatest of political managers. He worked, above all, to a rational and to a given set of ends, because that was what was expected. There was a degree of stability and predictability to the Soviet dictatorship which simply did not exist in Nazi Germany. It was the nature, the transcendent nature, if you like, of the Communist ideal that enabled Stalin's successor to condemn his 'mismanagement'. No Nazi version of Khrushchev would ever come to accuse Hitler in such terms. The very idea of such a thing is inconceivable. Clio the Muse 01:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The term "Social Darwinism" is used in a lot of strange ways, but this is perhaps the strangest I've seen. There's disagreement on its content but it's usually considered to be an ideology, not a mere incoherence. —Tamfang 04:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

José Antonio Primo de Rivera

Isnt it an oversimplification to call him a fascist?--Tresckow 17:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Describing him with just that adjective indeed is, but it's without any doubt that his political outlook had clearly defined ties with fascism. Check the Spanish version of the article of his party, [[3]], for further details. --Taraborn 18:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I did. If I can trust this information they were national syndicalist and left fascism to these guys Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right.--Tresckow 20:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tresckow, it is an oversimplification to call Jose Antonio a Fascist; but there again it is probably an oversimplification to call anyone a Fascist who was not a member of the Italian National Fascist Party or the British Union of Fascists. The Nazis, for example, almost never referred to themselves as such, and Jose Antonio specifically rejected the label in 1934 as an appropriate descriptive term for his Falange.

The problem is, you see, that the very term Fascism has really no intrinsic meaning, and the various radical and right-wing parties to whom it has been applied have differed from one another in almost every fundamental. There was certainly the common emphasis on the nation; but this kind of ideology was not restricted to parties of the radical right. One might conceivably detect some overlap between the early Fasci italiani di combattimento and the Falange, with the stress on direct action and on forms of National syndicalism; but early Fascism was anti-clerical, whereas the Falange took a stand on Catholicism and other traditional Spanish values. Mussolini's movement developed in a more reactionary direction by allying itself with the big landlords in northern Italy, whereas Jose Antonio's Falange was just as critical of landlordism as it was of Communism. His political programme, moreover, looked in essence to the recreation of the state headed by Miguel Primo de Rivera, his father, which could not be described in any meaningful sense as Fascist. Jose Antonio was radical; he was conservative; he was Catholic; he was nationalist. Above all, he was Spanish. Clio the Muse 23:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks a lot.--Tresckow 08:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm... be careful, Tresckow. The CEDA (Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right) was categorized as being "very" right-winger, but still republican and democratic (think of it as just being the conservative party in a bipartidist system but somewhat more extremist); whereas Falange hated parliamentarianism. Also keep in mind that the CEDA was dissolved after the outbreak of the Spanish civil war, something that, probably, has some significance while considering the position of the party in the political spectrum. Maybe you should have a look at José Calvo Sotelo's Acción Española, another authoritarian nationalist party, which is, perhaps, closer to traditional fascism. --Taraborn 19:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks!--Tresckow 20:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

corporal punishment related to students with disabilities

I am looking for information and statistics on the use of corporal punishment upon students with disabilities. I could use national references, but I am specifically interested it as it is applied to Mississippi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.205.181.205 (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

William of Rubruck

Your piece says nothing at all about his missionary activity among the Mongols or his general impressions of the people. I would be pleased if one of you could summarise this for me. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.84.114 (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly! William's mission was conceived as part of an attempt to win over the Mongols by 'persuasion', so to speak It was a dangerous journey, and when the little party finally arrived at the court of Mongke, the Great Kahn, poor William was to write that he felt as if her were entering the Gates of Hell! His descriptions of the people he encoutered are not very flattering, especially the women: "The less nose she has, the more beautiful she is considered...In the case of one chieftain's wife I was under the impression that she had amputated the bridge of her nose so as to look more snub-nosed...which to us looked thoroughly dreadful."

William was given his first serious chance to preach, the whole purpose of his mission, when he reached the camp of Batu Khan on the Volga. He was not well received. Neverthless, his party continued on its way, reaching Karakorum in January 1254, after a difficult journey. Once here William was eventually commanded by the Great Khan in person to debate with a Muslim and a Buddhist who best represented the truth. His description of Buddhism was to be the first in western history. A master of debate and the techniques of Christian dialectics, William, by his own account, got the better of his opponents-but to his great disappointment he obtained not a single convert. Mongke himself, fully aware, it would seem, of the course of western history and politics, told William that while the Christains had the Scriptures they clearly did not follow their precepts. "If I possessed the power to work miracles," William wrote, "he might have humbled himself."

Before leaving for home the Khan agreed that he might return. In Europe William reported to Louis IX, who had encouraged him on the eastward path in the first place. He was never to return to Karakorum. Clio the Muse 00:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of wandering off-topic, I will remark that there is a huge discussion about the early Mongol-Christian contacts going on at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. The two participants are definitely in need of a third opinion on the subject. Knowledgable people are welcome to chime in. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Trade secret depending on patent

Is it allowed to file a patent on some part of a production process while keeping the rest of the process secret? I think it is, but I'm asking because this seems to subvert the purpose of patents (limited monopoly as a reward for the publication of knowledge). Icek 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The patent examiner is only going to care about the scope of the patent as it is laid out by the application itself. So if I file a patent on device X, which I am using as part of process Y (which contains trade secrets), the patent examiner is not going to be thinking about process Y; just device X and whether it works and whether I've told you how it works. You do not have to disclose your entire business operation to get one patent on one part of it, as long as you explain that part completely. --24.147.86.187 00:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, that's what I thought - and I was thinking of an X and a Y which are practically useless unless combined. Icek 02:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Greatest German Writers

three greatest german writers of all time?Flakture 19:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Schiller, Bertolt Brecht, Thomas Mann, Friedrich Hölderlin, Heinrich Heine. To name a few. I assumed you wanted a list that excludes philosophers.--Tresckow 20:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Walk of Ideas

A very broad question. Do you want the most influential? the most popular? the greatest talent? the most prodigious? Do you want only native-born Germans or anyone who wrote in the German language? Limit it to fiction, or allow philosophical or scientific writings? The Walk of Ideas in Berlin (pictured) gives a nice brief list of the big-hitters.

My personal list would be Goethe (runaway winner), Friedrich Nietzsche (if we allow philosophers) and The Brothers Grimm (or do they count as two?). I'll admit to never having read half of the others in the image to the right, though, and to my shame haven't even heard of one or two (I hope that admission won't make me a pariah here). (one more parenthesis for good luck! :) )GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Grimms just published the folk tales they collected; they did not create them themselves.  --Lambiam 21:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't argue with Goethe, but, as others have already said, Friedrich Nietzsche (only Heine, whose Ludwig Börne has finally been Englished by Jeffrey Sammons, is maybe a near rival to Nietzsche for the greatest German prose, unless you count Luther's Bible; for a light & quick introduction to Nietzsche's sheer literary genius, just read Der Fall Wagner = The Wagner Case in a sitting) and Friedrich Hölderlin (unspeakably precocious and dazzling, the fount from which the best of all more recent German poetry, from Rilke to Trakl to Celan to George, flowed; pick up the bilingual anthology Hymns and Fragments by Sieburth) are indispensable, the two indispensable names for me. I assume they got left off that display out of (1) misplaced political correctness and (2) simple ignorant idiocy (more charitably: question of influence, since Hölderlin has no real predecessors or successors despite what I've said), respectively. But Nietzsche would be happy to be spared involvement in vulgar German patrimony-thumping. Wareh 21:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If we include those with German ancestry, Robert A. Heinlein probably counts. His article doesn't mention his ancestry though. Dismas|^(talk) 21:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Heinlein? You are joking, aren't you? 80.254.147.52 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You asked about the three greatest, and for me they are Goethe, Schiller, and Rainer Maria Rilke. Some more names worth mentioning are Gottfried von Straßburg, Friedrich von Hagedorn, Walther von der Vogelweide, Heinrich von Kleist, Günter Eich, Günter Grass, Novalis, Stefan George, Wilhelm Weigand, Theodor Storm, Eduard Mörike, Gerhart Hauptmann, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock, Wilhelm Weigand, and Heinrich Böll. Xn4 01:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fubbs

Who was 'Fubbs' and what was her relationship to a king of England? I need this answer for a quiz. Ta. Princess of the night 20:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

HMY Fubbs, Royal Yacht of King Charles II :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

'Fubbs', Princess, was Louise de Kerouaille, mistress to Charles II, so called because of her chubby cheeks. Clio the Muse 22:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Invasion of Manchuria

Obviously the League of Nations could not solve the problem of the Japanese Invasion of Manchuria. They tried to solve it with proposals, sanctions, etc, until finally Japan withdrew from the League altogether. Can anyone think of any unique solutions that could have been used to solve this issue, preferably something that the League didn't already try?

-Julio

Our League of Nations article suggests that there was no further step that the League was authorized to take. How far into the hypothetical are you willing to stretch this? Could we tweak the League charter enough to give sanctions the force of law? Could we extend its membership to that of the UN? Could we give it an autonomous military arm? Or are we stuck with looking for options with the League as it actually existed? — Lomn 21:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Im trying to find unique solutions to the Japanese Invasion of Manchuria while still mostly pertaining to the rules of League, but we could stretch it a little bit. Thanks!

Julio, let's pretend, first of all, that the United States had ratified the Treaty of Versailles, and joined the other powers in a new international order, an effective international order, based on meaningful concepts of collective security. Let's pretend, furthermore, that Russia was not isolated for so much of the League's history, and that Germany, Hungary and the other defeated powers of the Great War had been reconciled to the international order, and thus harboured no serious revisionist ambitions. Let's further pretend that imperialism was a thing of the past, and not something that was to to be promoted in new and more malevolent forms by countries like Italy and Japan. Let us also pretend that Great Britain, the one serious mainstay of the international order after the United States retreated back into isolationism, was not wary of entaglements in Europe, let alone the rest of the world. Let us assume that the various powers would have been willing to act in concert against a rogue state, by first of all applying serious sanctions, including-most important-a complete oil embargo, which would have robbed the Japanese and Italians of the capacity to make war; and second by providing sufficient military force to check and reverse aggression if and when it did happen.

