Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 March 17

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.

March 17

6 month old news article

Hi there, I want to know if there any news relating to law such as laws suits, changes to legislation, controversial issues in the law and current events that happened 6 months ago like it happened in February, January, December, November, October or September of 2007? The news have to deal with either in Canada or outside Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 00:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ask your friendly librarian to familiarize you with Lexis-Nexis... AnonMoos (talk)

No, I don't want the lexis thing but I want is that if CBC have any archives from September 2007 through February 2008 dealing with the question of mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 14:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble making sense of what you want here, but Lexis-Nexis is a news and legal archive. It is pretty useful for finding out exactly the sort of thing you are asking about. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Do other countries have Lexis-Nexis equivalents? Julia Rossi (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Precedents

Is there any precedents that to deal with the case that happened in 2007 where in Yorktown, somewhere in Canada, a principal of local high school called the police to do the search for drugs and illegal weapons and the boy was arrested but he said that he was innocent and this law suit had to do deal with Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms, Section 8. So any precedents relating to this case?

American artist - PEAKE, CHANNING (1910-1989)

I am searching for information about American artist Channing Peake.He created many murals, and was the West Coasts equivelant to Jackson Pollack. I understand he was born in Marshall, Colorado in 1910, then moved to the San Fernando Valley, California as a young boy. Later he owned a working cattle ranch/horse breeding operation in the Santa Ynez Valley, in Santa Barbara County, California. There is a county gallery space named for him and dedicated in his honour in Santa Barbara, California. I am curious to learn more about his years abroad spent with Picasso, Braque, Hemmingway, and his art dealer, Frank Perls. Oh, and also about his works created via the W.P.A. and where they are currently located, and the condition they may be in. May I THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! in advance for any help you are able to provide. Ejr26 (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is an exhibition in San Francisco (More information here). When you have put all this together, will you create an article? Please? SaundersW (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

is this woman for real?

OPRAH: So what kinds of things? You don't have to give us the gory details, but what kinds of things went on in the family?

"RACHEL": Well, there would be rituals in which babies would be sacrificed, and you would have to, you know…

OPRAH: Whose babies?

"RACHEL": There were people who bred babies in our family. No one would know about it. A lot of people were overweight, so you couldn't tell if they were pregnant or not, or they would supposedly go away for awhile and then come back…

Why would anyone do that???? She's just making it up, right????

link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.42.52 (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As to why someone would conceivably do that, see: Human sacrifice. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps see also Satanic ritual abuse. I would wager on it being crap, especially if it was on Oprah. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, despite the hype, there has never been a single substantiated claim of Satanic ritual abuse. There's a good page on it at religioustolerance.org. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Jair-ri Jair-ri... Julia Rossi (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nazi questions

I have some questions on the Nazi party, state and system of justice. 1)To what extent were women involved in the Nazi party? 2)Did Jewish people offer any protest or resistance to the boycott of April 1933? 3)Concentration camps were initially set up as a way of dealing with political enemies. How did the Nazis justify retaining them as a permanent feature of their penal policy? Did they even attempt such a justification? 4)Was the Gestapo always intended as a permanent part of the police apparatus? 5)In what way did the role of the Criminal Police change after 1933? 6)What was the Nazi approach to dealing with ordinary crime, like robbery and so on, and how was this received by the German people. 7)Was there such a thing as a specifically Fascist theory of justice? Sorry so many. Tee Pot (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Amazing. You have heaps of homework to do. Mr.K. (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

