Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

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

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

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

November 10

French Revolution

How did the blue, white, and red become the colours of the French Revolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.79 (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

see Flag of France, though as with all such ex-post-facto explanations, there's a certain amount of bogusness in them.... - Nunh-huh 02:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It was just an idea that came out of the blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.4.1 (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

French Revolution 2

How does Mme. Defarge embody the French Revolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.79 (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the book! - Nunh-huh 02:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if you have only read the page you have linked, 76.64, you should already have some idea that Dickens intends her to represent the spirit of revenge, of the destructive chaos which accompanied the Revolution, expressed at its fullest during the Reign of Terror. Clio the Muse 02:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

thread tracking

The Wikipedia is designed to provide thread tracking based on user name. Although most topics covered here are not sensitive, is it possible that at sometime in the future a persons name could be connected to their user name and all of their opinions, questions, and comments revealed? If so shouldn't a warning be provided to new users that except for their real name not being connected to their user name that everything they do on the Wikipedia is tracked, including far more detail than would be necessary to make even the SS not ask for more? Dichotomous 03:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, Wikipedia is pretty explicit about tracking contributions, revision histories, etc. Anything people submit to any websites is potentially "trackable" and people should exercise common sense about it. In any case, I'm not sure why knowing people's opinions, questions, and comments is so scary. People are offering the opinions, questions, and comments up freely. Whether those opinons, questions, and comments correlate to their "real life identity" is entirely a separate issue at times, and one which pertains to how much they make public about their "real life identity". In any case, on the bottom of the "create a new account" screen it does say: "Your username will frequently appear publicly on the site; editors who use their real names have sometimes been subjected to harassment. See the pros and cons of using your real name." Since all of the above information pertains to being able to connect your real name to your user name, as a whole that warning should suffice, no? --24.147.86.187 04:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Dichotomous will correct me if I am wrong, I am sure, but I believe the point is more about if or when one's real-life identity is attached to one's Wikipedia name, then everything one has ever written here is immediately available in a way that is not even that easy in one's own, personal email files, for example. If the opinions one expresses on Wikipedia are the same opinions expressed in real life, and they are also addressed in real life to a very large and public audience, then that person has no concerns. Even with the warnings at registration, how many editors write either extreme forms of their opinions or just extreme opinions, whether or not such are held in real life? I seem to recall reading about someone who was refused entry into either Canada or the US because of a comment on Wikipedia linked to his name, though made by someone else. How much more damaging could some of the risks we take here be on our real-life situations? For most of us, there is no problem. We say here what we would say in our daily lives, and with the same force and (lack of) openness. For others, however, this is not true, or perhaps, will not be true in the future. What 16-year-old, of whom there are many vocal representatives here in Wikipedia, knows how a careless or angry comment could colour the rest of his/her life. Would those of us who are now, say, over 35, want to be held accountable for, or just held to, all the opinions we had at 16? (I certainly wouldn't. My taste in poetry alone, while not likely to cause me to lose a job, or be put on trial, would certainly be an embarrassment.) (Before all the 16-year-olds reading this start writing rebuttals about their opinions and tastes, I grant you that I may have been the exception and that today's 16-year-olds may be so much more sophistciated than they were in my era, that everything they write today will be relevent in the same way 25 years from now. However, just in case that isn't true . . .) Wikipedia is not like writing in a diary, or writing to a circle of close friends; it is like standing on the front steps of the town hall with a microphone and a brass band, hollering "Hear ye! Hear ye!" Having said all that, I can't think of any wording of a warning or any reminders, short of flashing lights on every page, that will keep those who talk/write first, and think later, from possibly doing themselves, and frequently others, harm. There is no real anonymity here, or anywhere else. Bielle 05:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure all of us will say things under the cloak of anonymity that we might not say under our real name, be they negative or positive. In fact, the opportunity for anonymity is one of the great attractions in my opinion of sites that support the use of a user names (most sites). Its just that on other sites I can erase what I have said so that there is no official trace (although a post I have made and want to erase may have already been quoted by another user). On the Wikipedia all traces of everything including minor punctuation errors are recorded in absolute detail and permanently for all posterity whether you want it to be or not. The question I'm asking is whether new users have sufficient warning that this is in fact the case in light of the possibility, if not likelihood, that a connection between real and user name could at some time in the future be made. Dichotomous 16:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there is no warning of any kind. Whether that is "sufficient warning" (based on the assumption that everyone ought to be aware already that essentially the whole net is an open book) or not, I don't know, but I have my doubts about the effectiveness of any explicit warning. I see people post the most amazing things under their own names that I'm sure (or in any case sure hope) they will be embarrassed about in a couple of years. There may be good reasons for not leaving clues about your identity: rhere have been cases of Wikipedians who were harassed in real life for their contributions on Wikipedia by people who found out their real identities; for some information that is generally accepted in most of the world, revealing it is considered treason in some not fully democratic countries; and there are people here who sympathize with violent extremist groups. That is, however, largely independent of the ease with which all contributions of a given user can be examined.  --Lambiam 22:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You could always get a bureaucrat to change your username to something anonymous. This applies retrospectively to your contributions. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Right to vanish. --Dweller 10:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Indian politics

What is Prime Ministers Manmohan Singhs opinion on Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale?

Thank you

77.105.15.153 03:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Health Care in South Africa

I am looking for resources relating to the history of health care in South Africa. I am especially interested in the differences between health care in the apartheid era and today. Thanks!

76.101.127.148 05:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Stalin the agent

Is it true that Stalin was an agent for the tsarist secret police? Stockmann 06:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This story was broken by Life magazine in April 1956, three years after Stalin's death. Life had got hold of a photograph of a letter which appeared to have been written by a Colonel Eremin in 1913, claiming that Stalin had been an agent and police informer during the years 1906-1912. You can read about the affair here. The trouble is, in such a repressive society as Russia was in the early 20th century, few people in political life completely trusted anyone, and there were always a mass of rumours and fabrications. Stalin was notorious for bending the truth about his past. No doubt it would have suited all kinds of people, both at the time and later, to claim that Josef Vissarionovich had been a secret agent for the police, but it must be at least possible, and there are historians who say that whether the Eremin letter is genuine or not, there is enough other circumstantial evidence to mean that what the letter says is probably about right. We know that Stalin (as he later became) joined a socialist group before leaving the Tiflis Seminary in 1899 (or else before being expelled from it, depending on who you believe), that he soon became active in socialist politics, and that between 1902 and 1917 he was sent off to Siberia several times. Some of the few reliable sources for Stalin's early life are police reports, but even they are doubtful.

I'll be interested to see what Clio has to say about this, she knows a lot about Stalin. Xn4 16:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an old, old story, Xn4 and Stockmann, an accusation first raised by the Menshevik Isidore Ramishvili as far back as 1905. The accusation made its way down the years. It was later alleged that the file compiled on Stalin by the Okhrana, the Tsarist secret police, passed round the Party in the 1920s, and that he even instigated the Great Terror to eliminate all those who were aware of his dubious background. It is all nonsense, of course. There is no reliable evidence to suggest that Stalin was ever a Tsarist agent. It is true that the Okhrana had agents among the Bolsheviks and other left-wing factions, operating at all levels. But they were only effective for as long as they were undetected and at liberty. Stalin was imprisoned and exiled too frequently to have been a police agent. Indeed, he spent the whole of the Great War right up the February Revolution of 1917 in Siberia, a time when his services as an informer would have been most productive. However, this is not to say that he did not make use of the Okhrana as an instrument for his own ends. Josef Vissarionovich, or Soso, or Koba, or Stalin, was one of the most unscrupulous men who ever lived; part gangster, part intellectual, part hitman, part revolutionary. There was literally nothing he would stop at in pursuit of his political ends; and if this meant dropping a Menshevik or two into the lap of the Okhrana, well, so be it. It might even be suggested that far from working for the Okhrana, the Okhrana was working for him. For those who are interested in this question I would warmly recommend Simon Sebag Montefiore's Young Stalin (2007) particularly Part II Chapter 25, headed 'The Milkman: Was Stalin a Tsarist Agent?' Clio the Muse 03:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Clio, I haven't seen the book you recommend, Young Stalin, but I've put it on my list. I was cautious of giving an opinion above because I'm not well enough informed, but everything you say rings true with me. Being what he was, it's hard to believe Stalin wouldn't have shopped people to the Okhrana when it suited him. Xn4 09:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You may also be interested, Xn4, in Montefiore's earlier work Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar, which deals with the later part of his career. It's a superb piece of scholarship. Clio the Muse 23:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Clio, I'll have a go at that, too. (It might amuse you, by the side of my bed I've got The Last Voyage of the Valentina, one of Santa Montefiore's entertainments!) Xn4 00:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just the thing to 'ski' you into the land of dreams! Clio the Muse 01:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

French Revolution 3

In the context of the revolution what or who was the Indulgents?Fearless Frodo 12:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In short, they were a 'moderate' (that is, less extreme) faction of French revolutionaries, represented in the Jacobin Club by such men as Danton and Desmoulins. The term is thought to have been coined early in 1794 by Robespierre, after Danton (alarmed by the extremes of the Reign of Terror) had suggested setting up a Committee of Clemency. Xn4 15:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. But wasn't Danton originally in favour of the terror? What was it that made him turn against it? What were the political or ideological factors that made him change his mind? What purpose did the terror have and when did this purpose cease to be important in his mind? Sorry so many questions. Thanks for your help.Fearless Frodo 19:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by The Terror. It's going too far to say that Danton was originally in favour of it if by 'The Terror' you mean the full horror of what developed. He was a mover in the setting up of the Revolutionary Tribunal, and the aims of that included ending the excesses of the Paris mob. He was also one of the founding members of the Committee of Public Safety. In the event, the Revolutionary Tribunal promoted the Terror, but Danton wasn't one of the enthusiastic supporters of its extremes in the way that the odious Hébert and his 'Madmen' (Enragés or Exagérés) were. Xn4 00:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, Danton was indeed one of proponents of terror as a political instrument, one that he believed was needed in the face of the emergency the revolution faced, both at home and abroad. It was he who was the driving force behind the September massacres; it was he who coined the slogan "Terror is the order of the day", which he announced before the Convention But, as I have said, for Danton Terror was an instrument for dealing with the exceptional; it was not an end in itself. When the emergency receded, as it did after the victories at Hondschoote and the Wattignies, the imperative for the Terror had been removed. Clio the Muse 02:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the crunch point here is that Danton (one of the more thoughtful lovers of terror) suggested setting up a Committee of Clemency, which led to Robespierre using the word indulgent. The Terror had just run out of control. Xn4 09:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy books

Hi. I've not long acquired a load of philosphy books from a relative, titles by Hegel, Collingwood, Kant, Bergson, Sartre, Wittgenstein, Husserl and so on. I would like to read them but am not quite sure where to start. Should I do so by nationality, chronological order, what? Thanks for any advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.15.130 (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You definitely don't have the easiest to read there. Maybe going through the wikipedia articles about these authors might inform your reading. I would see 2 approaches here. 1.) You either want to make your own opinion of these authors and studiously read them in chronological order (since most of these could be classified as part of the phenomenology school of thought they refer a lot to each other if not always directly) and read critics and commentaries on them afterwards to further understand (and for some of them to just simply understand what they are on about). 2.)Or you would like a better understanding of philosophy in general through reading the authors and as such I would recommend you read a small history of philosophy book or college textbook to place your authors in a context without which they might seem irrelevant. You might even want to get companion books, i.e. books written by commentators to read along yours to better understand their meaning. Note that this will very much influence your reading as when you will be going through your books you will often be looking for what you know already of these authors instead of interpreting yourself what you read. The second approach I think is the easiest and most efficient but it might take some of the sense of discovery out of your reading. The first approach is the hardest but I would say the most rewarding and most "brain training" of the two, it runs the risk of putting you off these complicated texts though. Happy reading! Keria 14:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Without context, these will make tough reading. I recommend the novel Sophie's World as a companion- it's engaging, amusing, and functions as an entry-level history of philosophy; it might help you make the connections that will help you make use of your philosophy collection. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you a mountaineer, 217.43? Sorry, you probably think that is an odd question, but if you know anything about mountaineering you will undestand that beginners should start the sport gently. They should not be sent off to climb the Himalayas! Now, on the assumption that you are a total novice, with no background at all in metaphysics, epistimology and ontology, you are about to climb the philosophical equivalent of the Himalayas! I would hate to see you fall at the first obstacle; and without a guide the obstacles are virtually insurmountable. I think your best course of action, before you open a single page of the books you have, is to get a hold of a good introduction to philosophical issues. Some years ago I read Anthony Flew's Thinking about Thinking, which I greatly enjoyed. There are other such general works which will provide you with good grounding in the subject, the thread of Ariadne to see you through the labyrinth. And watch out for the minotaur! Clio the Muse 02:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions so far. I would only add that if you're determined to read the books "as they are" without a companion guide or something, you may find the Wittgenstein stuff a bit more accessible to you. While the concepts are just as 'out there' as any other philosopher's, he at least uses straightforward English when he can. probably comes from his time with Russell. Matt Deres 17:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll disagree that Wittgenstein is a good place to start, if you don't know what he's on about. Without the proper context, it's difficult to know what to make of his almost cryptic language. "The world is everything that is the case." Sure, the language is simple, but the ideas are deceptively not-so. And then agree with Clio and add Think, by Simon Blackburn, as a nice primer to what is contained in those books. Llamabr 02:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Last Letter Home

An article in the MEN contains this section about a soldier who was killed by a landmine in Afghanistan:

Ronnie and Sheryl Downes also revealed the emotional contents of Tony's last letter home.

In the letter he wrote that he `did what he had to do' and added: "Please do not be mad at what has happened. I did what I had to do and serving the British Army was it.

"I am up in heaven looking down on you all. I will always be there with you. "Again, don't be sad. Celebrate my life because I love you and I will see you all again.""

My question is, do soldiers prepare some special 'last letter home' to be sent in the event of their death, or had he just written this expecting that he would die? This isn't really about this particular soldier, more about military practice in general. Obviously I'm asking from a UK perspective, but insight into other countries' practices is welcome as well. Skittle 14:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It would depend on each soldier, of course. In this particular case, as I recall from previous coverage, this was written in a letter he had prepared to be read in the event of his death, rather than as literally the last letter he wrote home. -- Arwel (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As writing such letters is rather morbid and demoralising, I shouldn't think it's a practice any military institution encourages. FiggyBee 05:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Companies giving shares to employees

If a company gives shares to an employee (eg. a new director), from where do they acquire them? Are they just bought on the open market? If so, why not just give the employees more money? Is it a backdoor trick to push the share prices up? 203.221.127.81 14:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to issue new shares with the agreement of a majority of shareholders, and I believe that this is the typical method of arranging employee stock option plans. Creating new shares out of thin air naturally reduces the value of existing shares - see stock dilution. 84.239.133.38 11:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Today, most stock-option plans are a part of the intial purchase offering (IPO) approval obtained from the local stock exchange. (I write specifically about Canada here, but I believe the principles apply elsewhere.) The company, as part of its approval, will have an authorized number of shares and an issued number of shares, where the former is the larger number. These excess shares are kept in the corporate treasury which was once a carefully controlled vault filled with actual, numbered share certificates. Now, the share certificates are notional, for the most part, the holding and tranfers being all electronic records. The "authorized but unissued shares" will be limited to a specific number and designated for a specific purpose, of which employee stock-purchase plans are one potential use. The number and purpose will have been approved by both the stock exchange and the shareholders. Once these two elements are approved, the actual process of distribution of those shares is a matter for the board of directors. Only if the number of shares required to meet the needs of the plan eventually exceed the number of "authorized but unissued" shares held in the corporate treasury will the board of directors have to go back to both the shareholders and the stock exchange to get approval to issue more shares. The company may also buy back its own shares on the open market to meet such needs, but this is rarely the case. The local stock exchange has to be notified of such an activity, but I am not sure whether it must also approve it. The board of directors certainly must approve.

A stock-option plan usually gives employees a right to buy shares at a certain price, generally at or below market at a specific point in time, but the option is usually open for a period of time, sometimes exceeding multiple years. If the market price of the shares goes up, and the option is still open, employees can buy at the offered price. Some buy and hold, others buy and then immediately sell them on the open market. (Employees are constrained in doing the latter, except at specific times of the year, if they are an officer or owner of the company, or, I think, on its board; most other employees, who are not deemed to have insider information, may sell at any time.) The stock offering is given to employees as a bonus that, unlike mere money, also gives the added incentive to make the company a better, more productive place so that their own personal share capital will grow. That's a really indirect way of increasing the share price, and while a good thing, it is not likely to have an short-term effect on share prices. Buying up stock to meet a stock-option plan would be a very long process and also not likely to have any immediate effect, or perhaps even any effect at all, given the current regulatory climate. Bielle 18:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

History Role Playing Games

Does anyone know of any good role playing games (RPGs) with an historical theme, especially based on Ancient Rome? I'm not interested in those combat simulation games, with geeky figurines and all that, but rather ones that capture the historical essence of a period, and compel the player to learn something about the times in order to succeed. In short, I want an education in history in the form of an RPG (to make it interactive, and to encourage my apathetic friends to play). Any ideas, or similar suggestions are most welcome. 203.221.127.81 14:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• You could start here [1] - No idea if any are any good - have a read of the PDF files. Exxolon 19:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How about this one? [2] Exxolon 19:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I'd imagine that historical rpgs that are aiming for anything like accuracy are extremely deadly to PCs. Without modern medicine or magical healing, any injury is potentially lethal due to infection, the mechanisms of which were not properly understood until the mid 1800s. Not to mention disease, parastic infection and a host of other problems. Since a lot of RPGs have at least some element of danger (combat etc) in them I'd imagine you'd spend a lot of time dying in a historical RPG! Exxolon 19:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, or not actually fighting as much as one would want to in a game. --24.147.86.187 21:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about a computer RPG based on Roman history (been looking for one myself, please let me know if you've found one), but have you had a look at Rome: Total War? It's an RTS game with some RPG elements (which might not be quite what you're looking for), and its depiction of Roman history is pretty flawed in several respects, but the basic atmosphere of trying to manage an empire in classical antiquity is pretty well done, and it allows you to learn quite a bit about ancient history while playing. I think I can say I've played pretty much every Rome-themed game on the PC, and Rome: Total War was the only one that made me feel like reliving a bit of Roman history while playing. -- Ferkelparade π 02:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those suggestions. I'm definitely interested in dice games rather than computer games. Any further suggestions welcome. 203.221.127.56 17:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in dredging up a copy of The Republic of Rome. — Lomn 14:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lomn. Not a RPG but not a heavy war game either.Polypipe Wrangler 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The Thinker

The other day, in the Yale University Art Gallery, I came across a statue by Auguste Rodin called The Thinker. There was no reason to believe that it is a replica, as it was surrounded by works of Monet, Van Gogh, and the like. Our article on The Thinker make no reference of a cast existing at Yale. Is this a shortcoming of our article or is there another explanation? Plasticup ^T/C 16:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I found the following reference on the Yale University Art Gallery website [3], using its "Search" function:

... A group of bronze sculptures by Jean (Hans) Arp, Max Ernst, Alberto Giacometti, Henri Matisse, Isamu Noguchi, and Auguste Rodin, among others, lent by a private collector. ... [4]

I couldn't get the link at the end of the text to work, but I assume that the statue you saw is perhaps one of the many versions done by Rodin, or other copies. Bielle 19:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So he made several miniature casts of the larger, more famous work? Plasticup ^T/C 19:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No the original was small - it is on top of The Gates of Hell doorway. Rmhermen 22:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Which Castle?

