Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 September 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Humanities desk
< September 26 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 28 >
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.

September 27[edit]

Canadian Government[edit]

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

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

directed change[edit]

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

I meant during the British colonization of North America, were there any directed change between the native Indians and the settlers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I did see your earlier question(s), 76.64, though did not respond because, quite frankly, it is not at all clear to me what you are looking for. OK, so let's slow down just a little and take it stage by stage. What country is it that you are interested in? Is it, say, Mexico under the Spanish or North America under the British or after independence? Is the slavery you refer to the import of Africans or the enslavement of native peoples? What do you mean, exactly, by 'directed change'? As it stands I simply have no idea what this might refer to. Is it to do with blending and assimilation of different cultural traditions, or are you interested in attempts by slave owners to eradicate values and practices of which they did not approve? If you could just try to make things a little clearer I might be able to help. Finally, I would ask you to note that 'forced slavery' is a tautology, using two words to say essentially the same thing. Can you conceive of 'voluntary' slavery? Clio the Muse 02:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Erm. Didn't some early Christians have an odd habit of selling themselves into slavery? Some forms of 'bonded' labour (indentured servants) in North America might have amounted to much the same, though for a fixed period? Xn4 03:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, selling oneself into (and buying oneslf out of) slavery was common in the ancient world, in Greece, Rome and China. Moses Finley has a book or two discussing it IIRC.John Z 07:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Xn4: that would be an odd way for early Christians to behave, given 1 Cor 7:21: "Were you called when a slave? Do not let it worry you; but if you can also become free, rather seize the opportunity." However people have always ignored Biblical injunctions when it suits them, so maybe they did it in that case. SaundersW 12:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'd bet solid money that Paul is there referring not to slavery as a legal condition, but rather as a spiritual one (i.e. Christ frees the soul from the bondage of sin). Augustine, in The City of God, mentions that being enslaved is no problem for a Christian as long as they are able to be pious. I don't have a copy of it around, so I can't give you a quote, but it's in there. 16:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so I just looked up the verse, and I was totally wrong, Paul is there talking about legal slavery. However, I still stand by my point, which is that the focus of Christianity is eternal salvation, and one's status as slave or free is relevant only to the extent that one is able to live a pious life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely with your point: I just quoted the verse because I thought selling oneself into slavery would be odd behaviour in the light of it. And of course odd behaviour in the light of biblical injunctions would not be unusual, in this case or many others. SaundersW 21:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

legal fiction[edit]

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

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

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

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

Demographics of the People's Republic of China says that the one child policy has prevented 400 million extra births, which would have put the population of China at 1.7 billion. I have no idea how to answer your question about the effects on the world economy. For another policy, what about the Great Leap Forward? I suppose it depends how broad your definition of "policy" is: presumably some of Stalin and Hitler's policies eventually had massive effects on the global economy, but if you are looking for a single policy, I don't really know. I would imagine that the further back you go, the greater the effect of policies would generally be. Maybe some of the actions of the Roman Republic? 09:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
China's policy has led to an economic boom there, by allowing their meager resources to be focused on fewer children. This, along with adopting capitalism, has allowed China to emerge as a major economic force. However, there are also some rather negative side-effects of the one child policy, such as parents killing baby girls since boys were preferred. This has led to gender imbalance in certain age groups, which does not bode well for the long-term stability of China. Another serious problem is that the work force will not be able to support their retired parents and grandparents. There may be only one working adult to support two parents and four grandparents, after all. This "demographic bomb" is set to hit in the coming decades. If China destabilizes as a result of these problems, and sinks into civil war, this could have global economic implications. StuRat 15:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Rural electrification in the U.S. arguably had pretty dramatic effect on U.S. economy. Tax policy (social security is a payroll tax) in the U.S. affects the family structure as well as agriculture. Robber barons detested Antitrust legislation which arguably helped create and maintain large free markets. This helped speed modern industrialization and consumerism. Was the fundamental intent fairness, breaking concentrations of political political and economic power, or economic growth? See also Social engineering. In terms of unintended consequences one might credit the U.S. Constitution as looming large in history. Many signatories to the constitution were slave holders and women had no right to vote. Yet the concept of sovereignty deriving from the people governed has evolved into Civil rights and Equal protection The U.S. Interstate System[1] helped feul post WWII boom in automobile use in the U.S. It was originally justified as critical to national defense but has had more impact on commerce, growth of suburbs, and ever increasing dependence in U.S. on the automobile. Lazyquasar 15:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Decline of the Papacy[edit]

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

It is sometimes claimed that papal power reached its climax with pope Innocent III. For the subsequent decline, you might be interested in the article on the Avignon papacy. Icek 09:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The largest threat to papal supremacy was brought on by Martin Luther and the subsequent Protestant Reformation. StuRat 14:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Icek is absolutely right, 81.129: the apogee of the Medieval papacy does indeed come with Innocent III in the early thirteenth century. But the decline can be dated to that same century, even before the establishment of the Avignon papacy and the subsequent schism. It can also be pinpointed to the time of a particular pontiff; for if Innocent III stood at the apogee, Boniface VIII dropped to the nadir.

