Humanities desk
< April 2	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 3

Antonin Dolohov

Moved to Entertainment Desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yinyang symbol

my question regards the yin yang symbol. i don't think anyone has a proper explanation for the the dark dot in the white sphere. of the cirlce. i do believe the correct symbol does not have the dark dot just the white dot in the dark. of this i am certain. Richard Star Mountain (E-Mail removed for security purposes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.132.132 (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, thanks for telling us what you're certain of. So what's the question? Yin and yang#Taijitu might be of interest. FiggyBee (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

about the Hashsashin...

i wanted to know more information on the techniques, origin, and usage of the martial art used by the Hashsashin. it states that the assassins used a martial art that incorporates strikes and grappling techniques. The information is rather vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.231.207 (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What states that? The Assassins weren't particularly crafty, their technique mostly consisted of walking up to someone and stabbing him, and promptly getting caught and executed afterwards. Sometimes they got away in the ensuing panic and confusion; sometimes the sources do not say what happened to them; sometimes they were not acting secretly at all and were just carrying out the wishes of some political leader or other. They have a strange mystique that comes from the idea that they may have been drugged, but what the drug was, if anything, no one knows (it may have been plain old alcohol); and that some of them (but not all of them) lived in impenetrable fortress (Alamut), which turned out to be penetrable after all when the Mongols razed it to the ground. But the image of them in the game Assassin's Creed, if that's what you have in mind, is not accurate. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see our hashshashin article says "For unarmed combat, the Hashshashin practiced a fighting style called Janna which incorporates striking techniques, grappling and low kicks." Well, my first thought is that "janna" means "conceal" or "hide", which makes sense here. I'll see what else I can find. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Groundhog day quote

Resolved

I saw this quote from the character Rita in Groundhog Day (film) and wonder where it's really from:
The wretch, concentered all in self;
living shall forfeit fair renown,
and doubly dying shall go down,
to the vile depths from whence he sprung,
unwept, unhonored, and unsung.
Anyone? (If this is the right desk) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lay of the Last Minstrel by Sir Walter Scott. FiggyBee (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fast! Thanks figgybee. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. I see we even got a tick. :O FiggyBee (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tito as dictator

Your article on Tito says that his rule in Yugoslavia had several characteristics of dictatorship 'though it fell short on that common in other communist states.' What does this mean exactly? Was it dictatorship or not? Was Titoism any different from other kinds of communism, other than wearing a nationalist face? Stefan Dusan (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you suppose that dictatorship is a Boolean condition - that you either are or are not a dictator? Meanwhile I do agree the article could provide more information on the differences between Yugoslavia and other Comecon states. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, it was a dictatorship alright, Stefan, just as brutal as any of the other Communist regimes of the day. If fact, if you examine that period of Yugoslav history just after Tito's split with the rest of the Soviet Bloc, then it is really difficult to conclude that what was at work was anything other than Stalinism without Stalin. In 1949 the Communist leadership began the forced collectivisation of agriculture. Those who resisted were branded as 'kulaks', in echo of the mass Soviet collectivisation from 1928 onwards. Just as in Russia, agricultural production levels fell as a consequence of the huge disruption entailed, and the general decline in peasant productivity. The most significant resistance came in Bosnia in May 1950, where some Serbs and Croats joined in an uprising initiated by the Muslim farmers. Several hundred peasants were killed before the rising was suppressed.

The split with the Soviets also entailed a huge increase in the state security apparatus, which put the membership of the Yugoslav Communist Party under scrutiny, as well as the general population. In all some 16,000 alleged Soviet sympathisers were arrested, many of whom ended up in the concentration camp on Goli otok and elsewhere. Tito's terror was later brilliantly depicted in Emir Kusturica's damming film of 1987, Otac na službenom putu (Father's Away on a Business Trip). The dreadful conditions suffered by the prisoners even shocked Milovan Djilas, then a government minister, in a visit he made to Goli otok in 1951.