I've just seen Elizabeth-the Golden Years. In it Mary Queen of Scots is shown imprisoned in Fotheringay Castle, a really dramatic looking building by a lake. Your article on Fotheringay says there is very little left, so it's obviously not the same place. My question is what and where is the castle depicted in the movie? Also can some of the history buffs here tell me if the movie is accurate or not in its depiction of people and events? 217.43.9.117 17:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your second question, I've not seen the film myself, but if it's anything like its predecessor, I wouldn't bet on it being accurate beyond (very) broad brushstrokes. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Imdb gives the filming locations on this page, the only castle on the list is the one at Eilean Donan. The film has come under fire from a number of quarters for inaccuracies including this article - Catholics condemn 'twisted' Elizabeth film. Foxhill 17:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There is also a list of inaccuracies in our article on the film at Elizabeth: The Golden Age#Dramatic licence. Foxhill 17:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen it either, but she was executed at Fotheringay Castle - just not imprisoned there. Presumably, it was in a better state of repair back then than it is now. -- JackofOz 23:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the castle is indeed Eilean Donan in the Highlands of Scotland. Like the movie, the castle itself is a fiction, or a fantasy recreation. The original Eilean Donan was destroyed by naval bombardment in 1719. Not long before it had, ironically, been occupied by Spanish troops, part of a mini Jacobite Armada. The building shown in the movie is a twentieth century recreation. Elizabeth? Enjoy the drama; ignore the history. Clio the Muse 02:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Norman Mailer

After reading Norman Mailer's obituary, I did some very quick research ... and I could not find an answer to this question. Does anyone know why his (clearly) non-fiction book The Executioner's Song (which details the crime, trial, and execution of real-life murderer Gary Gilmore) would be awarded a Pulitzer Prize for Fiction? Am I missing something here? Thank you. (Rest in Peace, Mr. Mailer.) (Joseph A. Spadaro 18:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC))

I haven't read this book but I'm guessing that it falls into the same category as Truman Capote's In Cold Blood, that of the Nonfiction novel. Clio the Muse 02:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have, it does. DuncanHill 02:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I love that book, which is written in a totally different voice/style from Mailer's (somewhat bombastic) nonfiction prose--it's pared-down, minimalist and to-the-point. It's engrossing; read it!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Guinness Book of World Records 2006 UK edition

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

War memories

I'm writing a paper on attitudes towards the outbreak of the First World War. As part of this I'm looking for a quote from one of the men who went to war which illustrates something of the mood of the day. Hope you can help. 217.43.9.117 21:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I can think of nothing better than the sentiments expressed by Ernst Jünger at the outset of In Stahlgewittern (Storm of Steel)-"Grown up in an age of security, we shared a yearning for danger, for the experience of the extraordinary. We were enraptured by war." Clio the Muse 02:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wilfred Owen wrote to his mother in November 1914 "Walking abroad, one is the admiration of all little boys, and meets an approving glance from every eye of eld." In a letter to The Morning Post published on 30 September 1914, a Mrs Berridge wrote "If my own son can best serve England at this juncture by giving his life for her, I would not lift one finger to bring him home. If any act or word of mine should interfere with or take from him his grandest privilege, I could never look him in the face again." Xn4 20:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Admiral von Tirpitz wrote to his wife in October 1914 "This war is really the greatest insanity in which white races have ever been engaged." Xn4 20:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The opinion towards World War I was quite different in American. Even within America different racial and economic groups tended to hold widely divergent opinions about the war. In general the sentiment in the U.S. during the early part of the war was quit isolationist if I remember my history correctly. --S.dedalus 22:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Political Futures Markets

It's one thing to say a candidate will win an election, it's quite another to have to bet a sum of money on it. If it has been consistently proven that political futures markets more accurately predict the outcome of elections over any standard polling that could possibly take place, why are the results of these markets not more popular in the media than standard polling results? Sappysap 23:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Political futures markets are very new and not widely known among the public. Polling has been ongoing for decades, and firms like Gallup are well-established. Polling can also be used to track the "horse race" leading up to an election. Pollsters have tended to be quite accurate in assessing support for candidates in recent U.S. elections, problems with exit polling notwithstanding. Finally, there's something to be said for reporting what samples of people are actually thinking rather than what groups of people are betting other groups of people are going to do. -- Mwalcoff 23:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"In The Air Tonight"

Hello, I'm trying to see how I would write the drum notation for Phil Collin's top single in 1981, "In The Air Tonight"? I'm learning both how to play the keyboards and drums and most notably trying to write the music and play it on keyboards, and just writing the drum notation for it seems a little challegning. Can someone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.209.117 (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

MAybe you should ask the Cadbury Gorilla... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.67.126 (talk) 05:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Very funny. I can't help you actually transcribe the song, but there are some pretty decent transcriptions available online that were created using Guitar Pro software, one of my favorite programs in the whole world. Just now, I found a transcription that include both drum and keyboard notation. GuitarPro is great for this type of thing and has helped me learn many a song; just keep in mind that the transcriptions very greatly in quality from flawless to laughable.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 11:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

November 11

75Janice (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)== Hyde Amendment (1997) info needed ==

I have written an article, Hyde Amendment (1997). However, except for the case described in the article, I have not been able to find a case where the defendant was reimbursed legal fees for frivolous prosecution. Are there other cases? Thanks! Mattisse 00:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I glanced at the article quickly. Have you used Lexis and Westlaw? If nothing shows with Shepard's, perhaps there has not been a case. Perhaps there is a very difficult burden of proof involved. 75Janice

Prescription ethics

An ethical question: I am taking a very necessary drug that costs $450 per month raw, $150 per month after insurance. As a student, this is still a bit more than I can afford, so I tell my doctor to up the dose to double what I want to take, as it's not working as well, and then break my new pills in half so now I'm only paying $75 a month. I am lying to my doctor and defrauding my insurance (the cost of the drug stays constant despite the size of the pill), yet if I didn't do that I wouldn't be able to afford the drug necessary for me to function properly. What are some resources on this type of medical ethics, and what would a modern interpretation be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.127.93 (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal opinion - you are doing what you have to do to protect your health. I see no moral objection to your actions. You may wish to consider campaining for a system of socialised healthcare. DuncanHill 01:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If you are legitimately able to obtain the drug in a larger quantity, that will leave you less out-of-pocket per dose, why not do so? I can't see why your doctor wouldn't understand that, and be supportive. You shouldn't have to go to the length of lying to your doctor to get the financial outcome you want - but that's your call because we don't know the details of your illness or your treatment. It's certainly not fraud, imo. This is not legal advice, naturally. -- JackofOz 02:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No moral objections to crime and insurance fraud? Seriously? Oy vay. I am real hungry, I can't afford a pizza, I should be able to steal one from the pizza parlor? I am real cold, I can't afford a jacket, I should be able to steal one from the clothing store? Why is stealing from an insurance company any different? If you don't like your insurance plan, abandon it -- pay the higher premiums -- and purchase one that suits your needs. This reminds me, for some reason, of people who would lie and say that they are age 12 to get into the movies for a reduced child's admission fee. (Joseph A. Spadaro 05:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

The danger is, aside from any legal issues, that depending on the drug, knowing how much you are taking could be important to your doctor. It's usually a bad idea to lie to your doctor because them knowing your current and past medical history helps inform them as to the best treatment options. Whether that would be the case in this situation, I don't have a clue, but I just wanted to put that out there. As for the ethics of it, sounds like a problem with a very sick health care system; letting a sick health care system let you get sick can't possibly be the right answer. --24.147.86.187 02:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for a doctor to prescribe a larger dose pill and have the patient cut it in half. By lying to your doctor, you have made your doctor an enemy in this situation. You could have explained that you could save a lot of money by having the larger pills, giving your doctor the chance to prescribe it to you with the instructions to cut the pill in half. Now, because you didn't give your doctor the chance, your doctor assumes you are taking the larger dose and will base all of your treatment based on that dosage. It comes down to the fact that you and your doctor are a team in your health treatment. The insurance company, clinic administration, and even friends and family are not part of the team. The only person you need to be completely honest with when it comes to your health is your doctor. Everyone else has no business knowing anything you don't want them to know. -- kainaw™ 02:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The best thing for you to do would be to play it straight with your doc -- say your insurance only covers 2/3 of the cost and that you can't afford the rest. Doctors usually have drawers full of samples, and your doctor might have some he can part with. I went through a short period without drug coverage, and when I went to the doctor, she sent me home with a basketful of free medicine samples to last until my drug coverage kicked in. The pharmaceutical company may also have a program to provide discounted medicine that your doctor may know about. -- Mwalcoff 02:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll just add that not all pills are meant to be split in half - some are enteric coated or sustained release. --Joelmills 03:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for fast responses. However, I am not looking for opinions, as this is not a real problem, but merely based on a real scenario (asking about a real medical problem would probably constitute asking for medical advice, anyway). I am looking for someone familiar with the modern ethics literature to help steer me in the right direction for this brand of medical ethics that is an important subject of debate right now (ie socialized drug care vs. private research patents, without which I wouldn't have this wonderful drug to begin with). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.127.93 (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's flat-out stealing, lying, and fraud. Not to mention, a crime. That being said ... what exactly is the ethical question? How is this any different than stealing bread from the grocer, because you are hungry and can't afford the food? If indeed you can't afford prescriptions, explore social welfare options -- not criminal behavior. No real ethics questions here --- just a criminally deviant mind trying to justify and rationalize his behavior. That's my two cents. One can attempt to rationalize and justify -- as most criminals do -- and you can play mental gymnastics and semantics all you want. In the end, there is a reason why it is called fraud and why it is legislated to be a crime. (Joseph A. Spadaro 05:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

I sense a lot of bite in your two answers, Joseph A. Spadaro. Even if you are right, that this constitutes a crime (and we don't do legal advice here, do we?), the descriptor "criminally deviant mind" appears to be a little strong for a hypothetical situation. And what is the point of the "oy vay"? Bielle 05:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Blessed Oscar once wrote that it is better to steal than to beg, and I can see his point. For a starving man to steal the bread to fill his belly, or an ill man to steal the drugs to cure him, is no moral wrong. DuncanHill 15:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm struggling to buy Oscar Wilde as a moralist. In any event, he pinched the thought, as "...'tis better steal than beg" is from Philip Massinger's A New Way to Pay Old Debts (c. 1625). Xn4 22:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Living in the UK, this seems a very bizarre debate as here the drugs would either cost you at most £6.50 (about US$13) or nothing if you have a low income. Why cannot what is, for the time being, the richest country on earth put their heads together and create a decent health system as we did way back in 1948? 80.3.43.3 (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Date of Maxim Gorky's death

I, JackofOz, am copying the following question I raised at Talk:Maxim Gorky#Death Date, to access a wider pool of people with the facts at their disposal. The background is that until last year we showed him as dying on 14 June 1936, but that was changed to 18 June, on the basis of the preponderance of Russian sources (although some still say 14 June, and non-Russian sources seem to favour 14th and 18th roughly half and half). I must say I always thought it was the 14th, but am prepared to accept whatever the evidence says. Here's the question:

Death date revisited - the Chesterton factor

It does seem that the majority of sources, particularly Russian ones, favour the 18th over the 14th, although there are still a lot of sources, in absolute numbers terms, that say it happened on the 14th. Maybe they're all just copying the incorrect data from other flawed sources - but that's an equally possible scenario for those that say it was the 18th. It would be good to get to the bottom of how the discrepancy occurred in the first place, so we can be confident about the 18th. One thing I've just become aware of is that G K Chesterton wrote an extensive introduction to Gorky's short story collection Creatures That Once Were Men. I have no idea what the background to this was - whether Chesterton and Gorky were long-time friends, for example. I can't find anything on Google that sheds any light on it, and there's no mention in either our Gorky or Chesterton articles of the other author. But it's curious that Chesterton himself died on 14 June 1936, only (apparently) 4 days before Gorky died. I wouldn't be at all surprised of this was a factor in getting the dates confused. (It would be even more curious if it turned out that they in fact died on the very same day, but that is looking improbable.) Can anyone comment on this? -- JackofOz 23:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

From the information I have Gorky went into a fever on 17 June 1936 and died the following day (Maxim Gorky and the Russian Revolution by Orlando Figes, in History Today, vol. 46.no. 6, June 1996). Clio the Muse 03:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Clio. -- JackofOz 14:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish names - the frequency of precious stones - why?

I'm curious as to why it seems to be not uncommon for Jewish folk (in Western areas like UK, US etc)to have surnames like 'Gold', 'Silver', 'Diamond', 'Pearl', etc.

I'm a New Zealander, so please excuse me if this question is in any way indelicate. Our society is reasonably egalitarian, so, from my viewpoint, my query is innocent, but I'm also aware that this isn't the case in other places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.51.145 (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

See Jewish name, especially Surname/History, for a partial answer. --Milkbreath 05:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Many European Jews were either jewelery makers or dealers in precious metals and stones, and names like "Goldsmith" refer to this fact. Some of the names reflect that. Others adopted the name of their town \ village of origin as a surname, and these had the words "gold" etc. in them, like "Goldberg".Bergeronz 09:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Basically, a lot of Jewish families were forced to choose their surnames (instead of just being "Moishe the son of Abraham"), and many chose names that sounded cool, like "Diamond" or "Rosenbloom." -- Mwalcoff 16:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And if they sufficiently bribed the authorities, they were allowed to get the good names; if not, they ended up (like my grandmother's family) with names like Schnall. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Some anglicised names are simplified transliterations of words that meant very different things in their original language, not that I'm sure that's the case with any of these jewellery names. Jewellery guilds in Eastern Europe were somewhat less racist than other guilds and more open to Jews joining, leading to a disproportionate Jewish representation that continues to this day in London and Antwerp (etc). --Dweller 10:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Brazilian fairytale - details

I saw a Brazilian stamp from 1994 which refers to a fairytale titled, according to the stamp, Joao i Maria. The scene appears to show an old woman with a cat on her lap and two children, a boy and a girl. I didn't find a Wikipedia article about a book \ story of that title and a web search was almost equally fruitless. What is the story about? Who are the characters in the scene?Bergeronz 09:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?q=João+e+Maria —Nricardo 02:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/João_e_Maria seems to be Hansel and Gretel—Nricardo 02:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Che Guevera

This may sound like a stupid question but how do you pronounce Che Guevera's name? --124.254.77.148 11:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Che Guh-vahr-uh [5] - Г^edʃtǁcɭ 13:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that's how Spanish speakers would pronounce the surname. I've always heard it as Gwe-vahr-uh. -- JackofOz 14:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats how i seen it been pronounced red on numerous documentrys. Eskater11 16:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. The "u" only indicates that the "g" is pronounced as in (English) "garden", as opposed to (Spanish) "Jaime". If it were to be pronounced Gwe-vahr-uh, it would have have to be spelled "Güevara". For an audio sample, listen to the 'bienvenida' clip here. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 18:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Same as mi-gel for Miguel. Thanks. Actually, now that I come to think of it, I've heard people pronounce it Guh-vair-a, which I'm sure is wrong because it's spelled -vara, not -vera. But then the Schnitzel Syndrome kicks in: having mispronounced it, people then change the spelling to match the mispronunciation. I'm not having a go at the questioner, just observing the phenomenon. Redirects overcome this problem here, but one thing they don't do is educate people about their spelling mistakes unless they're quite observant and notice the "Redirected from .." tag. -- JackofOz —Preceding comment was added at 22:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want IPA, it's tʃʰe geˈvara. His official given name is Cesar Ernesto seˈsar eɾˈnesto. Steewi 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Gue as in spaghetti; var as in varlet; a as in ah, so that's how you pronounce it. —Tamfang 00:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Flickering police sirens

I would like to know the reason for police officers (in the USA at least) to flicker their car sirens instead of just leaving them running constantly when driving through traffic. This is a bit hard to explain properly, but I often hear the wailing sound being interrupted by it restarting several times in a row ("wiiieow-wiiieow-blip-blip-wie-bli-wiiieow" or something like that), seemingly from the push of a button by the police officer. Is this for a specific purpose, such as separating a crowd or drawing extra attention to the police presence? Is it common procedure in countries outside of the USA? Also, is there a term for this, or at least an official document with protocol for when cops would do this? Cambrant 13:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You might find the section Emergency vehicle equipment#Audible warning devices (sirens) helpful for an answer to part of your question. The technique is common in the UK for all emergency services with some using white noise 'sqawks' interspersed into the siren as well as differing tones. 86.21.74.40 16:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed in Canada that the siren noise comes on as an emergency vehicle approaches a knot of traffic or any significant intersection, and stops again when the vehicle has passed through the problem area. I suspect, and others will likely comment here, that (a) an intermittent noise is more noticeable over a longer period of time than a continuous one; and (b) that, especially in heavily built-up areas, the continuous tone is both unnecessary, except to get other vehicles out of the way, and unnecessarily irritating to local residents. Information would be welcome. Bielle 17:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mainly, to get attention, the wail travels further as it is a lower sound wave, the yalp is more attention grabbing, but doesn't travel as far. It's good to break it up as drivers will tend to tune noise out after a while. Hi-Lo's are just what they sound like. Also the tone being changed at intersections can be important to prevent 'washout' (when one unit's approaching an intersection code 3 has its siren canceled out by another unit approaching from another direction, causing dangerous conditions.) article on washoutand another article. Dureo 05:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the siren controls I have seen used a rotary dial to select the tone. When switching from one tone to the other, one might step through settings in between. This might also contribute to what you're hearing. --Mdwyer 20:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Republic to dictatorship

Why did the second French republic (1848-1852) give way so quickly to the dictatorship of Napoleon III (1852-1870)? In what way was Napoleon's dictatorship marked by its origins and why did it differ in character from the first empire? 81.151.6.217 13:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

For a contemporary analysis of the political processes involved here, 81.151, the structural factors underpinning events, please refer to Karl Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, the source of one of his most famous quotes, "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.".