The problem for Boniface was the the nation state, still relatively weak at the time of Innocent, had been growing steadily over the decades, demonstrated, most particularly, in new and more assertive forms of monarchy; and there was no European monarch more assertive than Philip the Fair of France. Boniface and Philip had already clashed over the issue of clerical taxation. In 1301 an even more serious dispute arose, one which went to the heart of emerging notions of state sovereignty. Philip had Bishop Bernard Saisset of Pamiers arrested on a charge of heresy and treason. Bermard immediately appealed to Boniface, who claimed that he, and not Philip, had the right to judge the matter; that he had the right, in other words, to interfere in the temporal affairs of any of the Christian kingdoms. Philip was personally admonished in the bull Ausculta Filii (Listen my Son), in which he was told that God has set the Pope over kings. This was followed in November 1302 with Unam sanctam, a clear and precise statement of the spiritual and temporal authority of the church, the clearest ever made, in which it is said that "If the secular power strays from the way, it shall be judged by the spiritual." It was a challenge that Philip could not ignore.

Even before the publication of Unam sanctam Phillip had prepared his counter-offensive. An Estates-General was summoned in which Boniface was accused of a list of crimes, from nepotism to avarice. The French clergy duly lined up behind the King, as even more outrageous charges were prepared against Boniface by Guillaume de Nogaret, chief minister to the crown. Nogaret's final indictment of Boniface was to be among the most scandalous ever assembled against the head of the Catholic church: that he was a heretic, a sodomite, a dealer in magic, an athieist, a whore-monger and a pederast! It was Nogaret's intention to have Boniface tried before the Inquisition, whose proceedures did not allow the accused to speak in his own defence. The Pope was seized while he lay ill at Anagni, though he was saved when the citizens of the town rose in his defence. Nogaret fled back to France, while Boniface went on to Rome, where he died in October 1303. Unam Sanctam, though never repealed, was effectively dead. No king or emperor would ever again Walk to Canossa. Clio the Muse 23:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Canossa, we can say that the rise of the papacy really occurred only under Gregory VII, only 200 years before the decline by the time of Boniface. So for all of ancient, medieval, and modern history, the papacy was truly dominant for only those 200 or so years! Adam Bishop 02:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

middle english punctuation?[edit]

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

I know it's a vertical bar but not why it is being used. Looks like it is breaking the text down into verse , however the article here does not appear to cover this usage. Perhaps it is just stylistic? Lanfear's Bane 10:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Your quote comes from Caxton's edition of Aesop, published in 1484. In early printed books (as in many Medieval manuscripts), punctuation does not accord with today's usage. For example, in Luther's Bible, slashes (altered to the vertical pipe in your example) are used in place of commas, periods, colons, etc., as the fundamental marker of breaks in the sense. I suspect that's exactly what we have here, and my suspicion is rendered nearly certain if you look at this facsimile of a page of a book printed by Caxton (Preface to the Recuyell of the Histories of Troye: context here). (The closest Wikipedia seems to come to describing this is at Slash (punctuation)#History: "In the early modern period, in the Fraktur script, which was widespread through Europe in the Middle Ages, one slash (/) represented a comma, while two slashes (//) represented a dash.") Wareh 14:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

role of women in history[edit]

I am working on a project 'role of women in history'. I want 2 female revolutionaries,2 political worker,2 social worker and 2lawyer . Each must be female and must be between 19 to 20 centuary.ABOUT THEIR LIVES ,CONTRIBUTION AND WRITTINGS. 08:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

