Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 21

Peace of Prague

How much of what was said in the Peace of Prague (1866) before User: 75.70.***.*** deleted the parts were true? FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The additions were really quite terrible, FFTW, a mixture of half-understood, half-digested, erroneous and irrelevant facts which have nothing whatsoever to do with the Treaty of 1866. I'll take the points in turn.

• Otto von Bismarck did not try 'to group several independent states together to form one nation.' The German Empire, a federation, incidentally, and not a unitary nation, was proclaimed at Versailles in January 1871, but its form had emerged from prior negotiations between the Prussian Minister-President and the other German states.

• I have simply no idea what is meant by 'Napoleon created a 1000 entities and put them into 39 states.' I assume this must be some muddled reference to the Confederation of the Rhine. The information in the rest of the paragraph is, well, garbage!

• I have no idea what the reference to the supposed 'economic depression' in 1848 is meant to convey and how this impacted on Austria's alleged attempt 'to unify a German nation states' (sic). It really makes no difference; for it's nonsense.

• As for the meaning of the following paragraph and assertions like 'army was struggling on reforming their groups', or 'establish Prussia as the most German power in the world', well, your guess is as good as mine!

• The German Empire was, as I have said, proclaimed in 1871. It did not have a 'constitution' dating to 1866. I have no idea what is meant by the 'small states were put under Prussian control, while larger states were controlled by federal government.' In any case it's wrong.

The whole thing is of a lamentable standard, hardly acceptable even from the dimmest of primary/grade school pupils. The essential thing, though, is that the various points touched on have no bearing whatsoever on the Treaty of Prague. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case, do you know what did have to do with this treaty? Thanks ahead of time. FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It was simply the agreement that ended the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. Beyond that it offered the Kleindeutsche Lösung-the Lesser German Solution-to the problem of unification, by ensuring the exclusion of Austria and the domination of Prussia. The alternative Grossdeutschland solution had always carried with it the problem of what was to be done with the Austrian Empire's extensive non-Germanic lands. For Bismarck the exclusion of Austria achieved two distinct but related objectives: that Prussia would be the leading power in Germany-by far the most important consideration-and that the new Empire would be united in culture, race and language. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks! FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

12th Royal Lancers, post Waterloo

I'm currently trying to bring James Graham (soldier) up to GA, and since there's not a lot of personal biographical information, I'm trying to expand on his military service. He was serving in the Coldstream Guards at Waterloo, and returned to England with them in 1816, (doing exciting things like arresting Cato Street Conspirators) remaining with the regiment until 1821, when he joined the 12th Royal Lancers. Graham was with the lancers until his discharge in 1830. So, nine years of service, but no idea what he did. Basic searches for the regiment offer no information for the years between Waterloo and the 1840s. The previously excellent http://www.regiments.org (which provided all this sort of information) has been down for weeks. Anyone know of another good source? Or, even better, is anyone an expert on the 12th Royal Lancers? Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes; check out The London Gazette. It has a very easily searchable and free web-site. It helps if you first search using your subject's name, from that find his army number, and then search using that (NB - try to include the army number in the footnotes or references of the article as a courtesy for anyone following in your footsteps). --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the wayback link for the 12th Royal Lancers page of regiments.org, which shows the only overseas deployment after the occupation of France as two squadrons to Portugal December 1826 to July 1828. Unfortunately, google has not yet got around to digitizing the 12th's volume in Historical Records of the British Army.—eric 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I am always impressed by the brilliant answers here. Major Bonkers: thanks for the London Gazette tip: what a brilliant resource. However, I've spent quite a while searching using a variety of search terms and could not find my man or even much about his regiment; plenty of gazetted officers, but nothing on NCOs or ranks, that I could see. (Am I missing something?)

Eric, thanks for hunting out that link. I can't seem to access it, for some reason, so thanks for the report back about troop deployments. I have also been searching for archives and found others mourning the loss of regiments.org, at the Great War Forum; the last couple of threads contain a link to an archived, 28 Mb downloadable version, if anyone else here is also missing the site (it offered a full chronology of every regiment, and lists of regiments for every battle). Gwinva (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Armenian Diaspora in US question

Hello, I just wanted to ask why certain information in the Republic of Armenia page has not been updated. For example, I understand that the Armenian Diaspora in the US is actually over a million, with almost 500,000 (if not more) in Southern California alone. Please see if you can find out the correct info on this. Thank you for your time.

141.158.53.215 (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Mina

Perhaps you can use this data from the U.S. census to update the page: Selected Characteristics for Persons of Armenian Ancestry: 1990. WikiJedits (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a state-by-state breakdown of ancestries from the 2000 census: [1]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Question Concerning Titles

Would a title of a book be considered copyright if it was never published? In this specific case, there are four books in a series called Creepers. There were going to be six, but only four were published. The ONLY place the titles of the two missing books can be found are on the inside covers of the previous four. There is NO information about the two books anywhere online or in bookstores or anything. There is also no information or background behind the titles. ONLY the titles themselves. (And the titles do not have unique words or names.) My question is, are those titles copyright or can they be used? -WarthogDemon 07:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent question to ask a lawyer, and I suspect even a lawyer might have difficulty. We can't give you legal advice.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ghits gives[2] and one of them says, if it looks like a copyright issue, it probably is. Only a lawyer could tell you exactly. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Can titles be copyrighted? The answer, according to a pretty straightforward page by the US Copyright Office, is no: "Names, titles, and short phrases or expressions are not subject to copyright protection. Even if a name, title, or short phrase is novel or distinctive or if it lends itself to a play on words, it cannot be protected by copyright." Now, if the name is trademarked, that would be a different question. For example, the title, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is not copyrighted (I can write it wherever I want, nobody can stop me), but it is trademarked for a variety of purposes, including books (can look up trademarks here). Which makes sense: I shouldn't be able to bring out another book with the same name as one that is already on the market in a way that will confuse the consumer into thinking they are buying one book when they are really buying another. But unlikely copyrights, trademarks must be registered, so it would be a trivial thing (using that link I provided) to see if the title in question was trademarked for the specific purpose of books—if they were unpublished, though, it is almost certain that they were not, as it takes money and effort to preserve a trademark. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your point shows up in this page: Leviathan (disambiguation) with all those book titles and more. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Choral piece with female voices

This could be one for JackofOz, but any help gratefully received. I'm searching for the title of a very well known piece of classical music that I have often seen on advertisements and the like. It's a choral piece with soprano female voices and an orchestra. It's a relaxing piece, kind of mid-tempo. Somehow it reminds me of travel, and of being out in the open air. Maybe these associations stem from the kind of adverts it's been used to soundtrack. Any ideas? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Only one idea, the first song that popped into my head and now is stuck there, and I'm sure it ain't it. What country or countries do you hear these ads in? What language is she singing in? Do you know even one word she sings? How about the product advertised? --Milkbreath (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Not choral exactly, but could this be the Flower Duet (of British Airways ad fame)? Algebraist 10:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's the one (looked it up on Youtube). Thanks very much, Algebraist. I hadn't associated it with BA, perhaps because my experiences of flying with that airline are hellish and unrelaxing, but I guess that's where I'm most familiar with it. Sorry if 'choral' was the wrong word. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

On closer inspection, it looks like many versions are choral, though it's originally not. Algebraist 11:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? I can't say I've ever heard a choral version of this piece (but then, "popular culture" is not very popular in my household). They'd have to rename it, temporarily, unless the choir was very, very, very small - consisting of only 2 singers. Despite this red herring, the Flower Duet was exactly what I was thinking of when I read your question, Richard, so well done for nicely evoking it. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, here is that venerable institution, the San Marino High School Girls Choir, performing the piece. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And quite lovely too. Thanks Richard. (I still can't quite get my head around a "duet" being performed by 25 people. For my sins I'm one of those people who do like their terminology to be precise and meaningful, but more and more I'm finding the world I inhabit and the world I live in are 2 separate places). -- JackofOz (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Tibet and Nukes

Is it true that the Tibetan Resistance asked the CIA for nukes during the uprising of 1956?

This article makes the unsourced assertion that "One of the trainees [...] asked CIA operations officer Roger McCarthy for ‘a portable nuclear weapon of some kind ... that the trainees might employ to destroy Chinese by the hundreds.", but it's a ridiculous request, so I wouldn't make too much of it. The Russians didn't even give the Cubans any nukes in their famous contretemps; the weapons were kept in Russian custody the whole time. --Sean 12:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The article in question, War at the Top of the World, can be found in the February 2004 issue of Military History, published in Leesburg, Virginia. The statement itself is sourced to Tears of the Lotus by Roger E. McCarthy. Joe Bageant, the author of the piece, and a senor editor of Military History, also recommends The CIA's Secret War in Tibet, by J Morrison and K J Conboy, Orphans of the Cold War by J K Knaus, and The Life and Times of a Tibetan Freedom Fighter by K S Dewatsang. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Effort of Government of China to run creche

Can I know about the effort made by Chinese Government to run creche / day care centers for children faliing under ag group 6 months to 5 years?

++**

SUPER POWER

..........We all all know that nuclear power provides over 6%of the worlds energy.the reason i specifically chose Iran is because dating back to 1950s,the nuclear program of Iran was launched with the help of the USA,as part of the atoms for peace program.nuclear energy is also used to drive big ice breaker ships and also produce electricity right?Iran signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty,and the third pillar of that treaty allows the peaceful use of nuclear energy!mr George w bush later made a statement reiterating that Iranian regime arms funds and advices Hezbollah!...THE SAME LAME ACCUSATIONS HE MADE BEFORE IRAQ'S INCURSION,prompting the death of our young men and women in military service.thats why i asked who monitors the USA,because sooner or later i am afraid poor nations will continue being victimized,when they are honestly trying to earn a living?41.220.120.202 (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)DAVIS

The question part of this seeems to have been answered at "Super Power" above. The rest appears to be either debating material or a sopabox topic. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Kierkegaard and ethics

What does he mean exactly in saying "It is no good arguing with ethics."Steerforth (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Steerforth, darling, did someone give you an existential scatter-gun?! It certainly seems like it! Anyway, into the stream (of consciousness) she plunges!

The first thing you should remove from your mind is the suspicion that Kierkegaard meant that we have no alternative but to follow moral rules. While he admits that such rules are hard to bend, his real meaning is altogether more subversive: that there is something quite arbitrary about the accepted notions of good and bad. It's not, of course, easy to set aside normal ethical judgements; for, as Kierkegaard also says, 'the ethical is the universal.' If it is wrong to steal then this applies in all times and in all cases.

But while rules may be rules, the world is the world, and there are always gaps which serve to separate the general from the particular. In the most extreme cases we have what Kierkegaard calls the 'teleological suspension of the ethical'. A mother who steals to save her child from starvation is behaving contrary to an ethical code, but her actions serve an ultimate good. Here the ethical judgement is simply irrelevant. The gap can be closed by thought. But consider the greater case, that put forward in Fear and Trembling, where Abraham plans to murder Isaac in obedience to God. It would be murder, judged in conventional moral terms. It is redeemed, however, by the ultimate meaning of the action: pure resignation in absolute faith. In other words, it goes beyond ethics. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Existential leap of faith

Is there such a thing?Steerforth (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say so. Even an existentialist has to trust somebody. For example, one might say it is a leap of faith to enter the unknown world of existentialism. This isn't really "religious" faith, but it is faith in the sense of hoping that some good will come of the experience without knowing for certain. Wrad (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's quite central to existential thought. It is an act by which the world is remade, transcending the limits of what is; transcending the limits endorsed by reason. Kierkegaard says that I have faith if "...I am able to make from the springboard the great leap whereby I pass into infinity." There is no process of accumulation involved here, no way by which one proceeds from the finite to the infinite. The leap is essential. For Nietzsche, speaking with the voice of Zarathustra, man is a 'rope over the abyss'. To change we need to learn to leap and dance on this rope. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fear and existentialism

How do they perceive fear?Steerforth (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much the same as everyone else, I'd say. About the only difference is that existentialists would likely perceive fear as a natural response of the human brain. Whether that is used to try and separate the emotion from the situation, or simply embraced as a natural condition, would be debated by the individual.

It may be helpful for you to separate in your mind Existentialism as a philosophy from Existential despair. One can have existential despair without being an existentialist, and vice versa. -- Kesh (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You will find discussion of the significance and nature of fear in Kierkegaard, but by far the most compelling account is to be found in the work of Heidegger. He represents fear by a feeling that 'it is coming close.' Fear takes many forms, but we can live with these because they are most often 'at a distance.' Real fear is when the potential threat, whatever form that takes, has broken through-"In fearing as such, what we have thus characterised as threatening is freed and allowed to matter to us." Fear is a source of both insight and illusion: it makes things matter. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Heidegger and Heraclitus

What is the relationship?Steerforth (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

After the war Heidegger was barred from teaching because of his past associations with the Nazis. During his rustication he wrote his Letter on Humanism, in which he turns to the pre-Socratic philosophers, to people like Parmenides and Heraclitus, with whom he identifies in particular, especially in the argument that all human existence is open to divine presence. In the Introduction to Metaphysics, first published in 1953, he picks up on Heraclitus' saying that war was the 'universal father', the creator of everything in human life and nature. From this Heidegger went on to reflect on the disunity which is inseparable from existence. Once allowed back into the university he lectured on Heraclitus and Parmenides. Heraclitus is also of significance to Sartre, particularly his most famous principle that one cannot step in the same river twice. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Existentialism and irony

How do the existentialists deal with irony?Steerforth (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

By going beyond the strict verbal meaning of the term! It becomes, rather, an approach to life itself, a particular way of being. Under the influence of Kierkegaard, Richard Rorty, the American philosopher, puts forward the notion that the 'ironist' is able to live life from within, yet always aware that this is only one experience or perspective which undercuts all claim to absolute knowledge. The true ironist, so Rorty argues, must cease to claim the last word. This is the perfect description of Clio herself! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In the words of the great Victor Meldrew 'I don't bellieve it!' This is so just so jaw droppingly COOL!!! Where the f*** does it all come from, girl? I think you must be a computer. Why not go on 'Who wants to be a millionaire?'. You would be up that ladder like a squirrel, without using any of the lifelines (I would also be able to see what you look like!).Steerforth (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha-ha! In your dreams, sweetie! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Private insurance against poverty

Is there any private insurance against poverty? (besides the obvious, like saving for tomorrow) 217.168.4.68 (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, no. If you own a business, there are forms of insurance you can take to mitigate the financial loss if the business fails, but that's about it. Bankruptcy is a serious threat, and even savings won't necessarily save you from that. -- Kesh (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Stay healthy. Live in a country with a social safety net. Have rich relatives or enough children to care for you. Don't get into debt. All the obvious, though. I think Kesh is right. WikiJedits (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I have never seen a general insurance against poverty, there are concrete ways of insure against causes of poverty like bad weather, volatility in the stock market, sickness, disability and accidents. SaltnVinegar (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Deposit insurance Nil Einne (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that a private insurance? SaltnVinegar (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

... and payment protection insurance. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A trust is also a form of securing against misfortunes like bankruptcy, drug addiction or gambling. Probably an insurance against poverty is not possible because it would be too risky, since large chunks of population could fall into poverty within a short time-frame. SaltnVinegar (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In some places you can also take out insurance against unemployment. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

God is dead

What are the existential implications of Nietzsche's statement?Steerforth (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Existentialism? 217.168.4.68 (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought it was obvious, but read the story of the hermit in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. His life is based upon God's presence. Every action he performs is in praise of the deity. If God is dead then the hermit is dancing in a void, under the illusion that he has an audience. The saint, it might be said, has lost his witness, the only thing that hitherto gave life meaning. But it is far more significant than that; for when God died "...sinners died with him." They died as sinners because their acts no longer conferred any such identity.

Let me put this another way: with the death of God the world has lost its moral centre, the pole from which all meaning was derived. There are no more saints just as there are no more Sinners. There are only questions, always questions. For Karl Jaspers, taking up Nietzsche's baton, the death of God is a historical situation through which humanity must pass on towards new forms of meaning. Nobody can escape the death of God, atheist or believer. And therein lies the most delicious of ironies! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Existentialism and loss

How do they perceive loss?Steerforth (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sadness is yet another central existential concept, sadness caused by loss or absence, either of things or of people. If Marxism is the philosophy of the experience of being denied, then Existentialism is the philosophy of losing hold. Paul Tillich is particularly relevant here, as indeed is Karl Jaspers. For both the awareness of loss is at the centre of the most terrible moments of the last century, loss of God and loss of Humanity. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Who said?

That existentialism arises from meaninglessness and what did he mean?Steerforth (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul Tillich. For him existentialism arises from 'the experience of meaninglessness.' And with that, dearest Steerforth, you are done, as am I! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is a nazi?

If a German during WWII joined the Nazi party motivated by career interests - but not convinced of the ideology - is it fair to call him a Nazi? SaltnVinegar (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There were many tried at Nuremberg who said they didn't agree with Hitler but just went along with it for whatever reason. They were nevertheless labelled as such. PeterSymonds | talk 19:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if they were middle-class nominal members of the Nazi party and have done nothing actively (besides perhaps flying flags and that stuff)? SaltnVinegar (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, not a biggie in the party. I assume so; eg. if you joined (and I assume you mean signed up) to the Labour party in the UK and it collapsed, you were still a member. However I'm not entirely sure so I'll leave this for someone else. PeterSymonds | talk 19:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In the most literal sense the person was certainly a Nazi, since this was just shorthand for "member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party". Time has changed and broadened the meaning, however, so that calling someone a Nazi - unless the case is unambiguous - now implies certain assumptions on the speaker's part about that person's attitudes and values (see Godwin's law). There's an interesting discussion about the use of "Nazi" and "Fascist" as insults here[3]. If you want your words to be strictly neutral and descriptive, then "Nazi party member" is unambiguous. As to whether it is "fair" to describe them as a Nazi, fairness is POV (or so my children frequently assure me). Karenjc 23:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) These days "Nazi" has come to take on a pejorative meaning that doesn't necessarily relate to the Nazi Party, WW2 Germany, or politics of any kind, e.g. Seinfeld's "food Nazi". Nominal members of the Nazi Party were not necessarily this type of "Nazi". Given the language change, it may be better to stick to the facts - the person concerned "joined the Nazi Party", was "a member of the Nazi Party", or perhaps even was "a nominal member of the Nazi Party". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

SaltnVinegar, thousands of people joined the NSDAP, or its various professional offshoots and subsidiaries, either to keep their existing jobs or for reasons of simple opportunism, just as thousands did not, for ethical or other considerations. A 'Nazi' was simply a way of describing a member of the Party, and it is quite irrelevant if they shared the ideology or not. Degrees of ideological commitment were impossible to determine at the time, for obvious reasons, and afterwards, well, no one was a Nazi, were they? After the war the Allies established a Denazification programme, intended to weed out some of the worst offenders by, amongst other things, differentiating between implementers and mere 'followers.' It was to prove a Herculean task, unevenly implemented across the various occupation zones. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

German attack on France

What options were explored in the evaluation of the western offensive of 1940? Were there any objections, for instance, to the sweep through the Low Countries? John Spencer (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, John. Strategic planning for the western offensive began soon after Britain and France rejected Hitler's peach overtures following the conquest of Poland. A number of scenarios were examined: Case Brown-a joint German and Italian offensive across the upper Rhine, though Italy was not yet in the war; Case Bear-a direct attack on the Maginot Line; and Cases Hawk, Green and Yellow for attacks on France and the Low Countries.

Wilhelm von Leeb was the only senior officer to advise against an attack through Belgium, saying to his fellow generals that Germany would never be forgiven for a second violation of that country's neutrality in twenty-five years. But in practice there was no way a successful offensive-Case Bear-could have been mounted through the narrow front of Alsace and Lorraine. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

the poorest.

What is the poorest country in Africa? And why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.214.88.222 (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Malawi, with a GDP of $600. [4] The reason is given on this page: [5]. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 20:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Things may be bad in Malawi, but they're not that bad; it's $600 per capita, (otherwise I'd be their king). --Sean 00:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Countries with such low GDPs probably have an economy mostly based on subsistance agriculture, in which people grow the food they eat and exchange the little left over for other stuff.HS7 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

John McCain

Is John McCain the first husband of his second wife? 71.100.160.42 (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

He's the only one listed in the infobox of her article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Luck and what we are

How can we judge/evaluate/valuate someone, if what we are is a matter of luck? Ignorant people/ugly people/aggressive people/poor people are like that just because they come from the 'wrong' environment or had the 'wrong' genes... SaltnVinegar (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll update shortly with chapter and verse but the answer Jesus Christ gave is by their works. 71.100.160.42 (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

MAT 16:27  For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his
angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
JOH 7:24  Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. 
REV 20:12  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books
were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the
dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books,
according to their works. 
REV 20:13  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell
delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man
according to their works.
MAT 7:1  Judge not, that ye be not judged.
MAT 7:2  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

71.100.160.42 (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A criminal may be a criminal because of his genes, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a criminal. Kironide (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If the law makes something a crime which is the result of genes then perhaps the law should be revisited. 71.100.160.42 (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A part of law is designed to protect society as a whole, and, in that interest, a concern for the individual is sometimes subservient. If someone is a murderer or a child molestor or a thief because that someone knows no better, grew up in an environment where such behaviours were accepted or even encouraged, or has a genetic bent, shall we say, that leaves that someone unable to resist the call to do such things, society needs to protect all its other someones from the actions of this someone. If there is a "cure", then it should be offered. There is seldom only one reason for any action, and the law can only really deal with the outcome, though sometimes the intended outcome or the motivation for the action is established in mitigation, and the punishment therefor diminished. And then, sometimes the law is recognized as being wrong, and it is changed. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Our laws recognize that people have agency, that they make choices. It recognizes that not all people with a given genetic makeup turn out the same way, it recognizes that not all people from a given environment turn out the same way. Our laws say, in essence, that even though life is not fair, and some people will have a whole lot harder time being "good" than others, it is still a benefit to both society as a whole and the individuals in it to hold people responsible for their actions. Only in certain extreme situations does it regard the agency of crimes to be something beyond the person who committed them, e.g. with mental illness, which is treated (and the person in question is still removed from the general population). --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone (Hitler for instance) wanted to execute Jews on the basis of genetics then all they would have to do would be to create a law which required execution of persons with a particular genetic trait associated with Jews. Hence, if the law makes something a crime which is the result of genes then perhaps the law should be revisited. 71.100.160.42 (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, sometimes the laws are revisited. Laws don't happen in a vacuum; they are, usually, a response to events that are seen by the society as inimical or dangerous to it. While we are moving towards a time when it may be possible to identify, with certainty, both anti-social inclinations and, to encompass the Captain's point, the inability to overcome those inclinations, we are not there yet. Criminal law is, for good reason, directed not to inclinations, but to behaviours. Reasoned societies do not normally support the kind of laws similar to your example. If there is an abolute ruler or dictator involved, then it is unlikely that revisiting the law by reasoned individuals will be permitted, never mind successful. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly laws, which discriminate on the basis of genes, exist without penalties as sever as execution but even with cases legal jargon may provide sufficient cover to keep them on the books. Publication of the law in the form of a decision table, however, might make them impossible to hide. 71.100.160.42 (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, in an open society fortunes like poverty or ignorance are not a matter of luck. Perhaps one is born in poor environment and is uneducated, but one can still choose how long one works and what type of culture one consumes. Classical cultural goods aren't in any way more expensive than pop cultural goods. And even if one earns minimal wages, one can choose working 12, 8 or no hours at all. 217.168.4.68 (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If this were true, there would be no correlation between the income level of parents and that of their children when they grow up. But there is. --Sean 12:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also a correlation between cultural level of parents and children. I can hardly imagine that literate parents would raise illiterate children, although the opposite may be possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your main confusion is to take the phrase "what we are is a matter of luck" and interpret it is "what we are is an entirely a matter of luck". If you are a complete materialist determinist then everything is a matter of luck (or destiny, which amounts to the same thing here) and logically no-one can be 'blamed' in a moral sense for anything. Their genes, or their environment, made them do everything they did. C. S. Lewis addressed this saying (paraphrased) "If this were true then we could blame no-one, not even Hitler, for the things they did. We might have still decided to go to war to stop him, but he would be in no way morally guilty.". If what you are is not entirely a matter of luck then it becomes possible to judge or evaluate someone morally. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Creation-evolution controversy article may be of some help. 71.100.160.42 (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

April 22

Pantheism

I have two questions to ask you:

1. What kind of pantheism is the New Age, classical pantheism or naturalistic pantheism?

2. Is Buddhism a classical pantheistic religion?

3. What kind of pantheism is cosmic humanism, classical pantheism or naturalistic pantheism?

4. Are George Lucas and Bob Brown pantheists? If so, then what kind of pantheists are they?

60.242.166.182 (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Could this possibly be the Spanish Inquisition? Our weapons are...etc. etc. Sorry for the levity, 60.242. I do not have the answers to your four questions, but others might! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure George Lucas actually believes in the Force. He was certainly influenced by pantheist thought when thinking up the Force, but I don't think he's that engrossed in his own universe. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 02:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Define "New Age" for me and I may be able to help you with that one,hotclaws 08:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean most New Age religions in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowei Huang (talk • contribs) 10:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I can answer no.2. Buddhism is non-theistic (so according to some definitions it is also not a religion). See Buddhism.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

New Age spirituality is such a pick and mix affair that you will find people who believe in just about anything. SaundersW (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But what about New Age philosophy in general? What about cosmic humanism? Are they classical or naturalistic pantheist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowei Huang (talk • contribs) 05:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're asking for specific answers to very vague belief systems. "New Age" is a popular term for any number of faiths/philosophies that popped up in the latter half of the Twentieth century. Cosmic humanism is a new one on me, so I haven't a clue. Maybe it would help if you'd narrow down what exactly you're trying to find out? -- Kesh (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

aeneid

According to Frederick Ahl, The Aeneid has the most exciting battles to be found in classical epic. Do the battles in the Dryden translation live up to the excitement of the original? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.190.135 (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you read the Dryden translation and tell us? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Book II has the Trojan War scenes Aeneas narrates to Dido. Here's an on-line translation, sailing close-hauled to the Latin, which you might contrast with Dryden, who will sound a bit oratorical and indirect to your ears. --Wetman (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Although, of course, much of the excitement of the original (which was meant to be heard aloud) comes from the sound effects (alliteration, onomatopoeia, metre etc.) which will be different in English, however literally the words are translated. Daniel (‽) 20:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I wish I'd read George Steiner, After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation, so that I could mention it at this point and suggest it be read. sigh. --Wetman (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

pre bank interesr rates

i am trying to find out the bank of south australias interest rates for the years 1978-1990 inclucive.previously know as state bank of south australia or bank s.a prior and after it went bankrupt. i believe the rates got over 20% so i hope someone out there can help me.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.142.93 (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Judaism

I have two questions to ask you about Judaism:

1. According to Judaism, is being a Jew the only way to go to Heaven? Is it possible to go to Heaven without being a Jew?