As the state of siege became less intense after the death of Stalin conditions began to improve somewhat throughout both the economy and society in general, with a move away from collectivisation and a new stress on workers self-management, which, in the end, served to distinguish Titoism from the forms of state-centralism practiced among the Comecon countries. To some extent this was an inevitable consequence of the forms of western aid upon which Tito became more reliant after 1948. But as the puppet-master and dictator, Tito was no less vigilant, and no less brutal, than any other in the Communist Bloc. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Muse. Please help below. Stefan Dusan (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FINANCIAL MARKETS

name a few private sector bonds name public sector bonds what are the differences09:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

For the differences, see our articles Government bonds, Sovereign bonds, and Municipal bonds, which cover various kinds of public-sector bonds; and Corporate bonds, which covers private-sector bonds. As for "naming" the bonds, bonds themselves don't really have names (typically they have serial numbers), though they may be referred to using the name of the bond's issuer. Virtually all government entities with taxing power (and some without) issue bonds, and virtually every major corporation issues bonds, so the list is almost endless. Marco polo (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some government bonds have fun or interesting names. British have Gilts and War Loans for example. Germany has Bund and Bobl and Schatze which all sound hilarious to me! Also don't some US Bonds have funny nicknames? --90.203.189.60 (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're possibly thinking of Sallie Mae, Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae and Freddie Mac. Gandalf61 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

division of indian states

sir i'd like to know about the history of the formation of indian states.i came to know that after india's independence in 1947,indian states were formed on linguistic basis.plz tell.59.95.68.202 (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at our articles on States and territories of India, Political integration of India and States Reorganisation Act. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

obamas speeches

i have been trying to access senator barack obama speeches but i seem not to find them anywhere,can you please assist me with the website adress i will most certainly appreciate davis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.120.202 (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean as text or as audio/video? There are some videos here. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested to know we even have a whole article on A More Perfect Union...--Cameron (t|p|c) 12:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could try WikiSource http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Barack_Obama Dismas|^(talk) 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish empire and the abolition of slavery

Thank you for the excellent answers to my question on slave revolts and the United States. I would now like to know, please, how the Spanish responded to the growing pressure for the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade, given how imoprtant slavery was to the economic strength of their empire in the early nineteenth century? TheLostPrince (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was some limited attempt to improve the condition of the slaves within the Empire; to make the condition of slavery itself, if you like, slightly more 'morally' acceptable. The government of Charles III introduced a new slave code: the Código Negro Español, based on precedents extracted from previous legislation on the Indies. Masters were now obliged to instruct their slaves in the Catholic religion, not just to baptize them. They were to be fed, moreover, according to standards fixed by a specially designated 'protector of slaves.' Those who abused their slaves were to be fined, or even risk outright confiscation of their human property. There were to be only 270 working days in the year, the rest given over to holidays and fiestas. Of course, theory was one thing; practice quite another. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meiji Revolution

what exactly happened in the Meiji Revolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.169.47.22 (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our article Meiji Restoration? Take a look and let us know if you have any questions. Marco polo (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japan gave up feudalism - samurai, shoguns, nobleman, and an Emperor - and started their own industrial revolution. So basically this time frame saw a shift away from small internal wars and power struggles to external affairs, like World War II. The weapon of choice became the rifle (later battleships, airplanes etc.) rather than the katana. Vranak (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vranak's answer is partly correct but partly misleading. Our article should make this clear, but in case you are tempted to skip it and rely on what you are told here, the key changes during the Meiji Restoration were FROM 1) enforced external isolation and 2) a system of feudal power led by a shogun and a samurai military elite TO 3) an eagerness to learn from and compete with Western powers and 4) a system of institutional power. The effort to learn from and compete with the west took place in many spheres, including the economic and technological, and so it sparked an industrial revolution in Japan. In fact, the Japanese did not give up their emperor; they still have one today. The term "Meiji Restoration" in fact refers to the supposed restoration of the emperor to a position of primacy (thereby displacing the shogun), although in practice the emperor remained little more than a figurehead. The Meiji Restoration preceded and should not be confused with Japan's subsequent period of imperialism, which brought it into conflict with foreign powers and culminated in the disaster of World War II. Marco polo (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This man knows his Japanese history! Yes, Marco; you are absolutely right. I would hope that the questioner would have the good sense to read the article you have linked, but in any case you have highlighted the main features of the whole process.

