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

December 13

Industrial Revolution

Did the lives of upper class change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.189 (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your question, 74.14, is awfully general. By 'upper class' do you mean an aristocracy, or do you have some other definition in mind? Which country or part of the world are you interested in? Is your question about the changes experienced by landowners, or other sections among the social and political elite? Anyway, I'm sure you now understand some of the problems. Try to tailor your question a little and I will see what I can do. But if you simply want a general answer to a general question, then the lives of the upper class did change, and quite a bit! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You might take a look at our article Upper class, which covers some of the differences in the meaning of the expression between the United States and Great Britain.

The "upper class" of the United States (essentially, the richest stratum of American society) was transformed by the Industrial Revolution. Before industrialization, the upper class of the United States consisted mainly of the owners of the largest plantations in Virginia and South Carolina, and to a lesser extent plantation owners in other southern states and the leading merchants in the northern ports. After industrialization, the upper class expanded greatly to include the leading owners of industrial firms and the leading bankers financing industrialization. One aspect of the American Civil War was a conflict between the old upper class of the South and the new upper class of the industrializing North.

In Britain, the expression "upper class" usually refers to the hereditary aristocracy, whose income came largely from the ownership of land and the collection of rents on that land. Clio knows much more about this than I do, but I will venture to say that members of the British upper class who happened to own land in and around Britain's expanding cities made out quite well from industrialization as their rents skyrocketed. British aristocrats whose holdings were mainly rural did less well, particularly after the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1849. Also, they faced competition for status with the wealthier members of what was known in Britain as the "middle class". These were industrialists, merchants, and bankers who would have been considered "upper class" in the United States but who had not been born into the aristocracy and therefore were not "upper class" in British terms. Members of the upper middle class since the 19th century have had incomes comparable to or greater than members of the upper class.

Finally, in material terms, the lives of the upper classes changed just as much as the lives of everyone else. With the spread of rail and steamship transport, they traveled more easily. As sanitary conditions improved for the rest of society, they improved for the upper classes all the more so. By the late 19th century, the spread of electricity and electric technologies changed the details of everyday life for the upper classes as it did for others. Marco polo (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediaeval Royal Descendents of the Byzantine Emperors

I know that nobody here or anywhere else can account for the descendents of the Julio-Claudians and any other West Roman dynasty, but what about the Byzantines? I know they intermarried with other Christian rulers in the West, but which emperors and which Western dynasties? I'm not interested in Latin Emperors, just the Greek speaking ones. Basically, I'm trying to trace the descent from Constantinople to royal families and individuals in the West. Would this include Constantine's blood, or did that get cut off from the later Byzantines? If it wasn't, then what sort of heritage did Constantine bring to the East, thus being present in the Western descendents of the Byzantine rulers? Thanks! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Constantine XI apparently didn't have any children (I was sure he did but it seems not!), but he had lots of nephews, and many of them married into other European dynasties. See Palaeologus dynasty for a start. One of them sold the title of Emperor, which lets various royal houses claim it today, although it is quite meaningless now. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't the Armenian dynasty intermarry quite a bit? Genealogics is sketchy with the Byzantine lines, so I was wondering about another source. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Another source is the Comnenus dynasty, which intermarried with Germans, French, and crusaders. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I meant another genealogical resource. Thanks! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To give you just one concrete example, the blood of the Paleologues, the last Eastern Roman Imperial family, went into Russia. Vasili III of Russia was the son of Sophia Paleologue, the daughter of Constantine XI's brother Thomas Paleologue. Vasili III's son Ivan the Terrible was the first Russian Czar. Xn4 03:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure some of the Palaeologues ended up in Cornwall or Devon (don't think they had any royal descendents there) - can't put my hand on the reference at the moment tho'. DuncanHill (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a curious hint in Richard Grenville that a descendant retired to Clifton. SaundersW (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC) See also this [1] about Theodore Palaeologus in Cornwall. SaundersW (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't get that weblink to work at the moment, the Buildings of England has this in Landulph "In the south aisle an inscription records the death and burial of Theodore Palaeologus who died at Clifton in 1636 (a descendant of the medieval Chrisatian Emperors of Byzantium". DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Link working now - good one, thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel sure I originally read about this in one of Rowse's books - it's exactly the sort of detail that would appeal to him. DuncanHill (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a snippet in Sir Richard Grenville of the 'Revenge', tho' that refers to a John Palæologus (Chapter 2, The Marshal of Calais, page 38 of the Jonathan Cape paperback ed.). I'm sure he mentions this somewhere else too. DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Zheng He

hello im doing a project and i need to know who is the author of the Zheng He page on wikepidia thanks moneybank23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.147.14.126 (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles don't have authors. Usually, several people contribute, but they aren't authors, just contributors. When listing the sources for your project, you should use one of the formats listed in Citing Wikipedia. Marco polo (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Each Wikipedia page has a "Cite this article" button on the left. For Zheng He it is [2]. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Did Germans in WWII believe they were fighting a defensive war?

An interesting claim was made in Gleiwitz incident article, but removed due to lack of references. Perhaps somebody can provide them of debunk the claim: "Against all the evidence, [due to Nazi propaganda success in portraying the Gleiwitz incident as the Polish attack] pro-nazi Germans believed they were fighting a justified defensive war until the last days of the Second World War." Thanks, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How on earth could this be quantified? People would believe, or disbelieve, as their wit and imagination allowed. I am not aware that the Gleiwitz incident figured in any degree at all in German consciousness, beyond the immediate circumstances of the day. By 1945, with the Soviets pouring over their eastern frontier, few Germans can have had much remembrance of Gleiwitz. Moreover, those still holding to the belief that their war was defensive must have possessed virtually limitless capacity for self-deception. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wasn’t one of the excuses Hitler used to justify invasion lebensraum (“living space”)? That’s not very defensive. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I do think that Clio is correct - that there wasn't a bunch of Gallup Poll people telephoning Germans during WWII and asking them what their opinions were about the war and all. Heh. On the other hand, I do think from what I've read and studied about the last days of the Third Reich that the Nazi leadership had turned the war into a defensive one. I don't believe that all of the Nazi elites gave up complete hope until the very end when Hitler killed himself. Some were most likely holding out for some miracle weapon to be developed that would save the day - and the truth be told the Germans very nearly pulled this off! I can't remember where I read it, but it seems that somewhere I've read that had the Nazis been given just six more months that they might have been able to have developed the Atom Bomb. Be that as it may, if you look at the type of warfare being conducted during the Battle of Berlin, it's pretty obvious the Germans were throwing everything they had at the Russians in a last ditch attempt to stave off the wolf at the door. They were drafting young boys and old men and even young women into the Wehrmacht, putting uniforms on them, giving them rifles and a couple of hours' training, and then throwing their lives away against the approaching Red Army. That to me seems the hallmarks of a defensive war. What I'm saying here is that although the war was probably not begun as a defensive one on the part of the Germans, by the end I do believe that it had changed so that it was a defensive war. Saukkomies 05:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thinking more on this subject of the perception of the war's beginning among the Germans as being a defensive war or not, I might suggest that there would be other factors that would have had more of an effect on the average German than the Gleiwitz incident. More specifically, I'd refer to the large propaganda campaign that the Nazis were pushing all over Germany against the Poles and how they were supposedly oppressing the poor Germans who were isolated in the city of Danzig (after the war it was renamed Gdansk), which after WWI had been declared a free city under protection of the League of Nations. Danzig was an old Polish city originally, but in 1308 had been captured by the Teutonic Knights, who were German of course. It still was considered to be a German city, even though after WWI it was completely surrounded on its landward side by Poland. The Nazis made a deliberate attempt through propaganda to try to present the idea that the poor oppressed Germans in Danzig were being brutalized, raped, and mistreated by their Polish neighbors, and that the Danzig citizens yearned to be reunited with the German speaking people of the Third Reich. So part of the excuse of invading Poland in 1939 was to "liberate" Danzig. The Gleiwitz incident was just part of this larger plan. It was not the same thing as Pearl Harbor was to the Americans, but was more like what Bismarck did to provoke the Franco Prussian War in 1870 when he concocted a scheme that involved the interception of a phony message between French spies. The typical German would probably not be so impacted by the Gleiwitz incident, but if they'd been affected by anything that would have led them to view the beginning of WWII as a defensive war, it would have been due to the propaganda campaign that called for the "liberation" of the city of Danzig. Saukkomies 00:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Taking up yet even more bandwidth, I was digging around and found some Nazi pre-war Anti-Polish propaganda films, some of which may be viewed online, at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. I searched their online catalog using "Danzig" as the keyword, and came up with 29 hits, some of which are indeed Nazi Anti-Polish propaganda films. Saukkomies 00:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but I was reading this info. and it's extremely interesting, but I'm noting a discrepancy (I think) in wikipedia, and am curious. The English site says: "This provocation was one of several actions in Operation Himmler", but the German site says: "....der bekannteste einer Reihe von Vorfällen (Unternehmen Tannenberg)".(ie: Operation Tannenberg, which is different according to English wikipedia). Actually, the Germans have no "Operation Himmler" site (which is unusual for 3rd Reich pages) - did they have a separate name for it? Could someone please clarify this different terminology?- Thanks.--AlexSuricata (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Unternehmen Tannenberg" seems to be the sole reference in German articles - even outside WP - in the Internet. This German term, however, refers less to the fake attacks under false flag than to the primary aim to annihilate the Polish intelligentsia as a means to squash all resistance. Of some 60,000 names accumulated more than 20,000 were shot in mass executions in the two months following the occupation of Poland. The term "Operation Himmler" presumably stems from the fact, that the SS commandos - basically squads of ruthless hitmen - used in these operations were directly under the command of the head of the SS (Reichsführer-SS) Heinrich Himmler. In hindsight, it was a "full dress rehearsal" for the grim future.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

At least the Nazis tried to convince them Bromberger Blutsonntag.--Tresckow (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mary

How Bloody was Mary? Major Barbara (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well she killed all those microbes for a start [see Persecutions section]TheMathemagician (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That was collateral damage, a side-effect of the vodka. More seriously, does no-one watch the article then?  --Lambiam 11:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat bloody, though rather less so than her father Henry VIII. Of course, just about all royal governments in the sixteenth century (not to mention most other centuries) went in for liquidating political opponents (to use Lenin's word for it). And all of the Tudors were following a long tradition in the matter. However, as part of her restoration of the old religion Mary was persuaded to kill several leading members of the Church of England's clergy, including the famous Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley. With the later downfall of Catholicism in England, the treatment of Mary's religious victims as martyrs of Protestantism led to her being seen in terms of the utmost villainy - see, for instance, Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Xn4 17:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How bloody was Mary? For many generations the answer to this question would have been automatically sought in the Acts and Monuments, a particularly lurid account of the Marian Persecutions by John Foxe, better known as Foxe's Book of Martyrs. However, in practice, probably no more people died under Mary for political and religious reasons, than did in the reign of her father, Henry VIII, and her half-sister, Elizabeth I. What distingushes Mary's reign is the intensity of the executions, concentrated, as they were, in the brief period between February 1555 and November 1558. During this time more people died at the stake in England than at the hands of the Spanish Inqusition, and the chambre ardente, the body established in France by Henry II to root out heresy. Yet, it should be noted, that of all the cases detailed by Foxe, nearly 200 were listed by name and occupation only, with no supporting documentation. We cannot be absolutely certain, therefore, if these excutions were for political or for religious reasons, or for a mixture of both. Foxe's book, moreover, was conceived as an anti-Catholic, rather than an anti-Marian polemic, and paradoxically he does not blame the benighted Queen for the persecutions, but the Roman Church, especially the bishops, who are said to have had her under their influence.

Most English people of the day did not hate Mary for the restoration of Catholicism, and quite happily settled back to the old practices, free of the liturgical innovations introduced during the reign of her Protestant brother, Edward VI. However, they did not share the Queen's enthusiasm for mass persecution, they did not share her enthusiasm for the Papal hierarchy and, above all, they did not share her enthusiasm for the Spanish connection, expressed in her marriage to Philip II. All of this was to be used by Foxe and other Protestant propagandists to depict Catholicism as 'unpatriotic', as well as cruel. The burnings also left an abiding memory, rather than the persecution of religious dissidents as such. Under the Protestant ascendency that followed hanging, including drawing and quartering, was to be the preferred method, in opposition to 'Papist burnings'. Was Mary bloody? Yes, she was, though perhaps no more bloody than many of her fellow monarchs of the day. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that I have heard a very different history from Clio the Muse has spoken. I have heard that the English were quite happy with the status quo before Mary, and were desperately in search of what one could term a moderate between Catholicism and Protestantism (i.e., another Henry VIII). Mary was decidedly not moderate on the issue, and not only did she kill people who disagreed with her, but she persecuted them as well. Elizabeth, on the other hand, walked a perfect middle line. Thus Mary had the misfortune of being a strong ruler in a country known for its checks and balances (e.g., magna carta) and its religious enthusiasm and the desire to practice it, being stuck after a moderate king, killing several very high-profile religious figures, and drawing the English into an unwanted war. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a version often taught in English schools. I'd say it's an improvement on the old version they used to teach ('the people rose up against Catholicism and demanded protestantism') which is still in evidence in some textbooks and informative public signs. Although I'm not sure I'd agree with the characterisation of Edward as a moderate king. Skittle (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wishes to follow some of the leads I have given here-and reach a more balanced understanding of Mary's reign-then I would recommend David Loades' monograph The Reign of Mary Tudor as well his article The 'Bloody' Queen, which appears in March 2006 issue of the BBC History Magazine. There is also Parliament and Crown in the Reign of Mary Tudor by Jennifer Roach and The Reign of Mary Tudor: a Reassessment by Michael Hutchings in the March 1999 issue of History Today. History proceeds by evidence, not hearsay. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice answer, Clio. Thanks. Major Barbara (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Italian wars

Why did Florence break ranks and not join Pope Alexander's alliance against the French invasion of Italy in 1494? H W Waidson (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is purely a shot in the dark, meant only to perhaps provide a clue to the search. But I notice that Pope Alexander VI was a member of the Borgia family (his name given at birth was Rodrigo Borgia). The Cardinal-Deacon of Florence (which was the highest office in the Catholic Church in that city) at the time of Pope Alexander VI's election was Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici, who later himself became Pope Leo X in 1513. It is fairly common knowledge that there was an enormous feud that developed between the powerful Medici and Borgia families, and it seems from what I can tell that this feud started with the election of Pope Alexander in 1492. Cardinal Medici at the time was very apprehensive about giving the Papacy to Rodrigo Borgia, saying: "Now we are in the power of a wolf, the most rapacious perhaps that this world has ever seen. And if we do not flee, he will inevitably devour us all."

So perhaps, since the Medicis were from Florence, this is why that city did not join Alexander's cause against the French invasion of Italy... Just a guess, since I don't find it mentioned in my readings so far. Saukkomies 15:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The answer is really quite simple: Florence was still tied emotionally to the old link with France, dating back to the struggle of the Guelph and Ghibelline in the high Middle Ages. When Pope Alexander was trying to construct his Holy League against the imperial ambitions of Charles VIII, Florence also happened to be under the influence of Savonarola, the Dominican priest, for whom the French king came as a fulfillment of all of his apocalyptic prophecies. For him Charles was the New Cyrus and Florence the New Jerusalem, 'richer, more powerful and more glorious than ever.' Falling under Savonarola's spell, the Florentines ejected their Medici ruler, and established their very own 'Christain republic' under the guidance of the prophet, hostile in every way to Alexander, Milan and the Holy League. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Clio, you're the female equivalent of a Mensch (that's supposed to be a compliment, btw)! I am always impressed by your depth of knowledge. Saukkomies 08:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why, thank you, kind sir! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Arise, Clio the Menschette. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Suez Canal Sculptures - Two Monumental Harpies - Sphynx-Like Women

Egyptian Bridge showing sphinx chimera and sign

Back in the 1980s I was on a ship and we went through the Suez Canal (travelling towards India and away from Italy). Some ways into the voyage, on the starboard / right-hand side, on the bank of the Suez, there were these 2 monumental statues of Sphinx-like / Harpy-like women with some dedicatory plaque commemorating something. I have never been able to determine what these sculptures are called, when they date from (although probably 19th century as the sculptures (I think I remember) show the breasts of the sphinxes (maybe covered with hair like a figurehead on a ship) and seem more in line with French Egyptomania than anything Middle Eastern), or who made them or what they commemorate. They might have looked like the image here. Anyone know? Sorry so awkwardly worded. Saudade7 13:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That picture, of course, is of the Egyptian Bridge in Saint Petersburg! Xn4 01:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I said that they might have looked like the sculpture in the image. I found the picture on the Egyptian Bridge page! Saudade7 12:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The article Sphinx has a brief note on the 'French sphinx' developed as part of the Mannerist vocabulary of the Fontainebleau school, and rehabilitated for the Louis XIV style, who reappears in Neoclassicism. --Wetman (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wetman. Well these had to have been erected sometime after the canal was built in the 19th century, unless (and I doubt it) they were actually ancient.

In fact I am finding it very interesting that no one can answer this because I am sure that lots and lots of military / Naval people must have have seen these because they are usually the people who go through the Suez (I think), which means a) either military people don't care about art/monuments or b) they don't participate in the Wiki reference desk. I have asked this question a year ago on Yahoo answers and didn't get a reply there either. Strange. Saudade7 13:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't answer it either, but you might be interested in the pavilion Isthme de Suez which was one of the "Egyptian Quarter"'s buildings at the Exposition Universelle in Paris (1867). The image shows two neoclassicist looking sphinxes, and Zeynep Çelik's Displaying the Orient - Architecture of Islam at Nineteenth-Century World's Fairs mentions "an avenue lined with sphinxes". Maybe some of these were later relocated to Port Said? ---Sluzzelin talk 22:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sluzzelin, I will definitely check that out. I like some of Zeynep Çelik's other essays. Take care Saudade7 00:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Driver's licenses

In case anyone was wondering, moving to another state and getting a driver's licnense in that state BEFORE your home state suspends your current license will effectively avoid getting one's license suspended, but it will piss off the Traffic Control Hearing lady. Note: The state can still suspend your right to drive in that state, but you are free to drive elsewhere in the country. You can beat the system! Mawahahahahahaha! XM (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A great relief, I am sure, to all us regulars! DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

News: There were unconfirmed reports yesterday that the United States is not the center of the world, so when writing about legal issues mention the part of the world that you are referring to. Mieciu K (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming one would want to drive in the USA I guess that's useful advice. Thanks. I guess Steve will have a nice take on it. Richard Avery (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This one is wondering whether you have learned that certain behaviour in a vehicle will lead to the revocation of one's licence, and while some people get a second chance, that does not make them eternally immune to the consequences of their actions. SaundersW (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm torn between fixing the header and naively wondering what this question has to do with SCUBA. --LarryMac | Talk 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've changed Diver's to Driver's...