On your question (1), membership of the Nazi party was open to women, but there was a separate organization for them, the Frauenschaft, led by Gertrud Scholtz-Klink. And the League of German Girls, led for eight years by Jutta Rüdiger, was separate from the Hitler Youth for boys. One of Scholtz-Klink's tasks was to sell the message of male leadership. Our article on her quotes this from one of her speeches: "The mission of woman is to minister in the home and in her profession to the needs of life from the first to last moment of man's existence." See also Kinder, Küche, Kirche, for a little on Hitler's policy of squeezing women out of the employment market, until the Second World War led to a labour shortage. Despite discrimination, a few women, like Scholtz-Klink and Leni Riefenstahl made successful careers under the Nazis. Sadly, a disproportionately high number of the Nazi women who made names for themselves did so in the concentration camps. Xn4 18:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, although she made propaganda films, Leni Riefenstahl was never a member of the Nazi Party. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but she made no secret of her support for Hitler and the party. Of Mein Kampf she said in the 1930s "The book made a tremendous impression on me. I became a confirmed National Socialist after reading the first page. I felt a man who could write such a book would undoubtedly lead Germany. I felt very happy that such a man had come." Xn4 20:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And in any case, she was enjoyed the favor of the party to make her films, which is the salient point here. She had close connections to top party brass, though in later years she would try to underplay that (for obvious reasons). --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Some ten years ago I watched - by chance - an interview with Ms Riefenstahl on German TV. It was a chilling and disturbing experience as it was obvious that the woman had not lost her fascination with some aspects and personae of the Third Reich. Even more chilling was her blatant arrogance and ignorance, a sickening caricature of the spirit of the master race. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

|Good for you. Don't forget that the reference desk is not a soapbox. And nor are you supposed to post diatribes. Flamarande (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

All fair enough; I did not defend Riefenstahl. But the OP was specifically asking about women in the Nazi Party. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I, for one, am prepared to defend Leni Riefenstahl as one of the great film makers of the twentieth century, a position for which I make no apology. Clio the Muse (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Xn4, this intrigues me: "a disproportionately high number of the Nazi women who made names for themselves did so in the concentration camps" – any links or refs I can go to? Julia Rossi (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Elisabeth Lupka, Margarete Rabe, Ruth Elfriede Hildner, Herta Ehlert, Elfriede Mohnecke, Jenny-Wanda Barkmann, Helga Hegel, Luise Brunner, Erna Petermann, Wilma Fath, Wanda Klaff, Lotte Johanna Radtke, Margarete Bisaecke, Ewa Paradies, Gerda Steinhoff, Erika Bergmann, Elisabeth Becker, Elisabeth Volkenrath, Emma Zimmer, Elsa Erich, Kaethe Becker, Jane Bernigau... Xn4 23:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, now it's off I go... Julia Rossi (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What about Ilse Koch, the Bitch of Buchenwald? Surely she's one of the most infamous. - Nunh-huh 01:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Tee Pot, I’ve now had a chance to consider each of your questions and would answer as follows:

• 1) Towards the end of the Weimar Republic women became involved in the NSDAP in ever greater numbers. By the end of 1932 the NS-Frauenschaft had a membership of 110,000, which leapt to 850,000 by the end of the following year, and to 1.5 million by the end of the year after that. I addition to that, the mass-orientated Deutches Fraunenwerk (German Women's Enterprise) was set up in September 1933, as an umbrella organisation to replace all those that had been banned by the Nazis for one reason or another. By 1935 it had a membership of 2.7 million, leaping to four million by the close of 1938, by which time it had become the largest non-compulsory organisation in the country. Tim Mason, a British Marxist historian, went so far as to argue that, in terms of the sheer numbers involved, the Nazi state enjoyed a higher degree of passive and active support among women than it did among men.

• 2) There was very little Jewish people could do to resist the April boycott, but some offered protests in the most direct and meaningful way they could. One Edwin Landau, a decorated war veteran and shop owner, donned his medals and visited as many Jewish stores as he could, as well as confronting the SA men posted on his own doorstep. In Berlin, some Jewish shopkeepers posted notice of their distinguished war records on their front windows.

• 3) After the war many Germans claimed they knew nothing of the concentration camps, a highly disingenuous position. In fact, from the very outset, they were part of the Nazi system of 'popular justice', whose existence was widely known and approved of by the community at large. It was Heinrich Himmler who offered a justification for need for 'protective custody' during the early days of the regime:

The state protects the life of all citizens. Unfortunately, it is only possible to provide such protection for certain individuals, and those involved have to be taken into protective custody under the direct protection of the police. The individuals involved, who are often of the Jewish faith, have through behaviour towards the national Germany, such as through offending nationalist feelings, and so on, made themselves so unloved among the people, that they would be exposed to the anger of the people unless the police stepped in.

Less than a week later he gave instructions to open a new camp at Dachau to 'protect' these social outcasts.

