Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Humanities desk
< April 1 << Mar | April | May >> April 3 >
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 2[edit]

Law factors[edit]

What factors would a defense lawyer consider in challenging the legality of a confession? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talkcontribs) 00:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "the legality of a confession" is an odd one. In most places, a supposed confession can't itself be called lawful or unlawful. You may mean its admissibility (the points to be taken on that vary a lot from one legal system to another) and its value as evidence (ditto). Sadly, even in countries which pride themselves on their respect for the rule of law, many 'confessions' are obtained under duress or at a time when the person confessing a crime is confused or sleep-deprived or sick (physically or mentally), has been denied relevant information (such as being put on notice that he or she may have committed a crime), and so forth. All of the circumstances of a supposed confession and of the state of mind of the person making it need to be gone through carefully. Xn4 00:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying to identify a painting[edit]

I have a photograph of a room which has a painting hanging on the wall. Actually, it is a poster print of a painting, leading me to believe that the painting is well-known. I wonder whether anyone might recognise or be able to identify the painting (or even just the artist); if so, I would much appreciate it. The photo is here. Thanks greatly in advance! Heather (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a Matisse. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's Matisse's Seated Odalisque, at the Baltimore Museum of Art. See this page, about halfway down. Deor (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: According to our article Cone sisters, the full (English) name of the painting is Seated Odalisque, Left Knee Bent, Ornamental Background and Checkerboard. Deor (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow; thanks so much! I really appreciate it! Heather (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The word "odalisque" is an interesting one. In modern English it has overtones of loucheness, but literally it means a virgin slave, usually within a harem. (French it is much the same.) In the nineteenth century art movement of Orientalism, odalisques were a popular subject: see here and a detailed list here. Context is all! BrainyBabe (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dunbar Robbery Page, Cite Help![edit]

Hey, first time using the Reference Desk. The Dunbar Robbery Page, Dunbar Armored robbery, doesn't have a SINGLE source! Not one! I've been trying to find some for quite a while now, and amazingly I've been rather disapointed. I've been given this: , but if you look carefully, its citing WIKIPEDIA! Thats been it. Can anyone help me find a source for this thing? Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paladin Hammer (talkcontribs) 02:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This would seem to be one reliable source for the contents of the article. Others can be found by Googling for "Dunbar Armored" + "Allen Pace". I'm not sure, however, that the current title of the article is the most felicitous possible one, since the company in question seems to have been robbed at least two other times. Deor (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help Deor! I'll post a question on the pages discussion about the name. Paladin Hammer (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

British Navy and Spanish Civil War[edit]

Why did they play a role in it as we can appreciate in the Battle of Cape Palos?-- (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The main role was enforcing a rather problematic arms embargo. AnonMoos (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The article only mentions the British Navy as rescuing survivors and being attacked while transferring those survivors to a Spanish ship. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I know what the article mentions. however there seems to have been a larger involvement of british navy ships patrolling around spain. why? there mustve been decisions about this.-- (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The official British and French policy was one of non-intervention, nominally favouring neither side, though the Royal Navy continued to patrol Spanish waters, generally aiding the Nationalists, where and when this was possible. Have a look at Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War, particularly the section headed Arms Embargo and the Non-Intervention Committee. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Rules of being a good Muslim[edit]