There's a similar oddity about the state of affairs in Europe. Here in the UK, traffic offences [British spelling] lead to fines and penalty points on a driver's licence [another British spelling]. Depending on the seriousness of the offence, the points last for between four and eleven years, and if you get twelve points on your licence within three years, then you're disqualified. BUT at the moment, these penalty points don't cross national borders: that is, a French or Dutch driver who gets convicted of a motoring offence in the UK has penalty points added to a British driving licence which he or she hasn't got. Xn4 16:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You should have told me that before I went to England ;) Aecis^Brievenbus 00:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat doubtful that he has. I strongly suspect we'll be hearing about wacky theories on how to beat speeding tickets in Texas next (and personally I find it a bit extreme to move US state just because you were foolish enough to get your driver's license suspended but anyway) Nil Einne (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful. Congratulations. Way to go on failing to take any responsibility for your actions. USA drivers must be thrilled to know that drivers who should be off the road as a danger to other road users are able to "beat the system". But what should I expect? "I'm alright Jack and fuck the rest of you." seems to be the order of the day. The prevalance of SUVs which are much more likely to kill pedestrians and drivers in smaller vehicles says a lot. Excuse me while I go puke.... Exxolon (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Cranford

What is Gaskell trying to convey in the literary dispute between Captain Brown and Miss Jenkyns over the relative merits of Dickens and Dr Johnson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.110.155 (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you could give a little more context, it would help. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you watching the BBC serialisation? It's delicious, is it not? You must be aware that, for the ladies of Cranford, Miss Deborah Jenkyns in particular, Captain Brown represents the force for change in a settled world. His dispute with Miss Deborah over the relative merits of Dickens and Johnson serves to emphasise the distance between the old and the new; for Dickens is intented to stand for humour, modernity, vitality and the modern age, whereas Johnston is set up as the opposite; backward, formal and pompous, perhaps a comment on Cranford society itself. Not entirely fair to the old misanthrope, I agree, but that is the contrast that Elizabeth Gaskell intends. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Another Soviet question

Thank you Clio and Saukommes for your answers to my question on the Gulag. I have one more Soviet question, and would be grateful for any leads you might be able to provide. In what way did the early Soviet regime adopt a novel policy towards the family? Were there changes in family law or campaigns to alter attitudes along the lines of Marxist theory? I have in mind the period of the New Economic Policy, before the adoption of agricultural collectivization and the Five Year Plan. Many thanks for your informed opinion. Zinoviev4 (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To oversimplify, Lenin made divorce very easy to obtain, and then Stalin later made it difficult again... AnonMoos (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Family in the Soviet Union. 82.169.149.81 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at Orlando Figes' recently published, The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia, Zinoviev, chapter one of which, Children of 1917, goes much of the way towards answering your question.

Family policy lay at the very centre of Bolshevik ideology, made all the more urgent by the partial retreat from wider goals during the period of the New Economic Policy. The words of Anatoly Lunacharsky, written in 1927, are particularly interesting in this regard, "The so-called sphere of private life cannot be allowed to slip away from us, because it is precisely here that the final goal of the Revolution is to be reached."

For the Bolsheviks, the family, as traditionally conceived, was considered to be socially harmful; the preserve of the private and the inward-looking; the conservative prop of religion, superstition and egoism. Even the love of parents for their own children was considered reprehensible, because it made them entirely self-regarding. 'Egotistical love' was to be replaced by 'rational love', with children being not an individual but a communal responsibility. In The ABC of Communism, published in 1919, Nikolai Bukharin and Evgenii Preobrazhensky argued that in a future society the word 'my' would no longer be used in reference to children.

In practical terms Bolshevik housing policy aimed at the disintegration of the traditional nuclear family, with the transformation of domestic space into communal living projects. Constructivist architects proposed the complete obliteration of the private sphere by the creation of 'commune housing', where everything, right down to underwear (yuck!), would be shared. Few of these were ever built, though the utopian nightmare behind the whole concept still survives today in Yevgeny Zamyatin's novel, We, first published in 1920. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

December 14

Will to Power

Is the posthumous "The Will to Power" the crowning achievment of Nietzsche's philosophy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.105.150 (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't reference my statements, but, as far as I'm concerned, Nietzsche's last work was his last attempt to expound his philosophy in a more rigorous and less literary way, feeling that his earlier works hadn't achieved the expected success because they weren't understood at all. Nowadays there is much dispute over what Nietzsche meant by "the will to power" (actually there is dispute over almost everything he said), perhaps that book would have cleared things up. Unfortunately his Nazi sister reportedly adulterated his latest works to make them more adequate to Nazi ideology, The Will to Power being her main victim. Due to this we can only speculate about what Nietzsche wanted to say in his last book. --Taraborn (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

More on that in Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche and The Will to Power. Elisabeth's article really does not cover the extent to which she twister her brother's work towards the Nazi cause. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"Twister" is a wonderfully appropriate Freudian slip cum Portmanteau there — Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk ! Saudade7 12:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

<headthunk> Well, from what I have read of her, she was a twisted sister. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I should like to make two things clear: first, that The Will to Power is essentially a series of notes , jottings and speculations, written between 1883 and 1888, subsequently collected and arranged in book form by Elizabeth; second, Elizabeth may eventually have given her support to the Nazi Party, but it is quite wrong to suggest that she 'twisted' her brother's works towards the Nazi cause. Her compilation-and it is her compilation-was, after all, first published in 1901, well before the advent of National Socialism. Elizabeth's 'fault' was to blurr the distinction between her brother's published works and his rough speculations; to present to the world the false impression that The Will to Power was the final and definitive statement of Nietzsche's thought. It was not. That lies in the work published while he was still intellectually active. Having said that it is still a fascinating and worthwhile collection, an insight into the mind of the thinker in the raw. It would encourage me to think that it is read before judgement is passed. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to say that I totally agree with Clio the Muse here, and also that, over the years I have pretty much read everything Nietzsche has ever written, and while not being a Nietzsche scholar, I think that the Nazi Party's / National Socialist's ideologies are anathema to anything Nietzsche ever tried to put forth. Saudade7 14:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Philip, King of England

Two questions. First, why has Philip of Spain barely registered as king of England? Second, what is likely to have happened politically if he and Mary had had children, beyond excluding Elizabeth from the throne? Major Barbara (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

For the first, he was king in name only [3] and was never crowned, even as consort. He was apparently so disgusted by the terms of the marriage contract and subsequent parliamentary acts limiting his powers that he left for Spain about a year after the wedding and never returned. SaundersW (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

He spent little time in the country, never showed much interest in it, or his wife, and later became its number one enemy; so it's hardly surprising that his 'reign' had little impact on the consciousness of the nation, no more than a footnote in history. What would have happened if he and Mary had children? Well, England would have remained as part of the Catholic commonwealth, and become an outpost of the worldwide Habsburg Empire. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

More or less like Austria :) Aecis^Brievenbus 02:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And, I suspect, the Netherlands! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That hurts! ;) Aecis^Brievenbus 12:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! But never mind, Aecis; your country and mine are now united in a new Holy Roman Empire! So much for your stab at liberty! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

When you write that alternate-history story where Philip and Mary had children, you might also consider giving some to Mary Stuart and, um, whatsisname of France. —Tamfang (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A true story?

I wonce heard a story that 5 british coins where floating about that were worth alot of moneys. Because they had the kings head back-to-front. The story goes that 4 of them were found but the 5th remained lost until it was found. But, the finders wife spent the coin in a phonebox and now its gone again. Its this story truth? Weasly (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You may be thinking of coins of Edward VIII, which were never issued (due to his abdication) and are extremely rare. These coins have the King's head "back-to-front" in that Edward broke the 300-year-old tradition of alternating the direction that each monarch faces. FiggyBee (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

1933 Pennies are also very rare. See History of the British penny (1901-1970) William Avery (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

what happen to you that i want to see the rewards for the best shows ever you know that right we cant for get about nothing you know that right i love you so much that i want to stop saying that you was the best thing ever we love each other and you was going to say that we don't need you dude it thought that we got to change the word that we say to you love you for ever dude.

Mohammad Ali JInnah VS Mahatma Gandhi

hello! this is Ayesha Nabi...i am a student of Pharm-D. The above mentioned topic is an assignment..i am searching other sites aswell but i want peoples idea....i basically want the comparisson of thier the personalities, thier life style, social and political life, personal affairs etc....i'd be waiting...thankyou! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.24.192 (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ayesha! You can start by looking at their articles here: Muhammad Ali Jinnah and here: Mahatma Gandhi. Good Luck! Saudade7 12:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Army of Paraguay

In the War of the Triple Alliance Paraguay is said to have had the military advantage over its three opponents in terms of numbers. I would like to know, please, how effective the Paraguayan army was as a fighting force compared with the enemy. TheLostPrince (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The truth is that the army of Francisco López, the dictator of Paraguay, suffered from a number of severe structural and organisational weaknesses, partly of his own making. Fearing a potential rival, López had restricted the development of the officer corps, even forbidding the creation of military schools. The army was also badly equipped, relying, for the most part, on the antiquated Brown Bess musket. Indeed, some battalions had no firearms at all. The rapid expansion of López' army only incresed the problem. Conditions in the artillery were even worse, some of the gunners being forced to use iron pieces cast at the Seville arsenal as far back as the 1660s. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts

Pascal says that man's condition is inconstancy, boredom and anxiety. What solution does he offer? Phil S Stein (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Gambling. Skarioffszky (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at part VIII of the Pensées, that with the heading 'Diversion'. Here you will find a whole section devoted to the problem of inconstancy, boredom and anxiety that Pascal identifies at (24). Amongst other things, activity, action for the sake of action, takes on the form of an intellectual anesthetic. But the pursuit of happiness through action is illusory; for only imperfection can be found in an imperfect being. To find true happiness, true fulfilment, it is necessary for the individual to look beyond the limits of her or his own existence. It is important to submerge onself, in other words, in a greater meaning, a greater sense of purpose and direction, one that can only be provided by God. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Find a Book

I read a book as a young teenager, I think it was aimed at girls, but it was about: I young girl who is taken to live with possibly relatives, who are not around much. She wonders up to the attic, where she finds dolls that are annimated, walk and talk, and most importantly they water the wallpaper flowers everyday. The Butler in the house has the same odd personality traits as the dolls, she eventually kills the dolls because of thier odd habits, and her own lonliness, and when in the end of the book the butler dies, he reimerges as a doll, and the other dolls are alive again. I think it might have been called behind the attic wall any help would be great thanks guys and girls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a book called Behind The Attic Wall that sounds like a match, here is one Amazon link. --LarryMac | Talk 16:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Super Furry Animals

when they sing abot Frankie Fontain, who was he? and why do we not have an article. Some one has told me in the past. But I have forgotten. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Frank Fontaine? also correct spelling of 'furry' in header --LarryMac | Talk 15:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Who wrote this bit of verse?

Sometimes I think the oyster's what
I most decidedly am not.
How wonderful if I might learn
To be as still and taciturn.
It builds a pearl within its shell
Instead of letting forth a yell
When irritated, while I chatter
And fume at things that do not matter.
If only I were like the oyster
Residing calmly in its cloister.
If only I could be akin
When something gets beneath my skin.

--I am not getting anywhere in my efforts to attribute it. Thanks Wikipedians! Cyrusc (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hilaire Belloc? 64.236.80.62 (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good guess. Or maybe someone like Willard R. Espy? Does anyone have a citation? Thanks, Cyrusc (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ogden Nash? Wrad (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Nash has this in Many Long Years Ago

• THE OYSTER
  
  

The oyster's a
Confusing suitor;
It's masc., and fem.,
And even neuter.
But whether husband,
Pal, or wife,
It leads a soothing
Sort of life.
I'd like to be
An oyster, say
In August, June,
July, or May.

--but that's not the one I'm looking for. Is it possible Nash wrote both? The unsourced one seems to lack the sharpness of a Nash poem... Thank you for your help though...anyone else have a suggestion for me? Cyrusc (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not Dr. Seuss? Aecis^Brievenbus 01:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but I would expect Google to have more to say were this the case... For any given Dr. Seuss quote, theoretically it is not the favorite quote of one or more bloggers? Also, "while I chatter / And fume at things" doesn't sound like Seuss to me. Are there reasons to think Seuss I should know about? Thank you for the suggestion. Any other takers to I.D. this increasingly obscure poem? Cyrusc (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Could it possibly be Cole Porter? He wrote his own lyrics, and he rhymed oyster and cloister in at least one of his songs ([4]). (Mind you, he’s by no means the only one to do this; thanks to your question I've now discovered the hitherto unknown (to me) poet George Barker - here's his The True Confession of George Barker.) Failing that, the good folks here might be able to pin it down for you. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into the Porter, but Google's silence on this poem argues even more strongly against Porter than against Seuss. It was Porter who really put "beneath my skin" on the map, so to speak. Thanks for the suggestion. Chaucer rhymes cloister/oyster twice in the Canterbury Tales, by the way (and there's even some cloître/huître action in Fr. verse)! Cyrusc (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a BB section of the Quote Unquote website that specializes in tracking down quotations. You could try posting it there.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--I'll check this out. Cyrusc (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that I doubt it is the product of a major poet or even a very good poet. Most of the lines are exceptionally clunky and have that "e-mailed poem written by a total amateur" uneconomical feel to them. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

What I find interesting about it at this point is that nobody can identify it. I don't think e-mail, though--the English sounds like 1920s–1940s American to me. See the Cole Porter reference above. Cyrusc (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell us where you came across the poem? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It circulated on an English department listserv I read. The professors were trying to source it; I think they ran out of steam at Ogden Nash. To be specific: I think the thread ended at some point between the coming-to-mind of Nash's Many Long Years Ago and a more concrete recollection of Nash's "The Oyster" (q.v.). I should take this opportunity to say that I haven't had a copy of Many Long Years Ago to hand; it's theoretically possible "The Oyster" and the poem in question appear in that volume and thence the department discussion came properly to terms. Without really doing the math I feel that, as to whether the thing is attributable, the Reference Desk promises a more expedient finding than does the library. :-)

Who posted it on this listserv and why, you ask? Sadly, other than to clarify for the faceless and wondering internet that I certainly did not post it myself, I have no more information than that the OP, having exhausted what I know to be a large fund of personal resources, made a polite admission of defeat and submitted the quote in what I take to be exasperation, though it could well have been despair. Cyrusc (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me,24.147.86.187, that "e-mailed poem written by a total amateur" was admirable in its concision. Cyrusc (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Petain the defeatist

In studying the military and political career of Phillipe Petain I'm trying to discover if his defeatism and pessimism in 1940 can be traced to an earlier point in his career, or if it was simply the product of immediate circumstances? I would be pleased for any guidance that can be offered here. One supplementary question, if I may: was the indictment against him in 1945 well prepared? P Bagration (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is possible to detect traces of what you my be looking for during the latter part of the First World War, specifically Pétain's conduct during the early stages of the German Spring Offensive in 1918. With the British Fifth Army being forced back towards Amiens and the Channel, the French commander looked set to fall back on Paris, thus opening up a gap in the Allied line, the very thing the Germans were aiming for. At this point of crisis Douglas Haig, the British commander, let it be known indirectly that he lost confidence in his French counterpart, suggesting that the time had come to appoint a supreme commander for all of the Allied forces, with the inference that this should not be Pétain. As the situation got steadily worse, Pétain's mood became ever bleaker. Amongst other things he claimed that the 5th Army no longer existed and that Haig was fighting a losing battle with the Third Army and his remaining force. He even went so far as to compare the British 'defeat' to the disastrous Italian reversal the previous year at the Battle of Caporetto. At a meeting on 26 March he said that Haig would soon be forced to capitulate. At this point he was told directly by Ferdinand Foch that he had effectively given up the fight.