I would just like to add that the Tokugawa Shogunate, established in the early seventeenth century, had brought Japan a period of prolonged peace after the anarchy of the Warring States. During the time of the Shogunate the Emperors had always been present, though rather shadowy figures in the political background. With the retirement of Tokugawa Yoshinobu, the last Shogun, and the subsequent 'Restoration'-a somewhat misleading term-of the Emperor Meiji, rule by one man was effectively replaced by the rule of a modernising oligarchy. You are right to say that the Emperor himself enjoyed, in practical terms, little more power than he had under the Shogunate; though, in a number of important respects, he moved to the centre of the whole constitutional and government process, an altogether more important influence and symbol that before. I would also like to stress that the suggestion there was some kind continuum between the 1868 Restoration and Japanese aggression in World War Two is bizarre and muddle-headed nonsense! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill's warnings

why did people in 1930s Britain, particularly in his own party, not take Churchill's warnings about Germany seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.39.231 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they though Chamberlain was doing a great job of ensuring "peace in our time" by appeasing Hitler. Chamberlain's apologists still have praise for him, as in the Wikipedia article. By not building modern fighter planes and by not spending for massive rearmament, government spending could be kept lower. Taking warnings seriously would have meant higher taxes and lower domestic spending. Edison (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting question, 86.148, which actually raises a whole series of side issues. However, I will try to confine myself to the basic facts.

To begin with it might surprise you to know, particularly if you are mindful of his later reputation, that Winston Churchill was not a figure who inspired a great deal of confidence within the Conservative Party in the 1930s. He was not, if I can put in these terms, 'one of us', having a reputation of changing parties to suit his mood, which meant that his power base was relatively weak. More than that, he had a reputation of being a maverick and a lover of unorthodox schemes; a man whose judgment was not entirely 'sound'. Even his skill as a speaker could not make up for the lack of confidence in him, widely shared among the Parliamentary Party. His rhetoric, often of a 'maximalist' nature, full of exaggeration and alarm, only served to increase the distrust in which he was held. For example, in March 1933 Herbert Samuel observed;

Churchill makes many brilliant speeches on all subjects, but that is no reason why we should necessarily accept his political judgment. On the contrary, the brilliance of his speeches only makes the errors of his judgment the more conspicuous...I feel inclined to say of him what Bagehot wrote of another very distinguished Parliamentarian [Disraeli]: 'His chaff is excellent, but the wheat is poor stuff.

It did not help his standing among his Parliamentary colleagues that he fell out with Stanley Baldwin, the Tory leader, over the issue of Dominion status for India. His hostility to any concession to the movement for Indian independence occupied his energies for a good bit of the early 1930s, just as his warnings over German rearmament were to do in the later part of the decade; and he dealt with both issues with equal degrees of rhetorical fire; equally unrestrained and equally alarmist. He dismissed the Indian Nationalist leaders as 'evil and malignant Brahmins', with their 'itching fingers stretching and scratching at the vast pillage of a derelict Empire." Striking Phrases, yes; but all this exaggeration and hyperbole over an Act that went nowhere near meeting the demands of Gandhi and the Congress Party. Quite frankly, by the time the Act was passed in 1935, people were bored with Churchill and his unrestrained alarmism.

So, given this background, it comes as no great surprise, that when the siren started to call out over Germany he was largely ignored. On this greater issue people simply did not want to listen because few in the mid-1930s wished to entertain the possibility of another world war. Almost everyone-on the left and the right-wanted to reach some accommodation with Germany, to meet the country's just and reasonable demands, a policy later condemned by the label of appeasement. But at the time it was immensely popular. Besides, Churchill's warnings were not about the danger to peace offered by the growth of Fascism; they were, rather, a nationalist warning about the possible revival of German power, a quite different thing altogether.

You see, Churchill, in the shape of Cassandra, seemed not just unnecessarily alarmist: he was just so terribly old-fashioned, representing the mindset of a different age. Leo Amery talked of him as a 'mid-Victorian', but I would go one step further, taking him right back to the eighteenth century, to the age of John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough or William Pitt the Elder. As they saw France so Churchill saw Germany. It was this that people could not take seriously, especially when you consider his views on the aggressions perpetrated by Germany's present and future partners.

If Churchill’s warning about the new forms of imperialist aggression had been comprehensive they might have commanded greater moral authority. But they were not. He effectively condoned Japanese aggression in Manchuria; he approved of Mussolini, and his view of Italian aggression in Abyssinia was far from heroic; and he approved of Franco. His position on these issues served to divorce him from those who were beginning to see in the world situation a clash not of power, but of ideologies. This was something beyond Churchill's comprehension, allowing him to praise Mussolini as a 'great man' as late as October 1937, by which time he and Hitler had crated the Axis.