2. According to Judaism, do all people either go to Heaven or go to Hell after they die? Are there any people who will neither go to Heaven nor go to Hell after they die? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowei Huang (talk • contribs) 10:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Jewish eschatology#The afterlife and olam haba (the "world to come") might be useful. Algebraist 12:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This page -- [6] -- is also great. It says that yes, Gentiles can get into Olam Ha-Ba; that there is not thought to be a permanent "hell;" and that sources differ on what happens to the truly wicked after their stay in Gehinnom, which is kind of like purgatory. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Judaism does not have the same concept of Hell as modern Christianity. There is Gehenna, which is similar to the Catholic Purgatory, a place where those deemed sinful in the eyes of God go to be cleansed. All others proceed to the afterlife, what Christians would term Heaven. My layman's understanding is that all souls go to the afterlife, but the Jews hold a special place in God's service for their loyalty and faithfulness. -- Kesh (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

God, Logic, and Omnipotence

According to Christianity, God is all-powerful, almighty, and omnipotent. That means that there is nothing God cannot or is unable to do. There have been some disagreements about what this means, about whether this only means God can do anything physically impossible or that this means that he can also do anything logically impossible, like making one plus one equal three, as well as anything physically impossible. Some people say this only means God can do anything physically impossible. Other people say that this means that he can also do anything logically impossible as well as anything physically impossible.

I don’t understand. How do we know? How can we know? How could we know? How do we know if the omnipotence of God only means he can do anything physically impossible or that it means that he can also do anything logically impossible as well as anything physically impossible?

The Bible says that God is all-powerful, almighty, and omnipotent. But by this does the Bible only mean that he can do anything physically impossible or does it mean that he can also do anything logically impossible as well as anything physically impossible? How do we know if by this the Bible only means that he can do anything physically impossible or that it means that he can also do anything logically impossible as well as anything physically impossible? The Bible may say something, but that thing can be and may be interpreted and defined differently, in different ways. Should we interpret and define what the Bible says about God and omnipotence as only meaning that God can do anything physically impossible or as meaning that he can also do anything logically impossible as well as anything physically impossible? How should we interpret the Bible in this case?

I’ve read the articles in Wikipedia on omnipotence and omnipotence paradox, but I still don’t understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.166.182 (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How you should interpret the Bible is up to your faith. Dismas|^(talk) 10:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How could we even dare to say what god is capable of? Arguably, no human being was ever able to know this, as it would require one to know god by his own point of view. The claim that god is omnipotent has no foundation on anything but the definition of god itself, if you really think about it, and the term omnipotence already carries too many logical problems on itself, that adds up to the concept of god. The bible was also written by people thousands of year ago, for whom the simplest things of today would be considered miracles or impossibilities. It makes you wonder how far their definition of what was possible went.

In short, the term is ambiguous, and we can never know what it means in the context of the bible since it isn't very clear, and that's all the information you have available to judge. There are other faiths that will give the same attributes to god, and those might be more explicit, but it's not the same context so you might not be interested. — Kieff | Talk 10:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I just want to point out that it doesn't matter about God here. What you're asking could be said of the word "omnipotence" in general—is it even coherent? Not really, in strict philosophical terms. Does that have implications for theology? Only if you think the vague statements in the Bible about God's abilities are meant to be 1. rigorous philosophy, and 2. actually imply that they ascribe a very strict form of omnipotence to God. Personally I think it's a misreading of the Bible to assume it is meant to be describing God in rigorous terms (in the same way I think it is a misreading to think the Bible should be taken as an authority on scientific matters), and I think it's a categorical error to apply concepts like a rigorous, analytical concept of omnipotence to the deity described in the Bible. To me it seems like asking whether or not Hercules would have been a Republican or a Democrat, whether Odyssey was meant to be a rigorous description of maritime travel, etc. But I'm obviously not a literalist, here, nor actually a believer. But I've never thought the omnipotence paradox amounted to anything more than a misunderstanding, an anachronism. If I were religious, though, I'd probably argue that to understand God in such blunt terms misunderstands him completely—God is an entity outside of the realm of natural events, natural concepts, natural knowledge. Something as simple as strict logic should be easy enough for the creator of the universe to shrug off. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A previous question along similar lines was referred to Stephen J Gould's concept of non-overlapping magisteria. My preferred source would be the educational philosopher Paul H Hirst, who divided knowledge into 8 forms, each of which had its own concepts, its own ways of relating those concepts with each other, and its own test against experience. For example, the test of mathematics/logic is tautology (are we, essentially, demonstrating that 1=1?), while that of science is the crucial experiment (what is the test that we could employ to show this to be false?). Other forms are aesthetics, ethics, history and religion. It is not possible to use the concepts and arguments of one form of knowledge to discuss matters from another form. Logic simply does not apply where matters of faith are concerned. No amount of reasoning will reveal how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. SaundersW (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The anonymous author of The Cloud of Unknowing devoted a whole book to the subject of why you can't explain or understand the nature of God, because attempting to do so makes failure unavoidable: a sort of spiritual version of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The quote on its Wikipedia entry sums it up in one: "If you do not overcome this need to understand, it will undermine your quest. It will replace the darkness which you have pierced to reach God with clear images of something which, however good, however beautiful, however Godlike, is not God." Not a lot of point wondering, then. Anyhow, who defines what is a logical impossibiity? I'm no mathematician, but was once assured by a graduate student friend that there are branches of maths in which 2 plus 2 definitely equals 5, so 1 + 1 may well equal 3, somewhere, somehow. -- Karenjc 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, and as I mentioned in response to a similar question on the Misc desk, quantum mechanics is all about the fact that things that make sense in one realm (the human, macroscopic realm) may not make any sense in another (the quantum one). The macroscopic realm requires that every event have a cause; that's not the case in the quantum one. The macroscopic realm keeps something from being two contradictory things at the same time; not so with the quantum. By analogy it would not be hard to guess that God, a being posited as being outside of space and time, would not be bound to the same logics or requirements of those beings within space and time. Again, it's all metaphysics—none of this is very rigorous, because the concept of God is not very rigorous. Just as God is not an area of serious scientific inquiry, it seems to me that it is not an area of serious philosophical inquiry either, because the terms are so ill-defined and intangible. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the concept of God being able to do what is logically impossible, as well as what is physically impossible, a bit exaggerating and exaggerated? I mean, it is one thing to say that there is a god who is the ruler and creator of the universe and that he has supernatural powers, but it is another thong to say that that god can do what is impossible logically as well as physically. I find what some religions and religious believers, such as some Christians, say about god and how great and powerful he is to be a bit exaggerating and exaggerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowei Huang (talk • contribs) 05:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit late – no wonder the hum desk and misc desk are starting to look alike. This poster seems to be on a mission. It doesn't help when they're also crossposting and getting lots of attention. From the posts there —

"I can't say if the desk would lose or benefit by these questions not happening, but see the poster's talk pages here: User talk:60.242.166.182, User talk:Bowei Huang and here[7]. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)"

Short term over long term

People often state, and it is commonly accepted, that people favour short term gains and long term losses over short term losses with long term gains, even if the long term gain far outweighs the short term gain. Cna anyone offer any relevant pages or citations that I can include this in a suitably referenced paper. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.151.57 (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not possible to make a sweeping judgment for all people. You can find a lot of references for specific groups of people by using specific examples. For example, there is currently a lot of news about people who were more than happy to take a mortgage at a short-term very low interest rate while knowing that the interest rate would be unreasonable high in the long term. There are regular news articles about people who do other similarly dumb things, such as taking out a title loan on a vehicle. In the short term they get a few hundred dollars. In the long term, they lose their vehicle and have to pay thousands to get a new one. How about gambling in general? In the short term, you may win a little bit here and a little bit there. You will lose a lot over the long term. By choosing specific examples, locating references is rather easy. -- kainaw™ 13:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The counter-examples are things like deciding to continue studying rather than going straight into employment, investing in a pension, where you lose the use of the money in the short term for long term advantage, having children, where the long-term pleasure comes at the expense of broken nights and a home smelling of bodily fluids in the short term. SaundersW (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

For an economics perspective, see Time preference. --D. Monack | talk 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Paris Commune of 1871 and the Law of Hostages

Were the Commune's actions here modeled on the Great Terror of the first Revolution or was it a new departure in the use of threat and reprisal as a political weapon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.105.225 (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Law of Hostages, a response to stories that the Versailles Army of Adolphe Thiers was executing captured Communards, was actually modeled on the 1793 Law of Suspects, 81.152, rather than the similarly named act passed by the Directory in 1799. The difference, I suppose, is that the Law of Suspects was passed in a time of national emergency, whereas the Law of Hostages was intended as an act of terror and intimidation, aimed against those who took a different political position from the Communards. The text of the act justifies the measures taken as follows;

...that the government of Versailles tramples under foot the rights of humanity as those of war; that it is guilty of horrors that have not even sullied the invaders of French territory...All persons accused of complicity with the government of Versailles shall be decreed accused and imprisoned...the jury will pronounce judgement within twenty-four hours; all the accused detained by the verdict of the jury shall be the hostages of the people of Paris; for every execution of a prisoner of war or a partisan of the legal government of the Commune will be followed by the execution of three times the number of hostages.

This decree became law on 6 April, 1871. Although passed by the Council of the Commune no action was taken for some weeks. But there were those like Raoul Rigault and other extremists, who took their inspiration from the likes of Gracchus Babeuf and Auguste Blanqui, who saw in the Law a way of advancing their own political and ideological ends. And high among their objectives was the destruction of the French Catholic Church. The Committee of General Security, a body set up by Rigault, and packed with his associates, duly ordered the arrest of Georges Darboy, Archbishop of Paris, and other clerics.

The whole thing was complete error of judgement; for not only was Darboy far from being the kind of cleric so hated by the left (he had attacked the doctrine of Papal Infallibility) but his arrest played right into the hands of the Versailles press, which argued that the fight was simply against common criminals.

Darboy and the others were eventually shot, an act of political terrorism that served as a model for those who later attempted to walk in the path of the Commune. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Mortgage crisis and help from the government

Why should the government (of the US or UK) help people who were stupid enough to take a 100% mortgage with variable interest over 50 years? Wouldn´t it be healthier for the economy to let these people fall? It is just a normal economical darwinian process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be "healthier for the economy" because the true picture is not as simple as you paint it. Firstly, if people become homeless, they don't just neatly disappear - they become more and more dependent on state benefits, so social security costs rise and the economy suffers. Secondly, if lack of liquidity forces banks to repossess houses in negative equity then the banks start losing money, which erodes confidence in the financial sector, which is also very bad for the economy. Part of the any government's job is to manage their country's economy. There may be arguments over whether they are taking the right actions or doing things at the right time, but a democratic government that just let its country's economy go into free-fall would not be in power for very long. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In my view it is the banks that are stupid, lending to those who clearly had no hope in hell of paying it back. There was a time when you could only borrow money from the bank if you had sufficient fluidity to pay it back on demand. --Artjo (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Gandalf is right, when people lose confidence in the economy, they spend less, which means manufacturers produce less, which means firing people, which means these people have less money to spend. It's a vicious cycle. This type of economy is doomed to impression. However, based on similiar beliefs that a economy is doing well, people would spend money, and the economy would do well. So, economists aren't helping with their grisly perdictions. Although it's notable that speculations could also cause some problems. FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoever was stupid - the lenders or the borrowers, I think people would trust the economy much more if they knew that only the right people will be punished. If the government is helping, everyone is helping, and everyone is paying for the mistakes of a minority. I was not arguing for letting the country economy go into a free-fall, but letting a part of the economy crash against the wall they were running to since a long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the housing market was a big part of the economy. Simply letting it collapse will kill off more banks, investors will pull out more money, and things start to spiral downward. Not to mention the people who just lost their homes and possibly livelihood because banks revised those loans into unrealistic rates. Letting the economy crash hurts everyone. -- Kesh (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Body and soul

Is my body a part of me or is it just a tool of my soul to be in the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See our article Mind-body dichotomy. I don't think it's possible to entertain a metaphysical notion that hasn't been thought out (read "done to death") by some troupe of philosophers somewhere. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea with no right answer. Believe as you will. Conventional thinking would say that being is predicated on having a body but plenty of theologians, philosophers, and mystics have suggested otherwise. The truth of the matter is irrelevant, of course. If you find it a pleasing idea by all means squeeze all the juice out of it you can get. You'll likely have forgotten about the whole notion in a week. Vranak (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There would seem, 80.58, to be three elements in your existential equation, not two: you ('my' 'me'), your body and your soul! You might want to read Descartes' Error and remember always that "I am, therefore I am". Clio the Muse (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Or "I think, therefore I think I am." Edison (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not a racist but...

Did you notice that many racists - and only racists - begin their arguments with this sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not being funny or anything, but...

Not wanting to hurt your feelings, but...

No offence, right, but...

I'm not being mean, but...

I'm not sexist, but...

Don't take this the wrong way, but... (my favourite, as it places all the blame on the listener)

It's a general phenomenon where people try to add disclaimers to their speech before saying something blatantly offensive. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also a parallel with this in internet chat rooms where a rule of thumb exists - anyone that has to end a sentence with the letters 'jk' or the statement 'just kidding' rarely is and just added it to try and seem less bigoted or annoying. 62.136.16.36 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

To answer the question, no. If you had left out the "and only racists" bit, I would have said yes.

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. These sayings are quite common in everyday speech, and it would be unfair and incorrect to say they're only said by racists. PeterSymonds | talk 18:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, not wanting to hurt your feelings, but those sayings are pretty common. Don't take this the wrong way!  :) Wrad (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Some of my best friends are..." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

<insert group here, i.e. "...American, British, Australian, Black, Hispanic, Republican, Mormon, Catholic, Atheist, Disabled, Extra-terrestrials, ice-cream lovers..."> Wrad (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen a rational, well-reasoned argument that began with "You people...". --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Friends, Romans, countrymen..." -- Ironmandius (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Now, don't take this personally, but....." Edison (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"I don't know about you, but ..." is another way of saying "I don't give a damn what you think but you're going to have to sit and listen to what I think". -- JackofOz (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Alf Garnett, perhaps. He didn't use these expressions. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

this was on the daily show monday or tuesday night. "uh, no disrespect, but your mama is so fat that....". Gzuckier (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

judiciary

what is the role of judiciary in sustenance of democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.127.244 (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for US specific info, the Judicial branch is part of the checks and balances afforded by the constitution. The original intent was for the Judicial branch to interpret the laws (enacted by the Legislative branch and enforced by the Executive branch), and judge their constitutionality. This is supposed to serve as a check to the excesses of the Legislative branch in enacting unjust laws, or the Executive branch in enforcing laws unfairly. How well it works in practice is personal opinion. You may also want to read Separation of powers under the United States Constitution and Judicial independence. Others may be able to comment on the role of the judiciary outside of the US. -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Calendar Riots

Is it really true that when the Gregorian calendar was introduced to Britain in 1752 people rioted becuase they thought they had lost ten days of their lives? Myra McCartney (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the so-called "Calendar riots" were a myth, and only appeared, at the earliest, in 1755. People were reputed to cry "Give us the eleven days back!" but this probably never happened. It did cause a problem though, as people were worried that it would be used to cheat taxpayers. It was seen as Popish (Britain at the time still fiercely anti-Catholic) and foreign, and a disruption to British tradition. This site explains quite a bit of context: [8]. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 18:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed a fiction, Myra, one that has been repeated time and again. It even makes an appearance in the relevant edition of the Oxford History of England. Encyclopedia Britannica once put these alleged riots down to the 'vulgar and ignorant prejudice of the mob'. It's one of these stories that everyone seems to know about but nobody can quite pinpoint. The whole thing is a wonderful example of the circularity that one tends to find in certain forms of historical reportage: textbooks cited textbooks which cited other textbooks, and so on and so on! In other words, it was an event quite without witness. All such references are reducible to two sources only: to Lord Chesterfield and to William Hogarth.

It was Chesterfield who was behind the Calendar Reform Act of 1751. In one of his letters to his son he writes, "Every numerous assembly is a mob, let the individuals who compose it be what they will. Mere sense is never to be talked to a mob; their passions, their sentiments, their senses and their seeming interests alone are to be applied to. Understanding have they collectively none." But what he was doing here was boasting of his skill in having the Bill passed through the Lords. The 'mob' in question was his fellow peers!

So, this only leaves Hogarth's 1755 depiction of An Election Entertainment., in which a placard is shown, carrying the slogan 'Give us our eleven days.' According to Ronald Paulson, author of Hogarth, His Life, Art and Times, this shows that "...the Oxfordshire people...are specifically rioting, as historically the London crowd did, to preserve the 'Eleven Days' the government stole from them in September 1752 by changing the calendar."

And thus it was that the 'calendar riot' was born. The only problem is that the election campaign depicted was one which concluded in 1754, after a very lengthy contest between Court Whigs and Jacobite Tories. Literally every issue between the two factions was brought up, including the question of calendar reform. The Tories attacked the Whigs for every deviation, including their alleged favoritism towards foreign Jews and the 'Popish' calendar. Hogarth's placard, in his usual rumbustious fashion, is no more than part of a satire on the character of the debate. It was not an observation of actual crowd behaviour. The whole thing, as one author has rightly said, was simply a 'magnificent myth.' Clio the Muse (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It is now up to one of us to recast the relevant article Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 based on the foregoing and quoting Clio's sources. I have made Calendar riots a redirect. --05:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Done; no inline references, however. Gwinva (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Altered artifacts

Is there an archaeological or antiquarian term for artifacts that have been altered by later generations? For example, a religious artifact that is modified or reappropriated when a new religion is introduced.--Pharos (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Palimpsest.--Wetman (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How wrong can you get?

I'm looking for good examples by politicians or people in public life of statements about events that turned out not just wrong but wildely wrong. Thanks. 86.157.195.125 (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If memory serves, Churchill had a few good things to say about Hitler in the early days of his (Hitler's) reign. Dismas|^(talk) 17:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he did, he quickly lost them. He was opposing Hitler when most others wanted agreement with him. It was only in 1939 that people realised that war was inevitable (some still were suspicious of Hitler in the early days, most notably the King, George V). PeterSymonds | talk 18:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see by the following responses that my memory didn't serve me well this time. Dismas|^(talk) 18:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Churchill warned against German re-armament but he was laughed off the public stage. The Chamberlain government assumed that Appeasement was the right way to go, because they didn't believe Hitler wanted war. I suppose the Munich Agreement can be looked on as an event that turned out to be so wrong. PeterSymonds | talk 17:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Chamberlain announcing his appeasement of Hitler had achieved "peace in our time" was long ridiculed, although some now have a higher estimation of him for reasons I don't quite understand. Edison (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. This site, discussing the revisionist views on Churchill during the pre-war years is quite interesting.[9] Views change with time; revisionists ask, was Chamberlain so wrong? Was Churchill so right? PeterSymonds | talk 18:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Edison, as I have said before, if you want to see a defence of Chamberlain and Appeasement you only have to raise it as a separate question, and I will do my best to oblige! It was an understandable and wholly rational diplomatic strategy. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Weapons of mass destruction? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Related is List of erroneous newspaper headlines, which is pretty funny. Recury (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a book, I Wish I'd Never Said That, which is filled with exactly what you're looking for. Skimming through its politics section, I find that President Grover Cleveland said in 1905 that "Sensible and responsible women do not want to vote" - in 1919 women were granted the right to vote, and in 1940 Franklin Delano Roosevelt assured mothers and fathers that their "boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars" - in 1941 the attack on Pearl Harbour propelled the USA into conflict. Daniel (‽) 20:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

With the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war, WWII can't exactly be called a foreign war. --Carnildo (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Open mouth, insert foot" could be the motto of several men who lost U.S. presidential contests after saying things they and their handlers would rather have left unsaid. George W. Romney was considered a strong candidate for the 1968 Republican presidential nomination, until he explained his shift to opposition to the Vietnam War by saying "When I came back from Viet Nam [in November 1965], I'd just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get." No one wanted a candidate whose brain was easily washed. His presidential campaign floundered. In a 1976 U.S. presidential election debate. President Gerald Ford said "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford Administration." and that he did not "believe that the Poles consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union". Both statements were astonishing at the time, in the face of strong Soviet control of several satellite countries in Eastern Europe. Political obseervers thought that debate was the turning point and the reason for Carter's narrow victory [10]. Ford lost the election by a small margin. Gary Hart was the frontrunner for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination. The politics of personal destruction were not then as vicious as later, and reporters could look the other way at some human frailties, but when there were rumors Hart was having an extramarital affair, he said to reporters "Follow me around. I don't care. I'm serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They'll be very bored." Reporters tailed him and staked out his townhouse and observed an attractive young woman leaving during the night, leading to an exposé of his activities with an attractive young woman who was not his wife. He dropped out of the race a week later. George H. W. Bush got elected President in 1988 after declaring "Read my lips: no new taxes." Then in 1990 he signed into law tax increases. The pledge was used against him in his losing 1992 presidential campaign. Bill Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" before the existance of DNA in certain stains on a certain blue dress forced him to admit improprieties with Monica Lewinsky. In each case there were attempts at spin doctoring afterward: Bush supporters said it was the fault of the Democrats in Congress that taxes were raised, despite his assurance that no one could get him to sign a tax increase, and Clinton supporters noted that a majority of college age Americans in a survey did not consider fellatio to be "sexual relations," a term which they reserved for coitus. So the handlers of a presidential candidate wait with bated breath when the candidate departs from the memorized "stump speech" or responds to a question other than one offered up by a supporter for which there is a carefully rehearsed answer. Edison (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A few choice excerpts from The Guinness Book of Regrettable Quotations:

• We rule by love and not by the bayonet - Josef Goebbels, 1936
• I would have made a good pope - Richard Nixon, 1980
• When the President does it, that means it is not illegal - Nixon again, in an interview with David Frost, 19 May 1977
• An eccentric, dreamy, half-educated recluse in an out-of-the-way New England village (or anywhere else) cannot with impunity set at defiance the laws of gravitation and grammar. Oblivion lingers in the immediate neighbourhood - Thomas Bailey Aldrich, writing in The Atlantic Monthly, January 1892, of Emily Dickinson
• I'm sorry, Mr Kipling, but you just don't know how to use the English language - the editor of the San Francisco Examiner, 1889
• Deprived of beauty, of harmony, and of clarity and melody - Johann Scheibe, writing about Johann Sebastian Bach, 1737
• If that was music, I no longer understand anything about the subject - Hans von Bulow on hearing Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 2, c.1890
• Mozart died too late rather than too soon - Glenn Gould, supposedly said in 1984, but Gould died in 1982
• Rock 'n' roll is phoney and false, and sung, written and played for the most part by cretinous goons - Frank Sinatra, 1958
• The Beatles are not merely awful, I would consider it sacrilegious to say anything less than that they are godawful. They are so unbelievably horrible, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art, that they qualify as crowned heads of anti-music, even as the imposter popes went down in history as "anti-popes" - William F Buckley, 1964
• I tell you flatly, he can't last - Jackie Gleason on Elvis Presley, 1956
• Who the hell wants to hear actors talk? - Harry M. Warner, c. 1927
• The part's too small - Ed Wynn, rejecting the title role in The Wizard of Oz
• I think there's a world market for about five computers - Thomas J Watson, Chairman of IBM, 1947
• In all likelihood, world inflation is over - Managing Director of the IMF, 1957
• The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States - the Chicago Times opinion of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address
• ALL SAVED FROM TITANIC AFTER COLLISION: RESCUE BY CARPATHIA AND PARISIAN; LINER IS BEING TOWED TO HALIFAX AFTER SMASHING INTO ICEBERG - the New York Evening Sun, 15 April 1912
• The mental constitution of the negro is ... normally good-natured and cheerful, but subject to sudden fits of emotion and passion during which he is capable of performing acts of singular atrocity, impressionable, vain, but often exhibiting in the capacity of servant a dog-like fidelity which has stood the supreme test. ... After puberty, sexual matters take first place in the negro's life and thoughts - Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911
• As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten - St Thomas Aquinas
• Clio will really love this one, coming as it does from one of her heroes - When a woman becomes a scholar there is usually something wrong with her sexual organs - Friedrich Nietzsche, 1888
• Direct thought is not an attribute of femininity - Thomas Alva Edison, in an article "The Woman of the Future", in Good Housekeeping, October 1912
• The power of tobacco to sustain the system, to keep up nutrition, to maintain and increase the weight, to brace against severe exertion, and to replace ordinary food, is a matter of daily and hourly demonstration - George Black, The Doctor at Home, 1898
• Masturbation is certainly the most dangerous sexual vice that a society can be afflicted with in the long run - D H Lawrence, in Pornography and Obscenity, 1930
• NIZAM OF HYDERABAD IS DEAD - The Times, 23 February 1964
• NIZAM OF HYDERABAD SLIGHTLY BETTER - The Times, 24 February 1964
• -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, I don't think there will be a woman Prime Minister in my lifetime. Margaret Thatcher, 1973. [11] Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

They become ever more active, Jack!