Finally, Julio, let us pretend that the League of Nations was not the League of Nations, then, I think you might very well be on the way to the 'unique solutions' you are looking for. But history is history, and the League of Nations was the League of Nations, which, as Mussolini said, "Was all very well when sparrows shout, but no good at all when eagles fall out." Please forgive me for saying so, but the unique solution you are looking for is to stand history on its head. Clio the Muse 22:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Clio, I understand that history is history and that we can't change what the League of Nations did about the Japanese Invasion of Manchuria. But I do understand where you're coming from and I still appreciate your input. I'm just wonndering that if people had the chance to go back in history and change the outcome, what would they have done differently. What different solutions would people have tried to use to actually solve the problem? Any ideas would be much appreciated. Thanks! -Julio

Issue a resolution condemning Japanese aggression; impose an immediate and total oil embargo; gather a League army; assemble in China and, from there, drive the invaders from Manchuria. In other words, the international community should not have troubled itself with the following, taken from a handbook on the League,

"As regards the military sanctions provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 16, there is no legal obligation to apply them… there may be a political and moral duty incumbent on states… but, once again, there is no obligation on them."

By all means speculate; reshape the past; indulge in the entertaining sport of the counter-factual. But, as I have already said, for the League of Nations to have acted other than it did it would not have been the League of Nations. It had not the will; it had not the leadership; it had not the means to take action against the Japanese, beyond, that is, issuing paper condemnations. Clio the Muse 23:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have a fancy for this kind of thing, Julio, try What If?: The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been, then What If? 2 and What Ifs? of American History, collections of essays (all ed. by Robert Cowley) on virtual history. One of my favourites is Pontius Pilate Spares Jesus: Christianity without the Crucifixion by Carlos M. N. Eire. Another good one is Thomas Fleming's Napoléon's Invasion of North America. Xn4 00:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks everyone. Anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.200.184 (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The key would be US military forces. The US had reduced the size of their military considerably after WW1, which led Japan to think the US would not fight, or could be defeated. Had the US maintained it's forces, the embargo placed on Japan might have actually resulted in Japan complying with the League of Nations, rather than attacking Pearl Harbor, since they would then be able to see that this action would result in their defeat. Note that the US wouldn't formally need to be a member of the League in order to enforce it's will. StuRat 04:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

commerialism

i am writing a college paper on commeriALISM AND THE AFFECTS ON CHILKDREN CAN YOU HELP ME. i NEED ABOUT THREE ARTICLES OR BOOK REFERENCES.tHANKYOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.252.86 (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Some possibly relevant articles here: Advertising (toy advertising, fast food advertising, marketing ethics), Anti-consumerism. Wareh 02:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

colonization and forced slavery in North America

I have the following questions for this title: When and where did it occur? What was life like for each culture before they integrated? In what ways was one culture able to defeat or control the other culture? What aspects of controlled culture were made to change? What was the intention of the controlling culture? How did they benefit from this control--or was the directed change intended to benefit the controlled culture? What were some unanticipated results of the directed change? I asked these questions because I want to know if there were any directed change during those time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.43 (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC) What is the situation with the two cultures like today? Have both cultures survived this process? this is homework. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.135.206 (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that there were two? AnonMoos 03:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Presumably from the homework outline. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The formulation of your questions is somewhat strange. You could start by reading our articles on the European colonization of the Americas, the Atlantic slave trade, Slavery in the United States, and any relevant articles they link to, and then see to what extent these answer the questions you have.  --Lambiam 19:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked these questions because I want to know if there were any directed change during those time.

'Before they integrated'. When did they integrate? Did I blink? Just kidding, but how do you determine when two cultures are integrated? In this case, one could say that happened when the slaves started to forget about their ancestor's culture. Also, it's a pretty vague question. "What was life like" is an excuse for any sort of answer, so pick whatever info you can find. "Was the directed change intended to benefit the controlled culture?" I believe the 'controllers' fooled themselves onto believing they were doing the others a favour, however odd that may sound. They made them christians, so in their view they sved their souls. People very easily fool themselves, especially if everyone around does it. DirkvdM 06:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

newspaper circulation statistics

is there a website or agency/association that lists statistics relating to the circulation and other facts about newspapers. im trying to find more information for the Marin Independant Journal thanksCholga^talK! 23:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The easy way to get such statistics is to contact their advertising department—it's one of the ways they try to appeal to advertisers. --24.147.86.187 01:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And in that case, according to http://www.marinij.com/advertise, "The Marin IJ dominates the affluent Marin County market with 95,448 daily readers and a circulation of almost 35,000." --24.147.86.187 01:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

See Audit Bureau of Circulation -- Mwalcoff 09:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

September 25

Sir Fergus Woodward, Scottish explorer?

This possibly historical character figured in a prank I've now deleted at the article Bourges. Is Sir Fergus a phantom? Googling "Fergus Woodward" hasn't turned up anything that is securely not a mirror of a mirror, only reflections of This further prank. Clio? --Wetman 00:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This notable 18th century Scotsman isn't in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography or in any of the other standard references I have to hand. Also, while there were a few 18th century Scots called 'Fergus', Woodward just isn't a Scottish name. He looks very much like a {{Hoax}} to me. Xn4 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally have never heard of this individual, Wetman, and I thought I knew the names of all of the chief Scottish explorers. And as for Eric Mouhica, who can possibly imagine a French aristocrat with a name like that! Well spotted, but I have to say that it is subtle forms of vandalism like this that worries me most about Wikipedia. That particular piece of misinformation has managed to survive unchallenged for months. I spotted something similar on the St. George page not so long ago. Clio the Muse 01:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy: "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth, persistant, persuasive and unrealistic." Xn4 02:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You folks have confirmed my suspicions. The more I check him through Wikipedia, the more I see this is a prank: see Talk:Huvadhu_Atoll; a prank "Sir Fergus Woodward" paragraph was formerly in Gaafu Dhaalu Atoll. Once you detect a prankster, it serves Wikipedia to check their User contributions for more of the same: here more than one logged in account was employed. --Wetman 02:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Felons voting rights

In the article "Texas Constitution" it includes this statement:

Article 6: "Suffrage" Denies voting rights to . . . felons . . . (though the Legislature may make exceptions in the latter two cases).

Do any/all other states of the U.S.A. deny voting rights to felons? If so, how extensively (to commiters of what felonies)?

Zantaggerung 02:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We have an article Felony disenfranchisement, but your question may be better answered in several publications on this topic available from the Sentencing Project. At least one "includes state-by-state table illustrating the categories of persons disenfranchised due to a felony conviction." Wareh 02:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

On the state by state table, can anyone find a key as to what the Xs mean? I don't see anything that says whether an X in the column means that they can or cannot vote. Dismas|^(talk) 05:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that. I think I got it figured out. Near the top it states that Maine and Vermont are the only two states that allow inmates to vote. Neither of those two states have any Xs. So that leads me to believe that an X indicates the people in that column are not allowed to vote. It would still be nice if there were a key... Dismas|^(talk) 05:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad and Columbia

Does anybody know what address to write a letter to Ahmadinejad? I would like to thank him for speaking at Columbia. I thought his view was interesting and important regardless of how much I may or may not agree with him. Also, who made the decision to allow him to speak at Columbia? I would also like to write and thank that person (or people). I think it's very important that we open dialogue and allow ourselves to understand other cultures and countries, especially those from the middle east. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.81.179 (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would urge caution. He is a foreigner who supports terrorism (Hezbollah) and the destruction of Israel, denies that the Holocaust occurred, and is currently supporting attacks on US troops in Iraq by supplying the rebels. That, combined with communications between Americans and foreigners being monitored, could mean you will find yourself on a terrorist watch list and not allowed to fly, etc. StuRat 04:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, citizens are to be punished for writing letters to people the US government strongly disapproves of, but not so strongly that they are allowed into the US? I wonder if Lisa Anderson, the dean of Columbia's school of international and public affairs, will be penalized for issuing the invitation to Ahmadinejad in the first place? It doesn't strike me as very likely, but if there are such Draconian powers to watch letter-writers and prevent them from travelling, then the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is down the drain. Xn4 04:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with StuRat. The person who writes to Mr. Ahmadinejad will land on a government watchlist at the very least. I'm sure if Samantha Smith had lived longer, she would have been on watch lists for her entire life. The letter may actually get through but I wouldn't bet on it getting through unnoticed. It was only within the last 5 years or so that all the files on John Lennon were released. So why would some random citizen feel safe in writing a known terrorist sympathizer? Dismas|^(talk) 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are kidding!--Tresckow 08:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask you, would you prefer to fly on a plane with or without a person who writes fan letters to those who support terrorism and attacks on Americans ? Most Americans would prefer not to fly on a plane with such people. StuRat 04:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You hope who is kidding about what? Dismas|^(talk) 12:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In answer to the question, his website has an e-mail the president widget. Can't see a print address; if you can't find anything, then "President Ahmadinejad, Islamic Republic of Iran" might work: most postal services can find their president. Apropos the discussion, the US government must spend a lot of time watching participants in Amnesty International letter-writing campaigns! Algebraist 13:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Or you could just leave a comment on his blog Algebraist 13:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to write to HIM, could you please ask HIM this question. Hypothetically since there are no homosexuals in Iran. If a homosexual man have sex with a homosexual women in Iran, does that count as two homosexuals having sex with each other? 210.49.155.132 13:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, StuRat, great soapbox/rant. Didn't sound like the poster was going to write a "fan" letter. Regardless, I'd prefer to fly with people who respect the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as not only the laws of the land but as valuable cornerstone's of our democracy; so here's hoping I don't end up on a plane with you and also hoping you don't actually speak for, "most Americans". Also, I now picture you as Dale Gribble. 38.112.225.84 16:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

EU Constitution

What is Latvia's view on ammending the European Union's constitution? Also, how does Latvia feel about the new role of the president within the EU? - anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.188.155 (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say Latvia is rather happy about that. They feel not really secure next to the russian bear and being a member of the EU makes it, even if only psychologically, easier for them. Besides it gives them a boost in prestige and a possibility of having at least some political weight. Joining the EU was the only reasonable thing to do. In contrast to Poland I guess they are totally happy. But that is just my guess.--Tresckow 08:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Latvia is a place. Places don't have opinions. Perhaps you have in mind the Latvian state (whose personnel change) or the Latvian people (who are likely to have diverse opinions). —Tamfang 19:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Admission of Croation into the EU

How does Latvia feel about admitting Croatia into the European Union? -anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.79.80.67 (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Croation???--Tresckow 16:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get into croationist controversy here! —Tamfang 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Boer Sympathsers

I read that there was a lot of sympathy internationally for the Boers during the Second Boer War. What form did this take? Luke Here 05:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Do your own homework. The reference desk will not give you answers for your homework, although we will try to help you out if there is a specific part of your homework you do not understand. Make an effort to show that you have tried solving it first. Lanfear's Bane 09:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that this is a homework question. -- Mwalcoff 09:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion it is a homework question with the first part slightly re-phrased or simply amended by adding 'I read that' in front of the question. What form did this take? sounds incredibly 'homeworky'. It also sounds as if the OP has not consulted the article on the Second Boer War which does include some detail on the international sympathy. If you compared it to a sample of the other questions on these desks you would notice a marked difference between 'honest' questions and homework. Lanfear's Bane 10:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well then, let's just suggest that the questioner reads our very detailed article on the Second Boer War. I found it especially interesting that the article says "public support quickly waned as it became apparent that the war would not be easy and unease developed following reports about the treatment by the Army of the Boer civilians". Reminds me of more recent history ! Gandalf61 11:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No wonder, history repeats itself. Maybe the bestknown eyample towads the Boers: Kruger telegram. Although not during the Second Boer War.--Tresckow 16:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, Luke, let me see what I can do for you.