On your second point, the 1945 indictment was, indeed, a badly thought-out document. It failed completely to mention the three charges on which the Marshal-and the Vichy regime-was most vulnerable: the racial laws and the deportation of the Jews; the Service de Travail Obligatoire, or STO, the law which condemned thousands of Frenchmen to forced labour in Germany; and the terror initiated against the French Resistance and other elements hostile to the regime by Joseph Darnand and the Milice. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Not on this subject, but rather on the article Milice referenced above, which I view because the context did not match what I expected for that word. It has more than one meaning, but my skills are not yet up to creating a new article, and setting up a disabiguation page. In the US military, the term Milice is a contraction meaning Military Police, with an undertone that they are everywhere, like cockroaches or lice. Of course I have no references to hand, just life experiences. -SandyJax (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

December 15

Equivalent before the invention of computers

I was reading someone's philosophical article on how one can't be sure that they're not just a brain in a jar hooked up to a computer. This problem obviously relies on the fact that a computer is generating our environment. Is there any equivalent to this question before computers were invented? (i.e. Something an ancient Greek thought of) --The Dark Side (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

See evil genius. Algebraist 03:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of Shakespeare's Iago. Wrad (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lao Tsu dreaming he is a butterfly?hotclaws 10:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In some versions of Gnosticism, the material world was not so much a reality created by the demiurge, but an illusion created to hold us captive and keep us from enlightenment. Quoting from the article: Additionally, general Gnostic thought ... commonly included the belief that the material world corresponds to some sort of malevolent intoxication brought about by the powers of darkness to keep elements of the light trapped inside it, or literally to keep them 'in the dark', or ignorant; in a state of drunken distraction. This view is also found in the writings of Philip K. Dick. A related topic is solipsism, which was already considered by the Greek philosopher Gorgias (c. 483–375 BC).  --Lambiam 13:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The equivalent question before computers is knowing whether or not you are in a dream or being deceived by demons, etc. See Cartesian skepticism: I will suppose... some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me. I shall think that the sky, the air, the earth, colours, shapes, sounds and all external things are merely the delusions of dreams which he has devised to ensnare my judgement. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I would consider some parallel as well to Plato's Allegory of the cave (written more than 2,000 years before even Babbage's Difference engine was in design, or Descartes' work), in which prisoners, chained from childhood to the wall of a cave, able only to see shadows on the opposite wall, hearing only echoes from the opposite wall, become convinced that the shadows on the wall are the "real" world. Although they see only shadows of puppets, hear only echoes of voices, they have no sensory means to learn that they see only the shadow of a simulation, rather than the original object in question.
A prisoner, once freed, could only slowly and with great mental distress come to accept the sunlit world above as more "real" than the shadows with which he has lifelong familiarity, and only with great difficulty similarly "free" another prisoner, who would consider him mad for supposedly misunderstanding the fundamental nature of reality.
It is not a perfect analog, but at least a fairly early discussion of how inaccurate sensory impressions can lead to a shared misapprehension about what is "real". It is also one of the few based entirely in physical possibility, requiring no demi-urge, demons, or gods be posited - It can be envisaged wholly in mundane, concrete terms.
Further examples might be found in a study of texts on Solipsism, the belief that nothing beyond one's own consciousness can be truly proven to exist, but I am not familiar enough with the philosophy to cite specific examples. --Narapoid (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Did George W. Bush hit his father?

I heard somewhere that as a teen Bush got into a fight with his father and physically attacked him? Is there any truth to the story that Bush hit his father? --Gosplan (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but can we form a line and take turns? Saukkomies 00:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As described by the Washington Post [5] In 1972 George W. Bush took his 16 year old brother Marvin out for a night of drinking. When George W. got back home, his car hit the neighbor's garbage can, causing caused his father George H. W. Bush to complain. George W. then challenged G.H.W to have at it "mano a mano." See also George W. Bush substance abuse controversy. Edison (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol Marvin Bush? Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no Engelist or Engelism?

Why does no one label themselves Engelist or Engelism?

Why has there never been a movement of Engelists? Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists, all call themselves Marxists yet reference their other founders. Engels on the other hand is never referred to as an ideology. --Jacobin1949 (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably because he is associated so closely with Marx that his work is inseparable from it. There was really no Marxism before Engels, whereas Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, all left their marks on Marxism long after Karl's time, their innovations all having created forks in the movement. Engels never broke with Marx in that way. Also, Engels' theories were not in competition with Marx, but tended to be supplementary and exegetical. Lantzy ^talk 21:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I like to compare Engels and Marx with Bernie Taupin and Elton John. When they both finally were breaking into the music scene after struggling to get there on their own, they were teamed up and became immensely prolific - Taupin was the lyricist and Elton John the composer. They were known to the music industry as an indispensible pair. When they began selling top hit albums, Bernie Taupin was given a lot of recognition on the cover labels and in the press. However, gradually Taupin faded into the background until he became almost invisible, even though he has still continued to write lyrics for Elton John even to this day. Elton John's most famous hits have lyrics written by his partner Bernie Taupin, and yet you never hear about him when they mention Elton John. Unlike the lyricist/composer pairs of Rodgers and Hammerstein, or the Gershwin brothers Ira and George, or Gilbert and Sullivan who were always included together, Bernie Taupin faded out while Elton John became predominant. This is how I see the relationship between Engles and Marx - Engels being Bernie Taupin, and Marx being Elton John. Marx, for a variety of reasons, became the front man who everyone talked about, even though they were very close to one another all through Engels life (Marx outlived Engels and posthumously published a book written by him). Saukkomies 01:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Saukommes, you have that the wrong way round! Engels outlived Marx by a dozen years, and continued to edit, publish and interpret his work, as well as writing his own material. If Marx is Moses, Engels is Aaron. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Bonk. I stand correcte, Clio. But did you like the comparison with Taupin & Elton John? I done thunk that one up on my own... Saukkomies 02:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You done good! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh gosh, now I'm all tingly! A compliment from Clio! You have my sincere thanks. Saukkomies 10:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Jacobin, I would like to echo Lantzy's view here, but add something more. Intellectually Marx was always the dominant figure in the partnership, though Engels was to perform an indispensable service as an amanuensis and interpreter, the St Paul (yikes, another religious parallel!) of Marxism. There is even some truth that Marxism, in its final shape, owes more to Engels than the Moor!

There is another aspect to your question which should also be considered. Marxism, in its pure form, is about theory, not about power. The later 'isms' you have identified are increasingly more about power than about theory. Leninism, insofar as it is a theory at all, as opposed to a political practice, is about power and the attainment of power through Revolution. In Stalinism theory and practice begin to separate altogether, until the theory is no more than an expression of particular forms of power. All of them are linked, to some degree or other, are given legitimacy, even if it is only passing, by history, rather than depth of analysis or force of argument. Karl Kautsky or Rosa Luxembourg are not graced by an 'ism' for the simple reason that they were not favoured by events, even though as thinkers they once commanded far greater authority than Lenin, Trotsky or Stalin. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As an irrelevant aside: should it not be Engelsism, almost sounding like anglicism! ---Sluzzelin talk 03:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Well done, comrade, an addition to the canon of Sluzzelinism! (Say that out loud; it makes one sound positively sozzled). Clio the Muse (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Engels is, indeed, the Dutch word for English. Xn4 14:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Credit card security

Could someone please explain how credit card security works, and, given each security measure, how it is defeated? There is some info in the article Credit card, but I wrote that myself, and would like someone to please check it for me. Thanks to all, 203.221.126.9 (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Credit cards are secure? I suppose they might be if you never divulge your number to anyone and shred every statement.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Anon didn't say credit cards are secure, he or she said they have various security measures (which they do) and wanted to know what they are and how they are commonly defeated. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Latin Empire compared to Holy Roman Empire

Just another completely barbarian usurpation of Rome, non-Roman on the face of it, except that unlike the HRE in respect to the West Roman Empire, the LE didn't totally supplant the East Roman Empire? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

We have an article, Latin Empire. I should hesitate to call it "completely barbarian", and, indeed, a "usurpation of Rome". From the point of view of the Greeks, the Latin (or Romanian) Empire could barely be called barbaros in Greek: at first that meant either non-Greek or specifically Italian, but by the 13th century it meant (like barbarus in Latin) 'neither Greek nor Roman', and although many Crusaders could be called barbarians, the Romanians of Romania saw themselves as Romans. The Latin Empire was, at least, more Latin than the medieval Eastern Roman Empire (now called the Byzantine Empire) and in some ways (such as religion) less non-Roman. Xn4 02:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I meant Frankish/Germanic outsiders/foederatii, compared to the Classical Civilization of Rome--which began in Troy, only to make its way back to Constantinople. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wagner a Nazi?

Can Richard Wagner, in his support for racism, nationalism and militarism, be seen as an early National Socialist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.5.136 (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wagner was not a militarist, but a pacifist. On that issue at least, he would have been quite out of step with the Nazis. Lantzy ^talk 22:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Hitler was quite influenced by Wagner's views on vegetarianism and antisemitism. bibliomaniac15 22:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You might think so if you ever read Wagner's Das Judenthum in der Musik. You might also think so if you read Mein Kampf, where Hitler praises the composer as 'a great revolutionary', claimiing that he had no other forerunner. Joachim Fest, a German historian, makes Hitler's debt to Wagner even more plain; "The Master of Bayreuth was not only Hitler's great exampler; he was also the young man's ideological mentor. Wagner's political writing...together with the operas, form the entire framework for Hitler's ideology...Here he found the grantite foundations for his view of the world." (Hitler, 1974). And it was Hitler himself, in power, who said "Whoever wants to undersatnd National Socialist Germany must know Wagner."

So, yes, it is possible to give Wagner a Nazi make-over. But look a little more closely. Above all, behold the man. Wagner was a positive monster of egoism, and his political and artistic reactions were almost always predicated on his rather solipsistic view of the world. In other words, there was very little consistency, or continuity, in his attitudes. Look hard enough and you will even find traces of the old liberal Wagner, the Wagner of 1848, different in every sense from Hitler's political monomania. In On State and Religion, published in 1873, he argued that patriotism was no more than a useful means of bringing people together, though for the enlightened ruler the interests of mankind in general should go beyond narrow considerations of power. Earlier still in What is German he warned of the dangers of the yearning for vanished national glory, expressed in the old Kaiser-Reich, the Holy Roman Empire. In his essay on Beethoven, published in the very year that the new Kaiser Reich came into being, he considers that the real mark of Beethoven's genius lay in his ability to transcend ethnicity.

For Wagner the real questions of the day were decided not by iron and blood but by their impact on, well, Wagner. His support for the Revolution of 1848 was because he believed a new Germany would give proper voice to the artist. He supported Bismarck's Reich for much the same reason, an enthusiasm that waned when the Iron Chancellor refused to subsidise his Bayreuth theatre. It disappeared altogether when Kaiser Wilhelm I preferred to attend military manoeuvres than the first Bayreuth festival in 1876. Even his notorious hatred for the Jews was hardly consistent. He described his early association with Samuel Lehrs as "the most beautiful friendship of my life." Wagner continued to have Jewish friends, including Carl Tausig, who was appointed to manage the whole Bayreuth festival.

It has to be said that the later Wagner cult, like the Nietzsche cult, has very little to do with Wagner the man. He would not have been a good, or acceptable, Nazi. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Clio, your point about Tausig is pertinent, but the details are slightly off. Tausig was a Wagner devotee and he certainly devised the plan to raise funds for the building of the Festspielhaus. He might have gone on to manage the Bayreuth Festival itself, but he never got the chance - he died suddenly in 1871, five years before the first Festival opened. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely; thanks, Jack. My point was not at all clear. Tausig, rather, was appointed to manage the plan for the Festival. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I enjoyed this question. I have all my life harbored a secret guilt about absolutely LOVING Wagner's music, all the time knowing he had connections with proto-Nazism. Thanks for enlightening me, too, on this subject. Saukkomies 18:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Rest easy, Saukkomies. One could appreciate Hitler's water colours purely from an artistic perspective, whether you knew the identity of the painter or not. What he did in the rest of his life has no bearing on the artistic quality (or lack thereof) of the paintings. Same with Wagner's music. Daniel Barenboim got into hot water for having the effrontery to conduct Wagner in Israel; without wishing to be insensitive to the feelings of Jews about anything even minimally connected to Nazism, I don't think that their criticism of Barenboim was justified. It's music - not neo-Nazism; and in this case, music written before Hitler was even born. That Hitler chose to glorify it for evil purposes wasn't Wagner's fault. Wagner may have been a monstrous anti-semite, but when he sat down to write Tristan or the Mastersingers, he wasn't thinking "This will show those Jews just how much I despise them". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

King Billy

I've been studying Irish history particularly the conflict between the Catholics and Protestants. Thinking of William of Orange I was wondering if it is right that he has been held up as a symbol of anti-nationalist and anti-Catholic Protestant triumphalism? Is he really best seen as a Protestant symbol?Donald Paterson (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There is perhaps no better illustration, Donald, of the process by which history is, and can be, turned into mythology than William's sojourn in Ireland. For the Protestants he became an iconic figure, mounted on his white horse with sword raised, a detail taken from Benjamin West's painting of the Battle of the Boyne, and once reproduced on a thousand gable-ends! For Catholics he was also an icon, one of an unwelcome Protestant ascendency, expressed, at its worst, in the Penal laws. But William came to Ireland not as a crusader but to fight a campaign that was part of his more general struggle against Louis XIV.

It is crucial to understand here that the French king offered his support to James II, the exiled Catholic king of England, not out of a sense of dynastic and confessional solidarity, but simply as a useful way of opening up a fresh theatre against William, his great Continental rival. In this regard the Irish campaign of 1689-90 was merely a small part of a more general European war, in which religion played only a minor part. As such William was a representative of a more general alliance against Louis and his imperial ambitions, an alliance that included Pope Innocent XI. After his famous victory on the Boyne the bells of Rome were rung out in celebration!

It seems likely that William, if the matter had been left to him alone, would have favoured a large measure of religious toleration throughout his lands. But the matter was not left to him alone; he was dependant on the ruling aristocracy in both England and Ireland. After the final victory in 1691, and the Treaty of Limerick, the ruling Protestant minority in Ireland were in no mood for any form of compromise. For them William, living and dead, was the expression of their power, depicted in statue and paint. The divisions between the communities became even more acute in the nineteenth century, with the emergence of the Orange Order, committed to the Protestant cause by constant reminders and celebrations of the past. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Clio once again I have to thank you. You really are incredibly clever.Donald Paterson (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

English-Dutch Union?

Were England and the Dutch unified as a single Kingdom during the reign of Will of Orange? --Jacobin1949 (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Even less than England and Scotland were united, Jacobin, though William was king of both! You see, until 1795, Holland was a Republic, of which William, as Prince of Orange, was only the Stadholder-the hereditary steward. He was, however, devoted to his native land, which he spent many years defending against the ambitions of Louis XIV. His accession to the thrones of England and of Scotland after the Glorious Revolution enabled William to pursue his struggle against Louis with even greater strength and determination. In strategic and political terms the British Isles was tied to the United Provinces in an ever expanding war with France; so in that sense at least, if in no other, there was a kind of unity. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Clio the Muse's explanation is spot on, as usual. The Netherlands and England were united in a personal alliance against Louis XIV, but the two countries were never unified. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

December 16

Financing the revolution

Read a bit about Alexander Parvus - Der Spiegel ran a title story last week showing "new evidence" on how significant the German Empire's financial help was to the October Revolution. My question is whether and to what extent there is any evidence of other Central Powers helping finance the Revolution in order to weaken the Russian Empire. Thank you! ---Sluzzelin talk 01:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would love to see this article, Sluzzelin. Is it for the week ending 15 December? Anyway, as far as your specific question is concerned, I have no direct evidence. Austria-Hungary and, indeed, the Ottoman Empire, gained from the collapse of Russia in 1917-18, though by this time both were close to economic ruin themselves, as was Bulgaria. Any financial aid given to the Bolsheviks, I would hazard, must have been minimal. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Clio, that makes sense. Yes, it's issue #50/2007, from 10 December 2007, here's the cover (I guess you have to pay for the article now). Here's the World Socialist Web Site's critique (the only one I found in English). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sluzzelin. I think I'll try to get hold of a hard copy of Der Spiegal, rather than reading the article online; I would like to study their sources. The socialist website seem quite unnerved by the whole thing, poor dears! In a sense it does not really matter if the Germans gave Lenin money or not; he served their political purpose quite well enough without a single mark; a plague bacillus injected into the heart of Russia, so said Churchill. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

HIndi and Tamil

How you write "Jilani Adam" in Hindi Devanagari and Tamil script? Sorry if I use my name on the site. please answer the question, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.100 (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This might be a question that would be more appropriately posted on the Reference Desk/Language section instead of here in the Humanities... I've studied Devanegari, but I'm very reluctant to try to give you a definitive answer to that. GIve the Language people a shot at it. Saukkomies 03:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Belgium

Two questions about Belgium. One, if Belgium were to split into two separate nations, Flanders and Wallonia, as is periodically proposed, what would most likely happen to the monarchy? Is the royal family more aligned with one of the two regions, and therefore more likely to remain with one or the other? Or would it stay with both, or cease to exist altogether?

Second, why did Belgium use French for the administration of its African colonies, as opposed to Dutch/Flemish? The Flemish are a majority in today's Belgium, and I assume they were also the majority at the point in time when Congo Free State and later Ruanda-Urundi were annexed. So why French, and not Dutch? The only reason I can think of (with my limited knowledge of Belgian history) is that using French would have made trade with the surrounding French colonies slightly easier. Thanks in advance, Picaroon (t) 04:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

To answer your second question first, at the time French was the language of the ruling class in Belgium and therefore using it for administration of the colonies made some sense. Any answer to your first question is speculation, because splitting up Belgium is not going to happen in the near future (they will never agree on who gets Brussels), but let me just say that the children of King Albert II are not known for their fluency in Dutch, so I doubt they will ever be the head of a Flemish state. 82.169.148.34 (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

On (1), I guess it would become a matter for some democratic process in each of the provinces to determine. On the face of it, there's no reason why the monarchy couldn't continue for both, just as (for example) Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of New Zealand as well as Australia. When there was last a referendum on the future of a Belgian monarch, it was in 1951, and Leopold III had much more support in Flanders (a good majority) than in Wallonia (only about forty per cent). It was the difference in the attitudes of the two provinces which when he returned as king nearly led to a civil war. Of course, Leopold was a controversial king and there were many factors in play.

On (2), let's not forget that French was already widely spoken in Africa, and not only in some nearby territories, with about one third of the continent belonging to France. Xn4 13:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Picaroon (t) 19:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The question of which part of Belgium would get the royal family, if the country were to be split, is indeed speculation. We just don't know what will happen. What I think is inevitable is that it will happen. I don't know how long Belgium will last, it could be a few decades, but I don't think it will survive. All we can hope for, is that the split will be as peaceful as the split between the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993. The royal family of Belgium is Wallonian in every aspect. They have many houses there, almost everyone was born there, they speak French in everyday life. And ofcourse they are very popular in Wallonia, where they are being seen as the cement that keeps Belgium together. Their image in Flanders, on the other hand, is abysmal. In many countries mocking the royal family is seen as a show of disrespect or protest. Many Flemish have gone beyond that, they can't even be bothered to do that anymore, that's how little the royal family means to them. This probably started when Albert II succeeded his very popular brother Baudoin. People in Flanders feel Flemish, they love their region, and see the country more like a bad marriage in which you stay together for the kids and the mortgage. This goes from harmless odes like Jacques Brel's Le Plat Pays (in French!) to language riots. These are ofcourse some broad generalizations, but they do paint a picture of life in Belgium. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Without Belgium, there would be no royal family, I'm quite sure. We have a king because electing a president would be tricky if not impossible. He'd have to be either Flemish or Walloon, and I'm not sure the other side would ever regard him as 'theirs'.

