Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg

September 18

War of 1904

What did Japanese people think of war with Russia?K Limura 01:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• See Russo-Japanese_war#Assessment_of_war_results - bottom line is they were unhappy with the treaty terms. Exxolon 01:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Exxolon. Sorry i put question badly. I meant Japanese ordinary public.K Limura 01:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• That section does contain some information about the people's responses. There are references to riots for a start - have a good read through! Exxolon 02:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, K, let's see now. To begin with it might interest you to know that Japanese success in the war against Russia created a set of preconceptions among the western powers, preconceptions that were to last well into the century: that the Japanese were a martial people, the Prussians of the east, fed from birth on the code of Bushido; a nation whose soldiers cared nothing for self-preservation, whose people sacrificed all for the emperor and the greater good. But the Japanese are as varied as people anywhere else, and the stresses and strains of the war produced a whole mixture of reactions. Among other things, there were complaints in the press about the lack of patriotism and the 'degeneracy' of modern youth. Consider this gem from September 1905;

"Recently male students have taken to wearing perfume and cosmetics and acting in a listless manner. Female students, by contrast, swagger about the city in tight-sleeved dresses, radiating energy. In a world where the loser [Russia] defeats the victor [Japan] in peace talks, one almost expects leaves to sink and rocks to float."

During the conflict itself there was a general mood of patriotism, and people did support the troops, though enthusiasm began to wane somewhat as the conflict was dragged out, and demands for contributions of money and goods got ever more irkesome. Organisations like the Patriotic Women's Association, set up to look after the families of those lost in action, were criticised for snobbery and class prejudice, attending to the dependants of officers but not men.

Government policy was also the subject of criticism. At first people were told to cut back on luxuries, like drinking and smoking. But by the close of 1904, as the financial pressures of the war mounted, a tax was placed on sake and tobacco, and a new emphasis placed upon consumption. This met with some ironic comment in the press, "Half a year ago, we were told, 'Think of the national emeergency! Don't drink! Don't smoke!' Now, tobacco is a state monopoly and sake taxes go into the war effort. Now we are told, 'Think of the emergency! Drink and smoke your fill!' It would seem that smokers and drinkers are becoming true patriots!"

As always, and as everywhere, there was a growing gap between the official optimism and practical realism, especially when campaigns dragged on longer than expected. The mounting casualties in the battle for Port Arthur was also a cause of growing cynicism and war-weariness. By the time it was captured, after several hard months of combat, a new phrase had come into popular use, expressing a mood of disbelief, "The cheque is in the post and Port Arthur is about to fall." Even after the most heartening victories, like that of Tsushima in May 1905, other considerations sometimes outweighed feelings of patriotism. In the city of Gifu, for example, an entire ward refused to celebrate because of concerns over the mayor's use of war donations. In the end, despite all of their efforts and sacrifices, many people felt that they had won a war only to lose a peace. Clio the Muse 01:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Iwakura mission

What did Japanese learn from Iwakura mission of 1872?K Limura 01:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• See Iwakura_mission and check the references/external links for more detail. Please use the search box to find articles too! Exxolon 01:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

For a moment there I thought you meant the Itokawa mission – shows you where my head is at! —Tamfang 01:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

One very useful lesson in realpolitik was delivered to the Japanese ambassadors by Bismarck, when they dined with him in Berlin in March 1873. He told them that Japan must rely on its own efforts in maintaining its independence against the hungry imperial powers, like England and France, not on international law and diplomacy. The main conclusion they took back to Japan after their prolonged tour was that defence came only through strength; that strength came only through economic power; that economic power only came with modernisation. The path taken, though, was to be uniquely Japanese. Clio the Muse 02:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Justice Today

Is justice today actually just? 76.198.94.201 01:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I shrink from responding to such a vague question. But I will say that one could find many examples of both just and unjust outcomes in today's world, exactly as has always been the case since time immemorial and will always be the case forever. We could give you a better answer if you gave us more information about where you're referring to and what sorts of justice you'd like to know about. -- JackofOz 01:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That question is so broad it's almost impossible to answer. Which justice system? USA? UK? Sharia? In what context? For the criminal? The victim? Society? It can be argued that the goal of any justice system is to acheive justice as well as how far apart the ideal and the realities are. Exxolon 01:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A short answer to a short question: "Most justice is imperfect". In someone's wise words (I forget where this is from) "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under railway bridges and beg in the streets." And (wandering off your question) you might like this little verse, attributed to Lord Justice Bowen:

The rain it raineth on the just

And also on the unjust fella;

But chiefly on the just,

Because the unjust steals the just's umbrella.

Xn4 02:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an excellent article last week's Spectator (London, 13 September) on this very subject, 76.198, though it is addressed specifically to the inadequacies of the British system of justice. Anyway, the author, Leo McKinstry, takes his cue from the old Hollywood clasic, Twelve Angry Men. He sees this as a significant step in the advance of the 'bleeding hearts', a move along a road that would see the state lose confidence in its ability to enforce the law. This is how he concludes;

The Fonda hero is meant to be the champion of individual liberty against the scourge of McCarthyite bullying. But towards the end of film he turns into a bully himself, demanding total adherence to his viewpoint. He refuses to accept that some other jurors can still think the teenager is guilty. His conduct can almost be seen as a metaphor for the modern liberal takeover of our justice system. Common sense about crime, like locking up offenders, has to be denied. The protective institutions, which once saw themselves as the guardians of the public, have to be brainwashed into thinking differently. Anything that smacks of robustness had to be smeared as sadistic or reactionary.

The Fonda position is regarded as the height of compassion, but it is nothing of the sort. By letting the guilty walk free and crimes go unpunished, liberal campaigners have inflicted misery on the genuinely innocent. It is one of the bizarre paradoxes of modern liberalism that those who trumpet their concern for the vulnerable should actually be such noisy supporters of criminals, the nastiest and most aggressive people in our society. The acquittal of O.J. Simpson was the perfect example of the doctrine espoused by Twelve Angry Men, with someone who looked like an obvious killer found not guilty because of whispers about racism and a catalogue of spurious challenges over hard evidence. Barry Shreck and Johnny Cochrane, Simpson’s ruthless and cynical lawyers, were the real-life incarnation of Henry Fonda’s architect. Here in Britain the same process is at work. As violent crime soars, and thugs laugh at the justice system, we are all paying the price for Fonda’s morally inverted liberation. Clio the Muse 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

earley cars engines compared to curent egines

how wher early car engine difrent than car engines from today like did they not use internal com. engines did they not have as meny pistons thanks i am a car fanatic woo hoo =P--Sivad4991 01:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This question would be better served on the science desk. See Automobile - it has a history section and details on all the fuels and technologies used. Also see Internal combustion engine for an overview of it's history

{comment removed per WP:BITE) byEdison 13:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)).

Exxolon 02:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You understood what they were asking though, yes? Maybe English isn't their primary language. Dismas|^(talk) 03:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

i read both automobile and internal comustion pages but i didnt find wat i was looking for i want to know how hey compare andcan any 1 find a picture of a old car engine thanks every 1 --76.235.177.136 21:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

More on female editors

Hi.I asked a question not so long ago about female editors. Thanks to all who responded. But I really just wanted to know how many females there are here on the reference desk. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnie X (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And what are they wearing? —Tamfang 03:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Try putting that the other way around ("I really just wanted to know how many males there are here on the reference desk"), and the penny might drop, Barnie. Xn4 03:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnie, one of the great delights of the online world is that one can reveal as much or as little of one's personal life as one wishes. You will have noticed how few people wanted to answer your previous question. That is because they don't want you to know, and it is their absolute right to keep that private. All you need know is what comes through the quality of their replies. Male/female, young/old, rich/poor, we are all equal here until we make ourselves unequal through demonstrating our wisdom or otherwise. SaundersW 08:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the only way to answer this one is to go to the talk page and take a survey, probably asking people to take part. Also, how do you define who being at the reference desk? For example, haven't seen you, Barnie, here before... maybe if this is only your second posting, do we count you? What about someone who stopped using it last month? Although maybe the other explanation for people not telling us is not just about privacy, they simply thought the given answers were enough.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 11:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Do Martians have male and female? Or are you asexual? Or even hermaphrodite? We should know - you'll mess up the statistics. --Dweller 13:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Corvus cornix 18:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point, kind alien, Dweller. Since first contact, our scientists have been trying to connect the earth concept which you call "gender" to Martian anatomy. So far, we believe that the martian idea of "성ج本ن%олό$일본σμ£日ια", approximately pronounced "phanthree78blojMNVBX", could equate to the human concept, but this is yet to be confirmed. If true, it would mean that we have between five and twelve genders, depending on ethnic group. Normally, 43-68% of these genders must be present to permit procreation, although if one is lacking, it may be replaced by 2 of another gender. I am sure such kind hosts as yourselves would be prepared to accomodate me in your statistics.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 21:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If two replace one, wouldn't that give a higher percentage than required? how does that work? :) Wrad 21:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If we really must discuss the sexuality of my species, can we please not do it here in full view? I understand that even in human culture it wouldn't be appropriate to discuss sexuality in public.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 22:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ignore lostinspace, he's lying. Martians have 3 sexes. Males, females and asexuals. Asexuals rear the young, females hunt, males look after the females. lostinspace is an asexual. Cheers Nil Einne 23:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, a non-martian (I assume) would know?martianlostinspace ^{email me} 23:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought Martians were all men! Speaking as a citizen of Venus, of course. Clio the Muse 00:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a sweet Venetian. Barnie X 06:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Errr... Barnie, Venetian describes someone from Venice, Italy. As romantic as Clio may be (considering the topic), I think you're looking for Venusian. Slight difference.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 08:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Or venereal, although that word tends to give the wrong impressions these days.... Laïka 14:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

While I'm sure we all appreciate martian's willingness to enlighten us, his/her/its response does not conform to WP:V and WP:RS. I trust no one will add it to any article without proper citation. JamesMLane t c 02:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

---

One of our Earth buildings appears to already accomodate Martian genders: See http://www.othermag.org/blog.php?p=209 -- AnonMoos 09:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Beer Flood

Hi,

I read somewhere once that there was once a beer flood in London that caused several people to drown in beer, but I couldn't find this anywhere on Wikipedia. Does anyone know if this story is actually true?

Thanks!

I couldn't find anything here on Wikipedia but a Google search for the term "beer flood" yields several results that look promising. Dismas|^(talk) 03:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the story is true. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

We do have an article on the molasses disaster mentioned in that link. Rmhermen 13:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Meux's_Brewery#1814_vat_failure. -- !! ?? 14:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Political rivalry

In the region of South Asia, I know that in Bangladesh, it's political rivals are Awami League(leftist) and Bangladesh Nationalist Party(rightist), so what about its South Asian counterparts? Does India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka have their own political rivals among themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.98 (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Any democracy has competing political parties, right and left. The existance of the above parties apparently getting 40% of the vote each makes it probably a two party system. You can see the articles on these at "Politics of [country]", eg Politics of India using the search bar on the right.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 11:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Quibble: So far as right and left mean anything coherent, they seem to me to stand for stability and equality respectively, and I wouldn't expect those two to be the poles of every democracy. —Tamfang 05:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Support for Tamfang's quibble: even some Western-style democracies find their two main parties are both, in European terms, of the 'right' or the 'left'. When you get into South Asia, rival political parties may have quite different polarities, such as ethnic or tribal or religious ones. Xn4 05:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fouad Siniora

I read Fouad Siniora's bio article and it didn't say which political party he belongs to, which indicates that party is in country's government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.98 (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the Lebanese government of July 2005 article, Fouad Siniora is a member of Future Movement, part of the March 14 Alliance. See also: Politics of Lebanon#Political parties and elections.—eric 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is this economist?

I recently came across the homepage of an academic economist. All I remember from his/her site is that they are writing a forthcoming book, which has the words 'price' and 'theory' in its tentative title. Any idea who this economist may be? 129.78.64.105 05:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Price Theory or Price Theory and Applications? SGGH ^speak! 11:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

David D. Friedman has also written a textbook titled Price Theory, but can any of these be described as "forthcoming"? —Tamfang 05:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Lord/Lady of the Manor"

When the lord was out, the lady takes the role of being the leader, but if something happens to the Lord, does the lady lead or does someone else come in because women are used in other ways, not to lead. Please put a list of pages where i can find information on medieval: Leaders Kings and Queens

• Lord/ Lady of the manor

Sport Rankings Lifestyles Clothing

• Knights
• Weaponry

Thankyou for your time and effort!

• =most important

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.153.57 (talk • contribs)

We have articles on all those things, including Lord of the Manor.

Generally speaking, when a powerful man died, his title, lands and other property passed to his eldest son, or to another close male relative. Females wielding significant power in their own right was rare, but not unheard of; there were three female monarchs in a row in 16th century England, for example. FiggyBee 15:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wives were often placed in charge of their husband's affairs temporarily, while they were off fighting somewhere...Adela of Normandy and Sibylla of Anjou held a lot of power while their husbands were off on crusade, for example. For your other questions, check out History of western fashion, knight, medieval football, and medieval weapons. Adam Bishop 15:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A Lady of the Manor was often called a Chatelaine. Corvus cornix 18:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bicycle Day

What is Bicycle Day? Is it celebrated as a holiday? 207.69.139.140 14:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

One meaning of Bicycle Day is explained here. Gandalf61 15:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of bicycle days - where people are supposed to ride around on bicycles.. Not sure if there is a fixed day .87.102.116.240 16:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A soldier's declaration

On Wikisource, the featured text for the month is s:Finished with the War: A Soldier’s Declaration, by Siegfried Sassoon. We havent been able to work out who it was primarily addressed to. i.e. did he write it to be published in the newspaper, or to be read aloud at the House of Commons, or perhaps it was addressed to his army superiors before finding its way into the public.

As a separate question, how does being read aloud at the House of Commons, or printed in a 1917 UK newspaper, affect the copyright of this work in the UK. We are currently using PD-1923 which justifies Wikisource hosting it, but it would be nice to provide a more liberal license for non-US readers. John Vandenberg 15:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Norton Anthology of English Literature says:

“ Siegfried Sassoon's declaration of war against the war appeared in the Bradford Pioneer on July 27, 1917 ...

(This statement was made to his commanding officer by Second-Lieutenant S. L. Sassoon, Military Cross, recommended for D.S.O., Third Battalion Royal Welch Fusiliers, as explaining his grounds for refusing to serve further in the army. He enlisted on 3rd August 1914, showed distinguished valour in France, was badly wounded, and would have been kept on home service if he had stayed in the army.)

”

And our article says:

“ At the end of a spell of convalescent leave, Sassoon declined to return to duty, instead, encouraged by pacifist friends such as Bertrand Russell and Lady Ottoline Morrell, he sent a letter to his commanding officer titled A Soldier’s Declaration, which was forwarded to the press and read out in Parliament by a sympathetic MP. ”

Does that help?

On that basis, it is difficult to see why the text would not benefit from the usual (since 1995) copyright term in the UK of life plus 70 years. Which, for Siegfried Sassoon, leaves another 30 years before it is out of copyright. -- !! ?? 16:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably because it is Florida law that is relevant: see the text and links on Template:PD-US. Basically, anything published in the US before 1923, as this almost certainly was, is no longer copyright. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What does Florida law have to do with the copyright status of this work in the UK, which is what the questioner asked? -- !! ?? 10:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, !! ; as a result, the blurb on the Wikisource Featured Text has been expanded, and I wrote an article for Bradford Pioneer. It is a shame that our UK readers are not supposed to read the front page of Wikisource this month; I will take that up with the team over there. John Vandenberg 03:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sloane Rangers

I see the question I placed earlier today has been removed (is that allowed?) so I'll place another and ask my original in a more 'appropriate' place. Here is my new one: what exactly is a Sloane Ranger? Are they all superior young women? Some examples would be nice.Barnie X 16:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See Sloane Ranger. Some suggested members of the sub-species are listed in the article. Very few are in captivity. Xn4 16:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

None; they are far, far too wild! Clio the Muse 23:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A people's contest

This is how Abraham Lincoln described the war between the states. I would be interested to know what motivated men on either side to fight? Have there been any studies of the subject? Tower Raven 17:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the word "contest" had a different context 150 years ago. While the inquiry into the people's motivations is interesting, I doubt they were in it for fabulous prizes. Beekone 17:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A lot of northerners fought because of Nationalism (i.e. the U.S. couldn't fulfill its destiny as a great nation if it had half its territory amputated, including the outlet of the Mississippi river at New Orleans, which was a vital trade link for much of the midwest); because they were heartily sick of southern leaders seeming to dominate the U.S. government and forcing into U.S. federal law measures which were extremely unpopular among a broad section of the northern population (e.g. the 1854 repeal of the Missouri Compromise, the 1857 Dred Scott decision etc.), and southern secession in 1861 seemed to be part of this "rule or ruin" strategy; and because the southerners were the ones who started the shooting war, and were thus considered the agressors by many. Most northerners were against the extension of slavery to new geographical areas (the political issue of the 1848-1860 period), and held little goodwill towards slaveholders (who were viewed as being part of the sinister nefarious "Slave Power" political conspiracy), but relatively few northerners would have given abolition of slavery as the main reason why they were fighting, and during the first 2 years or so of the war, the idea that the war was being fought primarily to free the blacks, rather than to restore the union, was extremely controversial among northern whites. AnonMoos 20:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget those who fought because they were drafted. —Tamfang 00:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What you need to look for is two books in particular, both by Bell Irtwin Wiley-The Life of Johnny Reb: the Common Soldier of the Confederacy and The Life of Billy Yank: the Common Soldier of the Union, originally published some sixty years ago and reprinted in the late 1980s. In the latter Wiley says that the Union soldier went to war often for the highest of motives, though in time grand visions scaled to narrow horizons;

The primary interest were physical comfort, food, drink, girls, furloughs, mail and gambling, in about that order, and ultimate objectives sooner or later simmered down to finishing an unpleasant though necessary job as soon as possible and getting home.