A week or so ago I was listening to a show on NPR, I've forgotten which one, and they were talking to a bunch of American men who were converting/had converted to Islam. They were talking about the changes in the men's lives and how it was different from their previous life and such. Two examples that they mentioned were not being able to have a dog as a pet since dogs are seen as unclean or something like that and not being able to do anything more than glance at attractive women. I had never heard of these particular requirements of the faith. So can someone point me to a list or something of the ilk that explains other sorts of nuances like this? Not that I'm thinking of converting... I couldn't follow those first two, let alone more!  :-) Dismas|(talk) 04:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Five Pillars of Islam? x42bn6 Talk Mess 05:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops, nevermind... It's right there in front of my face basically. Just go to any of the pages about Islam and the template on the right has links to culture sorts of articles about the faith. Dismas|(talk) 05:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
IANA Imam or any sort of learned person but AFAIK you may keep dogs for protection or e.g. a guide dog if you're blind, but not as pets as they are considered unclean. As far as looking at women, you are allowed one glance (you cannot help if your eyes are drawn to the person) but to continue to look/leer is not permitted. Islam values modesty very highly, hence the strict dress code for men and women. Zunaid©® 05:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
For exploring this kind of issues our article on Ahkam, which is about what you should and should not do, is a good entry point. Keep in mind though that there is no central authority in Islam, and accordingly different Muslims have different interpretations of various issues, and cultural views on propriety in man–woman relations are often given an unwarranted religious justification. Like in Judaism there are extremely rigid and literally-minded interpretations and fairly liberal ones. Also, apart from the interpretations, not all Muslims are equally punctual and strict in applying all rules, just as many Catholics routinely skip the Sunday mass, but new converts can be expected to be scrupulous about petty things. There is a hierarchy ranging from wajib (an obligation for a Muslim) to haraam (prohibited). Adultery is haraam, and even coveting thy neighbour's wife, something that is also illegal in other Abrahamic religions. But belly dancing is an art that is highly appreciated in the Muslim heartlands, and it is not only ugly hags that perform, nor are the dancers covered in burqas. Next to the wajib–haraam scale there is the issue that certain obligatory acts (such as praying) require a Muslim to be clean, and that it is forbidden to eat unclean things (see Halal). What touches a dog becomes unclean and must be thoroughly washed to become clean again (see Unclean_animals#Dogs). That does not keep many people in Turkey, almost all of who are Muslims, from having pet dogs.  --Lambiam 08:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I remember seeing a documentary about (the ppl of) Iran. One the many things mentioned is that many ppl in Teheran have dogs and that they like them. However this fact supposedly is never mentioned in Iranian newspapers because dogs are "unclean". I think that it is the same in all muslim countries. But seriously, the only single important rule in the "do and don't department" is the following: Don't get caught. Flamarande (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure that the "don't get caught" rule applies to religious beliefs as much as with laws, rules, etc. Presumably the people keeping dogs and liking them must feel that at least it is not bad enough to condemn them to hell, even if it is frowned upon. I know Muslims in the UK who drink alcohol with a similar attitude, it is not enough to get them condemned and the pleasure it gives outweighs the disapproval. One guy I know tries to balance good and bad, if he comes out to the pub he will visit the mosque the next day to pray. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the law seems only to apply to doing things in public. Once in private or behind closed doors the laws no longer apply. This is quite evident regarding homosexuality. (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no, that can't possibly be true, 71. The government has said there are no homosexuals in Iran. And they would know about things like that ............................................. wouldn't they? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No homosexuals or homosexuality allowed in public is what the government means. They turn a blind eye to anything in private. The idea is that the law is not broken unless breaking it becomes known to the public. (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
From our article on Homosexuality and Islam:
Islamic views on homosexuality are as varied as those of most other major religions and have changed throughout history.
 --Lambiam 06:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Stuka effectiveness[edit]

Just how effective was the Stuka dive bomber as a weapon of war? I've heard conflicting stories. Brewer Droop (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Junkers Ju 87? Quick answer: they were very effective initially, when the Germans had air superiority, as they did during the Fall of France and the early stages of the war in the east, but "the Stuka suffered from low speed and poor maneuverability, with little defensive armament, making it highly vulnerable to enemy fighters." Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Brewer Droop, I, quite frankly, would ignore the statement in the Wikipedia article that the Stuka was ever an effective weapon of war, a contention that does little more than demonstrate the long reach of German propaganda. Its banshee-like wailing may have caused terror; but as a precision instrument it was a dismal failure. During the Polish campaign, for example, the German 10th Army had no less than 114 Stukas and 20 elderly Henschel 123 biplanes; but it was the performance of the Henschels that most impressed the British military observers.

In the French campaign the Stukas are supposed to have shattered the enemy defensive positions along the River Meuse; but the bombing, in fact, had little impact. In the end Erwin Rommel's Ghost Division was able to force a crossing with virtually no air support. Stukas accounted for less than 100 tons of the 550 tons dropped on French lines during the attack. It was also during this campaign that the Stukas showed just how vulnerable to fighter interception, twelve being downed in one day in May by five American built Curtis Hawk 75 fighters in the French air force. In the Dunkirk campaign the Stuka attacks were directed against British shipping; but the most serious damage was caused by Junker 88s. To cap all this, in the very early stages of the Battle of Britain the Stuka was shown to be a dismal failure, and was soon withdrawn. Operation Barbarossa did little to revive their fading reputation. Once again, as in the Polish campaign, the old Henschels proved to be much more effective, flying three times as many missions per plane as the Stuka. Myths die hard. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Female Pilots[edit]