First of all, since you have specifically asked for 'inernational' reactions, I am largely putting to one side the question of domestic opposition, though please let me know if you would like me to explore this dimension also. It might interest you to know, though, that the opponents of the war included many Irish Nationalist, which comes, I suppose as no great surprise. Michael Davitt, the founder of the Irish National Land League, resigned his parliamentary seat at Westminster in protest. He subsequently tried to interest the European powers in the fate of the Boers, writing an apologia, condemning the British for arming 'African savages' against two 'Christian states'. Arthur Griffith, founder of Sinn Fein, used the occasion of the war in an attempt to focus hostility towards continuing British rule in Ireland. Kier Hardie, leader of the British Labour Party, absolved the Boers of all blame for the war-and ignored their treatment of black Africans-because they were a "virtuous, republican and pastoral people, with all of the fine qualities that pertain to that way of life." J. A. Hobson, John Burns and Edward Carpenter, left-wing and radical, all combined to describe the war as the work of 'Cosmopolitain-Jewish manipulators' living in Cape Colony.

Beyond British shores, Theodore Roosevelt, then governor of New York, and himself no stranger to the attractions of imperialism, expressed some sympathy for the Boers, with whom he shared a Dutch ancestry, though he believed that their downfall was part of an Anglo-Saxon manifest destiny, just as was the downfall of the Spanish Empire in 1898. His distant cousin, Franklin Delano Rosevelt, took a quite different view, presiding over the Harvard Committee for Boer Relief. Sun Yat-Sen, Chinese revolutionary and political leader, was encouraged by the example of Boer resistence, seeing it as a blow against all forms of imperialism.

British conduct during the war, especially the setting up of concentration camps, was the source of much international hostility, though most remained blind to Boer atrocities against black people. Close on 3000 volunteers served with the Boer Republics, which included a Scandinavian Corps, almost wiped out at the Battle of Magersfontein. In the various Boer commandos it was possible to find Germans, Russians, Italians, Irish, French and Americans. The Germans included Count Harra von Zeppelin, at the one extreme, to Fritz Brall, the anarchist, at the other. In the Hollander Corps was to be found Cornelius van Gogh, brother of Vincent, the painter, and Theo the art dealer, who committed suicide after being captured by the British. The Russian Corp, mostly ambulence drivers and scouts, numbered among them Prince Bagration of Tiflis, a Cossack hetman, and Alexander Guchkov, later to serve for a time as Minister of War in the Russian Provisional Government, established after the Revolution of February 1917. The French included Prince Louis d'Orleans et Braganze, cousin of the Orleanist pretender. He was joined by Count de Villebois-Mareuil, one of the founders of Action Francaise.

Naturally enough, the Boers attracted a lot of support in the Netherlands, their ancestral home, with Queen Wilhelmina going so far as to send a warship to bring Paul Kruger to Europe, where he was well-received, both in Paris and the Hague. Streets were named after him in the Netherlands and Belgium, and a statue erected in his honour in Dresden. German approval of the exiled president was to continue for some time, and the Nazi film industry was later to pay its own tribute in Ohm Krüger, made in 1940. Widespread as it was, pro-Boer sentiment caused no government to bring pressure on the British, and had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the war.

I trust this is enough, Luke, and sincerely hope that you have not been put off Wikipedia, and the Reference Desk, by some of the remarks made by other contributers here at the outset. My best wishes. Clio the Muse 01:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Land grants

I have an orginial War of 1812 land grant from President Pierce signed with the U.S. Presidential seal and recorded by Granger company giving a soldier Richardson 40 acrea of land in Danville Illinois. Does this document have any value to anyone? Who would I contact? appox. how much would something like this be worth? 71.213.53.228 07:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Joy Willumsen

A war of 1812 land grant signed by the man who was president 1853–57? What's with that? (and no, I don't know the answers to your questions. I'm just feeling inquisitive) Algebraist 12:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The War of 1812 veterans were a rather powerful political force during Pierce's campaign. Add to that Pierce's habit of handing out tons and tons of land grants and it isn't much of a stretch to assume he was handing out land grants to War of 1812 veterans to gain political power. -- kainaw™ 14:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I just found this that details a conflict between "land warrants" for Mexican War veterans and War of 1812 veterans of that period. -- kainaw™ 14:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Australian independence

Would it be true to say that Australian independence was born with the fall of Singapore to the Japanese in 1942? Barnie X 10:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --Dweller 12:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed my mind. Actually, no. --Dweller 12:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Then again, maybe. --Dweller 12:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what, why don't you just tell your teacher that questions that render complex historical processes into inane questions that beg a yes/no/maybe answer are lazy and deserve one word answers. --Dweller 12:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Sorry, someone's irritated me, so I might be a little grizzly, but the teachers setting stupid questions are actually more annoying than students posting homework questions on this desk, in my opinion.

Tell her you fail to recognise Australian Independance and that you cannot possibly comment on the situation with a clear conscience and without the use of profanity. Or do an article on Austrian Independance and claim you misread the question. Or, do your own homework. Lanfear's Bane 12:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Constitution of Australia would be a good start. Neil ム 13:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what we are talking about here, Barnie, is the creation, if it might be so expressed, of a new Australian 'national consciousness'; an awarness, in other words, that Australia was a nation in its own right, with interests that could not be subsumed within a wider British Dominion. That may not date specifically to the Fall of Singapore in February 1942, significant as it was, but to the entry of the Japanese into the war and all that followed from this, which served to focus minds that the first priority for Australians was not defence of the Empire, but defence of their own homeland. Australia declared war in September 1939 to fight Britain's battle; it ended by fighting its own.

The problem was that, by 1941, Australia was ill-prepared to face a challenge to its own sovereignty, with its best divisons serving far away from home in the African theatre of operations against the Germans. Responding to concerns by Sir Robert Menzies, the Australian Prime Minister, over the establishment of Japanese bases in the French colony of Indo-China in 1940, Winston Churchill said that while he could not send a fleet to the Far East he considered the possibility of a Japanese invasion to be 'very unlikely.' But if they did invade Britain would "cut our losses in the Meditteranean and proceed to your aid, sacrificing every interest except only the defence position of this island on which all depends." His intention was to secure more Australian troops for the Middle East, really quite cynical in the circumstances. Though mindful of the advice being given by Frederick Shedden, amongst others, Menzies still declined to put the defence of Australia first, fearing for the future of the Empire as a whole.

Things changed to some degree after John Curtin, the Labor leader, took office in October 1941, when a clearer distinction between British and Australian interests began to emerge. Even so, Curtin initially held to commitments previously entered into by his predecessor, leaving three divisions in the Middle East and even agreeing to provide fresh troops in the event of a German invasion of Turkey. In the meantime Churchill was actively hoping for a Pacific war between Japan and the United States, as a way of drawing America into the general conflict, giving no serious thought to the implications this would have for Australia. Indeed, British commitments in the east, and to the defences of 'Fortress Singapore', were actively cut back.

With the entry of Japan into the war Curtin urged Churchill to make good his promise on Imperial defence, a promise he quite simply could not meet. In late December 1941 it is possible to detect the first great 'break' in Australian history, the first indication of a new beginning, in Curtin's New Year message, published in the Melbourne Herald;

Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom. We know the problems the United Kingdom faces. We know thae constant threat of invasion. We know the dagers of the dispersal of strength, but we know, too, that Australia can go and Britain can still hold on. We are, therefore, determined that Australia shall not go, and we shall exert all our energies towards the shaping of a plan, with the United States as its keystone, which will give to our country some confidence of being able to hold out until the tide of battle swings against the enemy.

