Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

WP:RD/H C #eee #f5f5f5 #eee #aaa #aaa #aaa #00f #00f #000 #00f humanities Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities Humanities WP:RD/H

Welcome to the humanities reference desk. Want a faster answer? Main page: Help searching Wikipedia     How can I get my question answered? Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right). Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question. Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when. Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here. Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context. Note: We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice. We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point. We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need. Ready? Ask a new question! After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. How do I answer a question? Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

Choose a topic: Computing desk Science desk Mathematics desk Humanities desk Language desk Entertainment desk Miscellaneous desk Archives   See also: Help desk Village pump Help Manual   skip to bottom

October 20

Pakistan People's Party arch-rival

Which political party is Pakistan People's Party's arch-rival? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.219 (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan Muslim League (Q) and Muttahida Qaumi Movement Xn4 02:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Spontaneous Unwanted Thoughts

What's the psychological term for the mental disturbance where a person is assail'd by perverse thoughts whenever they get anxious? I've met a few such people and they say that the thoughts seem to fly at them from nowhere and they find themselves incapable of controlling them. 66.112.241.49 01:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC) MelancholyDanish

I've seen people calling this Pure O, as in Purely Obsessive OCD. — Kieff | Talk 01:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's what it's called, OCD or Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, but without the Compulsive part, although people with this disorder often find it easier to talk about the Obsessive part than the Compulsive part, so it may actually be OCD that you're describing. If it really starts impeding with everyday life, such people often need professional help. There are techniques that can help them deal with such thoughts and lead normal lives. Wrad 02:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Apostrophes

When is it consider'd appropriate to use apostrophes in words? 66.112.241.49 01:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

The apostrophe usually shows that one or more letters have been left out of a word or combination of two words, as in "it's" for "it is". It also shows the possessive case - "the Queen's peace" or (in the plural) "the Sirens' song". In past centuries, it was sometimes used (as in your example, consider'd) to show that the final -ed of a word was not pronounced as a separate syllable. So learn'd was clearly one syllable, while the adjective learned was two. This last usage fell out of use, as almost all -ed endings came to be pronounced 'd. The apostrophe has sometimes led men of letters into extreme positions. George Bernard Shaw preferred to leave it out for most purposes, while other writers, such as Lewis Carroll, have insisted on using it more than once in a word, where appropriate, as in "sha'n't". Xn4 01:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There's one more use that is becoming less popular but has not completely disappeared: to join an inflectional suffix to something that normally wouldn't accept it. Today this survives mostly in forming the plurals of single letters ("A's are written with three strokes"), and some people would reject even this and insist on "As". 40 years ago it was usual when pluralizing numbers ("We are living in the 1960's") and many abbreviations ("He performed two E.V.A.'s" or "He performed two EVA's"). To many people today those forms now seem wrong, but they were once standard and there are still people who prefer them. Another such usage involved suffixes like -ed and -ing when informally treating something as a verb that normally is not; I think this was probably never common, but I have seen examples from the early 20th century, although I can't recall any. To make up an example: "Don't sell my wife any more broccoli! She's broccoli'ed me to death already!" Today if someone wrote that, you'd expect them to spell it "broccolied"; but I could see someone writing "E.V.A.'d" even today. --Anon, 04:20 UTC, October 20, 2007.

For a highly amusing and very readable treatise on this subject, get a hold of Lynne Truss's Eats, Shoots and Leaves. -- JackofOz 01:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

An apo'strophe 'should be u'sed to give warning whenever an "'s" i's coming up in the 'sentence. --Carnildo 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Who were the Liberated Africans?

Who are they and where did they come from? ive be hearing that they came from the U.S and to be said that the african americans migrated to the carribean?

They are of african descent but they said that they found no list on slaves that were taken from africa to the West indies but Liberated Africans

who are they?--arab 02:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that you are referring to the American Colonization Society, the founders of Liberia. See also History of Liberia.  --Lambiam 11:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Accessible books on socialism?