The Confederate soldiers, most of whom had no slaves, and little understanding of the grander constitutional questions, were often motivated by one thing, and one thing only: hatred of the Yankee invaders.

The debate has broadened slightly since Wiley published his studies, with some historians placing a far greater emphasis on ideological factors, though this often depends on the perspective one happens to adopt: the experience of battle or those things that brought men to the battle in the first place. Some were drafted, but to the very end most on both sides were volunteers. Battle itself, the experience of battle, became a bonding factor for men who had lived through common dangers. One southern soldier wrote that while the men were all desperate to get away on furlough, they were nearly always just as desperate to get back, "There is a feeling of love-a strong attachment for those with whom one has shared a common danger, that is never felt...under any other circumstances."

Religion was also an important factor, possibly just as important as it once was in the English Civil War of the seventeenth century, something that gave the ugliness a more transcendent quality. While a northern soldier sang that 'as Christ died to make men holy, let us die to make men free' a southern artillery officer, even after the fall of Atlanta, could not believe "that our father in Heaven intends that we shall be subjugated by such a race of people as the Yankees."

People in both sides, interestingly, also sought justification in the actions of their antecedents during the American Revolution. The Rebels took comfort in another great southern Rebel, while the Northerns argued that the ideals of the Founding Fathers had been undermined by a southerm 'aristocracy.'

Comradeship, necessity, faith and high ideals, however these are interpreted, brought men to, and kept them in, a universe of battle. Clio the Muse 03:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Besides the Americans who fought, there were plenty of foreigners who travelled to America to fight in the Civil War. A number of Australians (figures vary) sailed to America (usually disembarking in California) and made their way east until they found some soldiers and joined them. Apparently, rarely did these Australians enlist in a particular army for ideological reasons; rather for the excitement that travelling to the other side of the world and shooting strangers brings. In this article [1] there is a reference to the Confederacy warship 'Shenandoah' visiting Melbourne during the war and recruited locals for the war. --Roisterer 06:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How many of the Founding Fathers 'were' "southern aristocracy:" plantation dwelling slave-owners? Was there a discussion during the writing of the Constitution and the ratification that, like a gang, once you join, attempts to leave will be met with violence? If a European country decided to leave the EU, would the other EU countries have a right to invade it? Edison 13:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a small taste, but George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, all Virginia slave holders were respectively the 1st, 3rd, and 4th presidents. Washington of course was the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and Madison was one of the primary architects of the US constitution. Czmtzc 14:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In the 1770's almost all the British North American colonies (both north and south) had slavery, but most revolutionary leaders (both north and south) admitted that slavery was a bad thing which eventually should be eliminated. It wasn't until ca. 1818-1819 (when slavery had been abolished in all northern states, while slavery in the south had received a major economic boost from use of the cotton gin) that slavery first became a "sectional" issue in U.S. politics, pitting north against south.

The question of whether states had a right to secede from the U.S. was not touched on in the U.S. constitution, and diverse people had diverse opinions on this as a purely abstract theoretical constitutional question -- but in the context of the politics of 1861, a large number of northeners (including some who had very little regard for the well-being of blacks) were very determined not to allow a bunch of southern political rascals and Slave Power conspirators to destroy the national greatness of the United States of America in pursuit of their "rule or ruin" policies... AnonMoos 15:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember from my past reading of American history that secession first became a serious political issue during the War of 1812, with the threat that some of the northern states might leave the Union, because the conflict with Great Britain threatened their economic well-being. And surely it was not always northerners who were concerned with the integrity of the Union. Was it not Andrew Jackson, despite his general sympathy for the South, who took a strong line with South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis? Anyway, in the end the Civil War did at least address and settle the central political ambiguity in the Constitution; that the United States is a nation, not a loose alliance of sectional interests. And in relation to Edison's point, the EU is not, nor could it ever be, a 'nation'-or at least I hope not. You see, Clio is a firm believer in states' rights! Clio the Muse 00:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nation, my foot. Did the Russian conquest of the Caucasus remove any doubt that Georgia etc are part of the Russian nation? Lincoln's illegal war, like any war of conquest or reconquest, solidified only an empire – which has since arguably become a nation. —Tamfang 05:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Using the word illegal was unwise. Sorry. —Tamfang 22:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The conquest of Georgia and the other nations of the Caucasus-which predates the American Civil War by half a century-made these places part of the Russian Empire, not part of the Russian nation; for they all preserved their unique cultural and political identity. This is just as true of India, which became part of the British Empire after the suppression of the Mutiny in 1857, though clearly not part of the British nation. The United States, by any reasonable definition, was already a nation before the Civil War, though increasingly torn by sectional disputes. I have little doubt the Andrew Jackson would have taken the same action as Linclon in 1861 in the face of secession, just as Andrew Johnson, another southerner, sided with Union. Secession, carried out in the face of the opposition of at least one state governor, was the bring secession within the secession, and civil war within the civil war. In the end, with the exception of South Carolina, every southern state had formations serving in the Union army. I mention this purely by way of fact. You, Tamfang, seemed determined to fight old, unhappy, far off things/and battles long ago; I am not. So please forgive me if I resist the temptation to debate with you....and your foot. Clio the Muse 05:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If the United States were a nation before 1861, a position with which I won't argue because I don't find the question interesting, then the war did not make it so. Questions of cultural identity are not resolved on the battlefield. If you say silly things I'll call you on it whether or not you admit to "debating". – Thank you for the historical details in this last paragraph. —Tamfang 22:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As for legality, since the southerners chose to start the shooting war, many in the north were persuaded that consitutional provisions such as "The Congress shall have power... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" and "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" and "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War" applied. AnonMoos 06:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

When I say "Lincoln's illegal war" (an unwise chose of words, I now recognize) I refer not only to the invasion itself (which he threatened before the shooting started) but to his other violent acts against the democratic process, which I hope I need not enumerate. Since you frame this paragraph with "many in the north were persuaded", it is accurate and on topic (hurrah!). Though I'll note that some in the North, such as the Chief Justice, were not persuaded that authortity to suspend habeas corpus rested with the President (that clause is in article I, not article II). —Tamfang 22:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the supreme court justice who was responsible for that decision was the infamous Roger B. Taney, who had absolutely zero credibility in the north after his transparently shabby fraudulent manipulations of historical facts (and extreme bigoted racism) revealed in the Dred Scott decision. A lot of Northerners thought that the only reason why "justice" Taney hadn't defected to the more ideologically-congenial climate of Mississippi (or whatever) at the beginning of the war was that he preferred to stay behind and conduct deliberate malicious judicial sabotage and vandalism for the intentional purpose of undermining the Union war effort. If someone was needed to stand up for full democratic rights during wartime during the Lincoln administration, it couldn't be judge Taney, who was incredibly toxic in terms of northern politics after 1857. AnonMoos 01:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

According to The Professor and the Madman, many Irishmen joined the war for practice, hoping soon to fight the Sassenach. —Tamfang 05:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, I just finished reading that. 38.112.225.84 22:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

September 19

Marching Band

Can anyone tell me how well this show was done? [2] --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 00:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just opinion here: Sounded pretty good for a high school band, especially one that was not extremely large. The marching during the playing of the music looked fine. I thought the entry onto the field was too casual, and the band sort of wandered to the initial formation from the initial block band formation. There was a lot of delay for setting up the tower and for the director getting ready to direct.This is anticlimactic. I would encourage getting the tower set up and the director in position, with the band entering from the sidelines, via a quicker and more dramatic entry to the field, organized marching to the first formation, and then a more organized exit from the field than the casual slow marching off at an angle. Edison 03:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

egypt battles

Link Title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.230.192 (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm sorry, I do not understand what it is that you want. Clio the Muse 03:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are looking for: Category:Battles involving ancient Egypt, Category:Battles involving Arab Egypt, or Category:Battles involving Egypt? :--hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Or Battle of Actium - Battle of Alexandria - Battle of Kadesh - Battle of Megiddo - Battle of Navarino - Battle of the Nile.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Or is this more metaphorical, about Egypt's struggles to develop and become a modern country, in which case Egypt is quite a good place to start. --Dweller 13:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Music schools and academics

Could you list a few music conservatories (in other words specifically arts collages) in the US which have agreements with other schools that allow students to take non-arts related subjects please? I know that students at Juilliard may take classes at Columbia University and that student at Eastman regularly study academics at University of Rochester. Are there any others? For instance does Manhattan School of Music, New England Conservatory of Music, or Mannes College of Music have similar arrangements set up with external academic institutions? Thank you. --S.dedalus 06:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd/amusing articles on Wikipedia

Ages ago while I was poking around on Wikipedia I found a page of weird articles all gathered together (longest place names, a leech-powered weather predictor, exploding whales, that sort of thing). I can't for the life of me find it again. Can anyone help please? I've got a very boring essay to write and I need a distraction. 86.142.111.71 13:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Was it Wikipedia:Unusual articles? Adam Bishop 13:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh ooh ohh that's it. Guess that essay is just going to have to wait ... Thank-you Adam. 86.142.111.71 13:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Prolific birth year

i have always heard that there are more people born in the year 1957 than any other year before or after. is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.171.224.83 (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This article states that America hit a post-war birthrate peak in 1957 with 25.3 babies for every 1000 people, but it does not cite any sources for this claim. GreatManTheory 18:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Two things that would have put a dent in the birth rate around 1960 would have been the combined oral contraceptive pill and China's one-child policy. FiggyBee 18:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And see Post-World War II baby boom. Xn4 23:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Still, I don't think that's enough evidence to say that the world has seen an absolute decrease in the number of babies born since 1957. By way of counterexamples, look at Demographics of India and Demographics of Africa, showing an exponential increase in childbirths in these two places, which together account for 30% of humanity. --M@rēino 18:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fencing

Why is fencing called fencing? where does the word come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.49.227 (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology the word 'fence', as a sport with any of several types of sword, was first recorded in the 16th century and is a corruption of 'defence'. I assume this is the meaning to which you refer. The dictionary is less forthcoming on fencing, the slang term used to denote the disposal of stolen goods. Richard Avery 18:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And the fence around a yard is the same word - it's a wall for defence. FiggyBee 18:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec)see" "fence". Online Etymology Dictionary.

Caius. By gar, de herring is no dead so as I
vill kill him. Take your rapier, Jack; I vill tell you how I vill kill him.
Rugby. Alas, sir! I cannot fence.
Caius. Villainy, take your rapier.

The Merry Wives of Windsor II.iii.12-16.

—eric 18:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have misplaced my rapier, but I do wonder why the Americans have changed their spelling of defence to "defense", but haven't changed their spelling of fence to "fense". -- JackofOz 00:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "defence" the noun and "defense" the verb? That's what I use, here in the northern colony. Bielle 01:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC) No more wine for me! Apologies, and thanks to an oh-so-polite Marco polo. Bielle 01:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with "defense" as a verb. (Isn't it "defend"?) I think that the spelling "defence" was not so established in the 18th century when British and American English diverged. "Defense" may have been preferred by Noah Webster for etymological reasons, based on the Latin "defensus" (past participle of "defendere"). On the other hand, the spelling "fence" may have been more established, and the etymological connection to "defens/ce" might not have been recognized. 01:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Language desk.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 08:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Westward Ho!

If the book Westward Ho! published in 1855 was the cause of the name for the town Westward Ho!, when did the town get named? Did it exist before/what was there? -- SGBailey 23:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The settlement now called Westward Ho! is near Bideford in Devon, which was Charles Kingsley's home town. After Kingsley's novel was published in 1855, people came to visit the area he described, which gained the convenient name of Westward Ho! It became more developed after the United Services College was established there in 1874 and kept the name of the book. Xn4 23:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My recollection is that a developer named it Westward Ho! in the hope of selling land and houses there. He failed, and some of the houses were sold cheaply to the newly formed USC. Don't have refs to hand, but will try to dig them out. DuncanHill 23:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There's an article about the development of Westward Ho! in Devon Life, volume 9 (1972) pp. 34-35. Xn4 23:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This from Devon Libraries Local Studies page :

"WESTWARD HO [in the parish of Northam] is an entirely modern settlement. Following the publication of Kingsley's book in 1855, a 'company was formed to develop this site as a watering place. The Westward Ho Hotel was built, a church (Holy Trinity) followed in 1870, and by 1872 there were two or three rows of terraces, many scattered villas, and a single line of shops. A golf course was laid out on the Burrows which became known as one of the finest in England. The United Services College for the sons of officers was opened in 1874, and is the mise en scène of Kipling's Stalky& Co. Within the next thirty years much more building took place in a planless way, but worse came in the 20th century. To-day Westward Ho is a sad spectacle of what uncontrolled speculative building can do with a fine site. Many of the buildings are alien to Devon, and most of them could be anywhere else. The golf course remains superb. The Pebble Ridge is a remarkable natural phenomenon nearly 2 m. long, about 50 ft. wide, and 20 ft. high." Carrington's biography of Kipling adds that USC bought a row of twelve lodging houses, and converted them into a school by running a corridor along the length of the terrace.

DuncanHill 23:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Adrian Room, A Concise Dictionary of Modern Place-Names in Great Britain and Ireland (Oxford 1983), the Northam Burrows (North Devon) Hotel and Villa Building Company was formed in 1863 and the Westward Ho! Hotel opened two years later. "The name had been proposed by a friend of Kingsley, Dr W. H. Acland of Bideford, although it appears that the author had not been consulted and that the friendship between the two men was endangered for a time." —Tamfang 04:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair description, but it actually isn't quite so terrible as the above might lead you to believe! I'm thinking of another part of England where since I was a child an equally beautiful coastline has been buried under field after field of permanent caravan and 'mobile-home' parks, a lot of which have to suffer the winter weather without any coats of paint when the spring comes... but there you are, we're warned "Never go back!" Xn4 23:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"... No-one is waiting and nothing is there." -- !! ?? 09:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone going to revise the Wikipedia article Westward Ho!?--Wetman 04:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As a very small coda, The book's title comes from an exchange in Twelfth Night between Olivia and Viola, thus:

Olivia: There lies your path, due west.

Viola: Then westward ho!

SaundersW 08:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This Q and A set has left me greatly perplexed, visualizing a British Horace Greeley telling Brits "Go West, young man.". resulting in great wagon trains heading toward Western Britain, where the pioneers encounter British Indians, and a British Gold Rush, as part of British Manifest Destiny. Say it aint so, Clio! Edison 07:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I jump in here not, I have to stress, to tie myself in the glory of Dweller's thread, but in response to Edison's challenge! Let me see; are there any parallels between the English and the American experience? Well, the west could be pretty wild, especially if one had the misfortune to run into the Doones! As SaundersW points out, the term predates Kingsley. It was, in fact, used by Thames boatmen, who called out 'Westward ho!' or 'Eastward ho!', to indicate the direction they were travelling in. Clio the Muse 23:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dweller's thread of the week. It's an 'out of the box' idea.