God knows I'm sick of this feminist drivel. What about a project on "Men in history"? Might make a nice change. 10:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Tsk tsk, Mr 80. The default in historical research is still male, which is why the OP had to specify "female". It is far easier to find male specimens of these creatures.
As for 202, how about Dolores Ibárruri, Rosa Luxemburg, Gareth Peirce, Helena Kennedy, Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, Aung San Suu Kyi, Jody Williams, Mother Teresa, Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan for a start. you can decide who fits into which category and there is a spare, too. Have fun reading! SaundersW 12:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Susan B. Anthony[2] Lazyquasar 15:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Sandra Day O'Connor is a good pick for your lawyer (she was a lawyer before she was a judge, like most judges). She is one of the most influential people in recent US history, regardless of sex. -- 16:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Are human logical?[edit]

Bibble said that human can identify what is right and what is wrong, since Adam eat an apple. My mathematics teacher said “human are borned with illogic.” They are trainer to be logical. First, is my teacher correct? If so, can it prove that what Bibble said is wrong? HK 01:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you're confusing two different topics. From the analogy you've given, Bibble is arguing that humans have an innate knowledge of moral right and wrong, while your teacher is discussing whether we are born knowing logical right and wrong. John Locke and Jacques Rousseau established the two main camps of thought on the former: Tabula rasa and the Noble savage. For the latter, even animals show some very basic logic (Whenever I eat this I get sick. I won't eat this now), and primates learn basic tool-use, which generally requires at least a bit of logic. The problem is that we're not born with any experience, and you need at least a few data points to form any coherent logical thought. The formal science of Logic obviously has to be taught (or at least derived through effort), else Plato and Aristotle wouldn't've spent so much time discussing it :) GeeJo (t)(c) • 11:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that by "Bibble" the questioner means the Bible, in particular Genesis 3.  --Lambiam 08:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
A philosopher named Paul Hirst formulated the idea that there are different forms of knowledge, including including logico-mathematical, scientific, moral, historical, aesthetic, religious, and philosophical. He argued that each form has concepts, tests for truth, and ways of relating the concepts to each other that belong only to that form. For example, in maths we can prove, by definition, that 1+1+2, in a way that nothing in science can ever be proved, because in science we test a theory in order to disprove it. Anyway, the first statement is about morality. That is a different form of knowledge from logic. Mathematics is as unable to give answers to a moral question as it is to answer questions about beauty. SaundersW 12:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Logic itself is separate from the experience it is applied to. All animals have this to some extent. This is what Immanuel Kant called apriori knowledge. Formal logic is an attempt at formalising this logic. The final results of this may not be how people think, on the one hand because the model may be incorrect or incomplete (in other words, the attempt has not been fully successful yet), on the other hand because it takes the rules to extremes that humans don't normally take it to.
As for proving the bible wrong, don't go there, that's a quagmire ("There be dragons!"). But now that you bring it up, what about where the third generation came from? First there was Adam and then Eve (how, I will take for granted for the moment). They had children, the second generation. But where did the next generation come from? The bible's answer: Kain killed Abel and then went out into the world, where he met another people. What? And where did they come from then? Were there several gods at work here or did the one God create several Adams and Eves? DirkvdM 12:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll take DirkvdM's advice and avoid the quagmire, but consider this: knowledge of the difference between right and wrong (that is, morality or ethics) is not necessarily congruent with knowledge of logic (that is, deductive reasoning). Matt Deres 16:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting a Law degree in Canada[edit]

In order to study in any Law school in Canada you need to have already achieved a degree in Bachelor of Arts? Is there any way to skip this 3 year program and go directly to Law School? --1ws1 11:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the Osgoode Hall Law School admission requirements, you need only have completed two years of a post-secondary program, although the vast majority of applicants already have a BA from a three- or four-year program. And of course you must pass the LSAT; from my experience this usually takes a few attempts, which is probably why everyone already has their BA by the time they pass it. Osgoode was the first school I thought of but naturally it may be different for every school. Adam Bishop 16:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


At the death of Philip II Spain was at the height of its power. At the death of Charles II just over a hundred years later it had slipped into the second rank as a European power. What happened? Secret seven 11:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