OK, then, 86.157, here below is a real classic.

My people and I, Josef Vissarionovich, firmly remember your wise prediction: Hitler will not attack in 1941!

It was addressed to Stalin by Lavrenti Beria, his head of security, on 21 June 1941. The following day, at 3.15 in the morning, Operation Barbarossa was launched. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Nixin quote is odd in this list: both genuinely Nixonian and truly papal. He had Pius XII in mind, of course. --Wetman (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has pointed out "Dewey defeats Truman": — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Truman was so widely expected to lose the 1948 election that the Chicago Tribune ran this incorrect headline

Then there's the one who said bottled water would never take off. But the predictions of marketplace success and failure are another category. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If anything went wrong in Nixon's "I would have made a good pope" (1980), it was surely that he lacked the sure-footedness to stay several moves ahead of the lynch mob. Xn4 08:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Characters you hate

Further to an interesting thread I read here recently concerning male characters in literature you could fall in love with I would be intersted to know the reverse-which character in literature do you actively dislike or even hate? 86.157.195.125 (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In Jane Eyre, her aunt (Sarah Reed) and cousins. Also, Mr Brocklehurst and Blanche Ingram. Just an example from one novel. PeterSymonds | talk 18:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr Collins in Pride and Prejudice. Mr Fairlie in The Woman in White. Tartuffe. Mr Casaubon in Middlemarch. Heathcliff. Scarlett O'Hara. Bridget Jones. Oh, and Rebecca, even though she's already dead. She and Mrs Danvers deserved each other. Karenjc 19:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fanny Price, Winston Smith. Both simply awful. --90.198.200.119 (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Every single character in Wuthering Heights, which was probably why I didn't get on with it. So many of the characters in Mansfield Park, although that was more enjoyable as I was egging Fanny on to JUST GROW A BACKBONE AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. But I suppose it was more realistic :/ Louis de Bernières for the ending of Captain Corelli's Mandolin *sob* Skittle (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Romeo, and I suppose Juliet, because they are idiots and seemed to be just like me and everyone else I knew in high school when we read it. (I also hate the idea that it's a great love story, argh!) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk)

Kitty from Pride and Prejudice. Achilles from Orson Scott Card's Shadow series. Wrad (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I hate any characters in literature though there are a lot that I find quite tiresome, particularly the feckless Harold Skimpole in Charles Dickens's Bleak House, and just about everyone in George Bernard Shaw's overrated and bloodless plays.

But the one character who had the most negative impact on me was Uncle Tom. I used to wonder what black Americans meant when they used the term in such a disparaging way towards certain members of their community; I used to wonder, that is, until I opened the pages of Uncle Tom's Cabin! Yes, I know that Harriet Beecher Stowe intended him as a 'noble hero.' Yes, I know that he demonstrates a certain form of Christian resignation and acceptance, that would have been wholly understandable to a nineteenth century readership. Yes, I know that it was a message for the times. But when I reached such a stage of irritation with him, when I began to feel that he needed a 'damned good whipping' to rouse him from his dog-like torpor, then I simply knew I had to stop reading. To be put in the frame of mind of a slave owner in the Old South was far from being a comfortable experience! Clio the Muse (talk)

Clio already knows I'm no fan of Heathcliff, but I'll leave that one there. I hold that just about all characters of Jane Austen's Emma were written to be unlikeable, with the exception of Mr Knightley (who still has his faults). Mr Collins is equally unlikeable, along with his patroness the Lady Catherine de Bourg, again written almost purely for their dislikeability. Steewi (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

With the exception of Estella (Great Expectations ), I can't think of any Dickens heroine who is in any way attractive to a contemporary male reader: they're all so bloody wet. And, of course, the genius of Shakespeare was to take characters whom we ought actively to dislike - Brutus, who murders his best friend; Macbeth, who ends his play as a nihilistic mass-murderer - and make them attractive. Perhaps the comic foils Violet Elizabeth Bott with her I'll thcweam and thcweam and thcweam until I'm sick... and I can! ; Fotherington-Thomas (Nigel Molesworth's opinion: Thou art very wet and weedy ); or Madeline Bassett with her gormless the stars are God's daisy chain . --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Major mentions some characters that are clearly meant to be disagreeable. I wonder how many of those mentioned above were actually intended by the authors to be admirable or likeable. My own contribution to this would be Charles Ryder of Brideshead Revisited, who I find loathsome; but maybe Evelyn Waugh wants us to admire him. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Prince Myshkin. Yes, I know beauty, of the soul. He is truly the Idiot.--Tresckow (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one's mentioned Hamlet yet; a great many people hate his whining, procrastination, and how he treats Ophelia. Personally, I've never really liked the characters of Sydney Carton, Lucie, or the knitting Madame Defarge of Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities or Faulkner's Joe Christmas in Light in August for that matter. Oh, and General Woundwort from Watership Down (evil Fascist bunny for those not in the know). Zidel333 (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Little Nell. qp10qp (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Clio's mentioned Uncle Tom, but what about Simon Legree? Corvus cornix_talk 20:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Simon Legree, indeed. Mrs. Yeobright from The Return of the Native, too; oh, I wanted to jump in there and tell her to LET CLYM BE and leave off dogging him. Mr. Bumble is another one I'd like to give a good, solid whacking... And let's not forget Uriah Heep, either. Ugh. --^LaPianísta! 21:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

More from Dickens: Wackford Squeers. And from Les Miserables, the Thénardiers. Corvus cornix_talk 22:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Iago, Aaron the Moor, Tamora from Shakespeare. Wrad (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

One more off my chest...Zeena from Ethan Frome. Grr. --^LaPianísta! 04:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Union and the Munich Crisis

Thank you Clio for your response to my question on the planning for the German western offensive of 1940. Perhaps you can also help with this? The Soviet Union, along with France, had offered guarantees to Czechoslovakia in the event of attack by Germany. Is there any evidence that the Soviets were prepared to honour this promise in the build up to the Munich Crisis of 1938? I need this information for a study on strategy and politics in late 1930s and early 1940s. I am grateful for your able assistance. John Spencer (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, John, there is. Stalin had been so shaken by the victory of Hitler in Germany, and the ensuing destruction of the KPD, the strongest Communist Party in the World outside Russia, that the extreme-left Third Period strategy was abandoned in favour of one that emphasised co-operation with 'bourgeois' liberals and socialists in anti-Fascist Popular Fronts. The corollary of this was a policy of Collective Security, which saw the Soviet Union join the League of Nations.

Given the threat that Hitlerite Germany represented to the Soviet Union, Stalin was wholly sincere in his application of collective security, though he founded it difficult to trust the western Allies, including the French, with whom he had entered into a Treaty of Mutual Assistance in 1935. As early as March 1938, when the Czech crisis started to get underway, the Soviets privately assured Eduard Benes that they would honour their treaty obligations, so long as the French acted in concert. This remained their position over the summer.

This was far more than a cynical gesture on Stalin's part. We now know from sources released since the collapse of the Soviet Union just how serious he was. On September 20, on the threshold of the Munich Agreement itself, he gave fresh assurances to Benes of Soviet military support. Two days after this the Kiev and Belorussia military districts were put on alert, and troops redeployed westwards. On September 28, the day of the Munich Conference itself, the military districts west of the Urals were ordered to end all leave. The following day some 330,000 reservists were called up, and the Czech government offered 700 fighter aircraft. But the most significant revelation of all is that Romania, the only route by which the Red Army could have advanced towards the heart of Europe, given the hostility of the Poles, agreed to allow 100,000 Soviet troops to cross to Czechoslovakia. Maxim Litvinov, the Commissar for Foreign Affairs, also said that the Soviets would go to war, even if the British and French did not, only providing that the Czechs themselves offered some resistance.

But, of course, it came to nothing, because Stalin's 'partners' did a deal and the Czechs did not fight. It's difficult to know how best to interpret this data. It's quite possible that Stalin was merely keeping his options open. The mobilisation was of a partial nature, and while the Poles were warned that any move on their part against the Czechs would be considered as unprovoked aggression, no such message was sent to the Germans. But the Munich Conference itself, to which the Soviets were not invited, was the effective end of all further notions of collective security. Stalin was now convinced that Hitler was being urged eastwards by the duplicity of Brittan and France. In the game that followed the Soviets eventually turned the tables in the Pact of August 1939. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again. Would you agree that the pact with Hitler exposed the limits of Stalin's political and strategic vision, offering but a temporary breathing space? John Spencer (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I really think it important to understand the circumstances of the time, John, also taking into account Stalin's own expectations. Although the Soviets were quite serious about forming a common front with the west against Hitler, Britain and France were altogether less anxious. Even so, the Soviets held the Germans at a distance for some time. Indeed, it wasn't until August, when all prospect of a western alliance was dead, that they began to take German overtures seriously. It's not at all surprising that Stalin began to listen: for Hitler was effectively offering to reverse the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, placing back in the Soviet orbit all of the lands lost at that time, including the western areas of the Ukraine and Belorussia, the Baltic States, Finland and Bessarabia. All of this immeasurably increased Soviet security.

However, I suspect that your objection here may be that these were illusory gains that would have left Stalin isolated on the Continent in the event of a German victory. But Stalin was convinced that a war between Hitler and the west would only be to his advantage, fully expecting it to develop as it had in 1914, with Germany emerging so weakened that it would be years before it was able to consider an attack on Russia. So when France fell in a matter of weeks to the German Blitzkrieg he was genuinely shocked. When news of the surrender came through Khrushchev watched him pacing up and down, cursing like a cab driver, as he puts it, and saying, "How could they allow Hitler to defeat them, to crush them?" He at once took charge of the remaining areas allotted to him under the pact with the Nazis, forcing the Romanians to surrender Bessarabia and incorporating the three Baltic States into the Soviet Union. But Stalin's biggest error was to learn almost nothing from German tactics in Poland and the west. Fully expecting to halt any future offensive on the borders, he ordered the hurried construction of new defence-works, right under the noses of the Germans. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Word for the object used in a murder (old legal word)

What's the word, it's an old word, that is used to describe the murder instrument (i.e., the knife used). It's a specific word that refers to the object.

I remember it being used in Oliver Holmes' "The Common Law." I just can't seem to recall it right now, and my copy of "The Common Law" is at school. Estrbrook (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Deodand? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's it, exactly. Thanks. Estrbrook (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

learn something new every day. maybe that's where doodad came from. Gzuckier (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Paying Volunteers

Is it possible for a volunteer to recieve payment for their services and still be considered a volunteer? 99.226.39.245 (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends upon the way in which the word is used. If you take a volunteer to be a person who performs a service for free, then no. If you consider volunteer as in "volunteered to join the army", then yes. And between the two ... maybe. For example one might get reasonable expenses, or a subsistence wage, as in Voluntary Service Overseas. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So would the use of volunteer in this article be inappropriate? FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Volunteer seems to be overly restrictive in stating that such people are by definition unpaid. None of Miriam Webster Online's definitions even mention the lack of pay. ("Unpaid volunteer" is a pretty common phrase.) In that light, volunteer is quite acceptable as used in FromFoamsToWaves' example. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Per the Horatio Hornblower novels, in the British navy of the late 18th/early 19th century there were "volunteers" on British Navy ships who certainly got paid for their efforts and who aspired to become midshipmen. Tennessee is nicknamed the "Volunteer state." Soldiers from there volunteered in the War of 1812 (some sources say the Mexican War). They got paid. So "volunteer" in modern times means unpaid worker, but in wartime it could mean a patriot who was not drafted or the product of a press-gang. Edison (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is possible to volunteer for a task within paid employment. For example a soldier may volunteer to scout out enemy positions, still being paid his/her normal salary but getting no additional payment within the particular task.

Also, it is fairly common (in the UK at least) for volunteers to be able to claim expenses, so for working in a charity shop you could claim for the bus fair to get to the shop. This is not really payment, as you can only claim for expenditure you would not have made if you had not done the voluntary work. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

World leaders

Content removed; was inappropriate. PeterSymonds | talk 22:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

a couple of geographical questions

Hi, can anyone help me please: 1. Do any countries essentially meet at a point, and if so, are they considered to have a common border? I'm thinking of is Azerbaijan and Turkey specifically, which appear to share a point border according to my atlas, but naturally it doesn't give the sort of resolution to get the definitive answer. The wiki article on Azerbaijan says: "The Azerbaijani exclave of Nakhchivan is bordered by ... Turkey to the northwest." This appears to answer the question, but can anyone confirm this specific example, and answer the general case of "point-border countries"?

2. This is a tricky, conjectural one. I've noticed the state boundaries in Europe are often "squiggly", sometimes because they are marked by rivers or mountain ranges, but at other times, apparently, without any geographical basis. On the other hand, African borders seem to be much straighter. Does this have anything to do with Africa's colonial past, such as Western powers "carving up" the continent by agreement (that is, on decolonisation), so they sliced the cake as neatly as they could? Alternatively, might it have something to do with the continent being drier, hence presumably with fewer rivers to serve as squiggly borders? And if I'm right about any of this, does it explain the similar situation in the Middle East, where snaking borders are common enough, but not to the exclusion of quite a number of angular borders (within the Arabian peninsula for example)? Thanks in advance, 203.221.126.94 (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Borders drawn in the 19th and 20th century, such as most of the Canada–US border, often follow straight lines. That's the case with the borders of African countries, many of which were drawn up in the late 19th century. It's a lot easier to simply say "the 10th parallel" than to try to work out whether each mountain, river and village should go on one side or the other. That's especially true when you're ignoring the people who live in those places, as colonialists were wont to do (and the US and UK did when drawing lines through Indian country). In Africa, the coastal areas, where European settlement first congregated, were considered the most important geography. The interior was just jungle and desert, so not as much time was spent worrying about the shape of the lines stretching into the interior. As you surmise, geography must have played a role as well. The lines through the Sahara are straight because there's not a lot of stuff there to serve as natural barriers. In Southern Africa, rivers like the Congo and Zambezi can and do serve as borders. The Middle East is similar to North Africa. Borders were drawn by colonial powers through desert. The border between Saudi Arabia and Yemen through the "Empty Quarter" wasn't even defined until recently, since there's nothing there but sand. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As to question one, is this [12] the point you mean? If so, you can see the answer plainly. Vranak (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx v. much for those answers so far. Please keep them coming though, especially on question 2 and the general concept of "point boundaries" in q 1. Thanks for the google maps link, but it doesn't work for my slow dialup somehow. It downloads, but not fully, or so it seems, because it looks very imprecise. I get a nice clear picture of not very much, and it takes a while to get it. Perhaps someone can give another link, or tell me what I would see at the other link if I was up to date with the digital revolution. ta 203.221.126.88 (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

At higher resolution there is no 'point' boundary between Turkey and Azerbaijan. Vranak (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The 1947 Palestine partition plan would have connected the Arab West Bank to two other Arab areas by points. How this would have functioned in reality became a moot point when the Arabs rejected the partition plan and wound up with less land anyway after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, aka the Israeli War of Independence. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On question 1, two countries meeting at a point would involve four total countries meeting at a point. For a U.S. state example, see Four Corners, where four states meet at a point. See also the Quadripoint page, which says there are currently no such points for countries. The closest involves Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Botswana. The page List of land border lengths says the border between Botswana and Zambia is 2 km long, not a point, which would mean Zimbabwe and Namibia do not touch. There are certainly subnational "secondary quadripoints", such as the Four Corners. So we could ask, "do Arizona and Colorado share a common border?" I'd guess the answer is a matter of opinion... yes and no. The page on Arizona says that Arizona "borders New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, California, touches Colorado..." The Utah page puts it this way: "Utah ... is bordered by Idaho in the north, Wyoming in the north and east; by Colorado in the east; at a single point by New Mexico to the southeast...; by Arizona in the south; and by Nevada in the west."

An addition to this -- according to the Four color theorem: "Two regions are called adjacent only if they share a border segment, not just a point." Pfly (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As for question 2, I think you have it right. Other regions with ancient borders are mainly "squiggly", like China and Southeast Asia. The Middle East had squiggly borders (or undefined ones "somewhere in the desert") until European nations drew new boundaries after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, if I'm not confused. Pfly (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you all; these are terrific answers. I consider the matter to be mostly resolved, but I won't add the "resolved" tag at the top, because the issue with question 2, about the exact reasons for squiggly borders, is potentially somewhat contentious, and someone may wish to debate the matter. Glad I asked the question. 203.161.95.46 (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

April 23

durability of book coverings

Hi, I'm asking what appears to be a miscellaneous question here because humanities people, I suspect, buy the most books, and hence would have the best idea about how to preserve them.

Recently I bought some adhesive book covering, called "bookguard 80" (matt), and I would like to know if anyone has used it over a long time, and if so, how durable is it? I used to use some cheap and nasty stuff, and whilst reading a long novel (Middlemarch) it developed a long crease on the front cover, and and air bubble started forming under it. I'm curious to know if the same thing is going to happen to my new one. If not, it gives the best finish, and I'd recommend it (in Australia, you can get it from Raeco - sorry if that looks like advertising, but it's just a recommendation if it turns out to be durable). The other one I have is called "Cover it" by Nylex, which produces a less desirable finish, but in case the bookguard 80 turns out to be flimsy, can anyone tell me of their experience with Coverit?

Please also feel free to share any other tips on book preservation here. Regards, 203.221.126.94 (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have books that you love, don't cover them with anything adhesive! The solvent in the adhesive will gradually dry out , leaving either a powdery residue, or stains on your book cover, or both. The best thing I have found is a thin sheet of mylar, which is transparent and will fold around the book and protect it, which I fasten only to itself with adhesive tape. No tape on the book! Plain old-fashioned acid-free brown paper is also good, but does not look so nice. Another tip on book preservation: do not take paperbacks into a sauna. If it is hot enough, it will melt the glue in the spine. SaundersW (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I recently read of a great way to cover books, apparently wallpaper is good because it's more appealing to look at, and it's designed to be tough. Also most stores will give you the old wallpaper sample books free when they're done with them. Those have to be better looking than brown paper. SunshineStateOfMind (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I used this for schoolbooks and it was remarkably durably and you could see which book was which at a glance.hotclaws 07:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

At one time I used magazine pages to protect history texts from heavy use. Wrapping patriarchal documents in pop images that carried their own time stamp suits my sense of quirk. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Animated map of the progression of human societies

Please direct me to where I can find either an animated map showing the societies of the world come into existence, expand and end. Any help toward this end would be obliged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexnye (talk • contribs) 01:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you will find such a thing. Historically, most human "societies" were not precisely defined or delineated, either temporally or geographically, and there is also a lot of intermingling going on. You might like to find a copy of the Times Atlas of World History or something similar, which provides a very good visual history of the way humanity spread and developed.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to draw one, but never got around to it. Sorry for being so lazy. HS7 (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thank you. Edit: I actually found just such a program when looking through searches and such for "Atlas of World History". For those others who are interested: http://www.atlasofworldhistory.com/. —69.229.127.149 (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A more modern European version can be found here: [13]. The images are free to view, but higher resolution pictures would have to be purchased. Steewi (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

can somebody help me find this piece of music

Here is another question that people might think belongs elsewhere, and I nearly decided to put it on the entertainment desk, but it's really about classical music, and I think the knowledge base for that is here.

I was watching the West Wing (a rental copy, thanks to StuRat for the advice) and in season 1, there is an episode called "Take this Sabbath Day." In one scene, Toby Ziegler is in the "temple," which I assume means synagogue, and someone is singing a piece of classical music. Does anyone know what the name of this piece is? I'd really like to track it down, since it was rather beautiful. I've tried googling, but to no avail. Also on a side note, is "temple" just another word for synagogue, or have I got something wrong here? thanks in advance. 203.221.126.88 (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Synagogues" are a specific subset of the category "temples". All synagogues are temples, not all temples are synagogues. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, captain. But does this apply specifically in Judaism? Is a synagogue the only type of Jewish temple? As for the music, it's called Hashkiveinu. A bit more googling was all it took. silly me. It goes to show, google is always your second best friend on the net, after wikipedia.:) 203.221.126.88 (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Not all synagogues are "temples." Only Reform Jews call their synagogues "temples." Conservative and Orthodox Jews in America are more likely to use the word shul as a synonym for "synagogue." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Is "someone" a tenor? A good guess would be Kol Nidrei. --Wetman (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't a Jew say "in/at temple", "go to temple" etc., rather than "in the temple", "go to the temple"? I think the word is used differently (akin to "school") when referring to synagogues, as opposed to temples in general. Deiz talk 08:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Internet Movie Database, repository of unbelieveable quantities of movie and TV trivia, lists "Hashkiveinu, Arranged by Max Helfman" on the soundtrack for this episode [14]. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You might also like this site. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think what the Captain means above is that a temple is a generic word for a place of worship, hence all synagogues are temples. However, as Mwalcoff points out, the word synagogue is much more common in Judaism, so if a Jewish person refers to a temple you may be pretty sure that they are part of US Reform Judaism. Daniel (‽) 17:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's right. AIUI, for most Orthodox and Conservative Jews, the word temple can refer only to the destroyed Temple in Jerusalem. Many would find the use of temple to refer to the synagogue distasteful. -- BPMullins | Talk 05:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

hallo people, why the sudden change of topic? or should i say context? the poor fellow ended up not knowing the name of the song!! captain i guess you were out of line when you shifted the discussion from music to synagogues.41.220.120.202 (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)davis

'Cause he asked about synagogues? Read the last part of his question. Plus he found the answer to his own question through Google. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk &#149; Contribs)} 13:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam War

Could someone better explain this sentence from the Vietnam War article:

"This flew in the face of the long historical antipathy between the two nations, of which the U.S. seems to have been completely ignorant."

I've never really understood the phrase "flew in the face of..." So, could someone explain what is meant here? And possibly make it clearer in the article if you think that's necessary as well. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 05:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To "fly in the face of" something means to defy or contradict something, especially a fact, belief, or state of affairs. In this case, the notion of Vietnamese subservience to China would seem to contradict the longstanding enmity between the two countries, and thereby fly in the face of historical wisdom. 129.174.176.3 (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Something can fly in the face of historical wisdom, but it can't fly in the face of a state of affairs. I call this a clumsy use of the idiom, at best, and I'm going to give that article my best massage right now. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you! Dismas|^(talk) 20:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lenin and Marx

Why did Lenin take such a radical departure from the other main currents of Marxist thought in Europe before the First World War? I am thinking here of the development of Marxist theory rather than the political struggles between the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party itself. Thank you. Yermelov (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It begins, Yermelov, in the 1890s, by which time it was obvious that history was not going to follow the lines predicted by Karl Marx. Capitalism was not impoverishing the working-class; just the reverse. The proletariat was growing richer, not poorer, and thus had much more to lose than 'their chains.' In Germany, home of the the largest Marxist party in the world, there were those like Eduard Bernstein who drew the obvious conclusions: that further economic progress would bring socialism of its own accord, without any need for revolution. Capitalism, in other words, was socialising itself. Socialism would thus be attained by evolution, not revolution.

These ideas were taken up in Russia by the likes of S. Prokopovich and E. Kuskova, who put them forward in a pamphlet, which Lenin's sister, Anna, described as the Credo. In this it was argued that the political struggle was a distraction, and the Russian Social Democrat and Labour Party should thus place its greatest emphasis on the economic struggle; the struggle, that is, with employers for the improvement in pay and conditions.