So, given all this, it is really no great surprise he was not taken seriously. In the end history proved him to be right in one respect at least; and that is really only because Hitler decided to wear the wig of Louis XIV. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a profound pacifist mood, a total dread of war, amongst British people in the 1930s which led people to favour concession after concession in the hope, born out of fear, that it would placate Hitler and avert war. I think Clio the Muse touched on a very important factor why Churchill's warnings were dismissed in the 1930s. Most people now viewed foreign policy in moral terms, in terms of 'fairness' rather than what was in Britain's national interest, although some people were more passionate in this than others. For example when Germany remilitarised the Rhineland–which removed from potential Allied control the vital Ruhr economic area–most people in Britain did not see this as a danger to be parried but almost fell over themselves to excuse it as a reasonable act (it was compared to Britain reoccupying Portsmouth). The same thing happened with German rearmament. When debating German rearmament in 1935 Clement Attlee demanded to know why no-one spoke of French rearmament: this was another case of not thinking in terms of British interests (France posed no threat to Britain and was much weaker than Germany) but of trying to be 'fair'. Of course this view is still around: look at how many people get angry at the 'hypocrisy' of the West in possessing nuclear weapons but trying to stop Iran from having them (the same disregard of national interest prevails amongst these people). Also, Germany was widely felt to have been unjustly treated by the Versailles Treaty (which in truth was very mild to Germany) and therefore many people welcomed Germany becoming more powerful even though this was detrimental to Britain. In this atmosphere then Churchill's rational warnings of the German peril to Britain were not likely to be heeded.--Johnbull (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Clio's fine and scholarly analysis, she said "a policy later condemned by the label of appeasement." I believe that appeasement was the actual term Chamberlain and others used in the prewar period, not merely a derogatory label applied later. Google News Archive [1] for 1930-1940 seems to bear this out. "In his radio broadcast last night from London Prime Minister Chamberlain sought to dispose of the criticism that his policy of appeasement with the dictatorships of Europe is based in any way on admiration of their methods or a desire to have England follow their example." New York Times Dec 14, 1938, for example, or "Britain's Cabinet Refuses Pledge to Central Europe; Chamberlain's Program of 'Appeasement' Wins General Support-'Democratic Front' Will Be Rejected in Statement Tomorrow." New York Times March 23, 1938. "LONDON, Dec. 3.--Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain has shown again this week that there is a stubborn side to his nature. Rebuffs and humiliations from abroad have not been enough to make him abandon his policy of "appeasement" which he believes still provides the..." New York Times Dec 4, 1938. Clio doubtless has better sources, perhaps to see if "appeasement " was the term Chamberlain used in his speeches and papers, to supplement the US news reports of his activities, and if it was the term Churchill used at the time and criticized. Edison (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting but not surprising to find that the word appeasement gained a negative connotation only after 1938. The original meaning of the word is "pacification or relief"—both appealing concepts. Marco polo (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Edison; you are absolutely right. My meaning was unclear. The emphasis should have been placed on the retrospective condemnation. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More about naturist children

Thanks for answering my question about naturist children. Now I have a further question: At which age do parents stop automatically taking their children to naturist events and consider their own ideas about it? At which age do the children start going to go to naturist events on their own initiative? JIP | Talk 17:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the child and the parents. There is no specific year when that change has to happen for everyone.HS7 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

asbestos pipe

...moved to science desk 71.100.173.69 (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Pop/Rock without the lead guitar

Are there any well-known pop/rock songs (or bands or genres) that don't use lead guitars? e.g. drums+bass or drums+bass+vocals or (at a push) drums+bass+keyboards?