One factor is that, while other European colonial powers put effort into developing permanent infrastructures in their colonies, Spain focused instead on extracting wealth. At first that approach seemed good, in that they made more money off their colonies. However, after a short period all of the gold, silver, etc., had been stolen, the remaining populations in those countries had an utter hatred for the Spanish, and little agricultural export business had been developed. This made for a massive decline in revenues. The huge former revenues from the colonies may have also led to inefficient uses of money, making a financial shortfall even more disastrous, as little had been saved or invested wisely from the "good old days". Essentially, the Spanish model is a prime example of how not to do colonization. StuRat 14:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
No offence, mr. StuRat, but, despite having some informative value, I'd say your reply is also a prime example of how not to do something, in this case using the Reference Desk. We are here to provide objective and useful information, not to show our hatred or bias towards the Spanish conquerors. Colonialism is, almost always, a synonym of death, pain and slavery for the native populations, whoever the metropolis is. The Spaniards indeed used their colonies as "cash cows", but also those who immigrated (immigration to the Empire contributed even more to the Spanish decline, since the population of the country diminished) interbred with the natives, for what in most former Spanish colonies you find a predominantly mestizo population instead of white (the result of, basically, killing off all the natives and repopulating the area with Europeans). Those who died in high numbers in the Spanish Americas did so, generally, because of European illnesses for which the natives didn't have antibodies.
As for the original question, there's simply nothing to add. The topic has been covered comprehensively by all the other users. --Taraborn 15:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're complaining about. I said this was only one factor, and you appear to agree that it was. I avoided moral judgments (with the possible exception of the use of the word "stolen" to characterize the precious metals taken from the Americas to Spain). I avoided using terms like genocide and murder, and mentioning the Spanish Inquisition. My comment that this was a lesson in how not to do colonialism only means that this method did not appear to bring long-term economic benefits to Spain. StuRat 17:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to look for a single cause here, but their dependence on American precious metals was a definite weak spot... The decline of the Spanish empire started early in the 17th century. Warfare, particularly in the Low Countries (the Eighty Years' War, especially after the recommencing of hostilities in 1621) and Germany (the Thirty Years' War lead to increasing expenses, which were financed mainly with American silver, or by loans backed with American silver. This came at a time when these remittances were declining in quantity (although this decline was also a result of Spanish involvement in European wars - think Piet Hein). The strain on resources forced the Spanish crown to intervene repeatedly in commercial life, which had practically paralysed trade with the colonies by 1639. Increasingly beset by French and Dutch attacks, the Spanish fleet lost control of the seas... No treasure fleet reached the port of Seville during 1640. In the spring of that year, the Catalans revolted; in August, the Spanish armies in Flanders suffered new defeats; and in December, Portugal revolted. This disintegration lead to further decline, as the English, French and Dutch took advantage to gain new territories in the New World. A concise and clearly written work (where I, coincidentally, found most of this information) which discusses this in some detail is The Old World and the New, 1492 - 1650, by J.H. Elliot, although I'm sure there are many more in-depth works to be found. Random Nonsense 14:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The Spanish also looked at their colonies as cash cows. They sent men over to plunder and loot and create mines. Other European countries sent women and children over to build up civilizations. Corvus cornix 17:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Economics: Inflation, generated by the influx of American silver. Lack of economic and institutional cohesion among "the Spains". Cultural resistance among the aristocracy to putting capital directly to work. --Wetman 22:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