For Lenin these Economists were proposing the worst form of heresy. He insisted on the primacy of the political struggle. But, in support of this position, he looked not to western Marxism but rather into the Russian past, to the likes of Mikhail Bakunin, who argued that people were tyrannised in the first place not by economic systems but by the state and the church. He was effectively turning classical Marxism on its head: for economics, in the Leninist scheme, no longer had primacy. More than that, he began to focus ever more on the corollary of this argument, another reversal of Marxism: that the emancipation of the workers would never be accomplished by the workers themselves. He was now on the high road to Bolshevism, a doctrine that was to owe virtually nothing to Marx, and much to the traditional forms of Russian conspiratorial and nihilist politics. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My most sincere thanks, Clio. Please have this. Yermelov (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Order of Lenin! For me? How wonderful! What next-the Stalin Prize? Thank you, Yermelov! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yao De-Fen worlds tallest woman

Looking for updates on this lady!! Did she have the operation scheduled for 2007 and how is she now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.229.172 (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't know, but I have tagged the Yao Defen article for update.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Impossible question documentary art world society infiltrator scam artist SOLVED by Pharos

I just remembered that I once had seen an old documentary about some guy who was a society poser - I think he might have known Picasso and other artists in the 50s or 60s or 70s. Pretending to be wealthy. Maybe becoming wealthy. I remember there were unbuttoned shirts and gold chains in the film perhaps dating it, and also that the locations seemed to be e.g. Crete or Greece or Ibiza etc. Gosh, that's all I remember. I feel like he scamed a bunch of wealthy people. Like something on "City Confidential" on A&E but older and more arty in a sleezy kind of way. Any ideas? Saudade7 08:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Elmyr de Hory in F for Fake?--Pharos (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that didn't take long! You are astonishing Pharos !!! Saudade7 08:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it didn't hurt that this particular documentary was directed by Orson Welles! Also, by coincidence, that film has rather been on my mind for the last week or so (I really do think it was pretty excellent).--Pharos (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Forms of address in 16th century Venice

It's 1582. How does one venetian nobleman address another, or a lady? - what are the polite and casual terms one may use? Also, while I'm here, can anyone point me to a list of the servants that would have been employed in a venetian villa or palace at that time?

Thanks - hope these aren't impudent questions Adambrowne666 (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(Only if you were Baldrick.) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is, hope they're not lazy questions - I've got into the habit of asking you guys before doing the hard work of research. Maybe someone could point me to helpful literature on the subject? Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the last time I was talking to a Venetian nobleman in Venice, I made a joke, which amused him, of saying sciavo vostro, instead of its shortened, modern, generally used form ciao. According to the article, probably neither would have been out of place back then, though the long form was doubtless more polite.John Z (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in looking at Florio's Worlde of Wordes, an Italian-English dictionary from near that time - searchable online somewhere. The Venetian dialect would be slightly different, but not greatly. Steewi (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great, both of you - the Worlde of Wordes is an excellent resource too. Actually, what I meant by terms of address was what they call each other - Senor? Sirrah? Master? Lord? - that kinda thing. Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair discrimination

If I discriminate a person (who e.g. smells), am I infringing his right (of choosing his personality) or do I have a similar right (of having a personality that discriminates people like him)? 217.168.3.246 (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're free to dislike people who smell, or have another quality you find distasteful privately, but if they are not "breaking the rules" and your preference negatively impacts their ability to work or enjoy other rights and freedoms, then you are discriminating against them. "Smell" and "personality" (I don't necessarily agree the former is a subset of the latter) are quite hard ones to quantify, but consider your example with a dislike for those of another ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. Go nuts in private, but good luck trying it on in the workplace. The more subjective the issue, the harder to argue a case for or against, hence the reason lawyers live in mansions and we live in apartments. Deiz talk 10:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

But it is important to mention some people can't help it. There are disorders like Trimethylaminuria that cause people to smell, no matter what they do. And some people are sensitive or even allergic to thescented products that most of us rely on to smell "nice." SunshineStateOfMind (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Smell can be dependable of personality. Anyway, it is just an example. I want to know where to draw the line between discrimination against other races on one hand, and disliking people who are fat, are ugly or don't take a bath is legit on the other. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What about if they smell to you because they eat a food that is widely eaten in their culture but not in yours? 79.66.99.37 (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dislike is an emotion - discrimination is a behaviour (although the latter word was not always used the way it is now). You're free to dislike anyone you want, including fat/thin/smelly/black/white/yellow/lazy/stupid/smug/gay/straight or any other kind of people, although you may miss out on some rewarding friendships and enjoyable experiences by dismissing people in such a cursory way. And they are free to dislike you for any one of those reasons, or many others. Depending where you live, however, the law may prevent you discriminating against people you don't like on particular grounds, such as race, sexual preference or disability. This means you cannot, for example, abuse or harass them, or refuse them goods, services or employment, simply because you have decided to dislike them.

There's no legality involved in liking; no "right" to like or be liked, and no penalty for not doing so. But bear in mind that just as you are assessing them, they are assessing you; and some people find judgementalism profoundly unlikeable. Being on the receiving end of discrimination can be a bewildering and hurtful experience. Unless people are prepared to accept it themselves, why dish it out to others? Karenjc 18:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The other side of the coin is that if a person's odour is very offensive to others, and particularly if they're not aware of it, then you might have almost a duty to let them know. I don't see the anti-discrimination laws requiring anyone to have to put up with nauseating smells in their workplace. It becomes an occupational health and safety issue in that context. If it's not a workplace, there's still the social dimension to consider. And maybe they're suffering from some condition they don't know they have, so it could be a medical issue. It's always hard to raise such matters with the person concerned, but in such circumstances someone may have to bite the bullet. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fox Hunting Toffs

I see from the above that Major Bonkers and Clio both favour fox hunting (Tony Blair, 19 April). Is this view widespread among the English, or is it only among the toffs/upper class? Sassoon II (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The links and references in Fox hunting that pertain to the UK should help you. Broadly speaking, MPs from the right representing areas where the upper classes traditionally engage in fox hunting voted against the ban, while left-leaning MPs from urban areas voted for. However, that's a pretty crass simplification. Actual public opinion on something like this is pretty damn hard to quantify without a full scale referendum. Blair supported a compromise that would have allowed hunting with dogs in a limited, licensed form, but the full ban was pushed through despite being rejected by the House of Lords. Deiz talk 11:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In my neck of the woods, hunting - or, at least, large groups of toffs riding out in neat attire - is also popular with the plebs. But it's a fairly feudal part of the country populated by people with limited horizons. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't tend to get polled that often these days, but reading old articles that feature poll results give an interesting view. For example this article from 2000 showing how opinion varied but was generally negative about things remaining as they were. Fox hunting was banned because the majority wanted it banned. As suggested by Deiz, it's not quite an upper/lower thing, although there is certainly a class element (think of how long bear baiting and cock fighting have been banned and compare). There is also a country/town element, to some extent. But none of it is straight forward. In the most general terms though, yes it's a view mostly held by those who either took part or liked to think they might take part some day, and that tends to be the upper classes and those who think they could get into them. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The country/town element is probably more important than 79.66.99.37 suggests. There is a perception in rural communities that they are under threat from the towns, with shops, pubs, post offices and schools disappearing from villages for economic reasons, and public transport sparse and expensive. Changes in farming have cut employment opportunities in the countryside, and house prices and the increase in the ownership of second homes mean younger people are unable to afford a home locally and must move away. All this has led to a siege mentality in some rural areas, and pro-hunting campaigners linked their cause with that of rural communities in general, to form the Countryside Alliance. Hunting and its associated activities, it is argued, provide economic activity in areas which are struggling and under-resourced, and is part of a "country" way of life for all rural people. It's true that hunting is not a "toffs-only" activity: several of my childhood friends hunted regularly, as did the local great and good, but hunt supporters also included the local postman and the old guy who cut the grass in the churchyard each week. Keeping hunting horses is an expensive proposition, though, and the whole social thing surrounding hunting is definitely for the upwardly-mobile or those who've already arrived..

To give you an example, the 2002 Countryside March [15] was billed as a march for "Liberty and Livelihood" in the coutryside in general, but grew out of the pro-hunting campaign. And the slogan adopted by the campaigners: "Fight Prejudice - Fight the Ban" [16] suggests bigoted town-dwellers passing judgement on matters of which they know nothing. I can't offer you references, just anecdotal evidence, but I do recall seeing 2002 marchers interviewed who stated that they personally did not support hunting, but were marching over other threats to rural life. The various rural causes, including the case for hunting, have been so thoroughly entwined that it is difficult to consider them in isolation. Karenjc 17:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I first rode to hounds when I was twelve-years-old and I have absolutely adored the experience over the years! I've met all sorts of lovely people, but I particularly like the feudal types, those with the narrowest of horizons. I'm in complete agreement with Mrs Miniver: there is nothing as delightful as a crusty old English colonel! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

When you say you "rode to hounds" you mean you hunted foxes. Yes, I know "riding to hounds" is the term used, but it is essentially a pompous euphemism. And I'm sure it was of great comfort to the fox, as it was torn limb from limb by a pack of baying dogs, that a twelve-year-old girl "absolutely adored the experience." --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Plutarch noted Bion's aphrorism: little boys throw stones at frogs for sport, but the frogs die in earnest" - Nunh-huh 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And the ban has not worked in the slightest.And a lot of working class people depend upon local hunts for their living.hotclaws 07:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

130.88.140.123 (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And how can anyone like 'feudal types, those with the narrowest of horizons'? Maybe it is funny to meet one of these once, but regularly?217.168.3.246 (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Their horizons may be narrow, but they do not lack depth. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Julia Rossi (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Were you 'blooded' on your first hunt, Clio?Sassoon II (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was. However, for fear of upsetting more sensitive souls I think it time for me to move on. After all; there are other quarries to chase! Tally-ho! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm completely insensitive, though. I think that the answer to your question is that fox-hunting is not, nowadays, a past-time defined particularly by class but by a rural identification or state of mind. Before the war, when the pattern of landowning was based on great estates with tenant farmers, the landlord could require his tenants to allow the hunt access. That pattern has now (more-or-less) changed; the 'great estates' being owned by the National Trust or farming companies, such as the Co-op; ironically, both these organisations require their tenants not to allow hunting over their land.

Nowadays, a hunt could not survive without the active acquiescence, at least, of the farmers over whose land it hunts; they could simply refuse access to their land, which in turn might make surrounding land untenable to hunt over. As an aside, I remember when I took myself off stag-hunting over Dartmoor, and I was surprised to see a whole load of people on scrambler motorcycles following the hunt; they, of course, didn't bother with the formalities of bowler hat, ratcatcher coat, and butcher boots, but I daresay that they had just as much fun as those who had gone to the additional expense of outfitting themselves 'properly'. Incidentally, hunting down in that part of the world is almost universally popular, across all classes of people - it's almost a religion.

Regarding the specifics of the hunt ban in England and Wales, it was, firstly, a rather spiteful measure, at odds with the English political tradition of tolerance and, secondly, the issue was raised, having long been resisted by Tony Blair, as a diversion when his Iraq policy was coming under attack from within his own party. There's a good newspaper article on the subject: The death of the hunt will be Blair's memorial. --Major Bonkers (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Abdication Crisis of 1936

Hello. Did Baldwin ever give serious thought to the possibility of a morganatic marriage between Edward and Wallis Simpson? What were the arguments against such an arrangement?217.42.101.16 (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes he did, according to both our articles on Wallis Simpson and the Edward VIII abdication crisis. Our articles aren't clear on the reasons against, however, only suggesting that there was no precedent in British history. The BBC says [Baldwin] would have had to [create new legislation] to make a morganatic marriage happen, but not why he, his cabinet and the governments of the dominions refused to do so. It seems it was considered a moral question, not just one of simple legal possibilities. WikiJedits (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Members of the royal family cannot enter a legally valid marriage without the monarch's consent, but Edward VIII, being the monarch, could have given himself consent to marry whomseover he pleased. What stopped him being bloody-minded about it and just marrying Wallis, and to hell with what Baldwin thought about it? That would have been a legal marriage, and the entire question of morganacity (?) would have been avoided. Was it just public opinion that stopped him from doing this? If so, why didn't what the public would probably have thought of an abdication stop him from abdicating? -- JackofOz (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The article Morganatic marriage#The United Kingdom contains a reference to a book by AJP Taylor which may shed some light on why the idea was rejected. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

He couldn't. If he'd married Wallis, Baldwin would've resigned, causing a constitutional crisis. Baldwin consulted with the Leader of the Opposition who agreed not to form a government if Baldwin resigned. Furthermore, the dominions (the countries of the Commonwealth, as they were then called) sent back unanimous objection to any marriage. The pressure on the monarch and indeed the monarchy from the government and dominions made it impossible for him to say "to hell with them". PeterSymonds | talk 18:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the objections, by both the UK and the Dominions. However they were not objections about the legality of any such marriage. What if Edward had said "You're bluffing and I'm going to call your bluff by marrying Wallis as soon as it can possibly be arranged"? Would the UK really have been left politically rudderless for any significant period? That would have painted the politicians as even more bloody-minded than Edward. Surely someone would have put their hand up and said to the king "Sire, since Baldwin and the Leader of the Opposition have refused to form a government, I am your man". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Baldwin, 217, was a very cautious man, taking advice at almost every stage as the 'King's Great Matter' progressed. He came to rely, in particular, on Sir Donald Somervell, the Attorney-General, as well as Sir John Simon, the Home Secretary and a former Attorney-General. Somervell took the view that it would be unconstitutional for the monarch to marry contrary to the advice of his ministers. It would effectively turn the English constitution backwards, to the situation prevailing prior to the Glorious Revolution in 1688, which placed firm limits on the prerogative powers of the monarchy.

On the possible morganatic solution Edward initially treated this with distaste, though finally agreeing that it be worth trying as a way of keeping him on the throne, with his wife without the position of Queen but with a title, such as the Duchess of Cornwall. When the proposal was put to Baldwin he was non-committal, but agreed to refer it to the Cabinet. But he remained unconvinced. Somervell confirmed that the whole thing was quite hopeless, telling the Prime Minister what he already knew, that 'the wife of the King is Queen’, and that it would require an Act of Parliament to prevent such a result. It would, Somervell said, be an odd Act, which, if honest, would have to start;

Whereas the wife of the King is Queen and whereas the present King desires to marry a woman unfit to be Queen, Be it hereby enacted etc. etc.

The matter was placed before the Cabinet, as Baldwin promised, but was greeted without enthusiasm, most feeling, as Neville Chamberlain noted in his Diary, that it would simply be the prelude to making Wallis Queen. In the end Edward was told that the proposal was impossible.

I simply cannot conceive of any situation in which Edward would have married unilaterally. Even he, limited as his intellect was, would have been aware that the constitutional crisis that would have followed may have come close to destroying the monarchy itself, or at least forcing on him the same fate as that of James II. Yes, there probably would have been those who would have supported the King in all circumstances, not a political outcome, I think, that would have settled well with most British people. If he wanted to marry Wallis he had to abdicate; there was no other way. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is really fascinating, Clio. So this gives us the rather odd situation that members of the Royal Family need only the monarch's permission to marry, but when the monarch him/herself wants to marry, he/she needs the unanimous permission of the Prime Ministers of 16 separate realms. It would take only one objection, eg. the PM of Zambia, to put an end to such plans. How interesting. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I merely lay out the facts, Jack, as presented by history. I will say, though, that there may be many members of the royal family; there is only one head of state. However, I cannot imagine the political or personal circumstances in which such a case would ever arise again. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Medusa comes to mind but I don't know which body it rightly belongs to.  ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Who'd be King? Poor buggers. 130.88.140.123 (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Last Riding Master

I'm trying to remember the name of the German author who wrote the above collection of stories? He also wrote tales set in the Baltic area, if that is any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.242.98 (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Werner Bergengruen His book is called Der letzte Rittmeister. The last cavalry captain.--Tresckow (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In the original German Bergengruen's book is called Der Letzte Rittmeister, which appeared in its first English translation in 1953 as The Last Captain of Horse: A Portrait of Chivalry. You will find other stories of his Baltic childhood, 86.151, in Der Tod von Reval. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dutch-language book

An acquaintance of mine (who does not speak Dutch) has a Dutch-language book entitled Schetsen, apparently written by someone named J. van Maurik. There doesn't appear to be any publication information in the volume, but the book is several decades old: this acquaintance, who is near retirement age, said that the book was given to his grandfather as a young man. Is anyone familiar with this book? And if so, what is it about? Nyttend (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Schetsen" is Dutch for "sketches". The author, Justus van Maurik jr., (1846-1904) was a Dutch author and cigar maker, who wrote comedies and a lot of short stories. He was also one of the founders of De Amsterdammer, the precursor of De Groene Amsterdammer. Looking him up in the database of the public library in Amsterdam I find several books with the word "schetsen" in the subtitle, most of them collections of short stories about the people of Amsterdam. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you could scan a sample I'll translate a bit. User:Krator (t c) 13:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Roman executions of rulers

Why did Rome kill rulers after it conquered an area? Did Rome see them as being criminals or as having no place or as a threat to the Roman State? For instance when America "conquered" Japan it did not kill of any of its [non-military] rulers although some German rulers were killed on the grounds of war crimes. 71.100.7.78 (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, some Japanese leaders were executed, including Prime Minister Tojo. Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As to "rulers" I was thinking more of the Emperor of Japan than military leaders, although one can certainly argue that a general who is serving in the role of prime minister is not technically a military leader. Rome seemed to include, however, anyone and everyone, civilian, military, and even visitors from foreign "states". 71.100.7.78 (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Military occupation 2,000 years ago was a much more difficult affair than it was after WWII. After the Romans had conquered someone, the economy and populace of the conquered area was still largely intact (although there were a few exceptions, like Carthage). Usually, the only thing there to pacify the population was an army that would be considered small by today's standards. Given the fact that a surviving ruler was an excellent focal point for a revolt, killing the ruler or ruling class was a great way to subdue the conquered area, and to convince them that they had truly been defeated. After WWII, there was little threat of a pro-Tojo or Nazi revolt in the defeated countries, as most of the cities had been destroyed and the countries were under occupation by a huge number of troops. There really wasn't a need to go around wiping out anyone who had had any political authority. (Although, of course some were killed, but mostly for war crimes violations, etc.) As to the question of allowing Hirohito to not just remain alive, but in power, the article on him gives some good answers, such as the wish to have a traditional figurehead to add stability to the new government. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That clarifies the reason for Roman's actions but raises a question about the Japanese in regard to an incident which occurred (in my presence) at the Library of Congress where a Japanese student was studying and seemed very irritated by the presence of Americans as if only he had a right to be there studying. I'm wondering now if the statement by Bix that, "MacArthur's truly extraordinary measures to save Hirohito from trial as a war criminal had a lasting and profoundly distorting impact on Japanese understanding of the lost war." provides the reason behind this student's irritation. 71.100.7.78 (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Returning to your Roman question, 71.100, it is simply not true that native rulers were always killed following conquest. Quite often the Empire was prepared to work with and through local elites; certainly in the more civilised east and even in the 'barbarous' west. Even fairly major enemies, like Caractacus, who headed the resistance to the Roman conquest of Britain, and Zenobia, who tried to lead the Palmyrene Empire to independence, were allowed to live out their lives in comfort after being taken captive to Rome. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio's right (as usual), I shouldn't have given strength to the idea of Romans running around everywhere lopping off heads and crucifying everyone. I was thinking of Vercingetorix, the Jewish revolt, and Carthage, but Rome could also be very accomodating to the conquered peoples, as Clio said, and this pragmatism was one of their strengths as a power. To the Hirohito thing, I don't really understand the "profoundly distorting impact" comment. Was the writer saying that the Japanese saw this as a sort of American concession to Japan? AlexiusHoratius (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have only that one event at the LOC to go by. Otherwise as far as I know the Japanese seem quit happy to pursue scientific endeavors and studies like Hirohito who had a deep interest in marine biology. My presence at the library was temporary and only to take a few notes and look up several references so the event may not have repeated had my stay been longer but I can never know. While the Japanese seem to be into mechanisms and autonomy of robots my interest was in simulating human thought so unless someone sensed me as competition there should have been no basis for conflict. I will never know. As for MacAuthor's actions being interpreted as a concession, yes, I think they could have said to the Japanese people that they were blameless for the war, had no choice but to support the war effort and that all blame was on Tojo. On the other hand most Japanese seemed to openly adopt the artifacts of American culture like baseball after the war which suggests the opposite and that they did in fact see themselves as a conquered but saved people. With all the American troops there and lots of restrictions who really knows but the Japanese? 71.100.7.78 (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The conquest of Gaul was accompanied by so much wholesale slaughter, freely admitted to by Caesar in his Gallic Wars, that we would certainly consider him a war criminal and probably a perpetrator of genocide; a bit like one of the great biblical heroes. --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, it depended on how much the Romans were pissed off by the ruler in question, and what political benefits the individual who defeated the ruler could gain from appearing either magnanimous or ruthless. Jugurtha is a case in point, and probably the classic case of a ruler "executed" by Rome for almost certainly trumped-up crimes - and actually because the crimes of the Senate in collaborating with Jugurtha could only be excised by executing the man.

About Caesar and his behaviour in Gaul, its important to remember that many even at the time considered it excessive; some of it was genuine repugnance at what was believed to be unnecessary brutality; some of it was jealousy that Caesar had benefited so much from the revenues accruing from the sale of of a large fraction of an entire people; some of it was concern for what the importation of vast numbers of slaves was doing to the basis of the Italian rural economy. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by following links beginning with Jugurtha it becomes somewhat clear that Rome operated on a case by case basis rather than having a general policy or rule other than a consensus that a conquered ruler was the friend or enemy of Rome. 71.100.7.78 (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A French alternative to Sartre

Was there an existential alternative in France to Sartre's radical athieism? Steerforth (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was Gabriel Marcel! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Iris Murdoch

How did Iris Murdoch approach existential issues? Steerforth (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Iris Murdoch's approach is clearly laid out in Sartre: the Romantic Rationalist and in the essays collected in Existentialists and Mystics. Beyond that you should also dip into her novels, many of which have existential themes. For instance in The Black Prince, written from the point of view of a man condemned to death, the author engages in a sustained dialogue with Albert Camus's The Outsider. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Gordon riots

In his introduction to the Penguin Classics edition of A Tale of Two Cities, George Woodcock says, "[Dickens] preached that we must not allow society to take on the condition of frustrated anger in which men become mobs and the world is violently upturned. Once, during the Gordon riots, England had known such a peril." What were the Gordon riots? Corvus cornix_talk 20:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Riots. Dickens weaved much of Barnaby Rudge: A Tale of the Riots of 'Eighty around them - well worth the read. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I should have known we'd have an article. Thanks.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 20:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent Bills/Issues in the German Parliament (Bundestag)

I need to know about recent issues in the German Bundestag since the past German election and if any bills were passed to deal with them. If any bills were passed I also would like to see which party voted for what. I cannot find any good sources of information for this. BlackDiamonds (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you looking for that isn't on their website http://www.bundestag.de/ (especially in the documents section that has speakers' notes, studies, votes, and such)? -- kainaw™ 22:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

more specifically here. this site mentions laws, parliamentary requests for information, reports, etc: [17]--Tresckow (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all in German though. I do have quite a bit of understanding of the German Language, however I would like to have something in English, just to make sure I understand it properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackDiamonds (talk • contribs) 23:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

James, Viscount Severn's godparents

According to the James, Viscount Severn article, "James's five godparents were Denise Poulton, Jeanye Irwin, Alastair Bruce, Duncan Bullivant and Tom Hill". Who are these people? Corvus cornix_talk 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Duncan Bullivant - most likely the head of Henderson Risk, mercenaries in Iraq & suchlike. [18]. Ex-army, and possibly in 1998 a member of staff of the International High Representative in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Carlos Westendorp. Evidently media savvy [19] [20] --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Alistair Bruce, a Scots Guard Falklands veteran who taught Sophie to windsurf more than a decade ago and became a firm friend [21]
• Jeanye Irwin, Sophie's former flatmate, an American. [22]

Related question: how do you pronounce Jeanye? Gwinva (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

like genie--Wetman (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 17:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

April 24

Pursuit of happiness OR happiness

Instead 'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' wouldn't it be much more logical to say: 'Life, liberty and happiness'?217.168.3.246 (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The passage deals with inalienable rights. Happiness is not a right that can be bestowed / preserved. Government can merely guarantee the right to pursue it. So, no, the original version is more logical. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Is life a right that can be bestowed/preserved?217.168.3.246 (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The original form, whatever its other merits, has a simple poetic resonance which your amended version does not. Yes, a constitution can guarantee that life will not be taken, other than by due process of law; it can even guarantee liberty, but it cannot guarantee happiness! How could it? Indeed, how could it even define happiness, which, by its very nature, differs from case to case? It can only permit the circumstances in which individual happiness becomes a realisable goal. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, I believe an earlier version of the declaration read "life, liberty, and property." Wrad (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It was John Locke who first used that phrase Wrad, but Jefferson changed it a bit so it was not so economic in its outlook. I must say I rather its poetic simplicity -- its more memorable and inspiring that way. Zidel333 (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't an early draft use Locke's wording, though? Wrad (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This site looks legitimate enough, and discusses the topic of property vs. pursuit of happiness about a third of the way down the page. Our Wikipedia article on the D of I says that Franklin changed it, but there is a citation needed tag on it, so who knows. For what it's worth, Locke's wording appears in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, although in a somewhat different context. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have interpreted 'happiness' here as something like 'dignity' or a 'meaningful life' not just personally 'feeling happy'. In other declarations of rights this 'happiness' turns to be 'security of person', 'integrity', 'prosperity'. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In the film The pursuit of happyness (sic), it means even the pursuit of money. But this is not the point. Happiness was left undefined. Would it have been precisely defined, it would have infringed your right to liberty. As Clio pointed out above, happiness is a quite subjective concept. You can choose what makes you happy. Another difference is that the word pursuit implies that you (yes, you) have to actively strive for it, it is not something that you are entitle to. It contrasts with your right to life and freedom, both them inalienable, no matter how passive you are. SaltnVinegar (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Although inspired by Locke in a general way, Jefferson's immediate source for the phrase was George Mason's first draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which read:

That all men are created equally free & independent, & have certain inherent natural Rights, of which they cannot, by any Compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the Enjoyment of Life & Liberty, with the Means of acquiring & possessing property, & pursuing & obtaining Happiness & Safety. [23]

Jefferson transformed Mason's verbosity into a more concise and memorable phrase, although the idea is perhaps clearer in Mason's longer version. By the way, Jefferson's original version of the passage, before his editors went to work on it, was probably this:

We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness.