• 4) To begin with the Gestapo was set up on the initiative of Herman Göring, in his capacity as Prussian Minister of the Interior, as part of the ongoing struggle against the Communists. By September 1933, by which time what was left of the Communist movement had been driven underground, brief consideration was given the disbandment of the new organisation, a measure even pressed for in sections of the press. However, by that time, it had become far too important part of the whole police apparatus.

• 5) The Criminal Police-the Kripo-acquired a much more direct political role, with a strong degree of overlap with the Gestapo. They were released from all of the restraint under which they operated in the Weimar years, acting more and more as they saw fit.

• 6) First and foremost, they responded to 'ordinary crime' by enforcing existing laws with ever greater vigour. It was all conducted in the kind of populist language designed to appeal to the wider German community. In 1933 Admiral von Levetzow, head of the Berlin police, called on his force to fight for "law and order, for decency, for discipline and for morality." It all went down very well by people tired of crime and disorder. Years later when one woman fondly recalled the years of the Third Reich she claimed that even thieves were shot, so that thereafter "nobody took anything that belonged to anyone else."

• 7) Yes, there was, one that reversed the precepts of traditional legal systems. Equality before the law, the very heart of a liberal legal system, was effectively abolished. The Nazi system favoured speedy trials with minimal protection for the accused. In place of an old system of law that favoured, in their view, the 'security of the criminal', the chief thrust of the new law was aimed at 'securing the community of the people.' Citizens were told that the liberal principle of 'no crime without a law' had been replaced by 'no crime without a punishment.'

For all of these issues, and others along the same lines, I would strongly recommend that you read Backing Hitler by Robert Gellately. Clio the Muse (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Founding Fathers and religion

While driving home yesterday, I found myself listening to Speaking of Faith. They were talking to Steven Waldman and some of the stuff was interesting. What made me get all bubbly was when they talked about the full interview. Apparently parts had been edited out for the show which talked about how the Founding Fathers of the U.S. objected to Roman Catholicism. I'm paraphrasing here since I can't remember the exact wording they used. I'd like to download the whole interview and listen to it but won't have time for a few days to do so. So are there any articles which might reference what they might be referring to? I can read WP at work but listening to an MP3 of the interview can't be done until the weekend. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 10:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

At the bottom of this page is a link to listen to the full interview in Quicktime. I don't know if it will still be there at the weekend, though. SaundersW (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism in the United States--droptone (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Founding Fathers were largely Deists—not only Protestants, but Protestants who were pretty unorthodox to begin with, who had purposefully rejected much of the structure of traditional organized religion. That they would have found the Catholic Church suspicious at the very least is not surprising—the Catholic Church was a standard foe of Enlightenment thinkers, as it stood for pretty much the opposite of everything they did (at least, that's how they saw it). It was as much a political power as well as an intellectual and religious one; it was a centralized, hierarchical organization that traditionally aligned itself with monarchies and preached such anti-Enlightenment ideals as faith, dogma, miracles, etc. No big surprise that they weren't fans of it, to say the least. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all! I'll check out the article in the next couple nights. The Quicktime link is also no use to me at work. Basically there isn't any easy way to get 'net audio, MP3 or Quicktime, in the cleanroom. Dismas|^(talk) 01:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I researched this last year. The records of the ratifying conventions in the individual states shed light on the Establishment Clause, religious oaths, and no religious test for public office clauses. Speakers address their fear of Roman Catholicism openly. Reading the debates, I concluded that in their world-view Roman Catholics were not truly fellow Christians. No condemnation is uttered.Catholics are considered alien along with Jews and Moslems. It was not expected in most states that Roman Catholics would run for public office. The religious clauses were not discussed and debated as much as we would imagine. 75Janice (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)75Janice

Marsh Creek Springs, California

what's the history of this place? what are the borders? what is the population? where are the census figures? when was it founded? who runs it? what is it? where can i find information about it?W-i-k-i-l-o-v-e-r-1-7 (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your best bet might be to contact the Contra Costa County Historical Society. Corvus cornix_talk 16:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Or call the number on this page: http://www.oldmarshcreeksprings.net/ . To see where it is, click the globe icon on the wiki page. --169.230.94.28 (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What if the south had won?