Churchill was so angry that he thought himself of making a broadcast to the people of Australia, attacking the line being taken by Curtin, which threatened his negotiations in Washington. In Canberra the feeling was growing that, from the perspective of London, Australia was no more than an expendable 'outpost of Empire'. Curtin and his colleagues were now fully aware that while they had been prepared to expend all in the defence of Britain, Britain had not the will, had not the power, had not the ability to make an equal return. Imperial defence was a failure. It was a failure that General Douglas MacArthur, who arrived in March 1942 to take overall command of the Allied war effort was prepared to exploit to his advantage. Britain had, so he told Curtin, failed in its 'fundamental duty'. The defence thread was broken; all others, beyond mere sentiment, followed. Australia had to find its own place in the world; Australia had to be independent in the fullest sense of the word. Clio the Muse 02:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't add much to Clio's explanation, but I'm reminded of Benjamin Disraeli's famous comment "Colonies do not cease to be colonies because they are independent." In 1914, the British government in London was able to declare war on the Central Powers on behalf of the whole Empire. By 1939, several declarations of war were required, and although in some cases (such as Australia, New Zealand and India) these followed quickly and inevitably, the Union of South Africa delayed and pondered. After the Second World War, there were no more automatic declarations of war by Australia in support of the mother country, and Clio has outlined why that was. Xn4 03:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Xn4. Most of all thanks to you Clio for a brilliant answer, everything I expected of you and more. As for the cheeky responses at the top what can I say that would not breach your civility rules other than that I find them glib and sickeningly superior. I wont be coming back here.Barnie X 05:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

HR & PM

It is argued that personnel management and human resources managemnt are the same. Give advantages and disadvantages of each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.217.11 (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Do your own homework. The reference desk will not give you answers for your homework, although we will try to help you out if there is a specific part of your homework you do not understand. Make an effort to show that you have tried solving it first.. Lanfear's Bane 14:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Our article Human resource management might help you with your homework question. I do think this is a very bad question, however. If the two terms are indeed synonymous, then it's meaningless to try and give advantages and disadvantages of them (and how can terms have advantages and disadvantages, anyway?). A far better question, and one you might want to take a stab at answering for yourself after reading our article, is what are the different approaches to PM/HRM as revealed by the differing terms. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Women in Iron Age Britain

I would like to know something of the role, particularly the political role, of women in Iron Age Britain. This is for a paper on the changing position of women in various historical periods. It is not a 'homework' question as such, so I hope not to be treated with the same rudeness that I see other people have been on this page. Thank you.Pacific231 14:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Our article, British Iron Age, is sadly lacking, both in content applicable to your topic, and in links for further research. Sorry. However, the British Iron Age was "the age of the Celt". [4] has a section on "the lot of women" - Celtic lands were owned communally, and wealth seems to have been based largely on the size of cattle herd owned. The lot of women was a good deal better than in most societies of that time. They were technically equal to men, owned property, and could choose their own husbands. They could also be war leaders, as Boudicca (Boadicea) later proved. You might also find this link useful. Neil ム 14:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Boudica, of course, might be a good start, as the most known Iron Age woman. That article does have a lot of resources provided. Neil ム 15:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC) If it's not a homework question then you shouldn't be worried (however, if the cap fits, wear it?). And it's not rudeness, it is simply one of the 'rules' of this area of Wikipedia. The contributors to this section enjoy helping people, not doing (home)work for them. You might also wish to consider that insinuating that people are rude while asking for their help is not a great strategy. I do however hope that someone is able and willing to help you with your not a 'homework' question as such. Lanfear's Bane 14:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In the absense of historical documents it's difficult to know - you'll probably have to rely on roman accounts.87.102.10.190 17:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC) The only other alternative I can think of would be to infer 'things' from grave goods - however the presence of high value goods in grave no more means a highly valued slave (or even sacrifice) than a respected member of society...87.102.10.190 18:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Aside from Boudica and her daughters, the only women from Iron Age Britain referred to in Roman accounts are Cartimandua and some of Caratacus' relatives. To them we could add the woman buried with a chariot in Wetwang, Yorkshire. All of them are aristocrats, so how far you can apply their cases to women generally is questionable. The site Neil links to above sounds like new age wishful thinking to me - there's very little evidence for laws or customs for the ownership of land or sexual politics in the Iron Age. It is true that women could be leaders, but Boudica and Cartimandua could be anomalous, despite what Tacitus says about the former - Boudica only found herself in a position of leadership in the exceptional circumstances of a revolt, and Cartimandua was propped up as a Roman puppet. There's no identifiable evidence of any other female rulers from coins or texts that I know of.

The Roman sources for Iron Age Britain are fairly thin. Some use might be made of classical descriptions of related societies in Gaul. Archaeology might be able to shed some light, but again, grave goods would probably only tell you about the aristocracy. Medieval Ireland is probably the most closely related society that's well documented, so if you can find a book on early Irish law (the Brehon Laws) you might find some material there. Another area to look in might be the Picts, who are said to have reckoned descent by the female line. --Nicknack009 23:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Pacific 231, I can add a little to the information you have already been given from Dio Cassius, one of the Roman sources, who has Boudica announce, "We British are used to women commanders in battle." I have no idea if this is an accurate statement or not, or if it is simply another way of disparaging 'barbarian' practices for a Roman audience. On the assumption that you have not already done so, you might try consulting Celtic Goddesses by Miranda Green, and Women in Prehistory by Margaret Ehrenberg. Clio the Muse 23:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Can Anyone Help?

I am from Scotland and I am trying to trace my Dad,his name is Norman Grant and he is in his sixties,the last I heard from him he lived near Nahoon Beach in East London. I would be grateful if anyone could give me any information on how to trace him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaygrant (talk • contribs) 23:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC) (copied from Village Pump by me DuncanHill 16:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

I take it you've tried the obvious routes, such as telephone directories and the electoral register? Our article on missing persons is rather US-orientated, but you would do well to contact one of the several UK charities who specialise in this sort of thing, such as http://www.missingpeople.org.uk/ There is also a free teletext service on Channel 4 to help you find missing people. There are also a number of organisations listed here.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The South African phonebook can be searched from here, but I suppose you've tried that. Perhaps if you can write it up in suitably appealing form and send it to the local paper in East London, they'd publish it. That might get a response. The Daily Dispatch (no article) (http://www.dispatch.co.za) and the Herald (also no article) (http://www.theherald.co.za/) cover the Eastern Cape. Presumably, like everywhere else, there will be local free papers as well. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply,I searched everywhere from appeals in newspapers to contacting the Salvation Army missing persons, I did everything possible and after a lot of work I discovered that he had moved out of East London and unfortunately when I did manage to locate his new address I was too late as he has died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaygrant (talk • contribs) 22:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Could you please help in regards to the question below:

How many borough councils are in the British Isles.

Many thanks

Regards 80.194.35.66 17:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

See Borough status in the United Kingdom.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And Local government in the Republic of Ireland, which has five, as far as I can make out. Algebraist 13:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Help me to identify an Andy Warhol piece

Hi guys

I recently aquired a print of one Warhol`s artworks. It seems vaguely familiar so I`m hoping that someone will be able to identify it. I`ve been on a website but I couldn`t find the name of the print. I`m not entirely sure how upload a picture of it onto this page, so I`ll describe it. It appears to a collection of glasses, wine glasses and empty wine bottles, saucers on a black table. The glassses on the right side have a yellow/orange outline while the ones on the left side have a red outline.

Thanks a lot

---

129.100.207.195 18:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like After The Party. --LarryMac | Talk 19:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right. It is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.207.195 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

safety glasses

can anybody tell me if the ANSI Z87.1-2003 CE-166 matches the british standard for safety glasses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.202.100 (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Self-Refrencing Art

I was wondering if there is a specific name for the kind of art (particularly sketchs and paintings) that refrence the piece in question. For example: http://denis2.deviantart.com/art/Debate-44961626 and http://nocturnal-devil.deviantart.com/art/sketch-book-8298361

I looked up information on MC Escher thinking he might have done something similar, and either he didn't or it's not posted. Also, I have already tried a few terms like picture in picture to no avail. Any information would be nice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.45.152 (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an example of recursion to me. Malcolm Starkey 19:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

See Droste effect and the references therein to Escher.  --Lambiam 20:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea on a name but it was also used, with slight variation, on the Pink Floyd album Ummagumma. Dismas|^(talk) 01:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of Escher's pieces play tricks with perception through mixing of levels (see strange loop) and oblique self-references (for example, Belvedere contains an image of a boy playing with an impossible cube) rather than the direct picture-within-a-picture of the Droste effect. The one exception that comes to mind is Print Gallery, in which a print gallery contains a print of the gallery and its surrounding town. Gandalf61 10:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I submit, for your consideration, the greatest use of the Droste effect in the history of Western art: [5]. --Sean 15:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I submit, for your consideration, that your link has issues:

You don't have permission to access /gerpunx/archives/hasselhoffian-recursion.gif on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. -SandyJax 16:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed! --Sean 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary diarists

Please provide some names of famous contemporary writers, who have published their diaries (and are famous for this) as well as the title of their diaries.

Regards, Ramonalex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramonalex (talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We have a List of diarists. Most names on the list did not publish their diaries themselves, though, and are more famous for other things.  --Lambiam 23:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Copenhagen 1807

We are not long past the two hundredth anniversary of the British bombardment of Copenhagen in September 1807. Was this a legitimate act of war or an unprovoked attack on a neutral country? Thanks for any answers. Simon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.242.50 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The attack on Copenhagen in 1807 came about through a complicated set of circumstances involving British paranoia, an unfortunately timed Danish mobilisation of their navy, and a disgruntled French-born Russian secret agent. All very "Whoops Apocalypse".

The British government had frequently started hostilities without a declaration of war in the 18th century. This, and the reasons for it, are remarked upon in Jeremy Black's Knights Errant and True Englishmen. From London's perspective the risk of the Danish fleet and its vast array of stores falling into the hands of the French justified extreme measures to ensure a rapid, total success. Although bombarding defended cities was not all that uncommon and doubtless a legitimate act of war, as it remained under the Hague Conventions, it seems to have been rather more indiscrimate than usual at Copenhagen. It was an Ungentlemanly Act, and so was the attack in 1801. Sinking and capturing a large part of the (still neutral) Spanish treasure fleet in 1805 wasn't very nice either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just providing the link for Battle of Copenhagen (1807). Jooler 22:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Simon, it was an episode that attracted a great deal of 'criticism from within' at the time, though George Canning, who conceived of the attack as a strategic and political necessity, defended his actions in Parliament with all of the formidable skill at his disposal. It is important, you see, to consider the circumstances of the day, and the position Britain found itself in after the conclusion of the War of the Fourth Coalition. Once again, with Russia withdrawing from the conflict after Napoleon's victory at the Battle of Friedland, Britain stood alone without allies, to face all of the power of the French Empire. If you are looking for a modern parallel then you could do no better than consider the situation in 1940 after the Fall of France. Then Churchill, fearful that the powerful French fleet would fall into German hands, ordered an attack on its base at Mers-el-Kebir, after an ultimatum to hand over the ships was ignored. And so it was in 1807, with one crucial difference: Russia, Britain's former ally, had entered into an understanding with Napoleon at the Treaty of Tilsit. Once again the country faced the possibility of a hostile naval combination as it had in 1801 with the Armed Neutrality of the North. Then the Battle of Copenhagen followed, which I personally believe to have been a strategic necessity, contrary to Angus' contention in the above.