Aecis is rather overstating the level of anti-Belgian and anti-monarchical sentiments in Flanders. Jacques Brel, after all, considered himself to be Flemish, and recorded a Dutch-language version of 'Le Plat Pays'. Nationalism is a tricky beast, and Flanders is nowhere near a homogenous block - an Antwerpian, for instance, loves his city more than he loves Flanders, you can be sure of that.

As for (2), another thing to remember is that the Congo was initially 'settled' by Leopold II, with the support of members of the military. Both the royal court and the army were - and to some extent still are - bastions of the French language. Dutch was, for a long time, the language of the lower class. Random Nonsense (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that Jacques Brel was anti-Belgian or anti-monarchical, and if it came across that way, I want to clarify what I meant. Jacques Brel's love of Flanders was harmless in the sense that it had no political connotations, it was just the love for the area he was from. That is what I see throughout Flanders: people love the area and feel proud to be Flemish. That is quite contrary to the sentiments about Belgium: the Belgian national pride is not to have a national pride, their identity is the lack of a national identity. This love for Flanders is common throughout Flanders, it's certainly not limited to nationalists and separatists. But as you rightly said, someone from Antwerp will feel Antwerpian first and foremost, and will likely look down on someone from West Flanders.

Regarding Dutch having been the language of the lower class for a long time: what is interesting to see is that Belgium had almost no Dutch-speaking prime ministers prior to World War 2, and has had almost no French-speaking prime ministers since World War 2. I think the last French-speaking prime minister was Edmond Leburton, who was prime minister from January 1973 to April 1974. Aecis^Brievenbus 10:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Source for this verse about Thermopylae

This verse is attributed to Cicero in the article about the Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture:

“Exercitus noster est magnus,” Persicus inquit, “et propter
numerum sagittarum nostrarum caelum non videbitis!”
Tum Lacedaemonius respondet: “In umbra, igitur, pugnabimus!”
Et Leonidas, rex Lacedaemoniorum, exclamat: “Pugnate cum animis,
Lacedaemonii; hodie apud umbras fortasse cenabimus!”

Can anyone give me a specific source for the text? Thanks a lot! --bdesham ★ 05:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's in Chapter 5 of Wheelock's Latin! It's an adaptation of Cicero's Tusculan Disputations, chapter 101, which you can read here. Adam Bishop (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --bdesham ★ 04:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is knowledge over-managed? Evaluate the accuracy of this statement

lida —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.162.219 (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a statement ,it's a question the way you've written it..hotclaws 10:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No because knowledge is impossible to manage, you can only manage information. The only people who think you can do so are the dumbos involved in Knowledge management (which in itself is a dying piece of consultancy snakeoil - wisdom management seems to what they call the latest batch). Here read this --Fredrick day (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Templars in England

What happened to the Templars in England after the order was banned?86.147.191.182 (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

See Knights Templar in England. Xn4 13:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Plead the 5th

Not a legal question

Does any other country have a notion similar to the US 5th Amendment right not to incriminate oneself? The article does mention that it has it's roots in old English common law, long since removed in England.

On the face of it, it appears a little ridiculous as surly the whole point of a court is to incriminate and trying to protect people from incriminating themselves over crimes seems to be concluding "if no one finds out, it's okay.".

What were the Levelers reasons for wanting these rights in England? Caffm8 (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The right to silence still exists (more or less) in English law. DuncanHill (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

See Right to silence in England and Wales. DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And this relating to all countries which are subject to the European Convention on Human Rights:

"The concept of right to silence is not specifically mentioned in the European Convention on Human Rights but the European Court of Human Rights has held that, the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6." DuncanHill (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with the assertion that "the whole point of a court is to incriminate and trying to protect people from incriminating themselves over crimes seems to be concluding "if no one finds out, it's okay."." The court is not there to incriminate, but rather to weigh the evidence and form a judgment based upon that evidence. It is for the prosecution to find evidence to support their case, and to compel a defendant to assist the prosecution could lead to abuse - such as the torture and harsh treatment mentioned in the article linked above about the right to silence in England & Wales. Furthermore, to compel a person to give evidence against themself would, I believe, strike most people as fundamentally unfair, and a judicial system which is seen as unfair will not gain the public trust it needs to function effectively. DuncanHill (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a legal question

Actually,

However, it is not a request for legal advice. -Nunh-huh 14:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not know enough about the Levellers to attempt that part of the original question, but there may be material of use to you in that article, or in the articles, references and further reading linked from it. I suspect that our resident muse may be able to provide you with more information. DuncanHill (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

John Lilburne's reason was that he had been hauled in front of the Star Chamber. William Avery (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The right to silence article appears to suggest that while "There may be no conviction based wholly on silence", staying silence can and does prejudice you in a case. This seems wholly different than the Americans constitutional right where silence cannot be cause for discrimination.

The question was inspired the American judges ruling that someone cannot be forced to hand over encryption keys [6], and I doubt the same argument would work here.

Also, I was under the impression that a judge could demand you answer a question, and hold you in contempt for failing to do so, or perhaps prosecute for obstructing the course of justice. Caffm8 (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A comment passing by: Constitution of Argentina has article 18 stating basically the same that the 5th amendment. And I guess most legal systems should have similar dispositions. Pallida  Mors 00:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Similarly in Canada, it's paragraph 11(c) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Constitution of Canada. "11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ... (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence". --Anonymous, 04:44 UTC, December 17, 2007.

Caffm8 is "under the impression that a judge could demand you answer a question, and hold you in contempt for failing to do so, or perhaps prosecute for obstructing the course of justice. ": limiting this to the U.S., this is certainly true, but not in circumstances in which the answer can be used to prosecute you. That is, the question can't touch on your guilt or innocence of a crime unless you have been granted immunity from prosecution for that crime. The "right to remain silent" is not absolute, and calling it that is a little misleading; what you actually have is the right not to incriminate yourself. A U.S. citizen specifically has the right not to be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself", and this has been expanded to include any statements made while in custody. Other testimony (in civil cases, or in trials of persons other than oneself) can certainly be coerced. - Nunh-huh 04:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oldest person to be referenced

Who is the earliest person on record? I mean, who is the earliest individual whose existence is believed to be likely and not just mythological/legendary, mentioned in a document?

PS: I do not mean the person who's cited in the earliest document, but the earliest person whose existence is known, never mind how old the document is.

PS2: Not counting people such as Mitochondrial Eve or Y-Chromosomal Adam - we don't know who they were, so we can't single them out as an individual. -- Danilot (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start the ball rolling with Iry-Hor - any advance? FiggyBee (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese Emperor Fu Xi is from a bit later, but we have better knowledge of exactly when his reign was (it began in about 2950 BC), although he has become an almost mythological figure (in much the same way Robin Hood has). Note that Iry-Hor is believed by some historians to be fictional - his successor Ka is more likely to have existed. The Sumerian king list contains all the kings of Sumer, but it becomes very unreliable prior to about 2600 BC; it's difficult to separate fact from fiction at this period. Ötzi the Iceman was likely born around 3300 BC, but he was found by excavation, not from records. Laïka 19:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"According to the Middle chronology, Sargon ruled from 2334 to 2279. His eleventh year would be 2323 BCE. He was the founder of the dynasty of Akkad." Chronicle of early kings, from Babylonia. [7] SaundersW (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Check out the Earliest documented people article, which is up for proposed deletion. Skomorokh ^incite 18:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

NAFTA and Customs duty for shopping in US

Doesn't NAFTA mean free trade agreement? So when I shop in the US for clothes and other stuff, why do I need to pay Import duties to the Canadian Federal government? --Obsolete.fax (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

from here: Your goods qualify for the U.S. duty-free rate under NAFTA if the following applies:

• the goods are for your personal use; and
• they are marked as made in the United States or Canada or not marked or labeled to indicate they were made anywhere other than in the United States or Canada.

so if the clothes have a big "made in china" on the labels (which the probably do) then they can be taxed under NAFTA. Jon513 (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the current duties?

How much Tax do I have to pay after coming from shopping from US? Like, how much percent? --Obsolete.fax (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

After each trip outside Canada of 48 hours or longer, you are entitled to a special duty rate of 7% under the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) tariff treatment in addition to your personal exemption. [8]. Jon513 (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That's duty. You also pay HST if you live in a province with HST, or GST and possibly also provincial sales tax if you don't. (See the same source cited above.) --Anon, 04:52 UTC + 6% GST, December 17, 2007.

Defending the empire

Considering that the Byzantine Empire was beset by numerous enemies over many centuries, and was often quite weak militarily, how is it that it managed to survive for so long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodora B (talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all of its enemies always beset it at the same time. So when it lost Illyria and the Balkans, it still had Anatolia; and when it lost Anatolia it still had the west. Sometimes its enemies wanted Constantinople for whatever reason and did not bother with the rest of the Empire; Constantinople was fairly impenetrable, so when the Rus' attacked it dozens of times they couldn't get in, and when the Arabs attacked it four or five times they couldn't make any progress either. The Empire was also fantastically rich and could usually pay off any major attackers. It also had a rather advanced bureaucracy which, for one thing, could adapt to major changes, and for another, was quite willing to make alliances with former enemies. I'm not sure anyone really understood that bleeding them dry by conquering everything else first was the best way to defeat them, until the Ottomans; the only other group able to capture Constantinople, the Fourth Crusade, lost it again within the century because they looted the treasury, were surrounded by enemies they didn't have the bureaucracy to deal with. Try also Decline of the Byzantine Empire, Byzantine battle tactics, Byzantine army, etc. (And hopefully someone else will come and correct my half-remembered ideas from outdated text books!) Adam Bishop (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've always been impressed by the subtlety-and the cynicism-of Byzantine foreign and strategic policy, which might be said to anticipate some modern trends by hundreds of years. In the twelfth century John Kinnamos, a Byzantine historian, wrote "Since many and various matters lead towards one end, victory, it is a matter of indifference which one uses to reach it." Yes, it's Machiavelli before Machiavelli; but, more to the point, its Clauswitz before Clauswitz. For the Byzantine state politics, and diplomacy, was 'war by other means', an essential part in the game of survival. Considering that, at its height, the Byzantine army was never much more than about 140,000 strong warfare could be a dangerous game, with serious penalties for failure. How much better, then, than to play one side off against the other; to get the 'barbarians' to do the fighting, when this was possible. If the Bulgars were troublesome, why, call in the Russians; if the Russians call in the Patzinaks, and so on! Bribery was used, as was deception, duplicity and subversion of one kind or another. When threatened in 1282 by Charles of Anjou the Emperor Michael VIII helped instigate the Sicilian Vespers, keeping a dangerous rival safely in the west. Constantinople, moreover, was full of pretenders, ready to be produced as the occasion required. If a Turkish sultan threatened to attack then his brother could be conveniently produced as a political diversion. It's really no wonder at all that forms of tortuous political intrigue have come to be called 'byzantine.' Power politcs, effective as it was, for as long as it was, kept the wolf from from the gate, just as much as the walls of Constantinople prevented him getting over the threshold. It was a game, though, of diminishing returns. By 1453 there were no returns at all. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

War Writing

Why did the First World War capture the imagination of writers more than any other major conflict? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.84.48 (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The first question, of course, is are you sure that it did? I know WWI has a reputation for being a front full of poets, ruefully writing clever lines before getting shot, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't really that far ahead of WWII, Vietnam, etc., especially if we aren't thinking of poetry as the only form of writing, and I assume we're probably not even going to bother thinking about non-Western writers and wars. But anyway, assuming that it did, one way to think about it is that it is a major conflict between a number of Western countries in the middle of a time in which the written word ruled unquestionably as a major medium for expression (there was some radio, but it was still new). By the time you get to World War II radio and film have become immensely popular; by the time you get to Vietnam television rules supreme. Just a thought (a little too technological-determinist for my taste, to be honest) on why that might be. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

One factor might have been that it was supposed to be the war that ended all wars. It involved more countries than any other previous conflict, and resulted in more casualties than any previous conflict. It was called "The Great War" up until WW2, a monicker no previous war had ever earned. Also - and with all due respect to those who lost their lives, and their families - and I suspect I'll be shot down in flames for saying so in this terribly correct age we live in, but it's true nonetheless - it was romantic in the extreme, perfect fodder for writers. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh there was nothing 'romantic' about the Hell where Youth and Laughter Go, an observation that has little to do with political correctness-which I loath-and everything to do with my understanding of what was called the 'material battle'. What romance, after all, for 'these who die as cattle.' Clio the Muse (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I was right. I was shot down in flames, and by the Menschette herself (almost the wiki-equivalent of the Red Baron in this context). However, I stand by what I said (which is why I said it, despite predicting the carnage that would ensue), and so I arise, phoenix-like, from the charred remains. I guess we could debate till kingdom come what "romantic" means; what I mean by this term is that in those days, war was still glorified in a way that no longer generally happens (thank God). For many young men, it was a jolly good adventure - all that biffing the Bosch, what. The notion of strapping young men going off to fight for king and country in foreign fields, despite knowing that in all likelihood they'd come back all shot up, if they came back at all - this was the epitome of romanticism. It belongs to the same ethos as Lord Byron going off to Missolonghi, fighting for Greek freedom, and dying there of typhus - and if there was someone who knew more about romanticism than Byron, I've yet to hear of him. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Jack, you and I are approaching this question from entirely different perspectives, hence the gap in interpretation. Anyway, in the best chivalric traditions of aerial combat, let the Baroness invite you to the mess, where she can wine and dine you while clarifying the finer points of her argument. Yes, you are right; there was a mood of excitement engendered by the anticipation of war; of its adventure and of its heroism; of its romance, if you prefer. But the only literature of any note that I associate with this is the later poems of the lovely Rupert Brooke. However, most of the great war-time writing, that which people most associate with the conflict, came from experience; and this experience resulted most often in reaction, a reaction against the heroic mood of 1914. The reaction is marked by an uncompromising and unadorned pursuit of truth, no matter how ugly. And what uglier truth than that expressed by Wilfred Owen

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood

Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,

Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est

Pro patria mori.

And, now, let me click my heels and wish you a safe journey to the Offlag! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of things to consider, 81.129, in answering your question. To begin with, the Great War was the first democratic conflict in history, if it can be so expressed; a struggle not of armies, but of nations; not of nations but of individuals. It was also unique in both its intensity and in its destructivness; a uniqueness that acted as a challenge to the imagination, seeking to express what had hitherto been beyond expression. The war also came at a point where literacy was becoming universal amongst the developed nations of the world. There had been writing in the past about war, but generally speaking it had not been considered as a suitable subject for literary treatment for a limited audience. Jane Austen wrote some of her greatest work during the Napoleonic Wars, though the struggle barely figures. The First World War could not be set aside in this fashion, because of its impact and because of its immediacy. It had to be filtered in new ways through the imagination; to be presented both before and after the event to an audience seeking some degree of insight and understanding of its novelty, attained in so many different ways in the poetry of Wilfred Owen or Siegfried Sassoon; in the writings of Erich Maria Remarque, Ernst Jünger, Henri Barbusse or Ford Maddox Ford; in the paintings of Paul Nash; and in the work of many others, too numerous to mention.

Many were able to express themselves as they did because the war came towards the end of a period of considerable intellectual innovation and creativity. The war had novelty and they had novelty. The same thing is simply not true of the Second World War; for the horror was now part of the universal imagination, as the poet Keith Douglas explained in 1943;

Hell cannot be let loose twice: it was let loose in the Great War and it is the same old hell now. The hardship, the behavious of the living and the dead, were so accurately described by the poets of the Great War that every day on the battlefields of the western desert-and no doubt on the Russian battlefields as well-their poems are illustrated.

Some truths can only be expressed once. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Old Swiss Confederacy

My question is this. Was the Old Swiss Confederacy a federation of a confederation? The article uses both words. I read the articles but I find it hard to understand the difference and I do not know enough about the Old Swiss Confederacy to give an answer to this question. Thank you. :wimdw: 20:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If the Old Swiss Confederacy was any of either, it was a confederation rather than a federation, using the meaning of these words in modern constitutional law. You may be confused because the article describes the Confederacy as "a loose federation", which is just another way to say "confederation". Certainly the Confederacy was not a federal state in the sense of the modern U.S., Germany or Switzerland. Just about the only things that held it together was its system of mutual defence agreements, a long common history and a number of subject territories that were jointly governed. There was no central government to speak of, and just about no common policy on anything but defence and foreign relations. Sandstein (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. So I understand now, that a confederation is a federation. I read in Wikipedia, that a federation is a union of states or regions united by a central government. Did the Old Swiss Confederacy have a central government? Should that not be mentioned in the article? there is a big section "Structure of the federation" but that does not mention the government. Also can we say, that the Old Swiss Confederacy was a republic? I hope this are not stupid questions. :wimdw: 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimdw (talk • contribs)

You're welcome, and your questions are not stupid. The Confederacy did not have a central government in the modern sense. It did have the Tagsatzung, a periodic assembly of cantonal government representatives that decided on common issues of defence and foreign policy, but it had no capital or seat of government, no common laws, no common courts, and no common currency, weights or measures. It also had no central administration, except from the War Council, which was a permanent military staff that exercised federal high command and assumed some rudimentary governmental functions simply because it was the only permanent administrative body of the Confederacy. Put simply, the Confederacy was the NATO of the Swiss cantons - a defensive pact based on shared values and a shared history, but not much more.

The Confederacy was not a republic, because that is an attribute of states, and the Confederacy was not a state, except perhaps as seen from the point of view of the European powers. Its cantons were republics, but their constitutions were rather dissimilar, as shown in this chart. To confuse matters further, some of their associated territories were secular or clerical principalities, or federations themselves. Sandstein (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Are Hegelians bound by the Categorical Imperitive?