What if the south had won the American Civil War? I know this was probably impossible by military means. But what if, say, George McClellan had won the 1864 presidential election and concluded a peace because of general war weariness in the north? What is likely to have happened in the long term if the CSA and the USA became entirely separate republics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes, I believe it (talk • contribs) 11:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It says at the top of the page: Do not start debates. This question does not fall within the remit of a Reference Desk.

That said, you might like to brush up on what Saint Augustine said on the folly of speculating about what did not happen. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a pretty common subject of alternate history fiction. The article mentions a few novels that use the South winning the war as a jumping off point. Recury (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Augustine of Hippo´s De Civitate Dei is a compendium of mystical speculation.
• Speculation is the essence of human intellectual development.
• As to your question relating to an alternative history I hope it will be answered - in the context of some hypothetical reality - by qualified historians. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your question could be partly answered by looking at what the South hoped to retain and/or gain by fighting in the first place. Origins of the American Civil War outlines the culture and economy of the South with its investment in secession, slavery and white racism, high agriculture and export economy with low or slow industrialisation, a share in federal taxes for development maybe, a repeal of the Tariff of Abominations say, sustained kinship and racist culture. But when you get to that point it looks like things would have changed from the inside pretty well inevitably by outside intellectuals, economic pressure, consciousness raising and one of the things they feared, slave rebellions. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Have to laugh about St Augustine who would have had plenty to speculate about on the paths taken and not taken – shelving his mistress and child was one of them. Oouch. Clever to blame the pagans, turn celibate, get promoted and get published. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ask Harry Turtledove#The Southern Victory or Timeline-191 Series. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer is simple: Harry Turtledove would have written novels about what would have happened if the North had won the war. --Anonymous, 01:51 UTC, March 18, 2008.

Winston Churchill wrote an essay called "If Lee Had Not Won the Battle of Gettysburg". See Alternate history#Early 20th century and the era of the pulps. Corvus cornix_talk 17:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

An interesting question, which really does not have to be answered by a complete 'alternative reality', the usual problem with counter-factual history. The simplest thing is to project forward already existing features of the economic and political system of the North and South.

The North was in the early stages of an industrial revolution, most likely carried forward with ever greater momentum, freed from the problems and economic costs of Reconstruction. The South would have maintained its peculiar institution, which would have acted as an even greater drag on an economy ruined by war. Huge amounts of credit would have been required to restore a ruined infrastructure and build a new shipping fleet to carry cotton to Europe. Could this have been achieved in the short term? Possibly, but only with substantial foreign help for a country with virtually no capital.

For the black people of the South the North, now free in absolute, not just relative terms, would have been a greater attraction than it was before, with no more Fugitive Slave Act or the possibility of a new Dred Scot decision. Presumably the states of the upper South would have to have maintained a strong militia presence to try to prevent the exodus. Would the states of the lower South have been prepared to meet a share of the financial burden involved? Well, we know that even during the war there had been strong centrifugal forces in the Confederacy, with people like Joseph E. Brown of Georgia taking an extreme view of States Rights. These pressures are likely to have increased with peace.

We also have to assume that all of the communities of the South would have settled down to independence based on secession, when over large parts of the Confederacy many were fighting against the whole process, and just as many in the Union Army. It is possible, then, that the new CSA would have faced its own prolonged internal struggle. At the very least, it is likely to have faced a guerrilla war, with Southern dissidents supported by Northern abolitionists, unhappy with the outcome of the war. This would have weakened its tired economy still further.

Touching on abolitionism, the end of the war would have left many in the north unsatisfied, people who are likely to have made the most of border clashes that are likely to have followed if the black exodus had achieved high, possibly unsupportable levels. Once the North had gathered its breath, and greatly strengthened its industrial base, a new war might have followed.

Would the South have carried slavery into the twentieth century? It seems inconceivable, and the institution is likely to have been abolished before the end of the nineteenth, possibly by 1889, the same time it went in Brazil. But how was the South, backward and weak, to afford the huge levels of compensation that would have been necessary without a strong federal reserve? Possibly by introducing the kind of redemption payments which allowed the Tsars to 'free' the serfs. In other words, by mortgaging the future and placing an intolerable financial burden on the poorest sections of the community. Hence more migration; hence an even weaker economy