Did the RAF have any female pilots in the Second World War? Brewer Droop (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There was the Women's Auxiliary Air Force, but they apparently didn't go into combat. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The WAAF didn't fly either. The Air Transport Auxiliary did - they ferried planes (including combat planes) from one place to another, 'behind the lines', and they included women pilots, but they weren't part of the RAF. So technically the answer to the question is "no". There were women pilots, and there were women in the Air Force, but there were no women RAF pilots. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The British Government didn't order gender equality among RAF pilots until the early 1990s. See Malcolm Rifkind's speech in 1993 for reference: "Since the last RAF debate, all aircrew roles have been opened to women, including those on fast jets. Two female pilots and nine female navigators have entered squadron service. A further 29 female pilots and 13 female navigators are undergoing training."
The RAF's own history site features the milestone: "1991 – Flight Lieutenant Jo Salter became the RAF’s first female pilot. Flight Lieutenant Jo Salter became the first female fast-jet pilot in 1994. Since then, many female pilots have followed in her footsteps." ---Sluzzelin talk 14:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
DJ Clayworth is spot on. In WWII, so far as I know, the Red Air Force was the only one to routinely have women flying as combat pilots. Indeed, the first-ever female combat pilot was probably a Russian, but that was in the First World War.
Princess Evgenia M[?]vna Shakhovskaia (Evgenia Shakhovskaia) volunteered to fly with the Imperial Russian Air Service in August 1914. She was accepted, commissioned as an ensign (2nd lieutenant) and probably flew combat missions as a reconnaissance pilot in the 1st Air Detachment, attached to the Northwest Front. Shakovskaia had an interesting life. She was later arrested on charges of treason and sentenced to death. The Tsar commuted the sentence to perpetual imprisonment in a convent. She was killed in the Civil War in a rather bizarre episode: she shot one of her Bolshevik colleagues, perhaps in while under the influence of narcotics, and was shot in return by another colleague. Oh! Those crazy Russians!
Another early female military flier was Liubov A[?]vna Golanchikova (Liubov Golanchikova), an actress (stage name Molly More). She learned to fly in 1911. During the war she flew mainly as a test pilot. During the Civil War she mainly served as an instructor for the Red Air Fleet, but did fly some combat missions.
Another competitor would be Elena P[?]vna Samsonova (Elena Samsonova), who raced cars before the war. She served with the Imperial Russian Army as a volunteer nurse and then driver. Having learned to fly before the war, she volunteered for the IRAS and flew reconnaissance missions for the 9th Army. Her commanding officer removed her from flying duties after a short time. Under the Provisional Government, she returned to flying reconnaissance and artillery spotting missions as an observer rather than a pilot.
Next in the list, Princess Sophia A[?]vna Dolgorukaia (Sofia Dolgorukaia). Another motor racer, Dolgorukaia almost inevitably learned to fly as well. She didn't join up until 1917 when the Provisional Government started recruiting women. My book says "Little is known of her military flying career.
Finally we have the first woman combat pilot to be wounded in action. Middle class, from Kiev, rather than a princess or society figure, Nadezhda Degtereva joined up in 1914, aged 17; she is said to have had a friend take the medical for her to disguise her sex. During the fighting in Galicia in 1915, Degtereva, flying a reconnaissance mission, was attacked by Austro-Hungarian fighters and hit more than once. She managed to get her plane back to base, but in hospital her secret was discovered. She was promoted to the rank of sergeant and sent the Caucausus Front. That's all I can find.
Apart from Degtereva, all of these women had learned to fly before the war. Indeed, only two Russian women who held pilot's licenses seem not to have flown with the military in some capacity. The exceptions were Lidia Zvereva, first Russian female pilot, was part owner of a busy aircraft factory. It seems possible, but I do not know for sure, that the third Russian female pilot, Evdokia Anatra, was a relation of Artur Antonovich Anatra, owner of the Anatra aircraft company. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
For Russian female aviators in the Second World War see the Night Witches. They scared the hell out of the Germans! Clio the Muse (talk)
Wood and canvas bi-planes – they must have had no nerves! Julia Rossi (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
How is this more stressful than the RAF's (to go back to the original question) Fairey Swordfish -the Stringbags of legend- pilots, who flew wood and canvas biplanes in combat at night, but also added to that carrier-launched, over water navigation, and, sometimes, when the weather permitted, carrier landings? Also WW2, and the heros of Matapan, Taranto, and the Bismarck? Of course, they were so slow that it was difficult to have a fatal crash. -SandyJax (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Football (soccer) Clubs in world stock markets.[edit]