(Posting to Humanities not Entertainment because I always find I get better music theory answers here!) AndyJones (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about lead guitar or just any guitar? Tons of stuff doesn't have guitar leads. A smaller amount has no guitar at all. Friday (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I assume you mean by "lead guitar" became popular in the 80's when every pop rock song had to have a guitar solo. Previous to those glam rock days, it was common for rock songs to be constructed from the 2-lyrics, a bridge, and a closing lyric formula. The bridge (which glam rock replaced with the guitar solo) was often a lyric or chorus in a different chord - not a guitar solo. Sometimes they got rather creative. In "A Day in the Life", the bridge is an entirely different song shoved in to good effect. So, I feel you are really asking: "Are there any well-known pop/rock songs (or bands) from the 80's that didn't have a guitar solo in nearly every song?" -- kainaw ™ 19:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For specific examples, hardly any of the old Ramones stuff has guitar leads, but the songs are dominated by heavy rhythm guitar. Many of the punksters who followed in their footsteps also kept things stripped-down. Friday (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head - Emerson Lake and Palmer famously consisted of keyboards, bass and drums. The newest CD from Joe Jackson has no guitar, just piano, bass and drums (although it's probably not "well-known"). Most of the tracks from 808 State do not use any guitar. Maybe some of Ben Folds' stuff? --LarryMac | Talk 19:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Morphine's songs used only sax, bass, and drums--occasional guitar. --ShelfSkewed Talk 20:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, excellent answers, very quickly. Let me absorb that lot before I get overwhelmed! AndyJones (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try also Death From Above 1979, who just used bass and drums when they were around. Phileas (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's the piano rock article. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 23:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Cell hotclaws 23:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of The White Stripes' songs, like Fell In Love With a Girl, have only rhythm guitar and drums. (I suppose that accounts for the majority of their songs before they got famous and could afford overdubs). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dresden Dolls typically only use drums-piano. But I wouldn't call it pop. It's quite alternative. 130.56.65.25 (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another example popped into my head last night (apparently the RD part of my brain never sleeps). Although failing on the "rock" part of the original question, I think that some songs performed by the Vince Guaraldi Trio were quite popular, at least in the States. --LarryMac | Talk 14:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British officer shakos, Peninsular War

I've seen a number of drawings and recreations of British Army uniforms from the Peninsular War, but I have not yet worked out how an officer's shako differed from other soldiers. Were there markings, plumes, braidings or insignia on the shakos to distinguish rank? A study of drawings in Osprey Guides (for example) yields some differences across regiments and periods (such as shape of plume or regimental badges) but I fail to see if these apply to rank. Putting it simply, can we tell if he's an ensign, major, colonel (etc) by looking at his shako? Gwinva (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot give you a definite answer, Gwinva, but I have a feeling that the officer's shako had different coloured braiding or cord to distinguish it from other ranks, besides being of better quality. I cannot say for certain if they were further distinguished by seniority. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher, I., & Younghusband, W. (1994). Wellington's foot guards. Elite series, 52. London: Osprey. pp. 24-7. OCLC 30777940 may help, here's a google preview link: [2].

...in 1812 officers of all regiments of the Army were expected to wear the 'stove-pipe' shako,already worn by other ranks and Light Infantry officers. Introduced in 1806, the shako was cylindrical in shape and made of strong felt...Officers wore cut feather plumes on their shakos whilst other ranks wore wollen tufts...
Another change came about in 1812 with the introduction of the 'Waterloo' or 'Belgic' shako. This was made of strong felt for other ranks, coarse beaver for sergeants and fine beaver—with a taller false front to give the impression of height—for officers. A festoon of white worsted chain and tassels was fixed across the front for other ranks, of gold cord for sergeants and of mixed gold and crimson chain cord and tassels for officers...the Foot Guards wore brass plates adorned with their own regimental badge. Officers' shako plates were gilt and had enamelled centres. Although the 'Waterloo' shako saw service during the Waterloo campaign, there is little evidence to suggest that it was worn by rank and file in the Peninsula, other than by drafts that came out late in the war. Officers, however, may have worn it...

—eric 00:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, but it's only muddied the waters further for me. This Osprey guide (Wellington's Peninsula Regiments (2): The Light Infantry, by Mike Chappell) shows a rather plain shako with horsehair plume for an officer: [3]; google books does not show the plates, but the cover shows (L-R) corporal, 51st foot; subaltern 51st; field officer, 68th (mounted); bugler, 68th. Note that the subaltern is the only one to have braiding; the field officer wears a plain shako, similar to that of a subaltern in other illustrations (unfortunately not on google). The back cover is not clear, but studying a close up in the book, it is seen that the privates have feather-looking plumes, and the mounted officer a "Christmas tree" plume. It's not important; it just bothered me because I couldn't figure out the pattern. Perhaps there isn't one. Gwinva (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Thos. Farrington's Regiment contains the text of the General Order of 24 February, 1800 which required the shako for infantry regiments. Field, staff, and battalion company officers were to still wear hats, along with grenadier officers when not on parade. Light company officers were to wear caps "similar" to those of the privates. (p. 246) The General Order of 20 October, 1806 is described on page 261: officers caps had a festoon of crimson and gold with tassels, privates and non-commissioned officers white worsted, and green for light infantry.