Congratulations to all contributing here. This 'chicken-or-egg' debate wins the fifth User:Dweller/Dweller's Ref Desk thread of the week award. Good job. --Dweller 10:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

September 20

Dutch notary system

Please, help to find out information about Dutch notary system, legislation (e.g. Notary Act 1999 and others, with full text in English) Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.132.33 (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a copy of the law itself, but this is a decent summary of it's liberalizing effects. Plasticup ^T/C 17:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Plasticup! May be you, or somebody else, have some additional infarmation?

16th Century Quote

Our article on Thomas Whythorne states that in his autobiography (written c. 1576), Whythorne writes "He that wooeth a widow must not carry quick eels in his codpiece". Can anyone explain what Whythorne might be referring to here? --Roisterer 06:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if one had live eels in one's codpiece, I suppose one would be in a hurry to remove it. So if you're wooing a widow, don't expext action in the codpiece department on the first date. --Rallette 08:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suspect "eels" was a word for penis and "quick " meant alive rather than swift ...hotclaws 11:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What would be the harm in having a boner if you were going on a date with a widow? Beekone 18:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Presumably they won't be as quick to acquiesce. Plasticup ^T/C 17:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Two chicks at the same time"

What makes the extraordinarily wealthy people in the world work? I'm talking about those who could retire, spend several million dollars a year and still have money left when they start pushing up daisies. Is it that they don't have anything better to do? Why not just chuck it all and relax the rest of your life? Do they feel that they contribute to society more by working? Dismas|^(talk) 07:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There are more reasons for working than monetary gain, for example:

Enjoying the actual work that you do

Enjoying the company of co-workers

Belief that your work benefits society

Enjoyment of the status associated with a job title

Wanting to be out of the house for a period each day

and I'll stop there before getting to really cynical ones. SaundersW 08:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly greed?--Tresckow 11:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who works only for money in and of itself is doing the wrong work. Once you've got more than enough $$ to last you the rest of your life, and then some, money ceases to be the driving force - if it ever was. "Greed" is not the answer, because there's an infinite amount of money available. Anyone can have as much as they want, without having the slightest impact on anyone else's capacity to have as much as they want. The catch is knowing how to go about getting it. I'll get back to you when I've worked that out. -- JackofOz 12:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say people like that still work because they're needed (sometimes) or asked to (sometimes), as experts or something, or have the deciding vote on things (probably). They might still work to keep up with everything in their business. Or, they just don't want to flip. Or aren't imaginative enough to think of something better to do. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to distinguish between those people who got their money via work and those who did not. The former group already shows a dispostion towards earning money and working for it, and the increase of wealth over their life probably would not just erase that disposition. Those who come into money independent of work (lottery, inheritance) often have other motivations for working, if they work at all (or work very much, or very hard). Howard Hughes, for example, really had no need to work since he was 18 years old, but he was enormously productive both because he wanted to prove to the world that he was really quite impressive and important, and because he wanted to bed every woman in Hollywood (which, it turns out, required having quite a lot of money, even more than he started with). --24.147.86.187 15:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Then there's the simpler one. Some people pretty much define themselves by their work and their accomplishments; for them, to stop working is to lose the sense of themselves that matters. This is true no matter how much wealth is at the person's disposal. Some of us grab the first opportunity to retire; others find the idea of retirement horrifying. For some performers, there's another aspect: there is nothing in the universe that can compare with the thrill of being onstage. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, ditto on that one! :) --Ouro (blah blah) 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

O.k., I'll bite. What's with the title of this thread? dr.ef.tymac 06:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a reference to the movie Office Space. If I recall correctly, Peter asks his neighbor what he would do if he had a million dollars, and the neighbor replies that he would do "two chicks at the same time." This may not be exact, but I'm pretty sure it's written up at the IMDB entry for the movie. --LarryMac | Talk 15:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty accurate summation, I think! Carom 00:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Gammell

Does anyone know if he has a website or a portfolio? I always enjoyed his illustrations for scary stories when I was a child. --72.211.192.84 07:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not [3]martianlostinspace ^{email me} 18:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We have an article at Stephen Gammell. I've added some external links to it. Xn4 22:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Where to find an accurate! English account on Cossack mass suicide in Drautal, Carinthia, Austria at the end of World War 2?

The Cossacks fighting on the side of Hitlers army during World War 2 had left their homeland with all their belongings and families, as it was impossible for the families to stay there for fear of being apprehended and even be killed. Hitler had promised them a place to settle down after the war just south of the Austrian-Italian border. When the war was over, the British military in charge of the region, decided to move the lot back home, in spite of the fact, that the cossacks and their families would be facing certain death. The cossacks moved north over the Plöckenpass to Köttschach-Mauthen, and when their fate was evident, they decided on suicide, and as the story goes in the region, they stabbed themselves or cut their throats and let themselves fall into the river Drau, in their hundreds, even thousands. Eyewitnesses say the river turned red from the blood.

I am looking for an accurate account of this incident in English, preferably not the official British explanation at the time.

There is an account in: Bethell, Nicholas (1974). The Last Secret: The Delivery to Stalin of over Two Million Russians by Britain and the United States. New York: Basic Books. pp. 140-8. OCLC 1127966. The Betrayal of the Cossacks article has a Further reading section which may be of some help.—eric 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

See also Nikolai Tolstoy's Victims of Yalta (2nd edition, 1979). Xn4 20:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Greek mythology.

Request for a guesstimate: How much was written on the gods of ancient greece when compared to what is written about Yahweh? Lots more? Lots less? Similar amounts? What about if you include roman writings about the gods they carried over from greek mythology? Is greek mythology the religion with most literary backing? I'm referring to "holy texts" and whatever that amounted to in Ancient Greece. Am I barking up a poorly defined tree? Capuchin 18:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The quality of the tree being barked up is definitely questionable—Ancient Greek and Roman society did not have influential classes of priests, prophets, &c., to produce something like the Hebrew Bible (though the extrapolated claim that their priests and religious experiences were mere bureaucracy, easy to find in the scholarship, is false too). It would be very difficult to find convincing examples of "holy texts." People call Homer the Ancient Greeks' "Bible," but despite the epics' great prestige and authority, they are impossible to mistake for "scripture." (Though of course we shouldn't be too narrow in characterizing the vast library of writings in the Hebrew Bible; see Alter's Art of Biblical Narrative for some suggestions of how the kind of literary criticism long applied to Homer can apply to Samuel, etc.) When it comes to the famous gods of Greek mythology, we do have plenty of texts that exemplify, for example, a hymn to a god. But these are generally in literary & not liturgical contexts: tragedies, poems for the symposium, courtly entertainments, etc. Even if there are notable didactic elements, & if the performance context, say the Dionysia, has religious aspects & origins, none of this amounts to scripture. (If you are interested in discovering exceptions, you might look into some of the poetry connected to Orphic cults.) Ultimately, Greek myth is a remarkably free medium for story-telling; yes, you can evoke "sacred narratives" and teach a lesson, but no, it is not an authoritative teaching with some kind of divine truth in itself. Euripides' version of this year can achieve just as exalted a level of "truth" as Sophocles' totally contrary version of last year, in a way fundamentally different from contradictory strands in the Bible. (Of course, it's good to remember that the writers who've given us the Bible were not speaking to people whose appreciation of religious meaning was limited to fundamentalist literalism!) As to quantities, well, it's probably fair to say that we have been sorely impoverished by the loss of great material in both traditions (Greek and Hebrew). Especially, far more of Archaic and Classical Greek literature has been lost than preserved; our article on Sophocles says we have 7 of 123+ plays. Apologies for a bit of a ramble here, written in a literally feverish state. Wareh 19:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that the Greeks (and to a lesser extent the Romans) blurred mythology, history and entertainment. Almost every Greek history or play involves the gods in one form or another. And do histories of Roman emperors who were deified count as holy texts? FiggyBee 18:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The Greeks (and Romans, for that matter), lacked "Holy Texts" as such, at least in the sense we use to refer to the Jewish or Christian scriptures. Greek mythology appeared in a number of different forms throughout their history. Most of it was, presumably, originally passed down as part of an oral tradition. The earliest Greek legends we have in written form are either the poems of Hesiod or the epic poetry of the Iliad and the Odyssey written by "Homer". But these are not religious texts, per se, they are poems with religious context. The poems of Homer become the closest thing to central cultural texts for the Greeks, but they are never central to religious worship or practice the way the Bible is. Later Greek authors and playwrights contributed to Greek mythology by producing plays and poems on mythological themes, but again, these are not relgious texts, per se, they are plays or prose works meant for entertainment. The closest thing to a collection of Greek mythology from the ancient world is the Library of Apollodorus, which was a sort of scholarly handbook to Greek myths written around 120 BC, which is hundreds of years after the Classical Period of Greek civilization. Really, the notion that the Greeks treated their mythology the way we today treat stories from the Bible is a real misnomer, and arose largely out of mythographers like Bullfinch in the 19th century. Berkowow 19:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Accidents of survival make any assessment vacuous. --Wetman 19:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all, you confirmed what I suspected, that the way they treated religion was very different to the way we do now. Is it even fitting to call it religion? On the one side it seems like many of them knew they were stories made up to explain the unexplainable, but then it also seems from the multitude of temples and statues and the like that they went a long way to satisfy these beings. Any comment? Capuchin 21:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is really too huge a question to take on. Yes, it is very fitting to call it religion from any comparative point of view. If I were tempted to make deletions from phenomena to be considered religious (I'm not), I'd sooner look around some of "the way we treat religion." Religious emotions & dispositions were strong among ancient people. I'd recommend the standard modern & scholarly Greek Religion by Walter Burkert, or for something perhaps more accessible & certainly perceptive, maybe a book by Martin P. Nilsson (e.g. Greek Popular Religion available online). For a provocative and influential book (while no modern scholar would accept any positive results from it, its author inspired Durkheim to think pretty deeply about religion) arguing e.g. how deeply all of Roman political culture was imbued with religion, there's always Fustel de Coulanges's classic The Ancient City (also available online). This last is perhaps an idiosyncratic recommendation on my part, but in my opinion perhaps a needed counterweight to a fashionable tendency to argue the inverse thesis, which is that ancient sacrifices, temples, etc., were all part of an essentially irreligious political framework for society. (The two are closely intertwined, so interpreters have been tempted to reduce one to the other.) The main Wikipedia articles on Greek/Roman religion don't look so good. If you'd rather read a book directly tackling your questions about difference and what constitutes "truth" in mythology, Paul Veyne published one called Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths? (ISBN 0226854345). Wareh 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your time :) Capuchin 06:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also recommend The Jesus Mysteries for an extremely well referenced look at how the original version(s) of Christianity evolved from the, well, mess of religions in use around the Mediterranean at the time, including the Orphic mysteries. My understanding is that, while the Greeks did not have any holy texts (as noted above), they certainly did have a set of beliefs/stories/rituals that are comparable to the Judeo-Christian Bible. The problem is that those rituals and beliefs were only revealed to the initiates of the Mysteries and to no one else. In a way, the works of Homer and Hesiod are closer in tone to the Grail stories or Jewish and Christian folk tales; they exist within a mythic world view brought about by another work. On the one hand, the Bible, and on the other, the now lost Mysteries. Matt Deres 15:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Australian tax law.

In Australia, the tax laws state that you pay no tax on any money you earn up to, I think, $5600. After that, you pay about 20c per dollar up to about $20000 per year. But if you are on social security, about $10000 per year for a single person, no kids, you pay no tax. Why not? 203.221.127.9 18:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You certainly do have to pay income tax on Centrelink benefits; why do you think you don't? Incidentally, the lowest tax bracket is currently 15c for each $1 over $6,000. FiggyBee 18:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Centrelink benefits are taxable income. I have been on them, and not paid any tax. Many times. I've asked Centrelink why not, but they don't have heaps of time for tricky questions, and they don't exactly know anything either. 203.221.127.9 19:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case, it's because you didn't ask Centrelink to take tax money out on your behalf, and you didn't file a tax return. You should have paid tax; you simply didn't. FiggyBee 20:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you realise that Australian tax law is extremely silly at times - see this and smile. -- JackofOz 01:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If I remember from my time on Youth Allowance, certain forms of Centrelink benefit must be declared as "taxable income", but are then deducted by the tax office so that they don't really count. I realise that still doesn't answer the question of why. Confusing Manifestation 02:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

ref "TaxPack 2007" pp 23-24. This shows the 30 Centrelink payments that are taxable. Annoyingly the non-taxable ones aren't listed, but Disability support is definately one of them.Polypipe Wrangler 01:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Colonial control of Africa and the Middle East

Is it a fair generalisation to say that the territorial control of the Middle East was settled after the First World War, and that of Africa after the Second? 203.221.127.9 18:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really, at least with regard to Africa. After the First World War, the German Colonies in Africa were divided between the British Empire and France, technically under League of Nations mandates. Much less changed in Africa in the ten years after the Second World War, though several countries then began to move towards independence. Xn4 22:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The infamous Berlin conference of 1884, along with its immediate aftermath, divided up almost all of sub-saharan Africa except Ethiopia (a native Christian state) and Liberia (nominally independent, but clearly understood to be under U.S. protection). By the time the end of WW1 rolled around 35 years later, dividing the conquered Ottoman Arab territories into outright European colonies was just a little bit too crude for the times, so that they were declared to be League of Nations "mandates"... AnonMoos 01:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Israel was only formed after WWII. --Sean 15:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Writers of English literature

who are the greatests in english literatures and writers of english language?Flakture 19:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Terence Pratchett Beekone 19:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your question is very broad. Everyone you ask will give a different answer. Might I suggest some people would say William Shakespeare? Exxolon 22:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If by greatest you mean "had the most influence on writing later on", some obvious ones are Chaucer and Shakespeare. Wrad 22:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My list (for literature) includes Shakespeare, John Donne, Jonathan Swift, Henry Fielding, Walter Scott, Jane Austen, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Christina Rossetti, Anthony Trollope, Henry James, Herman Melville, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Thomas Hardy, Rudyard Kipling, Joseph Conrad, Charlotte Mew, A. E. Housman, William Faulkner, T.S. Eliot, George Orwell, F. Scott Fitzgerald, E. M. Forster, W. B. Yeats, G. K. Chesterton, Ernest Hemingway, Robert Frost, W. H. Auden, John Steinbeck, Eugene O'Neill, Evelyn Waugh, Graham Greene, William Golding, Nadine Gordimer, Anthony Powell, Samuel Beckett, Saul Bellow, Harold Pinter and Seamus Heaney. Among those I won't call among the "greatest in English literature", but who for me are still wonderful writers worth re-reading, are J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Arthur Conan Doyle, Agatha Christie, Dorothy L. Sayers, Raymond Chandler, Rebecca West, Rose Macaulay, Mervyn Peake, P. G. Wodehouse, Saki, R. S. Surtees, H. Rider Haggard, T. H. White, Ian Fleming, E. Nesbitt, Piers Paul Read, Tom Stoppard, Antonia Fraser and John Betjeman. Xn4 23:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with much of what Xn4 wrote, but would have to add (to the greatest):

• James Joyce—wrote the greatest English novel of the 20th century
• John Milton—wrote the great English epic poem (unless one considers [Beowulf]], and there are numerous reasons why one shouldn't)
• Henry Adams—You simply have to read The Education of Henry Adams; don't worry about understanding his theory of history–I don't think anyone does.
• James ThurberE.B. White—certainly the greatest American essayist and possibly the greatest in modern English

I'm sure other people will add writers that we have neglected. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I forgot some great writers, and I didn't try to include philosophers, historians, scientists, etc., as the OP was asking about literature. I also left out a few obvious names (such as Charles Dickens, James Joyce, Oscar Wilde and J. M. Coetzee), because they give me a sinking feeling, but no doubt they are still great. Xn4 04:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Guy Gavriel Kay, for the poetry of his language. Corvus cornix 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A few more, Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson, the two greatest American poets. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And let's not forget Dr. Seuss! Matt Deres 15:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Whoops, almost forgot Edgar Allan Poe...Matt Deres 19:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

List of amicus curiaes...