Which Fooball Clubs are currently in world stock markets? Is there any way to find or create a complete list? Tcalika (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Tcalika

This has a list of English clubs that are, but it's from 2005. This says Sporting and Porto are listed in Portugal. Recury (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are Americans worried of recession?[edit]

Even if there is a recession, America's per capita GDP would be around $45k. There are many countries where GDP/C is $2000. Why Americans are worried? Maybe you Americans know why whereas I don't know because I am not there. Can anyone say why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Recessions are characterised by unemployment and downwards pressure on wages. It is no consolation to someone who cannot pay his/her mortgage, that the average PCGDP is $45k, or that the PCGDP in another country is $2k. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Lots of psychological experiments show people dislike losing stuff more than they like gaining stuff. Losing some of that great wealth will hurt, even if (from a wider perspective) they're still very well off. So it appears while money won't make you happy, losing money will make you sad - it's human nature. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
We're not worried about starving to death, if that's what you're asking. But people are worried about losing their jobs and their houses, which can happen. And if you lose your job in the US, you often lose your health insurance as well, which can have disastrous consequences that people in countries with state health care don't worry about. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
On a different note, in countries where GDP per capita is close to $2000, people can often rely on extended family members (brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins) for help if they lose their jobs. In the United States, most people are not really prepared to give food or shelter to relatives for more than maybe a few days. In an extreme situation, a person might turn to his or her parents, if they are still alive, but this is not expected, it is socially embarassing or even shameful, and it is very stressful for everyone involved. So the prospect of losing your income may be more alarming in the United States than in a poorer country. Marco polo (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Large investments make the situation even worse when there's a recession. Suppose the stocks decrease in value. A person who went into debt to buy stocks, if he loses his job, will lose more than the income. He'll also lose income from the stock market, and he'll have to pay back the debt with interest.
Also think about the situation this way. A person in extreme poverty (with less than a US dollar per day of income) will be overjoyed to have an annual income of $2000. He or she will not remain depressed because the average US citizen income is twenty times higher. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
People who have something hate losing it, they don't care about other people, they just want what they want, which is as much money as they can get. Not all people, but quite a lot. And I'm sure I remember the PCGDP in Tanzania was $38 last time I checked. Something like that. Although I suspect that comes from most people there just owning a patch of land and growing food on it and not bothering with money.HS7 (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
So it seems I was wrong about tanzania somehow. Or GDPs have changed a lot in the last few years. Anyway, there are lots of places though where people hardly earn any money. Not that it's really relevent to this question. HS7 (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Differences in income and costs shed further light on this situation. While per capita GDP in the United States is close to $45,000, the median household income in the United States is not much greater than this number. (The per capita GDP is much higher than per capita median household income because a small minority of households receive a large percentage of total income in the United States.) Half of all households have incomes lower than $48,000. Many have incomes substantially lower than this. Meanwhile, expenses in the United States are very high compared to those in a country with a per capita GDP of $2,000. For example, typical monthly housing costs range from $1,000 to $3,000. In California, New York and some other places, $5,000 per month in rent or mortgage cost is fairly common. Most families spend several hundred dollars per month on food. Because there is little public transportation and most jobs are located far from affordable housing, car ownership is a necessity in most parts of the United States. Car payments plus insurance, fuel, and maintenance easily add up to $500 or more a month. This does not include the cost of clothing, medical care, and other necessities. So, many Americans' expenses are so great that they are able to save little. Therefore, when an American loses a job, he or she faces very high expenses while trying to find another job in a tight job market, and possibly little or no savings to meet those expenses. Marco polo (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fascist style[edit]