Now, although Denmark was neutral in 1807, Canning had received good intelligence that after Tilsit Napoleon was planning to combine several fleets: the Russian, the Swedish, the Dutch, the Portuguese, the French, as well as the Danish, thus reviving the invasion threat of 1804 and replacing the naval power that he had lost so decisively at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. It was a situation that no British war-time leader could face with equanimity; it threatened the vital Baltic trade; more than that, it threatened Britain's very existence. Once again, as in 1801, Denmark was the obvious weak-link, one with great strategic importance, because it controlled the narrow sea passages into the Baltic.

Frightful as the attack was it worked, and the 'nightmare of Tilsit' never emerged. In my view by far the best summary is to be found in the journals of William Wilberforce, the anti-slavery campaigner, "My friends doubt about the Danish business-I own the policy doubtful; but our right is clear. They would have become our open enemies very shortly. Still, our national character is injured." Clio the Muse 00:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Passport issued by the Governor of Georgia (state)

I have a copy of a passport which the Governor of Georgia (US state) issued to one of my ancestors to travel out of Georgia and into the Native American areas (Alabama, presumably) circa 1805. What was the purpose of such a passport? If my ancestor hadn't had that passport, would he have been subject to arrest for being in Alabama without authorization? Corvus cornix 20:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the specifics of the situation in Georgia in 1805, but on various occasions North American governments have taken steps to prevent liquor and firearms from being sold to Indians in circumstances in which the governments didn't want liquor and firearms to be sold to Indians, and/or to prevent unauthorized individuals from cutting into the profits of licensed Indian traders... AnonMoos 02:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it dated? Before the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, there were Native American areas not far away which were outside the US. Xn4 02:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There were also treaties with Indians, part of which was the promise to keep Europeans off of their lands. Such promises were typically kept for a short period, then the treaty was broken. This may have been one of those periods in which they were genuinely trying to abide by a treaty. StuRat 04:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oldest historical event passed down by word of mouth alone

I've always wondered exactly how far oral tradition can preserve historical memory in non-literate societies. Can it last a few hundred years, a thousand years, longer? Please try to give clear examples of preserved historical events or situations rather than vague mythological parallels. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity on this.--Pharos 20:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, bear in mind that you need physical references as well to confirm that practitioners of oral tradition are actually coughing up the goods. Good examples where you'd get some of both are volcanic eruptions. According to [6], the Māori remembered eruptions of Mt Taranaki for several hundred years before the first Western explorers tried to set up camp on its northern side, with catastrophic results. [7] tells a similar story, with modern Nisga’a recalling an eruption that took place in the mid-18th Century. I would suspect that after a few centuries, legend and myth will creep into almost any story told by many people, and after a few more, they'll form the bulk of the telling. Heck, look at some of the legends that have arisen about events that we actually have written documentation for. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it mildy amusing that Attila the Hun, ruler of a nation of steppe nomads who came from the east to crush the Goths and rule over the Germans, is remembered as a chivalrous king who is more good guy than bad guy in the Nibelunglied... AnonMoos 02:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

See Vedas. Rigveda says "The Rigveda's core is accepted to date to the late Bronze Age". Xn4 02:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Biblical flood, also recorded in the Epic of Gilgamesh, and by other cultures (see Deluge (mythology), may have been passed down orally for thousands of years before being recorded. Recent scientific findings support that a massive flood (but not world-wide) may have indeed occurred when the Black Sea was filled in from the Mediterranean Sea. See Black_Sea#Deluge_theory.

• The Trojan War, long believed to be a myth, may have taken place and been carried down by oral tradition until recorded by Homer in the Iliad.

• The myth of Atlantis may have resulted when a small Greek island was destroyed by an exploding volcano. This was also carried down orally until recorded much later. StuRat 04:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

--No, no, the oldest oral recantation still excercised today is the story of the Three Little Pigs. Beekone 14:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Quandary on Sudreys and Sundries

I've been trying to find out more about the history of the Isle of Man but not being able to read Manx, the old chronicles aren't much good. One question I've had that doesn't even figure at all on the WikiSphere is: What exactly was the "Kingdom of the Sudreys", what came before it and what came after it? What caused the transitions? Anyone with knowledge on "British" (well, British Isles, anyway) history around? 90.240.217.229 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No reason you should want to read Manx: Latin, Old Norse and Classical Gaelic would be helpful though. Sudreys is the anglicisation of Old Norse Suðreyjar = south islands, compare Suðrland = south land = Sutherland. South here is relative to Orkney and Iceland. The Sudreys corresponded with the Hebrides. These were sometimes, but perhaps not all that often, ruled together with the isle of Man.

The early history of the Isle of Man is pretty obscure. The Irish annals say that Báetán mac Cairill conquered the island around 580, but didn't hold it for long. Áedán mac Gabráin may also have conquered it soon after. Who they were conquering it from is unknown. Probably some people speaking a form of Old Irish. Bede says that Edwin of Deira conquered the island, sometime in the 620s. It may have belonged to his enemy, who would eventually kill him, Cadwallon ap Cadfan. It is possible that Fiachnae mac Báetáin conquered the isle of Man. Or not. This relies on the presumed contents of lost Irish sagas rather than histories or annals. I believe the final appearance of the isle of Man in the written record before the Viking Age is as the place of exile of Osred II of Northumbria in 790-792, this is mentioned by Simeon of Durham writing several hundred years later, but probably relying on a near-contemporaty source.

In the Viking Age, the isle of Man was part of the Viking Atlantic world, along with the Hebrides, the settlements in Ireland, &c. There is little reliable written evidence for this period and, as always, archaeological evidence can be interpreted in all manner of different ways. Whether many Scandinavians settled on Man or not, their language was brought there, as the place names show. In this period Man was sometimes united with some of the Hebrides. Godred Crovan, who established a long-lasting line of kings, ruled Man but died on Islay, so he may have ruled that too.

There is a comprehensive New History of the Isle of Man published by Liverpool University Press. Volumes 2 (Prehistory), by John Belchem, covers up to 1000 AD, while volume 3 (Medieval), by Sean Duffy, goes on to 1405. The Chronicle of Man and the Sudreys is worth a quick skim. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, 90.240. You do not really need to know the Manx language to find out about the Kingdom of Man and the Isles; there is a lot in English, and even some of the old chronicles, Gaelic and Norse, as well as Manx, have been translated. Let me know how far you want to go and I will make some suggestions on further reading.

First of all, a note on terminology. The 'Sudreys', or the Southern Isles, is the old Viking name for the present day Scottish Hebrides, used to distinguish them from the 'Nordreys' the northern isles of Orkney and Shetland. From the ninth century onwards the Vikings began the process of penetration and settlement, from what is now the Isle of Lewis, down to the Isle of Man. In the process what was sometimes known as the Kingdom of Man and the Sudreys took shape, owing nominal alliegance to the crown of Norway, but largely self-governing. At the end of the eleventh century the Norse King, Magnus Barelegs, sailed down the west coast, deposing Godred Crovan as King of Man, and entering into a treaty with Malcolm III of Scotland, by which the Isles were formally recognised as part of the Kingdom of Norway. But no sooner was Magnus killed in 1103 the Kingdom of Man and the Sudreys emerged once more as a semi-independent political entity.

The period that follows is one of some confusion, but towards the middle of the twelfth century Godfred V united Man and the Sudreys under his rule. His half-sister, Ranghild, was married to a powerful Scottish lord by the name of Somerled, himself of partial Viking ancestry. Somerled, although nominally a subject of the King of Scots, was also a largely independent ruler, with a domain in what is now the mainland part of Argyllshire, adjacent to the Isles. His marriage to Ranghild gave him a direct political interest in the Island kingdom to the west.

In 1156 Somerled went to war with his brotther-in-law, defeating him in a naval encounter, simply known drom the time of year that it was fought as the 'Battle of Epiphany.' After this Godfred agreed to partition his kingdom, all the Isles north of Ardnamurchan going to Somerled, leaving him with the Isles to the south, including Man. But this was not enough for the ambitious Somerled, who two years later seized the remainder, forcing Godfred into exile. Somerled was killed in battle himself in 1164, after which the Kingdom of Man was in part restored, though the northern Isles remained largely in the hands of the his descendants, who in time were to become the Lords of the Isles.

In the thirteenth century the Kingdom of Scotland, first under Alexander II, and then Alexander III began its own westwards expansion. In one last attempt to establish Norse control Haakon IV led a great expedition down the west coast of Scotland in 1263. Nothing significant was achieved, and the failure of the campaign only demonstrated that the distant kings of Norway could not retain control of the area in the face of a determined local power. In 1266 the Treaty of Perth finally brought all of the Isles, including Man, under Scottish control. The last King of Man, Magnus III, died in 1265, the Scots taking possession soon after. And so it remained, until they lost control to the English in the course of the Scottish Wars of Independence. Clio the Muse 23:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Godred Crovan (d. 1095) and Malcolm III (d. 13 Nov 1093) are presumed to have died before Magnus Barelegs set out west for the first time. Of course, this assumes that the 1098/1102 dating of the expeditions is the conventional one. Whatever the dating, Magnus is unlikely to have signed a treaty with Malcolm. Magnus's father only died in 1093 and the Heimskringla keeps him busy for several years after that fighting rebels and raiding. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll check my sources, Angus, and get back to you tomorrow-if you can wait that long! Clio the Muse 01:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm basing this on Duncan and Brown's paper in the Proceedings of the Sociey of Antiquaries of Scotland (Vol. 90 (1956-1957), which seems to be followed by Barrell's Medieval Scotland. Perhaps relevant to unravelling the chronology of events in Man from 1095 to 1114, Ó Cróinín in Early Medieval Ireland sees Magnus and Muirchertach Ua Briain as partners in crime, much as Duncan and Brown see Edgar and Magnus. For me, that would tend to place Domnall mac Taidg's rule over Man in the context of Magnus's second expedition. Not being a historian, my ideas are worth what you pay for them. If I could lay my hands on McDonald's Kingdom of the Isles, I'd tell you what he says. Duffy's volume of the New History of the Isle of Man would be helpful here, or Benjamin Hudson's Irish Sea Studies and Viking Pirates and Christian Princes, but I've never read any of those. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, Angus; first of all, a simple error on my part: Godred Croven was indeed dead by 1095, and could not therefore have been displaced by Magnus, on the assumption that his expedition did indeed come in 1098. The hammer fell, rather on his family in the shape of Lagman, thought to have been his son, who was temporarily displaced as King of Man. As far as the Scottish king who entered into the treaty with Magnus is concerned I took this from one of the sources given in A. O. Anderson (ed.) Early Sources of Scottish History, Volume II, 1922, pp. 112-3. But you are right; taking the date as given, then the king would have to have been Edgar, Malcolm's son. I have, in fact, read Duncan and Brown's paper, so I have no excuse for misremembering the facts! I have also read R. A. McDonald's Kingdom of the Isles, which I greatly enjoyed. Clio the Muse 23:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