I was looking for a list of everyone that filed Amicus curiae briefs for A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.. I figure there has to be some way to find a list in a database somewhere online. I tried googling it and I only found links to the individual briefs themselves, but I want a list of everyone that filed one. Can someone help me out? --Oskar 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You can probably find it on PACER ([4]), the US courts' website. If you are not able to open up a PACER account, you can try calling the court clerk and see if they'll help you. -- Mwalcoff 23:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

<pedantry> A better plural would be amici curiae; though one person who writes such briefs for more than one court would be amicus curiarum. </pedantry> —Tamfang 23:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The decision is available on FindLaw. It begins by identifying the attorneys who were on the briefs for the parties, followed by a list of the amici. Link: decision as modified on April 3, 2001. The list doesn't indicate what position each amicus took, however. JamesMLane t c 02:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

September 21

Japanese in Shanghai

Who was Captain Pick and what had he to do with Japanese espionage in Shanghai before and after 1937?K Limura —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Evgenij Pick (Captain Pick) is a character in the last section of Nowhere Man, a novel by Aleksandar Hemon. Pick is a charismatic Russian adventurer, impresario and raconteur who has fled from the Russian revolution and lives at the Cathay Hotel in Shanghai. As background material, Hemon cites Secret War in Shanghai: An Untold Story of Espionage, Intrigue, and Treason in World War II by Bernard Wasserstein. Xn4 18:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There's an interesting article by Bernard Wasserstein, "Collaborators and renegades in occupied Shanghai" in History Today, 48:9, September 1998, ISSN 0018-2753

"Captain" Eugene Pick alias Hovans alias "Doctor" Clige was born Evgeny Mihailovich Kojevnikoff either 1899 or 1900 in Riga, Latvia. He fought it the First World War and claimed to have been captured by and to have escaped the Germans eleven times. In 1925 he became an assistant to the Russian military mission in China and began working for the Comintern. In 1927 he provide a detailed report to British intelligence on the Comintern, a report which was well received at Whitehall, but according to a later U.S. intelligence account he had

..bled them [the British] for large sums of money for long and devious reports on Communist activities in China. When he had exhausted the British, subject [Pick] went to work for the US Treasury Department and doublecrossed them out of US$600 and sold a tip-off to the group the Department was after on his first assignment for $2,000.

In the following years, using the stage name Eugene Hovans, he became a stage manager, actor, opera singer, ballet dancer and opened his own theater the Far Eastern Grand Opera. In 1929 he was sentenced to nine months in jail for forgery, then a year for fraud and extortion in 1931 when he represented himself as a military adviser to the Chinese government in Canton in order to obtain arms contracts. He was accused of blackmailing an American judge who he found out was homosexual—the judge's body later found floating in the Whangpoo River, of white slavery, and of keeping a "house of assignation".

In 1937 he began working for the Japanese Naval Intelligence Bureau and organized ring of more than forty counter-intelligence agents to spy against British and American targets. In November of 1941 he was sentenced to a long jail term for murder, but released shortly after the Japanese attack on the international settlement and was appointed an advisor to the foreign affairs section of the Japanese Naval Intelligence Bureau. According to our author : "For the next three-and-a-half years he exploited this position to establish a veritable reign of terror over the foreign residents of Shanghai."

Near the wars end Pick fled to Japan, where he would later surrender to occupation authorities. He was returned to Shanghai where he was imprisoned by the Nationalists, but then released at the instigation of the American Counter-Intelligence Corps. In 1949 he escaped to Taiwan ahead of the Communist occupation of Shanghai, tried to sell his services there as an expert on Communism, but was soon jailed and was last heard of in a Taipei prison.

The article lists some further reading:

• Boyle, John Hunter (1972). China and Japan at War 1937-1945. OCLC 370332
• Elphick, Peter (1997). Far Eastern File: the intelligence war in the Far East, 1930-1945. OCLC 37794939
• Wakeman, Frederic Jr (1996). The Shanghai Badlands OCLC 61400598
• Wasserstein, Bernard (1998). Secret War in Shanghai OCLC 41503389
• Yeh, Wen-hsin (1998). Wartime Shanghai OCLC 39181233

—eric 20:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done! You'll be pasting all that into Evgeny Mihailovich Kojevnikoff, right? - Eron ^Talk 20:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a summary of a single article, so seems a bit plagiaristic to paste it as is?—eric 21:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's your call as to how direct a copy it is. If you are concerned that it is too close to the original I'd be happy to take a crack at summarizing your summary. He looks like an interesting and notable character and I think the encyclopedia would be improved by an article on him. - Eron ^Talk 21:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

myth in eugene o'neill's plays

I am conducting a paper on myth in some plays of Eugene o'Neill's plays. If anyone can help me he is welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.109.90.118 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a reference desk, rather than a homework-help service. If you have a specific question, please ask away! --Sean 15:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

British kings

Who fathered the most kings in the British Isles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.14.222 (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr and Mrs King, of course. Well, Mrs. King didn't exactly "father" them, but it takes two to tango, nudge nudge, wink wink. -88.111.190.248 14:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

King Ethelwulf (839-855), and King Edward the Elder (899-924), both of whom had 4 sons who were king at some point. In modern history, however, no one person has fathered more than 2 kings. Neil ム 14:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

British Isles? Well, that would be Niall of the Nine Hostages, who handily beats Æthelwulf and Edward the Elder in that his eight sons were all kings of something, allegedly.

Less mythically, for Irish kings a quick skim through Frank Byrne's Irish Kings and High Kings doesn't find any more than four, that for Murchad son of Bran Mut (d. 738) and Dúnlaing son of Tuathal (d. 1014), both of the Uí Dúnlainge of Leinster. In Anglo-Saxon kingdsoms, Oswiu may draw with Æthelwulf and Edward. In Scotland Máel Coluim mac Donnchada equals them with with four - Donnchad, Edgar, Alexander and David - and would once have been reckoned the outright winner with five, but Edmund is no longer thought to have been king. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

DLC

I've read the article about Driver's license Compact and I still cannot find an answer to my question. If I currently have an Arkansas license that is going to be suspended upon my conviction for a speeding ticket, can I move to Texas, get a license before the conviction/suspention (NOTE: I have checked and verified that I can get a Texas license), can then Arkasnas supend my Texas lisense even if I pay the fine ? (NOTE: There is no supension for points under the texas law as long as I pay a fee for each violation--I think) XM 17:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You have asked about this situation so many times, and people have very patiently tried to answer, with the clear caveat that we can't give legal advice. The best advice for you now is to consult a real lawyer, who can give you advice based on local knowledge and all the relevant information. SaundersW 18:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely someone on Wikipedia should know if the DLC honors suspension attempts by non-resident states made after the license is issued? It's not *that* hard of a question...XM 18:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, can't you find a suitable lawyer to advise you, XM? If you find the right person, you'll know where you stand in half an hour. Xn4 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're here because you are trying to get free legal advice, you should now that most localities in the United States offer free legal aid to the indigent. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you bothered to consider the possibility that regardless of whether or not Arkansas can suspend your Texas license driving when you have a suspended Arkansas license in Arkansas could easily be illegal. This is one of the many reasons why you should consult a lawyer Nil Einne 19:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please give it up.You fought the law and the law won...hotclaws 07:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comparative analysis of prison conditions

Which countries' prisons are thought to have the worst conditions? Which countries' prisons have the best?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the Cebu Detention and Rehabilitation Center in the Philippines is the best. -- kainaw™ 19:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Billy Jean is not my lover... she's just a girl who thinks that I am the one... but the kid is not my sonǃ--Mostargue 21:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking about specific or unique prisions. I'm talking about prison systems as a whole within certain countries.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You could try looking at some of the work by Amnesty International. From memory, I know they've published concerns about prisons in Thailand and Iran and have also called Guantanamo Bay detention camp one of the world's worst prisons. It used to be said that the USA's worst prisons were in Alabama, but if that was ever so, it may be out of date? Xn4 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Morris and Orwell

Are there any similarities between William Morris' utopian News From Nowhere and George Orwell's anti-utopian Nineteen Eighty-Four? Martinben 17:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not read both books and find out for yourself? AnonMoos 19:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What the two books have in common is that they are both set in the future, as seen from the writer's point of view, and aim to predict a completely new order of society. But Morris, writing in 1889 and 1890, was a socialist trying to set out the utopian possibilities of socialism, whereas Orwell, writing in 1948 and looking forward a generation to 1984, was a self-proclaimed revolutionary patriot of the left who was bitterly disillusioned by the socialism then being practised in the Soviet Union and wished to warn where it might all end. Morris's protagonist falls asleep at a political meeting and wakes up a generation later in a new world which Morris approves of. Orwell's (born during the Second World War and christened 'Winston') is an independent thinker who finds himself barely surviving in a totalitarian state run in the name of Big Brother. Morris holds out hope, whereas Orwell gives us a terrible warning. Xn4 19:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Its a very long time since I read them, but as far as I recall NFN was a utopia, NEF was a dystopia. William Morris was in favour of hand-made crafts and nature, so NFN would be set in a nature setting, while NEF was in an industrial setting. I read NFN so long ago I cannot remember anything about the plot or characters, so that may not be reliable. As someone else suggested, try reading them. 62.253.52.156 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The first similarity is that they were both written by professed socialists, though one is optimistic and the other pessimistic. Orwell's pessimism was born of the times he lived through; a time of betrayal, of cynicism, of brutality and of dictatorship. Perhaps if he had been born a generation or two earlier he would have taken the same hopeful view of a potential future than Morris. And who can say that if Morris had witnessed the Moscow Trials and the ideological contortions of the Nazi-Soviet Pact then Nineteen Eighty-Four may have come more easily than News from Nowhere.

But look a little more deeply and it is possible to detect other similarities between Orwell and Morris, similarities beyond that of mere politics. Both have a vision that might almost be said to be 'reactionary' in the literal sense of the term, where looking forward is looking back. Both writers are alert to what is being lost in the modern world, a world where traditional values, rural values, it might even be said, are being destroyed under an urban juggernaut, which pollutes and dehumanises at one and the same time. The only thing that lightens the darkness of Nineteen Eighty-Four is the myth, the dream of the 'Golden Country.' Morris would certainly have been sympathetic to this rural idyll. Among the first things his narrator notices on waking in the future is that the Thames is free of pollution and full of salmon; and is this not the same world that George Bowling saw destroyed in Coming Up For Air, Orwell's pessimistic 'prequel' to Nineteen Eighty-Four? Morris and Orwell have, in other words, the same pastoral dream of perfection. It may be barely discernable in Nineteen Eighty-Four-but it's still there. And is it any surprise that the one toast that Winston Smith chooses to make is to the past, a place as 'idylic', and as elusive, as Morris' future. Clio the Muse 02:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an awful moment in Coming up for Air when George Bowling arrives at the end of his journey back into his childhood, the lovely hidden lake in the woods with big fish in it he has dreamed all his life of catching, to find the lake has gone, turned into a Pixie Glade for a new housing estate. Xn4 02:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Germany and Vichy France

Was the relationship between Germany and the France of Marshall Petain as close as usually assumed?86.147.191.30 17:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In short, yes, although he had less complete authority than his titles and your question may imply. Certainly, after the Second World War the French considered him to be a traitor: he was tried for treason and convicted to be guillotined, although this was commuted to life imprisonment. He lived to be ninety-five and died in prison on the Île d'Yeu. It's arguable that Pétain was treated very harshly, in all the circumstances. There are some articles you will find useful at Philippe Pétain, Battle of France, Vichy France, Révolution nationale, Free French and Charles de Gaulle. Xn4 19:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful if I broadened the focus slightly, thinking more generally of Vichy and Germany, rather than the career of Pétain specifically. The important thing to understand here is that France and Germany only signed an armistice at Compiègne in June 1940, and were thus still technically in a state of war, attempts at collaboration notwithstanding. Even though Germany occupied two-thirds of metropolitan France after the armistice, this was still only 10% of the total French territory, including the overseas empire. The French also retained control of a powerful navy.

So, for this reason, and others, France continued to be viewed as a potential threat, and was monitored as such, not just by the control commission allowed for by the Compiègne agreement, but by agents sent in to the unoccupied zone by both the Sicherheitsdienst and the Abwehr. Ironically, the Germans were aware of the Versailles precedent, and were determined that the French should be given none of the 'loopholes' that they themselves were formerly accorded by the victorious powers. They were also alert to the possibility of clandestine rearmament, for any sign of a French version of the Black Reichswehr. Of particular concern here was arms dumps in North Africa, French troop movements and even the rate of recruitment into the French Foreign Legion.

Senior Vichy politicians, even Pierre Laval himself, generally reckoned to be one of the architects of Franco-German collaboration, were kept under close scrutiny. Much of Laval's correspondence was forwarded to the Abwehr by an agent in his office. German intelligence agents, and locally recruited operatives, were active at all levels of government and adminstration, from Laval downwards. The French were alert to this and set up their own, highly effective, counter-intelligence operation. Indeed, there was something of a proxy war going on between the Germans and the French at the level of espionage. In the two years after the armistice close on 2000 people were arrested in the unoccupied zone, charged with spying for the Germans, some of whom were executed as traitors. This last vestige of political sovereignty only ended with the German occupation of southern France in November 1942. Clio the Muse 01:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you guys don't mind.

What three things led to the growth of government in ancient Egypt? I read everything in the Ancient Egypt but I couldn't find anything so I would like some help.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A very regular flood of the Nile helped - they could coherently organize agriculture, and when people weren't busy with that, they could be recruited to build monuments. If it happened more randomly the government would not have been able to develop their authority like that. A written language was definitely useful, they could organize an effective bureaucracy with it. And I suppose their relative isolation...it was difficult for their neighbours to cross the deserts or the sea to attack them. Thus the government was (usually) stable and peaceful. At least, this is what I remember from high school Ancient Civilizations class, where we had pretty much the same question on a test, but that was a long time ago. Adam Bishop 18:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would humbly disagree with the previous answer... A regular flood of the Nile wasn't a requirement: States arose in many different regions of the world, even where there weren't regularly flooding rivers. Also, written language in Egypt was a result, not a prerequisite, of state formation. In some other parts of the world, complex societies managed without written language. I would also not call Egypt isolated: there was plenty of trade and regular conflict with other nearby polities. My answer would be: a (relatively) stable agricultural surplus, internal and external competition, and a very powerful and flexible ideology. Random Nonsense 21:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The regular flooding of the Nile is what spawned EGYPTIAN culture - it created a fertile place for them to settle and develop agriculture. In other regions of the world, there are other conditions - in desert regions without regular flooding of rivers, you tend to get nomadic civilizations since there's no reason to stay put if you don't have any crops. Non-desert regions, of course, tend to have fertile soil that doesn't need flooding. If it flooded at random, though, their crops would go under. Kuronue | Talk 22:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no argument there - I'm just questioning whether the rise of the Egyptian state depended on the flooding's regularity, as Adam Bishop argued. It depended on a surplus of food, yes, and the regularity of the Nile affected the shape of the Egyptian state, massively, and was a cause of its longevity, sure... But for its rise, its emergence, no, the river's regularity was not responsible. As in Mesopotamia, where the rivers were way more irregular, a state could still have developed. Random Nonsense 11:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

William IV's heir

If Edward, Duke of Kent had not managed to sire a daughter, Victoria, who would have succeeded William IV as the British monarch? Would it have been Ernest Augustus I of Hanover? Corvus cornix 18:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, after Victoria, her father the Duke of Kent's younger brother Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale was the next heir to the British throne. He did, in fact, inherit the throne of Hanover, the succession to which was subject to the Salic law - that is, women were excluded. Ernest Augustus was the Heir presumptive to the British throne until the birth of Victoria, Princess Royal, in 1840. Xn4 19:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

a specific inquiry after reading "Cinema of Korea"

"A slow rebirth of the domestic film industry led to South Korea, by 2005, being one of only three nations to watch more domestic than imported films in theatres[1], though this situation has recently changed."

I am curious to know what the other two nations are.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.130.232.98 (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably India and the United States. Corvus cornix 20:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

See also: Bollywood and Hollywood. dr.ef.tymac 22:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

India AFAIK makes about 730 films/year - more than any other country. Note that Bollywood isn't India as a whole, only Bombay.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 22:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Child Support in Canada

So this is just a question, I'm not searching for legal advice. In Canada, is there a point where one parent can ask for child support from let's say 5 years ago, 10 years ago, that is...if the child is still a minor at the time child support is being asked for, and get the money? Or is there a point in time where child support has to have been requested for it to be accepted, and after that period, it is no longer valid?

207.161.45.11 22:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

September 22

Mussolini an anti-semite?

Was Mussolini anti-semitic? I bet Clio knows the answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnie X (talk • contribs) 03:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, he certainly wasn't always anti-semitic, having had a Jewish mistress for several years. However, as that article states, she became somehing of a hindrance when Mussolini began climbing the political ladder. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism doesn't preclude having sex with a Jew or even liking one particular Jew. Most haters in the world have exceptions for a few "good" members of the hated group who "aren't like the rest". --24.147.86.187 19:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Does Clio know? Well, let's see!