Kant's Categorical Imperative is based on the idea of noncontradiction. But hegelian logic proves that all existence is made up of contradictions and opposites. So doesn't this cancel out Kantian ethics? --Jacobin1949 (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm no Hegelian (or even a philosopher), but I'm pretty sure Hegel thought Kant's ethics were nothing but "empty formalism" and rejected Kant's approach pretty strongly. Our article on Kant seems to encourage this view as well. If you Google "Hegel criticisms Kantian morality" you'll find a lot of results on the subject. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The difference between the two, in very simple terms, is that Kant attempts to base his ethics on universal and transcendent principles, whereas for Hegel moral concepts are historically situated. Hegel's critique is, of course, more generally based, made clear in his Logic;

"This world, it is true, he [Kant} alleges to be a world of appearances. But that is only a title or formal description; for the source, the facts, and the modes of observation continue quite the same as in Empiricism. On the other side and independent stands a self-apprehending thought, the principle of freedom, which Kant has in common with ordinary and bygone metaphysic, but emptied of all that it held, and without his being able to infuse into it anything new. For, in the Critical doctrine, thought, or, as it is there called, Reason, is divested of every specific form, and thus bereft of all authority. The main effect of the Kantian philosophy has been to revive the consciousness of Reason, or the absolute inwardness of thought. Its abstractness indeed prevented that inwardness from developing into anything, or from originating any special forms, whether cognitive principles or moral laws; but nevertheless it absolutely refused to accept or indulge anything possessing the character of an externality. Henceforth the principle of the independence of Reason, or of its absolute self-subsistence, is made a general principle of philosophy, as well as a foregone conclusion of the time."

However, this is not to say that Hegel advocates a total rejection of Kantian attempts at universal forms of morality. His theory of the state, particularly the relationship between the state and religion, does allow for some convergence between pure form and historical substance. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a few Hegel questions myself. Why was Marx so influenced by Hegel? He seems to be the most conservative philosopher since Aristotle. Is there any direct link between Right Hegelians and Fascism? And what is suppose to "happen" when Hegel's geist "realizes" itself? --Gary123 (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

His particular conclusions may have been conservative; his method was not. The final goal of the Geist is self-realisation and freedom, the revolutionary potential of which was recognised almost immediately by the Young Hegelians. I can detect no link between the Right Hegelians and Fascism-a concept which might be said for the very antithesis of the dialectic of freedom, and a dangerous form of mass mobilisation and nihilism at that-though I do know of one conservative thinker, a former admirer of Mussolini, who turned to Hegelian idealism as the true expression of history in motion. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Pound sterling

Why the British pound is called pound "sterling"? --Taraborn (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It formerly bought you (represented/was backed by) a pound (weight) of Sterling silver. The origin of "Sterling" is discussed at Sterling silver#Origin of the term. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

December 17

how would you draw a gondolier

I hope this is the right place to ask this -- I'm trying to draw a gondolier (in the act of rowing a gondola, naturally) and I've just realised I am not terribly good at drawing figures while they're inside a boat. I'm not so much asking for a step-by-step thing as perhaps some tips on what to do. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

They basically just stand up - so draw a standing man, with a big oar, and then draw the boat under him. (I would warn you that my drawing abilities are pretty rotten!). DuncanHill (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The gondolier stands at the stern of his boat just above the point at which the stern leaves the water. When rowing, he has his feet apart and both hands (not too far apart) are on the oar, which is very long and straight, and he leans a little into the oar which is anchored to a post slightly in front of him on the starboard side. However, an easier way to draw him is to have him not rowing, in which case he stands quite upright to rest his back, leaving the oar in the water but angled (this is invisible) so that it doesn't hold the boat up. By angling the boat you can avoid drawing the oar-post, if you’re not sure about it! If you want to draw it, it has a strange shape, rather like a bent leg, with the knee sticking out over the water. Don’t forget, gondolas are almost invariably painted black. Xn4 03:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

When I was in Venice, all the gondoliers stood on a red platform on top of the canoe-like boat. They did not stand "in" the boat. This may help since you just draw the boat under the guy standing there. -- kainaw™ 03:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he stands on the deck of the boat, not in it. The decks are normally either plain wood or else are painted black or red. Xn4 03:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a photo [9] of one at work, showing everything mentioned above, plus the fact of the uniform: black pants, black-and-white striped jersey (stripes are horizontal, there are no fat gondoliers!) and flat straw hat. Bielle (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And many more. Oda Mari (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Rise of Western and European Civilization

For hundreds of years up to now, Western and European civilization has dominated the world. The richest and most developed countries in the world are all mostly and mainly Western or European countries. Europe and European countries have controlled and ruled most of the world through colonialism and colonization. Europeans colonized and settled in overseas lands such as the Americas and Australia. Europeans and European countries have become the masters of most non-Western countries and peoples through colonialism. In the West, in Europe, in Britain, there first developed in Industrial Revolution, where people lived mostly in cities and worked mostly in factories. In the West, in America, Britain, Rome, and Greece, democracy first rose, grew, spread, and developed, and it was the West where the world's democracy came from. Most of the world's scientific research, advancement, and knowledge and technological invention, development, and application came from and occurred in the West and Europe. Most of the world's science and technology, scientists and inventors, are in the West or from the West. The West has led much in humanity and the world's development and progress. From Europe came the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the Agricultural Revolution. The most powerful country in the world, the United States, is a Western country.

I have three questions to ask you about this:

1. Why has Western and European civilization been so great and powerful currently in the past few hundred years? Why has it dominated the world? Why had it contributed so much to humanity and the world's development and progress? Why?

2. Is there any evidence, for example, historical, political, social, cultural, anthropological, or geographical, that it is not inevitable that Western and European civilization dominated the world? Is there any evidence that other civilizations can also or are also able to or capable of being so great and powerful or contributing so much to humanity and the world's development and progress?

3. Will Western and European civilization be so great and the greatest civilization in the world for ever? Will there be other civlizations that will be or become as great or greater than Western and European civilization?

Bowei Huang (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like this has something to do with Guns, Germs, and Steel. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside (1),

• 2) Why should European dominance be inevitable? Since a great many non-European civilizations have had their time as "greatest in the world" or what have you, the question seems quite flawed.
• 3) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but given world history, it's likely that a new body will rise to dominance.

And what's up with the recent ref desk fixation with GG&S lately, anyway? — Lomn 04:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a popular book, probably being used by high schools and maybe undergrad classes, which has satisfying answers to impossible questions, based on questionably methodology. Assuming it is correct is much easier than having students do any real work. Hooray! (Although I don't know why it's suddenly popular now, since it is a decade or so old.) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your question touches on what has been perhaps the single most important aspect of my own personal lifelong study of history, namely: the transition of non-"Western" societies that encounter and are ultimately absorbed into the spreading society of Western Civilization. I have yet to find a society on earth that has been able to successfully sustain itself independent once it comes into contact with Western Civilization. I would say, from what I have been able to understand from having studied this so extensively, that your premise that Western Civilization's spread throughout the world was indeed "inevitable". Or rather, after a certain point it was. However, when discussing this, I really don't like to use the term "Western" or "European" or "Civilization", since from my perspective, it is neither exclusively Western or European, and to call it a Civilization is to mislabel it, I think. But for purposes of clarity, let's call it this here for now... This is explained a little better in the Wiki article Sociocultural evolution. However, I do have to say that even in this I find that the term "evolution" is unsatisfactory, since it implies that there has been a progression from early "bad" societies to "better" ones. Instead, the term Social change is probably better to use, but it is rather general and vague...

Western Civilization actually did not begin in the West, nor even in Europe. Instead, it probably began in the Fertile Crescent and adjacent areas. During a very pivotal time in ancient history, from about 2000 BCE to 600 AD (but most especially from around 1800 to 1200 BCE), a series of migrations and invasions took place among a group of nomadic warriors known as the Indo-Europeans from their probable homeland north of the Black Sea into areas stretching from the Indian sub-continent to Ireland. Some of the early invasions of the Indo-Europeans took them over the mountainous region of Turkey, Iraq and Iran and down into the lands of the Fertile Crescent where more sedentary and agricultural societies fluorished. The nomadic Indo-Europeans had a couple of technological advantages at first that greatly helped them in their warfare: they had developed the knowledge of how to smelt and work iron, and they had domesticated the horse. Along with this they also were nomadic, and nomads are typically very good warriors. Unable to fend off these highly proficient warriors, many of the communities in this area were rubbed out. One such example of this is the ruined city of Ebla, which was destroyed in 1750 BCE by the Hittites, an Indo-European tribe. Although there had been much competition between societies in the Fertile Crescent before the arrival of the Indo-European invasion, the level of devastation and social upheaval brought about by these nomadic warrior barbarians coming from the north was unprecedented for this region.

If a society wished to stand up against these invaders in an attempt to keep from being completely wiped out, they had to change how their society functioned in order to do so. In other words, they had to adopt the very techniques that made the invading armies so powerful, and try to improve on them. In the end this basically destroyed their old culture, and supplanted it with that of the invaders' even though they had not been conquered. By becoming the same kind of society as that of their enemies, they stopped being the society that they once were. To stand up against these nomadic warriors, the societies in this region had to become "machine-like". Before this, the typical person in this area had a life that was quite diversified. People would perform many different activities throughout their day, and their lives were not very regimented. In order to withstand the constant threat of invasion, though, these societies had to reshape themselves so that they created specialists. The ruler (typically a King), would establish a well-trained standing army of soldiers who could respond at a moment's notice to any threat, and who did not produce anything other than safety from outside invasion. Instead, these soldiers consumed - and it was very expensive for these societies' economies to equip, train, and maintain armies large enough to prevent invaders from destroying them. This meant that the average person no longer was occupied with various and sundry activities, but would be regulated to a particular livelihood such as farming, metal crafts, etc. Taxes became even more critical, so a larger bureaucracy had to be established to keep track of this. In short, "Western Civilization" was created. Unfortunately for these people in the Fertile Crescent, the invading Indo-European tribes began settling down and started the process of turning their societies into machines as well.

Eventually what ended up happening was that another Indo-European society invaded the Fertile Crescent - the Greeks under Alexander the Great. The Greeks' society was even MORE "machine-like" than other people - and because of this they were more successful. But then another Indo-European society came along that, for a variety of reasons, was the most efficient machine-like society to yet - namely the Romans. It would not be for centuries later that another society could match the great advantage that the Romans had over their competeting rivals in terms of being efficiently organized. After the collapse of the Roman Empire under the hands of yet more Indo-Europeans (the Germanic Tribes), "Western Civilization" continued to spread, but more subtely - mostly through the Christianity (which carried with it Roman culture) and Commerce. Even though other societies embraced the techniques of "Western Civilization", such as the Medieval Muslims, the societies of Northern and Western Europe managed to take the lead in developing these techniques, and by the Age of Exploration, were poised to spread its influence all over the entire globe.

It so happens that a couple of other phenomena occurred that have had a huge impact on the course of world events over the past couple of hundred years - the rise of the Middle Class and the Industrial Revolution - both of which occurred mainly in Northern and Western Europe. The conditions that created both of these things were optimized by Western Civilization, and then both the Middle Class and the Industrial Revolution (with their emphasis on mercantilism and exploitation) went on to make Western Civilization even more powerful than it had been before by making the societies in which these things occurred become even more "machine-like". Today, the most machine-like society that has ever existed is that of the United States. The U.S. embodies the epitome of a society that has incorporated both of these forces. It may well be that some other forces might come along that will supplant the Middle Class's powerful position, or to supplant the Industrial Revolution - but whatever force this is, it will certainly still be an integral part of Western Civilization. Communism, after all, is just another form of Western Civilization, for example... So perhaps a better question would be: "What, if anything, will supplant the Middle Class?"

As different societies initially encountered Western Civilization, there were mixed reactions. Some societies embraced it fervently (such as the Romans), while others opposed it violently (such as the Gauls). Still other peoples had a mixture of embracing and opposing its cancerous spread (such as the Britons). However, nobody has been able to ultimately resist embracing it. All a society can realistically hope for is that it can hang on to many vestiges of its earlier unique character, while trying to incorporate the aspects of Western Civilization in as seamless a way as possible. Always this process of transformation from earlier society to Western Civilization is filled with huge social upheaval and violence. This cannot be changed, as it is in the very nature of why societies must adopt Western Civilization in the first place: to prevent themselves from being annhilated. Today we can see this same process as it works its way through societies that are in various stages of embracing Western Civilization (notably in places such as Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia). All are fraught with violence and upheaval. This process usually lasts a couple of hundred years, and then relative stability ensues. Perhaps the day will come when some future generation will no longer be faced with headlines from around the world that speak of societies' violent encounters with Western Civilization, as it will be a done deal. I just do not see how any social or historical interference can possibly stop the spread of Western Civilization until it has been embraced by every last society on the planet. It is a cancer that cannot be stopped without becoming part of the cancer itself.

You asked if it is possible whether something else could come along that could be as strong or stronger in terms of social influence as Western Civilization, and my answer would be no. At least not for the next thousand years or so. The reason is that Western Civilization turns societies into machines. By doing so, the machine-like society becomes so efficient and so powerful that it cannot be successfully opposed. The other reason is that in doing this, the society also achieves a level of security that allows for the flow of commerce and the development of culture, which are very powerful enticements for the average human being. Having a steady income and being able to enjoy entertainments regularly are highly valued things. In order for another system to be able to be as strong as this, it would basically have to replicate what Western Civilization does - and in so doing, it would actually become part of Western Civilization, too. (if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...). Forever, though, is a long time. I am sure that some time in the distant future there will emerge some social force that will supplant Western Civilization, but I cannot envision it happening for centuries, if not for millenia.

This is written from my own opinion, but I am not writing this as "original research" by any means! There have been many books and articles that have stated the same thing I just did. Indeed, this is such a pervasive theme that unless someone requests, I shall forego citing any specific works, alhtough the aforementioned "Guns, Germs and Steel" is probably just as good a work as any.Saukkomies 16:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that while so-called "Western Civilization" had a huge and transformational effect on the rest of the world over the last 500 years, so to has the "West" been transformed by this process. What would Ireland's history be like had the potato not been introduced from the New World, for example? What would popular music be like in "the West" (and thus the world now) had not African slaves been brought to the United States in such large numbers? I'm just pointing out that even if every society on the planet has been transformed to one degree or another by Western Civilization, so too has Western Civilization been transformed "to one degree or another". Pfly (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes! And to further elaborate, the "West" (namely, western Europe) originally wasn't even a part of "Western Civilization" to begin with! As this thing that has come to be known as "Western Civilization" spread from the Middle East into Europe and eventually into Western Europe, people fought against it kicking and screaming until one by one they all succumbed to its influence. The fact that they then went on to spread this "thing" even further around the globe does not mean they're the ones who are originally responsible for it. -- Saukkomies 16:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Beware always, Bowei Huang, of the illusion that history always moves in one direction. For that which rises also falls and the owl of Minerva only ever flys at dusk. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good advice, Clio. And, in addition, it is always good to remind ourselves that any given theory about history or historical events is most probably not going to be absolutely correct. The best we can do is to look at things from as many angles as possible, and then draw tentative conclusions from there. Trying to be a good historian (and by that I mean one that attempts to be honest) is a very humbling experience, or at least it ought to be. -- Saukkomies 17:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You said that Western countries and societies rose and flourished because they were more machine-like. I don't understand. Weren't many other countries and civilizations such as China also very machine-like or just as machine-like as Western countries and civilization? I mean, the Chinese had a large empire and ancient civilization that was as complex, sophisticated, and advanced as the Romans were and had. So how and why were Western countries and societies more machine-like than other countries and societies, like China?Bowei Huang (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A book I've been reading, Pathfinders: A Global History of Exploration, points out that nearly all of Europe's Atlantic-side peoples have founded virtually all of the maritime world empires of modern history, even the relatively tiny "peripheral communities" like Portugal and the Netherlands. And further, that the "European miracle" seems odd in that for most of history there was no miracle. In the authors words, "Westerners are the dregs of Eurasian history, and the salient they inhabit is the sump into which Eurasian history has drained." A "renaissance or three", the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment, and industrialization play a role in the West's spread. But in the long-term picture, "Europe's west has been at the receiving end of great transmissions of culture." And that for most of history the Atlantic end of Europe was rather inhospitable and unpromising, populated by waves of refugees. For hundreds and even thousands of years these people lived on the Atlantic coast "without exercising much in the way of seaward initiative." Living near the sea such people were naturally drawn to maritime work, like fishing and coastal trading. But when it came to the Atlantic Ocean itself, "most of these people were stuck... as if pinioned by the prevailing westerlies which blow onto all their shores." Further, when Europeans "discovered" the larger Atlantic, it was not the coastal people who pioneered the effort, but people from deep in the Mediterranean -- the Genoese, Majorcans, and so on. These were the people who began to work down the coast of Africa, discovering the Canary Islands in the process. Ships of the time could sail from Europe to the Canaries on the trade winds, but had difficulty returning. One had to sail north vaguely searching for a westerly wind, which is probably how the Azores were discovered. In other words, via relatively short explorations of the Atlantic Europeans were able to find an island group perfectly suited for an outward bound trip (the Canaries) and one suited for the return trip (the Azores). Once these islands were found, secured, and fitted with ports, what was once a foolhardy thing to try -- sailing the ocean open for long distances -- became increasingly routine. This system of using easterly trade winds to the Canaries, working north to the Azores and using westerly winds to return home became relatively routine by about 1430. Once this was established the essential secret about the wind patterns of the Atlantic were unlocked. The Portuguese rather daringly guessed that the pattern was the same in the South Atlantic and pioneered a route around Africa that was essentially a southern reflection of the search for westerly winds near the Azores. In this case, however, they didn't discover an island group like the Azores, but Brazil. Another possible use of the wind system and the Canary and Azore bases, also daring, was to sail west on the trade winds much farther into the Atlantic than anyone had tried before, and then working north to the zone of westerly winds in order to return to Europe. This is precisely what Columbus did. He may not have been the first to realize such a voyage could be done, but he was the first daring enough to try. All four of his voyages went via the Canary Islands and returned via the Azores. Once the theory of the Atlantic winds was proven there was a great rush to search for ways to exploit it. The rush lasted centuries, with new lands and new wind systems worked out piece by piece. Before long western Europe, once the "dregs" of Eurasia, had mastered transoceanic sailing and global circumnavigation, and soon were masters of global maritime empires. Compare the wind patterns, islands, the ocean sizes of the Indian and Pacific Oceans to get a sense of why this kind of thing did not arise in those places. In short, the Pacific Ocean is too big -- the polynesians mastered its winds and colonized its islands but were unable to establish global empires for various reasons, not least of which is the size and winds of the Pacific. The Indian Ocean's monsoon wind system was well known from very early on, and was used to establish a vast trading network and some large empires. But the Indian Ocean winds served to contain such things to the Indian Ocean and peripheral regions (all the way to China). Plus, there was so much profit to be made within the Indian Ocean there was little incentive to go try foolhardy explorations to unknown lands. Anyway, it is an interesting book, perhaps a useful addition to Guns, Germs, and Steel. Pfly (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

To respond to your second query, Bowei Huang, I would say that each civilization that has sprung up on earth has its own unique characteristics. It is probably not wise to generalize by talking about civilizations as diverse as the Chinese, or the Indus Valley, or the Incan as the same thing, even though they do have certain similiarities. The reason that China did not become the same kind of civilization as "Western Civilization" is not because it did not have a "machine-like" society, nor that it had access to technology and raw resources, or that they explored the world to some degree - all of which they did have. The most likely reason that the Chinese didn't follow the same course that Western Civilization did was that Chinese society was very self-absorbed. They did not have a lot of motivation to go out and find new lands, but repeatedly chose a path of isolating themselves from the outside world. The only real exception to this was when outsiders, the Mongolians under Genghis and Kublai Khan, conquered China and then went on to conquer a huge amount of real estate elsewhere. However, they could not maintain their hold on their conquered lands due to the fact that they assimilated and fought amongst themselves. We could examine each of the various histoical civilizations that have come and gone, and each has the seeds of its own destruction.