The Revolution of 1848, narrowly conceived and even more narowly executed, had given rise to a quite artificial hope in Parisian circles, inspired by socialism and radicalism, that French society was about to be remade. These hopes were disappointed when the Constituent Assembly, though elected on the basis of universal male suffrage, turned out to have a conservative and monarchist majority. In Paris social divisions and class tensions grew ever more acute; and when the government closed national workshops, previously set up to cope with the problem of unemployment, the ensuing June Days Uprising was crushed with considerable force. Parisian socialism had been destroyed but reaction against events in the capital pushed the peasantry, the huge bulk of French voters, in an even more conservative direction, undermining the republic by degrees. Between the alienation of the left and the hostility of the right the French Second Republic was consigned to a premature grave. The Duke of Wellington was to write at this time that France needed a Napoleon, a thought that was shared by the country's peasants.

So, in essence, the Second Empire, unlike the first, was an expression of politically reactionary forces. In practical terms this meant that Napoleon III, no matter what his instincts and inclinations, was always to be a shadow of his great uncle. He did not shape events; he was shaped by them. Unsure of his constituency, he was progressive and reactionary, liberal and catholic, almost by turns. Hence a great imperial tragedy gave way to a little imperial farce. Clio the Muse 01:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

color of the eyes of the Green Knight

Is there any mention in the story about the color of the Green Knight's eyes in "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight"? Thank you very much for any answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.136.216 (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I think they are called red. Xn4 17:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's in line 304 - "And runischly his rede yghen he reled aboute" Xn4 17:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the answer to all success christians got just one word ENGLISH?

I assume the per capita income of christians is more than any other religion. Is English the answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.114.98 (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please come back and refrase this becuase i have NO idea what your asking Eskater11 15:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(images added) Considering that christianity has a lot of adepts in sub-saharan Africa and South America where some countries have very low GDP per capita and a lot of christian countries are not very fervant adepts, I wouldn't be so sure you first assumption is correct. Now as for the rest goes I assume you are not talking about Johnny English so could you be more clear? Keria 16:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ow. Do you mean because christians speak english? Keria 16:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The original asker of this question- Well. I think I must have explained a bit. I am asking whether Christians are successful because they mostly speak English? Or simply, Is English behind their success? South Americans also are Christians. But they are not rich and influential as Americans. So, this supports the point. Many people may ask how do you think Christians are successful. Some may ask how do you say English people are successful. Little confusion. But generally, my main question is that why do you think that Christian countries have high per capita incomes than non Christian countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.126.250 (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Countries which are nominally Christian are also, for the most part, countries in western Europe or countries which were colonized and settled, at some point, by western Europeans. That may have something to do with it; read Guns, Germs, and Steel for one author's take on the question. - Eron ^Talk 16:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Only indirectly, I think. The English traditions of common law, the rights of the individual, nuts-and-bolts religion, and suspicion of authority seem to foster prosperity. Government as servant, not master, and God confined to the moral sphere make the difference. But English is a darned good language, and I'm sure it helps. There are lots of words, very few homonyms, and a fairly logical thrust. --Milkbreath 18:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There's the article Anglosphere... AnonMoos 00:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A few questions here, first,

1. Is the per capita income of Christians higher than that of any other religious group?

The question is probably too vague to be answered definitively, but, a browse through some stats at ARDA and the CIA Factbook leave me skeptical. According to ARDA the religions with the most adherents (in millions) are Christianity (2,136), Islam (1,314), Hinduism (870), Non-Religious (769), and then the numbers fall off rapidly. I would bet that Christian per capita income is higher than Islam and Hindu, but I'm not so sure about "Non-Religious". Furthermore, as the number of adherents becomes smaller the possibility of an overall high per capita income grows. For example, ARDA lists Atheists at 152 million, Jews at 15 million, and Shintoists at 2.8 million. These groups, with their smaller populations, might give the Christians a run for their money, so to speak. Shintoism especially, which, as I understand, is practiced mainly in Japan.

The mainly Christian European and American nations may be on par with Japan for per capita income, these are not, by far, the only nations with large numbers of Christians. ARDA has a list of nations ranked by the number of Christians, regardless of whether they are a majority in the nation's population. The list might surprise some. Here are the first bunch, with population of Christians (in millions) and per capita income (in PPP "purchasing power" form). Note that the average per capita income (PPP) for the whole world is listed as $7,600 (US dollars adjusted for purchasing power): 1. United States (252 mil Christians, $37,562 PPP); 2. Brazil (167 mil, $7,790); 3. China (111, $5,003); 4. Mexico (102, $9,230); 5. Russia (84, $9,230); 6. Philippines (74, $4,321); 7. India (68, $2,892); 8. Germany (62, $27,756); 9. Nigeria (61, $1,050); 10. Congo, Dem. Rep. (53, $697). I worked the list out to 23 nations with the largest Christian populations, which collectively amount to about 75% of the world's Christians. Omitting the stats (which can be found at ARDA), the rest up to #23 are: UK, Italy, Colombia, France, Ethiopia, Ukraine, Spain, South Africa, Poland, Argentina, Peru, Kenya, Venezuela, Canada, and Uganda.

Looking over these stats makes me doubt whether Christians have the highest per capita income of any religion. Perhaps higher than Islam and Hinduism. Perhaps not higher than Atheists, Non-Religious, Jews, and Shintoists. Of course the whole issue is open to definitions on what an "adherent" is and how accurate these stats are. I'm just citing a seemingly decent source.

The second question here seems to be,

2. Is English the reason for the success (financially I assume) of Christians?

It seems to me that the above lists on where the majority of Christians live (such as Brazil, China, Mexico, Russia, Philippines, and India, along with the USA) makes it seem unlikely that English has anything to do with it. Of the top 23 countries listed, the only ones that are primarily English-speaking are the US (1), maybe India (7), UK (11), South Africa (18), and Canada (22). Many more are Spanish-speaking, and Brazil, up there at #2, Portuguese. Pfly 08:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Arguments that could work in favour of the questioners theory would be the work ethics often associated with christianity and the pragmatic and empiric qualities often associated with the english language. The resulting could would be a voluntary religious idealism associated with a down to earth pragmatism. Hmm ... the kind of combination that creates an Erik Prince founder of Blackwater. Wether any of this is true and it really differentiates english-speaking christians from other groups or if it is just an accumulation of clichés I can't quite tell, it would need further research. Keria 11:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is a false correlation. English speakers have done well, in general, over the past 200 years, but not necessarily because of their language, and not much better than speakers of German, French, Japanese, Swedish, Dutch, and some other languages. What the English-speaking countries have in common is a history of early industrialization, which gave them a global head start on accumulating wealth. The Industrial Revolution began in England, not because of its language, but for a long list of historical reasons, including the breakdown of feudalism with the labor shortages of the late middle ages; the emergence of a merchant class in London and other ports that supported the growth of trade, naval power, colonial possessions, and capital; and the simultaneous emergence of a rural laboring class displaced by the growing efficiency of agricultural practice and prepared to work for low wages. English migrants brought the new industrial technologies and practices to English colonies and the newly independent states of New England. English entrepreneurs also brought these technologies and practices to Belgium, where some of the same conditions prevailed that had supported industrialism in England. From Belgium, industrialism quickly spread to neighboring European countries. After 1853, the Japanese took on industrialization as a determined national project, and after 120 years of effort, they began to overcome the head start that western Europeans, North Americans, and Antipodeans had enjoyed. The Koreans and some parts of the Chinese-speaking world seem to be on the verge of a similar feat today. None of this can be credited to the English language. Marco polo 02:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Princess Cornblossom

Has any ever heard of this woman or where she was from 15:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not until you asked - this site has some info [6], and googling "cornblossom" does bring up various other sites too. Hope this is of some help. DuncanHill 15:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh. She's one of my ancestors.  :) BTW, Wikipedia has an article on Nancy Ward. Corvus cornix 21:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Princess Buttercup is from The Princess Bride. :) Steewi 01:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What does this Street Art in Spain Represent?

I am trying to find out what this means, who is the boy, and what is he holding? This is in Sevilla. Saikosaiko 17:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't work out what it is that the figure in the foreground is holding! Anyway, I am reminded of Dante's story of Count Ugolino chewing on the head of Ruggerio, Archbishop of Pisa, in the ninth circle of hell, depicted in Canto XXXII of the Divine Comedy. I do stress that is what I am reminded of; I am not saying that is what it is! Clio the Muse 00:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And I'm vaguely reminded of Saturno devorando a un hijo, which at least was painted in Spain. —Tamfang 23:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that thing in the foreground is a dachshund? --S.dedalus 01:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Death of Mary Queen of Scots

I see from your article that King James of Scotland called the execution of his mother a 'proposterous and strange proceedure. How did it affect his relationship with Elizabeth of England and how did she justify the act? Also why was Elizabeth so reluctant to approve the death of a dangerous rival?81.151.6.217 17:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth was afraid that the execution of a ruling monarch would set a bad precedent, and that she might be next. Corvus cornix 21:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Very true. Besides, it was on the instigation of both Houses of Parliament and to prevent another alleged plot against herself that she finally signed the death warrant. At the same time, she was afraid to be blamed by her subjects for the death of her rival monarch. There was also the international situation: after the execution, protests from Spain and France came in, and Elizabeth attempted to put the blame on her advisers. For similar reasons, she had earlier considered having Mary murdered in secret. As for King James, when he succeeded to the throne he had his mother's body re-buried in Westminster Abbey. Bessel Dekker 23:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You must remember that James was not quite two years old when his mother fled Scotland after her defeat at the Battle of Langside. He never saw her again, and it is unlikely that he had any memory of her. More than that, since she considered her abdication of 1567 to be forced and illegal, her own son was, in her view, little better than a usurper. So, personally and politically, James had no more reason than his cousin Elizabeth to be attached to Mary. He was, however, deeply attached to to the possibility that he might succeed to the throne of England, and had therefore absolutely no wish to antagonise Elizabeth too far. For the sake of public opinion in Scotland he had to make a token protest over the execution of his mother in February 1587, but a few weeks later he wrote to the English Queen, assuring her that "I dare not wrong you so far as not to judge honourably of your unspotted part therin."

Elizabeth had already written to James, explaining in a quite disingenious fashion her 'unspotted part'; that the death of Mary had been a 'miserable accident' and 'contrary to my meaning.' But, as Corvus has said, she was more afraid of the precedent set by the trial and execution of an anointed monarch. It would have suited her purpose better if Mary had simply died, in the way that other politically inconvenient figures in English history like Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI had 'simply died'. She certainly gave hints to this effect, though in the end she had to countenance something altogether more public. Clio the Muse 23:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

One small footnote... when James's first daughter was born, in 1596, he called her Elizabeth, which was intended to flatter the Queen of England and to show her that there were no hard feelings. With the crash of the Stuarts after the Glorious Revolution, the crown fell to this Elizabeth's descendants. She was the mother of Sophia of Hanover (1630-1714) and thus the grandmother of King George I. Xn4 08:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

public domain

I have researched the internet to find the answer to this question. As far as I can tell, the picture of "The Thinker" is usuable if the image is not altered in any way. Therefore, my question: Is a reproduction picture of the sculpture, "The Thinker", by the artist Rodin available to use as an image printed on a book cover? Dmsports 19:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We cannot give legal advice here, which is what answering this question would amount to. Please note that the answer may be different for different jurisdictions. Also, there may be copyright on the reproduction itself. Usually, a publisher will know such things (or will know whom to ask).  --Lambiam 19:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't take this as advice for a particular situation, but here are some general relevant considerations. While some jurisdictions have shown a willingness to say that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public-domain art objects are also in the public domain (see Template:PD-art at Wikipedia, and note that this is subject to dispute!), this is not the case with three-dimensional art objects. Even if the original artwork is PD, any photograph of it (no matter how uninspired) is more than just a slavish copy—it is an original work, with its own perspective, etc. Thus, unless (A) the photograph itself is old enough to be PD, or (B) the photographer has explicitly released his or her image into the PD, it would not be available for free use. Wareh 20:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

, or (C) the holder of the copyright (possibly the photographer) has given a licence for the intended use.  --Lambiam 21:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about the images of The Thinker used in Wikipedia, they each have slightly different licensing requirements. The main one is dual-licensed as GFDL and CC-A, which means you are in luck: you can use it on the cover as long as you put something along the lines of "Photograph of The Thinker at Musée Rodin is (c) User:CJ at Wikimedia Commons, and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5. license. Go to http://creativecommons.org for licensing details." Alternatively you could get in touch with that user and ask them if they want to re-license the photo to you without any stipulations except for attributing it to their real name, if you didn't want to write all that and with the URL. Note that depending on the photo you want to use, the licensing can be very different—the GFDL stipulates that you must include an entire copy of the GFDL with each reproduction, which makes it a lousy choice for cover images! There are also viral-licensing issues which may or may not apply in your particular case. --24.147.86.187 21:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mazzini

Why is Mazzini less regarded as a prophet of Italian unity than Cavour or garibaldi?Lord Lovat 19:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly for Mazzini he was a classic example of a 'prophet without honour', too radical for the Piedmontese liberals, too anti-clerical for the Catholics. If was his fate to be more popular abroad than he ever was in Italy. For him a united Italy was not a sufficient cause in itself, as it was for Cavour and Garibaldi. Ten years after unification Mazzini expressed his feelings of disappointment with the new kingdom;

"The Italy which we represent today, like it or not, is a living lie … Italy was put together just as though it were a piece of lifeless mosaic, and the battles which made this mosaic were fought by foreign rulers who should have been loathed as our common enemies … The battles fought by Italy in this process were defeats … Italians are now without a constitution that could express their will. We can therefore have no real national existence or international policy of our own. In domestic politics … we are governed by a few rich men … Ordinary people are disillusioned. They had watched … as Italy, once ruler of the civilised world, began to rise again; but now they turn away their eyes and say to themselves: ‘This is just the ghost of Italy’."

In a sense he was right; for Italy had been created before Italians. Cavour's Italy only carried the immediate appeal of unification. Beyond that it was a state based on the politics of exclusion, the direct opposite of the kind of democratic polity desired by Mazzini. Italy was to be a country of Red Shirts one day, Black Shirts the next. Clio the Muse 23:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

November 12

Donner Party

Yes, i know that there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.233.246 (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Caught mid flow, not, I hope, yet another victim of the Donner Party! Clio the Muse 01:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he just got hungry and stopped for a snack? --24.147.86.187 04:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah so that's the reason for the name of my favourite late night snack. I always had my suspicions... Cyta 08:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Visiting England for the first time in 1986, my then wife (a lifelong resident of California) and I cracked up when we saw that food item advertised. The locals were not amused when we explained. —Tamfang 23:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Was Jesus a "legitimate" Rabbi?