This is an interesting question about an interesring subject, Barnie, because it raises all sorts of supplementary issues about the nature of Italian Fascism. Margherita Sarfatti is often mentioned to counter the suggestion that Mussolini was anti-Semitic; but did you know, GeeJo, that Sarfatti herself was a racist, promoting arguments warning of the dangers presented to European civilization by the black and yellow races? Even after she left for the United States in 1938 she continued her campaign, urging the Americans to save what she was pleased to term 'White Civilization'.

Mussolini rarely expressed himself in quite such blunt terms as his Jewish mistress on such matters. In the deepesr sense, Fascism, as conceived and practiced by Mussolini, was never more than opportunism translated into an ideeology; revolutionary, reactionary, religious and racist by turns. It certainly became anti-Jewish as Mussolini fell under the influence of Hitler; but even then it showed few of the pathological qualities of its German counterpart. In practice, Fascist policy in this area was considerably more lax than even that pursued by the Vichy regime.

So, what's the evidence for Mussolini's personal attitude towards Jewish people? Let's begin with the conversation he had with Emil Ludwig in 1932, where he declared, "Naturally there is no such as a pure race, not even a Jewish one...Race: it is a sentiment, not a reality: it is 95% sentiment. I don't believe that it is possible to prove biologically that a race is more or less pure...Anti-Semitism does not exist in Italy. The Jews have always behaved well as citizens, and as soldiers they have fought courageously." The 1932 edition of the Enciclopedia Italiana defined Judaism as a religion, not a race. In the entry on 'Race' in the 1935 edition of the same publication it is written "...a race does not exist, but only the people and an Italian nation. There does not exist a Jewish race or nation, but a Jewish people; there does not exist, the gravest error of all, an Aryan race."

Mussolini's first meeting with Hitler in Venice in 1934 was not a success. Soon after he wrote a series of articles in Il Popolo d'Italia, the main Fascist newspaper, making fun of Hitler's views on the superiority of the Nordic races, going so far as to say that the only pure race in Europe, by the Nazi measure, was the Lapps. That same year he had an altogether more successful encounter with Chaim Weizman, the Zionist leader, who was given a signed photograph and told to look after himself; for "We still have need of you."

There is, therefore, no evidence whatsoever of anti-Semitism in Mussolini's general outlook; just the contrary. The transition, the new phase of opportunism, comes in the period from 1937 onwards, when he began to both fear and admire the growth of German power. The first anti-Semitic laws were promulgated in September 1938. Life did indeed become difficult for Jewish people living in Italy, though not impossible, and the law was never applied with any degree of thoroughness. Amongst other things when Mussolini insisted that Roberto Farinacci dismiss his Jewish secretary, in case the Germans though his new laws a sham, he still gave him 50000 lira-a considerable sum for the day-to give to her in redundancy money.

And so it was to go on into the Second World War, a policy strong in theory but weak in practice. Yes, it was reprehensible; yes, it shows the worst forms of moral turpitude; but no, it does not display any deep-rooted anti-Semitism. I mention one final example. In February 1943, under pressure from Himmler and Ribbentrop, Mussolini agreed that the Jews in those areas of Croatia under Italian control should be rounded up and sent to Trieste, prior to onward deportation to Poland. Orders were duly issued to his commanders. A few days later a telegram followed, "It is true that I have been obliged to consent to the expulsion. But you can use all the excuses that you like, so as not to hand over a single Jew. Say that we don't have the means to transport them by sea to Trieste, and that transport by land is impossible". At about the same time commanders in those areas of France under Italian control received instructions from the High Command in Rome; "As regard the measures proposed by Il Duce in reference to the Jews: number 1 priority is to save the Jews living in French territory occupied by our troops whatever their nationality, be they Italian, French or foreigners." Clio the Muse 00:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I knew you would. Good on you, Clio the Sloane Ranger.Barnie X 06:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If most jamaicans are mixed of black and chinese and most trinidadians are mixed with african and indian(hindu), What are most haitians mixed of?

Come on now!! i know we are all of african descent, yeah, yeah, i know!!! but what are the haitians mixed of? we have been on the island from 1502- present there has to be some other kind of race they have to be mixed with instead of being just black and nothing else? with all the immigration from the people. but what are they mostly mixed of? carib indian? german? arab? polish? or anything?--arab 03:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a wealth of information. For most nations, you can type "Demographics of (name of nation)" into the search bar and find a pretty good article on the demographics of that nation. In this case, that would be Demographics of Haiti. 152.16.188.107 05:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The questioner is actually a regular editor of Demographics of Haiti. The question is somewhat meaningless, in the sense that everybody is a mixture of many groups. After all, you have two parents, four grandparents, ..., and if you go back three centuries you are descended from about two thousand ancestors; it is extremely unlikely that these are all from one same identifiable "pure" group. All you can say at best is what is predominant. Most Haitians are predominantly from African descent. The question is also based on a false premise. I don't know what makes the questioner believe about Haitians that "there has to be some other kind of race they have to be mixed with". Being black is not and has never been a race. The Africans who were brought to Haiti did not form a race; they were already quite mixed. We cannot totally exclude the possibility of Viking, Japanese, Polynesian and Inuit ancestors of present-day Haitians, but we can be sure the contribution is not significant. There is no specific evidence of any substantial mixing for most Haitians, and there is no reason to assume it "must" have taken place in recent history (and note that almost all Haitians descend from ancestors who were imported not in 1502, but in the 18th century).  --Lambiam 08:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it is also not the case that most Jamaicans are of mixed African and Chinese descent, and neither are most Trinidadians of mixed African and Indian descent. See Demographics of Jamaica and Demographics of Trinidad and Tobago.  --Lambiam 11:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Two Rebellions

Thinking of the rebellions against James II why did William of Orange succeed and Monmouth fail? Captain Beaky 06:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

See Glorious Revolution and Monmouth Rebellion for more detail. But it's hard to win when you lose your head. Rmhermen 14:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Success or failure was no doubt dependent on many specific particular historical circumstances, but some fairly obvious broad general factors were that Monmouth was illegitimate, while William was legitimate (and William's wife was even closer in legitimate succession to the English throne than he was), and William waited a few years until the English upper classes were significantly more alarmed and disgusted with James II than they had been at the time when Monmouth made his attempt. AnonMoos 14:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Monmouth Rebellion was really little more than a politically inept postscript to the Popish Plot, an assault on the Catholic and legitimate succession that had, by its excesses, alienated the Tory squirearchy, the backbone of England's rural administration. It was an adventure by a man who believed that an appeal to Protestant solidarity was sufficient; it was not. When that failed there was nothing left by a ragged army of west-country peasants. James and his Catholicism may not have been greatly liked, but he had done nothing as yet to alienate those who truly mattered in church and state, who, in any case, had little time for the mercurial Monmouth. By 1688 the situation was quite different. William may not have been an especially good soldier; but he was a skilled politician: even before he landed he already had sufficient guarantees of victory. But we cannot altogether discount the immediate reactions of James to both emergencies. In 1685 he acted as if victory was on his side; in 1688 his only companion was defeat. Clio the Muse 02:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sala Nova del Papa

What is the story behind the Sala Nova del Papa in siena's Palazzo Publico? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.14.30 (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It tells an odd tale of Medieval propaganda and political spin, sometimes better known as the Alexander Cycle. The particular focus is upon Pope Alexander III and his political struggle with the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick Barbarossa. It shows Alexander's defeat at the hands of the Emperor, and his subsequent victory, with the aid of Venice, over Frederick's son Otto in the naval battle of Punta Salvore. The second panel shows Otto submitting to the Pope, after which he is sent to intercede with his father, who in turn makes his own submission. Thereafter the party proceeds to Rome, the Emperor and the Doge of Venice leading the papal horse. In Rome Barbarossa is subject to the ultimate humiliation, lying prostrate before Alexander. There are also depictions of the Third Lateran Council, and some anti-popes are shown being burned alive. Wonderful stuff! There is only one small problem: it's a complete lie! Clio the Muse 02:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

André Antoine Bernard

Is anything known of this individual, active during the French Revolution? Pere Duchesne 14:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of him, and he doesn't have an article yet here or on the French Wikipedia, either, which is a pity. See Liste des membres de la Convention nationale par département, Liste des présidents de la Convention nationale and Ballard, Richard, The political apprenticeship of Bernard de Saintes in History Review, issue 54 (March 2006), pp 45-50. He was a man of many names. Originally André Antoine Bernard, before the revolution he added the name of a small property his family owned and became André Antoine Bernard de Jeuzines. Later he was Bernard de Saintes, the place he represented in the Legislative Assembly, though he changed that to Bernard de Xantes, which looked less religious, and even later he called himself Pioche-fer Bernard, or 'Pick-axe Bernard'. He was a lawyer and revolutionary, one of the 'new men' of 1789 who became one of the leading Jacobins, responsible for the Reign of Terror. In 1793 and 1794, he became notorious in the Haute-Saône and the Côte-d'Or arresting suspected "enemies of the people", sending them to the revolutionary tribunal and the guillotine. He's also credited with integrating the Duchy of Montbéliard into France, previously a possession of Württemberg. In the French revolutionary calendar, his name-day was on the Festival of the Iron Pick-axe, and he changed his first name to Pioche-fer. He was a member from Charente-Maritime of the National Convention (20 September, 1792, to 26 October, 1795). The National Convention had a rolling presidency, so he held the title of President of the National Convention for three weeks in September, 1794. When the revolutionary government was overthrown, he was imprisoned with many others but was not among those executed. He was later exiled from France for voting to execute Louis XVI, and lived on until 1818. There's a portrait of Bernard by Jacques-Louis David in the Getty Museum which is online here. Xn4 16:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Xn4. Can you please turn this into a stub article? I can't soince I don't have your reference available. Thanks. -Arch dude 16:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No trouble. See André Antoine Bernard. Xn4 21:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work! Clio the Muse 23:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

IGCSE history question on why did some industries not share in the 'boom'? this is during 1919-1941

Q1... explain how new technology affected some older industries?

Q2... explain what impact the tariff had on certain industries?

Q3... explain the reason why the wages of workers in certain industries remained low in comparison to profits.

Q4... why should the government have been concerned about poverty in the USA during the 1920's?

Q5... do you think the government would do anything to help these workers? why ?

Q6... explain whether you agree or disagree with this statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.69.179.16 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This looks like you're asking us questions from your history homework. You're welcome to search through our articles, such as the one on the Great Depression, but we're not going to do your homework for you. Please read the top of this page. If there is a specific part you don't understand, let us know, and we can try to point you in the right direction to find the answer yourself. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, the best place to look for answers is probably your course textbook. 203.221.126.101 18:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And man, if you're going to bother to type it all out, why include the last one? --24.147.86.187 23:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If the OP had included only Q6, that could be interesting. —Tamfang 01:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fenya- Russian Slang amongst Criminals.

Can anyone enlighten me on this? Wikipedia doesn't offer nearly enough and I can't find anything on other websites. I am writing a novel, and characters are part of Russian mafia, and I want them talking the right way, you know. Any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.2.91 (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Yes, Mr. Putin" and "Right away, Mr. Putin". Plasticup ^T/C 21:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is an article in the Jamestown Foundation Journal about Fenya, with examples. SaundersW 21:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Russian Wikipedia has a long list of "criminal slang" here. You could use the Google translations of the "meaning" side of the equation to trace up to good things on the "word" side of the equation that you might want to transliterate; if that makes sense. Most of the automatic translation is pretty bad though ("Give to the screwdriver sciences!"). --24.147.86.187 23:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

professions that historically were not paid

I've just read online (and in Imperium by Robert Harris) that Roman lawyers were not paid, at least in that they could not charge fees explicitly. This was apparently quite common for lawyers through to at least the Middle Ages, starting from the Ancient Greeks [5]. Are there any other professions that historically were not paid, which we would now take for granted as being so? 203.221.126.101 17:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Priests and vicars. Rhinoracer 18:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Politicians. Heads of state.  --Lambiam 20:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Early actors and what passed for directors. It used to be considered part of your civic duty; during the middle ages they started repaying you for the wages you lost due to rehearsal. Kuronue | Talk 05:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

African Boy at the 1904 World's Fair

Hi. I recently heard of an African boy at the World's Fair who was taken from Africa and made into a spectacle at the World's Fair. Can you find any information on this?69.69.206.67 19:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

See Ota Benga.--24.147.86.187 21:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

They used him as an example of "our" evolutionary link to other primates? Oh my God... Plasticup ^T/C 21:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. Though it is worth remembering—though it does not excuse much—that pygmies look very different from Europeans, and were one in a mood to be looking for "intermediate races" it is not surprising that they would be chosen as possible candidates in the early 1900s, when it was still not scientifically accepted that races could interbreed without creating sterile offspring, and the Civil Rights movement was still five decades off. --24.147.86.187 23:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Adrianople 378

please explain significance of battle of adrianople —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryinggame (talk • contribs) 22:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Battle of Adrianople? - Eron ^Talk 00:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not too much of an exaggeration, I think, to suggest that Adrianople was truly one of the decisive battles of the western world. Ammianus Marcellinus, the Roman historian, was to write of, "Those ever irreparable losses, so costly to the Roman state." It changed the character of the Empire: the Goths, though partly tamed by Theodosius I, were to remain as a distict entity within its frontiers; sometimes allies; other times enemies. Roman losses could only be made good by co-opting Barbarians into the army as Foederati under their own commanders; and, as always, military power has ways of translating into political influence. Adrianople also changed forever the essential character of the Roman military. It was to end the reliance on the infantry legions, the formations that had proved so formidable in the past, and upon which the Empire had been built in the first place. Less than a hundred years after the battle heavy cavalry had become the main offensive arm in the Imperial army, changing by stages into the Byzantine cataphracts and the armoured horsemen of the Middle Ages. Clio the Muse 01:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Samples of Middle Norwegian

Hi, I'm looking for samples of Middle Norwegian. Does anyone know where I could get images of Middle Norwegian documents, or links where I could get them? I would like as much as possible. Also, the wikipedia article titled "Norwegian language struggle" states "The last example found of an original Middle Norwegian document is from 1583.". That document is expecially important to me, and I hope I could get it. Thank you very much.70.74.35.53 23:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This question might have a better chance at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. Xn4 01:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Jena Six and Sacco And Vanzetti

Today ,I saw something on TV,about the Jena Six.And then I started thinking about Bruce Watson`s New book about Sacco and Vanzetti.Sacco and Vanzetti The Men,The Murders and The Judgement of Mankind.Then I started thinking are there paralells between the two cases.My Question is do you see any paralells between the case of Sacco and Vanzetti and The Jena Six. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan58 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. See also Scottsboro boys. Edison 03:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

At Jena there's rather little dispute about who did what when (which was the main issue in the Sacco and Vanzetti case), but instead a lot of concern about selective prosecution which appears to be selective along racial lines. By the way, a number of people who closely examined the SV case seem to have come to the conclusion that Vanzetti was probably innocent, but Sacco was very probably guilty of something violent (even if perhaps not exactly what he was charged with). AnonMoos 11:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

September 23

Wikipedia and Google searches

I use Wikipedia and Google search a lot by typing in the nouns that best summarize the information I'm after. This can be hit or miss, and I would therefore like to hear about more effective and intelligent ways of obtaining information.72.75.96.28 03:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)superiorolive

I added a title for you. The Wikipedia search sometimes isn't that great. If you want to search Wikipedia using Google you can add "site:en.wikipedia.org" to your search terms, this will tend to give you better results. However, I think everyone has this problem with searching for information on the web, the main cause is probably just the sheer volume of information available. There are a few refinements you can make to Google searches (and probably to searches using other search engines), for example you can use "alexander -great" to find out about people called Alexander who aren't Alexander the Great (bad example, I know). Bistromathic 12:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Google is a search engine. An encyclopedia is great for general knowledge, but useless for, say, finding local stationery suppliers or checking train times. For most purposes it should be obvious whether you need a search engine or an encyclopedia, although you might often want to use one to get to the other. For example, Wikipedia is often better than Google at directing you to the most informative websites on specific topics, whereas Google will usually suggest the most popular websites (as well as what it calls "sponsored" links).

In my opinion Wikipedia would be better off without the "Search" button. Always use the "Go" button. If it doesn't have an article with the title you're looking for, it will default to search mode anyway and suggest a list of articles. So type into Wikipedia only those noun phrases that are likely to be the title of an article. For example, if you wanted to know who painted the Mona Lisa, you would type "Mona Lisa" and click "Go". If you were Googling for the same information, you would probably get better results by searching for a phrase you would be likely to find in the answer, such as "Mona Lisa was painted by".