We now associate fascism with a particular type of extreme right wing, racist and nationalist politics. But that wasn't always the case. In the early days fascism, as conceived by Mussolini, was really something quite different. I'm trying to determine what gave Italian fascism it's particular character, in what ways it mutated and evolved. To put this another way, I'm trying to determine if there was a specific fascist style. Can you offer some views? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Italian fascism had a number of interesting and not entirely expected cultural origins. It was rooted deeply in philosophy, in particular the works of Giovanni Gentile, and even in various art movements, like futurism, along with the more traditional origins in political thought (e.g. the corporatists). I would probably argue that you are looking for Fascism before it really gained a lot of power; any ideological system can have wonderful nuances and associations before it really gets down to trying to make the trains run on time, at which point things flatten out a lot. As an analog, the Marxist musings of Lenin, Trotsky, etc. before the revolution of 1917 are much more interesting and sophisticated (on the whole) than the reality of the early Soviet state. Real politics "flattens" ideology as it is mediated from the realm of thoughts and words into the area of policies, institutions, and, to put it bluntly, power, much less all the contingencies of the time (it is easy to talk about redistribution of wealth when you are in exile; it is a lot harder when you are in the middle of a civil war). --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have said, 217.43, that the chief advantage of Fasci italiani di combattimento in 1919 was that it was tied to no philosophy and no ideology whatsoever; that it was, in other words, organised opportunism. This, above all, was the Fascist style. It took the shape of a chameleon, able to change colours in accordance with the political climate. Unlike the socialists, the communists, the liberals and the conservatives the movement carried nothing, no system of beliefs or organisational structure, which would prevent its rapid mutations. Fascism, above all, was a mood, one of discontent, that could combine the arditi, who simple longed for action for the sake of action, and comic-opera revolutionaries like the Futurist Marinetti, who saw politics as an escape from cultural boredom.

This was transformismo politics, one that could, in theory have taken the movement to the left, if that is where the advantage lay. But in the end the advantage, the prospects for growth, advancement and power, were on the right, in the defense of Italy against Bolshevism. The appeal to the working-class, the direction of leftwards Fascism, had failed miserably in the elections of 1919. In the end Mussolini, in alliance with conservative rural Fascists like Roberto Farinacci, took advantage of the fear among the middle-class and the peasantry of a socialist revolution. It was Fascist anti-socialism that created a mass movement, and ensured thereafter that it would always be a philosophy of the right. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, I think I would disagree. I think it is easy to see Fascism as opportunistic but that doesn't mean it didn't have ideology. The ideology was rather simple, of course: the state was the supreme unit of social action, and the state's will over the collective was imperative. Simple Hobbesianism taken to the extreme, if you want to look at it that way. But that's not a lack of philosophy or a lack of ideology, though it is easy in our current world to see it that way since we generally do take the state as the principle political actor (and not the Volk, as the Nazis had it, or the Class, as the Marxists had it). In a sense, Fascism looks philosophically base to us primarily because many of the philosophical arguments are not too different than the ones we use unconsciously today. (Hence one professor I had—a total loon, I must say—argued that in the end, Gentile was right in his descriptive account of how history/society/etc. worked.) --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I stand by what I wrote: early Fascism owed nothing to ideas and everything to action. The intellectual baggage all comes later. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


how effective was Okhrana? —Preceding unsigned comment added by V N Rosenfeld (talkcontribs) 15:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

For a start, see Okhrana. There isn't really an answer to "How effective was the Okhrana?" - any more than there would be a simple answer to "How effective is the CIA?" If you judge by how feared it was, it was certainly seen as effective by those on the receiving end of it. It had some failures, especially in more challenging tasks. Just how good it was all depended on how good the personnel were. If you read Russian, there's a site here you may find helpful. Xn4 17:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Okhrana, V N Rosenfeld, was generally held to be the most effective secret service of the day, so much so that Lenin later used it as a model for the Cheka. I can give you one example of their efficiency, which has some contemporary relevance. In 1909 they discovered that the terrorist Social Revolutionaries were actively planning to fly a plane loaded with dynamite into the Winter Palace. In response the Okhrana ordered that all flights be monitored, and a watch kept on all those learning to fly as well as members of private aero-clubs. As one author has rightly said "It is a mark of the Okhrana's excellence that in 1909 it was imaginative enough to envisage a crime that was beyond the scope of the FBI and the CIA in the twenty-first century". Clio the Muse (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes... but I'd be interested to know exactly how many aeroplanes there were in Russia in 1909, Clio! FiggyBee (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha! I think, dear Figgy, that the important variable here is not the number of planes but the number of oddballs and eccentrics who suddenly expressed some interest in learning to fly! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Easy enough to build your own aeroplane in 1909. The likes of Maxim Arturovitch Pyatnitski - then only nine I believe - would have had no trouble. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The Okhrana had penetrated most revolutionary and dissident groups. It was even active in London's Eastend. Manya Shochat had to kill one who gained entry to her Odessa hideout and discovered the stash of arms. AllenHansen (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Collier's June 8, 1956 George Barkentin's model.[edit]