I recently viewed the "Passion of the Christ" again. In it, Jesus is called "Rabbi." It is my understanding that to become a Rabbi, one must study under another Rabbi. Is there any historical evidence to confirm or disconfirm that Jesus had studied under anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.213.2 (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

To become a Rabbi, technically, one must have been given semicha by someone who received semicha themselves, in an unbroken chain that theoretically goes back to Moses. Did Jesus have semicha? Going further, however, the term "Rabbi" just means teacher, so could be applied to anyone who taught you something. The Talmud tells us that if someone teaches you anything, you need to give them respect and stand up when they come into the room! In his lifetime, Jesus clearly taught a lot of people a lot of things, which would give credence to this idea. Whether that gentler definition would also apply (in a "legitimate" way, as you put it) to someone who then teaches you messages directly contradictory to Judaism (as discussed here recently) is beyond my knowledge. --Dweller 07:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In the context of the 1st. century A.D., "Rabbis" means pretty much leaders of the grouping called by others "Pharisees" / "Perushin" (but who didn't usually call themselves that) -- i.e. scholars of Jewish religious law who did not claim any special authority because of priestly genealogical lineage, and who maintained a tradition of "oral law" in addition to the written Bible. Paul considered himself to be a Pharisee of sorts, but Jesus clearly didn't... AnonMoos 13:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Russian outpost

Why did the nineteeth century Russian outpost in California fail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.38.137 (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For your start on this, see Northern California: Russian era and John Sutter. The Mexicans were technically in possession of California at the time (see Alta California), and there was a Mexican governor, but it was something of a wide open space. In 1839, the estimated population of what is now California was only about 30,000, nearly all Native Americans, with about a thousand Europeans. In 1840, an attaché to the French embassy in Mexico City, one Eugène Duflot de Mofras, explored the west coast of North America and wrote "...it is evident that California will belong to whatever nation chooses to send there a man-of-war and two hundred men." (He hoped, of course, that that would be France). In the event, California was almost inevitably caught up in the westwards expansion of the US, and the Russians just had to come to terms with that. They effectively sold out to Sutter in 1841, and the first large party of American immigrants arrived overland in the same year, long before the famous Donner Party (see thread above). The US annexation of Texas in 1845 led to the Mexican-American War of 1846 to 1848, the US gaining California. In all this, the Russians would have been marginal, if they hadn't abandoned their ambitions in 1841. Xn4 10:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

PS - see also Russian-American Company and Fort Ross. Xn4 10:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Great Patriotic War

In what ways did involvement in the Second World War give fresh stimulus to Russian nationalism? Zinoviev4 06:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a homework question to me - we are not supposed to give people the answers to their homework here as it is cheating and you don't learn anything. Please search the internet and look for some information and if there's anything you don't understand, we can help you with it but it's not right to give you the answers. GaryReggae 22:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fairly early on after the German invasion Stalin recognised that he was fighting for the very survival, not of Communism, but of Russia itself. Always the brilliant political tactician, he understood that people are moved not by abstract ideas, not by notions of world revolution and human progress, but by older, more rooted symbols of identity. With the enemy advancing on Moscow the war was described as 'Patriotic', calling to mind the first Patriotic War against Napoleon. Appeals were made not for the defence of Socialism but of the Motherland. Even the word Soviet was dropped. To encourage Russian identity the campaign against the Orthodox Church was ended, and it was allowed to play its own part in reawakening national feeling amongst the Russians. The heroes invoked in propaganda were all from a glorious pre-revolutionary past; from Alexander Nevsky, who defeated the Teutonic Knights, to the great Tsarist generals, Suvorov and Kutuzov, all of whom had medels named after them. The Order of St. George also reappeared, along with the pre-revolutionary military uniform. So, yes, nationalism was reborn, a vital contribution on the path to victory. Clio the Muse 01:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Information about Amy Bjork Harris, Co author of Staying OK

Respected Sir, I would like to know about the life of Amy Bjork Harris, The co-author of "Staying OK". Regards, Ritu1 Singh 08:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a few details at Thomas Anthony Harris. Xn4 18:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Boer victors

Is it true to say that in the south african conflict of 1899 to 1902 the boers lost the war only to win the peace? Cetawayo 09:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. The British achieved their objectives of a unified South Africa as part of the British Empire, and South Africa remained a close ally of Britain even after it became a Dominion and secured its independence. It was not until the electoral victory of the National Party in 1948 (nearly half a century after the end of the war) that the Boers really asserted themselves politically. Sam Blacketer 15:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And the Coloured inhabitants of the Cape Colony had, and retained the vote until the Nationalists got in (and, in theory, thereafter, but the Nationalists manipulated it into ineffectiveness; see our article). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, a convincing argument can be made along these very lines. The Peace of Vereeniging, by which the war was concluded in 1902, contained some important concessions to the Boers, chief amongst which was the agreement to shelve any proposals to enfranchise non-Europeans until the Transvaal and the Orange Free State were once more self-governing. So, in practice, all black, Asian and mixed race people in these two provinces would remain without full civil rights, an anticipation of the future policy of apartheid. The British, anxious for both peace and co-operation with the Boers, were quite cynical about the whole thing. Sir Alfred Milner, the British High Commissioner, remarked "You only have to sacrifice 'the nigger' and the game is easy." In 1903, delivering a speech in Johannesburg, he asserted that "The white man must rule, because he is elevated many, many steps above the black man; steps which will take the latter many centuries to climb, and which it is quite possible that the vast bulk of the black population will never be able to climb at all." Even before the Union of South Africa was established in 1910 the Afrikaners were becoming the dominant political force, with the victory of the Het Volk party in the elections of 1907. White supremacy was established; white supremacy would remain. The victory of the National Party in 1948 was only one further stage in the whole process. Clio the Muse 01:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Acctually, the boers were winning the war throughout, and had very very few losses unlike the british who lost countless nnumbers, this was because the boers dug trenches and wore green clothing, and were thus virtually undetecable, where as the british attacked in long lines, dressed in bright red with drums and trumpets and wre thus cutt down. the war only went the other way when the british took the women and children of the boer hostage and put them in camps. The boers wanted thier families back, and thus agreed to peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, 12.191, but some of the points you have made here are a little misleading. First, while the British Army was still dressed in red during the First Boer War by the time of the Second Boer War just about every unit was dressed in some variation of khaki. Second, the losses on neither side of the conflict were 'countless' as you have expressed it. In all the war cost some 75,000 lives: 22,000 British soldiers, of whom just under 8,000 were battle casualties, the remainder dying of disease; between 6,000 and 7,000 Boer soldiers, and up to 28,000 civilians, mostly women and children; and some 20,000 black Africans, some on the battlefield, some in concentration camps. Third, the Boers gave up the struggle for a variety of reasons, not just because of the British policy of removing the civilian basis of support for their armed struggle. By 1900 the conventional war had been won by the British in a series of deep penetrations into enemy territory. For the remainder of the conflict the Boers resorted to guerilla tactics. Bit by bit the British adapted quite successfully to the new style of warfare. Besides incarcerating women and children, they built a series of fortified and connected block houses, reducing the territory in which the Boer guerillas were able to operate and manoeuvre effectively. By these tactics the veld was systematically parcelled up into smaller and smaller areas. A scorched earth policy also robbed the enemy of supplies, and they were continually harassed by British cavalry raids. It was a classic counter-insurgency operation; and it worked. Clio the Muse 23:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There are Wikipedia articles which provide additional information relative to this question. See Internment#Concentration camp and Scorched earth#Boer War. Edison 20:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Japan specialization

I'm finding which goods Japanese has comparative advantage. Does it mean what Japanese exports? And What goods Japanese produed most?please explain.Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunthea dd (talk • contribs) 14:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comparative advantage tends to refer to a product a country can produce more cheaply or efficiently. It tends to be a rather broad term, as a given means of production in a country depends on several factors - for example, Japan exceeded in the automotive industry despite having very little natural mineral reserves. So when you discuss "comparative advantage", you're usually discussing a favorite of economists - assumptions and general models. Applying this to specific goods in practice is tricky, but I would argue that at least during the late 70s and the 80s, Japan exceeded primarily in manufacturing, specifically automotive and electronic products. Certainly we see that today, but Japan has less of a general advantage than it did before thanks to the 90s economy bubble bursting, and China and Korea are also edging into some of both industries (China primarily just small parts assembled elsewhere, Korea with both parts and complete cars). "Why does Japan have a comparative advantage?" is more of a useful question though, and it has to do with their early investment into advanced manufacturing techniques, specifically automated production. This set a benchmark for efficiency for the rest of the world for the next twenty years. In your research you may consider why Japan has no comparative advantage in many other things - mostly due to inevitable island conditions like a lack of land, and the previously mentioned lack of mineral and oil reserves. One more thing: I would also be willing to wager that Japan has a comparative advantage in seafood exports. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 14:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Lord Uxbridge's leg

A strange request. I hear there is an amusing or bizarre tale attached to the afterlife of Lord Uxbridge's right leg, lost at Waterloo. Anyone know anymore?81.152.105.31 15:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears it was kept by the surgeon who removed it, and a shrine of sorts set up for it. The BBC did a programme a few years ago, which alas I missed, there are a few details here [7]. I would love to know more!DuncanHill 17:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A page here at napoleonic-literature.com has a picture of THE TOMB OF LORD UXBRIDGE'S LEG. It claims that "When Lord Uxbridge died in 1854, the "leg" was exhumed, taken back to England, and buried with Lord Uxbridge." Xn4 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In a similar vein, I've always been amused by the monument to Benedict Arnold's leg. Corvus cornix 22:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This would seem to be a wonderful opportunity to 'pull the leg'! Seriously now, here are the simple facts behind the morbid taste for bones, evidence, it might be thought, that the Medieval cult of relics had made its way into the modern age.

After receiving his wound, Lord Uxbridge was taken to his headquarters, a house owned by one Monsieur Hyacinthe Joseph-Marie Paris, who was still in residence. There what was left of his leg was removed by the surgeons, without antiseptic or anaesthetics. Uxbridge, true to his nature, remained stoical and composed, his only comment through the dreadful procedure being "The knives appear somewhat blunt." Paris asked if he might bury the leg in his garden, later turning the place into a kind of shrine come theme park. Visitors were first taken to see the bloody chair upon which Uxbridge sat during the amputation, before being escorted into the garden, where the leg had its very own 'tombstone', inscribed as follows:

Here lies the leg of the illustrious, brave and valliant Lord Uxbridge, Lieutenant General of His Britannic Majesty, Commander in Chief of the English, Belgian and Dutch Cavalry, wounded on the 18 June 1815 at the memorable battle of Waterloo, who, by his heroism, assisted in the triumph of the cause of mankind, gloriously decided by the resounding victory of that day.

Some were impressed; others less so. Thomas Gaspey, a poet of sorts, recorded his own impressions in verse;

Here rests, and let no saucy knave

Presume to sneer and laugh,

To learn that mouldering in the grave

Is laid a British calf.

For he who writes these lines is sure

That those who read the whole,

Will find such a laugh were premature

For here too lies a sole.

And so on and so forth!

The leg, and the sole, attracted an amazing range of tourists from the very top drawer; from the King of Prussia to the Prince of Orange, European society of the very best. It was nice earner for Monsieur Paris and his descendents, all the way down to 1878, when it was the occasion for a minor diplomatic incident. Uxbridge's son visited to find the bones, not buried, but on open display. On investigation by the Belgian Ambassador in London, it was discovered that they had been exposed in a storm which uprooted the willow tree beside which they were buried. The Ambassador demanded repatriation of the relics to England but the Paris family refused, instead offering to sell the bones to the Uxbridge family, who, not surprisingly, were enraged. At this point the Belgian Minister of Justice intervened, ordering the bones to be reburied.

But they were not reburied; they were kept hidden. In 1934, after the last Monsieur Paris died in Brussels, his widow found them in his study, along with documentation proving their provenance. Horrified by the thought of another scandal she dumped the lot in her central heating furnace!

I cannot comment on the claims made in the site linked by Xn4, but all of the above information can be found in the BBC History Magazine, vol. 3, no. 6, June 2002. Clio the Muse 00:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'll believe the BBC, Clio. It sounds as if napoleonic-literature.com should get the order of the boot... or is it worth sending for Hercule Poirot? Xn4 00:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the little grey cells-and the old white bones! Clio the Muse 01:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Poirot should be able to crack it, especially as Hastings is also the Duke of Wellington. Xn4 01:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So he was! Perhaps he could get the lovely Major Sharp involved in the mission-I certainly hope so! Clio the Muse 01:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This material would over-balance Wikipedia's article, but couldn't it be moved, lock-stock-and-barrel, with the BBC reference, to Lord Uxbridge's leg? O Brilliant Clio! ("Much as ever, I'll do it myself!" said The Little Red Hen.)--Wetman 14:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well clucked, O Little Red Hen! Clio the Muse 23:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done on working "poetaster" in there, too! FiggyBee 09:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

13 Colonies' Constitutions

How many times have the Constitutions for each of the 13 Colonies been ammended? I have searched and I have found amendments for six colonies, But I am Missing the Rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.44.41 (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Before the revolutionary war, not all the British colonies had constitutions as we would understand it -- there were royal charters, governors were appointed by the British government or by a "proprietor", etc. AnonMoos 04:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

loan default

what happens when someone defaults personal loan and the person has no money in the countries like 1)USA 2)China 3)Japan 4)Singapore

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.122.90 (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No money is one thing; does the person have saleable assets or a job? An answer of "yes" to either will mean, possibly, a different process. Then there is the matter of intent at the time of borrowing. This may also be a fraudulent transaction. Bielle 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If they really have nothing then generally, they will be declared bankrupt, however a lot of personal loans include "your home may be at risk if you do not keep up with repayments" or suchlike in the terms and conditions so loan providers will seek to minimise their losses and may send a bailiff round to sieze the person's property, either with the intent of selling it or just with the intention of causing maximum destruction in some cases - or repossess their home if they 'own' it. GaryReggae 22:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Planned city in Venezuela

I heard a report on NPR this morning about a planned city being built in a South American country (possibly Venezuela) near an existing city (possibly Caracas). It was intended to house about 100000 people. Its name sounded like "Caribbean". What is the name of this planned city? DHN 22:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the NPR web site? Usually by the time that you posted, the run-down is available and then you can find the relevant story. Donald Hosek 00:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Laurie Anderson

How is Laurie Anderson regarded by the average American mainstream music listener? How about in Europe? --S.dedalus 23:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If it turns out there's a Hell, I am so screwed. Whatever else they do to me there, they can be playing that in the background. Oh, American answer. --Milkbreath 00:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, “here come the planes.” Seriously though is this the mainstream viewpoint? --S.dedalus 00:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Somehow "mainstream" and "Laurie Anderson" just don't seem to go together. Of the 33 Americans who have heard of her, six are male and are confusing her with Loni Anderson. Their enthusiasm will know no bounds. The remaining 27 are the world's only fans of Mr. Cage and thus their judgement cannot be trusted. Bielle 01:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well that pretty much explains the cultural feeling I guess. :) Laurie Anderson at least made #2 on the 1981 UK Singles Charts though. (That’s something Cage never did!) I would think this would make her slightly more popular, at least among nostalgic hippie types. --S.dedalus 01:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

S.dedalus, in 1981 Laurie Anderson was definitely post-hippie. In the 1980s, her music especially appealed to art students and young intellectuals of the nameless generation that came between the full-fledged Woodstock baby boom and the grunge-weaned Generation X. (Oddly, according to our article Generation X it was precisely this group that first bore the name Generation X, before the name was applied to the grunge generation.) Anyway, I agree with Bielle that the average American mainstream music listener has never heard of her. Marco polo 02:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(Wow. He's got me pegged. Post-Woodstock? Yup. Pre-Grunge? Yup. Namelessly intellectual? Yup. Art student? Well, three out of four ain't bad. Laurie Anderson on the iPod? Yup, and I was wondering what to listen to next. Big Science it is. Thanks for the tip. :-) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

Don't know about "mainstream listeners" but I own several of her albums-- all of which were purchased in the 1980's. And while I wasn't an art student, I was fond of reading books by folks like William S. Burroughs and imagining myself an intellectual. So of course I had to get a copy of Mister Heartbreak, after which I became a fan. Looks like Marco Polo there is right. Oh, and as to S.dedalus' remark below, I don't think it is correct to refer to her music as a "neo-hippie" thing either. Crypticfirefly 04:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, S.dedalus, I was being silly. I am not an American and have no idea about current popular music. I have only heard Ms Anderson's name mentioned on public radio in Canada on a new music show that I associate with the likes of Cage. For all I know, Anderson may be top of the charts. That Mr. Polo agrees with me is just luck for me. Apologies again. Bielle 02:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries Bielle, I found your answer quite funny! To Marco polo, okay, I’m defiantly a bit too young to remember hippies, but Ms. Anderson seemed like the type to appeal to the neo-hippie stereotype. Anyhow, that answers my question. Thanks! --S.dedalus 03:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

November 13

Verbatim texts of military orders?

Can anyone provide me with samples of the written orders military commanders would have given to their officers and troops in 17th century Europe? Thanks, Adambrowne666 02:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A council of war was routine during campaigns and before battles, so that many orders would have been verbal and quite general. The most likely written orders to have survived until today would be from governments to generals in the field. Louis XIV usually sent written instructions to his generals, sometimes quite detailed ones, and the Spanish and Austrian governments likely did the same. I've never seen these quoted anywhere. As far as orders in the field go, I had a skim through the memoirs of Marshal Tessé, just because they were the first I came across, and while there are plenty of cases of him ordering someone to do something or go somewhere, not one order is quoted verbatim. Not much help I know, but the best I can manage, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Adam. Here, below is the verbatim order issued on the eve of one of the most infamous incidents in British military history-the Massacre of Glencoe in February 1692;

You are hereby ordered to fall upon the Rebels, the McDonalds of Glenco, and putt all to the sword under seventy. You are to have a special care that the old Fox and his sons doe upon no account escape your hands, you are to secure all the avenues that no man escape. This you are to putt in execution at fyve of the clock precisely; and by that time, or very shortly after it, I'll strive to be att you with a stronger party: if I doe not come to you att fyve, you are not to tarry for me, but to fall on. This is by the Kings speciall command, for the good & safty of the Country, that these miscreants be cutt off root and branch. See that this be putt in execution without feud or favour, else you may expect to be dealt with as one not true to King nor Government, nor a man fitt to carry Commissione in the Kings service. Expecting you will not faill in the fullfilling hereof, as you love your selfe, I subscribe these with my hand  att Balicholis  Feb: 12, 1692. Signed R. Duncanson.

The order was issued by Major Duncanson of the Earl of Argyll's Regiment of Foot to Captain Robert Campbell, the officer on the spot. You can probably detect from the threatening tone of the command, the inferences to the penalties for failure, that Campbell had no advanced knowledge of the task before him. I wasn't sure if this would be any use to you. It is certainly a seventeenth century military order, though hardly typical. The general form-laying out tasks and targets-is probably fairly standard, though. Clio the Muse 00:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's just the thing! - I wanted a feeling for the tone of such things - 'put all to the sword', 'expecting you will not fail in the fulfilling thereof'. Thanks so much, Clio. Hope all's well for you. Thanks to Angus, too; you certainly got further than I did, anyway. Adambrowne666 19:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

All is well, Adam; all is well! Clio the Muse 00:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Women on the stage (2)

I've amended my question above (of Nov. 9) on this topic. Any help appreciated! (Please post to original question.) Thanks. LuckyThracian 02:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"Dreimal 100 Advokaten ..."