September 26

buy stocks

How do I buy stocks? I may want to buy stocks in the future because I want be an investor (a shareholder). Jet (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The following should not be thought of as financial advice. You should do your own research and go with what you feel comfortable with. The following is just my thoughts on the matter: It would probably be best for you to go to a real life stock broker if you have no experience with this such as Edward Jones Investments. The brokers at the company can answer questions for you and have experience to draw from. You could also go through an online broker such as E-Trade but you'll have to do all your own research and the only people to ask questions of are other investors. Dismas|^(talk) 00:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

History

what was the name of the Chinese Minister who Perform over 3000 cermonies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.172.216.68 (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm, could you be thinking of Sun Myung Moon, known for his mass "weddings" (actually, Blessing Ceremonies)? He's actually Korean, though. - Eron ^Talk 03:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Reasons of Supremacy

why shakespeare is popular, because of what reason he become the greatest? tell the thing that you got yourself.Flakture 03:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

1) His plays stand out versus most of his contemporaries as being much better, including complex symbolism and subtle plays on words which they lacked.

2) I also feel that being old has something to do with it. His plays are old enough that the language sounds exotic, yet not so old as to be completely incomprehensible (Old English). I think something similar happened with the Bible, where most people prefer the King James Version, or equivalent, precisely because of the archaic language used ("Thou shalt..."). StuRat 04:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if #2 holds water. What about other plays from that time? They're just as exotic, but nowhere near as popular. Clarityfiend 04:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's where #1 comes into play. StuRat 04:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

#2 is a bit backwards. The reason that type of language (Shakespearean and KJV) is understandable to us is because of its popularity, not the other way around. Those works have shaped the English language as we know it today. If they hadn't been popular, they wouldn't have shaped the language. A lot of scholars have said that he was popular because, to be blunt, a group of guys got together in the 18th century and decided he should be. One major contributor to his influence would be Samuel Johnson, who made the first attempt at what has become the Oxford English Dictionary, as well as prescribing grammar rules to the English language. He was a Shakespeare fan, and added many of Shakespeare's words to the dictionary, giving him credit for them. Johnson's writings have influenced the English language immensely. For example, he is the reason that English, unlike almost all other languages, discourages double negatives. Wrad 05:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

While that may have had an effect, I'd say the primary reason that Shakespeare's language is understandable by us is that many of those words are still in modern usage (although often with different spellings). Thus, the few words that aren't modern can be figured out from the context. This isn't true with Old English, where there are too few words in common with modern English to figure it out. StuRat 16:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And Shakespeare's language is still in modern usage because it's famous. Not the other way around (i.e. Shakespeare is famous because his words are in modern usage). You bring up a good point, though. Old English is not understandable by us because the French took over England in 1066 and drastically changed the English language over a period of time. Shakespeare would probably not be famous if a similar invasion of the language and people of England had occurred between the time he wrote and the present day. Wrad 16:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me give an example. Here's the opening paragraph from A Midsummer Night's Dream:

Now, fair Hippolyta, our nuptial hour
Draws on apace; four happy days bring in
Another moon: but, O, methinks, how slow
This old moon wanes! she lingers my desires,
Like to a step-dame or a dowager
Long withering out a young man's revenue.

Now, I find only about 3 words in that paragraph which I would say are not modern, shown in bold, and they are easily figured out from the context. Most words, like "now", "our", "hour", "draws", "on", "four", "happy", "days", "bring", "in", "another", "but", "how", "slow", "this", "old", "she", "my", "desires", "like", "to", "a", "or", "long", "withering", "out", "young", and "man" would be in modern English whether or not Shakespeare had ever existed or was currently popular. StuRat 16:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

revenue seems to have a forgotten sense here. —Tamfang 19:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and "moon" nowadays doesn't carry any reference to Diana, the goddess of virginity, as it would have done to Shakespeare's audience. AndyJones 19:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Another good point, he wrote for the masses, so he get as cryptic as he could have if he's catered completely to the educated. Wrad 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've always felt that the KJV connection was meaningful: when I first came to Shakespeare the language wasn't alien to me because of the similarity with things I'd heard in church. That's just anecdotal, though, so I cannot source it. Since no-one else has done so, can I direct the original questioner to William Shakespeare#Critical reputation, Shakespeare's reputation, and Timeline of Shakespeare criticism. AndyJones 19:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and we could consider the argument that Shakespeare really does have some merit. The answers you've got so far are a bit like discussions of the merits of Cassius Clay that fail to mention that the guy was a decent boxer. AndyJones 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of his contemporaries remain popular, Christopher Marlowe and Ben Jonson for example. Purely a personal opinion, but I found The Alchemist and Volpone laugh-out-loud funny, which I could not say for any Shakespeare comedy. No accounting for taste. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you know, Flakture, there are sometimes rare moments in time and history, times of upheaval and transition, times of renewal; times that are given particular shape and meaning by the happy coincidence that they fall within the lifetime of an individual of rare genius. The century in which Shakespeare was born was one of profound change; of reformation in religion and reshaping of manners. It was a time when the old Medieval certainties were giving way to new ways of thinking; to a whole range of new attitudes about people and their place both in this world and in the world beyond. Shakespeare was born on the cusp of history, when the focus of history was moving away from the ancient centres of civilization, towards a the new world of the Atlantic seaboard. It was in Shakespeare that the old and the new were combined. He was born at just the right time, when the Gothic world of Medieval Christianity had not quite given way, and when the the modern world had not fully taken shape. It was given to Shakespeare to create that world; to create its consciousness and to create its language.

Think about the nature of drama before Shakespeare. We are dealing, in the main, with character 'types', representing not so much the complexity of human action, but an attitude, either of virtue or of vice; of perfection or corruption; of salvation or damnation. But Shakespeare humanises and combines these attributes in the single individual; in a unique personality, expressed in both in forms of exterior action, and in moods of interior thought. He gives shape to new and more complex forms of human psychology; in weakness and in strength. His greatest contribution is to shape charcters, like that of Hamlet, whose tragedy is one of indecision; or Othello, whose tragedy is one of manipulation; or King Lear, whose tragedy is one of blind pride. They, and so many others of his creations, are 'prefectly inperfect', not bound by time of space, characters who are able to offer someting new, from generation to generation. His 'natural' qualty may not have appealed to the mannered tastes in drama that gained favour after his death; but he was almost bound to speak anew to those who came after; to the Romantic sensibility which emerged in the eighteenth century, when notions of the human begin to acquire their definitive form. If I were to try to define the true greatness of Shakespeare it would be in this: it was he who invented what it means to be mortal, and to stand alone in that mortality.

Shakespeare's time was also that in which the English language, as we understnd it today, is beginning to acquire its final shape and structure. In translating the Bible into English William Tyndale began this process by introducing a whole new range of words and phrases. But Shakespeare surpassed Tyndale as a miner of our language. His vocabulary is simply huge; the words he draws out, the combinations he makes astonishing in their range and power. There are people today, people who have never read Shakespeare, or seen a peformance of one of his plays, who quite unconsciously use words and phrases invented by the Bard. He coined so many new words that it is difficult for me to know where to begin. Did you know, taking just a few at random, that 'into thin air', 'time-honoured', 'be-all and end all', 'breathed his last', 'crack of doom', 'dead as a doornail', 'good riddance' and so many other like expressions, some which people have come to accept as 'proverbial', were all created or first used by Shakespeare? So, too, were words like 'addiction', 'cold-blooded', 'critic', 'denote', 'bedazzled', 'birthplace', 'belongings', 'eventful', 'full-grown', and 'zany', yes, zany. There are too many others to mention here.

Finally, and from a purely English point of view, he might be said to have created a popular sense of patriotism and love of country; a love that goes beyond mere loyalty to the monarch. I am thinking specifically here of John of Gaunt's This England speech from Richard II. The one that moves me most, though, is the speech given by Henry V on the eve of Agincourt, the one I have come to think of as the 'Band of Brothers' speech;

This day is called the feast of Crispian:

He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,

Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,

And rouse him at the name of Crispian.

He that shall live this day, and see old age,

Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,

And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'

Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.

And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'

Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,

But he'll remember with advantages

What feats he did that day: then shall our names.

Familiar in his mouth as household words

Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,

Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,

Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.

This story shall the good man teach his son;

And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,

From this day to the ending of the world,

But we in it shall be remember'd;

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,

This day shall gentle his condition:

And gentlemen in England now a-bed

Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Great speech, great writer, great man. Supreme. Clio the Muse 00:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, he was a good boxer, I mean writer :). I guess a good way to sum up the above is to say that he was intimately aware of the change of his day, and thus was the first to write about what would become commonplace in the future. Wrad 00:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that the themes that occur in Shakespeare's work are the sort of thing that are universal - particularly those on the failings of the human nature. Think of how many of his plays have been adapted into a more modern setting, and how little the plot (and sometimes even the language) gets changed. Confusing Manifestation 03:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Migration of Jews to Palestine after Holocaust.

Hello Wikipedians, Currently I am reading "Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World" by Avi Shlaim. One question which has been lingering on in my mind is : How did so many Jews from all over the world migrate and settle in Palestine (pre 1948 period) ? As mentioned in his book, Avi has pointed that the Jews were spread all over the world , in different countries, living in sort of 'ghettos' after holocaust. But nowhere has he mentioned how so many Jews from so many countries migrated to Palestine, and how they turned the population ratio in favour of Jews? Could anyone please help.