Could the Confederacy have made it to the twentieth century? No, probably not; or, if it did, as a weak and economically dependant nation. Clio the Muse (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America --Nricardo (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, how I abhor alternative history fiction. Better to understand the events that created our present situation than wondering what else they could have begotten. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 02:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I love intellectual sports and challenges of all kinds; and this one is as good as any other. Besides, there is a world of difference between reasoned speculation-which forms part of most historical writing-and 'alternate history fictions.' Clio the Muse (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Edward I and the Edict of Expulsion

In your page on Edward I of England there is a section on the 1290 expulsion of the Jews. Some possible reasons are given for King Edward's decision, though nothing very specific. I would be grateful for any info on the reasons behind the precise timing of this measure. Thanks. Dora Kaplan (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In truth, no-one really knows, although plenty speculate. Our article dismisses the usury angle because there was little for the crown to gain, but I think there's a good chance it may be relevant, particularly from the angle of baronial pressure for expulsion of those who were owed substantial moneys. Edward needed to keep his barons on-side and he'd rather they paid him any available cash to finance his ambitious wars, than any Jewish money-lenders. But, I'm speculating. The timing is odd, as it doesn't really coincide with any time of political weakness, but perhaps it's in an unusual lull in foreign martial exploits, so Edward was able to turn his attention to domestic affairs for once? --Dweller (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we do know quite a lot about the precise timing of the Edict of Expulsion: the Wikipedia article here has clearly not yet caught up with the latest scholarship on the subject. Certainly Edward's decision was based on a long tradition of anti-Semitism, and the precedent of more limited expulsion, including one initiated by Simon de Montfort, who had expelled the Jews from Leicester early in his career. But in 1290 Edward needed money, which could only be obtained by a new Parliamentary grant of taxation. When Parliament was assembled, the knights of the shires demanded the expulsion of the Jews as a condition of such a grant. And so it followed. The measure was so popular that Edward received the biggest tax grant of the Middle Ages. Clio the Muse (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

US and PLA Marines

on the page QBZ-95, there are two pictures showing chinese and american Marines conducting joint exercises/meeting up. I was not aware that the american and chinese militaries had a relationship. Where can I find out more about this? --AtTheAbyss (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Try this search http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=us+sino+military+coop&meta= first two links look directly related to what you ask.87.102.13.144 (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping for something with less rhetoric, but they were useful nonetheless. Thanks. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Bankruptcy of mutual fund company: what happens to the fund?

This question is about U.S. law. Suppose you invest in a mutual fund that is administered by some large mutual fund company. Then the company goes bankrupt. Will you get your investments back, or are they treated as assets of the company and distributed among all the company's creditors in the normal course of the bankruptcy proceedings?

A different way to phrase the question: is the money you give to a mutual fund still your money (and therefore immediately falls back to you if the company folds) or is it considered the company's money (and therefore you are just one in a long line of creditors in case of bankruptcy)?

And a third way to get at the same thing: is the mutual fund legally separate from the mutual fund company? In other words, is it possible for the company to go bankrupt (e.g. because of an accounting scandal, or because they speculated unwisely with some of their money [not with the mutual fund money], or because they built too expensive a headquarters building etc.) even though the fund itself is still perfectly healthy (since the underlying securities haven't lost any value)?

[I already know that mutual fund companies are required to carry insurance for the case that an employee runs away with the mutual fund money, but that's not the case I'm interested in. I'm also not interested in the case of the mutual fund shares losing value because the underlying securities lose value.]

Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The assets of the mutual fund are owned by a trust company, which administers the fund on behalf of its investors. The trust company appoints a fund manager to manage those assets and a custodian to hold the assets. The fund's assets are quite separate from the assets of the fund manager, and will not be lost if the fund manager goes into liquidation. However, there is, in general, no guarantee that investors will get back as much as they invested in the fund, because the value of the fund's assets may fall due to poor fund management or general market conditions. In an extreme case it is possible that the fund itself may become insolvent, and would have to be wound up. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! In the case of a mutual fund of Vanguard or Fidelity, say, what role do Fidelity and Vanguard play? Are they the trust company, the fund manager or the custodian? And who plays the other roles? AxelBoldt (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Greatest Knight