Could any one attribute this quote: "Dreimal 100 Advokaten – Vaterland, du bist verraten; dreimal 100 Professoren – Vaterland, du bist verloren!" It was used to refer to the 1848-49 Frankfurter Nationalversammlung, but the question is by who? C mon 13:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's attributed to Otto von Bismarck at the Frankfurt Parliament, 1849: typically anti-intellectual and subversive of the rule of law. Leave out the numbers, which vary in quotes, and just google "Vaterland du bist verraten Vaterland du bist verloren ". --Wetman 14:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific to where you find this attribution? If I google what you instructed me too I get a error message". Moreover he was not a member of the Frankfurt Parliament, only of the Erfurt Parliament, and that only since 1850. I can google for hunches myself but I am looking for a specific attribution. C mon 17:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Try this search.  --Lambiam 17:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be several versions of this quotation. The German Wikiquote site (see here) has only "Achtundachtzig Professoren: Vaterland, du bist verloren" (Eighty-eight professors: Fatherland, you are lost), which it sources from the periodical Deutsche Rundschau in 1901, Rede über das Frankfurter Parlament 1848-1849 (Speech on the Frankfurt Parliament of 1848-1849). But 1901 is a few years after Bismarck's death, and a newspaper is generally not the best of sources, so it may be that there isn't a very reliable source for this quotation. Xn4 21:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fall of Empires

I'm trying to draw parallels between the fall of the Roman and the British empires. I accept that the two events are not strictly comparable, but I'm just looking to paint a very broad picture. The Roman Empire was essentially on the defensive from the third century onwards, perhaps even earlier. At what point can it be said that the British Empire was also entirely on the defensive? Is there a military-historical event in the life of the British Empire comparable with the Roman defeat at Adrianople in 378 and the subsequent breach of the western frontier? Once again let me stress I am not looking for an exact comparison, merely a broad outline. It's all part of my Spenglerian thesis of decline. Thank you. General joffe 13:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not an easy comparison to draw, as the British Empire's affairs were conducted in such wildly different manners in different places. However, re your Adrianople comment, World War Two marks a rather important watershed, with many Imperial dominions succeeding in gaining independence in the 5 years immediately following the war from an exhausted and depleted Britain. However, this is simplistic too, because the independence movements in many of those places were already well in train before WWII and the war may just have accelerated affairs. Then again, that's probably an elegant parallel with Adrianople. --Dweller 14:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I too was about to say that "World War II" is the misleading answer you're looking for. You may be interested in more sophisticated modes of comparison in J.A. Tainter, The collapse of complex societies. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 1988, which I heartily recommend as an antidote to the glib generalities of Toynbee, through whom you are probably viewing Spengler, at a remove. John Michael Greer, How Civilizations Fall: A Theory of Catabolic Collapse 2005, might spur your curiosity about Tainter, who will reshape your thinking in this matter. --Wetman 14:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I, too, recommend Tainter's book most heartily. There's also Allen, Tainter and Hoekstra's 'Supply-side sustainability' which, although focusing on ecology, contains a lot of historic information and comparisons. Random Nonsense 15:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't the dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa) which gained independence after the Second World War, for them independence had come before it. "Is there a military-historical event in the life of the British Empire comparable with the Roman defeat at Adrianople in 378?" No. The British Empire wasn't driven out of business by the equivalent of the Goths. Like all of the European colonial empires, it broke up because the world moved on and the impetus towards democracy (or at least the sham of it) and self-determination became unstoppable, first, in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, for the dominions which had a European majority, and then, from the 1940s onwards, for non-Europeans. There was, though, a great watershed moment, and that was the independence of India in 1947, very much the product of the Indian independence movement. Without the huge critical mass of India, the Empire was hugely diminished, and much of the rest of it (particularly in Africa and the Middle East) had been acquired to secure the sea lanes to India. If you're looking for a crunch moment, I'd say that's it. Xn4 20:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I can see where you are coming from, General joffe, and, yes, it probably is possible to make out, in very broad outline, some form of Spenglerian model of decline and fall. The chief difference is that in the case of the Roman Empire the transformations took place over centuries, whereas in the British case events can be telescoped into the half century between about 1900 and 1950. It might be said that when empires cease to expand they start to decline. Roman expansion really comes to an end with the death of Trajan in 117AD. Thereafter the empire went from consolidation to defense and, in time, to the defensive. By the late nineteenth century the British Empire had reached the same defensive stage; its purpose was to deter aggression, not to prosecute war. The Empire emerged from the Great War in some ways not that much better than the Romans after the Crisis of the Third Century-the enemy had been defeated but victory had brought a whole series of new and insurmountable economic, political and structural problems. So, was there a British Adrianople and when did it come? In contrast to Xn4 I would say that there was. It came in 1942 with the Fall of Singapore, itself the very symbol of imperial defence. It was, as Churchill put it, "the greatest disaster and largest capitulation in British history." It did not just bring defeat it shattered the very idea of Empire. The resurrection of 1945 was the hollowest of shells. For the forts on the Rhine were now empty. Clio the Muse 00:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Clio is good at this, and I can agree with the Fall of Singapore as a possible parallel for the second battle of Adrianople... if one were to take the view that the British Empire was fatally wounded by the loss of India, then perhaps another possibility as a symbolic parallel is Gandhi's Great Salt March of 1930. Xn4 01:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Keyboard notes and the treble clef

Hi, I've been trying to play the keyboards in my room although I am having a lot of trouble alternating my fingering on the black and white keys (flats, sharps, and naturals). I already know how to play the white keys from highest to low in the two black key region, A, B, C, D, E, F, G. And then the blacks, A#/Bb, B#/Cb, D#/ Eb, F#/Gb, G#/Ab. But for the most part I am having quite a bit of trouble trying to know all the notes on the treble clef. There's FACE, EGBDAF, though I am unsure if that's all of them. Does anyone know all the notes to the treble clef including the confusing middle C and lines and spaces?--70.251.209.117 14:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This might be of help in identifying the notes. I'm not sure if you also have a question about fingering; if so, can you be more specific? Do you want to know the conventional fingerings for playing scales? jeffjon 14:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the question is about which notes are assigned to which lines and spaces on the staff in the treble clef. The article on Modern musical symbols has a fairly exhaustive list of, well, musical notation but it doesn't specify the assignment of notes in the various clefs. The article Clef includes an image which does show the assignment in the treble clef from immediately below (D above middle C) to immediately above (G above high C). It doesn't provide much help for notes on ledger lines, such as middle C. I think images showing the assignments in each clef would probably be a useful addition to these articles, but I'm not capable of making such an image myself. - Eron^Talk 15:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're probably right, which is why I linked the image above. The OP's first two sentences, though, suggest scale fingerings to me. If so, they might check out scale fingerings here. jeffjon 17:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

:Trying to work out what you are asking, do you have some manuscript paper in front of you, or could you draw out the basic stave on some paper? Just five lines equally spaced. Now try and draw a treble clef, remembering that you don't have to make it look exactly like the ones you see in print. Just make sure the basic shape is right, and the spiral is around the right line.

:Now see if you can write a C-major scale. Forget about FACE and EGBDAF for now, just write a C-major scale. To do this, start with a middle C (I'd use crochets/quarter notes, but you can use whichever sort you like). Middle C is the one you draw on one ledger line below your stave, so that's one short line underneath your other lines, about as far apart from the bottom line as the bottom line is from the one above. Draw your note on the line, so that a little bit of the line pokes out each side of the note (if the line is too long, rub it out). This is middle C.

:Now write your D above middle C; this is just the next note up, directly underneath the bottom line. The next note up after that (E) is on the first line, skewered by it, and the next note (F) is in the first space. Keep going, putting notes alternately in lines and spaces, and you can label them with the scale (C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C). Your second C should be in the space above the centre line.

:You can keep going up if you like, but if you go about the second G you'll need more ledger lines (and I think will confuse yourself at present). Write out a C-major scale, then you can use it for reference. Hope this helps or, if it doesn't, enables you to ask your question more clearly! Skittle 15:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(Illustrated the above) — Michael J 05:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To amplify, perhaps unnecessarily, on the above: for each of the clefs, the basic notes that occur successively on and between the lines, as you go up, are the same as the white keys of the keyboard from left to right: A, B, C, D, E, F, G over and over again. If you have fixed one, the rest follows. For example, for the treble clef (also known as the G-clef; it originated from the shape of the letter G) the end of the inner curl ends when it goes through the line for a G note, so then the space below it is F because F precedes G in the alphabet. Other tones (A♯/B♭ and such) are notated by using an accidental (sharp ♯ or flat ♭) before the note in the same bar, or by giving the sharps and flats in the key signature. This then corresponds to the key next to the original white key: for a sharp the neighbour key to the right and for a flat the neighbour key to the left – which usually is a black key, but may also be a white key neighbouring a white key). FACE and EGBDFA (not EGBDAF!) come from taking alternate letters in ABCDEFGABCDEFGABCDEFGABCDEFG.  --Lambiam 18:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

euro to canadian dollar

anybody know this? how much are euros to a canadian dollar? if im wrong, vice versa?Jwking 16:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Try this Google search: 1 euro in canadian dollars.  --Lambiam 17:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

However, if you want precise numbers, you have to talk about what kind of exchange rate you mean, and Google doesn't tell you what kind it's giving you. If you walk into a Canadian bank with euros and ask for dollars, you'll get one rate. If you have a check denominated in euros, you might get a different rate. If you walk in and ask to buy euros, the rate will certainly be different, because all of these "consumer" exchange rates have a commission figured in (which is likely to be several percent). If you are a bank, there won't be the same commission, but exchanging large amounts of money is more like the stock market: the rate for a specific transaction is whatever the other trader is willing to agree to. That's why web sites may report "closing" or "noon" exchange rates.

Just as a "for instance", I went to the Royal Bank of Canada web site and selected "personal" and the "foreign exchange". It said that buying 1,000 euros would cost me $1,435.70 Canadian, for a rate of $1.4357; for but if I was selling euros it'd be $1.3660. It also said that these were the rates for paper instruments such as checks; I followed the "cash" link and that page said the rate was $1.4580 for buying, $1.3434 for selling. It also says that transactions above $100,000 US dollars in value might have a different rate and you should ask. Meanwhile Google just says "1 Euro = 1.39353656 Canadian dollars". Since that's in the middle, perhaps it's the current inter-bank rate, but they don't say. Which rate you want depends on why you want to know. --Anonymous, 00:18 UTC (copyedited later), November 14, 2007.

Toffee Apples?

I have a German account of the Battle of the Somme which makes reference to the British firing 'toffee apples' into their trenches. Obviously this is an expression for some kind of shell or explosive; it sure as hell is not a candy apple! The question is what kind of explosive? I thought they might be hand grenades, but toffee apple does not really describe the British Mills bomb adequately, more of a pineapple shape. Besides these attacks are not followed by infantry assaults. Thanks for your help. 86.151.241.167 17:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

They may have been sticky bombs, which, in our article on this type of hand grenades, are compared to toffee apples.  --Lambiam 17:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not the sticky bomb, Lambian. These did not come until the Second World War. Clio the Muse 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Toffee apples" probably refers to mortar bombs. The drain-pipe Stokes Mortar from which modern ones descend wasn't the only style of bomb-firing device on offer, and indeed it didn't appear until half way through the war. You can see an image of a "toffee apple" bomb here. They were fired from the British 2 inch medium mortar, a fairly cumbersome, unsafe, and unreliable contraption. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a passage in the war memoir of Ernst Jünger with a description of the said 'toffee apple';

I was sent to the 6th company, and, a few days after my arrival, moved into the line at the head of my platoon, where I was straightway welcomed by a few English 'toffee apples.' These are brittle iron shells, filled with high explosive, somewhat resembling fruit on a stalk; or imagine a fifty-kilogram dumbbell, with one of the weights missing. (Storm of Steel, 2004, p. 42). Clio the Muse 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wilde sent down

Oscar Wilde seems to have been sent down from Oxford in the spring of 1877. Does anyone know why?MindyE 19:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Oscholars Library (quoting from Oscar Wilde and Greece by Patrick Sammon) says - "When Oscar Wilde was rusticated (temporarily suspended) from Oxford for returning from a visit to Greece three weeks late for the beginning of term, he announced, 'I was sent down from Oxford for being the first undergraduate to visit Olympia.'" 86.21.74.40 19:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly he was also having problems with his tutor at the time. Clio the Muse 01:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Parnell

I was wondering if the O'Shea divorce case was sufficient cause to explain the political demise of Charles Stewart Parnell? Irishbard 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. This aspect of Parnell is well covered at our article Charles Stewart Parnell. Xn4 21:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a topic that has been the subject to quite a bit of scholarly debate. There are those who continue to hold to the traditional view that the O'Shea scandal as the sole cause of his political destruction, but some specialists have given greater weight to other factors, like the failure of the 1886 Irish Home Rule Bill, problems of unity within the Nationalist Party, and the links that Parnell was allegedly cultivating with the more extreme sections of Irish opinion, including the Fenians. The argument here is that decline was already in progress; William O'Shea's action for divorce merely supplied the coup de grâce. The texts I am thinking of specifically are Parnell in Perspective by G. Boyce and A. O'Day and The Parnell Split, 1890-1 by F. Callanan. Clio the Muse 01:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You use the words "sufficient cause", Irishbard, and that's more of a legal concept than a political one. Undoubtedly, the O'Shea business was the silver bullet which did for Parnell. Why did so many people, including Tim Healy and other leading Nationalists, plus the Roman Catholic bishops, want him done for? That may not be explained by the adultery itself, not a unique fault in a 19th century politician. As Clio suggests, there must be more to it than that, but part at least of the explanation must be the very real effect of a divorce scandal on a national leader whose supporters were mostly Roman Catholics. Xn4 18:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Whats John Edwards position on death penalty?

And is there, indeed, any candidate from either party that is against it? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.53.127 (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul is against the death penalty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex-yp10yLvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.144.36 (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dennis Kucinich.--Eriastrum 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes,thank you,but Mr. Paul is opposed to "federal death penalty",yet he do not dares to say he is against death penalty in general.Plus he said he used to support it.

As for Kucinich,I think that is not correct,I am pretty sure he said he is in favour of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.53.127 (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a guess, but Paul would probably say that it's not the federal government's place to dictate to the states whether or not the death penalty is permissible (save via Supreme Court interpretation). Minimalistic Libertarian policies and all that. — Lomn 22:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As for Kucinich, he's against the death penalty [8]. Donald Hosek 00:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

John Edwards is for the death penalty. He says that some crimes "deserve the ultimate penalty". See ontheissues.com--Eriastrum 20:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Salem Witch Trials

Is it true that dogs were hanged in the Salem Witch Trials? I forget where I read this, and I wasn't sure if it was true. Thanks! Grango242 22:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

One dog, according to our article Tituba. Xn4 00:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Our article on Tituba says nothing of the sort! It says a dog was fed "a witchcake, a cake made from rye and the urine of the afflicted girls" and then went into fits. It never says the dog was hanged. 62.145.19.66 13:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the version of the article when I wrote the above, and not what it says now. Here, under the heading 'Salem witch trials', you'll see that the following sentence was deleted by Dureo at 0820 UTC today, one of several significant changes to the article. "Tituba was the first person accused of being a witch in Salem Village which eventually led to several others (men, women, a child, and 2 dogs of which one was hanged) in Salem and the surrounding areas to be accused of witchcraft." This was sourced from Mary Beth Norton's In the Devil's Snare: The Salem Witchcraft crisis of 1692 (New York: Alfred K. Knopf, 2002). Dureo summarized the edit as "wee bit of cleanup", which doesn't seem to me to explain what was going on. Xn4 17:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The poor dogs were framed by evil cats, of course. —Kevin Myers 15:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dureo contributes to this page and first edited Tituba a few hours after it was linked above. It strikes me as a bit odd to follow a link from here to a Wikipedia article and then to take out the content referred to. Dureo? Xn4 02:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Value of Dutch currency, 1943

In a report of an incident in the Occupied Netherlands, a collection of four diamond rings (one with a single 18 carat stone) was valuated at 30.000 florins. How to find out what that would be worth in today's currency? (USD or Euro) -- Thanks, Deborahjay 23:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Under German occupation, the Dutch florin was pegged to the Reichsmark, with one florin being worth 1.327 Reichsmarks from July 1940 until the liberation. In 1945, the Allied forces set an exchange rate of 2.652 florins to the US dollar, and that remained the rate for the post-war Bretton Woods system until 1949. If you think of the 30,000 florins as worth about US$11,000 at the time, and today's US dollar as worth about one fifteenth of its value then, you could say the 30,000 florins is something like US$165,000 now. But this is only a very rough guide - changes in prices and incomes are too complicated to button down precisely. Xn4 00:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume Deborah's "30.000" means thirty thousand (30,000 in English).

Xn4 is quite right that this sort of conversion-across-time should be regarded as "very rough". But here's an answer for what it's worth... and also about what it's worth... or at least, about about what it's worth (grin).

I started by googling on historic, value, and us-dollar, looking for something that would convert US currency from 1940s values to modern ones; I figured that would be easier to find than the same for Dutch money. However, the 6th hit was this site, which seemed like a good place to find what was really wanted. I searched in that page for "Netherlands" and saw the link to the IISH List of Datafiles of Historical Prices and Wages, here. On this page I saw the link to an overview of the value of the guilder from 1450 onwards, here. And that page says that 30,000 guilders in 1943 would equal 164,771.87 euros in 2006 -- obviously excessive precision, but it would be reasonable to say that what it's worth would be "today about €170,000 or $250,000 US". --Anonymous, 00:47 UTC, today November 14, 2007.

That should be a better rough value than mine, if the program the iisg.nl site is running is based on good figures. I've tried it for different years and got some puzzling results. In any event, we're struggling, because the value of money in Europe during (and after) the Second World War was distorted in many ways. Xn4 01:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

November 14

What is the daily value of money exchanged around the planet?

A few years ago I saw a statistic that the equivalent of $5.2 Trillion was exchanged around the planet each day; and .01% went unaccounted for. Is there a relatively accurate number for today; maybe $5.5 Trillion?71.114.65.139 00:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

According to this authoritative source average daily turnover was $3.2 trillion as of April 2007. This was much higher than previously recorded volumes, so it doesn't seem possible that the volume was over $5 trillion several years ago. Marco polo 02:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Tahiti

From Paul Gauguin's paintings of Tahitian women, are they the same as today or not? you know naked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.38 (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You know-no! Clio the Muse 00:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

'course not, they are older now...--88.110.96.144 06:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism

According to New Testament and anti-Semitism it is clear that many Jews, except those who followed Jesus, regarded Jesus and His followers as anti-Semitic. Do Jews today in general consider Jesus and His followers to be anti-Semitic and if so to what end? Also is it possible that Jews who consider Jesus and His followers to be anti-semitic have by so believing revealed the fact that they themselves are unsanctified Jews based on pretense and hypocrisy akin to those Jews who chose to worship gold instead of God following the event of the Golden Calf? 71.100.15.238 00:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to your particular question (without reference to the WP page you cite, whose validity I don't wish to examine): all streams of Judaism hold that the Messiah has not yet come, so Jesus Christ cannot be considered the Messiah. If the followers of Jesus believe him Divine, this is out of accord with Jewish belief. I don't see where this has anything to do with antisemitism, a modern term for the xenophobic hatred of Jews. Also please note that the adjective "Jewish" refers equally to adherents of Judaism (the Jewish religion) and to the Jewish people, perhaps most appropriately considered an "ethnicity"or "ethnic identity" (vs. the problematic and contentious term race). -- Hope that helps, Deborahjay 01:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Deborahjay, from your statement: "...all streams of Judaism hold that the Messiah has not yet come, so Jesus Christ cannot be considered the Messiah. If the followers of Jesus believe him Divine, this is out of accord with Jewish belief."