Thanks & Regards, Nikhil. Illogical Programmer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.136.234 (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the question. Are you asking what means of transport they used (ships, trains, etc.), how they could afford it, or why they choose to move ? You might want to check out Zionism for some of their motivations. As for money, many Jews in America financed the formation or the embryonic modern Israel, including immigration. I would expect that most arrived by ship. StuRat 03:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My question deals with : "how they arrived?", and "how they managed to do it?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.136.234 (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sailing from Mediterranean ports, by and large. Read the rather sketchy pages on Berihah and Aliyah Bet. Considerable organizing went on in the DP camps filled with stateless Jews or repatriants (e.g. from the USSR to Poland), many unwilling to return to their countries of origin due to prevaling conditions; I suspect more prospective emigres were in these camps rather than in what the OP calls "sort of 'ghettos'" — read about them in Sh'erit ha-Pletah, the Hebrew name for the Jewish Holocaust survivor community in Europe. -- Deborahjay 07:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You should read Exodus by Leon Uris. Although fictionalized, it goes into the arrival of the Jewish immigrants and how they got to Palestine. Corvus cornix 17:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Modern plays?

What are some of the most important works of twentieth century theatre? Thanks! --S.dedalus 06:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few suggestions, see very sketchy list below. No doubt I'll forget some I'd have included if I'd spent longer on this. It's also worth saying that a lot of good 20th century drama was written for the screen and not the theatre. Xn4 08:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Anton Chekhov: The Cherry Orchard, Three Sisters

• W. B. Yeats: Cathleen Ní Houlihan

• T. S. Eliot: Murder in the Cathedral, The Cocktail Party

• Eugene O'Neill: Long Day's Journey Into Night, Beyond the Horizon

• Arthur Miller: Death of a Salesman

• Christopher Fry: The Lady's Not for Burning

• Edward Albee: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Three Tall Women

• Bertolt Brecht: The Threepenny Opera , Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny, The Seven Deadly Sins, The Caucasian Chalk Circle, The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui

• Thornton Wilder: Our Town, The Skin of Our Teeth

• J. M. Synge: The Playboy of the Western World

• Joe Orton: Entertaining Mr Sloane

• Tennessee Williams: A Streetcar Named Desire, The Glass Menagerie

• Friedrich Dürrenmatt: The Visit

• Harold Pinter: The Caretaker, The Homecoming, Betrayal

• Samuel Beckett: Waiting for Godot, Endgame

• Tom Stoppard: Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, Jumpers, The Coast of Utopia

• Jean-Paul Sartre: No Exit, Les Mains Sales

• Jean Anouilh: Antigone

• Eugène Ionesco: Rhinoceros

• Paul Zindel: The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds

• Peter Shaffer: Equus, The Royal Hunt of the Sun, Amadeus

Afterthoughts: here are a few more... Xn4 20:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Friedrich Dürrenmatt: Romulus the Great

• Luigi Pirandello: Six Characters in Search of an Author

• Dario Fo: Accidental Death of an Anarchist

• Michael Frayn: Copenhagen

• Elfriede Jelinek: Ein Sportstück

He's a little out of fashion now, but George Bernard Shaw was also regarded as a giant among playwrights in his day. Man and Superman, Pygmalion and Saint Joan all date from the 20th century. 80.254.147.52 10:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What kind of king?

Your page on Edward VI of England tells me little about him as a person. He died young, I know, but do we have any indication from his attitudes, outlook or conduct what kind of king he might have made? I look forward to your replies. 81.151.6.223 07:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Words used to describe Edward include priggish, precocious, and fanatical. Some people imagine that he'd have been a variation on his half-sister Mary, the Calvinist King Josiah. I've never been entirely convinced by these comments. Edward still had growing up to do, and who can say how he would have turned out at 21, let alone at 30 or 40. His father is a case in point: Henry at 21 had little in common with Henry at 40. Edward seems in many respects to have been perfectly normal, with a great liking for sports, and precocity is to be expected from child-rulers. No doubt he'd have done things differently to Mary and Elizabeth. As a king, rather than a queen, and without an unpopular Spanish husband or the threat of Mary of Scotland to worry him, he'd have had many advantages that his half-sisters did not. And when he felt then need, he'd have had the useful opportunity to dispose of any advisors he didn't care for, and to gain popular acclaim for doing so. It's hard to see John Dudley prospering in the long run under any ruler but Queen Jane. One major difference, if Edward managed to produce children (who would he marry?), is that Union of the Crowns would not happen. In this H-net review of Richard Rex's The Tudors, we read that

In a refreshing change from the usual reanimations of Mary Tudor that sometimes appear in accounts of the English Reformation, Rex goes on to speculate counter-factually that if Edward VI had lived into his fifties like his father and grandfather, England would have become a staunchly Protestant nation of the Scottish variety. This Protestant England might even have brought about the complete triumph of Protestantism north of the Alps and the Pyrenees.

Might be worth a look. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Edward's Journal is highly instructive; a guide, in many ways, to the kind of man that he was likely to become; priggish, yes, but he shows a good understanding of the realities of politics; forms of understanding that would not have been out of place in his father. There is, for example, a strong indication that he could have saved his uncle and guardian Edward Seymour from execution, if he had so wished. He did not. Somerset had ruled like a monarch, ignoring and neglecting Edward. For the young king this was the unpardonable offence. It is after the fall of Somerset that Edward begins to develop even greater maturity and political understanding, evidenced by the ever more detailed observations he makes in the Journal. His new guardian, John Dudley, Earl of Warwick, later Duke of Northumberland, was obviously aware that the young king could not be entirely disregarded. He adopted none of Somerset's pretensions, and appointed a council that was consistent with Edward's views on religion, with none of 'the Catholic sort.' The Imperial ambassador himself was to note that the king was being granted ever greater freedom. In 1552 he made his first proper showing as an active monarch in a progress through the south of England. Matters were going so well, and Edward showing such aptitude, that the Council agreed that he should assume complete responsibility for government of the kingdom in October 1553, his sixteenth birthday.

So, Edward had the understanding and ability, and many of the other qualities associated with his father, including imperiousness, fully demonstrated in his handling of his elder sister, Mary. Would he have made a good monarch? On the basis of the evidence we have the answer has to be yes, he may very well have. Better, I think, than one sister, though not, perhaps quite as great as the other. Clio the Muse 01:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Health insurance

Why is it that health insurance is tied to employment? I'm thinking specifically about the U.S. here, by the way. Why don't employers just drop health insurance and expect everyone to get their own insurance through some independant source? (Assuming of course that companies could get away with just getting rid of insurance as a benefit without pissing a bunch of people off) I can see the correlation between providing a 401k and your employer but not health insurance since it's not really tied directly to your pay check. Dismas|^(talk) 08:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In the current U.S. market, people trying to buy health insurance as individuals are pretty much guaranteed to get screwed, so the only way to go is group plans of some kind... AnonMoos 15:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Health insurance is seen as a major benefit by employees. While they may be willing to take a job without it when young and single, once married with kids they will likely quit that job and go for a position with health insurance, if possible. Thus, employers who want to avoid all the problems caused by a high turnover rate must offer health insurance. You might ask why the employers can't just pay more so the employees can obtain insurance on their own. They could, but would likely have to pay twice as much as they are paying for insurance, if paid to employees as salary. This is due to tax implications and the high rates anyone gets quoted when applying for insurance alone. StuRat 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

During World War II, the govt instituted wage freezes to get inflation under control, so businesses invented health benefits as a backdoor way to increase wages. Meelar (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Group purchasing can often get you cheaper rates than individual purchasing. 20,000 staff buying a scheme V 1 person...Who is the seller going to give preferential rates to? Additionally some businesses will underwrite their own schemes (Nestle used to run its own in-house life insurance I understand), which can reduce costs too. Private health insurance is popular, and the more 'direct' customers there are then the more that it is likely to see cost reductions, but you will plausibly pay for the 'flexibility' that such a plan offers you (less hassle when changing jobs/consistent etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ny156uk (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is Facebook worth $10billion?

So Microsoft is rumored to buy 5% of Facebook for $0.5 billion, meaning the whole thing is worth $10 billion. Facebook's profit was $30 million, that makes a p/e of 300. Why is it worth so much? F 10:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Data mining. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 11:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's also a bit of a stretch to say it is worth $10 billion. Microsoft is just trying to get a way in so they can start data mining and the like. They can't buy the whole thing. So they're paying more than you'd expect for just a little piece of it, which will no doubt come with the data mining rights they want. Extrapolating from that 5% to a total net worth sounds like a leap in logic to me. --24.147.86.187 13:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is common in the business world to purchase something for what you expect to make off it in three years. Basically, Microsoft expects to make $500 million off Facebook in the next three years. After that investment, it is profit. They are not, in any way, claiming that Facebook could profit in the same way. They are only demonstrating a believe that Microsoft can profit from what they've purchased. -- kainaw™ 15:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well essentially there is a lot of believe that the future worth/earnings of Facebook are high. As a result the price is driven up as there are more buyers (i.e. those wanting to buy/invest in facebook) than sellers (there is but one facebook for sale). As with any estimation of a business' worth it is very much guess-work and future-gazing. Like you say the price-earnings ratio if the figures are correct is ridiculously high, but you'll find that they can quickly come down as the business progresses from being a start-up to being a full corporation intent on squeezing whatever profit they can...(which I hasten to add I don't believe is a bad thing). ny156uk 17:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Also remember the Internet bubble. It is not uncommon for errors to be made in high priced deals. Somebody thinks they see a way to profit or synergize by merger, buy-in, downsizing, etc. and convince decision makers. A few years later stakeholders find out they were wrong. Maybe Microsoft paid too much. We should know for sure in a few years, then it will be history, not investing. 8) Lazyquasar 06:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

South American incident

I came across a tantalizing reference to some 'gun-boat diplomacy' in South America early last century which seemingly involved the brother and nephew of the English writer Rider Haggard, the author of King Solomon's Mines. I know this is a really vague background but can anyone fill me in here? Bel Carres 11:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bel, try to get a hold of Gunboats, Corruption, and Claims: Foreign Intervention in Venezuela, 1899-1908 by B. S. McBeth. Alternatively,-and for the specific episode you allude to here-there is Crisis in Caracas by Anthony Delano, which you will find in the January 2006 issue of the BBC History Magazine. William Haggard, the elder brother of H Rider Haggard, became the British minister to Venezuela in 1897, where he was joined in Caracas by his nephew Godfrey, the son of a third brother, who took up a position as an unpaid clerk. Soon after his arrival Cipriano Castro became president of Venezuela, a position he was to hold until 1909. As colourful and as controversial in his own way as our own dear Hugo Chavez, Castro defaulted on the country's foreign debts. In 1902, in a rare show of mutual co-opreration, England and Germany sent naval squadrons to Venezuela to bring President Castro to a more 'reasonable' frame of mind, a wonderful example of pre-war gunboat diplomacy. The whole 'rattling yarn' was recorded by Godfrey in his own eye-witness account, parts of which were later incorporated into his unpublished autobiography. Clio the Muse 02:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How were women slaves treated in the Ancient world?