George Barkentin, fabulous photographer ran an amateur beauty contest on a golf course near Jacksonville, Florida, and photographed a number of women who showed up, including students, housewives, and secretaries. The photo shoot was for these women to model swim wear. Included in the article was a photograph of two women taken in Palm Springs, California, however, one of whom was on the cover of the magazine with no accreditation given. Does anyone know who the girl on the cover is? Was she a professional model, or simply a girl next dor like the other girls in the shoot?


D. Kastin —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Medical Records release - State of Michigan[edit]

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice. --FiggyBee (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the original question: Is it illegal in the State of Michigan for a Doctor who is in possession of another Doctor's patient records to forward them onto a 3rd Doctor even when the patient has provided written authorization to do soSue2313 (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's an answer which gives no legal advice: Sue, you'll be interested in this .pdf file which covers your rights to medical records under HIPAA and Michigan laws.

See? There's no need to remove such a question. Reference desks routinely refer people to resources which can help them, without themselves applying the medical or legal information in the resource to a specific situation. By such an approach, no medical or legal advice is given. - Nunh-huh 05:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why no slave revolt in the United States?[edit]

In the nineteenth century there were major slave rebellions in Brazil, Haiti, Jamaica and other places but not in the southern United States. Why should this have been so? Also, I would like to know in what way the existence of slavery hightened sectional tensions, beyond the obvious problems caused by the admission of new states and the westward expansion of the union? Thank you. TheLostPrince (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, there were several slave rebellions in the southern United States, as our article shows. Among the most noted were those led by Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey. Among factors other than westward expansion that raised sectional tensions were Southern resentment of Northern Abolitionism and resentment among laborers in the North over having to compete (to some extent) in a national labor market against unpaid slaves. Southerners were particularly incensed at the efforts of Northern Abolitionists to bring slaves to freedom, for example through the Underground Railroad, while Northerners were angered by Southern claims, backed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, that slaves retained their status as property even in Northern states that had abolished slavery. Marco polo (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
In Haiti and Jamaica the blacks were the huge majority of the population, so the chances of success must have looked better, and indeed actually were better. A slave rebellion in the Southern U.S. was doomed unless poor whites abandoned their alliance with the planters, which they never came close to doing. (Though they should have done, as slavery was against their interests too - that's why "white trash" is associated with the south, rather than say New England). Luwilt (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's one opinion on the matter:
  • "In the present state of things in the United States, I do not think a general, or even a very extensive slave insurrection is possible. The indispensable concert of action cannot be attained. The slaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. The explosive materials are everywhere in parcels; but there neither are, nor can be supplied, the indispensable connecting trains. Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave revolution in Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring under peculiar circumstances. The gunpowder plot of British history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. In that case, only about twenty were admitted to the secret; and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the natural results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I think, can happen in this country for a long time. Whoever much fears, or much hopes for such an event, will be alike disappointed." -- Abraham Lincoln, Cooper Union speech, February 27, 1860.
AnonMoos (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Marco is right, there were slave rebellions in the United States, but nothing on the scale of the Bahia Risings in Brazil, the Haitian Revolution and the Baptist War in Jamaica. The reasons why the risings in the United States were weak and sporadic is simple enough: neither demographics nor geography favoured anything more serious.

In Haiti, for example, the slave outnumbered the free population by a huge factor of eleven to one. Plantations here were the homes of hundreds of slaves, who could conspire and organise in the way their North American cousins could not. By 1860, in the southern United States, slaves accounted for less than four million of the nine million inhabitants. There were few plantations, moreover, with more than thirty slaves. The population was also relatively stable, made up of family groups who had much more to lose from insurrection. This was aided by the fact that even before the abolition of the Atlantic Slave Trade in 1807 imports of fresh slaves was in marked decline, unlike, say, Brazil.