What sort of information is it that you are looking for?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

For Google, I use phrases (between quotes) a lot. Especially when there are many hits most of which seem irrelevant, I try adding phrases to the search terms that are likely to occur in relevant material.  --Lambiam 22:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've taken to using single words in quotes for Google. Google didn't used to return variations on the search term like plurals and participles, but now it does. Another useful technique is to weed out the unwanted hits with minus signs. If you search on "St. Bernard" and you want the saint, add a -dog. If the first page shows five hits on a "St. Bernard Hotel", add -hotel and re-search, and so on. I use advanced search pretty often, and if I want to check the prevalent spelling of three-dollar words among scholars, I add site:edu and get counts on the variations. The :site thing is good for restricting a search to likely sites like govs when that's what you want. I'll sometimes throw it over to google image hoping that sites with a pertinent illustration will have what I need. --Milkbreath 03:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Scotland and the Stuarts

The Stuart dynasty was more a burden than a benefit to Scotland. How true is this statement in the period after the Union of the Crowns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.101.202 (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please remember we will not answer your homework questions for you. I would suggest you read House of Stuart and Union of the Crowns for a start, then look at the references / external links / further reading sections if you need more information. Exxolon 13:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's as true before the Union as it is after, and I cannot think of a dynasty more deserving of the honour of being known as Les Rois Maudits, the Accursed Kings. Now, I'm probably exaggerating slightly-and I certainly do not want to hurt Scottish feelings-but the family was notorious for its bad luck and ill-fortune, leaving Scotland with one troubelsome minority after another. Even James IV, in some ways the brightest star in the Stuart heavens, was to lead his country into arguably the most unecessary war in its history, where no Scottish interst was threatened and none served; the occasion for the most devastating defeat. In the end even the French, most consistent in the support of the exiled Stuarts after the Glorious Revolution had enough of them. Louis XVI described them as an 'unlucky family' and refused to extend them any further political support.

Anyway, 217.42, this is getting too far away from the point of your question. Yes, they were a burden to Scotland after 1603. James VI, probably the last of the Stuarts who really understood his native land, left for London in 1603, promising to come back at regular intervals. He returned just once. Scotland could be safely 'governed by pen', as he put it, which meant that he could impose unpopular religious policies, like the Five Articles of Perth, without any real degree of consensus; a policy that was to be a serious source of future trouble.

Though Charles I, James's son and successor, was born in Scotland, and spent the first few years of his life there, he inderstood almost nothing about the country. Indeed, he troubled himself so little about his northern kingdom that his Scottish coronation only came in 1633, some eight years after that in England. His arrogance towards the Scots became particularly pronounced in his religious policy. Heeding no advice, he insisted on certain Anglican-style 'reforms' in the Scottish Church which lead in the Covenanter Movement to a national revolution, a crisis that proceeded through the Bishops' Wars to the Wars of the Three Kingdoms.

Under Charles II the Scots fared even worse. He came to Scotland in 1650 with the clear intention of using the country to recover the English throne. In the end he led another disastrous and ill-advised invasion of England, like James IV, which crashed to defeat at the Battle of Worcester. Charles managed to escape but Scotland was, for the first time in its history, thoroughly and completely conquered, prior to absorbtion into the English Protectorate.

Though nominal independence was recovered on Charles' Restoration in 1660 he showed very little gratitude for the Scots' former sacrifices. Once again a policy of religious coercion was introduced, the cause years of trouble and oppression in the Lowlands, punctuated by sudden bursts of violence, like that at Rullion Green in 1666 and Bothwell Bridge in 1679. The repression continued through the so-called Killing Time.

Though the Stuarts had never shown any great sympathy for the Highland clans, their support for the exiled James VII and the whole Jacobite cause was, in the end, to contribute directly towards the destruction of their whole way of life.

For the later Stuarts Scotland was nothing more than the backdoor into England; never more so than for Charles Edward Stuart, James' grandson, who was the cause of the 1745 rebellion, a military and political adventure of the worst kind, which ended at Culloden in 1746. Charles got away, but the consequences for the Highlands were considerably worse than that which followed his grand-uncle's gamble in 1651. The romance later assocaited with 'Bonnie Prince Charlie' has always seemed to me to be astonishingly misplaced; as if a comforting fiction is felt to be somehow better than a rather sordid reality.

To the above I would add one further 'burden': the reign of William of Orange, partially Stuart and married to a Stuart. His was the time of the Glencoe Massacre, the Darien Disaster; a time of famine; a time of deep national self-doubt. One could, indeed, wish for a better set of princes! Clio the Muse 23:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

First Civilisation

When was the first recorded evidence of structured civilisation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.88.210 (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

See Sumer. 152.16.16.75 09:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to drive a wedge into your answer, but aren't ancient China and Egypt also contenders for the oldest civilization ? StuRat 18:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph of Sumer indicates that Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley Civilization are also contenders. The linked articles don't refer back to Sumer, however, and that is why I linked to that particular article. Good point about Ancient China, though - those records do go back about the same length of time. 152.16.188.107 23:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Difference between Lutheran and Hindu

I need to know what the major differences are between Lutheranism and Hinduism are? Can anyone out there help me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.239.181 (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: lots. Did you try reading Lutheranism and Hinduism? For a start, Lutheranism is a branch of Christianity founded in sixteenth-century Germany by Martin Luther, Hinduism is an ancient Indian religion, and I doubt whether anyone knows much about who founded it, when or where. Nowadays, there are nearly 70 million Lutherans (or 82.6 million, depending on which bit of the article you want to believe) and about a billion Hindus. Are there any specific areas in which you want to compare these religions? Bistromathic 11:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You're basically comparing apples and oranges here. It would be harder (and maybe more fruitful) to look for similarities rather than differences, since there will be precious few of the former and just about everything else will be in the latter. --24.147.86.187 15:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea you're pulling our leg, 24.117.239.181! Xn4 15:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And the leg will not be pulled! Clio the Muse 00:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Empedocles

What are the names of Empedocles's teachers?Flakture 11:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the article linked to your title, "Empedocles was a pupil of Pythagoras" SaundersW 12:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no good answer to the question. The assertion in the article goes back to Timaeus (historian) but is not credible. If you want the name of a predecessor who can safely be taken as important to Empedocles' thinking (not what you asked), Parmenides. It does seem reasonable to say that Pythagoreanism left its mark on Empedocles, and since that is more the point of the passage in Diogenes cited, I may change the article to reflect this. Wareh 14:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wales and the Civil Wars

The Welsh were generally loyal to the crown during the English Civil War. Why? Thomas J Jones 14:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There were various reasons why people took one side or the other in the English Civil War, including personal loyalties, grudges and antagonisms, economic issues like taxes and royal charters, and political issues such as the notion of the Divine right of kings, but the most important factors were probably religion and the influence of the clergy of the established church, other preachers and ministers of religion, and people with local influence such as the gentry and other employers. Most Puritans supported Parliament because they had been badly at odds with Charles I and saw it as their hope of a better future. On the other hand, if they had to choose, most Anglicans and most Catholics backed the King. There were also influential people who benefited from royal monopolies who had a vested interest in supporting the King. But as in any civil war, most people tried to go on leading their lives undisturbed, if they could, and that was especially true in Wales.

In the rural areas, most land was part of a great estate, and country people were much influenced by the local clergy and gentry. They were also less likely to have seen anything of dissenting preachers, whose strongholds were in the towns and cities. Almost all Church of England clergymen were hostile to Puritanism, so supported the King, and many (but by no means all) landowners also supported him and were able to rally some of their tenants and workmen to follow the royal cause.

In the case of Wales, most great landowners took the side of the King. These Royalists included Richard Vaughan, 2nd Earl of Carbery, Henry Somerset, 1st Marquess of Worcester, Francis Lennard, 14th Baron Dacre, and William Feilding, 1st Earl of Denbigh.

On the other hand, there were exceptions, and those who supported parliament included Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke, the owner of Cardiff Castle, Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex, and Sir Thomas Myddelton, the Younger, of Chirk Castle, who was a committed Puritan.

In 1642, Charles I himself visited North Wales to recruit volunteers, with notable success. Together with the men recruited by his leading supporters, a very large part of the King's army consisted of Welshmen led by English officers.

The Puritans were strong in several of the Welsh towns, but they generally found it harder to get their followers to volunteer to fight, and Pembroke was the only Welsh town which declared itself for Parliament.

The Parliamentarians blundered in Wales by distributing large numbers of broadsheets promoting their cause, all in English, which was a language most Welshmen of the 17th century didn't understand.

More than a hundred Welshwomen were killed at the Battle of Naseby (1645). The parliamentarians claimed that as the women didn't speak English, they took them for Irishwomen.

There was a lot of fighting in Wales, and as the Civil War went along the successes of arms went one way and then the other. Both the Royalists and the Parliamentarians did things in Wales which caused them to lose Welsh support, but all that's beyond the scope of an answer to your question in a few paragraphs. Xn4 17:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There are one or two extra points that I think should be added to Xn4's interesting outline here. It is generally true to say that Parliamentary support was more concentrated in the economically advanced parts of England, areas that had been receptive to the Puritan message and new ideas in general. This was not true of Wales, which, generally speaking, was much more backwards in economic and social terms. Besides, the Welsh, particularly the lower gentry, had done not too badly out of the Acts of Union, and, unlike the Scots, and many of the English, had no particular quarrel with the crown. Wales, moreover, were generally much more accepting of the existing Anglican Church, a loyalty that the first translation of the Bible into Welsh in 1588 had done much to ensure. Puritanism made almost no progress in the conservative Welsh countryside. To this we have to add the neglect of Wales by the Parliamentary party in London. For Charles I, in contrast, it was a vital hinterland, the 'nursery of his infantry', not too distant from his capital at Oxford, and one which he took trouble to cultivate. But in the end it has to be said that a great many of the Welsh people were drawn into a war against their inclination, a war whose causes they barely understood. Clio the Muse 00:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Painting Identification

I'm attempting to solve a puzzle and this image was given as a clue: Portrait. If anyone recognizes who this is a painting of I would be very appreciative if you would post an answer. 71.56.140.34 17:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not Bernardo Dovizi (see article for similar style biretta), but it looks like a cardinal. Wareh 17:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. We eventually figured it out to be Carlo Borromeo. 71.56.140.34 19:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The oldest borderline?

What is the oldest peaceful borderline in the world? So far I have not found any older ones than the one between Sweden and Finland (1809). TuoppiP 18:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends. Do the countries on both sides have to be fully independent of one another? If not, even without looking outside the borders of my own country (England), there hasn't been any serious fighting across the Anglo-Scottish border for a fair while now (the last pitched battle on British soil was (I think) the Battle of Culloden, though someone is bound to prove me wrong :) ), and it's been even longer since there were any battles between England and Wales. I'm certain other states have managed far longer periods of apposition without opposition. Sadly, my formal history education was of the rather restrictive "Hitler and the Henries" variety still in vogue at English state schools, so I wouldn't really be able to speak with any authority. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

On this local side issue, perhaps it depends what you mean by 'pitched battle' and 'British soil'. The last invasion of Great Britain was a French landing in Pembrokeshire in 1797, when some 1,400 men of the French 'Black Legion' did a little looting and then surrendered. In the course of rounding them up, Jemima Nicholas did some good work with a pitch-fork. Beyond the shores of the island of Great Britain proper, there has been other fighting, including the German seizure of the Channel Islands in 1940. Xn4 23:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• See List of land borders by date of establishment (Wikipedia has an article for everything!) It's not very well maintained, but it can lead you to the History of Andorra, where you'll learn that, according to the Andorran government, Andorra's borders have remained unchanged since 1278. Now mind you, it's been occupied several times, but the borders never changed.--M@rēino 15:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• How long has the border between Spain and Portugal been peaceful? The French invasion ended 1812, but how was the borderline doing that time?TuoppiP 18:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Helen Gahagan Douglas

Hello. I would be grateful for some more background on the career of Helen Gahagan Douglas, the former actress, particularly on her political career, especially her role in the senatorial contest of 1950. Thank you. Bel Carres 19:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello right back, Bel! I suppose if people remember Helen Douglas at all it is because of her contest with Richard Nixon in the Senate election of 1950, a contest not marked for its observation of the highest of political morals!

Douglas first became seriously interested in politics, both domestic and international, in the late 1930s, when she joined the Holywood Anti-Nazi League. In the domestic sphere it was the problem of migrant labour that first caught her attention. She and her husband. Melvyn Douglas, became close friends of the Roosevelts, and Helen was drawn deeper into the politics of the Democratic Party. She rose quickly through the party ranks in California, becoming Democratic National Committee-woman snd director of the Women's Division. It was this that helped her build up a political base.

In 1944 she was elected to Congress from the fourteenth district of Los Angeles, an area with a large black population, by her firm advocacy of liberal and New Deal principles. She was re-elected with increased majorities in 1946 and 1948, known for her advocacy of such causes as low-cost housing, civil rights and price controls. She was also involved in the Foreign Affairs Committee, helping to give shape to the international programme of President Truman. Douglas was one of the sponsors of the 1946 Atomic Energy Act and Truman appointed her in the same year as an alternate delegate to the General Assembly of the United Nations. She was a popular speaker, touring the country with her liberal message. This was the peak of her political career. Her 'downfall' came with her decision to run for the Senate, promted by her hostility towards fellow-Democrat Sheridan Downey, the senior senator from California, too closely identified in her mind with corporate interests.

Douglas knew she was vulnerable to accusations of Communist sympathies because of the kind of causes she had favoured. She even had opponents in the Democratic Party, and it was one of these, Manchester Boddy, her main competator in the Democratic primaries, who first referred to her as the 'Pink Lady', not Richard Nixon, though the term was to stick and carry across to the Republican camp.

If Douglas' struggle with Boddy had been troubelsome it was nothing compared with that against Nixon, who was as calculating as Caligula, playing the Red theme at every opportunity, deflecting his opponent from her main platform. She even attempted her own counter-accusations, accusing Nixon of failing to understand the danger of Communism in his vote against the Korean Aid Bill. Both resorted to name calling, though Nixon was in every way more of a street-fighter; he was also far better funded. Amongst other things, California electors received anonymous telephone calls, with the message that "I think you should know that Helen Douglas is a Communist." It has been estimated that as many as half a million such calls were made in the run up to the election. Against this level of organisation, and against this level of ruthlessness, Douglas, and her liberal idealism, had little real chance. Clio the Muse 02:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Highland regiment forgotten in Africa?

I read a small reference once to a strange note in British Army history. It claimed that a Highland regiment (or part of one) was ordered to a duty station in the interior of Africa and somehow forgotten by the War Office. Apparently they had vague orders and weren't supposed to come out until relieved. Of course they weren't and finally reported back after many years had passed. There is also supposed to be a Scots poem about them reporting back with uniforms so worn that their "breekies" were open in back. I am sure that this is outrageously exaggerated, but I am looking for someone who can tell me the origin of the story.

Charley6alphacharley 21:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Charley, the British War Office could be stupid, but not that stupid! Besides, even if the army forgot them the soldiers would still have relatives at home who would have asked questions, especially of the officers. And if it was a Highland regiment the men would not have been wearing 'breekies' in the first place! As late as the First World War Highland soldiers wore kilts while on field duty. I can find no reference to the poem you mention, but if you can flesh out the context I will try to dig a little deeper. Clio the Muse 22:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There was any battle going on the year 142?