The Vein Openers were with Wellington 1808-1811.—eric 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

world war I

could you help me? i need to know what steps were taken after wwI to keep peace in the world. thanks mp4.224.117.167 (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest reading Aftermath of World War I and League of Nations. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also cast the net a little wider by looking at the Washington Naval Treaty, the London Naval Treaty, the Kellog Briand Pact and the World Disarmament Conference. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enlightened by the references above, you may also wonder why these peaceful steps goosemarched straight into WWII. Hindsight is a good, though infrequently employed teacher. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I would agree with that, Cookatoo. Hindsight as a teacher is ever present, though the lessons are always stale. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My theory is that Hindsight applied for the job in history, but didn't get it. And when it queried it's equal opportunity standing, was told the position was defunct. Hindsight can be seen in the streets carrying a placard saying, Oh, I get it now. ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAN YOU HELP ME WITH A SONNET?????

by help i mean do one for me in the next ten minutes if possible. PLEASE, its a life or death situation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.157.21.71 (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is somebody holding a gun to your head saying "A sonnet or your life"? Yeah, happens to me all the time. Wikipedia does not do peoples homework...--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know anybody, who can knit a Bonnet. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinch one from Petracha,John Milton or the Bard / Edward de Vere (Good morning, Jack). Even from Robert Frost, Rainer Maria Rilke or Seamus Heaney.

Looking at our article on sonnet is all you need to knit one for yourself and save your life...--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's afternoon here now, but hi anyway, Cookatoo.ergo.Zoom. It's good to see not everyone believes the impossible is impossible to believe. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first step is deciding what to write it about. Sonnets should be about something. Once you decide that, and whether you're going to do the 4-4-4-2 kind of the other kind, and pick your rhyme scheme, and choose a couple of conceits to develop, then the sonnet pretty much writes itself. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A man with a gun to my head wants a sonnet
And if I don't write one he'll blow me away
I better start writing. I'd better get on it
If I want to live till the end of the day.
Poetry's tricky. Perhaps I should steal one.
From Milton or Shakespeare, Frost or de Vere
But maybe the man with the gun wants a real one
By me, and not copied from somewhere like here.
So maybe it's best if I do my own writing
Not ask other people to do it for me.
I'll do it myself. It's kind of exciting
Not knowing a word of my poem-to-be.
He looks impatient. Time's running out fast.

Each word, each line, each breath may be my last.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.148.158 (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, but much past our poor questioner's deadline. Still, it's there and ready for the next desperate student. --LarryMac | Talk 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applause (clap clap clap). And with a message, too. Do sonnets have a message or is this a new genre as well? Julia Rossi (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Dom

Please, who in the English Civil War was known as Black Dom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archie Gabriel (talk • contribs) 21:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archie, I think you must mean Black Tom. In which case the person you are looking for is Sir Thomas Fairfax, the first commander-in-chief of the New Model Army. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Law disclosure

Of what value is disclosure to the defence in a criminal trial? When I mean defence, I mean defence lawyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 22:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preservation of the accused's right to a fair trial. --Nricardo (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the basic argument is: How can the accused defend themselves if they don't know what they're defending against? -- Kesh (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with prostitution?