However, Western Civilization is not like that. Why? What makes it different from, say the Chinese civilization, or the Aztec civilization? It is due to the fact that it is actually NOT a "civilization" in the first place. At the beginning of my previous response above in this subject I mentioned the fact that I did not like the term "Western Civilization" because it is neither Western nor is it a Civilization. So what is it? I won't talk about the various definitions of the term that go into other subjects. What a civilization is defined to be in this regard is a distinct society that shares the same culture, and often the same language, as well as having a degree of sophistication (to differentiate it from tribal societies). We can say that there was a Roman Civilization, or a French Civilization, or a Portuguese Civilization, etc. But they ALL belonged to what we call "Western Civilization", right? How can such diverse societies as Catholic Portuguese-speaking Brazilians and Lutheran Finns be included in the same society or culture? And yet they are part of "Western Civilization". See what I'm saying?

The big mistake that people often make when they talk about "Western Civilization" is that they think of it as a civilization, instead of something else. Western Civilization is much bigger than just the various societies and nations that are part of it. It represents a shift in the way that human society works - much the same way as the Industrial Revolution was a shift. This shift that took place back in the Fertile Crescent in ancient times where the whole thing started was a transformation of society into a machine, making the people who live in the society all cogs of the machine - each with his or her own specialization. But the difference between why "Western Civilization" fluorished and spread all over the planet is not just due to that - it is also due to the nature of reaching out to new lands that was imbued in it from the very start.

If you examine history, you'll find that there were times when societies that were part of Western Civilization reached out and conquered new lands (or tried to conquer them). One such example was when the Persians tried to conquer all of the Middle East and then the lands of the Greeks. The Persians were indeed part of Western Civilization - they were the inheritors of centuries of struggle on the plains of the Fertile Crescent and surrounding mountains and deserts. There had been others before them - the Assyrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, Phoenicians, etc - all trying to establish control over these lands. Eventually the Persians came out on top for a while. Then they reached out to the West. And when they did they ran smack into the Greeks. And then the Greeks realized that they, too, had to transform their society in order to survive - adopting the methods of Western Civilization - almost deliberately so. And then of course Alexander came along, and "good-bye Persians".

Another "reaching out" came when the Europeans Christians began their Crusades into the Holy Land. This set in motion events that would ultimately result in the Conquistadors of Spain reaching out even further to conquer the civilizations of the New World. I won't go into the details about all that here, though.

Then another "reaching out" took place when first the Portuguese, then the Dutch and English, sailed off to distant lands to set up colonies where they could raise precious spices and other commodoties that could be traded for a high profit back home.

This, then is the real difference why Western Civilization has spread all over the globe when such things as the Chinese civilization did not. The Europeans had the technology to sail around the world, and they had the motivation to do so, and they had societies that were organized such that they could carry with them a system of governance that could stand up against threats from other peoples they encountered. All three of these things were necessary for what happened. Having just the technology and motivation alone was not enough to accomplish what Western Civilization has done. The systems in place within Western Civilization make it so that it is an unstoppable force - as I outlined above, in order to stop it, you have to become like it, and once you become like it, you've lost - you are assimiliated - like the Borg! -- Saukkomies 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why were Western countries and civilization so good at assimilating other countries and people? Why is it that the only way to stop it is to be like it?

Another thing is, I've heard the European Union will probably become the next superpower in the world. This means that America might not be the world's superpower any more, but this doesn't say or mean if another civilization will probably become the world's most powerful civilization.Bowei Huang (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Today's equivalent of one pound sterling in 1978 in Britain

Can any user please tell me that based on the increase in the Cost of Living Index, what is the equivalent today of one pound sterling in 1978 in Britain. Thank you.

Simonschaim (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There's rather a lot of information on the Retail Price Index, from 1800 to 2007, at www.statistics.gov.uk. According to one of the tables I requested, the RPI stood at 197.1 in 1978, and in October this year was 824.1. Which suggests that one pound sterling in 1978 would have felt, in purchasing power, like 4.20 does today.

Obviously that only works as a generalisation - property prices have increased more like tenfold, while video cameras have gone the other way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.229.8 (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[10] is a UK House of Common Research paper giving the value of the pound sterling from 1750-1998. If the 1974 index is taken as 100, then the 1970 is 68.2 and 1978 is 181.7 [11] is a paper from the Office of National Statistics on inflation from 1947 to 2004 in the UK. It gives the 1970 index as 18.5 and 2004 as 186.7.
Thus if I calculate right, referring both back to 1970, (186.7/18.5)/(181.7/68.2) = 3.80 approx. A pound in 1978 would have been worth nearly £3.80 in 2004, which is not much less than today's value in these times of relatively low inflation. SaundersW (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The answers above suggest different answers because (as 194.66.229.8 says) some prices go up more than others, while some go down. In what you call a Cost of Living Index, much depends on the weighting given to things. See Consumer price index. People play strange games in using different indices, depending on whether they want to arrive at a higher or a lower figure for what the man in the street calls inflation. Xn4 12:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a website somewhere which will calculate prices for different dates, giving a choice of methodologies - someone answered a question of mine here by linking it ages ago, Unfortunately I didn't bookmark the link! DuncanHill (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And here it is [12]. My q was in June 2007, and answered by Clio. DuncanHill (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It only calculates up to 2006, but here are the figures it gives for £1 from 1978 -

In 2006, £1.00 from 1978 was worth:

£3.96 using the retail price index

£4.02 using the GDP deflator

£6.44 using average earnings

£7.18 using per capita GDP

£7.74 using the GDP

Hope this is useful. DuncanHill (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Doggy story

Who was the medieval city ruler who forced the population to look after his many dogs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.9.98 (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you, perchance, referring to the canines of Venice, of Genoa or the ones in the window? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Were they shaggy dogs? DuncanHill (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Was it the Emperor of the United States? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orphic (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This may be a memory of the notorious Gian Maria Visconti (1388-1412), a Duke of Milan. He was certainly famous for keeping man-killing dogs, and they were so feared that many of their names have come down to us. Visconti was despot of Milan, so no doubt the cost of maintaining his dogs fell on the city. One supposes that few tears were wept for Gian Maria when he was assassinated at the tender age of twenty-three. Xn4 21:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You have the right family, Xn4, but the wrong Visconti. It was Bernabo, who might be said to be the very definition of a tyrant and despot. Amongst other things, he forbade the citizens of Milan to keep dogs, although he had his own kennel of five thousand hounds. These he billited, as 217.43 has indicated, on the unwilling citizens, who were forced to feed and care for them at their own expense, and threatened with punishment if any harm should come to the brutes. His kennel masters made periodic tours of inspection. If the dog was found to be too thin the carer was fined; if it died all of his property was confiscated.

Bernabo also announced that, for everyone apart from himself, the killing of boars and rabbits was absolutely prohibited. Offenders were hanged or maimed. But, merciful as he was, Bernabo was occasionally moved by Christian charity to spare those who were caught, always provided that they ate the whole beast, rabbit or boar, raw and in its entirety. Bon appétit! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Kinship terminology

What is the term used in the English speaking world to the relationship that exists after a marriage between the bride's parents and the groom's parents - i.e between the two respective sets of in-laws?Peterjames wilson (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There is none. That's the plain and simple truth. The bride's parents would refer to the groom's parents as "our daughter's parents-in-law" or "our son-in-law's parents". -- JackofOz (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a term for that, as they would not be considered to be related by affinity. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In Spanish, we add the prefix con- to state such relations. The one you are seeking is thus consuegro/consuegra. Online Spanish-English dictionaries translate that as "father/mother in law of one's child", so I guess there is no specific word, in line with has been said above. Pallida  Mors 21:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Kith" is used in our family for kin of kin, as in "Are you related?" "Kith not kin", but the OED says kith are just local "compatriots". My North Welsh grandparents were first cousins: in some country districts all the neighbors of the same class were kin of kin. --Wetman (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In the movie The In-Laws, one of two characters related in this way simply refers to the other as "my in-law". (And hence the title.) The dialogue goes something like "He's going to be my in-law; his son is marrying my daughter." However, as noted above, this is not standard English usage.

In Yiddish the word you want would be "machatunim". (I don't speak the language; that's one transcription into the English alphabet, but there may be others.)

--Anonymous, 06:12 UTC, December 18, 2007.

First Naval Victory?

I'm researching the history of naval operations during the World War One and am trying to discover what and where the very first British naval victory over the Germans was. The obvious biggie was the battle of Heligoland Bight in late August 1914, but is there anything before this, no matter how small? (even the sinking of a single U Boat or gunship.)81.156.3.207 (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The most notable early engagement was the pursuit of Goeben and Breslau on 3–4 August (a victory for Germany).

The excellent web site uboat.net has a list of World War I U-boat losses. The first of these was U-15 on 9 August 1914, rammed by the cruiser HMS Birmingham. Gdr 15:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

On 4 August the auxiliary minelayer Königin Luise was ordered to: "Make for sea in Thames direction at top speed. Lay mines as near as possible English coast, not near neutral coasts, and not farther north than Lat. 53°." On the morning of the 5th she was spotted by a trawler in the North Sea and her position reported to the light cruiser HMS Amphion. Königin Luise was spotted at 11 A.M., Amphion and several destroyers gave chase and sank her with gunfire.

Königin Luise

At 6:30 A.M. the following day, Aphion, returning to Harwich, struck two of the mines earlier dropped by Königin Luise, sinking her almost immediately, with the loss of one officer and 150 men. Frothingham, Thomas G. (1924) The Naval History of the World War: Offensive Operations, 1914-1915. p. 71.—eric 16:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the exchange of a cruiser for a minelayer probably counts as a German victory. Gdr 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I can give you, I think, an unambigious British victory, 81.156, from a theatre of operations that you might not even have considered. The facts themselves, fantastic as they are, read like something that might have arisen from the fiction of William Somerset Maugham.

Anyway, the theatre in question is German East Africa, which did not learn of the outbreak of the European war until several weeks after the event. On Lake Nyasa there was a British gun-boat by the name of Guendolen, commanded by the red-headed Captain Rhoades, known throughout the area for his Rabelasian wit and his filthy songs. On 19 August Captain Rhoades took the Guendolen into Sphinxhaven Bay, at the German end of the lake, there disabling the Hermann von Wissmann with a single shot from a range of 2000 yards. Captain Berndt, the commander of the German vessel, an erstwhile drinking partner of Rhoades, rowed out to the Guendolen to remonstrate, shouting as he pulled alongside "Gott for damm, Rhoades, vos you drunk?" Rhoades, full of apologies, explained that he was not. He had, rather, received orders to take control of Lake Nyasa. Berndt and his crew were duly taken prisoner, with even more apologies. This small encounter was hailed by The Times as the British Empire's first naval victory of the war. The details can be found in Edward Paice's superb Tip and Run: the Untold Tragedy of the Great War in Africa, London, 2007, p. 20. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Added some of this information to the article on Lake Malawi where the skirmish had already been mentioned. But it probably deserves its own article, including the spicier details I boringly omitted. One question, could you double-check the date? Another website said it happened on August 13 (not 19). Once again, thanks to the Muse! ---Sluzzelin talk 01:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Paice, Sluzzelin, it was 16 August, not the 19th, which was my typo! I've corrected the error on the page. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Coincidentally, i was just reading of another action in German East Africa. On 8 August two old light cruisers, Atraea and Pegasus began shelling the wireless station at Dar es Salaam and on the 9th, the governor and commander-in-chief of the military forces in the colony Dr. Heinrich Schnee effectively surrendered the port, signing a truce in which the Germans agreed to take no offensive action for the duration of the war. Seems like a successful bit of gunboat diplomacy, but might have, as in the case of the Goeben and Breslau, had more important unforeseen consequences. Either the top-ranking military officer had Schnee's doctors declare him mentally unfit, or Schnee (after the British repudiated the truce) agreed to allow that officer—Colonel Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck—to conduct the war in East Africa as he saw fit.—eric 01:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Schnee indulged in a little bit of double-dealing over the open port issue, eric. Also, from the outset, there was tension between the governor and Lettow-Vorbeck. Nominally Schnee had supreme authority in the colony but Berlin had given considerable latitude in matters of defence and mobilisation to Lettow-Vorbeck as commander of the Schutztruppe. As a result he made his own plans to defend the coast, regardless of Schnee's arrangements, and with brilliant effect. You will find all of the details in the work I have already mentioned above, which I cannot recommend highly enough. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

German Names

I am purchasing a German Shepard Puppy,female. She is about 6 weeks old and I will get her at 8 weeks. I need a german name, a strong name, a loving name Thanks!Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hrosvit! Adam Bishop (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I had a snow white Alsatian, and wanted to call it Sphinx, however other members of my family called her Sarah, and soon she only responded to Sarah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How about Ingrid? Or Sabine (pronounced Sa-been-eh)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Helga? Heidi? or the loveliest of all (cough ,mine) Hannah? 86.53.57.148 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, no, name her Achtung or Weinershnitzel. Beekone (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This question was recently asked on one of the Reference Desks. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, though the gender wasn't specified in that question. Here's the link: "Need a German type name for a German shepard puppy". ---Sluzzelin talk 21:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(re-indent) Hertha, a Germanic fertility goddess. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Kriemhild, Brunhilda, Fredegunde. Steewi (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hirtin, German for "shepherdess", pronounced "HEER-t'n", will ensure that she come when she is called. --Wetman (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In my role as Adam, giver of names for all creatures, I called - many years ago - my stepdaugher´s doggy "Woofelwurst". In German, "Wurst" means sausage, which most people may know and "Woofel" means absolutly nothing. For nonspeakers it neverless sounds sufficiently German and, if queried upon its meaning, you can always mutter darkly about Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer and Woofelwurst, the noted philosophers :) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Woofel" fits though. "Wuffi" (pronounced voofy), is a slightly derogatory generic metonym for a dog. "Wuff wuff" (voof voof) is German onomatopoeia for "ruff ruff" or "arf arf" ("bow wow" is "wau wau", pronounced "vow vow", in German). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tale of Two Cities - question about sequel(s)?