—Kevin Myers 03:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I find these to be exceptionally good answers. What bothers me is knowing that there are people who for want of them would change the wording to accommodate their own misunderstanding and lack of appreciation for the nuances, which centuries of legal cases have allowed the rest to appreciate. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

First existentialist author

Or equivalent. Who was s/he? 217.168.3.246 (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Existentialism? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Moses, the legendary author of the Genesis, implies that Adam and Eve, by eating from the Tree of Knowledge, were early practitioners of existentialism. Of course, the remainder of his magnum opus is less than existentialist, though the book of Job, probably by the same author, has a certain nihilistic flavour. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Indian Service

Was finishing off a stub on Henry John Carter, and came across the phrase "on Her Majesty's Indian Service". I tentatively piped a link to Honourable East India Company, but was wondering if this was correct? I wonder if an article on Bombay Establishment (search for the term on Google) would help? See William Cornwallis Harris for another example. I checked Honourable East India Company, and it says: "Following the 1857 insurrection, known to the British as the "Great Mutiny" but to Indians as the "First War of Independence", the Company was nationalised by the Government in London to which it lost all its administrative functions and all of its Indian possessions - including its armed forces - were taken over by the Crown." So it seems it was nationalised at that point. Anyone want to say more about what "Her Majesty's Indian Service" means? At what point did the East India Company become the British Raj? Carcharoth (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As the British Raj article states, 1858. I'd presume that Her Majesty's Indian Service is the 1858+ administration in India. Given the dates of Carter's publications, he was in India prior to the switchover from the company to the government. (sorry about the brevity of the response - not being dismissive of your question, just, er, should be working IRL). --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The term "Bombay Establishment" seems quite, um, established, and predated the switchover. Seems to be a combination of a military and company term. For example, from A Glossary of Colloquial Anglo-Indian Words and Phrases: Hobson-Jobson, we have: "Every native of India on the Bombay Establishment, who can..." here. And "I was appointed a Writer on the Bombay Establishment in the Year 1789, and after that filled several subordinate Situations in the Revenue Line. I was afterwards Private Secretary to Mr. Duncan, when he was Governor of Bombay. After that I filled the Appointments successively of Commissioner in Malabar; Chief Secretary to the Government of Bombay; Principal Collector of Malabar, for, I think, about Two Years; and, finally, a Member of the Government of Bombay, which I left in 1811; and since that I have not been in India." [24]. And, from the Transactions of the Medical and Physical Society of Calcutta (1829), we have a list of members and their locations/stations: "Bombay Establishment", "Bengal Establishment", "Assistant Surgeon, His Majesty's Service", "Madras Establishment", "H.M.S.", "His Majesty's <insert army regiment name>", or in some cases, just a city name, such as "Calcutta", "Bengal", and so on. [25] Most though, are "X Establishment", so I was wondering what people can say about all this? BTW, the first article, about "Lettuce Opium", is fascinating! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look also, Carcharoth, at the Government of India Act 1858. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. More specific question above. Carcharoth (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I also found Pitt's India Act, which might be relevant to how the administration of the company worked. Another interesting link is here (1857, A Brief Political and Military Analysis, Maj (Retd) AGHA HUMAYUN AMIN - from the Defence Journal). And (slightly off topic, but copying here for future reference): [26] (The Royal Society and the Empire: The Colonial and Commonwealth Fellowship. Part 1. 1731-1847, R. W. Home, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Sep., 2002), pp. 307-332). This question of "Establishments" may also be related to the "Presidencies" - see Presidencies of British India. Other colonial administrative units included Agencies of British India, and other subdivisions (see Category:Subdivisions of British India) were Cantonments, Districts, Divisions, Provinces and Residencies. Hardly surprising, as it was a large administration. Still not quite sure where the term "Establishment" comes from, and whether that was an official subdivision or whether it referred to the original establishments. Hopefully someone here will be able to add some more on this? Carcharoth (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Found this (from London Medical Gazette in June 1848) describing the medical set-up in India, with the medical personnel of the East India Company divided into three "establishments". A rather shocking tale of "Musselmen" and "savage natives" and more, in that link as well! Also, from here, we have "The East India Company (London establishment): an early domiciliary industrial medical service." Seems like "establishment" is a bit like "branch", as in different branches and divisions of a company. Definitely a formal type of subdivision, but still not quite precisely defined. Carcharoth (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Slightly more. From Honourable East India Company: "The major factories became the walled forts of Fort William in Bengal, Fort St George in Madras and the Bombay Castle." I'm satisfied that this point (from the 1600s) is what led to the later terms of "Bengal Establishment", "Madras Establishment" and "Bombay Establishment", though quite what the term meant to people in India and Britain at the time, I'm still not 100% clear. Honourable East India Company#Regulation of the company's affairs gives some idea of the succession of Acts passed. It seems by 1813, the company was effectively ended as an independent entity, though the formal dissolution did not come until as late as 1874 with the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act. Interesting. Carcharoth (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It also seems like "establishment" is geographical, so it's between a reservation and a city, between a compound and a district. I hate to do this, but it sounds a bit like Green Zone developed into a city-within-a-city and, at the same time, a commercial/financial distinction, like "Bombay office." Utgard Loki (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The EICo originally set up factories - not what we understand from the term today, but fortified trading "establishments". When these were expanded, each had an individual administration and set of services, both civil (the so-called "writers") and military. Over time, these came to be capitalised when they referred to those establishments that were the seats of Governors - Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta. (As opposed to, for example, Kidderpore or Barrackpore or Surat or Ahmednagar, which also had "establishments" which were not capitalised.) "On the X Establishment" thus meant that you were paid and took orders from X centre of power. This system persists today in the Indian military's set of Commands - the phrase "on the Western Establishment" is still sometimes heard. Following the centralisation of revenue, recruitment and payscales in the late nineteenth the phrase became less common. Bombay is a special case because being "On the Establishment" meant both being in service and answering to the Governor of Bombay, and also sometimes meant geographically close to the Fort. (Bombay's fort, unlike Calcutta and Madras', did not have a name, as it was founded by the Portuguese who presumably named it for a saint that the CofE didn't much like.) By the 19th c, its best to think of the Establishment as basically the administrative and military service attached to a particular Presidency. For various reasons of tradition and hypocrisy, it wasn't considered appropriate to call it a colonial government until the full panoply of the Raj was unveiled by Disraeli & co; the Company preferred to pretend always that it was holding land in obligation to nominal overlords - in Bengal, for example, it held the Diwani from the Mughals and paid them nominal tribute.

Carcharoth, feel free to copy the above to the relevant article talkpage if it helps. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all. Copied to Talk:Henry John Carter. Carcharoth (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticising Wittgenstein

In the Tractatus Wittgenstein said that he had offered a solution to all of the problems of philosophy. On the basis of the text what criticism can be offered of this assertion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet Eldridge (talk • contribs) 13:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wittgenstein returned to philosophy several years later that book was published -- which indicates he changed his mind on the matter. Compare Philosophical Invesitgations with the Tractatus for further details. -- llywrch (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to do this as much justice as I can, J.E, but my mind is a little fogged just at present, so please come back to me if you need any further explanation.

In the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Wittgenstein says that the limits of thought are determined by the limits of language. In other words, we cannot go beyond language; for to do so would be to go beyond the limits of logical possibility. Logical propositions, expressed in language, are, according to Wittgenstein, 'pictures of the world.' This means, in effect, that certain things simply cannot be said if they do not correspond to the reality of the world; this means that the Tractatus itself cannot be said; for the various propositions are not pictures of the world!

Wittgenstein, recognising this problem, tried to overcome it by saying that although certain things cannot be said to be true, they can be shown to be true, although he eventually slams the door behind him in his concluding proposition-‘Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent.' Consider the example of God. Wittgenstein says He exists, but He falls into the category of things that cannot be thought about or spoken. So the Tractatus remains, though this is not always fully understood, a blend of logic and mysticism; yes, mysticism.

The objections to the Tractatus go even deeper than that. How do we know that the relation between language and reality is a 'logical form'? Wittgenstein offers no solution to this problem. More than that, the category of things we are not, by his methodology, supposed to talk about, we simply must talk about, if social existence, civilization itself, is to be possible. For instance, we are not supposed to talk about good and evil, or even more basic concepts of right and wrong. Art also falls into the category of the inexpressible, which means that all forms of aesthetic language are simply nonsense.

In the end the Tractatus might be said to be both brilliant...and arrogant. The author himself eventually exploded the boundaries he had imposed on thought and action. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tractators! Every time I see this thread I think this. Apologies for spewing my mind-vomit. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bishops called Bishop

Have there been any bishops called Bishop (they'd then be Bishop Bishop)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.187.136 (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost assuredly. Bishops aren't all that uncommon, nor is the name. You may also be interested in aptronyms, a closely-related phenomenon. — Lomn 15:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

But have there been any Bishop Godfreys, say? (God-free=atheist.) Along the lines of the Dr Death and Dr Kill mentioned above. Or Bishop Randy Bender. Like Cardinal Sin. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what people called me in elementary school. (I guess that's what passed for humour for Catholic school kids!) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Clifford Leofric Purdy Bishop was the Church of England's suffragan Bishop of Malmesbury from 1962 to 1973. Wandering slightly off the point, there was also Dr Alphaeus Hamilton Zulu, Anglican Bishop of Zululand from 1966 to 1975. Xn4 08:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

On a different though related note, read Catch 22 for a hilarious example. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Russell and Wittgenstein

What specific influence did Bertrand Russell have on Wittgenstein's thinking? Jet Eldridge (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Russell got him admitted into Cambridge, IIRC. -- llywrch (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Russell's, Our Knowledge of the External World, published in 1914, particularly Chapter Two, headed Logic as the Essence of Philosophy. Now compare it with the general scheme of the Tractatus. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn

I assume that Anne Boleyn must have been rehabilitated after Elizabeth I came to the throne. All your article says is that she was venerated as a martyr to the reformation. Nothing more?86.151.240.203 (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

During Henry VIII's reign, Anne's name was silenced after her execution. During Mary I's reign, the silence was broken and her name blackened. During Elizabeth's reign, however, the tide turned in Anne's favour. Although there was little attempt at "rehabilitation" of Anne's reputation, Elizabeth adopted her mother's badge and appointed her mother's former chaplain, Matthew Parker, as her Archbishop of Canterbury. It was rumoured that Elizabeth never spoke of her mother (although this is probably untrue), but she was torn between her strong father (whom she deeply admired) and her nymphomaniac mother, whom she barely knew. It was Protestant apologists that took it upon themselves to concentrate on Anne's "godliness" and praise her contribution to the English Reformation. During the Victorian era, her reputation was looked upon unfavourably by those who concentrated on the strength of Henry VIII, and concluded that Anne's appeal was "to the less refined part of Henry's nature" (DNB, Anne Boleyn); her guilt was accepted because the scholars believed that a monarch like Henry must have had some reason to send her to the block. The first biography concentrating solely on Anne was by Paul Friedmann in 1844. Friedmann emphasised Anne's influence on early Tudor politics, a view which is generally upheld today. Furthermore, the legitimacy of her execution is generally considered to be weak-to-non-existent, and recently there was even an appeal to overturn the charge of guilty! (It was rejected because the case was too old.) Nevertheless, her death was described by the DNB as a result of "cynical realpolitik". PeterSymonds | talk 17:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So, Peter, I see Anne still stands condemned as a 'nymphomaniac', which makes the judgement of 1536 entirely correct; she was an adulteress and a traitor! How very interesting! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Legally, yes. In reality though, most historians cautiously dismiss rumours of adultery. One interpretation is Thomas Cromwell and Lady Rochford fabricating evidence. However, wherever or however they started, they're not generally given credence by historians. PeterSymonds | talk 16:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

86.151, not only did Elizabeth appoint Parker as Archbishop, but she also asked him to trace the papal dispensation for her parent's marriage, which he finally uncovered in 1572. In Parliament Elizabeth had Anne's legal title of Queen restored and her own as heir. The purpose was to vindicate her mother, whom she declared to be 'the most Englishwoman in the Kingdom.' She also had a ring made, which, when opened, revealed a miniature portrait of herself alongside her mother. She even declared that Sir Henry Norris, one of Anne’s co-accused, had 'died in a noble cause and in the justification of her mother's innocence. His son was created Lord Rycote. Anne's personal chaplain, one William Latimer, wrote an account of her death for the Queen, blaming it on her Catholic and Imperial enemies.

You will find all of this information, and more, in Anne Boleyn by Joanna Denny (2004). Clio the Muse (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

diplomatic immunity

Does diplomatic immunity violates the rights of the person and is it unjustified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a matter of debate. Read Diplomatic immunity and see what you think. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This question was asked and answered last week, I think. If anyone knows how to search the Archives, a link might be useful here. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOAP. -- Kesh (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

natural resources of Canada

What are natural resources of Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

See the article "Canada", especially Canada#Economy, also "Economy of Canada", especially Economy of Canada#Economic sectors. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

news article

Is there any news article related to microeconomics and macroeconomics that were published from November 2007 to present on Toronto Star, Globe and Mail and National Post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not as far as I can tell. I used a couple of different large archives and searched on either term in that date range. The Toronto Star has what looks like a good search thingie, by the way. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The articles you are looking for may not use the terms "micro" and "macro". They may describe, and you may be better off searching for, inflation, unemployment, interest rates, pay negotiations, etc. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Execution of Marie Antionette

Obviously the execution of Louis XVI did not pass unnoticed but what about that of Marie Antionette? Was there any reaction? Anne Fairfax (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Very much so. I was just re-reading Linda Colley's Britons - it's an awfully good book - and it has rather an interesting discussion of reactions to the execution in Britain. Mary Wollstonecraft is quoted:

The sanctuary of repose, the asylum of care and fatigue, the chaste temple of a woman, I consider the Queen only as one, the apartment where she consigns her senses to the bosom of sleep, folder in it's arms forgetful of the world, was violated with murderous fury.

Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire, wrote: "The impression of the Queen's death is constantly before my eyes". Horace Walpole: "The Queen of France is never for three minutes out of my head". Regarding the incest stories, Hannah More: "It is so diabolical, that if they had studied an invention on purpose to whitewash her from every charge, they could not have done it more effectively." Colley herself writes: "Massively and gruesomely publicised in British conservative propaganda, the fate of Marie-Antoinette and her family seems genuinely to have appalled many women, encouraging them to see war with France as a cause in which their own welfare and status were peculiarly involved." (Quotations from Colley, pp. 255–256) Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC) [P.S. Clio will be along with a much better answer later on.]

I've nothing to add, Angus, other than to endorse your recommendation of Colley (besides, I've got a beastly cold!) Clio the Muse (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to add? What about Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France:

It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the Queen of France, then the Dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she just began to move in, — glittering like the morning star full of life and splendour and joy... Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon her in a nation of gallant men, — in a nation of men of honour and of cavaliers. I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded.

The Reflections led directly to Thomas Paine's Rights of Man and Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Men. As the French revolution degenerated into The Terror and subsequent European war, Burke was proven correct in his analysis that the revolution was not simply a quiet reordering of the constitution. Sorry about the cold, Clio! --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the most memorable passages, Major, from an important and memorable book. Remember, though, that it was published in 1790. Burke is in fact referring to the indignities that the Queen had suffered at the hands of the mob, particularly during March of the Women in October 1789. Her execution came in October 1793. I think if Burke was writing about that particular outrage his pen would have been a lot more acerbic: for if the age of chivalry was dead, the age of barbarism had been born. (Feeling a little better now, thanks!) Clio the Muse (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add a bit of nuance here: not everyone was so overwrought. That memorable Burke passage was endlessly parodied at the time, in fact. Peter Pindar wrote a rather vicious couple of poems that caught the note of hysteria perfectly. Conversely, not everyone in France or in revolutionary circles was pleased; some had considerable sympathy for the manner in which the Widow Capet had conducted herself, and Robespierre was furious when he was told of the incest accusation, calling it "brutish", and saying that Hébert was a "blockhead". The version of events at the trial, however - of Marie Antoinette the ceaseless adulterer - became largely the dominant image of her throughout the years that followed, whatever the reaction to her trial and execution. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Of all the things one could say about Hébert, that foul-minded pornographer, 'blockhead' seems altogether too mild. He was the Julius Streicher of the French Revolution, just as Le Père Duchesne was its Der Stürmer. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Hébert, the first tabloid editor. He is actually being increasingly studied now; his views on public expression and the duty of the press, for example, were considerably in ahead of their time, as was his support of progressive income taxation and grain prices set by a central authority with a trading monopoly. Le Pere Duchesne was the main organ of anti-clericism above all, and if the public secularism of France is traced back to the Revolution, he personally bears a lot of the credit (or blame). Clio's Streicher comparison, Ms. Fairfax, is illustrative of the power of the Revolution to divide onlookers even today. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The name al-Tustari

I have seen both Jewish and Arabic personages from throughout history with this name. However, I cannot tell if this is indeed a surname or a title. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say its a title; "al" means "the", and jewish last names around that period would've been ben-whatever (literally son of...). Ironholds (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The "ben-X" where "X" is the father's name is better considered a patronymic rather than a surname at a time when the latter weren't in common use. Adam's suggestion (below & subsequently confirmed) is a good example of how a moniker indicating place of origin or perhaps profession became associated with an individual. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

...or the parents may have been Reform Jews or entirely secular, and given their son an unrelated Hebrew name or none at all. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless he's from a place called "Tustar"... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually Adam is right. I looked around on google books and found a book on Karaite Jewish history that explains this family of Jews were originally from Tustar in Persia. They eventually migrated to Egypt and became intertwined with Fatimid politics. In fact, they became so powerful that the leading members were assassinated. Abraham al-Tustari was actually the former owner of caliph Al Mustansir's mother, who was a black slave. He had originally gifted her to Caliph Ali az-Zahir. Abraham served as the mother's adviser until his murder.

I'm assuming the Arabs with the name came from the same region.--Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Philosopher of power

Is it correct to describe Michael Foucault as a philosopher of power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steerforth (talk • contribs) 18:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it has been said that Discipline and Punish brought Nietzsche to the aid of Marx-can you believe this?. I suppose I can. The argument is that as Marx had explored the relations of production, so Foucault explored the 'relations of power.' In focusing on the development of the penitentiary-and modern forms of punishment-he explores the evolution in techniques of power and control that may be made to serve more than one political and social interest. Putting another way, the techniques of power, the forms of coercion and supervision used, transcend the ideological complexion of any given regime. You will find the same practices in Democracy, in Fascism and in Communism. It is the seeming neutrality and political invisibility of the techniques of power is what makes them dangerous. So, yes, I suppose he is a 'philosopher of power', but he is so much more than that. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

All of Foucault comes down to different types of power, if you look at it in a very reductionistic fashion. I don't think it's a horrible description of him and his interests. --140.247.10.41 (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair or not, that term has been applied to him. It's a way of distinguishing New Historicism from cultural history and showing how his concerns differ markedly from those establishing culture for its own sake. It is, as the IP above said, very reductive, but all short hand epithets are. Utgard Loki (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

April 25

belly button

Hi i was just wondering, how come some people's navels r ticklish? im wondering this because some people claim it hurts when u poke them there.Jwking (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how this fits under "humanities" but anyway... I would venture a SWAG that the belly button probably has quite a few nerves in the general vicinity due to the fact that the umbilical cord attaches there during gestation. With all those nerves, ticklishness and pain are no surprise. Dismas|^(talk) 04:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Humanities = "traits of human nature" (OED)? Anyway it seems to me there is a significant difference between tickling someone and poking them in the belly button. Trust and friendship normally precede such acts of intimacy, otherwise people who are happily ticklish with their loved ones may well experience discomfort on being poked by you.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If it hurts, you're overdoing things. My guess is someone will likely deck you, so take notice when they're being polite and only saying that it hurts. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Study abroad scholarships

A while ago I heard about a monastery in Europe where scholars can apply to live for a year. If you get it you get room and board and can work on whatever you want in peace for a year (sort of like a Rhodes Scholarship or Fulbright I guess). Any idea where/what this program is?

Another similar but unconnected question: Are there any scholarships to live/study in Jerusalem (non religious scholarships that is)? Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Until someone who knows arrives, and since the categories for monasteries, Greece, Spain, Belgium etc sub cats Cistercian, Benedictine etc are an infinity, I'd get in touch with leading music schools or go to an arts portal for the answers to musician in residence type leads. Fellowship gets better hits than scholarship as you've probably found since scholarship+monastery are a dyad of their own. Good luck, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This website might be of help. WikiJedits (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there a religious establishment in Britain that does the same thing? Scholars had to sign up to relatively few rules, but one of them was not to write anything that would undermine the Church of England - -that counts out a lot of people! BrainyBabe (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Erasmus in Spain

was the work of the humanist Erasmus greeted with as much initial enthsiasim in Spain as it was in northern Europe? Was it perhaps seen as a challenge to Catholic orthodxy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.98.155 (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There were certainly some who welcomed the work of Erasmus but the general reception was muted. The clergy were particularly resentful of his attacks on the mendicant friars. Under pressure from the religious orders, the Grand Inquisitor, Alonso Manrique de Lara, held a debate in Valladolid in March 1527 to decide if Erasmus' writings were heretical or not. The conference was suspended without decision, which was taken for a victory for the Erasmians. The following December King Charles wrote to him, assuring him that his honour and reputation 'would always be held in great esteem'

It was not to be. In 1559, the year following the death of Charles, some sixteen of Erasmus' publications were placed on the first Spanish-produced Index of forbidden books, including the Enchiridion. By this time the Inquisition had a hold on most aspects of Spanish intellectual life. The reaction against Erasmus, and Humanism in general, was one of the features of the ideological crisis that beset Spain in the second half of the sixteenth century. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I read this as "Erasmus in Spam", wrote he was very unwelcome indeed , then saw my mistake,*facepalm* ..hotclaws 11:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Red Hat society?

What is the Red Hat society? What are their aims? What do they stand for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quidom (talk • contribs) 09:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

They are a sinister organisation attempting to infiltrate Western society in order to ensure its collapse by undermining it from within... No, wait, that's another sort of red... Here is the Red Hat Society's own web page. SaundersW (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

and the Wikipedia article: Red Hat Society WikiJedits (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to be confused with The Red-Headed League. --Major Bonkers (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And here I thought they were a political front for propagation of Red Hat Linux. Corvus cornix_talk 17:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Socializing across social classes

How do different social classes socialize? For example, in America different social classes meet through sport activities (like baseball) or a pub but perhaps go to different colleges and restaurants. I would like to learn more systematically how it works (especially in America and Europe). 217.168.1.182 (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We can't say there's a system, people get to know each other all over the place, on trains, at work, goodness knows where. Supermarkets and libraries can be full of those moments of possibility. Xn4 22:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I do believe there is some sort of system. Libraries are inherently public and open, so different people get to know each other there. Fine restaurants and first-class trains on the other hand are not open. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Returning to fox hunting, if I may, that is where I have met the greatest cross-section of people from different classes and backgrounds. In my experience not an awful lot of socialising goes on in libraries...or in supermarkets! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What kind of classes do you find in fox hunting? I expected only to find upper-middle class ãnd upward. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. Please glance over the points made in the fox-hunting thread above. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

← Social class is such a fluid concept, I don't see how we can generalize in this way. People meet in all different ways, for different purposes. -- Kesh (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Partly because in the UK one of the things that goes into what class someone is is how they socialise. It is indeed a fluid concept. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

For those who go to church, churches are often places to meet people from a wide range of backgrounds. If someone lives in an area with a good comprehensive schooling system and few desirable private schools, school can be a place for mixing across class barriers. The Post Office queue is another. If the young members of the higher middle classes take menial holiday jobs that can also be a time of mixing with difference classes, although not necessarily representative slices of the various classes.