One fairly obvious factor is that if the Spanish kings of the 16th century hadn't been narrowly religiously intolerant, then they could have harnessed the econmic powerhouse of the Netherlands to increase their own power and real economic strength -- as opposed to engaging in nearly 40 years of draining warfare, which left the Dutch still economically powerful, but bitterly hostile to Spain and Catholicism. After winning effective independence, the Dutch soon came close to destroying the entire Portuguese colonial empire, at a time when Portugal was ruled over by the Spanish king. AnonMoos 23:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Alas; more decline! I have very little to add in the way of information to your comprehensive survey, Random Nonsense, other than to say that I would favour being a little more specific in dating the beginning of the decline of Spanish power. It can be traced precisely to 1598, to the death of Philip II. You see, while Philip bequeathed a world-wide empire to his heirs he also bequeathed a debt of 85 million ducets, a quite enormous sum, which served to compound other economic problems. The warfare that you mention, and the attendant vast expenditure on armaments and armies, only made a bad situation considerably worse. Bullion imports mostly went to paying crown debts, and added to the general problem of inflation, as Wetman has indicated. Towards the end of the century the Spanish crown was having real problems in maintaining an effective fighting force. In the war of 1683-4 against France only 20,000 men could be mustered in Flanders, compared with 90,000 in 1640. Currency debasement, debt suspension and other short-term measures only helped deepen the underlying problems.
There are two other factors at work which nobody has mentioned so far: first the rise of France, and second, the impact of 'personalities' on Spanish policy, which cannot be discounted, unfashionable as it is. During the ascent of Philip II France had been weakened by the internal Wars of Religion. The succession of Henry IV, the first of the Bourbon kings, was to see France emerge as the leading European power, by far the greatest threat to the Spanish Habsburgs, forcing them to embark on long and costly wars of attrition at the worst possible time.
The one thing Spain needed on the death of Philip II was clear, forward-looking and decisive leadership from the crown. What it got was Philip III, a lazy mediocrity; Philip IV, a well-meaning mediocrity. Worst of all it got Charles II, a man so beset by physical and mental problems that he was considered to have been bewitched. Even Olivares, the most talented of the Habsburg ministers, came with a high price tag; for he embarked on an ambitious foreign policy that Spain had not the means, or the will, to sustain. Down it went and downwards. Clio the Muse 00:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Since Philip II was such a major cause of the decline, one could also say that it started in 1555, when he ascended the throne. But pinning something down on a specific date or cause is usually an oversimplification. DirkvdM 07:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if the Netherlands would have become so dominant if they (still plural then) hadn't become independent. That resulted in a necessity to assert themselves and that will have had a big effect. Basically, the Netherlands took a big gamble, taking on the existing powers all by themselves. And it paid off.
I also wonder if it was just religious intolerance. Of course that was a factor, but there is usually a financial aspect as well in wars. If the Netherlands would have remained part of the empire then any profits as they were made in the Dutch Golden Century would have been partly redistributed over the empire (ie gone to Spain) and that in turn would have lessened the initiative. DirkvdM 07:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Did the Egyptians believed in only one god?Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, they had an extensive pantheon. Pharaoh Akenaten attempted to replace them all with one god, but that lasted only as long as he reigned. Adam Bishop 16:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hieroglyphics was a form of writing used for what?Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 16:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As Adam Bishop said, no, they had a very extensive pantheon. Akenaten's 'heresy' should not so much be seen as an attempt to establish monotheism, but rather to make one god more important. He didn't say that the Aten was the only god, but rather that all the others were irrelevant. An important distinction... As for hieroglyphics, our article on Egyptian hieroglyphs is quite warm, fuzzy and looking for companionship. Random Nonsense 17:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hildegard of Bingen[edit]

It seems easier to ask this on the reference desk than wait for a response on the article talk page, so: the Hildegard of Bingen page says "She is the first woman to record a treatise of feminine sexuality, providing scientific accounts of the female orgasm", with a large quote afterwards. There are other quotes (given as Scivias Book II, Vision VI.78), but this one is unreferenced. Is it also from Scivias? I think it would be very amusing to read about that in Latin, so hopefully it's a real quote and someone knows where it comes from. Adam Bishop 16:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The source is here and was originally part of a generally reliable website. While the author is not a Medievalist & has neglected to give a citation, I assume it is a legitimate quote. Wareh 16:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the passage is cited from Peter Dronke, Women writers of the Middle Ages (Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 175-176.[3] The "first" account is suspect of being overblown; I am nearly certain that Soranus (Greek physician) provides some discussion of female orgasm (perhaps not a "scientific account," but surely as much of one as Hildegard gives). Wareh 16:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
But it says "first woman"... AnonMoos 23:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I trust Dronke to provide a citation, so I'll look him up. Adam Bishop 02:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Perception of Byzantines in the West[edit]

Long time ago I happened upon a Wikipedia article describing the various ways Byzantines and their civilisation in general were demonised in the West. I have tried a few times to retrieve it but I was unsuccessful. Based on this short description is anyone able to provide me with any information? Thanks. Dr.K. 16:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Was it Derogatory use of "Byzantine"? Adam Bishop 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much Adam. Yes it was. That was some fast reply. It was a real pleasure hearing from you after such a hiatus. Take care and thanks again. Dr.K. 17:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


How important were the first two Georges for the development of the British monarchy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordon Nash (talkcontribs) 16:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Since they didn't speak English and weren't interested in learning, they delegated the responsibilities of government onto ministers, thus increasing the importance of a civil, vs. royal, government. Corvus cornix 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Very! Unfortunately, George I and George II are among England's least loved and most negelected monarchs; but for all that their rule was crucial in consolidating and deepening the constitutional forms that emerged from the Glorious Revolution, and in fighting off the reactionary Jacobite challenge. They may have been colourless, German-speaking mediocrities; but they were just the kind of colourless, German-speaking mediocrities that England needed! Neither man had any great intelligence; but they were intelligent enough to accept, albeit grudgingly, the limitations on royal power that had emerged from the Revolution Settlement. Neither may have particularly liked Robert Walpole, but both accepted that he was the best man to manage the nation's affairs. The Georges were kings that fitted, not comfortably perhaps, though they still fitted, within the emerging model of parliamentary government. And George II was to have the good sense eventually to appoint William Pitt the Elder to office against his prejudices and his inclinations. Pitt went on to be one of the greatest wartime ministers England was ever to have.