We buy daily services from people that possibly hate their jobs, we always have to spend money for relationships (gifts, going out, etc). What makes prostitution different from other activities? Isn't our whole life actually trading for something? Mr.K. (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to answer your question, that would require us to agree with your question. Neal (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Plus, when you buy a bag of crisps from a shop, the chances are quite low that the person selling you the crisps is effectively enslaved and unable to leave the shop or choose not to sell you the crisps. They are unlikely to have been smuggled into the country on false pretences, had their documents taken from them, and then been forced to sell crisps for fear of being turned over to the police (having been told horror stories of what the authorities will do if they find them). They are unlikely to be selling crisps to buy drugs for their underage body. They are unlikely to have run away from home at a young age (often to escape a crisp-demanding situation) and been led into retail when at their most vulnerable, developing emotional and financial ties to their abusive manager. And they are unlikely to catch anything serious from you. Prostitution is not the same as working at a checkout. Why this should be is a different question. Skittle (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's illegal to sell drugs not approved by the FDA (in America) because they could get you sick or kill you. Same thing goes with prostitutes. Ever heard of STDs? Only difference is, prostitutes aren't illegal in America. Restricted a bit, but not illegal. And I doubt it's because of STDs. Wrad (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, prostitution is flatly illegal in most of the US. There are very few places where it's legal. -- Kesh (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's partly a health matter, and partly societal. The health matter can at least be partly mitigated through regulation. The social issues, however, run much deeper. As some others have pointed out, prostitution can be used as a form of slavery, or at least indentured servitude. Provided that is not the case, however, we still have the social stigma against people who are "too loose" in many Western societies. Especially here in the US, sex is still often treated as "dirty," and publically providing sex draws a backlash from the average citizen. -- Kesh (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to Kesh's point about illegality, decriminalisation may apply. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News stories have covered the commonality of the people who prepare food for you in some Chinese restaurants in the US being slaves in the sense they were smuggled illegally in to the US and must "work off" their passage and sleep in imprisoned condition, literally locked in and guarded. Many other people are wage slaves in the sense they hate their job and their boss and are trapped in the rat race/salt mine by the need to keep that job because they can't get a better one or because they fear losing health benefits, however dangerous or degrading the work. Edison (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the point is that many people think that not everything should be traded for money. In most places it's considered immoral to trade your children for money. If a politician trades his political support for money that's seen as bad. Many people think sex is one of those things that shouldn't be a commodity. And that's in addition to all the excellent points raised by the editors above. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of postitutes are proud to be doing their job and wouldn't change it for another, this I guess, more in countries where it is regulated and more safe. All the arguments appart from DJ Clayworth's (although the comparision between selling children and selling sex would be hard to uphold) have to do with the conditions in which it is practiced but not much with the fundamentals of the castigation of prostitution. My guess would be that monotheistic religions which form a great part of our culture and have a great influence in our morals tend to frown on purely carnal relations. I only know of the christian idea that one should look for spiritual pleasures (if any pleasure at all) and not pleasures of the body. Too bad they haven't found a way to use both grey matter and pink parts pleasure as as a way to the stars - maybe tantric practices come closer to uniting these. That would seem to make sense if you favor a social organization based around the family to ,even in a very openly sexual society, promote sex for free rather than as a financial agreement. As you pointed out ... we're all whores, maybe just not as literaly as the blowjob for money type. I guess we aren't that removed from our bonobo cousins who, amongst many other sexual practice use sex as favor/payment for food. There are quite a few books on the self-styled 'whore culture'. The only one I ever read is Shannon Bell's Whore Carnival which as a non-practicionner did leave me with a queezy feeling. However much one puts it in a favorable light there always seem to be something seedy (sorry) about the practice. I live in a country where you can phone a prostitute to come to your place and spend an hour for 5 U$ (and I guess as far as world economy goes that's still in the higher range) so if it's that easy, it doesn't look like there is any way to erradicate the practice. I wonder about cultures that if not actively encouraged the practice might have viewed the trade it as a useful part of society. Maybe the lupanares of Pompei and Herculanum are witness to that? 200.127.59.151 (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to know a person who has chosen prostitution as a career and is quite happy with his choice. Marco polo (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's mainly a matter of human dignity. Owning slaves is now regarded as degrading to both slave and owner. Why is prostitution any different? Selling your body for money, does this not strike you as odious? Or buying a prostitute -- how is that going to make you a better man? Better to spend your money on some therapy, a good book, some good food, or even just burn it. Vranak (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing that we're on shaky grounds and have altogether left behind us rational arguments: what about considering prostitution as one of the most beautiful job on earth, selling love or pleasure, indiscriminatly as long as there is a wallet (or a state subsidy such as in some scandinavian countries). Selling intimacy doesn't seem that bad if you consider that at most whores sell a bit of their affection more usually just a service (they don't lease all rights to their body). Even if they 'sold their body', wouldn't they come out better than the person who sold his brain all day to an soulless corporation? Agreed that the trade is a dangerous one and that it is usually (but certainly not always) as a last resort that women and men have gone into prostitution it seems that pointing the finger will only make the situation worse. Maybe making the conditions in which the trade is performed more secure (such as with licences, designated house of practice, controls) would help eradicate human trafficking, improve health conditions, prevent abuse, better wages, etc. It reminds me of Simenon and his '10,000' women most of them whores. I remember reading that he claimed to have had a close, kind and sincere relation with almost all of them involving as much affection as sex. Ok, I'm playing devil's advocate. To live in a world where everybody get his share of fulfilled sexual desire would be amazing. I'm not quite sure it is possible. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they 'sold their body', wouldn't they come out better than the person who sold his brain all day to an soulless corporation?