If fox hunting is where Clio has met the greatest cross-section of people from different classes and backgrounds, I think that says more about Clio's life than about fox hunting itself. Seriously, if the impression she has given in her answers and user page is accurate, I would regard her comment above as accurate but not necessarily indicating that fox hunting attracts a wide range of classes and backgrounds. She went to a private boarding school, I doubt she's taken menial holiday jobs, and it sounds like her churchy experience is generally high Anglican to anglo-Catholic. Universities, particularly the sort of university I imagine Clio is at, tend not to carry the full range of classes in a representative manner (I was shocked when I started at the number of people I met who went to what I think of as 'weird schools'. Rarely do I meet a fellow product of a state comprehensive). Where else is Clio going to meet people who aren't like her? And thus we see the relevance of the original question.

I'm afraid I've just realised this has come across as a little personal and attack-y. I really don't mean it like that, but as a way of understanding what has been said in this thread and approaching an answer to the question (for the UK). But I'm tired, and so possibly not exercising good judgement. Feel free to delete anything about Clio from this post. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha-ha-ha! I certainly went to a weird school, that much is true! [27] We are the best, so screw the rest! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Answering your question: "Where else is Clio going to meet people who aren't like her?" In the Wikipedia Ref. Desk.? 217.168.1.161 (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well indeed. And if we all met up over drinks (or possibly tea and cake) to discuss what was up in our lives, I'm sure it would be fascinating. I'm not sure how well our current activities approximate socialising :) But in other ways we are all quite similar here on the desks, all sharing a love of learning for its own sake. But that isn't linked too strongly to social class. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I recommend Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour (Hodder and Stoughton, 2004) by social anthropologist Kate Fox. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Buying drugs, the classes really mix there.I'm being serious....hotclaws 11:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not in South Ken, Hotclaws, not in my experience, anyway! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy

I am trying to establish which philospher ( Descartes ???) indicated that the mind is similar to a blank piece of paper and that all experiences are imprinted onto the mind. In other words, the mind obtains it's thoughts through the element of experience. I read the article some time ago and cannot recall who the philospher was---can anyone assist me? Thank you in advance.--96.245.70.110 (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

According to tabula rasa (which may have been the article you read) it was Aristotle. SaundersW (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to take a look at John Locke. Deor (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, apparently I and Lord Foppington edited at the same time. Read his comment below. Deor (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Great minds Deor... Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It is sometimes (wrongly) attributed as a creation of John Locke. If the OP was think about modern philosophers like Descartes then perhaps it was he who was being thought of... tabula rasa is more central to Lockean empiricism and ideas of rights than it was to Aristole's philosophy. See An Essay Concerning Human Understanding for more on this, it's a great read too if you're inclined! Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Stalin's blindness

Why was Stalin so reluctant to believe, in the face of all of the evidence, that Hitler was about to launch an attack on the Soviet Union in 1941? John Spencer (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Stalin himself was not reluctant to belive that Hitler would invade the USSR, for he only signed away a partioned Poland to give himself time to build up the Army. He was reluctant to belive however that the invasion was imminent since he was mistrustful of England and The USA. He also did not listen to his front lines when they were first attack and was said to have run around the Kremlin telling nobody to do anything. Stalin was paranoid and possibly schizophrenic, he and Hitler had two such differing ideologies that the conflict was inevitable but Stalin beleived he was always in control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quidom (talk • contribs) 22:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

John, I should like to make it clear that the outset-though I suspect you are as aware of this as I am-that the suggestion that Stalin was 'possibly schizophrenic' is absolute rubbish. As a politician, and as a tactician, he took a highly rational view of events, subjecting everything to precise calculations. He assumed that Hitler took the same rational and calculating view; and therein was his greatest error.

You see, Hitler was, unlike Stalin, a dilettante dictator and a dreamer. But Stalin imbued in him all of his own calculating qualities. After all, a successful invasion of the Soviet Union, with its sprawling frontier and vast army, would require at least a two to one advantage for the attacker, which Hitler did not have. More than that, why would he embark on a two-front war, the very thing that had contributed to the destruction of Germany in the First World War? Why, moreover, would he begin an invasion in mid-summer, which gave him only a few weeks of combat weather? He simply could not entertain the idea that Hitler could undertake an assault against the grain of all military sense. He misjudged Hitler; it's as simple as that. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Stalin know about Hitler's astrologer? Julia Rossi (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a myth, Julia; Hitler did not have an astrologer. He was altogether contemptuous of the practice, and astrologers were among one of the many groups persecuted during the Third Reich. There were, however, some among the leadership prepared to take the practice seriously, either for political ends or out of simple superstition. Heinrich Himmler and Rudolf Hess were most notable amongst the latter. The man who came closest to being the 'court' astrologer was Karl Ernst Krafft, who was arrested in May 1941 following Hess's flight to Scotland, when Hitler, in his fury, ordered a fresh purge of occultists and astrologers of all kinds. Goebbels joked at this time that it was odd that not one amongst the group was able to predict what was about to happen to them! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It was tongue-in-cheek for his "unpredictability" but also a bonus to have the facts on the myth. Thanks, Clio! Julia Rossi (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Julia; your irony escaped me. I thought it was a genuine question. I shall have to stop being so literal-minded! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Christianity and the dead in the middle ages

Hi. I expect some of you have been watching the fascinating series on BBC 4 on aspects of medieval thought and experience. I've become particularly interested in the impact of Christianity, especially in relation to death and the fear of death. I think it possible to say, on the basis of my limited understanding, that Christianity at this time was in many respects a cult of death? It was also based, it might be said, on an ever present struggle between good and evil? Is this a reasonable view? 86.153.161.63 (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no.

In my paltry understanding, Christianity is and always has been a cult of both death and life. The Bible has many lessons on how to live well, but ultimately it is a book for those preparing to die. The central event in the Christian mythos is of course the death of Christ, who met his end, as Nietzsche says, in "exemplary" fashion. Despite the great shame and suffering in cruxifiction, he went to the cross unflinching, dignified, with (near) total acceptance of the proceedings. You may contrast this with a common criminal denying his actions, cursing his persecutors, and in general doing a lot of gnashing and wailing. Jesus may have met his end, but he did so with dignity and grace, which is the best I presume he could have managed back in 0 A.D. Vranak (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that pre-Industrial life was a more tenuous existence than today: everyone living in Medieval times, both the wealthy & powerful & the poor & humble, were well aware that Famine, War & Pestilence were always lurking just around the corner. Death was constantly in mind, & the culture of the time reflected this. (Consider the trope of "The Wheel of Fortune".) The emphasis of Christianity was hope not death -- despite the morbid obsessions of many martyrs' Vitae -- that despite material setback or loss there was a better existence for those who lived a moral life. (Which I admit oversimplifies the message.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A few words on hope:

Hope. Pandora brought the jar with the evils and opened it. It was the gods' gift to man, on the outside a beautiful, enticing gift, called the "lucky jar." Then all the evils, those lively, winged beings, flew out of it. Since that time, they roam around and do harm to men by day and night. One single evil had not yet slipped out of the jar. As Zeus had wished, Pandora slammed the top down and it remained inside. So now man has the lucky jar in his house forever and thinks the world of the treasure. It is at his service; he reaches for it when he fancies it. For he does not know that that jar which Pandora brought was the jar of evils, and he takes the remaining evil for the greatest worldly good--it is hope, for Zeus did not want man to throw his life away, no matter how much the other evils might torment him, but rather to go on letting himself be tormented anew. To that end, he gives man hope. In truth, it is the most evil of evils because it prolongs man's torment. — Nietzsche

Vranak (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the BBC series is excellent! Anyway, death, as you must be aware, had a powerful immediacy in the Medieval consciousness, and contemporary Christianity reflected this in a manner of ways. Death was both a threat and, though it seems odd to say so, the dead a living presence. There is no better illustration of this than in one of the most common folk tales of the era-the Legend of the Three Living and the Three Dead. This tells of three men, wealthy and well-dressed; three men in the noon of life. Entering a forest they come across three rotting cadavers, who chide their living counter-parts for their vanity and complacency, saying:

Such as you are so were we

Such as we are so will you be.

This encounter was to be found on wall-paintings throughout Medieval Europe. Here is an example from Charlwood in Surrey - 5k. It's an allegory, yes, but it is firmly based on the belief that the dead did roam the land. William of Newburgh, the twelfth century English chronicler, found it difficult to keep up with the numerous stories of the walking dead: "One would not easily believe that corpses come out of their graves were there not so many cases supported by such ample testimony."

So, the boundaries between the two worlds, that of the living and that of the dead, were fluid and porous. They were constantly being crossed by hordes of spiritual beings-the angels on one side, the demons on the other, locked together in combat over the souls of the living; and this is where the Church was at its most important. It offered the only defence against the abyss, guiding the living through the uncertainties, all of the traps of life. As for the struggle between good and evil Orderic Vitalis, a monk writing about 1100, was to describe monasteries as castles built against Satan, one "where the cowled champions engage in ceaseless combat." Clio the Muse (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Other tropes are Memento mori and Danse Macabre. Another example is that people "celebrated" (in the sense of keeping in their memory) death dates, not birth dates. Psalters created for a particular person would include all the major feast days, but also dates on which family members had died. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What is MAOISM?

I have read the article, wishing to know what would make Maoism or Mao Zedong Thought a distinct form of communism. While I came away with the idea that perhaps Deng Xaiopingism might be said to be a pragmatic form communism, I still don't really know what makes Maoism special. I pray the Muses here might enlighten me. --Czmtzc (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a layman, it really seems to be a cult of personality (insert guitar riff here). While other communist nations are primarily based on Marxism and Leninism, the Chinese had their own cultural icon to influence their interpretation of communism. -- Kesh (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Czmtzc, I've attached below a slightly amended answer I give to a similar question last October. I think it covers all you are looking for. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The text you should look for, if you are looking for a text, is The Political Thought of Mao Tse-Tung by Stuart Schram. It was Mao's belief that there was a specifically Chinese road to socialism, though in pursuit of that road he effectively turned the classic doctrines of Marxist materialism inside out, with quite disastrous consequences for China and the Chinese people.

You see, in terms of economic development and industrial resources, China of the mid-twentieth century was about as far removed from that stage of advanced historical development that Karl Marx had believed to be the essential precursor of a successful revolution. Short of many natural resources it possessed one thing in abundance-people. And it was people who were to be the raw material in Mao's great experiment. Now, though Lenin had always stressed that there was a subjective element to the whole revolutionary process, that it was an act of political consciousness, Mao took this subjectivity to what might be described as an anti-materialist extreme. Distrustful of experts and obstacles, distrustful of bureaucracy, he placed his greatest intellectual emphasis on achieving goals by an 'act of faith' alone; that even the most difficult things were not beyond the power of will. In other words, it was the will of the people, the power of the masses, that would enable the Chinese to catch up with the Soviets and the advanced industrial powers of the west.

This, in essence, is the key to the Great Leap Forward. By this Mao hoped that steel production would increase if the energy and will of the whole nation could simply be directed towards that particular end, regardless of technical and practical objections. Revolutionary zeal would be enough. Of course it was not. The steel that was produced was of poor quality and the neglect of other areas of the economy, agriculture in particular, was to create one of the worst man-made famines in the whole course of Chinese history. Despite this Mao did not abandon his belief in revolutionary spontaneity, which was to emerge once again, with equally disastrous consequences, in the Cultural Revolution.

In thinking of the deleterious effects of these forms of anti-materialist and, it might be said, anti-Marxist voluntarism you might also wish to consider the actions of Pol Pot, Mao's greatest and most murderous disciple. Clio the Muse 23:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying that Maoism is the Chinese flavour of Communism doesn't seem entirely accurate, considering how influential the ideology has been outside of East Asia. Groups as diverse as the Party of Labour of Albania, the Shining Path of Peru, and the Black Panther Party for Self-Defence in the United States have all been influenced by Mao Zedong Thought... He must have been saying something universal. 89.213.79.245 (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

One could make exactly the same observation about Leninism or Stalinism. It does not make the doctrine any less original, or the imitators any less barbarous, a point I was under the impression I had made in reference to Pol Pot. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

On the question of why many groups outside China have turned to the Maoist variety of Marxism-Leninism, the answer is mainly in the third-worldism of the Maoists. As stated above, Marxism (i.e. historical materialism) traditionally postulated that societies move through stages from feudalism to capitalism and only then on to socialism. The Maoists broke with this idea to say that less-developed countries could move directly to socialism. (Guevarism was a similar tendency.) Hence revolutionary movements in India (the Naxalites, in Nepal, and other places were more attracted to Chinese than to Soviet communism, especially when the Chinese were actively courting those movements and promoting the notion of people's war and the Soviets were pursuing peaceful coexistence.Itsmejudith (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Population of Palestine prior to the Arab/Muslim Conquest of 640

Would anybody know what the population of Palestine (roughly today's Israel, Gaza and West Bank) was just prior to the Arab/Muslim conquest of 640, as well as its composition in terms of Jews, Arabs, Christians, Romans and others? 70.51.23.55 (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

'Palestine' was part of Roman provinces named Judea and Arabia, and contained a predominantly Jewish population, with a sifnificant Christian minority, but this was 200AD. By 640 it was part of the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium. This would have left it changed very little, however it was this area which was weakened so much by the Seluciad Roman wars earlier in the century which left it practically undefended, leaving it susceptible to a Muslim attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quidom (talk • contribs) 22:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You forgot about the Plague of Justinian, which struck circa 540. One of the regions it ravaged was Palestine. -- llywrch (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But to be clear, should I take it then that prior to the Arab/Muslim conquest of 640, Palestine was populated predominatntly by Jews? If so, would you have any rough idea of the proportions of the different groups at the time.

Also, the expulsion of the Jews from ancient Israel, renamed Palestine, is for the most part attributed to the Romans, long before the Arab conquest. Would anyone have an estimate as to what proportion of Jews had already been expelled by the Romans by 640 compared to how many remained and were later expelled by the Arabs? 70.51.23.55 (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that you will ever get precise figures, 70.51, though I should point out that the Jewish population of Palestine had declined steadily as a result of the various Jewish-Roman Wars, particularly from the Bar Kokhba Revolt in the second century AD onwards. The proportion that remained came under serious threat in the wake of the seventh-century Revolt against Heraclius. By the time of the Arab conquest it seems likely that the majority of people living in Palestine were Christian, Monophysite probably. You should also have a look at the Jewish Diaspora. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I poked into my library, & found a possible reference on population for this period -- J.C. Russell, "Late Ancient and Early Medieval Population", Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 48 Part 3 (1958), pp. 88+ As for the form of Christianity in this area, don't underestimate the presence of Jerusalem, & other significant religious sites: there was enough interest from Constantinople & parts of Europe to encourage through money & favoritism the existence of a significant Orthodox/Catholic community. (I also would not be surprised if there still sizable pockets of pre-Nicean Christian groups, such as Ebionites.) -- llywrch (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at our article Palestine, particularly Early_demographics, which incompletely cites this paper by Sergio DellaPergola,"Demographic Trends in Israel and Palestine: Prospects and Policy Implications" (PDF). see [28] for earlier version wi his email. Some of DellaPergola's publications listed at his university site [29] could be useful. Roberto Bachi Population of Israel, 1974 and Population Trends of World Jewry Jerusalem: Hebrew U., 1976 are (the?) standard works on the historical demography of Israel/Palestine, used along with a few others by SdP for his table used in Palestine. Don't have Bachi's books but there's also this book, America and the Founding of Israel: An Investigation of the Morality of America's Role, Fr. John W. Mulhall, (Christian, somewhat pro-Arab POV, but with an account based on Italian/Israeli demographer Bachi.) It's on the web [30] and particularly [31] section IV and V, except unfortunately for the notes, which IIRC go into more detail on this. Have the book but can't find it at the moment. The area had a Jewish majority until ca. 300 or earlier, the Romans didn't expel all Jews by any means. There was a slow, partially economic migration largely to Mesopotamia and conversions/intermarriage with Christians. Another group which was important then was the Samaritans numbering perhaps in the hundreds of thousands, but which repeatedly revolted unsuccessfully against the Romans/Byzatines, sometimes along with the Jews, and had a more serious demographic catastrophe. Mulhall: "During the sixth century Christians became the majority in Palestine. Arabs moved into it from surrounding areas" So "By 638 Palestine was perhaps only one-tenth Jewish." The not too numerous Arab conquerors didn't do much expelling; many saw them as a lighter hand than the Byzantines; they revoked the prohibition against Jews going to Jerusalem generally in force before. Estimates of the 100AD population vary widely, centering about 2.5- 3 million, while the population around 4-500 AD before wars and revolts was the highest it had been before the 20th century.John Z (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Frederick and Adolph

Frederick the great was one of Adolph Hitler's personal heroes, even having Thomas carlyle's biography of the Prussian king read to him in the final days of the Third Reich. But how close does he really correspond to the qualities hitler imbued in him of a german national hero? While I'm here is there any more information on the fate of Menzel's portrait of the king, last seen in Hitler's bunker in 1945? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.3.103 (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Frederick the Great was Adolph von Menzel's favourite historical subject, and Himmler gave Hitler one of Menzel's many portraits, Frederick the Great on a Trip, for the Fuehrer's 49th birthday in 1938. I can't tell you what happened to it, but it's less interesting than what happened to the remains of Frederick himself. After spending the Second World War in an underground mine for protection, they were liberated by the US Army in 1945, then travelled to Burg Hohenzollern, and in 1991 were finally buried (for the first time in accordance with Frederick's Will) with his greyhounds on a terrace at Sanssouci, "ohne Prunk, ohne Pomp, und bei Nacht". Xn4 22:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, Frederick is better seen as a Prussian rather than a German hero. He was also a rationalist, an admirer of the French (it upset him to see them so easily routed at Rossbach), one who despised native German culture, thinking it impossible to create any worthwhile literature in the language. More than that, he was almost certainly a homosexual. So, not all that close to the Hitler ideal!

On your second question, 81.156, Hitler left instructions for Hans Baur, his pilot, to smuggle Menzel's portrait to a 'safe place in Bavaria.' Baur's attempt to break out of the Bunker failed. The fate of the painting is uncertain, but it was most likely destroyed at that time. Either that or it is hanging on the wall of some cottage deep in the Russian steppe! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Argument to the best explanation

What does Bertrand Russell mean by this exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet Eldridge (talk • contribs) 18:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You will find a discussion of this in his 1912 The Problems of Philosophy. It's his response to the sceptic argument, which says we can claim no knowledge beyond sense experience, to even think that physical objects exist at all. It goes further than that; for as Russell points out, from a pure sceptical perspective we ought not to think that there are other perceivers beyond ourselves. After all, if we cannot refute scepticism about objects, how are we to refute scepticism about other minds?

Russell offers the 'argument to the best explanation' as a way through this difficulty. It is simpler, he argues, to adopt the hypothesis that, first, there really are physical objects, and, second, that our perception corresponds to them in a reliable way. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

German Army - World War II

I was reading my father's WWII memoirs and came across the word "Fbak" which is used in the context of a German Army Unit in Greece in 1943. Can anyone tell me what the "Fbak" was? I have Googled it and got nowhere. Custodi (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That'd be Flak, anti-aircraft guns. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Genealogy of Lucien Wolf

What is the genealogy of Lucien Wolf (born 1857 in London; died 1930)? What is his parents names? What is his Jewish name? I doubt Lucien Wolf (i.e., "Light Wolf") is his birth name. Thank you. Shearzar (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Lucien Wolf was his real name. He was the son of Edward Wolf, a London pipe manufacturer, and his wife Céline (born Redlich). Wolf's father was a Bohemian Jew who came to England after the trials and tribulations of 1848, his mother Viennese. Xn4 22:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Please provide reference. My google and yahoo searches did not verify your information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shearzar (talk • contribs) 03:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Shearzar (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Conjecture regarding this individual's Hebrew given name: "Lucien" may be a vernacular rendition of "Meir" (מאיר; who gives light), or otherwise any Hebrew or even Yiddish name with the initial letter L. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Try this search[32] Julia Rossi (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My search of the reference you provide does not mention Lucien Wolf's parents by name. 24.126.255.229 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 24.126.255.229 (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No trouble, Shearzar, see the article Wolf, Lucien (1857–1930), journalist and lobbyist by Mark Levene in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004) and Levene's Jews and the new Europe: the diplomacy of Lucien Wolf, 1914–1919 (1992). Levene's sources include Lucien Wolf: a memoir by Cecil Roth in Essays in Jewish history by Lucien Wolf, ed. Roth (1934), pp. 1–34, and Lucien Wolf: a life, by David Mowschowitch, which is the draft of a biography of Wolf by one of his advisors, now in the archives of the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, New York (Mowschowitch collection). Xn4 10:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I am not a paying subscriber to the Online Oxford reference you directed me, I am still unable to verify the names of Lucien Wolf's parents. If it is a historical fact that Lucien Wolf's parent's names are Edward and Celine (born Redlich), please edit the Wikipedia article about Lucien Wolf to include those facts and provide references that can be substantiated by others. Thank you. 24.126.255.229 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)24.126.255.229 (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Online Jewish Encyclopedia article about Lucien Wolf (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=240&letter=W) does not mention his parents names. Shearzar (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the Lucien Wolf article and added the references to Levene. I can't add the Roth and Mowschowitch ones, as I have only Levene's citations of them. Xn4 19:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jobs in Rural Areas

What would be a job that I could do on my own land? I have lots of forest and I'm in a rural area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Lumberjack. --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Clear the land and plant crops? Dismas|^(talk) 13:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Carbon off-setting? Get guilt-ridden jet-setters to pay you money in return for not cutting down any of your trees. 89.213.79.245 (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Make charcoal. --Karenjc 19:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Forest preservation has it's attractions – you could connect with special interest (birds etc) and wildlife groups to see if your forest has special features – you could use these to invite others as visitors to appreciate them and charge entry fees. If you're interested in any area yourself, you can arrange guided tours, put special markers around, create walks – or make a wildly "hazardous" mini golf course; a camping ground? Artists' camps? Musicians' camps? Look into small business advice bureaus online. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Green graves,I remember an organisation once that allowed people to be buried without coffins by trees or with a sapling over them.The pagan rite of your choice could be held there.hotclaws 11:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Manage the woodland by coppicing and run workshops for people to learn about coppicing. They cut your wood, they pay to do it. You could have a team of working horses to shift the wood and also charge people to learn about managing working horses. Do all the other things mentioned as well. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

April 26

North Korean Opinion on Chinese Socialism since 1980s

Does anyone have quotes or speeches from the North Korean government, or Kim Jong Il, or Kim IL Sung expressing their opinion on Chinese socialism and the market reforms? Do they consider China socialist? --Gary123 (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jong-il briefly discusses the issue in this speech, in which he proclaimed to Hu Jintao, "Touring various special economic zones making a great contribution to the socialist modernization drive with Chinese characteristics, we were more deeply moved by the Chinese people’s enterprising and persevering efforts and fruits born by them." --Bowlhover (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Southern star

For those who are confused by the following, this question refers to Advance Australia Fair. Gwinva (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the "glorious southern star" that McCormick's 1879 lyrics refer to? Sirius? --Bowlhover (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sirius is just as prominent in the Northern Hemisphere and not unique to the South. The Southern Cross and the two pointers, especially the very bright Alpha Centauri (one of the closest stars to Earth), are more likely as they are only visible in the south. Our Australian flag article says "The Southern Cross (or Crux) is one of the most distinctive constellations visible in the Southern Hemisphere and has been used to represent Australia and New Zealand since the early days of British settlement." However this 1879 lyric predates Federation and the current flag by two decades. New Zealand's national anthem has a "triple star" reference that is also unexplained. My guess is the stars in both aren't literal but are metaphors, despite AAF's lyrics being more of a simile (the country will "shine like our glorious southern star"). Perhaps "glorious southern constellation" was too difficult a rhyme. I'd say that perhaps the lyrics of both country's anthems have as much astronomical veracity as thay do artistic merit. What really baffles me is who Joyce is and why we are all enjoined to ring her in the first line Mhicaoidh (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mhicaoidh, I'll never hear that the same way again. ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

something to do with the eckcent I think : ) Mhicaoidh (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably those who are old and married can't ring her (just the young and free). Gwinva (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about the lyrical issues, but as to the astronomical one: Sirius is at declination -17° (to the nearest whole degree). It is therefore visible on a clear night at any time on any night (what is called circumpolar) from latitude south of 17°S; and some of the time from latitude 17°S to 73°N, with the amount of visibility decreasing as you go north. Alpha Centauri is at declination -61°; therefore it is circumpolar only south of latitude 61°S, and visible some of the time from 61°S to 29°N. Although Sirius is a southerly star for those of us living in the Northern Hemisphere, Alpha Centuari is a much more southerly one. --Anonymous, at about 44°N, 00:37 UTC, April 27, 2008.

Interesting to note the current revised updated etc official version has a verse starting "Beneath our radiant Southern Cross..." Mhicaoidh (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Anynomous: that is not exactly true. For a circumpolar star, the complementary angle of the observer's latitude plus the complementary angle of the declination must be less than 90 degrees. The minimum altitude of a star is reached when the observer is opposite to it. At the time of minimum altitude, the observer sees the star across the south pole. If there is more than 90 degrees of latitudal distance between the star and the observer, the former cannot be seen.