I'm pretty sure Charles Dickens never wrote a sequel to "Tale of Two Cities"; but I heard from somewhere that another author did (and I think it was fairly recent). I cant seem to find any info though - how many sequels to "Tale of Two Cities" have been published, and what are the names of the authors/title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.223.87 (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is A Sale of Two Titties by Edmund Wells (who also wrote David Coperfield with *one* p)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.149.81 (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This question was recently asked on one of the Reference Desks. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of one by Dickens, but there's a modern attempt at a sequel by Diana Mayer called Evrémonde (published 2005), which follows the later adventures of Charles and Lucie Darnay, who escape to Austria. As foreseen by the expiring Sydney Carton, he has a son, another Sydney. Xn4 21:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(Very) Christian names

Could somebody please point me in the direction of information on the (17th century-ish? English?) practice of naming children things like Praise-The-Lord Smith and God's-Judgement-Is-Mighty Jackson? (I've made those examples up, but hopefully someone knows what I'm on about.) I don't think there's anything about it on Wikipedia (I have looked), and it's the sort of thing I imagine would be swiftly struck down as non-notable if anyone did try to write about it, but maybe the brains of the Reference Desk can tell me where else to look for this kind of thing. It's a pain to try to find this sort of thing on search engines because all the phrases I try bring up religious tracts rather than references to people. -88.109.63.214 (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Example: Praise-God Barebone. Skomorokh ^incite 19:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here [13] are a few for you, on a baby naming forum. [14] and a few more. I googled "Puritan names". [15] here is an article with more examples linked to it. Not exhaustive, but a start for you to follow! (see also [16]SaundersW (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC) By the way, see also Ankh-Morpork City Watch#Constable Visit-the-Infidel-with-Explanatory-PamphletsSaundersW (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is similar to many Biblical English names, if we translated them from Hebrew or Greek. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Praise-God Barebone, or Barbon, is thought to be the father of the economist and physician, Nicholas Barbon, whose full name was Nicholas Unless-Jesus-Christ-Had-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned-Barbon. Indeed it was! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

And here I was thinking William Makepeace Thackeray had a ridiculous middle name... Aecis^Brievenbus 00:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Headlam and Christian Socialism

Your article on Stewart Headlam says next to nothing about his particular contribution to Christian socialism. Can someone please tell me some more about his teachings? Lady Electric (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Headlam takes as his point of departure, Lady Electric, the ideas of Frederick Denison Maurice, in particular the notion of the immanence of the divine in the material world, giving it a specifically political meaning. His task in the Guild of St. Matthew, as he saw it, was to 'restore' Jesus as he really was: a man of the people, the supreme "social and political Emancipator, the greatest of all secular workers, the founder of the great Socialistic society for the promotion of Righteousness, the preacher of a Revolution." Jesus, he insisted, said much more about this world than the world to come. It was his emphasis on justice and righteous dealings between people that the conventionally minded, and the religious establishment, had ignored. For Headlam "the sayings of Jesus tell of a Kingdom of Heaven to be set up upon earth, of a righteous Communistic society." Amongst other Victorian Christian Socialists he was the one who understood the need for political action to bring about social change. He also supported collective bargaining, trade union rights and advocated the redistribution of wealth by means of state action. In his Fabian tract of 1892 he argued that it was the duty of all good men "to seize the state and use it for the well-being of the masses instead of the classes." The masses instead of the classes. I suppose he deserves to be remembered for that phrase alone. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Constitutional Law

Question .... If a foreign born person is in the postion of the vice-president and something happens to the president, can a foreign born person them assume the presidency as an interim president not elected to the office but there by circumstance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.49.106 (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not "foreign-born" that's a problem. One can be born abroad and still be a "natural-born citizen" (as constitutionally required) by virtue of having American parents (some people dispute this, but they're probably wrong - and I guess it's actually tangential to your posed question). If your question is, can someone not a "natural-born citizen" become vice-president and succeed to the presidency, the answer is no; a person who is not eligible to become president cannot be vice president as per the 12th amendment to the constitution. - Nunh-huh 22:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Article Two of the United States Constitution. Xn4 22:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There's the question of what constitutes "natural born". Does John McCain qualify? He was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Did Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, qualify? He was born in Mexico to parents who were US citizens. Corvus cornix_talk 19:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

USA Presidential Candidates

What are the known beliefs about human evolution of each candidate? - Joseph Edwards

As far as I know, the question has been posed only to Republican candidates; of those, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and Sam Brownback indicated they did not believe in evolution. Others were quick to say they believed in theistic evolution. - Nunh-huh 21:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It was also apparently posed to John Edwards as well, who said he believed in evolution and said he didn't think that interfered with his faith. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I just heard a rumour that Barack Obama believes in hinduisim, and he beleives in a giant eight armed elephant god called ganesha. (Superawesomgoat (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

I think he would be the first Christian to believe in that. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So... is it a must for US presidential candidates to believe in at least one non-existing entity? --Taraborn (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if capability of public expenditure to solve all problems counts as one of such entities, I guess most Democratic candidates pass the test. :p Pallida  Mors 14:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Democrats like Mike Huckabee. On a completely unrelated matter, where do Republicans get the money to pay for their wars? Not counting all those wars that have paid for themselves. Bhumiya (said/done) 01:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

According to our article, Ganesha only has four arms, and our article on the United Church of Christ, which Obama belongs to, doesn't include any mention of their worshipping Hindu gods. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Henrik Ibsen

Why Henrik Ibsen is considered as "father of modern drama"? If you going to refer ma to the article of him, then I would suggest you where it says or which paragraph does it say. Another question: How does Ibsen develop his characters in A Doll's House? What steps does he take? and Can A Doll's House be seen as a tragedy? Yes, I have read it but don't know how he developed his characters and steps does he take. What kinds of human beings does Ibsen satirize, mock or make of fun of his plays? What are some issues and themes that are addressed in Ibsen's works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.131.26 (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC) These are not homework questions and please answer them, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.131.26 (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I may very well have given you answers to a previous set of questions on A Doll's House, which went quite unacknowledged. I am not inclined to answer any more. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the assertion that these are not homework questions, but, apparently, that they arise from a personal thirst for deeper understanding of Ibsen, seems disingenuous. --Wetman (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

December 18

A few questions about world trade.

How is Canada protecting it's economy?

What is so bad about Globalization?

What is so bad about NAFTA?

Why does Canada do so much busieness with U.S.A.?

Thank you for listening and PLEAASE answer.(Superawesomgoat (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

1. By exporting maple syrup.

2. It's round.

3. It rhymes with Have Ta.

4. It's the closest country they can smuggle booze into.

If you are NOT a student just trying to get answers for your homework (which, sorry, that's what this looks like to me), then write back and convince us otherwise. Saukkomies 01:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be cool if there was an online encyclopedia with information on the economy of Canada, globalization, NAFTA, and the Canadian economic relations with the U.S.? -- kainaw™ 02:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be just way cool! Bielle (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooohh! If someone knows of such entity, please let me know :-) Pallida  Mors 06:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that would be superawesome. But hold, once I ruminate a while: What would happen to all them frustrated referencedeskopedians, staring morosely at an empty screen, experiencing the gruesome pangs of bleakest Freudian existential fear, fossilising imperceptibly into antediluvian gargoyles whilst millions of ignorami tap furiously their query strings into the search box and disvover the blissfulness of gnorance. Shreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek. ´Tis the end of civiliization, as we knew it. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, we could log in as sockpuppets with questions, and answer them with our regular account! ---Sluzzelin talk 23:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tamo tigers?

What or who are the tamo tigers? (Superawesomgoat (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

Do you mean the Tamil Tigers? Aecis^Brievenbus 00:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Industrial Revolution

Did the lives of upper class in Britain change and when I mean upper class, I mean the ones in Britain. Please give more information than previous question about Industrial Revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.200 (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As Marco polo has already dealt with this specific question in the second paragraph of his answer the first time you asked the question, I think you will need to tell us what other information you would like to have. Bielle (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bielle that Marco polo's response was pretty good, but I also see how you might be wanting more information. I know that you are wanting to know about the British Upper Class specifically, but please allow me to compare what happened in England with the British Upper Class with that of Germany's Upper Class during the Industrial Revolution. It may give you some insight into why things happened the way they did in England by showing a contrast to another country.

Although England was the country that first started industrialization, Germany was not far behind. And when I say Germany, what I mean is the various and sundry German States that existed for most of the 19th Century. There was a difference, though, in how England and Germany approached industrialization, and it is a result of the differences in their societies and social values, and this is also reflected in the differences between the Upper Classes of England and Germany.

First let's talk about England. There were several groups of people in England during the time of Industrialization who made up the Upper Class. First, there were those people who were considered to be Peers, meaning that they had hereditary titles of nobility (such as Baron, Count, etc). It was possible for someone to have a title and still be poor, but he or she would still be considered Upper Class. Then there were people who were of the Upper Class who did not have a title (and thus were not Peers), but who owned large estates and were wealthy - these were called the Landed Gentry. The difference between the Landed Gentry and those who had Titles was that if someone from the Landed Gentry lost his lands and money, he would no longer be considered to be in the Upper Class. Finally, there were members of the Upper Class who had no land or title, but who were high ranking officers in the British military. Let's examine each of these three groups in regards to what happened to them during time of Industrialization.

The Military Upper Class saw several changes during Industrialization due to the increasing reliance of the Navy and Army on complex military technology. Men who were of lower classes managed to work their way up through the ranks because of their knowledge and training of particular types of technology. This eased the flow from one class to the next in the British military, but it must be stated that the British military never achieved the same egalitarianism that has been witnessed in many other countries, such as the U.S. and even Germany. Even today the highest ranking officers in the British military tend to have hereditary titles.

More change during Industrialization was seen among the Landed Gentry than any other Upper Class of Britain. Many of the people who were considered Landed Gentry had recently managed to make it up to that level of society, and still carried with them their personal history of how they managed to become rich. Typically these people were from the Middle Class, and made enormous wealth through business dealings, which they still managed after moving into the Landed Gentry Class. However, it must also be stated that there were many Landed Gentry whose families had held their land for hundreds of years, and who were not of "new money" like the recent members who'd migrated up from the Middle Class. So it is difficult to generalize about these people, since they came from such different background. The one thing they had in common was land and wealth.

Then there were the titled nobility, who were the most conservative to change during this period of time. The ones who did change the most were those who for one reason or another lost their wealth and lands and were forced to try to marry a son or daughter into a family of wealthy Landed Gentry or rising Middle Class merchant in order to keep themselves from the Poor House. Jane Austen and Emily Bronte have used this theme, as have others.

So as you can see, then, it is very difficult to state with complete authority that the Upper Class of England did "such and such" during the Industrial Revolution - they represented too much of a diverse background for such an easy and quick explanation. However, one may make some generalized statements about how England as a country industrialized, and this would yes include the Upper Class. Historically, the British Upper Class was concerned with the land - the land out in the countryside, not in the city. The Medieval cities such as London and York had their own Royal Charter, and were thus independent. No Lord or Peer owned a city - other than ultimately the King (who owned everything in theory). Thus, in England (and elsewhere in Medieval Europe) the general tendency was for the Upper Class nobiility to mind their own business of making money from their own lands out in the country. They became good at knowing how to raise sheep, cattle, horses, pigs, how to hunt, how to rotate crops, etc. This was considered the "proper" business of the Nobility in England. Minding shops, buying and selling, and all that other "Bourgeoisie" stuff was left to the lower classes living in the cities. Of course there were exceptions to this, but generally this is how it was prior to the Industrial Revolution.

So, if the Nobility were busy conducting fox hunts and breeding swine, how did England manage to be the place where the Industrial Revolution sprang from? The answer to that is that it was NOT the Upper Class that was responsible for Industrialization in England - it came from a very particular segment of Middle Class society - namely the English Dissenters from primarily Northern England and Scotland. Upper Class boys were sent off to special Upper Class schools, where they were taught how to play a "good game of cricket", and to speak in the "proper King's English", and to dance and hold a cup of tea just so. This prepared them to succeed in the world they lived in. However, things were different for the English Dissenters, who were called this because they belonged to a handful of churches (including Baptists, Presbyterians, Mennonites, Congregationalists, and Quakers) that had declared independence from the official Church of England back in the days just after the English Civil Wars - thus they "dissented". These people were officially banned from attending the Upper Class schools. However, the Dissenters were very keen on education - they placed a very high priority on education (something they had inherited from their Puritan roots). So, since they could not attend the Upper Class schools, they attended schools that would allow them in. Many of these schools were located in Northern England and Scotland. The subjects that were taught in these schools were not how to play cricket or drink tea correctly, but involved mathematics, physics, engineering, science, and other more tangible subjects. The result was that these boys who graduated from these northern schools were the ones who basically went out and created the Industrial Revolution - NOT the Upper Class boys. And this is also why the Industrial Revolution started in Northern England, instead of in the South.

As the Industrial Revolution caught on and began to transform English life, the people who were perhaps the most resistant to its influences were those of the Upper Class who lived out in the countryside. And yet they could not stop the pervasive influences of Industrialization.

Now, for Germany.

Germany also had a similar situation as the British as far as their Upper Classes being mostly out in the country on some large estate. They also had chartered cities where no Lord owned the land, and where commerce took place. However, there was a very marked difference in what went on in the schooling of the German Upper Class boys from that which took place in England. Instead of sending their boys to Upper Class schools to learn how to drink tea, the Upper Class Germans sent their boys to Universities (of which Germany had a good supply) to learn the sort of things that the Dissenter boys were learning in England - namely: science and math. This has a lot to do with the fact that many members of the German Upper Class were Lutheran. Because Luther taught that a person needs to come to an understanding on his or her own about what the Bible teaches (instead of just believing what a Priest told you to believe), there was s huge emphasis placed on education among Lutherans (basically, this was the same thing with the Puritans, too). This education did not restrict itself to just theology, but also sought to provide an education in all the subjects of knowledge, since it was seen that all knowledge led one ultimately to God. If you're interested in finding out more concerning how German education was so radically different, see these Wiki articles on: Friedrich Schleiermacher, Wilhelm von Humboldt, and History of European Research Universities.

As these German boys graduated with degrees in Engineering, Chemistry, Mathematics, etc., they went home to their rich fathers and hit them up for money to start building factories and mills in order to put their education to work. This was quite different from what was going on in England, where the Upper Class was mostly against Industrialization. As a result, the German Upper Class was much more directly involved in how Industrialization developed. The Feudal attitude of the German Upper Class (carried over from Medieval times) towards the members of the lower classes who lived on their estates was patronizing, meaning that the Upper Class felt a responsibility towards the members of the Lower Class who lived on their land. So what happened a lot in Germany was that an Upper Class Lord would build a factory on his land, and then build houses around it for the people who lived on his land and worked in his factory to live in. He would also build a school, church, and maybe even a hospital for his workers. This was the beginning (in Germany at least) of the Company town.

In England, the Upper Class had nothing but disdain for displaced Lower Class workers. They did NOT want to build factories on their farms and sheep pastures, and they certainly did NOT want to build a town for people to come and muss everything up for them. This contributed to the overcrowding of the cities in England, something that for the most part did not take place in Germany. It is not that Germany was exempt of social problems during this time - quite the contrary. But they had slightly different problems than the British had.

In comparing what the British Upper Class was like before Industrialization to what it is like today in the modern Post-Industrial society of Britain, one may find that there are quite a few significant changes that have occurred. I do not want to address these things specifically, though, but have just strove to provide a foundation to build on when examining the subsequent changes that took place as the 19th and 20th Centuries unfolded. Knowing how the Industrial Revolution began in England, and why the Upper Class was not directly involved, is important in learning about the rest of what happened later, and that is whay I've tried to present here.

At any rate, I hope this background helps. Please keep in mind that I am speaking in generalities a lot, and so some of what I have written is perhaps a bit overgeneralized. However, I did this in order to enhance the underlying thesis of how the British Upper Class had distanced itself from the Industrial Revolution. And of course, I am doing the best I can here, and do welcome any and all comments, changes or criticism of what I have written. So fire away Clio! heh! -- Saukkomies 12:21, 18 December, 2007 (UTC)

This is a very interesting dissertation, Saukkomies, but-and please forgive me for saying so- much of it seems wide of the question! Also, and again I have to beg your pardon, but your understanding of the British aristocracy, and the British class system in general, is awfully one-dimensional. Yes, you are right: it is overgeneralised, and by more than a bit! I rather suspect, though, that your view of the aristocracy as fox-hunting and tea drinking boobies is one peculiar to Americans in general.

The causes for the onset of the Industrial Revolution in Britain are complex and manifold; but it was in part inspired by one thing much of the aristocracy and the bourgeois held in common-a healthy interest in profit, and innovation in the pursuit of profit. Industrial production and the growth of cities would hardly have been possible without the British Agricultural Revolution, which involved long standing changes in land management, ethusiastically adopted by sections of the aristocracy. Similarly changes in the transport system were often a consequence of upper class initiative. The greatest example here is that of Francis Egerton, 3rd Duke of Bridgewater, who employed James Brindley to improve canal transport because he was looking for a quicker way to transport the coal from his mines (yes, his coal and his mines) to Manchester with greater efficiency.

Bridgewater's coal leads to yet another reason why the Industrial Revolution took of in the north rather than the south, which has nothing at all to do with the presence of dissenters and the absence of nobility. Quite simply, the major sources of energy-coal being the most important of all-were all in Northern England, Wales or Scotland. You will find investment and innovation by the nobility in all sorts of areas, from coal, to mills, to railways. The growth of cities was of huge benefit for landowners, with rents incresing dramatically, as indeed was their effects on the demand for agricultural produce. The dispute between the landowners and the city-based bourgeoise was not over the rate of expansion, or over industrialisation itself, but over the question of relative profits. The Corn Laws had the effect of redistributing profits away from the urban bourgeoisie towards landowners; hence the great political struggles of the 1840s.

Finally, Eton, Rugby, Winchester and the other great English public schools taught much more than how to drink tea or play a good game of cricket. Or, if they did, these activities must have appealed greatly to the new middle classes, who, as the nineteenth century progressed, were more than anxious to push their offspring through their doors! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Karl Marx Young and Old

Is there truly an intellectual break between the work of the young and the old Marx? S. Shape (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Do I detect traces of the 'epistemological break', the shade of Louis Althusser? I hope not! You must remember, S Shape, that with Marx theory always went hand-in-hand with practice, though, in the course of time, one element of the partnership became more important than the other. What this means is that the young revolutionary, the Marx of The German Ideology and before, gives way in Das Kapital and other mature works to the ponderous critic of the capitalist mode of production. He had believed in his early life in the imminence of revolution, a belief sustained by political developments in Europe. More settled historical conditions produced a more sober and cautious prophet; but there is no 'break', Althusserian or otherwise; merely a process of consolodation, development, and-dare I say it-disillusionment. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Examples of Conflict/Irony in "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn"

I have tried to google conflict/irony in the book, but all that has been showing up are websites offering to sell me papers. I am not going to buy a paper to find what someone else has written, I am just looking for some examples of Conflict/Irony. Any help would be well appreciated.

Thanks.

--Devol4 (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As your teacher probably told you, a simple definition of irony is a difference between what's expected and what's there- it could be a situation when the author says one thing but means something different, or a situation that turns out to be completely different from what it appears to be, for example. So just grab a piece of paper and run through the events of the novel in your mind- or flip back through the novel- and make a list of situations in which Twain says something when he clearly means the opposite (there's lots of them in this book), or a situation in which someone turns out to be other than what they seemed. A lot of the stuff that made you laugh in the book will be your cue to look for an example of irony there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Conflict is particularly easy in Huck Finn. Think about Huck and Jim, Huck and his father, Huck and that family of feudin' folk. The whole section with the feudin' folk is chock full of irony—Huck is an "uncivilized" guy falling in with "civilized" folk who end up spending a lot of their time acting like murderous savages, etc. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just finding examples and writing them down is not going to help.Did you read the book and find and understand what is being asked here?hotclaws 22:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Is cream cheese and lox kosher?