One should also remember that George II, in all his heroic stubborness, performed a vital service at a particularly crucial moment in the country's history. In 1688 James II lost his nerve and ran away, a crucial factor in the collapse of Stuart absolutism. In 1745, with a Jacobite army approaching from the north, and with all around panicking, George remained calm and firm. If he had fled to Hanover, as some suggested, the Whig ministry may have collapsed, with unforseen consequences for the future. George's determination to remain, and the victory of his son, William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, at the Battle of Culloden, were vital factors in ensuring that the settlement of 1688, and established constitutional government, remained in place. Clio the Muse 01:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I need the title for a book[edit]

I am trying to find the name of a book. My husband, who is now 24, read this book as a 5th or 6th grader in his Alabama middle school. The plot synopsis is: There is a rich old man who owns a high rise in this no name town. In this high rise there are several different floors, people live there, work there, there's a restaurant. The book is kind of a who-dunnit. The old man is "murdered" (you later find out he faked his death) and everyone is trying to figure out who could have done it. In the end it is revealed that the old man wasn't killed but actually faked his death to see hhow people would react, he was looking for an heir to his fortune. He had been acting as the doorman the whole time watching everyone. The man chooses a little boy who lives in the building to give his fortune to. I can't remember this book from my childhood but my husband talks about it all the time. I am wanting to find out the name of this book to give to him as a surprise. Please help! Any info at this time would be much appreciated! ThanksKdlady743 18:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like it could be The Westing Game by Ellen Raskin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My vote's on that one too. I am about the same age as your husband and I read it around the same time too and was totally sucked in. I have to say that I was totally disappointed with the end of the book, though, since you really couldn't figure out the mystery based on the clues given (as the reader), in my opinion. -- 21:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's The Westing Game, although at the end Uncle Sam gives all of his money to a girl. It is one of the better mysteries that have been written, actually. 22:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish


Which U.S. President's inaugural parade did Apache Chief Geranimo ride with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

From the article Geronimo: "He rode in President Theodore Roosevelt's 1905 inaugural parade." SaundersW 19:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

big company that lets people develop child pornography pictures[edit]

when person in charge seen the pictures and suggested they be turned in to police her supervisor said that was against co. policy and fired her what should i do its my daughter and the court dissalowed a trial . please reply , the big co. is one most of you use —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snapperfrog (talkcontribs) 21:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, Wikipedia does not give legal advice. Get a lawyer. In this situation, if legal/whistleblowing approaches fail you, you might try contacting a journalist, as they often like stories like this. Often when the law cannot get things done, unwanted press attention can... -- 22:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes Wikipedia cannot give legal advice so I cannot suggest that your daughter speaks to a journalist about the matter and creates a media firestorm. No I could not suggest that. --Fredrick day 22:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Nor could you say that the info given is way too skimpy to base any advise on. For one, 'child pornography' is very vague. What is a child and what is pornography? It may not be illegal at all. DirkvdM 07:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Good point, it might be just that someone has a pic of their kid in a bathtub at their desk. StuRat 18:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Keeping a bathtub at one's desk might be grounds for firing. —Tamfang 20:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL, wouldn't this be multitasking at it's best ? Why not read your emails while giving the baby a bath ? :-) StuRat 11:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Snapperfrog, when you do go to a lawyer, you'd be wise to put your story a bit more clearly. As near as I can make out, your daughter was fired for suggesting (!) that the police be notified, and wants to sue for wrongful dismissal; but there are other ways to read it. —Tamfang 20:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Foreign Leader Who Is U.S. Citizen[edit]

I'm trying to find the name of a foreign leader who is a U.S. citizen (I assume through dual-citizenship). I know it's a male. Also, he might not still be the leader, but was within the last 20 years. A professor mentioned this in class, but was coy about who it was, which piqued my interest. Thanks for any help, GreatManTheory 23:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

President Valdas Adamkus of Lithuania? Rmhermen 01:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • His article says he renounced his US citizenship. --Sean 03:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel still has US citizenship, apparently. He lived in the US from age 14. --Sean 03:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Does Netanyahu vote in U.S. elections like many other Israelis [4] [5]? Edison 13:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Mayan game pokatok[edit]

I have a serious question. I cannot find an aerial picture of the Mayan ballgame pokatok.Please help me! 23:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this good enough - - or are you looking for an image where the game is actually being played? Corvus cornix 02:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)