Sirius, then, can only be circumpolar south of 73 degrees S (90-17). Alpha Centauri can only be circumpolar south of 29 degrees (90-61). The further south in declination a star is, the further north an observer on Earth can be for it to still be circumpolar. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, why is there no mention at Advance Australia Fair of the traditional lyrics Brittannia then shall surely know,/Beyond wide ocean's roll,/Her sons in fair Australia's land/Still keep a British soul.? Republican POV pushing, perhaps?! Gwinva (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this seems to have been part of the original lyrics, I've added it to the article. --Bowlhover (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem of Poverty

When and why did poverty cease to be a natural condition and become a social problem? Miranda Angel (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm…good question. I would guess that it came largely with industrialization and the urbanization that ensued. Poverty in rural societies can often be blamed on natural phenomena like crop failures, the weather, and so on. And the feudal system which upheld it was regarded as being divinely ordained from time immemorial. But when vast numbers of peasants began to move to the cities and work in factories, the exploitation of man by man became transparently obvious, and the new classes of capitalist and entrepreneur did not have the reinforcement of long centuries of tradition. Thus, the 19th Century saw new formulations of political theories which stressed the nature of social classes. Some of these philosopher economists called for a revolution (like Karl Marx) and others just wanted society to take on a more responsible and Christian approach to the newly dispossessed in the large slums of the city. It should be added however, that all three of the main monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – exhorted the faithful to charity towards the indigent, the orphaned and widowed, and the sick. Traditionally, these religions did not see such problems as essentially “social”, that is, typical of a class or social structure, and symptomatic of man’s oppression of man. Nevertheless, when such secular interpretations of society began to prevail, they gained considerable force from the altruism of these spiritual beliefs. Thus, the Christian Church had great influence in the abolition of slavery, and in the institution of welfare state ideals of social democracy.

If you wanted a “best fit” date, I would opt for somewhere about the 1870s, after the Paris Commune, the inauguration of the Working Men Unions, and the publication of Das Capital. Myles325a (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

When peasants did something about it? See Popular revolt in late medieval Europe, (addn) then, Peasant revolts for dates and Crisis of the Late Middle Ages. cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Origins of the Poor Law system. That just deals with England though; provisions for doing *something* with the poor (giving them free food, rounding them up and having them watch chariot races all day, or whatever) go back to at least ancient Rome. As long as there has been urban civilization, the poor have existed as a social problem. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know just how well Tacitus's famous comment about "bread & circuses" fits the definition of a poverty program. On one hand, its intent was not to stamp out poverty -- the bread dole & the entertainments were available to both rich & poor Romans alike -- but to keep an idle populace too busy to riot over the latest political scandal. On the other, in order to get a token for the bread dole, one had to deal with a government apparatus that operated through political influence and patronage: the average citizen needed the help of a patron in order to get this token, & if one had that kind of connection, she/he wasn't poor. The need for connections also meant the quite real possibility of abuse, so that some had more tokens than they were entitled to.

That said, Helping the poor because they were poor was not a new idea to the audience of the Christian gospels; empathy has been part of humanity as long as history has been recorded. I'm not sure anyone has looked at the history of the perception of poverty; it's only been within the last few generations that "real" historians have looked beyond the affairs of court, battlefield, and cathedrals. -- llywrch (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer is actually remarkably simple when you think about it, and when "poverty" is viewed more prosaically, for example as the near-fatal lack of food. Sometime in the nineteenth century communication and agricultural productivity had grown such that the world in general could always feed itself - if it wanted to. The extreme case is illustrative: prior to that period famine might occur because of a shortage of food due to climatic conditions, and an inability to transfer sufficient foodstuffs to the area in time. After that period, famine became a purchasing power problem, and thus depended strongly on the social and political system in place. The classic example is famine in India, where Amartya Sen has won the Nobel in economics for demonstrating that devastating famine in British India - especially in the 1890s, but also the horrific 1942 famine, which came because of wartime restrictions on food import and transportation - were not problems of production, but problems of distribution. A standard and well-accepted corollary is that famine since the mid-19th has only been found in oppressed societies. Cf India and China over the past 50 years.

Basically, there was once a time when extreme, life-threatening poverty was something nobody, even visionary ethicists in Tiberius' reign, could believe would never be with us. Sometime in the past few generations it has become possible to believe that the persistence of such poverty is a product of our social structure rather than mechanistic necessity. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer, Miranda, is that ceased to be a 'natural condition' when it became a matter of intellectual debate and then a subject of social policy. And the debate on the 'mischievous ambiguity of the word poor' really takes shape in the period between the late 1700s to the publication in England of the Poor Law Report. It was Edmund Burke who was among the first to raise the issue when he objected to the 'political canting language' of the expression 'labouring poor', thus highlighting the confusion between those who worked for their living, and were thus properly labouring people, and those who could not work, and were thus dependant on charity. For him the word 'poor' should really only be used in reference to the latter.

It was a standard later taken up by the poor law reformers, who aimed to end this ancient confusion for good and all. Pauperism and poverty would never be perceived in the same terms again. Both those who supported the Poor Law Amendment Act and those who opposed it, from Dickens to Disraeli, met in a battle where poverty, and all the things associated with poverty, were brought ever more directly into the public consciousness. In future it was no longer a case of the poor always being with us, but the manner in which they are with us. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the days of the week

Today is a Saturday because yesterday was a Friday. Yesterday was a Friday because the day before was a Thursday - and so on backward through the centuries. But at some point, the system must have had an arbitrary starting point - someone must have decided that some day was a Monday and future days would follow that order. When did this happen, and has the sequence ever been broken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyroclastic (talk • contribs) 06:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

calendar is a useful article to read along with days of the week. There have been and continue to be a wide variety of calendars in use around the world, the dominant one reflecting the hegemony of that century's (or millenium's) particular dominant culture . The continuity of our Western one has been "broken" from time to time through calendar reform and you would find gregorian calendar interesting Mhicaoidh (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Can vegans use bone china?

I never thought about it before, but recently read that up to 45% of the mass of fine bone china is ground ox bone, which is mixed with clay and other compounds. As vegans do not use dairy, honey, silk, or leather, I was wondering if they avoided such other products as crockery made from bone ash, with the ox of course being an especially holy animal in many parts of the world. And where does all that ox bone come from anyway? Google sources seem rather reticent on this. And why ox bone, when surely cow and sheep bones would be much more plentiful? Myles325a (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You've started something now, Myles. Speaking as a member of the food chain, would a vegan shake hands, ride horses, or maybe it's only "products" that count? Julia Rossi (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Shaking hands would definitely be fine; it's between consenting agents. Riding horses is probably not very vegan—using animals as beasts of burden and all. Anyway, it's clearly not an issue of just "products"—Veganism is meant to be a holistic philosophy, an approach to life. As for bone china, the answer sounds like no to me—they won't wear leather shoes, they sure won't like pottery made of bones. --75.36.41.18 (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving companies sell lists of new addresses to marketers?

In a recent Popular Science article [33], it is mentioned that "moving companies sell lists of new addresses to marketers". How prevalent is this in the United States and elsewhere around the world? --203.10.47.15 (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Women in American Politics

American women got the vote in 1920 but made almost no progress in breaking into political life in the period before World War 2. What were the reasons for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Watt (talk • contribs) 07:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And they still haven't made much progress. Would be interested in the answers. WikiJedits (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer is really to be found, Linda, in the structures that support access to political life. Women may have got the vote in 1920 but there was still considerable residual prejudice and discrimination towards them in those very areas and professions, particularly the legal profession, which generally act as the ante-chamber to a political career. Although many women did in fact run for office in the United States in the inter-war period they most often lacked the backing of the major parties. If they did achieve such backing they often had oppose incumbents. Failing in such contests, as they most often did, made their re-endorsement all but impossible. The best most women could hope for from the major parties was to be adopted as auxiliaries, a kind of reserve army of political labour!

Times have changed a little, I think it only fair to add. In this regard I have to say that I am impressed always by the way history works, by her delightful and delicious sense of irony. It had to come that one day a woman would be a candidate for the most senior office in the land. It had to come one day that a black man would also become a candidate for the most senior office in the land. But for the Democrats to put forward a woman and a black man at the same time, now that really is something! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that very interesting answer. Do you mind if I ask which of the two you support? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Watt (talk • contribs) 05:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm English, Linda, and thus not allowed to make a choice over such matters! I can tell you who I support for Mayor of London, though. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Mugabe and Zimbabwe

I'm trying to make sense of what's happening at present in Zimbabwe. It would he helpful if one of you could recommend same background reading. I also have a number of general question that someone could perhaps help me with. What is it Mugabe wants? Why have elections at all if he simply refuses to give up power? Is there no possibility that he could be removed, either by an internal coup, or by external pressure? By what process has he brought Zimbabwe to its knees? I'm sorry, I know this is a lot to ask for. It's probably all a reflection on my mental confusion. Light on the darkness would be welcome! ZZT9 (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately our ZANU article shows clear signs of tendentious editing, so I cannot recommend it. When the first elections were held after the end of Rhodesia, Mugabe, who had emerged from the Rhodesian Bush War a hero to most Africans and many across the third world, became Prime Minister, and took a series of steps to placate the white minority, and protect their economic interests. Over time, however, a combination of emigration, absentee landlordism, declines in agricultural productivity, and bad economic policy caused the fact that a vast part of the wealth and land of the country remained in white hands to become a political problem that could not be avoided. Mugabe himself may have always intended a one-party state, though this is disputed by scholars; it seems certain that by the mid-1990s he did. The most relevant fact: he's had a hard life, and is 84 or something. He's almost certainly senile. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, here's an effort from Britannica that is several times better than anything we have at the moment. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The two most recent publications that may be of use to you, ZZT9, are Mugabe: Power, Plunder and the Struggle for Zimbabwe by Martin Meredith and The Day After Mugabe: Prospects for Change in Zimbabwe, a collection of papers edited by Guguletho Moyo and Mark Ashurst.

There is surely no fable more appropriate to the fate of Zimbabwe under the moronic Mugabe than that of The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs. In April 1980, as the country celebrated its independence, Mugabe was told by Julius Nyerere, President of nearby Tanzania, that he had inherited a jewel and that he should keep it that way. Well, he has cut the throat of the goose and thrown away the jewel; for what he wanted above all was power and then more power. It did not really matter how this was attained, even if it meant the wholesale destruction of a prosperous farming sector by 'war veterans'; even if it means forever dwelling on the supposed crimes of the colonial past, as the rest of Africa moves on and forward.

He will not be removed internally because the forces behind him, particularly those responsible for the Matabeleland Massacre, fear the future too much. He will not be removed by external pressure because Thabo Mbeki and the like have not sufficient determination to stand up to him, pandering to his old myths and illusions. In the end Mugabe seems to have proved one point and one point only-Ian Smith may have been right after all. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Smith right? About what?

You're quite wrong about the prosperity of the farming sector, actually. It had already begun to collapse in the mid 1990s. Few postcolonial nations can preserve agricultural productivity without extensive land reform, anyway. India, Bangladesh, Kenya, Ghana: all have had to go through it. The only difference in Zimbabwe is that land ownership is divided along racial lines - the crimes of the colonial past are still very much in their present. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

ZZT9, I've adapted an answer I gave to a question on Western Imperialism, which appeared here last March. I think this might put things in a more general perspective for you. Regards. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan Africa is a huge place, and there are indeed tragic examples where colonial history has had the direst of consequences, economically and politically: Mozambique and Angola spring to mind, countries all but destroyed by war and civil war. However, Africa is also a great continent, with a great and energetic people, badly served by its politicians. How long are we to forward the excuse of colonialism as a justification-and it has become a justification-for backwardness and the sheer failure of potential?

Take the example, if you will, of the Republic of Ireland, which had an experience of colonialism far older and of land expropriation far more severe than the least fortunate of the African colonies. Although free for almost a hundred years now it was dominated for decades after independence by a reactionary Church hierarchy. Despite this, its transformation over the past twenty years or so into one of the most dynamic of European economies and societies is especially worthy of note, particularly when the country possesses little in the way of natural resources. I wish I could see similar signs of renaissance and resurgence in Africa; but I can not.

There is a word in Swahili which explains the plight of Africa far better than outdated notions of imperialism: it is WaBenzi, meaning boss or, better still, big shot. The WaBenzi, the undeclared tribe which crosses all borders, is, in my estimation, by far the greatest of Africa's misfortunes. Take the example of Malawi. In 2000, following the death of Hastings Banda, the former dictatorial president, the British government increased aid to the country by some £20 million. The WaBenzi promptly celebrated by spending almost £2 million, yes, £2 million, on a fleet of 39 S-class Mercedes, in a country where the roads are hardly fit for carts. Take one more example. In 2002 Mwai Kibaki came to power in Kenya on an anti-corruption platform, announcing that Corruption will now cease as a way of life in Kenya. The very fist law passed by the new Parliament was to increase politicians' salaries by over 170%, to about £65,000pa ($125,000). Beyond this, each MP was awarded a package of allowances, including a grant of £23,600 to buy a duty free car, all in a country where the average per capita income is £210 ($406) per annum.

I could go on like this, but it's really too depressing. You will find all of the details of these examples and more in How African leaders spend our money, an article by Aidan Hartley, published in the London edition of The Spectator in June 2005. I have visited several African countries, and I love the people and the place. But we have to stop making excuses for failure, to stop draping history around the necks of Africans as a catch-all explanation for their perceived shortcomings. If Africa is to move forward we need to understand the real causes of failure; and these are far closer to home.

Much too much is made of the deleterious effects of imperialism in explaining the failure of many modern African states. India, Malaysia, and Singapore were all under British control, but this has not hampered the development of modern economies and mature political structures. In Africa imperialism has become a crutch, intended to explain and excuse failure. In many countries corruption has become the dominant mode of political exchange. Imperialism did not destroy Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe did. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A good war?

I need some help preparing for a school debate. The motion is Was the Second World War A Good War? I will be arguing against. If you can please help me with some details, arguments against the justice and effectivness of the British war effort. Was Churchill really all that he is made out to be? Please be as precise as possible. I love this page, I love how much some people seem to know. Yours sincerely, John Fitzgerald. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.161.146 (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Very difficult to argue that a war fought to defend your homeland from the Nazis wasn't a pretty decent war. Best to try something they aren't expecting. Reframe it in terms of the "world" part. Did, when Britain went to war, it have the right to declare war on behalf of the entire Empire and expose Australia to danger and India to revolt? --Relata refero (disp.) 13:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Britain didn't declare war in 1939 on behalf of the whole Empire, as it was able to do in 1914. Canada, South Africa and New Zealand all made their own declarations of war, while in Australia Menzies somehow persuaded the Australians to go to war as a matter of imperial duty without actually declaring war. The lawyers had to cover up for this, later on. Xn4 13:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Tut, really? I knew there was some disputation in Australia, but I assumed it was because the G-G had happily informed everyone that they were off to defend Singapore tomorrow, pack a toothbrush. Turns out it was Menzies. The Menzies Virtual Museum says "Prime Minister Menzies declares that Australia is at war with Germany. This reflects the attitude of the majority of Australians who considered that Britain's declaration of war on Germany automatically committed Australia to the conflict in their desire to provide traditional support for Britain", which sounds to me like protesting too much. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The exact text of Menzies' speech is "Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war." Schmindependent. Anyway, still holds for India. Focus on that, and Roosevelt's commonly expressed view that Churchill's rabid imperialism was eating into the justice of the war effort. Your best shot. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

On the main issue, we've debated it before on this reference desk, and I remember putting the case that the Second World War certainly didn't achieve any of the war aims the British set out with, such as the defence of brave little Poland. By the end of the War, the Allies were able to persuade themselves that the Germans and the Japanese had been so wicked that it had been necessary to crush them, whatever the initial aims... the trouble with this is (1) that the worst wickednesses of the Axis powers were made possible by the War: hard to believe, for instance, that what we call the Holocaust could have happened under peace-time conditions; and (2) that Stalin and his thugs were no better than Hitler and his thugs, and leaving much of central and Eastern Europe under the domination of one or the other came to much the same thing. Churchill certainly took that view. you can also make the case that the British defeats in the Far East (in particular, the Battle of Singapore) led to an earlier end for the Empire than would otherwise have been the case, and that with more time the independence of India and Pakistan could have been more peaceful (there, you get into deep waters). Appeasement was an essential policy for buying time. With the benefit of hindsight, it's at least arguable that averting the War entirely, with such concessions as could have been bought, would have turned out better in the end. Xn4 13:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I second the "Oh, dear." You want specifics, but that is too much like doing your homework for you for me. I can suggest a tack: Great Britain capitulates under the Blitz. GB gets good terms, even better than the French got, because Hitler is scared to death of crossing the Channel, and Britain knows it. Germany gets to concentrate on the Bolsheviks and takes them out of the picture but gets seriously mauled doing it. Britain rises up against a weakened Germany (who still have no navy to speak of aside from the U-boats and who have lost their Fuhrer to assassination) when the US comes in, as they would have had to eventually, especially with Winston in Washington playing the gadfly the whole time. The Nazis capitulate because their now-sane leadership, perhaps headed by Doenitz, see that the light at the end of the tunnel is a train. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The barest assessment of World War II I've heard goes something like this: "If we didn't win, we'd all be speaking German now." My response is, what's wrong with speaking German? It seems to suit the Germans perfectly well. People cannot readily conceive of a radical change in their lives so they presume the status quo must be preferable. This is folly. "Man will even get used to the gallows." Vranak (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The way to win this argument either way is to be the one to define what "good" means. You could argue that it was avoidable. You could argue that bad things happened to the world because of it (Cold War, Berlin Wall). "Good" is such a vague word. Make it mean what you need it to mean. "If 'good' means "brought peace to the world", then WWII was not a good war because..." "If 'good' means "it was a war which we had no choice but to fight", then WWII was not good because we should have seen what was coming and stopped it before it got out of hand, etc. etc. Wrad (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You could also argue point of view. WWII was a great war for Communism. China, Russia, Eastern Europe...to them it was a good war. To the Jews was it a good war? If you asked anyone from that time period, I doubt they'd say "Oh, that was such a wonderful time to live! It was such a good war. Everyone loved it! We all cried when it was over because we just couldn't bear to see it go." Yeah right. Wrad (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's much doubt that the Allies fought (on the whole) a decent war, if war can be decent. The question John Fitzgerald has to debate is whether it was a Good War, and that's rather different. Xn4 15:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. They won and they were defending themselves. That makes it as good as it can be. Still, though, if you want to argue the "good" point, get control of the word's meaning within the debate, and you've won. Wrad (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden in World War II What is a good war? -- Ironmandius (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. That's what Wrad said. I was wondering that myself: what is a good war? I answered myself, "A good war is one that is in the best interests of the country in question." Was WWII worth the expenditure of life and treasure it cost the UK in terms of the outcome? Was there another way to achieve an equivalent result, or was there a different conceivable outcome undesirable on the face of it that would have yet been preferable to the slaughter and destruction the war wrought in Britain and its empire? I want in on this debate, dammit. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that human deaths in the millions are not regarded as acceptable, even tolerable to today's PC society. One is usually too many -- the international response to the execution of Saddam Hussein was widely condemnatory. Laymen who take a non-historical look back at the past judge things by today's standards of right and wrong, good and bad. In the 40s, knowledge of the concentration camps was limited. If it wasn't, can we presume the average citizen of an Allied nation would have cared? We would like to think so, but who knows... Vranak (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nien, ist war nicht ein gutten strum. -Arch dude (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The concept the OP is debating seems more closely allied to the ancient concept of the Just War -- our article on this is useful. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The argument "WWII was NOT a Good War" does not necessarily imply that the expansion of the Third Reich and its barbarity - after they had occurred - should not have been countered by military measures. As such, it qualifies as a Just war (see Brainy Babe above).

It may be argued in this context that Hitler´s´rise to power was far from irresistible, it may be argued that a great many diplomatic / economic measures were missed or severely fumbled by other European powers in deescalating the emerging problem.

I am not a historian (and rather naive, to boot), but I fail to comprehend (inter many alia) why Germany was allowed to embark on a massive program of rearmament. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the Stresa Front, the annexation of Austria or the Munich Agreement seem to be pitiful examples of chances which were poorly handled .

It may be argued that WWII could have been avoided (or could have been a pre-emptive strike against the nascent German Reich), had the actors on the political stage shown more determination. To call an avoidable war which cost the lives of 60 million people a "Bad War" must remain a reasonable argument.

On the other hand, without WWII many on this desk - including me - would not have been conceived and would not have been born. Whether tis alone makes it a Good War, however, is questionable.

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

One could argue that it was better to defeat Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo than to let them divide the post-war world into spheres of occupation pending a nuclear WW3 between East and West. But it was a war that began very badly, with appeasement by Chamberlain when Hitler's despotism could have been nipped in the bud by encouraging the anti Hitler plotters in Germany, and that ended badly with the holocaust, terror bombing by firebombs and nukes by the allies and Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, and the failure (like after WW1) to implement the grand pledges of freedom in the postwar world, with the denial of self-determination in the colonies resulting in more decades of conflict. Edison (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think if I were John Fitzgerald (the OP), I shouldn't introduce the Just War arguments into the debate myself, but hold them in reserve and hope they wouldn't become too central, because it seems to me more arguable that WWII was a just war than that it was a good war. If JF agrees to argue 'good war' by reference to 'just war', then that seems to set hares running. Surely better (as Wrad says) to define 'good' in terms which help the case, which will I think be different from just. Xn4 19:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, John, how wonderful; you have fallen on the right side of the debate; I envy you so much. You can safely ignore the discouraging 'oh dears', the suggestion that your argument will have to be based on dubious grounds. You will understand why by the time I have finished. I assume you know your opponents? Well, if so, you might just drop a hint that you’re having trouble working up an effective rebuttal to notions of a 'just' war, because the chances are that they will fall back on this sophistry as the main prop of their argument! Your strength is to dismiss abstractions, with all of the force you can muster; to focus always on specifics. Demolish them with cases, John, demolish them with examples!

Anyway, put out of your mind the suggestion that we were fighting to defend our homeland from the Nazis; we were not, not by any measure. We declared war on Germany; Germany did not declare on war on us! We declared war for what? For Poland, for the freedom of Poland? I'm now finding it difficult to stop myself from laughing! Xn4 has given you some useful hints. Appeasement was not just a good policy: it was an essential policy. More than that, it would have been far better, in every respect, not to have gone to war in the first place. In July 1940, in what he called his ‘final appeal to reason’, Hitler called for an end to the conflict;

The continuation of this war will only end with the complete destruction of one of the two warring parties...I see no reason that should compel us to continue this war.

He was wrong about one thing: the continuation of the war brought the complete destruction of one of the parties, yes, but it also brought the near destruction of the other. The roller-coaster ride I am about to take you on is based, for the most part, on my reading of Homan Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization by Nicholson Barker, which I have not long finished. If you have the time dip into it. Be ruthless: use the index!

So, was the Second World War a 'good' war, understanding good to mean that it brought some benefit to those who needed help? The answer is not at all obvious, is it? Think of our leadership, think of the adventurism of Churchill, the tyrant of the glittering phrase. Soon after hearing of Hitler's 1940 peace offer Frances Partridge wrote in her diary "It's too tantalising since there's no shadow of a doubt we will reject any such suggestion. Now I suppose Churchill will again tell the world that we are going to die on the hills and the seas, and then we shall proceed to do so." A pretty accurate prediction, don't you think?

The problem with Churchill was that he was the eternal schoolboy caught up in the excitement of the battle, a man with little or no long-term vision; no understanding of the political consequences of fighting on the beaches and the landing grounds, in this place and in that; no understanding of the consequences for his country or its Empire of unrestrained and prolonged conflict. In 1945 he had heaps of moral authority. The trouble is he had almost nothing else; an Adam without the fig-leaf. Oh, sorry, he did have something else: he was also the chief architect of imperial deconstruction, rather ironic when one considers his past history! Break through the circles of his rhetoric and the picture that emerges is not particularly uplifting.

What Churchill was really interested in was not an 'anti-Fascist' crusade; for it is doubtful that he ever really understood the nature of Fascism, a concept altogether too modern; he certainly never saw any fault in Mussolini, or danger in Japan. He wanted a scrap with Germany; that's it. His scrap, moreover, was not, by and large, with German soldiers but with German civilians, waged with the ruthless weapons of blockade and bombardment, bombardment increasingly delivered without any degree of moral restraint. After all, if the Nazis were bad, why should we not be worse? As the civilian populations, swollen by refugees, of Poland, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands faced starvation, Churchill refused to let food aid through the Navy's blockade of Europe. In justification he told Parliament in 1941 that the enemy would use fats to make bombs, potatoes to make fuel and that 'the plastic materials now so largely used in the construction of aircraft are made of milk.' Yes, he did! In October of that year Herbert Hoover asked;

Is the Allied cause any further advanced today because of the starvation of children? Are Hitler’s armies any less victorious than if those children had been saved? Are Britain's children better fed today because these millions of former allied children have been hungry or died? Can you point to one benefit that has been gained from this holocaust?