There was any battle going on the year 142 or that started in the year of 142? If not, and in the year of 142 BC?? Exdeathbr 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You might be able to claim that the seizure of the throne of the Seleucid kingdom by Diodotus Tryphon in 142 BC was a battle ... Corvus cornix 21:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

142 was around the time the Antonine Wall was built, so there were almost certainly some skirmishes between the Romans and the Britons in that year. Not sure about pitched battles though. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Diodotus Tryphon took over the Seleucid Empire in 142 and immediately set forth trying to control the empire by force - requiring some sort of battles, but nothing notable. -- kainaw™ 22:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is more difficult (if not outright impossible) to find a year in recorded history that didn't have a battle. Clarityfiend 03:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a quote that I've forgotten word-for-word as well as who wrote it. The point of the quote is that conflict is normal. Peace is the abnormal period between conflicts. -- kainaw™ 15:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Kushan Empire (India-Pakistan area) was probably at war in 142, but Indians from the pre-Islamic era generally avoided writing the sort of precise cronologies that could give you an exact date. --M@rēino 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

G.W Cooper

i really need help to find out who this is, i have searched on many different websites and not found a thing. i have a very old hand painted pot which is signed g.w. cooprer.

any help at all will be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.216.101 (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How old? Glazed? Stoneware or faience? Are you in UK or US? Is "G.W. Cooper" inscribed or painted? --Wetman 00:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

im in the uk, its at least 100 years old, its glazed and not stoneware. g w cooper is painted on the side and there is a markers stamp on the bottom but it is too faint for me to read what it says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.216.101 (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just making sure, but could it say "G.W. Copper", meaning something like "gross weight of copper", followed or preceded by a number ? StuRat 18:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Population change

How would it be possible for a population to continue growing for several generations if women immediately averaged 2 children each? --72.221.78.124 23:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not know of any closed populations on Earth. I believe that Iceland and Greenland are the closest to being closed - but are not completely closed. Therefore, if a population stopped having children all together, there would still be immigrants coming in. There would also be people leaving. So, it is a question of how many are coming in and how many are leaving. Now, if you close the population (nobody in/nobody out), there is the lifespan issue. Assume you have a population where everyone dies at 60 years of age. If the birth rate is exactly 2 people per woman over the 60 years, the population will remain steady. But, lifespans are getting longer. So, you have more births than deaths - increasing the population. Again, it is the same issue as above. How many people are dying and how many are being born? -- kainaw™ 23:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The short answers are (1) migration and (2) rising life-expectancy. Remember that many women have no children, and some children die before they can have children of their own, so without migration and without people living longer you need a birth rate well above 2.0 to keep the population steady. Xn4 23:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much to both of you, this had been frustrating me. --72.221.78.124 23:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility might be that the number doesn't actually rise, but the methods of finding people improve, so that the population count does go up. StuRat 18:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

September 24

excise tax

An excise tax creates inefficiency in that the number of transactions in a market is reduced. Because the tax discourages mutually beneficial transactions, there is _____ from a tax. 70.114.23.60 00:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the term you're looking for to fill that gap is excess burden, and after that you might like to say 'from the tax'. Xn4 01:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that this is a h _ _ _ work question. StuRat 18:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Mexico's view on Palestine

What was Mexico's view on Palestine right after WWI? Did they agree with the British Mandate passed by the League of Nations? And does anyone know if Mexico wanted Palestine to become an international zone or a Jewish State?

-Cindy

Cindy, I cannot say for certain what Mexico's view was on the British Mandate over Palestine, established in 1923, though I suspect that it did not figure high among the country's international preoccupations. After the Second World War Mexico was one of a small group of countries that abstained in the vote on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, calling for the partition of Palestine. Clio the Muse 03:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed a difficult and curious question; Mexico was probably a bit more preoccupied by the aftermath of their own revolution. By the way, Baja California had been one of the sites the Zionists had considered for a national home; I don't think the local opposition was considered too strong. The mandate had to be and was approved unanimously by the Council of the League of Nations in 1922, but Mexico was not on the Council or in the League at the time. Chaim Weizmann in his autobiography relates that the two nations whose votes the Zionists were concerned about were Brazil and Spain, because of their insignificant Jewish populations (also true of Mexico), while some last minute opposition came from the Papal Nuncios. Spain decided to help the Zionists and helped persuade Brazil. These facts of meagre relevance make me speculate that if Mexico had had anything to say about it, it is a little more likely that it would have voted yes rather than no - they would probably have done the opposite of anything any nuncio wanted.John Z 04:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think, John, that may come close to being a certainty! Clio the Muse 04:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The only time that Mexico's middle-east policy became an important issue (as far as I'm aware) was during the ca. 1975-1976 tourism boycott triggered by Mexico coming out in support of the infamous and notorious Resolution 3379. AnonMoos 11:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth I

I am having trouble finding information about Elizabeth I's education. I just need to know the basics really. Thanks!75.54.129.38 01:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

She was, as were all royal children at this time, privately tutored. Her most important governess was Katherine Champernowne, who taught Elizabeth astronomy, geography, history, mathematics, French, Flemish, Italian and Spanish. as well as needlework, dancing, riding and deportment. Quite a curriculum; quite a teacher; quite a pupil! Clio the Muse 02:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Switch from Information Technology to History.

Hello, I am currently working in IT as a programmer. My mind wanders in the logic of the codes, but my heart yearns for the mysteries of history ! (A poor try at a poem). But that is exactly the dilemma i am facing. Am thinking of a career change from IT to History. But want to know like what kind of work do you guys do? What's involved in being a historian etc . Could anyone please help.

Thanks & Regards, Nikhil. Illogical Programmer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.136.234 (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In some ways this is quite a difficult question to answer, as 'doing history' is, for me, a little like 'doing breathing'; it is part of me; it is part of what I am. I have become, or am in the process of becoming, a professional historian, teacher and writer, though most of the people who studied alongside me as undergraduates at Cambridge have gone on to other things; anything from banking, journalism, government to management. Anyway, Nikhil, what's involved in being a historian is reading, researching and investigation. It involves tracing sources and examining documents; behaving, in many respects, as if you are a detective in search of clues. It involves taking nothing for granted, but building up a picture, using forms of cross-referencing and authentication. Above all, it entails a love for the past and a desire to present it to the present with all of the intellectual honesty and moral integrity of which one is capable. It's a good choice. Go for it! Clio the Muse 04:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

All my fellow undergraduate historians went to teacher's college, aside from the few of us who went to grad school :) If you want to be a professional historian, then it involves just what Clio said, but also teaching, researching and writing articles and books (of varying quality, if you need to fill a quota), moving around from school to school until someone gives you a tenured position, attending conferences and arguing with fellow historians over obscure topics, while being misunderstood or simply ignored by the vast majority of people who neither know nor care what you are talking about, because you haven't turned it into a overly-dramatized movie for them. But if you love it, you love it, and all this certainly doesn't discourage me, or Clio, or the other student-historians here! Adam Bishop 05:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Those insights were really very helpful. Thank you very much Clio & Adam for your acts. And hopefully you would be joined by another historian shortly.....

What period/society/other niche are you particularly interested in studying? <sarcasm alert> One of the first lessons you learn as an Historian is to reply "not my period" when people talk to you about History. The sneer is optional, but always a popular option. It's essential for you to believe that what you are studying is not only the most important "bit" of History (ever) but that actually, it's more important than any other field of study. Proving or disproving that the Sicilian Normans laid the first plank of a certain ship in 1211 or 1212 is actually a life or death matter. Dandruff and appalling dress sense and dreadful thick rimmed glasses are also useful accessories to consider. <end of sarcasm> Actually, many of the stereotypes or out of date (how appropriate) or were never true. Language skills will be very useful (which languages and to what extent depends on your eventual speciality, but even if you wish to focus on, say, the modern history of an English speaking country, for which most primary sources may be in English, you may still wish to read what Russian historians say about the same subject) Most of all, an open mind and an ability to honestly appraise what you uncover, even if it uncomfortably negates your opinion will hold you in good stead. --Dweller 11:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC) I escaped, but I kinda wish I hadn't

My suggestion (as a PhD student in a field of history that gets a lot of non-historians applying) is to figure out what specific sub-field is most attractive to you at this point (you can change it later once you get your foot in the door) and then getting in touch with someone from that field who is willing to forward you a few suggestions from their "canon", just so you will have some idea what the salient issues are and what the general mindset is. It is often quite different than any popular perception of it, or what is reflected in more popular works on the subject. This is assuming you are interested in an academic pursuit of it, of course. Much of academic history is predicated on first understanding what has already been written, and then figuring out how you will add to it or do something different — you don't do the latter without showing some mastery of the former. Once you have a little experience with it and can say what you like or don't like with some greater specificity, then you are a bit more ready to try and convince someone (a university program, for example), that you would be a good investment for them to take on. --24.147.86.187 15:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge Five

I've been reading your stuff on the Cambridge Five and the individual biographies of the people in question. I think I understand 'how', as Orwell might have said, but not 'why'. There were many Communists who did not become outright traitors. Was there some other factor at work? 217.42.110.172 11:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify - are you asking what tipped them over the edge into treachery, rather than just sympathising? --Dweller 11:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you are, it would be hard to answer the question, because each of the four known members of the Five would have had a complex web of motivations, as with most life-changing decisions. Clearly, the passion for communism would have been a motivator, as you indicate. --Dweller 11:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning, I'm about to get into stating an opinion which is based on no sources. One factor must be that the four confirmed members of the Cambridge Five were all from privileged backgrounds - Philby from Westminster School and Trinity College, Cambridge, Maclean from Gresham's and Trinity Hall, Cambridge (and the son of a former Leader of the Liberal Party), Burgess from Eton and (again) Trinity, and Blunt from Marlborough and (yet again) Trinity. They weren't treacherous rogues, they were idealists whose main motivation, in the beginning, was determined opposition to fascism and Nazi Germany, rather than a pure love of Communism, and they saw their own class appeasing the fascists, while the forces of the Left stood up to them. Having cast their lot in with the Soviets, they clearly saw them through rose-tinted spectacles. None of them had the disillusioning experiences of (say) George Orwell, who saw the sharp end of Stalinism for himself. One characteristic (sometimes a noble and endearing one, but sometimes maddening) of the English ruling class is that its members stick to their guns and go the whole hog, they get an idea into their heads and nothing will shift it. Rather like the English Roman Catholic martyrs of the 16th century, the Cambridge Five believed they had a higher loyalty than to their own country. Xn4 00:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There is, perhaps, another dimension to this, Xn4. Struggling to find the right words, I would define it as the exclusive within the exclusive, clumsy, I know, but it may go some way to offering a slightly fuller explanation. You see, as far as I can determine, it was not all down to politics: it was down to being different; to feeling different from one's class and one's community, and taking pride in this difference. The individuals in question were the ideal candidates for the Soviet intelligence service; in the British establishment but not of the British establishment. There the were, marked by birth and background; marked by membership of the Cambridge Apostles, marked by forms of sexuality that emphasised a further dimension of alienation from many of their peers. They were 'outside insiders', flattered by the attentions of the Soviets; pleased to be serving a wider cause; pleased, in the end, to be serving themsleves, their egos and their particular, narrowly-defined ends. Empty vessels waiting to be filled, they were the Swallows; all the others were the Amazons. It was a game: once begun, it could not be stopped. Clio the Muse 02:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Business Environment

I require answers to this question A term paper on joint stock company as a business formation unit and the consequences for the stakeholders —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjoy1 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So what is the question exactly? How to go about writing such a paper? You do some research on the topic of joint stock companies as a business formation unit and the consequences for the stakeholders, and you write down what you find in a coherent and cogent fashion as a paper.  --Lambiam 15:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

label for Eber

In the Old Testament Eber is said to have persevered the language by refusing to take part in construction of the Tower of Babel. Is there a name or phrase to describe such an "outrider" for lack of a better term, who refuses to take part in some activity and is then able to restore whatever might be lost as the result of the activity? Clem 13:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No such claim is made in the Old Testamant; rather, it appears to have its origins in the Talmud. [6] That said, I'm at a loss regarding the actual vocabulary question you've posed. — Lomn 13:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The facts are presented in the Old Testament (not Testamant) which support the "claim," right, even if such a claim is elaborated upon somewhere else? In military jargon I think the position or label of a person that is not part of the main body or column but off to the side is called the "flank" and on a Pacific Island canoe the thing that is extended out and floats to prevent the canoe from over turning is called an outrigger. In fact the whole rig is then called an outrigger canoe. In football I think they call or the label for the same position is an "end." So a "flanker" or an "end" comes close but not close enough. Clem 14:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

While it doesn't exactly capture what you're looking for, the phrase "a voice in the wilderness" is close. --Sean 13:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought "voice in (or from?) the wilderness" meant something else, depending upon the exact phrase I always thought it suggested a voice that no one could hear (in) or a cry for help (from) or a voice that no one listened to (from). Clem 14:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Vox clamantis in deserto... —Keenan Pepper 18:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Eber gets very little mention in the Old Testament (and don't be testy and pick people up on their spelling). Gen 10, 21-25 is the source. I'll give you King James translation:

21 Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born. Eber

22 The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.

23 And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash.

24 And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.

25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

And, that's it. I think the major sources for Eber as father of Hebrew are (Babylonian) Talmud Brachot, the Kuzari and Midrash, but I don't have any references to hand. --Dweller 15:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So then how would you label Eber in the context of what he did - not participating in the construction of the Tower of Babel but rather refusing to participate? Clem 15:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't know if there is a single term in English that covers the welter of meanings you would like it to. You could try the Language desk? There are specialists there. You might also find there's a word in a foreign language, if there's none in English. --Dweller 15:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "nonconformist", in terms of the one guy not following the crowd. That said, I still think the historical example is lousy -- at least in terms of citing the OT. In regard to your comment above, I don't see any "facts presented supporting the claim" any more than I see the claim itself. Given that, it's hard to nail down precise shades of meaning since the precise context of the example is in doubt. — Lomn 15:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The context is simply the reason Eber refused to cooperate or go along wiht the program or join everyone else. Perhaps "rebel" is the right term. As for lousy historical reference, I have a maid who is always right and never cleans a room that in her opinion contains nothing out of place. I've learned now that if I want a room cleaned it is best to enter first and assure that in her opinion something is out of place. Clem 21:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In this sense, probably the closest concept is that of the digital backup; in effect, by copying the data (teaching the language to Eber), and then keeping the data safe (away from God's wrath), Eber's brain stored a backup of the original language even after the file became corrupted. So perhaps the best term would be "human backup" or just "backup"? Laïka 16:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Another relevant military term would be "stay-behind".--Pharos 20:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How about the term "rebel" would that adequately describe what Eber was? Clem 21:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this question? Is it for the Eber article? Some other reason? You won't get a good answer unless you explain what you want to put this to.--Pharos 22:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In biologic terms, Eber could be a reservoir. (Seems to me there could be a better title for that article.) —Tamfang 23:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Animals native to France?

We are looking at the country of France and want to know what animals are native to France. We have searched "Native Animals of France" and read the whole France article. Can you please help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbeyKatieMom (talk • contribs) 13:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's strange, we have tons of articles in the subcategories of Category:Fauna by country, but no categories specific to France. Recury 13:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In the search form on this page of the Fauna Europea database, you can select List species within Class, fill in for Class any of Actinopterygii (fish), Amphibia (amphibians), Aves (birds), Mammalia (mammals), and Reptilia (reptiles), select Country/region French mainland, press Display Species, and get a list of all native French species in the class. These are long lists, and you get the scientific names, which you then can look up on Wikipedia.  --Lambiam 15:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Totalitarianism

Hannah Arendt described Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany as forms of totalitarianism. Does this mean that there was no difference between the two? Bryson Bill 16:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No. The political spectrum has more than one dimension - see political compass, Nolan chart and Pournelle chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf61 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

they were both totalitarian. Just on opposite edges of the political spectrum. But better you wait for someone really competent like Clio.--Tresckow 17:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The political spectrum can be viewed as a circle, in which case (self-claiming) communist nations are right next to right-wing dictatorships. The difference is mainly one of ideology, not in practical terms. The communist governments can claim to value equality and other virtues, but, as George Orwell said in Animal Farm, "some are more equal than others". That book shows how the two really are the same in the end. Once the dictatorship of the evil farmer is replaced by communism, the ruling class (the pigs) soon establish their own dictatorship. StuRat 18:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So the real middle of the road is anarchism? (I've often said that libertarians are the true moderates, seeking to expand the grey area between the mandatory and the forbidden where others would narrow it.) —Tamfang 23:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Diamond and graphite are forms of carbon. Does this mean there is no difference between the two? —Tamfang 23:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In some ways, yes, it does mean there is no difference. In some ways there are differences. It depends how you are looking at them and why. Honestly, I'm not sure an analogy like that is very useful or clarifying. --24.147.86.187 00:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(Any given "political spectrum" is just one of many ways to think about the range of political opinions. Don't take any single political spectrum uncritically. Most of the "political compasses" which are popular on college campuses were designed by Libertarians in order to justify their ideology and condemn other ideologies.) For Arendt, the point was to emphasize their similarities in an era where Communism still had lots of appeal to many while Nazism was basically dead. Arendt certainly wanted to make the point that the differences between the two were superficial, as she basically regarded them as being the same form of governance, albeit perhaps justified differently. --24.147.86.187 00:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Arendt could certainly draw on some strong authorities for her model of totalitarianism; for none other than Leon Trotsky had said that there was little to separate Stalin and Hitler one from the other, judging by the political techniques that they favoured. And he should know, should he not? There were similarities, of course there were similarities: both presided over one-party states; both favoured terror and both made fulsome use of propaganda and forms of mass mobliisation. But the analysis of Arendt-and of Trotsky-only serves to confuse more than it enlightens. In terms of both theory and of practice there were real and abiding differences between Hitlerism and Stalinism; between, what might be described as irrational and rational forms of dictatorship.