Looking at the geographical perspective, there were few areas in the American south that could support large communities of Maroon runaways, unlike Jamaica and Brazil, where remote areas were effectively turned into guerilla bases. One has to consider also the far higher density of white people in the American south, and the existence of a transport system that allowed the rapid concentration of militia forces whenever danger threatened. There were some small Maroon communities, but they were quickly detected and destroyed. The best option for the runaway was to take refuge with pre-existing independent communities of natives. Some did indeed flee to the territories controlled by the Seminole Indians, taking part in the two Seminole Wars against the United States.

So, in short, in face of a well-armed militia, an organised system of slave patrols, an efficient road and rail network, and the absence of suitable areas in which slaves could congregate in any numbers, it is really no surprise that slave risings were small, un-coordinated and ineffective in the United States.

Now, turning to your second question, Lost Prince, slavery was an issue that was bound to introduce all sorts of tensions, threatening both the stability and the integrity of the young Union. It was an issue that the North, much as it would like to, simply could not ignore. When Andrew Jackson began the aforementioned Seminole Wars, her gave priority to the destruction of a fort held by the Maroons and the 'return of the negroes to their rightful owners.' For many in the North it looked as if the campaign in Florida was being fought specifically in the slave holding interest. Joshua Giddings, a leading abolitionist from Ohio, was later to describe Jackson's war as 'the first slave catching expedition undertaken by the Federal Government.'

Beyond that, slavery offered a challenge to notions of American liberty, in more ways than the obvious one. The existence of fugitive slaves in the north, where individual state law was based on a presupposition of freedom, created clear political and legal contradictions. When the southern states later seceded from the Union the chief motivation was held to be the defence of State's Rights. But the irony is that it was the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850, guaranteeing the return of runaways by the Federal Government, which effectively undermined the very things that the northern states considered most important; namely state sovereignty, habeas corpus and due legal process. In other words, Federal action on behalf of southern slavers made it clear that, while an individual state may be free, it was still part of a Union that was not. Increasingly the Fugitive Slave legislation was challenged in northern courts, and some states, notably Vermont, defied Federal law by passing 'personal liberty laws', which protected free blacks and obstructed the return of fugitives. In 1854 it took as many as 1000 armed police, militia and marines, supported by artillery, to escort Anthony Burns to Boston harbour, where a ship waited to carry him back to slavery through a hostile crowd of 20,000 sullen Northerners.

This was indeed a house that could not stand. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio explains it brilliantly as usual. The Southern slave-owning population included militia members and the legal system of patrollers which could usually detect and suppress any large slave rebellion. Laws against mass assembly and literacy by slaves impeded communication and organization. Small-scale slave rebellions were ubiquitous, in response to treatment even more degrading and inhuman than was typical of the antebellum Southern US, from as simple a thing as failing to understand and follow instructions for doing some undesired task, or breaking an expensive piece of equipment, leaving a gate open so cattle got where they weren't supposed to be, or poisoning the food, or stealing something of value, or setting the house on fire, to running away. Edison (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

French thinker: lost name[edit]

I'm looking for a French thinker (to use a vague term) of which I remember the following:

  • Modern (18th century - 20th century, though before world war II). I am actually quite certain that it's a 19th century one, but not 100%...
  • French
  • Contributions to political philosophical field of conservatism or early socialism, or catholic politics.
  • One part of the name starts with an A (one title, first name, middle name, last name), and the name has some accents, which is probably why my Googling doesn't turn up much.
  • Is often compared to another philosopher of the same time whose last name starts with an M.

I read a book on this a while back, but lost it. Lists of philosophers and categories of French people don't seem to help. User:Krator (t c) 22:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Louis Pierre Althusser was a 20th Century French marxist, not sure if he really fits your criteria of conservatism though. (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
18th C. D'Alembert had close ties to the Baron D'Holbach who wrote under the pseudonyme of Mirabeau but they would be more in the atheist field. (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

why we should accept the guy s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madia usman (talkcontribs) 23:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

18th-19th century, conservative, catholic made me think of Joseph de Maistre for the Mr. M "another philosopher." Drawing a blank on Monsieur A.John Z (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Krator; I simply cannot get a proper purchase on this with the information given. It could be virtually anyone, from Alexis de Tocqueville to August Comte! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I found out who it was by stumbling upon the name by accident: Abbé Sieyès. User:Krator (t c) 08:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)