I've seen it in the article on Gawain refer to him as the Greatest Knight, saying that he was one of few. Who are the others? Thank you in advance. 99.226.26.154 (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Black Knight obviously БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 21:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Less obviously, there is the Mourning after the Knight Before. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sir Alec Guinness, a knight twice over. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sir Ninian Stephen is a knight 5 times over. Other mere mortals may have more than 5. Of royalty, the Duke of Windsor had 10 knighthoods (the article lists 8 of them, but I believe he was also a GCMG and a GBE). -- JackofOz (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome OP, the other knights are Galahad, Gawain, Lancelot and Percival. Bit like the best 007 contenders with a bit of Jesus thrown in. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

From Sir Ector de Maris's lament for his brother Lancelot in Malory's Morte d'Arthur:

“ Ah, Launcelot, he said, thou wert head of all Christian knights, and now, I dare say, said Sir Ector, thou, Sir Launcelot, there thou liest, that thou wert never matched of earthly knight's hand; and thou wert the courteoust knight that ever bare shield; and thou wert the truest friend to thy lover that ever bestrad horse, and thou wert the truest lover of a sinful man that ever loved woman; and thou wert the kindest man that ever struck with sword; and thou wert the goodliest person that ever came among press of knights; and thou wert the meekest man and the gentlest that ever ate in hall among ladies; and thou wert the sternest knight to thy mortal foe that ever put spear in the rest. ”

Xn4 23:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically what happened was this: Gawain was the original "greatest knight" of the Round Table (besides Arthur). Over the centuries, the story developed and characters were added to it. Many characters were established as "great knights" because they defeated Gawain in combat. He was like a right of passage. Lancelot, Lamorak, Galahad, and Percy beat him. It was like whenever the new guy showed up and bragged he was good he had to fight Gawain to prove it. Wrad (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

See also the Nine Worthies. Or people like Enguerrand VII of Coucy, or Jean Boucicaut. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Or even Pierre Terrail, seigneur de Bayard, "the knight without fear and without reproach". (But this is all as admittedly subjective as arguing over who the "greatest general" was.) Kirill 04:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

99.226, I assume, from the form of your question, that it is only fictitious knights that you are interested in, though others have offered you some real examples. On the basis of that assumption I will hold off from mentioning the greatest of all the Medieval knights! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Who "was blessed with a brain too small to impede the natural vigour of a big, powerful and tireless physique"?[1]—eric 23:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke. Or Warwick the Kingmaker? --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Gold ownership

Is there any information about the amount of gold available in each country? I'm talking about actual gold owned by people or the government, not ore. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Official gold reserves gives a list of bank holdings. I doubt if numbers on private ownerships are available, as it would negate the purpose. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What purpose? deeptrivia (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Any National banks selling gold bullions?

Is there any new information if national banks are taking advantage of the current high price of gold to sell gold reserves? I mean with Nixon the link between gold and currency was severed (in the major world economies at least). It would make a lot sense to sell gold reserves right now as the price is reaching record levels. Flamarande (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• In what currency would they sell it ?
• Who would buy it ?

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Any, except the US Dollar. I'm speaking of national banks who have little interest in keeping gold at all.

If the price is getting higher it is a signal that the demand for gold is increasing a lot in the first place (I hope you know of the the theory of "Supply and demand" and that prices usually rise when the demand increases). I suppose that plenty of ppl are buying and investing in gold because of the fear of the economic recession. Flamarande (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yours is a very good question indeed, Flamarande. Bear in mind the following: national banks, though exhibit budgets and administer financial goods, have other goals than making profits out of circumstancial situations. What is more, gold reserves are meant to be stocked in order to back the financial system (e.g. to somehow act as a means of sustain of money, though not completely as in the times of the gold standard). In such a particular state of affairs like the current one, it may be not a good idea to sell an important amount of gold reserves. Pallida  Mors 03:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

national banks would be crazy not to hoard gold, because the us economy is the engine for the world's -- if the us had a depression, the whole world would feel it. Possibly EVERY currency would plummet in value, in the worst case. On the other hand, if banks have a big suprplus of gold then maybe now is a good time to sell off a little of it, if they need liquidity for whatever reason. IANAE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.9.122 (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, gold isn't stable either. It's just as volatile as any other currency, because it's based on demand and supply. Hoarding gold artificially inflates the price, but the minute you try to use it as a primary currency, the gold enters the global economy and devalues as it's traded more and more. -- Kesh (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)