Most wars in the ancient Greek and Roman world ended witht he defeated female population being enslaved. My question is how did the experiance vary? The women reduced to slavery included aristocrats, princesses and queens. The status varies from concubine and mistress to essentially legal wife. In some accounts the women were basically concubines and were treated fairly well and bore children. Hector's wife for example eventually ended up Queen. Others like Cassandra for example were raped and reduced to essentially the status of sex slave. So what was the general experiance of female slaves in the classical world? --Jbs073 14:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

We have articles on Slavery in antiquity and Slavery in ancient Greece... AnonMoos 15:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

question that has no answer

If I ask "what was the universe like before it was created" (simple example) - it has no answer...

What is the name of this type of question? (Specifically one that is not covered by a priori knowledge)87.102.32.155 15:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC) (Also have I used the term 'a priori' correctly here?)87.102.32.155 15:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV - The universe wasn't created. It is infinite in time and space. The Big Bang simplified - First of all there was nothing which suddenly exploded into everything. Lanfear's Bane 15:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No.no.no. It's not a question about the universe - but about the type of question..87.102.32.155 15:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And how exactly is your opinion of how the universe was created a "neutral point of view"?87.102.32.155 18:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, your question is rather unclear. Contradictory question? Rhetorical question? Or are you looking for the trademarked term, Imponderables? By the way I believe the "answer" to the example question is Wú...Also, instead of removing other's answers as not what you're looking for, maybe you could leave them up so people know what you're not looking for; clarifying your original question might help also.38.112.225.84 16:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks 'imponderable' is a good discription - I was thinking maybe a ' ... fallacy' but what exactly?87.102.32.155 18:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think people are confused because if this question is about a word for something, you should have asked it on the language desk. Anyway, I would call such a question meaningless, invalid, or even nonsensical (although nonsensical would better describe questions such as What is the difference between a duck?). I don't think a question can be "contradictory", and this is definitely not a "rhetorical question". —Keenan Pepper 17:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there not a philosophical term for this type of question - in relation to logical reasoning?87.102.32.155 18:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Something like it being 'tautologically incorrect'?87.102.32.155 18:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think paradoxical might work. At the very least, the article on Paradox might help give you some ideas. ◄Zahakiel► 18:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, Keenan, "a question containing a logical contradiction", better? Or, how about, "a question that is self-contradictory"? And, you can't possibly imagine a scenario whereby the example question would be posed rhetorically? Because, I can. No need to answer any of these. 87.102- Self-refuting? You might be out of luck if your searching for some super specific industry jargon; if I recall, philosopher's are big on coining their own terms and/or redefining existing terms to mean whatever they want. Maybe read all of Wittgenstein and see if you come across it...good luck. 38.112.225.84 19:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There's also the term 'non-question'. Publilius Syrus said "Not every question deserves an answer". The librarian Robert Hauptman quoted this and added: "Not every question has an answer. The unraveling of the non-question seems to be beyond many patrons and librarians." Xn4 19:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe over-complicating this, are you by any chance looking for fallacy of complex question (loaded question). Could work I suppose... 38.112.225.84 20:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Public opinion in Stalin's Russia

Like the Gestapo in Germany the NKVD kept a close watch on public attitudes in the 1930s. Can I have some examples of what they uncovered? Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.241.224 (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

See NKVD. Xn4 01:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Everyday Stalinism-Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s by Shiela Fitzpatrick, especially Chapter 7, headed Conversations and Listeners. It's really quite fascinating. Some of the conversations overheard reveal a deep sense of hostility towards the regime. At the time of the Kirov murder in 1934 a sailor was arrested for saying "I am not sorry for Kirov. Let them kill Stalin. I will not be sorry for him." One nine-yeat old schoolboy said "Down with Soviet power. When I grow up I will kill Stalin." Some of the comments reported about international politics are also highly revealing. If this can be believed-and remember we are dealing here with the NKVD-there was a lot of admiration for Hitler and the Nazis. One student said, "The Fascists are constructing socialism in a peaceful way. Hitler and the Fascists are clever people." In the hungry winter of 1936-7, when there were serious bread shortages, admiration for Hitler increased all the more-"If Hitler takes power, it will be better for Russia. Only Hitler can give life to the people." Anyway, 86.151, you will find all of this and more besides in Fitzpatrick's book. Clio the Muse 02:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Manchurian Human Rights

Hello. I seem to be having some trouble finding information on the human rights violations of Japan while they were controlling Manchuria in the 1930's. I know they used brutal tactics against the people living there to keep control of Manchuria. Does anybody know anymore about this? Thank you!

For your start, see Invasion of Manchuria, Manchukuo, Pacification of Manchukuo, and (closely related) Nanking Massacre. They have links to a mass of other material which will help you. Xn4 01:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Does anybody else know anything about this topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.200.184 (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the better article in this case is Japanese war crimes. Out of all those articles I think most of it's covered...I can't spot anything that seems really incomplete, other than the rather stubbish War crimes in Manchukuo, but most of the info that would go here is probably already contained in the ones cited above. Another useful article might be Unit 731. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 06:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey and Jane Addams71.110.231.96 22:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have the extensive material you have on Jane Addams, her father, and her famous Hull House, along with all her amazing accomplishments. With all her documentation and "surveying" of specific populations and their environments, is it safe to conclude that this amazing woman can be associated with having given "birth" and validation to the Survey? I realize the Philadelphia Survey is thought to be the most famous survey of its time, but, with all Hull House's documented surveys, is it reasonable for me to assume this?

History of U.S. photography

am trying to find the name of the first known person to take a photograph (daguerreotype or otherwise) in the Rocky Mountains or western United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

According to this, it was John Mix Stanley. -- kainaw™ 22:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Exclusivism

What was the policy of exclusivism? This policy is one in relation to the Arawaks/Ovando administration etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.106.147 (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is Silyum?

Silyum (Silio, Silyensis) is one of the seats of titular bishop ([8]). Hence it should be a real place. Yet I cannot find where is once was. Any help would be appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't find it, but it sounds as if it might have been in Anatolia? Xn4 00:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Modern Patara is in Antalya Province, and was also in Pamphilia, so I wonder if it could be Serik? That article says there was a Pergamene colony called Sillion (in Greek I assume) near the site of the modern city. Seems quite plausible that that would be Italianised as Silio. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This cut-out of a map of Antalya Province shows a historic site Sillyon near Serik. Nearby historic Aspendos and Perge are also titular sees.[9][10]  --Lambiam 04:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A Greek -on ending is often correlated to a Latin -um or -us ending for names, and Italian -o, so Silion makes sense as your target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steewi (talk • contribs) 05:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

September 27

Canadian Government

What are the three levels of Government in CANADA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.48.196 (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Canada 2. Provinces and territories of Canada 3. Local government in Canada Xn4 01:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

directed change

were there any directed change during the colonization and forced slavery in North America? Please give me some answers, people. I just wanted if there were. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.134.89 (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I did see your earlier question(s), 76.64, though did not respond because, quite frankly, it is not at all clear to me what you are looking for. OK, so let's slow down just a little and take it stage by stage. What country is it that you are interested in? Is it, say, Mexico under the Spanish or North America under the British or after independence? Is the slavery you refer to the import of Africans or the enslavement of native peoples? What do you mean, exactly, by 'directed change'? As it stands I simply have no idea what this might refer to. Is it to do with blending and assimilation of different cultural traditions, or are you interested in attempts by slave owners to eradicate values and practices of which they did not approve? If you could just try to make things a little clearer I might be able to help. Finally, I would ask you to note that 'forced slavery' is a tautology, using two words to say essentially the same thing. Can you conceive of 'voluntary' slavery? Clio the Muse 02:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm. Didn't some early Christians have an odd habit of selling themselves into slavery? Some forms of 'bonded' labour (indentured servants) in North America might have amounted to much the same, though for a fixed period? Xn4 03:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, selling oneself into (and buying oneslf out of) slavery was common in the ancient world, in Greece, Rome and China. Moses Finley has a book or two discussing it IIRC.John Z 07:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

legal fiction

I'm half-remembering one of Sarah Caudwell's legal/detective novels (i think), in which part of the plot involves trying to work out, after the trustees in the know have died, who the actual beneficiary of a trust was meant to be – because (according to the story) in English law the residual beneficiary named in a trust instrument need not be the actual beneficiary. (To add spice, the named residual beneficiary was someone who might find the legacy politically embarrassing.) I'm aware that this doesn't entirely make sense. Does anyone recognize the story I'm thinking of? —Tamfang 04:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like The Shortest Way to Hades. Xn4 04:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Effect of China's one-child policy on the world

If China would have not had its one-child policy, how many Chinese would there be now and what effect would that have on the world economy (and ecology, specifically climate change). And are there other national policies (in China or other countries) that have had a similarly large side-effect on world economy and climate change? by side-effect I mean that the policy wasn't specifically economic and/or intended to have a world-wide effect. DirkvdM 07:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Decline of the Papacy

The Medieval papacy had considerable temporal as well as spiritual power. Can the decline be dated to any particular period or any particular pope? 81.129.86.84 07:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

middle English punctuation?

What's the function of the divider in this middle English Quote? "And thenne the foxe beganne to lawhe and to scorne hym | and sayd to hym | O mayster goote | yf thow haddest be wel wyse with thy fayre berde | or euer thow haddest entryd in to the welle | thow sholdest fyrst haue taken hede | how thow sholdest haue comen oute of hit ageyne." Some kind of punctuation?