There is, of course, no answer. Nor is there any answer, when one thinks about it, to the effectiveness, or the desirability, of the bombardment. In 1941 it was estimated that only one in five British bombers was dropping their payload within seventy-five miles of their designated targets. Because of this targets were deliberately selected so that, even if the aircraft missed, there would be a 'bonus' in civilian deaths, and thus the weapons would not be wasted. But even this brought no discernable benefits, either in the dislocation of production or the collapse of morale. So what was needed? Why, more and bigger bombs; more and more dead civilians. Neither Churchill, nor Bomber Harris nor anyone else in the British command seems to have considered just exactly what impact the German Blitz on Britain had.

Be ready for the argument, John, that the war was fought to prevent the persecution of the Jews. It was not. Churchill showed almost no interest in the German persecution. More seriously, the twin weapons of blockade and bombardment impacted most severely on Jewish people; for as rations reduced everywhere they reduced even more severely in the ghettos; as the bombing took hold it was Jewish families who were among the first to be evicted to make way for those whose home had been destroyed. Indeed, the Final Solution itself was in every respect one of the direct consequences of the Second World War. It is inconceivable, in other words, it its absence.

So, we fought to destroy Hitler and lost all perspective in the process. Yes, he was a tyrant. Yes, he was a butcher. But we fought alongside a man who was no less tyrannical, no less of a butcher and, in the end, no less of an anti-Semite. At huge cost, both human and material, we fought to free Poland from Hitler...only to give it to Stalin.

Watch you pacing; breath carefully; take note of your timing, aim slowly, aim carefully. You'll demolish them! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

CLIO I LOVE YOU, I LOVE YOU!!!! J Fitzgerald 12:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Fitzgerald II (talk • contribs)

Aww, shucks! Use 'we' if you like, John; it will serve to give your argument greater power and immediacy! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

But please don't say "we" unless you are actually old enough to have been alive at the time! (unless you feel that you contributed by having been present as a twinkle in a forefather's eye) SaundersW (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

How about deaths that occurred because information from the Enigma project could not be released?hotclaws 12:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Economy and voting in Canada

In Canada and its provinces, does the economic cycle affect the outcome of elections? Are particular parties, or the incumbent, more or less likely to be elected during or immediately after a recession? NeonMerlin 11:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You could start with Canadian federal election results since 1867 and then compare Economic history of Canada. WikiJedits (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Postage stamp value

I have a few stamps, and I can’t seem to figure out how much they’re worth. They don’t seem to say on it, but don’t look like the first class forever stamps described in Non-denominated postage. I found a picture of one, http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/US/01/08/postagerate.hike.ap/storyvert.stamp.ap.jpg. Can anybody tell me what it’s value is? Thanks! 130.127.186.122 (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an American, but from what I can find, the value of this stamp in 2005 was $0.39.[34]. The value of the stamp was raised by $0.02 between then, but that shouldn't matter. Since 1861, the law has been that, if a stamp has no postage price indicated, it is postally worth the purchase price, so that would be $0.39. PeterSymonds | talk 12:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? In the UK, if a stamp says "1st" or "2nd" on its face, its value always matches the current price of first class or second class postage, as the case may be: so its value can change. Xn4 13:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The picture you link seems to be from this CNN article, the caption to the picture being "New first-class and U.S. non-denominated 39-cent stamp." From the US Postal service site (usps.gov), we can indeed confirm that the stamp is valued at 39 cents (Quick Service Guide 604a, Basic Standards for All Mailing Services, Nondenominated Postage) -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. postal system has had numerous rate increases over the years. Sometimes they expect the rates to go up but do not have final authorization for and determination of the higher rate, so the have left it off the new stamps, creating years of confucion when someone finds some of the non-denominated stamps. They latest move was to makr them "USA First Class Forever"" meaning that even if they cost 41 cents they will carry your 99 cent first class letter a few years later. It also provides a bit of pat-on-the-back affirmation to a country badly needing it. Edison (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

superstition

What does Islam say about superstition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.22 (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you accept a priori that there is some difference between religion and superstition then, well, Islam's stand on superstition is strongly disapproving. (If you don't, read that sentence as saying "Islam's stand on other supersitions...".) The great Alberuni, for example, was the first to clearly delineate what was the province of astronomy and what was that of astrology, and explicitly based his refutation of astrology on its lack of rationality, which he believed conflicted with Islamic precepts. The more restrictive schools of Islam view syncretic traditions within Islam, such as the veneration of saints called pirs and the celebration of Milad-un-Nabi, Mohammed's birthday, as "superstition". The word is loaded with negative baggage as Islam itself is portrayed as being born in reaction to the superstition in which the Arabs were sunk during Mohammed's lifetime. Of course, there's also this, which tends to undercut that slightly. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical Revolutionary-War question

I've been deliberating as to whether or not this belongs here or at the Language reference desk, but I figured that this has to do with connotation, not definition.

Q: Why is it that the battles won by the minutemen in the Revolutionary War use the preposition "of," and the battles lost by the minutemen use the preposition "at"? (e.g., Battle at Guilford Court House [lost], Battle of Yorktown [won], Battle at Charleston [lost], Battle of Cowpens [won], Battle of King's Mountain [won], Battle at Savannah [lost], Battle of Vincennes [won], etc.) Does it have to do with some obscure, undefined implication I'm unaware of? Also, now that I've linked them, I could further ask why the battles in which the minutemen were defeated lack articles of their own. --^LaPianísta! 14:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The redlinks in your question seems to indicate that Wikipedia uses the "of" construction either way. See Battle of Guilford Court House, Battle of Charleston and Battle of Savannah. APL (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. So then, a better question would be why my stupid history textbook insists on the opposite. --^LaPianísta! 20:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely because it is a stupid textbook? Clio the Muse (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, agreed; thanks for your help. ;-) --^LaPianísta! 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Violence against women

What does Islam say about violence against women and girls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.22 (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd best read Women and Islam for that question. --^LaPianísta! 15:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Islam" doesn't have one opinion regarding women (or violence against them in particular). There are a large number of muslims in the world and their values/beliefs vary quite vastly. On the one extreme you have fairly progresive types of belief (see this [35]) and on the other extreme, you have some fundamentalists who practise such things as honour killings (which in some cases are the result of a sexual assault upon the victim).Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We have more specific articles. Check out Islam and domestic violence, which is not especially great but has useful references for further reading, and Islamic feminism, which includes many names. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Assisted reproductive technology

What does Islam say about A.R.T.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.22 (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Islam is not a monolithic entity. For these and other questions, it may be best to refer to a few Imams and ask them in person their interpretation. (Is that the correct plural?) Ironmandius (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like [36].

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically it's "a'immat". Adam Bishop (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

One position is given in this fatwa. Algebraist 17:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You might try Bioethics#Muslim_bioethics for a list of readings to start with. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

friend or enemy

Is there a compiled list of things which typically or actually made a ruler of a conquered land a friend or enemy of Rome? 71.100.11.39 (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Foreign rulers were perceived as friendly or hostile to Rome for a number of reasons, which included actual or perceived acts -- or the usual rationalizations that allowed that city to either declare war -- or evade the issue. I mention the later because John Rich makes the interesting observation in his "Fear, greed and glory: the causes of Roman war-making in the middle Republic" (in War and society in the Roman World, ed. John Rich and Graham Shipley [Routledge, 1993]) that despite the Roman's well-deserved reputation for being eager to wage war, that there were occasions when various elites within Rome found good reason not to go to war. One reason being that, the glory for defeating an enemy of Rome might give a political opponent an undesired advantage. So the answer is no. -- llywrch (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I find it odd that no scholar has ever compiled a list of conditions be they common or atypical under which a decision was made by Rome to execute a conquered ruler or to let a conquered ruler live if for no other reason that as a guide for its governors. For instance, refusing to renounce all but the Sun God as Divine seems to be one of the first conditions that might be put on such a list. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Such matters are determined by political considerations, and by political considerations only. These will always vary according to circumstances, and cannot be subject to any form of calculus. The Roman Empire expanded by a mixture of pragmatism and opportunism. If it had proceeded in the fashion you suggest I doubt it would have got much beyond the banks of the Tiber. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Even political considerations have a tendency to consist of more then one independent variable. I can list a ton of things I need to do and avoid doing to keep my boss happy, all with several variables that must be weighed. Certainly a Roman governor would have a list of things to do and not to do to keep Caesar happy, including who to execute and who not to execute following a military campaign. Even political considerations have rules. For instance, I might want to offer a new client a piece of the bosses' candy but then I might also need to taste test it first to be sure I can recommend it to the client. A political consideration rule might be to forget the candy unless the client is wealthy or forget the candy if the client is overweight. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely right, 71.100, but in saying this you’re are perhaps beginning to understand the impossibility, or impracticality, of producing the kind of historical calculus that you originally set out in search of. Just think: how many governors, how many emperors, how many provinces, over how many hundreds of years? The number of variables one would have to take into consideration would be simply enormous. Yes, I suppose you could set out to accumulate such evidence, as if you were piecing together an explanatory mosaic. I suspect this might very well be a task that would fascinate Jorge Luis Borges, providing a possible theme for one of his inspired 'fictions'; because, at the end of your labours, you may very well discover that you have written a complete history of the Roman Empire! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Logical Atomism

Clio the Muse, please do you know the key to the method of logical atomism in Russell's philosophy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet Eldridge (talk • contribs) 19:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference desk is for public queries. If you wish to address one editor, please write on her talkpage. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yes it just makes us mediocre contributers to the reference desk feel bad. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

See logical atomism. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The key, J E, lies in his assertion that logic is the essence of philosophy, where logic is taken to mean mathematical logic. Its importance is that it provides the means of effecting powerful and philosophically revealing analyses of structures, most particularly, the related structures of propositions and facts. Have a look at Logic as the Essence of Philosophy. Happy reading! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Proportion of the world with a high school diploma

 Done

Can Anyone give me an estimate of what percentage of the world has completed secondary education? With a good source of course. --Ybbor^Talk 21:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted my earlier answers, as they were only for current enrollment. This site, from the World Bank, looks like it has the answer. From what I understood from Table Three, it would be 27.8% of adults aged 25 and over. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you very much :) --Ybbor^Talk 22:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

April 27

Schooling in America

Does education in the US proceed with first reading, writing and arithmetic (elementary schools) followed by introduction to significant topics with each year going a bit deeper into the topic (grade school) followed by even greater depth, basic expansion and introduction to preparation for a trade or for higher learning (junior high) followed by even greater depth and expansion of trades or preparation for higher learning (high school) followed by even greater depth and specialization of a trade or higher learning (Junior college or tech school) followed by higher learning (college) followed by graduate and post-graduate studies (University) or is there some other basis for year to year progress through the educational system? 71.100.11.39 (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily call that the most accurate description. If all you're wondering is whether you have the names right, you generally do (though most schools I know don't differentiate between "elementary" and "grade" school. The notion of progression is there--it could hardly fail to be in any schooling system...I cannot conceive of a real life school system that taught students advanced subjects first and gradually worked down to basic skills like literacy and addition. But your chain of events seems to suggest that one is gradually prepared for a specific trade, and that kind of vocational focus is rare in schools below high school in the U.S. Honestly, even in high school, vocational classes (depending on the school) are at best a small portion of the degree--most of us still hold to the "comprehensive school" model that believes all students should be given a background in a wide spread of subject areas, so as not to limit student career choices post-high school. It is fair to say that junior colleges are more focused on vocational instruction, and that college and beyond continues that instruction, but the system is not quite as carefully constructed and linear as you envision.

If you're wondering how someone "progresses" year to year, generally it's due to age--one year older equals one grade higher. Yes, generally you work on more advanced stuff as each year goes by, but a student can easily take French one year, skip that class for a year or two and then return to the language. Prerequisites (in high school and above) are designed to make sure students take courses that prepare them for more advanced classes before they can enroll in those advanced classes, but in practice it is not at all strange for a student to intentionally, say, take a "tough" junior year followed by an "easy" senior year, merely by adjusting the classes they wish to choose. I'm sure others will have their own perspectives, but that's the way it looks in a reasonably wealthy school district in the Pacific Northwest, according to a high school teacher of history and literature. :-) Yours truly, User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.231.197.110 (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The main reason I'm asking is that when statistical results of a study were recently presented to me that at first I was lost owing to the good number of years since I was deep into the subject but now that I have revisited the subject my comprehension seems to be ten fold what it was since I last cracked a book. I know a lot has to do with the new tools the Internet provides along with software like MathCad but it is still like the time in between has allowed me to subconsciously digest the material such that my comprehension can be so much better now. I'm wondering if getting all of the basics down in the 5th grade might not be better for full comprehension in the 10th versus one piece one year and another piece the next year resulting in still incomplete comprehension by the 12th. In other words is there a fixed curriculum for each grade everywhere that builds on the previous year or just haphazard pieces presented in a haphazard fashion just to fill the years. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Truth

Does the truth have to be honest? For example if someone passed by me while I had my eyes closed. And then someone else came and asked, "did you see anyone pass here?" And I said, no. Is that the truth or honest? 99.226.39.245 (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot follow your logic. If you did not see you did not see! Your truth is relative...and honest. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There's the literal question and the implied question. You decided to answer the literal one which, as Clio says, is true for you. You might like our article Casuistry. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's say for instance that the person asking the question is a detective. Most likely he would ask "Did anyone pass?" with further questioning if he sensed any deception. In the case of criminal pursuit an answer perceived to be deceptive might result in your being held as an accessory. So, yes, under some circumstances you may not have been completely truthful even though you were quite honest about the facts. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue that this is why the courts (in the U.S. at least) demand that witnesses swear not only to tell "the truth" but "the whole truth". Your answer of "no" is the truth, but not the whole truth--saying "no, I had my eyes closed" would meet that standard, I think. User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.231.197.110 (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This would amount to lying by omission, especially if you knew someone did pass. --Sgt. Salt (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

But it might be the whole truth if 99 had no sensory awareness that anyone had passed by. The above answers seem to assume that even though 99's eyes were closed, he/she was still aware that someone had passed by, maybe because he/she heard them, felt a slight breeze, or smelled something different - or was later told that someone had passed by. None of things may be the case. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

99 would probably not be asking the question if 99 were completely unaware that someone had passed when 99's eyes were closed. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer is "Yes" or "No"; "I believe so", "I don't think so", or "I don't know" for uncertainties. Vranak (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two types of truth. We'll call them absolute and relative. An absolute truth is something which is true regardless of whether people know it or not. For example, it is true that someone walked by you, whether you saw them or not. By this definition, your saying no one passed you is a lie. A relative truth is whatever you think the truth is. Since you didn't see anyone walk by, you can honestly think no one did and honestly say they didn't. It all depends on what your definition is. Wrad (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You may find the concept of Sophism worth researching. Although you may find the Wikipedia article insufficient, it contains references to some more works you may find more useful. -- llywrch (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Alas, there would seem to be far too many lawyers, or would be lawyers, here and not nearly enough philosophers! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Methinks that too many follow the word but not the spirit. FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Therefore I will try a philosophic evaluation of all answers. I don't know how to defend an "I don't know" response—you don't know if you saw someone? Of course you know if you saw someone or not. Was it a hallucination maybe? If your eyes were closed, the truthful answer is "no". You did not see anyone because you saw nothing. If you say "yes", you are lying. Imagine a follow-up question: were they wearing a red shirt? You can only say "I don't know" because you lied and you didn't actually see the person. HYENASTE 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

emperor maro

Hi folks, Titus Flavius Vespasianus became emperor Vespasian of the Flavian dynasty, meanwhile (actually a bit earlier), Publius Vergilius Maro just became Virgil. Does that mean if Virgil had been an emperor instead he would have been emperor Maro of the Vergilian dynasty? t.i.a. 203.221.126.232 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, three emperors were named "Titus Flavius"; one was Titus Flavius Domitianus (Domitian), and two were Titus Flavius Vespasianus (Vespasian and Titus). We distinguish them so it is less confusing but I don't think contemporaries called them by different names. Virgil was always known as Virgil (well...sometimes he was called Maro, although maybe that is just a medieval thing). Adam Bishop (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a trait of the Eighteenth Century too:

'Twas such as these the Rural Maro sung

To the full Roman Court, in all it's height

Of Elegance and Taste. The sacred Plow

Employ'd the Kings and Fathers of Mankind,

In antient Times.

James Thomson, 'Spring' (1728) ll.55-57.

Lord Foppington (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Prison violence

There doesn't seem to be any summary of violence in prisons in Wikipedia... There's an article on prison rape, but nothing on other forms of violence, e.g. murder, and not even a mention in the main article on prisons. I myself do not know anything about the subject, so what's the best way to help? --Sgt. Salt (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The best way, Sgt. Salt, would to do some basic research, if you are so minded, and then either add the information you manage to uncover to the existing prisons article, or perhaps write an independent piece, if you feel this is warranted. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The West Wing

Not directly relevant, but I'm fairly assured in my belief that this is the place where West Wing fans are most likely to surface. For the life of me I can't recognize who http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/4261/vlcsnap3438612jd1.png is. He had the camera trained on him in Tomorrow (The West Wing), so I'm assuming he's important enough for me not to forget - moreover, he looks familar, but just sounds like Babish in my head. AlmostCrimes (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the great Aaron Sorkin himself, the creator of the series. Gantpupo (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard II, royal power and divine right

I consulted your Richard II of England page for some information on the exact reasons for his fall in 1399, but I'm not much wiser. Not only is the page breathless and ill-organized but my question was not fully answered. It also says that Richard adhered to the 'old' notion of the divine right of kings. Now I'm really confused. I always thought this was something assocaited with the development of absolutism rather than medieval monarchy? Am I wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogeeee (talk • contribs) 11:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard seems to have got on well enough with his uncle John of Gaunt, and John’s son Henry Bolingbroke was his cousin and playmate, but Richard’s attempts to take charge of his kingdom were messy. Henry and his uncle Thomas of Woodstock were both members of the Lords Appellant, who forced the execution of several of Richard’s friends, including his beloved tutor Burley, and as Churchill says, “We must suppose that this treatment produced a marked impression on his mind.” Certainly in 1397, now secure in his authority, he finally began to take revenge on those who had bullied and domineered over him before he reached adulthood, particularly the Lords Appellant. Arundel was beheaded, Warwick was exiled and Gloucester was murdered by Royal agents while under arrest, and Richard used Parliament to rubber-stamp these acts. It all smacked of tyranny.

Thomas Mowbray had been a Lord Appellant too, so when Henry accused Mowbray of treason, Richard may have seen a certain irony in the accusation and its source. He refused to allow a duel of honour between the two and banished them both, apparently with the permission of John of Gaunt. Henry is said to have been outraged by his ten-year banishment, so perhaps he was genuinely loyal to Richard and trying to protect his interests. He certainly wasn’t after a year’s exile and then the loss of his father's estates, confiscated by Richard on John's death, of which Christopher Lee says “And then, it seems, Richard lost his reason.” Going off to Ireland was another dreadful miscalculation – Henry was popular, had powerful support in the North, and was viewed by some as a doubly wronged man. He only had to turn up in Richard's absence, as he promptly did, to become a symbol of resistance against injustice and tyranny. Richard’s overthrow is an example of the power of PR, the fickleness of mobs, and the danger of taking your eye off the ball. -- Karenjc 20:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Instruments and instrument players going extinct

Is there any serious study on the lack of musicians working on the manufacture and playing of certain instruments? One can imagine how instruments cease to be played or created every now and then due to lack of interest on the art. Do you guys know anything about this? Any instruments that are nearly extinct you can name? — Kieff | Talk 11:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The dinosaur bone flute is rarely made nowadays,sadlyhotclaws 12:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an instrument called the Zither that's always on the verge of dying out and then you get a revival. Various specific types of flutes have become extinct or are on the verge. A saw isn't really an instrument but there are very few people who can really play it well. Harpsichord and Mellotron are not that common, but probably have enough people to keep them going. The nice thing is that unless all knowledge gets lost, instruments can be revived. Look at the Lute that lay dormant for almost a century and then came back into use. --Lisa4edit (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on reading the lyre article, many types of lyre are distinct and are played only by small groups. The article also says that we cannot know exactly what the lyre of the classical heroic age was. I infer that many types of lyre have gone extinct and that others are currently on the edge of extinction. -Arch dude (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Three life expectancy questions

• 1. Why does Bhutan have a higher male expectancy than a female one? And how did it manage to remain with one ever since the country's initial existence?
• 2. If Andorra has the highest life expectancy, why aren't there/haven't there been many 100-year olds and 110-year olds there?
• 3. Does Georgia (the country) really have one of the highest rates for 100-year olds? It says so in a fact book that I have. 124.176.209.38 (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding 2): life expectancy is measured as an average, therefore 100 year olds are not required for a high life expectancy as long as you have a lot of 70-90 year olds. Regarding 3): this says that the top three for centenarians are the US, Japan, and Canada. Wrad (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• 1 This https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bt.html#People gives 65.5 for males and 66.4 for females. It states that the first modern census took place on 2005, so an erroneous estimate may have been published elsewhere.
• 2 Average life expectancy and maximum life span are, whilst related, not identical. They certainly differ when the mean is calculated at birth as the mortality rate of infants (inter alia) reduces the average expectancy. If the infant mortality rate is low and few people die prior to their average expectancy this results in there being no or just a few centenarians. Of course, Andorra is quite tiny and the size of an average suburb.
• 3 Georgia has a life expectancy at birth of 77 and an infant mortality rate of 17. The equivalents for Andorra are 84 and 4 (these demographics are superior to the stats from the UK / USA). As far as the Ukraine is concerned, I found some stuff published by the Institute of Gerontology of the Kiev Acadamy. As I can´t read it, I have no idea about the frequency of centenarians. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

1. At birth, there are generally more boys than girls, and more boys than girls die very close to birth (neonatal mortality). If they are counted as born dead, then they are not included in the statistics for calculating life expectancy. In developing countries the rate of death of mothers at or after the birth (peripartum mortality) is higher than in developed countries, which could also reduce the life expectancy for females. SaundersW (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Message left on WT:Reliable sources

Copying this here from WT:Reliable sources.

looking for information on tom browning of brownington mo who the town was named after and who left the ground for the brownington baptist church to be build on he was my great grandfather thank youBarbara1st (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Itsmejudith (talk)

If you live in the area and have some time you might try their microfilms http://tacnet.missouri.org/hcl/papers1.html You gave very little information to search for anyone by. E.g. key years might have helped. Have you tried contacting the church? jperkins@mobaptist.org ? There is a Brownington Baptist Church that was established in 1882. That it? Was Tom his full name or a shortened form? There are archives for Civil War information, but you are going to need more details to find anything there. Lisa4edit (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Chicago

This question is politically themed so please leave it here. Who was Nash refering to with:

"Don't ask Jack to help you 'cause he'll turn the other ear. . ."?

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

According to http://www.4waysite.com/faq/faqsongs.htm, Graham Nash: "The 'Jack' in my song Chicago is Jack Kennedy. Jack is a term used by many English people as a kind of generic word. Although Kennedy had been dead for years, his spirit lives on."
In the context of the song, "Jack" could refer to those people for whom the Chicago issue is not "their problem"; the song infers , of course, that no matter how far removed from a problem "Jack" might think he/she is, it is always one's responsibility to stand up, be counted and do one's level best to resolve the issue : hence the refrain  "We can change the world" ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Birds In Reference To Eyeglasses

What Bird, whether by name or type of species, relate to eyeglasses in any way?––ROS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.28.208 (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The quite unspectacular zosterops, aka the spectacle bird. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Examples of non-Russian high profile people in Soviet Union

Hello,

in the west, one often thinks of the Soviet Union as a Greater Russia, so it usually comes as a surprise that important people like Stalin and Beriawere no ethnic Russians. I was wondering : what other examples are there? (They don't have to be politicians, nation-wide known military commanders, scientists,... are welcome too) Thanks, Evilbu (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just now I'm able to give you Brezhnev and Kliment Voroshilov, who I happen to know were Ukranian. Some digging around in our soviet biography articles (the two linked ones give you some good categories) will find you more. User:Krator (t c) 20:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Khrushchev was ethnic Russian, but lived a lot of his early life in Ukraine, and was often identified as being Ukrainian, although he identified as Russian. Corvus cornix_talk 21:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Master of Hestviken FAMILY TREE

Although Wikipedia has a list of characters for The Master of Hestviken by Sigrid Undset [[37]], I'm trying to find a FAMILY TREE similar to the one for the Potter family of the Harry Potter books [[38]]. Is anyone aware of such a family tree or interested in adding one to Wikipedia? Ubaldofsubiaco (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Ubaldofsubiaco

William Blake illustrations for "Paradise Lost"

I'm soon self-publishing a book about the nature of duelism in Western Theology. On your site, the photographic reproductions of Blake's illustrations for Milton's PARADISE LOST are said to be "in the Public Domain whose copyright has expired." I'm wondering if I'm able to use a couple of these illustrations lawfully in my book, without payment of royalty?

--Goranlut —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goranlut (talk • contribs) 21:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Reporter's Day

Other then China, which countries have an nationally designated Reporter's day? FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Logic of Coalitions

Why is it that so many European countries have coalitions instead of single parties? If they were led all by one person, wouldn't it make more sense for them to be merged into one party, instead of having many confusing names? FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)