1. what are the things that all streams of Judaism hold as proof that the Messiah has come when He comes, (i.e. what does Jesus Christ lack in regard to all streams of Judaism being able to consider Him the Messiah), and
2. do all streams of Judaism believe that the messiah will be Devine?

(Obviously I am not Jewish or I would already know this.) Adaptron 03:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

See Jewish messianism -- it gives a good overview. To answer your second question, no Jews believe the messiah will be "divine," as in a god, part of God or a literal "son of God." -- Mwalcoff 03:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading most of it I could not find where the Messiah is expected to be without sin although I did find where He is not expected to work miracles. Is the Messiah expected to be sinless and to remain sinless (I would think, yes.)? If the answer is yes then I think this is the basis (lack of sin) that Christan's use to declare Jesus was/is Divine. Can anyone clarify? Thanks. Adaptron 03:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

See tzadik. Being free from sin would not make a Jew divine, but "only" a tzadik, or saintly person. It bears remembering that the concept of a god-like divine person is completely foreign to Judaism. Even if someone were to come along who would work all kinds of wonders, it would still be sacrilegious to consider that person to be divine. Now if that were to happen, and some Jews were to stray from their faith and begin worshiping that person along with God, it wouldn't make those people "antisemitic." A person is only antisemitic if he is against Jews. Following a different faith doesn't mean you're against Jews. -- Mwalcoff 05:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to dispute what you are saying but my understanding is that the Jews put Jesus to death because He claimed to be God rather than considering such a claim as simply the basis for a different faith while it was Jesus' condemnation of the Jews for killing God that made Him anti-Semitic. Adaptron 06:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't saying "the Jews put Jesus to death" a bit like saying "the Protestants put Thomas More to death"? If God condemns all Jews forever for the actions of certain individual Jews over 2,000 years ago, then could not Catholics similarly condemn all Protestants forever for the actions of a small number of them 500 years ago? If my understanding of Christian theology is correct, (a) Jesus hates sin but loves sinners and (b) his crucifixion was necessary for the salvation of mankind, hence the agent of that crucifixion is hardly to be condemned for it, rather they should be honoured. -- JackofOz 11:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

True but ironically only for those Jews who acknowledged in word as well as in deed the validity of Jesus' claim to be Divine. Neither Thomas More or the Protestants claimed to be Divine so there is not tit for tat there. 71.100.12.42 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Errrr... it woz the Romans wot done it, not the Jews. And his crime was political, not religious. Tellingly, the Romans placed a "King of the Jews" tag on the cross. --Dweller 14:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The universal problem of logic with which the Jews are faced is that when you acknowledge a claim as significant by acting on it then the logical value you attribute to the claim is revealed by the action you take in response to it. The Roman soldiers, for instance, by putting Jesus on the cross acknowledged their belief that Jesus' claim to be King of the Jews was valid. Otherwise they would have no justifiable reason to put Him to death. Claims are either valid or invalid. The irony and risk for the Jewish people is that by disregarding the question of the validity of Jesus’ claim to be Divine the Jewish people are either proclaiming their superiority to God or condemning a fellow human to death merely for expressing a different belief than their own. In either case this makes the claim of the Jewish people of being God’s chosen people not necessarily to be trusted. 71.100.12.42 16:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say calling anyone from the first century AD/CE "antisemitic" is an ananchronism. Most first-century Jews regarded Jesus as a blasphemer and his followers as heretics, no more and no less. Jesus's followers in turn blamed the Jewish leaders (basically the Sanhedrin) for allowing the Romans to execute him, but there's no reason to think they blamed the entire Jewish ethnicity (to which most of them belonged themselves) for it. 62.145.19.66 09:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Some figures mentioned in the Contra Apionem might be considered Antisemitic (in fact the Greeks of Alexandria pretty much invented ideological Antisemitism), but Jesus was a Jew appealing to other Jews, so that it's hard to see how Jesus could be called Antisemitic... 11:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonMoos (talk • contribs)

Some strands (notably the teachings of Lubavitch, through the Tania) that being devoid of sin makes one merely a "baynooni", literally an average person. Personally, I find that intensely depressing.

Going back to the original question, I don't believe any of the issues you raise are connected to "antisemitism". Don't forget, religious differences between groups of Jews (even fundamental ones) predate and postdate those that surround Jesus and his teachings. You might enjoy reading the parallel story of Shabbetai Zvi. --Dweller 14:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

what are the differences between a controversial group and a mainstream religion?

Question posted by 90.199.254.198 Bielle 02:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this question is answerable in its current form. Groups are not always united by ritual practice and belief, so not all groups are religious groups (most are not, I'd opine). Additionally, a group of religious practitioners is not the same as a religion, either -- religions are concepts, groups are made of people. As for the difference between whether a particular religious group is considered mainstream or controversial? I'd say "mainstream" would be a measure of cultural/community acceptance, which can be partially measured by number of followers and freedom to practice...but would also suggest that controversy can disrupt that acceptance if the group is marginalizable (small enough), even if it had been mainstream before a controversy. 71.123.80.6 03:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

These aren't mutually exclusive terms, really. The Catholic Church is a controversial group, but it is also the seat of a mainstream religion, Catholicism. --24.147.86.187 05:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact any religion is controversial, because by definition it makes unverifiable claims. In other words there is no difference--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If by "controversial group" you mean "sect", you may be interested in reading Church-sect typology. 62.145.19.66 10:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

race in south africa

please I would like some information on historical origins of racial stereotypes in south africa in days of apartheid.Cetawayo 06:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you read this? If not then start there. Zain Ebrahim 10:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the origins of racial stereotypes in SA would lie well before Apartheid. Zain Ebrahim 10:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You should ahve a look at the following for a more detailed understanding of a complex subject;

• R. Elphick and H. Gilomee, The Shaping of South African Society 1652-1820 , Longman (Southern Africa, 1979)
• R Elphick:Kraal and Castle,Khoikhoi and the Founding of White South Africa , Yale University Press (New Haven and London, 1977)
• Shula Marks 'Khosian resistance to the Dutch in the 17th and 18th centuries' Journal of African History , XIII, 1 CUP (Cambridge, 1972)
• M. Legassick 'The frontier tradition in South African historiography' in S.Marks and A. Atmore (eds), Economy and Society in Pre-Industrial South Africa , Longman (London, 1980)
• R. Raven-Hart, Before van Riebeeck: Callers at the Cape from 1488 to 1652 , C. Striuk (Cape Town, 1967). Clio the Muse 02:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

White Afrikaans White English Cloloured Mixed race Black Native Cape malay Indian

this is how it was seperated. racist and sad as it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Episcopal archbishops

Two questions:

1. Are there archbishops in the ECUSA?
2. In what book does the narrator (a Brit) describe meeting an American clergyman who "described himself, rather redundantly I thought, as an Episcopal bishop"?

62.145.19.66 09:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

1. There are not. The head of the Episcopal Church is a Presiding Bishop. FiggyBee 11:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
2. The word "Episcopal" derives from Greek episkopos, "bishop." That said, "Bishop in the Church characterized by, and named for, the superintendency of bishops" hardly seems redundant. "I am an Episcopal" does not mean the same as "I am an Episcopal bishop." But it's presumably meant humorously and plays on the unfamiliarity of the term "Episcopal" for "Anglican." Within the British branches of the same church, "episcopal" really does only mean "of or pertaining to a bishop" ("episcopal vestments," etc.), and "episcopal bishop" would be redundant. Wareh 17:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

But the question wasn't "Why is this redundant?", the question was, "What book does this line come from?" (And the Anglican church in Scotland also calls itself the Episcopal Church, so there too "Episcopal bishop" is not redundant.) —Angr 17:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

2. I'm afraid this is only a guess, 62.145.19.66, but it sounds to me very much like something from The Towers of Trebizond (1956) by Rose Macaulay. If not, then Dorothy L. Sayers is another possibility. Xn4 20:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've never read The Towers of Trebizond, so it can't be that. Dorothy Sayers is quite possible, though. 62.145.19.66 06:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unnatural Death by Dorothy Sayers was the first thing that came to my mind. At the very least, in it a West Indian clergyman is gently mocked because he refers to himself as Reverend So-and-so, instead of the Reverend So-and-so. Delmlsfan 01:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

items on person

In general, what items should a person have on his or her person? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.130.56 (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A strange question. Assuming no context, a person should have:

- some usable currency, in case of need - some form of identification (a legal requirement in some countries, good sense in others). - clothing, appropriate to the current climate.

Other things that might be useful: - basic first aid equipment - hygienic products (for example, tampons, condoms)

and so on. Steewi 10:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

These days, a mobile phone is usual. I also don't go anywhere without my sunglasses and my hanky. FiggyBee 11:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A pocket knife and a pen. --Milkbreath 11:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

String and a safety pin,,hotclaws 11:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The knife can get you arrested, especially if you try and carry it onto a plane. Exxolon 23:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Clothing? C mon 12:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Steewi mentioned that. Zain Ebrahim 12:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Because someone has to mention it: a towel, and equally useful: a hat. Also, duct tape when camping or travelling or somesuch. I also usually carry some paper, writing utensils and a marker with me, which come in handy rather often. Random Nonsense 14:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, always have your towel handy. --S.dedalus 20:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I really do often carry a towel, I take a backpack with me most of the time with towel, heavy coat, a book and a some deoderant. Pockets contain keys, money, debit card, phone, chewing gum and cancer sticks. Lanfear's Bane | t 16:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you sass that hoopy Lanfear's Bane? There's a frood who really knows where his towel is. (some readers may not know the source of the towel recommendation). --LarryMac | Talk 16:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I assumed the source of the towel recommendation was Towelie's constant advice, "Don't forget to bring a towel!" —Angr 17:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

One is not fully dressed without a loose joint and a can of Day-Glo spray paint. --Wetman 16:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally?

• One forty-five calibre automatic
• Two boxes of ammunition
• Four days' concentrated emergency rations
• One drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquillizer pills
• One miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible
• One hundred dollars in roubles
• One hundred dollars in gold
• Nine packs of chewing gum
• One issue of prophylactics
• Three lipsticks
• Three pair of nylon stockings.

--Kurt Shaped Box 23:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Dang Kurt, a guy could have quite a night on the town with all that ;) 161.222.160.8 01:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And she was only going shopping! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.87.85 (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

DON'T PANIC!! I wanted to say towel but was beat to the punch on that ;P. On or about my person it's: Glock 23 + 1 mag, Bianchi or Comp-Tac holster, Ken Onion Chive, Surefire E2E Executive, epipen, motorola i730 and LG enV, cuffs, badge, wallet and appropriate ID's/papers, spiffy little Cross gel pen from staples, Blue Ipod nano with skullcandy earbuds, zippo(don't smoke, but nice to be able to make fire on demand), Luminox, work set of keys with 4gb U3 flash drive, car and motorcycle sets depending on what I am taking. Always have a expandable baton in the door pocket, a spare glock 27 and several spare mags in the car, and my OQO mobile PC in the car, at work it's Sig 229r, 2 extra mags, silent key keeper, streamlight stinger, 2 cuff cases, flashlight and pr-24 rings, gloves, oc spray, radio, type IIIA vest, taser +1 extra cartridge, and an expandable winchester baton, plus some of the assorted stuff thats important up there, like the watch, wallet, epipen and such, I have a 40 inch waist so I manage to make it all fit. The most important thing to remember is to take what you need for the situation; going to a rough area of town, take a dummy wallet; out in the woods, take MRE's/other rations, magnesium fire starter, bigger knife; Dodgers game, take extra moola for those $8 beers(but leave the weapons at home ;P). Dureo 15:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Surprised no-one has yet mentioned keys. If you don't have them on you when out, you won't be able to get back in your house. And I second the suggestion of a pen being essential. It's amazing how often people don't have a pen on them when they need one. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So true, I tried to find a link to that cross pen, it's amazingly easy to have all the time, only about 2 inches, but when you uncap it and put the cap on the rear of it it's a full size pen, nice fat jobber too, easy to write with. Dureo 15:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

GDR and the Third Reich

Hans Moller, the director of the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich, has attempted to make direct comparisons between the former German Democratic Republic and the Third Reich. Is there a valid basis, beyond the obvious, for such a view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.14.88 (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should be explicit about what you consider "the obvious" before people start listing it. It also depends a lot on what comparisons Möller made. 62.145.19.66 13:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, as the phrase "a valid basis, beyond the obvious" is quite interesting. If an obvious valid basis exists, then what other basis is being searched for? If the existence of a valid basis is in doubt, then what's obvious? So yes, it's a very good idea to be explicit about the assumptions you've got regarding the question. — Lomn 14:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand your meaning, 217.43, and will proceed to answer on the basis of my understanding. In essence Möller would seem to be presenting the same tired old argument, that which views Communism an Fascism as twins, emerging from a womb of dictatorship and totalitarianism Yes, there were similarities between the Third Reich and the German Democratic Republic inasmuch as they were both based on a rejection of the liberal tradition; both based on a single ideology and a monolithic ruling party; both on the same coercive forms of social control. But the differences were far greater than the similarities. National Socialism was regressive and backwards, defined as a repressive cult of power, and no more than a cult of power. The GDR, even at its most oppressive, drew its logic and inspiration from transcendent notions of human liberation, which made its internal contradictions all the greater. It was forced constantly to dissimulate, prevaricate and explain; to justify itself by forms of ideology in every sense alien to the National Socialism. The Nazi state, moreover, was based on an unstable combination of charisma and mass engagement. The GDR was based on boredom and bureaucratic torpor. One died of excess; the other died of senility. Clio the Muse 01:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Managerial Accounting

Í'm wondering if worker's wage and direct labor cost are same or different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunthea dd (talk • contribs) 14:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally they are different. Next to direct workers' wages, the category "direct labor cost" may include such things as payroll taxes, health insurance, profit sharing, contribution to retirement funds or saving plans, vacation money, bonuses, overtime pay. Depending on the purpose and the rules in force it may also include such things as representation allowances and sabbatical leaves or paid vocational training.  --Lambiam 17:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold's nationality

Would it be appropriate to call Benedict Arnold an American, since he was born in Connecticut, or would it be better to call him British, on account of his eventual political allegiance? Lantzy ^talk 15:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the context. When he was leading the rebels/patriots, he was an American military leader. Later, he was British. I think that in general "British" or "British North American" works. After all, at the time of his birth and for most of his time in Connecticut, Connecticut was a British colony. Marco polo 16:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Think the War in Iraq would have ever happened if Gore was elected Pres in 2000?

Is there any pundit who has made the claim that the Iraq war would have been started if Gore had been named president in 2000?" 64.236.121.129 18:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines above state:

• Do not start debates or post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox.

This is a question that demands an opinion and is likely to spark a debate. We can't know the answer for certain. Marco polo 16:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Opinions aren't allowed here? That's interesting. Not asking for a debate or going on a diatribe, asking for opinions. 64.236.121.129 16:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

While you're not explicitly asking for a debate, you have asked a politically charged question that can't possibly have an objective answer. Such things are a bad idea on the reference desk (or on Wikipedia at large, for that matter). — Lomn 17:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that this question cannot be answered; there is no reference currently available which shows alternate histories with any proven accuracy. If such a reference becomes available, though, I would empty my savings account to buy a copy. Especially if it were prescient. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, my opinion is that it couldn't have possibly occured if Gore was President. 64.236.121.129 17:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That is nice and all, but Wikipedia is not a message board, it is not Facebook or MySpace, it is not a soapbox, and it is not a realm for political debate. See fact and opinion. This is a Reference Desk for asking factual questions. If you have a factual question, please feel free to ask. -- kainaw™ 17:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, opinions are allowed! ^_^ My opinion is that the Iraq War wouldn't have happend if Gore became president, and I'm curious to know what others think. Thank you for pointing out the soapbox, and other rules. ^^ Btw, myspace and facebook are for meeting friends, not asking questions on politics. DUH!!! 64.236.121.129 17:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The intent of the reference desk is to get factual answers. You could have phrased the question as, "Is there any pundit who has made the claim that the Iraq war would have been started if Gore had been named president in 2000?" and not hit the issue (as an aside, as far as I'm aware, the answer is "no" although I imagine there is at least one warblogger who may have made the argument that under a President Gore we would be facing a mushroom cloud over New York because of inaction). For discussions on topics, probably the best place to go would be the appropriate group at http://groups.google.com/ There's also a newish social networking site whose name I forget (something about soda) which is geared around asking questions and getting people's responses.

That said, the reference desk doesn't always live up to its platonic ideal (certainly many regulars, myself included, have violated the guidelines visible at the top of this page), but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least aspire to that. Donald Hosek 18:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I changed my question so it says exactly that. :) Thanks for the help Donald Duck! 64.236.121.129 18:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem really has nothing to do with the distinction between facts and opinions (people ask speculative history questions all the time), but the fact that your question didn't bring much to the table and it seemed like an attempt to just get people arguing with each other made it look a little trollish. If you want my two cents, you'd get better results if you 1. deleted this question altogether, 2. created a new one that stated some factual reasons you hold the opinion you hold and asks for other things you should take into consideration when thinking about it. It's not a bad question, and it's not at all any more inappropriate for the reference desk than half of the questions we get on here. It is a controversial subject matter, though, so people are going to want you to look like you are actually seriously interested in the answer and not just trying to waste people's time. Back up your opinions with some factual reasons and people will attack them, praise them, elaborate on them, whatever. You have to give a little to get more, in this case. --24.147.86.187 23:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't wana delete the question dude. :) 64.236.121.129 15:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with asking a question on the RD that does not have a definitive "correct" answer. The problem is if someone asks a question that is likely to spark a debate, as in, "Is X a good thing or a bad thing?" -- Mwalcoff 23:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many questions that don't have one single answer. But hypothetical questions are something else again. Asking "What was the single primary cause of World War II?" would doubtless elicit various responses and opinions, and facts can be provided to either support them or refute them. But asking "What would have happened if ...." gets us into the realm of pure speculation, and nobody will ever know. Such discussions may be interesting or even fascinating, but I wonder if this is the place for them. -- JackofOz 01:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Mosley and the New Party

I'm carrying out some research on the early career of Sir Oswald Mosley, focusing, in particular, on his career in the Labour Party up to the formation of the New Party, using your articles as a starting point. I now need some of the gaps to be filled. What I need to know exactly is how the Mosley Memorandum was received in the parliamentary Labour Party and at the subesquent party conference? Why, moreover, did so few of his former supporters follow him into the New Party? Thanks for any help you can offer. Some references would also be useful. Joseph Mann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.249.97 (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To begin with its worth stressing that Oswald Mosley, always something of a political maverick, had no real roots in the British Labour movement; and in traditional Labour politics roots was everything. His obvious ambition, his personal vanity, and his tendency to strain at the constraints of party discipline, were also factors working against him. His intellectual brilliance and his personal charisma clearly impressed some, though in the end this was not enough.