How is kosher spiritual? The food seems so unhealthy and unrefined!
by Mrs. Dinka Kumer

If "Kosher" means having cream cheese and lox for breakfast, Cholent with kishke for lunch, and schwarma and falafel for dinner, then this would not be the most healthful diet to choose on a daily basis. ...

August 1, 2007
Something to Nosh On: Here's the Skinny on Jewish Delis
by By Sewell Chan of the NY Times

Clockwise from top left: A nice pastrami sandwich, challah, cream cheese and lox, herring, latkes and kishka.

Can you see the food at the upper right corner? It's "cream cheese and lox". I guess meat shall not be eaten with any dairy product within a time limit and fish is a kind of meat. How can a Jewish restaurant serve cream cheese and lox which is certainly not kosher? Isn't it a bad idea? -- Toytoy (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the clientèle. Your second reference strongly suggests that the typical deli customer base is not primarily made up of kosher-observant Jews. Given that, there's no (secular) reason for the entire menu to have to be kosher if other items are going to improve profits. I imagine this is the same market force that puts chicken nuggets on most Chinese buffets. — Lomn 14:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, your first reference seems to state that cream cheese and lox is kosher (and Google appears to back this up) -- the non-kosher note there is to point out that while CC&L can be kosher, use of non-kosher ingredients makes the end result non-kosher. — Lomn 14:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Our article on Kosher foods says " fish are considered to be parve (also spelled parev, pareve; Yiddish: פארעוו parev), neither meat nor dairy" and "Fish is considered parve (neutral) and may be eaten at both meat and dairy meals". Gandalf61 (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Plate armor worn during the American revolutionary war and napoleonic wars

Was plate armor used during these wars at all? By whom? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I don't know about anyone else, but Napoleon's cuirassiers were still wearing plate on the torso. Algebraist 15:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

British constitution

Why is Britain the only country in the world never to have had a written constitution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.5.235 (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This implies a vagueness in the term "written". Britain does not have a single written document called the Constitution. Instead, there is a notion of a Constitution comprised of many documents. Those documents are written. It is also implied that unwritten traditions are considered part of the Constitution. Because they are traditions, they are not defined in written text on a document. This leads to the common "unwritten Constitution" phrase. I believe the actual proper term is "uncodified constitution" - but I could be completely wrong. So why? This allows for a very dynamic process. You can change one document without changing a whole constitution. Of course, you can do that with any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So it is basically a semantic argument. -- kainaw™ 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Britain "the only country in the world never to have had a written constitution"? It's a big world. The claim seems most unlikely to me, but I am no scholar of worldwide constitutional practices. --Anonymous, 17:51 UTC, December 18, 2007.

I find it highly unlikely that any country has a truly "unwritten" Constitution. I believe the OP is mixing "uncodified" with "unwritten" - a common mistake. As such, other countries currently have uncodified constitutions, such as Australia. The clarifier "never to have" in the question may give it strength. Australia began with a single document and evolved into multiple documents. So, assuming that this example uses "unwritten" to mean "uncodified", the question is about the existence of a country that currently has an uncodified constitution that is not derived from a codified one. -- kainaw™ 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by Australia having an uncodified constitution, and that she began with a single document and evolved into multiple documents, Kainaw? I'm only aware of one document that is "the Australian Constitution", although all our laws and many other things proceed from it. -- JackofOz (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, 81.156, I certainly understand exactly what you are driving at, and the concept of the 'Unwritten Consitution' has a meaning and resonance in British history, regardless of the fact that some parts are contained to statute, and thus 'written', and others transmitted by custom, precedent and convention.

However, it is not quite true to say that Britain has never had a written constitution, in the sense that all of the elements have been contained in a single defining document. After the execution of Charles I in 1649 the Commonwealth of England went through a variety of constitutional experiments, all of which failed. In the end some kind of political balance was restored when Oliver Cromwell was created Lord Protector in 1653. His rule was based on a new document, The Instrument of Government, which, as the Wikipedia article says, was the first codified and written constitution in the world. This was replaced in 1657 by the Humble Petition and Advice, which must therefore rank as the world's second codified constitution! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Modern swords?

Are there any modern swords? I don't mean swords re-made, and modeled after swords from the past, like katanas, but new designs. Maybe that use newer technology like molded rubber grips. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I heard about this on a Modern Marvels episode... there aren't any modern swords with the exception of exhibition swords. The technology topped out and then was rendered obsolete. The closest thing to a modern sword there is is the Marine Corp sword, but even that is designed for no purpose other than to be aesthetically pleasing. Beekone (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Knives, on the other hand, remain in wide use by military personnel, and there are hundreds of new designs for the things. See Ernest Emerson for a Featured-quality article on someone who's made a career of designing new bladed weapons. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There are also entrenching tools that have been designed for secondary use as weapons. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, in the 80s the KGB apparently perfected their 'Throwing Shovels' - practical and deadly! Lord Foppington (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the Marine Corp's sword just a mameluke sword? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The officer's sword is. Not the NCO sword. -- kainaw™ 19:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It appears that the Marine NCO sword is distinct from the mameluke officer's sword (and it's "Corps", not "Corp"). — Lomn 19:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The point being that despite our advances in computing and micro-whatever we're not applying our sciences towards swordcraft anymore. Beekone (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. I wouldn't consider that sword modern though, or even better than existing swords. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I follow, I follow. I guess it's the most prominent example of a sword still in use today, the most recognizable for Americans. Beekone (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, hello, lightsaber? Totally awesome, totally modern, (totally fictional). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if I understand this question correctly, but my initial reaction is to ask if there are no fencers among you? I have used both a Foil and an Épée in competitive fencing, and both weapons seemed entirely modern in design! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

in particular, most modern foils have a pistol grip. This was developed well after the era of foils as actual weapons, but if you really wanted to kill someone, a "live" foil with a pistol grip would be an excellent choice. -Arch dude (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are actually manufacturers out there who make swords that incorporate modern technologies. I'm talking about swords that are not meant to be "wall-hangers", too - but rather swords that are built with the idea that they will be capable of being used as weapons in real combat situations. One such manufacturer/distributor is Museum Replicas, based out of Atlanta. They specialize in selling newly made swords from history that are as authentic as possible, but they also carry a line of "Fantasy" swords that are more along the line of what you were asking about. However, it's been my experience, as someone who has a small sword collection, that your best deals are to go to fairs, conventions, or festivals where there may be merchants selling swords in booths. I have purchased swords at very cheap prices by going on the very last day of the event - as the merchants are actually packing up their goods - and then casually asking about a sword I'd scoped out earlier to see if the merchant might consider selling it at a discount. This is a good strategy, because at this point the merchant has usually figured he's sold everything he's going to sell for the event, and the prospect of serendipitously selling one more item at the last minute is usually a very good incentive to drive the price down drastically - sometimes just dollar or two over his cost. The thing about buying swords at these events though is you have to be very sure that what you're getting is worth it - test it out a bit - the balance should be good (just above the handle), it should not have any play in the connection between handle and blade, and the dealer ought to be able to tell you what the sword is made of. For more info about all this, go to Bladesmith. -- Saukkomies 20:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Relations

I was thinking about Palladianism. I guess it was brought to Britain by travellers. I wonder what qualifies as a cultural relation. Surely travelling qualifies. Were there any significant relations before mass travel and if so can it´s impact (if any at all) be noticed today?--Tresckow (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Though travel was not on the scale it is today, tourism was still popular, especially for the upper classes, particularly young males, see our article on the Grand Tour. Artists moving from country to country brought ideas with them, not only about architecture but fashion, new inventions etc. Lord Foppington (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No doubt rich travellers did take up Palladio's ideas, but his own four volumes on architecture, I Quattro Libri dell'Architettura (1570), copiously illustrated, were influential with other architects and builders, who were less likely to travel overseas than their patrons. Xn4 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Abaya, burqa, and jilbab?

What is the difference between an abaya, a burqa, and a jilbab (in style and cut, parts of the body covered, garment material, context of usage, geographic distribution of usage, etc.)? I've been reading the articles, and the distinction is not at all set out clearly there, especially between an abaya and a burqa. I asked this question on the talk page of the abaya and burqa articles two months ago, and nobody ever answered the question. Also, it would be nice if whoever answers this question could add that information about the differences to those three articles. —Lowellian (reply) 16:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, if I'm understanding the articles correctly, abaya and burqa are singular, but jilbab is plural, with the singular form being jilaabah? Shouldn't the "jilbab" article then be moved to the title "jilaabah" for consistency and according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals)? —Lowellian (reply) 18:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

To make things worse, we also have articles Djellaba, Jellabiya and Galabeya, which are all local variations on the same basic thing, but the style and cut, parts of the body covered, garment material, context of usage, geographic distribution of usage, etc., are all subject to local variations, and the influence of fashion. Also, these words sometimes swap meanings, like English chicory and endive. Therefore it is as hard to give any definite answers as it is to answer the question how long Western women's skirts are. Only if you focus on some specific narrow and non-urbanized region, is it possible to say something concrete.

I don't know if the information about singulars and plurals is correct, but if it is, then jalabib is the plural of a plural. The general rule for the names of Wikipedia articles is that we should preferentially use the form that is the most common one in English texts. Google reports about 434,000 English pages for jilbab against 13 for jilaabah.  --Lambiam 00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think jilbab is the commonly used word (sing and pl) in Bahasa Indonesia - usage gets a bit mangled in borrowing, especially between singular and plural (see yesterday's discussion on the Language Desk). My friend's use of jilbab is simply a hair covering, while an abaya covers the whole body except the face, and a burqa (burqah) covers everything except the eyes (and may have a meshed eye covering). Original research, no back up. Steewi (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sex scandals

Sex scandals are the small change of the English tabloid press, particularly the 'kiss and tell' story, where women cash in on the reputation of rich or influential former boyfriends. I imagine this is a fairly recent thing though I would be interested to know of any past examples in English history of the gold digging mistress. Ta. Theodora B (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Emma, Lady Hamilton comes to mind. Corvus cornix_talk 19:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn was involved in many sex scandals during her time. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for such a quick response. I am thinking, though, of women who cashed in, or attempted to cash in, on former liaisons with men in the public eye. Emma Hamilton and Anne Boleyn do not really qualify as 'kiss and tell' mistresses. Theodora B (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The courtesan Harriette Wilson wrote her memoirs and sent the draft around to the rich and notable men mentioned in them. Some paid her off, but the Duke of Wellington famously replied "Publish, and be damned!". SaundersW (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A. Conan Doyle's A Scandal in Bohemia is a Sherlock Holmes story revolving completely around this idea. I don't know that you'll find anything much earlier than the Victorian Period on this, though maybe a few in the Romantic period. Lower classes were kept on a pretty tight leash much earlier. The closest parallels you might find in early literature would probably be married women who flirt with famous knights because they are so famous, as happens in Lanval and SGGK. Chivalric codes, however, demanded that such affairs remain secret. Wrad (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This brings to mind a paper I wrote as an undergraduate on social and sexual mores in the Georgian era. Harriette Wilson was certainly one of the people I touched on, and her attempts to extort money from her former lovers with her Interesting and Amorous Adventures. It was all rather sad really: her looks had faded and her annuities had stopped. Her book was little more than a desperate attempt at a pension scheme.

Sally Salisbury also deserves a mention here, for the simple reason that the 1723 An Account of the Tryal of Sally Salisbury is the first example of hack reporting of a sex scandal, demonstrating that the public had a taste for this sort of thing.

Margaret Leeson, whose real name was Peg Plunkett, published her own autobiography, Memoirs of Mrs Leeson, Madam, in 1795. Her clients included the high and the even higher; bankers, judges, merchants and noblemen, the Duke of Rutland being the highest of all.

She had the example before her of Fanny Murray, whose lovers had included Beau Nash, John Wilkes, Sir Francis Dashwood and the Earl of Sandwich. Her autobiography, Memoirs of the Celebrated Miss Fanny Murray, published in 1759, is particularly revealing, because she attributes the beginning of her 'downfall' to being raped by the disreputable Jack Spencer, grandson of Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough.

Julia Johnstone's story was just as unfortunate, though her social origins were quite different to those of Fanny Murray. The grand-daughter of Lord Carysfort, she was seduced by one Colonel Cotton, by whom she had several children before being abandoned. Thereafter she moved in with Harriette Wilson and, impressed by the success of her memoir, wrote her own Confessions of Julia Johnstone. But poor Julia was far too priggish, and her sexual secrets too tame, to cash in on the public mood.

These memoirs and confessions came at just the right point in history. In the past revelations of this kind would have been impossible because of the social and criminal penalties attached. The Georgian period was not only one of far greater sexual licence but publishing was becoming ever more important, with a new public, literate and prurient, eager for scandal of all sorts. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Christians?

If christians believe in turning the other cheek, why did they start the Crusades? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.161.113 (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, don't generalize all Christians into the historically contingent circumstances that led to the Crusades. But anyway, the short answer is, "because Christianity is a bit more complicated than just turning the other cheek" and "because the Crusades—like anything else—did not boil down only to direct interpretation of scripture." You could also throw in "because human beings are horribly flawed in many ways" if you wanted to. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Pope at the time (Urban II?) confronted this issue. He used several of St. Augustine's arguments justifying certain types of Christian warfare. This doesn't really make the slaughter of the Crusaders look any better in modern eyes, however. Some Christians are just not as peaceful as others. Eventually, it became part of the Chivalric code to slay an unbeliever/heathen/infidel on sight when meeting one. No wonder so many Jews were slaughtered in Europe during the Crusades, eh? Wrad (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"At the time?" The Crusades spanned two centuries, from 1095-1291. This is the same span as 1815-2007. Do you think that a single set of values can span that amount of time? Even if we grant that the world changes faster today, think about the difference between 1957 and 2007. -Arch dude (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that was ever part of any chivalric code! At least, if the infidel was as chivalrous as you, it was perfectly alright to let tem be. Jews will killed during the first few crusades because, well, sometimes people are just jerks and were looking for any excuse to attack Jews, and some of the less intelligent members of society didn't quite understand why a Jew was different from a Muslim. But there was no code of chivalry saying all infidels had to be killed. There were military orders of knighthood but that is quite different from "chivalry". "Chivalry", the way you're probably thinking of it, did not even exist at the start of the crusades. Part of the problem was that French knights were going around killing each other, which is not very chivalrous at all. Urban wanted to find something else for them to do. Notions of chivalry, like going off to die in exotic land for the love of an untouchable maiden, came about due to the influence of the crusades themselves (and sometimes due to the imaginations of artists who never went on crusade...). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, 69.205, the Crusades emerged as part of a defensive reaction to developments in the Middle East, specificlly as a response to an appeal from the Byzantine Empire for aid against the Turks, who had been on the offensive ever since their victory at the Battle of Manzikert. Second, on your wider point, Christianity has long harboured notions of the Just War, a concept first developed by St. Augustine in The City of God. There are some battles, in other words, that need to be fought, and some causes that have to be defended. Third, and perhaps most important of all, there are few religious doctrines observed in every degree; and Christians are no more perfect than any other set of human beings. Or, it it might be better to say, they are perfect in the recognition of their imperfections. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. You can't exactly blame the church for the reactions of many of its members, especially at this period of time when religion was slowly becoming more personal and different ways of expressing devotion were being explored. Incidentally, the Sixth Crusade ended rather peacefully when Frederick II negotiated a truce which allowed Christian pilgrims to peacefully visit their Holy Land. Wrad (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Who mentioned blame, or the church? But now that you mention it, what exactly did the church do again to keep its members from slaughtering non-Christians? We know it did not say: "Sorry, that is a matter of personal freedom of expression of devotion in which we must not interfere."  --Lambiam 23:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Clio's answer sums it up perfectly, but we also have lengthy sections on origins in the crusade and First Crusade articles (though they are perhaps not very good and perhaps not reflective of the most current scholarship). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

December 19

Ancient Greek architecture

01:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)64.119.14.185 (talk)What are the names of those statues of ladies holding up a temple in ancient Greece? G.H. Smith

Caryatids ---Sluzzelin talk 01:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Where did it come from?

At what point did "dick" started meaning penis in slang and in what point did "pussy" start to mean vagina? Did this term come from some type of show or movie? I say this because a long time ago "dick" was a respectable name. (Superawesomgoat (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

Dick is still an abbreviation of Richard—so it's not a "long time ago" that it was a respectable name (I know many people today who go by "Dick" as an abbreviated form of their name), though it should be noted that as a pet name it has been used as such since the 16th century. But anyway. According to the OED, its use as a slang name for "penis" seems to date back to at least the late-19th century. It is a word, though, with many other meanings than just Richard and penis; it also has meant "declaration" (leading to the colorful and vulgar "up to dick", e.g. "Ain't that up to dick, my biffin?" from 1877; apparently this was vulgar but did not mean penis?), it has in the 20th century also meant "detective" (private dick), it has meant fool, it has meant a leather apron, it has been the name of a type of cheese.

Pussy, by contrast, has since the 16th century at least been used to refer to a woman with qualities like a cat—only a slight jump to the vulgar meaning, which dates back at least as far as the late-17th century ("Johnny..many Times Pussey had fed"—1699). Go figure. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I can add that as an English name Dick must be older than the 16th century, as the patronymic surname Dickson (Dixon, Dyckson, etc.) dates from at least the 14th century, when it was becoming common, especially in the north. The Oxford Dictionary of English Surnames gives an early example, Thom Dicson of Castle Douglas, from 1307, and no doubt men called Dick could be found in the 13th century, if not earlier. 'Dick' also had the further diminutive Dickin, Dickon, the origin of the name Dickens, among others. Xn4 03:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And Richard III of England was known as "Diccon" within his family. Corvus cornix_talk 03:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Bible

Hi there, I am a Muslim and I want to read the Bible but the problem is: every time I read a Christian article, they referred it to the Bible, like Matthew 15:20 and Matthew 19:20. Would you explain me this? Is this some kind of book with chapters like book of Matthew?