So, how is this essential difference to be defined? I can put it no better than this: when Martin Bormann's son asked what National Socialism was, he was told quite simply that it was "The will of the Führer." In other words, National Socialism, as a form of political practice, and as a style of government, is inconceivable without Hitler. The system of admistration Hitler favoured was devoid of all structure and method; of all lines of bureacratic authority. At root, it was little better than a form of Social Darwinism, without any discernable rational order. At one point, for example, no less than three separate agencies had an input into foreign policy, all with contradictory aims, and all with equal access to the Führer. As Ian Kershaw has expressed it, "Hitler's leadership was uttery incompatible with a rational decision-making process, or with a coherent, unified administration and the attainment of limited goals...its self-destructive capacity unmistakeable, its eventual demise certain."

If Hitler was Nazism, Stalin was most definitely not Communism. In other words, he did not create the system, nor did he shape it to match the ends of his own ambition. He worked within the existing structures of Soviet power, its ideology and its administrative procedures. This defined both the nature, and, let me stress this, the limitations of his power. There were some things, in other words, that even the great Stalin could not do: he always had to operate within, and pay homage to, a system established by Lenin, a system that went well beyond his authority and presence. Stalin did not destroy or pervert Leninism: he was its most perfect expression, the superlative bureaucrat, and the greatest of political managers. He worked, above all, to a rational and to a given set of ends, because that was what was expected. There was a degree of stability and predictability to the Soviet dictatorship which simply did not exist in Nazi Germany. It was the nature, the transcendent nature, if you like, of the Communist ideal that enabled Stalin's successor to condemn his 'mismanagement'. No Nazi version of Khrushchev would ever come to accuse Hitler in such terms. The very idea of such a thing is inconceivable. Clio the Muse 01:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

José Antonio Primo de Rivera

Isnt it an oversimplification to call him a fascist?--Tresckow 17:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Describing him with just that adjective indeed is, but it's without any doubt that his political outlook had clearly defined ties with fascism. Check the Spanish version of the article of his party, [[7]], for further details. --Taraborn 18:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I did. If I can trust this information they were national syndicalist and left fascism to these guys Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right.--Tresckow 20:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tresckow, it is an oversimplification to call Jose Antonio a Fascist; but there again it is probably an oversimplification to call anyone a Fascist who was not a member of the Italian National Fascist Party or the British Union of Fascists. The Nazis, for example, almost never referred to themselves as such, and Jose Antonio specifically rejected the label in 1934 as an appropriate descriptive term for his Falange.

The problem is, you see, that the very term Fascism has really no intrinsic meaning, and the various radical and right-wing parties to whom it has been applied have differed from one another in almost every fundamental. There was certainly the common emphasis on the nation; but this kind of ideology was not restricted to parties of the radical right. One might conceivably detect some overlap between the early Fasci italiani di combattimento and the Falange, with the stress on direct action and on forms of National syndicalism; but early Fascism was anti-clerical, whereas the Falange took a stand on Catholicism and other traditional Spanish values. Mussolini's movement developed in a more reactionary direction by allying itself with the big landlords in northern Italy, whereas Jose Antonio's Falange was just as critical of landlordism as it was of Communism. His political programme, moreover, looked in essence to the recreation of the state headed by Miguel Primo de Rivera, his father, which could not be described in any meaningful sense as Fascist. Jose Antonio was radical; he was conservative; he was Catholic; he was nationalist. Above all, he was Spanish. Clio the Muse 23:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

corporal punishment related to students with disabilities

I am looking for information and statistics on the use of corporal punishment upon students with disabilities. I could use national references, but I am specifically interested it as it is applied to Mississippi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.205.181.205 (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

William of Rubruck

Your piece says nothing at all about his missionary activity among the Mongols or his general impressions of the people. I would be pleased if one of you could summarise this for me. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.84.114 (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly! William's mission was conceived as part of an attempt to win over the Mongols by 'persuasion', so to speak It was a dangerous journey, and when the little party finally arrived at the court of Mongke, the Great Kahn, poor William was to write that he felt as if her were entering the Gates of Hell! His descriptions of the people he encoutered are not very flattering, especially the women: "The less nose she has, the more beautiful she is considered...In the case of one chieftain's wife I was under the impression that she had amputated the bridge of her nose so as to look more snub-nosed...which to us looked thoroughly dreadful."

William was given his first serious chance to preach, the whole purpose of his mission, when he reached the camp of Batu Khan on the Volga. He was not well received. Neverthless, his party continued on its way, reaching Karakorum in January 1254, after a difficult journey. Once here William was eventually commanded by the Great Khan in person to debate with a Muslim and a Buddhist who best represented the truth. His description of Buddhism was to be the first in western history. A master of debate and the techniques of Christian dialectics, William, by his own account, got the better of his opponents-but to his great disappointment he obtained not a single convert. Mongke himself, fully aware, it would seem, of the course of western history and politics, told William that while the Christains had the Scriptures they clearly did not follow their precepts. "If I possessed the power to work miracles," William wrote, "he might have humbled himself."

Before leaving for home the Khan agreed that he might return. In Europe William reported to Louis IX, who had encouraged him on the eastward path in the first place. He was never to return to Karakorum. Clio the Muse 00:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Trade secret depending on patent

Is it allowed to file a patent on some part of a production process while keeping the rest of the process secret? I think it is, but I'm asking because this seems to subvert the purpose of patents (limited monopoly as a reward for the publication of knowledge). Icek 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The patent examiner is only going to care about the scope of the patent as it is laid out by the application itself. So if I file a patent on device X, which I am using as part of process Y (which contains trade secrets), the patent examiner is not going to be thinking about process Y; just device X and whether it works and whether I've told you how it works. You do not have to disclose your entire business operation to get one patent on one part of it, as long as you explain that part completely. --24.147.86.187 00:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, that's what I thought - and I was thinking of an X and a Y which are practically useless unless combined. Icek 02:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Greatest German Writers

three greatest german writers of all time?Flakture 19:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Schiller, Bertolt Brecht, Thomas Mann, Friedrich Hölderlin, Heinrich Heine. To name a few. I assumed you wanted a list that excludes philosophers.--Tresckow 20:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Walk of Ideas

A very broad question. Do you want the most influential? the most popular? the greatest talent? the most prodigious? Do you want only native-born Germans or anyone who wrote in the German language? Limit it to fiction, or allow philosophical or scientific writings? The Walk of Ideas in Berlin (pictured) gives a nice brief list of the big-hitters.

My personal list would be Goethe (runaway winner), Friedrich Nietzsche (if we allow philosophers) and The Brothers Grimm (or do they count as two?). I'll admit to never having read half of the others in the image to the right, though, and to my shame haven't even heard of one or two (I hope that admission won't make me a pariah here). (one more parenthesis for good luck! :) )GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Grimms just published the folk tales they collected; they did not create them themselves.  --Lambiam 21:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't argue with Goethe, but, as others have already said, Friedrich Nietzsche (only Heine, whose Ludwig Börne has finally been Englished by Jeffrey Sammons, is maybe a near rival to Nietzsche for the greatest German prose, unless you count Luther's Bible; for a light & quick introduction to Nietzsche's sheer literary genius, just read Der Fall Wagner = The Wagner Case in a sitting) and Friedrich Hölderlin (unspeakably precocious and dazzling, the fount from which the best of all more recent German poetry, from Rilke to Trakl to Celan to George, flowed; pick up the bilingual anthology Hymns and Fragments by Sieburth) are indispensable, the two indispensable names for me. I assume they got left off that display out of (1) misplaced political correctness and (2) simple ignorant idiocy (more charitably: question of influence, since Hölderlin has no real predecessors or successors despite what I've said), respectively. But Nietzsche would be happy to be spared involvement in vulgar German patrimony-thumping. Wareh 21:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If we include those with German ancestry, Robert A. Heinlein probably counts. His article doesn't mention his ancestry though. Dismas|^(talk) 21:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You asked about the three greatest, and for me they are Goethe, Schiller, and Rainer Maria Rilke. Some more names worth mentioning are Gottfried von Straßburg, Friedrich von Hagedorn, Walther von der Vogelweide, Heinrich von Kleist, Günter Eich, Günter Grass, Novalis, Stefan George, Wilhelm Weigand, Theodor Storm, Eduard Mörike, Gerhart Hauptmann, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock, Wilhelm Weigand, and Heinrich Böll. Xn4 01:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fubbs

Who was 'Fubbs' and what was her relationship to a king of England? I need this answer for a quiz. Ta. Princess of the night 20:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

HMY Fubbs, Royal Yacht of King Charles II :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

'Fubbs', Princess, was Louise de Kerouaille, mistress to Charles II, so called because of her chubby cheeks. Clio the Muse 22:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Invasion of Manchuria

Obviously the League of Nations could not solve the problem of the Japanese Invasion of Manchuria. They tried to solve it with proposals, sanctions, etc, until finally Japan withdrew from the League altogether. Can anyone think of any unique solutions that could have been used to solve this issue, preferably something that the League didn't already try?

-Julio

Our League of Nations article suggests that there was no further step that the League was authorized to take. How far into the hypothetical are you willing to stretch this? Could we tweak the League charter enough to give sanctions the force of law? Could we extend its membership to that of the UN? Could we give it an autonomous military arm? Or are we stuck with looking for options with the League as it actually existed? — Lomn 21:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Im trying to find unique solutions to the Japanese Invasion of Manchuria while still mostly pertaining to the rules of League, but we could stretch it a little bit. Thanks!

Julio, let's pretend, first of all, that the United States had ratified the Treaty of Versailles, and joined the other powers in a new international order, an effective international order, based on meaningful concepts of collective security. Let's pretend, furthermore, that Russia was not isolated for so much of the League's history, and that Germany, Hungary and the other defeated powers of the Great War had been reconciled to the international order, and thus harboured no serious revisionist ambitions. Let's further pretend that imperialism was a thing of the past, and not something that was to to be promoted in new and more malevolent forms by countries like Italy and Japan. Let us also pretend that Great Britain, the one serious mainstay of the international order after the United States retreated back into isolationism, was not wary of entaglements in Europe, let alone the rest of the world. Let us assume that the various powers would have been willing to act in concert against a rogue state, by first of all applying serious sanctions, including-most important-a complete oil embargo, which would have robbed the Japanese and Italians of the capacity to make war; and second by providing sufficient military force to check and reverse aggression if and when it did happen.

Finally, Julio, let us pretend that the League of Nations was not the League of Nations, then, I think you might very well be on the way to the 'unique solutions' you are looking for. But history is history, and the League of Nations was the League of Nations, which, as Mussolini said, "Was all very well when sparrows shout, but no good at all when eagles fall out." Please forgive me for saying so, but the unique solution you are looking for is to stand history on its head. Clio the Muse 22:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Clio, I understand that history is history and that we can't change what the League of Nations did about the Japanese Invasion of Manchuria. But I do understand where you're coming from and I still appreciate your input. I'm just wonndering that if people had the chance to go back in history and change the outcome, what would they have done differently. What different solutions would people have tried to use to actually solve the problem? Any ideas would be much appreciated. Thanks! -Julio

Issue a resolution condemning Japanese aggression; impose an immediate and total oil embargo; gather a League army; assemble in China and, from there, drive the invaders from Manchuria. In other words, the international community should not have troubled itself with the following, taken from a handbook on the League,

"As regards the military sanctions provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 16, there is no legal obligation to apply them… there may be a political and moral duty incumbent on states… but, once again, there is no obligation on them."

By all means speculate; reshape the past; indulge in the entertaining sport of the counter-factual. But, as I have already said, for the League of Nations to have acted other than it did it would not have been the League of Nations. It had not the will; it had not the leadership; it had not the means to take action against the Japanese, beyond, that is, issuing paper condemnations. Clio the Muse 23:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have a fancy for this kind of thing, Julio, try What If?: The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been, then What If? 2 and What Ifs? of American History, collections of essays (all ed. by Robert Cowley) on virtual history. One of my favourites is Pontius Pilate Spares Jesus: Christianity without the Crucifixion by Carlos M. N. Eire. Another good one is Thomas Fleming's Napoléon's Invasion of North America. Xn4 00:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks everyone. Anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.200.184 (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

commerialism

i am writing a college paper on commeriALISM AND THE AFFECTS ON CHILKDREN CAN YOU HELP ME. i NEED ABOUT THREE ARTICLES OR BOOK REFERENCES.tHANKYOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.252.86 (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Some possibly relevant articles here: Advertising (toy advertising, fast food advertising, marketing ethics), Anti-consumerism. Wareh 02:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

colonization and forced slavery in North America

I have the following questions for this title: When and where did it occur? What was life like for each culture before they integrated? In what ways was one culture able to defeat or control the other culture? What aspects of controlled culture were made to change? What was the intention of the controlling culture? How did they benefit from this control--or was the directed change intended to benefit the controlled culture? What were some unanticipated results of the directed change? What is the situation with the two cultures like today? Have both cultures survived this process? this is homework. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.135.206 (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that there were two? AnonMoos 03:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

newspaper circulation statistics

is there a website or agency/association that lists statistics relating to the circulation and other facts about newspapers. im trying to find more information for the Marin Independant Journal thanksCholga^talK! 23:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The easy way to get such statistics is to contact their advertising department—it's one of the ways they try to appeal to advertisers. --24.147.86.187 01:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And in that case, according to http://www.marinij.com/advertise, "The Marin IJ dominates the affluent Marin County market with 95,448 daily readers and a circulation of almost 35,000." --24.147.86.187 01:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

September 25

Sir Fergus Woodward, Scottish explorer?

This possibly historical character figured in a prank I've now deleted at the article Bourges. Is Sir Fergus a phantom? Googling "Fergus Woodward" hasn't turned up anything that is securely not a mirror of a mirror, only reflections of This further prank. Clio? --Wetman 00:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This notable 18th century Scotsman isn't in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography or in any of the other standard references I have to hand. Also, while there were a few 18th century Scots called 'Fergus', Woodward just isn't a Scottish name. He looks very much like a {{Hoax}} to me. Xn4 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally have never heard of this individual, Wetman, and I thought I knew the names of all of the chief Scottish explorers. And as for Eric Mouhica, who can possibly imagine a French aristocrat with a name like that! Well spotted, but I have to say that it is subtle forms of vandalism like this that worries me most about Wikipedia. That particular piece of misinformation has managed to survive unchallenged for months. I spotted something similar on the St. George page not so long ago. Clio the Muse 01:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy: "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth, persistant, persuasive and unrealistic." Xn4 02:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You folks have confirmed my suspicions. The more I check him through Wikipedia, the more I see this is a prank: see Talk:Huvadhu_Atoll; a prank "Sir Fergus Woodward" paragraph was formerly in Gaafu Dhaalu Atoll. Once you detect a prankster, it serves Wikipedia to check their User contributions for more of the same: here more than one logged in account was employed. --Wetman 02:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Felons voting rights

In the article "Texas Constitution" it includes this statement:

Article 6: "Suffrage" Denies voting rights to . . . felons . . . (though the Legislature may make exceptions in the latter two cases).

Do any/all other states of the U.S.A. deny voting rights to felons? If so, how extensively (to commiters of what felonies)?

Zantaggerung 02:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We have an article Felony disenfranchisement, but your question may be better answered in several publications on this topic available from the Sentencing Project. At least one "includes state-by-state table illustrating the categories of persons disenfranchised due to a felony conviction." Wareh 02:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad and Columbia

Does anybody know what address to write a letter to Ahmadinejad? I would like to thank him for speaking at Columbia. I thought his view was interesting and important regardless of how much I may or may not agree with him. Also, who made the decision to allow him to speak at Columbia? I would also like to write and thank that person (or people). I think it's very important that we open dialogue and allow ourselves to understand other cultures and countries, especially those from the middle east. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.81.179 (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would urge caution. He is a foreigner who supports terrorism (Hezbollah) and the destruction of Israel, denies that the Holocaust occurred, and is currently supporting attacks on US troops in Iraq by supplying the rebels. That, combined with communications between Americans and foreigners being monitored, could mean you will find yourself on a terrorist watch list and not allowed to fly, etc. StuRat 04:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)