The Mosley Memorandum itself was a bold scheme, with Keynesian overtones, for dealing with the problem of mass unemployment, but was in advance of orthodox thinking; in advance of what the senior figures in the government of Ramsay MacDonald were prepared to contemplate. When the cabinet failed to accept his arguments he resigned from ministerial office, comforting himself, one suspects, with the same false hopes of Lord Randolph Churchill-that his stature, the force of his argument would carry his parliamentary colleagues along the road of support. It did not. In forcing a vote critical of government policy on unemployment he lost by 29 to 210. His last hope was to persuade the annual Party conference, held at Llandudno in October 1930. Although the constituency parties voted heavily in his favour the executive had the support of the trade union block vote. He was now an isloated figure in the movement, a prophet without honour.

It might be said that from this point onwards Mosley was carried forward by a mixture of conceit and frustrated ambition. He was already noted in the Party for a belief that 'dictatorial methods' were needed to deal with the depth of the economic crisis, causing some to nickname him the 'English Hitler.' Mosley was hopeful that Aneurin Bevan, a prominent Labour left-winger, would join his proposed New Party, but he shied away, saying that it would 'end as a Fascist party.' Mosely's whole base of support soon evaporated. The New Party formed on a ripple, not a tide.

There are a great many sources that might be of use to you on this subject, 86.141, but to begin with I would recommend Black Shirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British Fascism by Stephen Dorril, as well as Rules of the Game and Beyond the Pale by Nicholas Mosley. Clio the Muse 01:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a correlation between Intelligence and how powerful a country is?

Like for example, if a country is filled with stupid people it would be weaker, and if a country was filled with mostly smart people, it would be stronger. Does this correlation exist? 64.236.121.129 18:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, in such a case correlation and causation are certainly problematic. For example, a "strong" country might be defined by its infrastructure, educational system, public participation, etc., all of which have strong effects as to how intelligence is expressed and measured. A country without any security, with no compulsory education, without adequate public health services, etc., is going to have a large percentage of its people being kept in a state much "stupider" than they would be otherwise. A country whose citizens cannot get adequate nutrition, for example, cannot hope to compete in the realm of average intelligence when compared to a country which does.

If you are asking for some sort of simple rationalization for some nations being more powerful than others, it's a lot more complicated than intelligence or even education level of the populace. --24.147.86.187 18:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As stated, there is no standard measure of intelligence or country strength. If you have a specific measure you would like to use, a correlation could be measured. For example, "Is there a correlation between the percentage of citizens with a college degree and the national GDP?" It is not a strong correlation. I believe India has the highest percentage of citizens with college degrees and they are listed as 12th in nominal GDP. -- kainaw™ 19:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

By my reckoning, about 3% of the Indian population has a degree, compared to a quarter of the US population. FiggyBee 20:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Circular reasoning threatens to rear its ugly head. Could an increased GDP make it possible for more citizens to acquire college degrees (grants, rich parents, etc.) and wouldn't this mean that cause and effect are reversed? At the same time, one wonders whether degree density has much to do with collective intelligence (except that they make for curious terminology). Is there any correlation between intelligence and college degrees? Bessel Dekker 19:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

During the gunpowder age, why didn't they just go around the firing lines?

Example would be, if you saw a bunch of redcoats with single shot muskets line up, why would you charge them? Why not just go around and shoot them from the sides or the back? 64.236.121.129 18:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This did happen. For example, Francis Marion used this kind of surprise-attack, ambush tactic during the American Revolutionary War. When this happened, it was an example of asymmetric warfare, analogous to the scattered insurgent resistance to the organized American occupying forces in Iraq today. This kind of tactic was not often used in wars involving European armies during this period, because it would have been impossible to maintain discipline and control over forces broken apart to attack in scattered groups. (Rates of desertion were fairly high during this period, and allowing soldiers to act under cover independently or out of the control of professional officers would have been an invitation to desert.) The main reason for the use of formations such as lines and columns was that these formations were easy to command and control. Also, in the open fields upon which most European battles took place, there would not have been much advantage to "going around" a line of infantry, as the line could easily turn and charge you. Ultimately, the combattants had to face each other and fire. In this context, formations such as lines gave commanders greater control. Marco polo 18:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It also depends on the precise level of technology involved. As noted in our musket article, accuracy during the period when massed formations were effective was terrible. The massed formation, then, was the solution -- fire en masse made the musket more effective. Running around singly in, say, 1700 would allow for defeat in detail -- your force cannot effectively engage the enemy, who can alternately pummel you with mass fire or run you down with cavalry. Similarly, your force is too small to effect a change in battlefield possession. It's not until the 19th century and the advent of rifling that individual marksmanship emerges as a battlefield commodity, and that's when you see open massed formations fall out of use. — Lomn 18:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

They still had firing lines with rifled muskets dude. 64.236.121.129 19:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

They did, and it very quickly became apparent that they were far less effective. Military strategy does not shift overnight, and generals are reluctant to abandon "proven" outdated strategies in lieu of similarly-proven new ones. However, I think the point stands that for the bulk of the musket age, armies used mass formations because they were effective, and avoided small dispersed units because they were ineffective. — Lomn 19:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cavalry. A large-group formation is able to hold off a cavalry charge, but is not maneuverable enough to go around another large-group formation. A small-group formation will get overrun and destroyed by a cavalry charge. --Carnildo 00:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The line facing you is not the whole enemy force. If you try to go around, several bad things can happen, and the same sorts of bad things can happen even nowadays. Their cavalry can chop you to bits while you're on the move and vulnerable. The guys you are trying to go around will capture your artillery and/or supply train and then cut you off from retreat. There is a maxim that if you're in the enemy's rear, he's in yours. They are in a line in the open probably because their flanks are on difficult terrain where you'll get disorganized and can be trapped. The route behind where you were is now open and whatever you were protecting from the enemy, like a town or crossroads or bridge, is now unprotected. They can blast you to Hell with their artillery because you're not near their guys anymore, and you can't use yours because you're moving. Yes, it seems absolutely nuts to just stand there and duke it out, but the alternatives are worse. You can harrass an army with woodsman's tactics, but you can't stop one that way. --Milkbreath 00:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

See Flanking maneuver. Pfly 04:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• In general, armies would not fight a general action unless either both thought they would win, or one side had no choice. One side would usually adopt a defensive posture, on ground where they thought they had the tactical advantage. The "going round" each other would usually occur in the lead up to the battle - Napoleon's manoeuvre sur les derrières - to put one side at a strategic disadvantage, and, in extreme cases, like the Ulm Campaign, force the enemy to surrender without a fight. Once you are on the battlefield - either picked by you and accepted by your enemy, or picked by your enemy and accepted by you - it is generally not very easy to "go around" your enemy, because the terrain will be too difficult (forest, marsh, river) and also because the enemy will try to stop you!
• Muskets are (usually) not single-shot weapons: well-trained infantrymen could fire 3 or more shots per minute.
• In the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars, the French often did, for a variety of reasons, form their infantry in more manoeuvrable (and controlable) blocks (columns) rather than deploying into lines. -- !! ?? 12:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, muskets are single-shot weapons. Yes, a well trained infantrymen can fire a couple rounds a minute, but that doesn't change the fact that muskets are single shot. The phrase "single shot" means the weapon can only fire one shot before it needs to be reloaded again. It has nothing to do with how fast the musketeer is at reloading and shooting. 64.236.121.129 15:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

These ideas apply equally to other pre-gunpowder military technologies. Outflanking the enemy has always been desirable, but difficult to achieve while maintaining control. The Romans in their heyday were excellent at it. However, well-drilled and well-led ranks of phalanx, riflemen, pikemen, or whatever, could adapt to being outflanked, or even an attack from behind. Caesar's scarcely-believable victory at Alesia is a prime example that comes to mind. He found himself squeezed between two armies, each of which was larger than his own (one massively larger), yet defeated both. Note that on bad ground, there was a distinct advantage to the wily attacker prepared to let his troops fight without centralised control - see what the Scottish "schiltrons" did at the marshy Battle of Bannockburn. --Dweller 15:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Frederick and America

What was Frederick the Great's attitude towards the rebellion of the American colonies against the British? Qurious Cat 19:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

One of sympathy, I suppose, born out of frustration, because he still felt aggrieved with the British government over the way in which he had been let down at the conclusion of the Seven Years War. He certainly did not countenance a breach with a formally friendly power over the matter of rebellion; but Frederick being Frederick, took the pragmatic view of an old soldier. He was sure that the Colonies would win their independence and keep it; that British policy in fighting a war with no allies, and without whole-hearted support from the public, was self-defeating. He followed the military operations with great interest, and was singularly unimpressed with the conduct of Lord Howe, Lord Cornwallis and John Burgoyne. George III, he wrote, had got what he deserved. Clio the Muse 00:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

hipaa privacy rules

how willemployees in the medical office have to be trained regarding privacy ? what is required if an employee doesn't follow the privacy policy? when must employees be trained? In what manner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosebud0t (talk • contribs) 20:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This looks very much like something requiring a professional legal opinion, which we cannot provide. That said, our article on HIPAA may provide a useful starting point for understanding its implications. — Lomn 20:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

why july

why did the july monarchy fal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.218.241 (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you read our articles July Monarchy and Revolutions of 1848 in France? Algebraist 20:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Religion comparison

What is the comparison of religious teaching of Hinuism, Buddhism, and Islam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.115.99.153 (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of what,exactly? "Religious teaching" is a very broad area. The best place to start would be the three articles about each of these religions, and then if you have specific questions about them you'll certainly get some more meaningful responses. ◄Zahakiel► 21:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For a comparison of Hinduism and Buddhism, see our article Buddhism and Hinduism. Islam is so different that it cannot really be meaningfully compared to these two; it is an Abrahamic religion, and we have articles on Christianity and Islam and Islam and Judaism.  --Lambiam 22:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Any study of the religious history of India will include a comparison between Islam, Hinudism, and Buddhism. And to answer the original question, you're going to need to constrain yourself to a certain time period. Hinduism and Buddhism today aren't seen as religions that emphasize conversion, but large-scale conversions have happened in the past (Buddhism particularly is spread all around South/Southeast Asia but yet originated in a particular part of India, so people had to convert in the past for the religion to have adherents across the region. The same goes for Hinduism, particularly in the very distant past, when it was first formulated. Many non-Aryan peoples converted to the religion. Additionally, you are going to really need to have a more precise meaning of each of the religions. Like with Christianity, conversion isn't something you can easily define given the variety of sects and movements (think Catholic conversion vs. Fundamentalist Christian conversion) since each emphasizes different things.--152.2.62.27 12:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Judaism converts?

I am intrigued by the fact that, of the 3 major Abrahamic religions, Judaism alone is non-missionary: it doesn't seek out, or indeed encourage, converts (although conversion to Judaism is possible, of course.)

Why is this? My understanding (as a non-Jew):

1. God makes no distinction between the Righteous Gentile (non-Jew) and the pious Jew.

A spectacular example of the Righteous in the Hebrew Bible is King Cyrus of Persia, the Deliverer, who ended the Babylonian captivity:

"Thus saith the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; . . . to open before him the two-leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron: and I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the Lord, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel." Isaiah 45:1-3.

"Cyrus, he is My shepherd, and shall perform all My pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid."

"I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build My city, and he shall let go My captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts." Isaiah 44:28; 45:13.

2) Israel is to be 'a light unto the Nations'; it has a unique Covenant with the LORD; this Covenant needn't apply to the Gentiles. (If you aren't Jewish, go ahead and eat all the owls you want.)

3) Judaism is a family-centred religion. It has no need of outsider converts.

4) It is a religion that prises, indeed demands, the rigour of study, with no easy answers available; it is skeptical of wild Enthusiasm or of instant conversions; a Gentile who wishes to become a Jew must effect the equivalent of a college course, complete with "exams".

How far off-base am I?

Rhinoracer 21:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing of these matters, and have not read the relevant article, but conversion to Judaism and its references may contain useful information. Algebraist 22:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• The explanations you suggest are reasonable ones, certainly the factors you list are true, although how much it's contributed to the historical non-evangelism of the system as a whole is tricky to assess. From a doctrinal standpoint, Christianity and Islam are both explicitly commanded to go out and spread the religion, whereas Judaism has, from the earliest recorded history, been seen as trying to establish rather than expand the borders of their theological society. Thus, we find a focus on the region (e.g., Jerusalem) and the stability of the homeland, rather than a more global view that is somewhat tied in to the escatology of the two younger disciplines. ◄Zahakiel► 22:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rhinoracer -- I think you're correct, more or less. You have to remember that when Judaism arose, it was merely the formalization of the history and customs of the Israelite people. The difference between nationality and culture on the one hand and religion on the other has not always existed. To this day, the religious practices of many "tribes" (as in parts of Africa or Oceania) cannot be distinguished from the culture of the tribe itself. Judaism did not begin as a "let's convert the world" movement. It was a "this is what we as Israelites do" thing. That's why the Hebrew Bible is so Israel-centric. Christianity and Islam, of course, are very different in that regard. -- Mwalcoff 23:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Traditional Judaism is even stronger than not encouraging conversion. It actively discourages it. A lot of reasons for this have been touched on above, but the strongest falls somewhere between potential answers 1 and 2 in the question. From a traditional Jewish perspective, a non-Jew has an easy ride to get into Heaven - all s/he needs do is keep the 7 Noachide laws. If you take a non-Jew and make them Jewish, that 7 instantly becomes 613 - and the myriads of derivative laws that come from those 613. The 7 laws pretty much are the kind of things most decent human beings would want to do anyway. The 613 (even allowing for those in abeyance because there's no Temple today) include some pretty weird things that seem to have little relevance or, worse, are seemingly exceedingly illogical/annoying/difficult, "interfering" in just about every sphere of life from the moment you wake up to the moment you go to sleep, from cradle to grave. So, converting people is logically something that makes no sense... it's a bad gamble for the converting Bet Din. So, they'll look for absolutely compelling evidence that the prospective convert has pure motives and is determined to study and then keep all of the laws to the very best of human ability. If they can't find such evidence, they'll turn the person down because spiritually, converting is a very bad deal for that person's soul. Hope that helps. --Dweller 15:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, although the concept of "getting into Heaven" as Christians may think of it is not really something that's part of Judaism. -- Mwalcoff 00:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Monkey doll

I was just visiting Google Patents today and one of the random patents they had on the front page was for a Monkey Doll. What struck me as odd is that this patent is purely aesthetic—it is specifically trying to patent the appearance of a doll (in this case, a monkey in a space suit, which is not even an entirely novel idea)), and that's it. Isn't this highly in opposition to the general philosophy of granting patents? I mean, how is "an ornamental design for a monkey doll" an invention in the classical sense? Wouldn't this be the sort of thing more usually handled by copyright law? I know that the US patent system is fubar, but for some reason this struck me as even more absurd than software patents or the sealed crustless sandwich, because at least those at least purport to at least be inventions of things and not just ornamental designs). --24.147.86.187 23:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, all you need for a patent is a design that can be shown as originally yours in some measurable aspect. This aspect may simply be the realistic shape of the monkey, which assumes that no one has previously been making dolls in this particular shape. You have to show how your monkey shape is different from others (by proportion, measurements, manufacturing technique or something else). Appearance is not the only thing that can be patented - there are trademarks (a very similar concept) on the particular colour of purple used by Cadbury chocolate wrappers, the sound of a Harley Davidson engine and the shape of a Coca-Cola bottle. Many perfumes patent a particular smell, based on the chemical composition of the odours in the perfume. Steewi 00:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Patenting a smell sounds find to me—you're patenting a chemical composition. Trademarks are entirely different than patents and I have no beef with them being used for colors, logos, bottles, etc. Trademarks are a totally unrelated issue to patents as far as I am concerned. --24.147.86.187 00:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Design patents are a long-time aspect of patent law. If it makes you feel better, the term of protection is shorter for a design patent than a utility patent. Donald Hosek 01:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's just the sort of thing I was interested in. I knew these things must have had a history but I didn't know about design patents. They seem totally unnecessary and counter-productive to me—surely copyright and trademark law would be enough—but alas, such is the legacy of our system. --24.147.86.187 02:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you agree with the viewpoint that designs should be protectable, but if you do, then copyright and trademark law is not enough; see Design patent#Comparison to copyrights and Design patent#Comparison to trademark and trade dress.  --Lambiam 09:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

George Washington

I heard that thanksgiving began when George Washington (I think) stated that he wanted a national day of thanks in one of his speeches, do you know which? Or have any info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.254.230 (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• The article on Thanksgiving answers your questions, I believe. Bessel Dekker 01:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

November 15

Zengo

What type of name is Zengo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.102 (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Zengo can be a Japanese surname (善吾). It may also be a name in other places (possibly in Swahili speaking areas?) Steewi 00:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