You get to the crux of the matter right there 200.127. You can always say that selling your body for money is no worse than selling your time to a corporation. Of course they're both bad. As someone who has the luxury of living with their parents and doesn't work, I can afford to make snide remarks about wage slavery and the like. The bottom line is that everyone wants to live, so everyone must eat, so everyone needs to make money (unless they pull a Chris McCandless and end up starving in the wilderness. So really, there is no argument against prostitution, I concede. Perhaps the one clear knock against it is that nobody aspires to be a prostitute (do they?). They might like to be pilots, carpenters, librarians, football players, judges, but never a prostitute. Surely this is a telling fact no matter what sort of sophisticated arguments you make that it is a 'beautiful' profession. It is crude and gross. But there is much that is crude and gross in the world. So it fits right in – for the time being. I suspect the number of prostitutes in the year 3000 will be less than 3000. Vranak (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A matter of human dignity? Please don't make me laugh. How about of simple (and honest :) human hypocrisy excused by/based upon religious reasons? A Prostitute doesn't "sell her body", she provides a service for which she is paid for. There are a lot of countries where prostitution is legal (the article seems to be quite adequate). If legal prostitution is properly regulated (no slavery, obligatory condoms, regular STD tests, etc) it will in fact diminish 'all the horrible side-effects' mentioned above. Flamarande (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A whore does of course sell her body. I needn't argue, it is a fact as plain as day. Vranak (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...said the whoremonger. Sounds like you need to laugh. Tell me something, do you have a daughter? How much would you advise mine to charge? (I'm being pointy to illustrate that this has degenerated into a newsgroup-style free-for-all.) --Milkbreath (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look pal, I don't have a daughter but if I had one and if she was working in the "horizontal department" I would prefer that she 'worked' in a legal, safe, and regulated enviroment instead of the streets (but I think that I will rather bet in a good education). I would advise you daughter to charge as much as possible in the same conditions. Prostitution is simply the 'oldest profession of the world' and no laws are going to stop it. Regulation of prostitution works in many countries. Flamarande (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's worth pointing out for those with sufficient wit to understand simple English usage that a prostitute does not 'sell' his or her body, in the fashion of a slave. In such arrangements the said item is rented. Clio the Muse (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not the lady in question contaminate at very least her memories, sense of integrity, and sense of self-worth by engaging in prostitution? As I see it, the act is selling and not mere rental if any harm is done in the process. I.e. an amnesiac whore who always uses protection is alright in my books, but everyone has memories so she is a theoretical niceity only. Vranak (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A slave also doesn't sale his or her body: he or she is sold by someone else. The body is rented in the case of prostitution only if the prostitute does it independently. In the cases where a person is rented/sold we are talking about slave trade, but I suppose the questioner was asking about independent prostitutes trading directly with johns and not through pimps.

I personally believe that it should be a crime to offer any person money for sex, since it could exploit a vulnerability of this person (drug abuse, poverty, ...) and will look much more like a rape than like a commercial transaction. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add (for those with the wit to understand, Clio) that the phrase selling her body is plainly a use of metaphorical language. The body is not of course sold like ham hock at a butcher's, but as there is some cost to the prostitute in allowing her body to be used for money the phrase is useful and has been retained over the years. Vranak (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although, interestingly, the term "rent boy" has arrived. Even more interestingly, we don't generally use the parallel formation "rent girl" for a female prostitute (although Google has some examples). -- JackofOz (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]