According to one website ([9]), it means "give and take". Mexican? Bessel Dekker 01:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no such word in Spanish. There is no Mexican.--Tresckow 16:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I can solve this. The confusion comes from the fact that the restaurant named Zengo is part of the Modern Mexican restaurant group (the food is Asian-Latin fusion). The owners of Zengo, however, named it after the Japanese word Zengo, which indeed means "give and take." (Or so they assert; I don't speak Japanese.) To make matters more confusing, there are only 2 Zengo locations, Denver and DC, and the one in DC has Zengo written in Chinese on the entrance because it's in Chinatown, Washington, D.C., and the building code requires Chinese lettering on storefronts. --M@rēino 17:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite enlightening. (BTW, I never suggested that there is such a language as Mexican, obviously. The adjective, however, does exist and has a few distinct (polysemic) meanings. For instance, there are "Mexican languages". And I feel inclined to take issue with the remark that "there is no Mexican"—in fact, there are quite a lot of them.) Bessel Dekker 18:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, I didn't make sense. There is a kid name Vasien Zengo. So, which language is Zengo. By the way, he speaks some European language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.192 (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

illegal immigrants

One of the problems with illegal immigration is that the immigrants are undocumented. What advantages and disadvantages would documentation, both voluntary and forced, provided for the government and for the illegal immigrants? Adaptron 02:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well for the Goverment it would provide them a good list of people who they could eaisly deport if nessacary and some other stuff around that kind of area. Well for imagrints they would probaly get better pay and not have to live in fear of deportation. A job will treat them better as they cant just go and say there illegals if they do something wrong. Thereds a whole lot of good things to it. Esskater11 02:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not referring to any kind of documentation that would provide legal status of any kind but only documentation status for documentation sake. I am not referring to the issuance of a drivers license for instance where illegal immigrants could use it to drive. I am referring strictly to documentation such as a picture in the newspaper might provide without entailing any rights whatsoever. Adaptron 02:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case none really, as remember the fucking huge ass support imagrant rallys with all kinds of pictures or illegals admiting it, i highly dought that did anything really. Esskater11 02:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I can think of one huge advantage for illegal immigrants remaining undocumented - they don't have to worry about some gun toting radical sicko anti-illegal immigrant idiot who is an even greater threat to American society than they are and should be documented instead, finding out where they live and trying to stick an H&K417 grenade launcher up their butt. 71.100.12.42 05:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this a vision that haunts anyone with documents? Personally, I rather find it much more frightening that, once documented, one becomes a known quantity (and that was not just a figure of speech) to agencies like Revenue Canada, or the IRS or any other authority with a documented interest in one's cash flow, even if it not be much more than a cash trickle. Bielle 07:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

But was Adaptron talking about the immigrants getting documents, or just being documented? (If you get my meaning) Skittle 11:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about getting documents but rather being documented. Adaptron 04:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Adaptron's question is complicated with the reference to voluntary or forced documentation. If documentation (voluntary or forced) could lead to deportation, then undocumented immigrants would obviously resist it. However, if state (or provincial) agencies issuing documents promised not to refer immigrants to the federal (deporting) authorities, then there would likely be a high degree of compliance by immigrants. The advantages for immigrants would be easier access to bank accounts, insurance, air travel, and other amenities. The advantage for the state or province would be that immigrant drivers would be licensed and would pay taxes. The advantages for citizens would be that they would not be sharing the roads with unlicensed, uninsured drivers, and their governments would be receiving tax payments from these immigrants. The main disadvantage to such a move would be to regularize and partly legalize immigration outside of federally approved constraints. In effect, it could be an inducement to greater immigration, which could confront lower-paid legal residents with greater job competition and loss of wages. Such a move could undermine federal control of immigration. Marco polo 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not mean documents that would grant or entail any kind of legal status whatsoever. Illegal is illegal regardless of documentation. As an example of what I am looking for as an advantage for the government would be knowing the burden on taxpayers that illegals represent, and for the illegal, being able to tell the government why they were here illegally, did they leave their own country to make more money here or did they flee their own country because the Communist government (as in Venezuela) had run them out. Adaptron 04:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Bielle: assuming that the employer is following the tax code, the IRS will collect taxes on undocumented immigrants. In fact, the IRS will get a big windfall, because without documentation, the immigrants can't get a refund for any exemptions they might qualify for. The problem is that many employers who are unscrupulous enough to hire undocumented workers are also unscrupulous enough to commit massive tax fraud. --M@rēino 17:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Mareino. In Canada, the illegal immigrant is usually paid in cash, and I can't imagine that there is much paperwork involved. Even proportionally, we don't have the numbers you do, except for recently, as illegal Cuban immigrants are cuurrently being trucked from Florida to Windsor in Canada, and dumped.. Bielle 18:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Albany's ambition

Is it true that Robert duke of albany, brother of Robert III of Scotland, aimed to take the crown for himself? Did he plan to murder his nephew, James I?Donald Paterson 06:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikified it :P though I haven't actually checked our articles to see if this is addressed, sec Dureo 11:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it really doesn't go into it so much, so check the eleventh Britannica ed. article regarding James I for more info, Robert was regent and James was imprisoned, but Robert may have killed others as the article mentions. Dureo 11:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Albany was certainly an ambitious man, and there are aspects of his career that might be said to match those of another ambitious man. During the reign of Robert III, one of the weakest of the Medieval Scottish monarchs, Albany had built up a considerable power in government as lieutenant-general of the realm. In 1399 he was replaced in this position by his nephew, David, Duke of Rothesay, eldest son of the king and heir to the throne. Albany did not settle readiliy to a subordinate role. In 1402, alleging misconduct, he had his nephew arrested in a palace coup and imprisoned in Falkland Palace, where, it is alleged, he was allowed to starve to death. This only left the seven-year-old James between Albany and the throne in the event of King Robert's death.

In 1406, in circumstances that are not entirely clear, the decision was taken to send James to France for his own safety. His departure was so precipitate that no time was taken to obtain a safe conduct from Henry IV to allow him uninterupted passage through English waters. After his vessel was intercepted he was to spend the next eighteen years as a prisoner of the English crown. Not long after the Prince was captured Robert died, leaving Albany in sole control of Scotland. From what we know it is almost certain that he hoped James would die in captivity; he certainly took no steps to speed his return. So, while we cannot be certain that he planned to murder his nephew, we can be certain that he aimed at the crown. Clio the Muse 01:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

constitutional monarchy

why could france not find a stable monarchical solution on the same lines as england to the problem of constitutional order after 1815? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.105.21 (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"England"? Pedantically, see Act of Union. Anyway, the two countries are so different it's hard to think of a reason why France should have come to a similar system. --Dweller 13:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

NB The question has very Whiggish undertones. In fact, scrap that, overtones. --Dweller 13:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

One answer could be a lack of monarchical overlordness. The monarchy in England has (and had) a restricted power compared to many other European countries. In particular, if you look at Hopkins and Cain and their gentlemanly capitalism the development of such a stable middle class, where money could be made, was curtailed under France's system of government. Thus while English middle classes could make money and invest in an expanding Empire thanks to a more relaxed monarchy, France's were left butted against a ceiling. Just a theory. SGGH ^speak! 16:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) French history isn't my strongest point, but I suspect that France's revolutionary tradition of radical egalitarianism threatened the upper bourgeoisie ("middle classes" in British terms) with the spectre of rule by the mob and risk to property. Consequently, the moneyed bourgeoisie and landed aristocracy repeatedly backed monarchs who promised to protect their interests. Repeatedly, the lower classes (often including the lower bourgeoisie) responded with revolution. England bequeathed to the United Kingdom a tradition of middle-class control over the monarchy. In contrast to France, two parties, the Tories or Conservatives and the Whigs or Liberals, played, in effect Good cop/Bad cop toward the disfranchised lower classes. The Liberals largely coopted the aspirations of the lower classes by advocating for them and progressively extending the franchise to include ever larger numbers of the formerly disfranchised. The gradual and evolutionary expansion of the franchise over the course of the 19th century (together with the pressure valve of emigration to the colonies) helped to forestall the revolutionary pressures that destabilized France. A traditional attitude of deference toward one's "betters" among the working classes in Britain may also have factored against revolution. By contrast, France lacked a strong party that mediated class tensions in the same way as Britain's Liberals. Marco polo 17:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, it wasn't only the Liberals who extended the franchise in the UK. The Reform Act 1867 and the Representation of the People Act 1928 were put through by the Tories. Xn4 00:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with France was that the Revolution of 1789 had taken history at a rapid trot through several stages, effectively creating some serious fault lines in civil society, the underlying structures of law, culture, society and political tradition that help sustain more stable forms of constitutional development. Put this another way: in the brief period from 1789 to 1791, France covered the kind of political ground that had taken close on a hundred years in England. Thereafter, the Revolution went into overdrive, pushing matters to an extreme undreamt of by even the most radical of the English Whigs. One by one, as Edmund Burke had predicted in Reflections on the Revolution in France, civic and political institutions were knocked flat, until only the army remained; and with the army came Napoleon; and with Napoleon came dictatorship. Napoleon overcame the weakness and the fractures of civil society by force and by force alone.

A return to more traditional forms of rule would demand high degrees of political awareness and sensitivity. Above all it would require an understanding that politics in France had undergone a fundamental change, that there could be no return to the older forms of absolutism. Progress would therefore require the kind of partnership between the crown and the dominant sections of the civil community, in essence the solution of the Glorious Revolution. But the Bourbons came back in the person of Louis XVIII and, more particularly, in the person of Charles X, having learned nothing and forgotten everything. Tensions built, only to be released not in a mature parliamentary system, but by the valve of revolution. It might even be said that in the period from 1815 to 1870, French history played out many of the events of the Great Revolution in a kind of slow motion. The monarchical solution failed in all of its forms, Bourbon, Orleanist and Napoleonic because it was too narrowly conceived; because it lacked firm foundations, party foundations, in society; because it lacked a clear sense of direction and commonly accepted goals; because it failed to heal the fractures of the past. In the end only the Republic would do, the form of government that divided the French the least; tolerated not for what it was but for what it was not. Clio the Muse 00:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Peasants' war

Your article on the Peasants' War gives the impression that they formed a solid block. But is it not true to say that they themselves were divided over aims and objectives? Can anyone comment on this? 81.129.82.49 14:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to be flawed in a number of ways, as pointed out on its talk page. The article's focus is a Marxist interpretation of class relations at the time of the revolts rather than a description of the revolts themselves. The article focuses on Müntzer and ignores other leaders, whose aims may have been different. If you know something about this conflict and would be willing to consult a few sources for backup, you yourself could improve the article. Marco polo 16:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My goodness; never mind Hamlet without the Prince: what about the peasants without a war! Even as a piece of Marxist analysis the whole article is quite bad. It's bad as theory; as history it is even worse. As far as your specific question is concerned, 81.129, you would do well to forget the traditional view that the war as a struggle between the feudal overlords and the peasant Gemeinde. I would refer you in particular to "The Social Origins of the Peasants' War in Upper Swabia in 1525" by G. V. Sreenivasan in Past and Present, no. 171 (Oxford, 2001). Using evidence from monastery of Otterbeuren, the author identifies two types of serf in the peasant communities-the lowly Seldner, or cottager, and the Bauern, a class of tenant farmers who, in the course of the century prior to 1525, had steadily undermined the rights of both the cottagers and the landlords. It was these wealthier peasants who led the rebellion in order to consolidate their property rights, but attempted to put breaks on the radicalism of the cottagers. In practice, for the cottagers, the wealthy farmers were in many cases just as oppressive, if not more so, that the feudal overlords. The rebels, in other words, were weakened by their own internal class war. Clio the Muse 23:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Trojan Horse replica

Can anyone tell me the dimentions of the trojan horse replica that is located in Canakkale Turkey? Thank You. 76.176.215.76 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.215.76 (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't find exact dimensions, but this picture, which includes some people for perspective, makes it look to be about 30 feet tall. The length seems to be similar, and based on those proportions I'd estimate the width at 10 feet. The horse itself was made for the movie Troy, which may be useful to know in researching it in more detail. - Eron^Talk 17:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not talking about the one from the movie Troy I'm talking about this one: http://www.worldisround.com/articles/11974/photo1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.215.76 (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this one. Looking at that and similar pictures, it seems to be of a similar size; maybe a bit higher. I'd stick with my estimate that it is about 30 feet tall. - Eron^Talk 21:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You have helped alot. (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Baldwin

Can anyone confirm that Stanley Baldwin, British Prime Minister at the time of the Abdication Crisis, had family connections with the Scottish Clan Donald? SeanScotland 18:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• This ([10]) Time article dated July 22, 1929 might be enlightening. He and Ramsay MacDonald are called "distant cousins". Bessel Dekker 18:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

His mother was a Macdonald. DuncanHill 21:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

His mother was Louisa Macdonald, descended from the Skye branch of the familiy, whose forbears settled near Eniskillen in Northern Ireland after the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745. On one occasion Baldwin even gave details of his Jacobite ancestry in a speech in the House of Commons; "My mother's family fled from the Highlands after having been out with Prince Charles in 1745. I remember that, in my early days, it was with great difficulty that we could stand up when the band was playing God Save the King, because we had a Hanoverian and not a Jacobite King."

I rather suspect that there was quite a lot of romantic embellishment in the stories related to young Stanley by his mother. What she clearly neglected to tell him was that her branch of the clan, the Macdonalds of Sleat, remained loyal to George II, while the rest of Clan Donald followed Charlie across the heather. Well, never mind; at least he managed to chase one Hanoverian from the throne! Clio the Muse 23:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of questions down reference is made to Edward Burne-Jones, which through the MacDonald sisters makes rather a nice link to this question. DuncanHill 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

High Mountains Close to the Equator

I'm trying to determine what the tallest mountains are that are within 5 degrees, north and south, of the equator. I have Chimborazo (1.5 degrees S and 6268 m) as the tallest in Ecuador, Kilamanjaro (3 degrees S and 5,895 m) as possibly the only candidate in Africa, Puncak Jaya (4 degrees S and 4884 m) and Mount Wilhelm on the island of New Guinea. In Columbia I've got Nevado del Huila (2.9 degrees N and 5,365 m), Nevado del Tolima (4.67 degrees N and 5200+ m), Nevado del Ruiz (4.8 degrees N and 5,321 m). Lots and lots of others in Ecuador mentioned on this list of mountains. Have I missed anything in the 3000+ meter range elsewhere in the world? DeepSkyFrontier 21:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We have a List of mountains. By restricting it to the countries within 5 degrees of the equator (see Equator#Equatorial countries and territories), you should get a manageable list. I think Mount Kadam in Uganda (found by a cursory examination following the suggested procedure) qualifies.  --Lambiam 23:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There is also Mount Cameroon. Marco polo 23:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. My sincere thanks to both of you. DeepSkyFrontier 05:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Medieval themed paintings

Hi, I have sort of a random question. I'm sort of new to art and things, and I really enjoy some of the paintings of Edmund Blair Leighton, especially The Accolade and God Speed. In particular, the whole theme of chivalry and knights interests me. So my question is, can anyone point me to artists that paint similar paintings? I've browsed Google Images for paintings about knights and whatnot, and have come up with little. Thanks in advance ;) Zenislev 21:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should find something to please you if you work your way through the articsts mentioned in Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. DuncanHill 22:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My own favourites (not members of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, but among those who followed after it) are John William Waterhouse and Edward Burne-Jones. Xn4 00:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Post-Pre-Raphaelites, eh? —Tamfang 00:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ned Burne-Jones is rather a neat link to the question above about Stanley Baldwin - see MacDonald sisters to learn more! DuncanHill 01:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, that's the kind of stuff I was thinking about. I especially liked Joseph Noel Paton (looked up all of the artists from the article on that Art Renewal Center website), his paintings of Sir Galahad and whatnot. Waterhouse also had some cool ones (like La belle dam sans mercie) but I haven't looked through all of his paintings listed yet. Are there any other artists or paintings themselves you can think of depicting knights? Thanks again (Oh and does anyone know why my signature doesn't link to my user page? I messed with my signature settings and now it doesn't link; anyone know how to get that back?) 71.131.12.99 05:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Gah, now I can't log in, anyway this is Zenislev

Poem page numbers

Stupid me forgot the note cards I had this stuff written down on. I need the page numbers of the books these poems are found in:

KEY: "Poem name" By Author Book title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.163.13 (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"How Did You Die?" By Edmund Cooke 101 Famous Poems**

"Not In Vain" By Emily Dickinson 101 Famous Poems**

"No Funeral Gloom" By Ellen Terry The Best-Loved Poems of the American People**

"Mammy" By Langston Hughes The Collected Poems of Langston Hughes

"Passing Time" By Maya Angelou Oh Pray My Wings Are Gonna Fit Me Well

Also, the names of the editors of the asterisked books would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.163.13 (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm ... how about you identify the editions you've already taken notes from, and we'll try to help. We don't do your homework for you. -- JackofOz 22:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

....I'm sorry, that's all I know about those poems. And I looked EVERYWHERE on the 'net for these numbers and such, but found nothing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.163.13 (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not meaningful to say that poem X occurs on page 123 unless you identify the edition of the book it occurs in. What do you need the page numbers for if you don't have access to these books?  --Lambiam 23:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You can find some of these using Google books or the "Search inside" function of amazon.com.  --Lambiam 23:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the books after you took the notes? Did you return them to the library? Put them back on the shelf? Burn them, and scatter the ashes? Your best bet is to find the books you were using, so you can find the information in them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that the questioner has an assignment due the next day that involves analysing poems as well as citing them. That's why he doesn't have time to find the original books he used. It's also why he forgot his note cards and cannot access them. --Bowlhover 03:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

November 16

National Convention

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

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

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

Financial index

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

Habsburg lip

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

What I found at this site [11] was the following text: "Marie Louise . . . had a large and generous mouth with full lips, the lower one being the true “Hapsburg lip,” slightly pendulous–a feature which has remained for generation after generation as a sure sign of Hapsburg blood. One sees it in the present emperor of Austria, in the late Queen Regent of Spain, and in the present King of Spain, Alfonso". I believe the reference is to Alfonso XIII, grandfather of the current King Juan Carlos I of Spain. I checked some images of Alfonso XIII on Google, but, if he had the same jaw as shown in portraits of Charles II (who also had a number of problems quite aside from the infamous jaw that was so defoprmed he could not chew), he also had remarkable photographers. It appears that there is a "Hapsburg lip" as described in the quote and also a "Hapsburg jaw" which is a much more marked deformity with a strong forward thrust, although the terms refer one to the other in many cases. Bielle 05:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Barefootedness

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

Mozart's juvenilia

What year is considered the end of Mozart's juvenilia works?