Greetings RD-ers, it's great to be among you again, if briefly. A bright student in my AP class asked me a question recently that I couldn't think of how to answer, and it occurred to me that you are the perfect audience. She mentioned she'd been reading John Dos Passos in her spare time (note to self: clearly you assign too little homework if a kid can read Dos Passos in their free hours), which was of course impressive enough. But then she said that the USA trilogy had gotten her thinking about socialism, and she thought I was the only teacher who wouldn't "turn her in" for asking questions about it. She wondered if I could recommend any books that would tell her more about socialism: what it is, how it would work, etc. We agreed that Marx was "classic" but not too accessible, even to high schoolers who read Dos Passos in their spare time. I said I would think on it, and ask around. All the names that come to mind from the more modern socialists are very hard to follow, but I don't want to tell the kid to read Socialism for Dummies. I would appreciate any recommendations you have of specific titles and authors that are reasonably easily available and informative on the topic (but not so radical that I am likely to lose my job by recommending them). Many thanks in advance for whatever you can offer: in repayment, I promise to hit Random article until I hit a page that needs copyediting and do so -- a sort of Wikignome bartering, if you will. Best regards to all, especially to those few who may remember me, Jwrosenzweig 05:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• So you know I kept my end of the bargain, I left Jeffreys Bay cleaner than I found it (which is not to say I left it "clean"). :-) If anyone has a request for another little article cleaning in return for your assistance, feel free to note it on my talk page, and if I can find time between essays and letters of rec. I will happily oblige. Jwrosenzweig 05:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has quite a few articles on socialism (see the sidebar). If you follow through all the links, you've got quite a sizeable amount of info here. But I assume you thought of that too. As an indicator of what you are looking for, how does that not satisfy? Btw, I hope that 'turning someone in for thinking' was meant in irony. Then again, knowing the US as I do, I fear you were serious. DirkvdM 08:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Your question is a bit ambiguous: is she interested in the history of socialism as a political current, in socialist political theory, or in social-democratic policy?

I haven't read it but A. Wright's "Socialisms: Theories and Practices" is supposed to be "a good, brief and accessible introduction to the basic themes in socialism, highlighting the causes of disagreement within the socialist family" (according to Heywood's "Political Ideologies")

When it comes to political theory, the single most accessible book Socialist political theory for me was "Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality" by G.A. Cohen. Jonathan Wolff's "Why read Marx today" is also rather accessible.

If she wants to read Marxists texts, marxists.org offers a great collection of texts and an encyclopedia which explains key terms. Here a good place to start might be The Communist Manifesto (found here) is way more legible than Das Kapital and explains key Socialist ideals such as class struggle.

As for social-democratic policy, Anthony Giddens The Third Way is key in understanding contemporary centre left policy and is not very complex to read either.

I hope this helps! C mon 08:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to sound a negative note, but a learning environment in which a student is worried about being turned in for asking her teacher for further reading, and in which that teacher is worried about losing his job for encouraging her intellectual curiosity sounds deeply flawed to me. I was going to suggest Edward Carpenter for an alternative form of socialism, but he may be too radical for the circumstances you describe. DuncanHill 14:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also recommend everything by Tom Paine for anyone interested in the development of political theories of social justice, but again he may be too radical for an American educational environment. DuncanHill 14:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I share Duncan's alarm here: it sounds more like Soviet Russia than the United States! (Is it the United States?) Having said that I freely confess if my dear mother and father found out that a teacher was passing me socialist texts they would have turned into 'Red' Brits in anger! Anyway, it's really good to know, Jwrozenzweig, that your student has the stamina and the motivation to read something as monumental as USA in her spare time; I really admire her intellectual curiosity. Actually, for someone of her level of intelligence, there are some Marxist works that are more accessible than others. I myself read and understood The Communist Manifesto when I was in fifth form. There are other books I could recommend along these lines, including some more up to date stuff, though I wonder if this is the right way to go about satisfying her curiosity? What I would like to suggest is another novel, one that addresses the issues around socialism directly and in a highly enertaining fashion. The book I have in mind is The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, a sort of socialist Pilgrim's Progress writen by Robert Tressell. I also read this at school. I do, however, have some minor reservations. The setting is England more than a century ago and some of the cultural references may not be that intelligible to an American teenager. Another highly personal choice on my part would be The Soul of Man under Socialism, a brilliant and witty essay by Oscar Wilde (On second thoughts how would you survive recommending Oscar and socialism!!!). My final recommendation is another classic text, this time a history of the main intellectual trends in left-wing thought leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917-To the Finland Station by Edmund Wilson, which I also enjoyed. Let me know if you need any more! Clio the Muse 23:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

How could I have forgotten the Blessed Oscar! DuncanHill 23:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Amen to you, Bosie! Clio the Muse 23:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the anti-socialist bias in the US, one example. When I looked up Cuba in the major Dutch encyclopedia (Winkler Prins), I was surprised that it was mildly positive about the present government. So I decided to look it up in some US encyclpediae in the library and I was shocked. The articles were a constant stream of POV. Really everything was put in a bad light. I didn't expect it to be quite neutral, but this was horrible. Also, I've heard loads of downright lies by so-called experts from the US about the USSR and Cuba. This illustrates the atmosphere that Jwrosenzweig has to work in, and I can understand his reservations.

Having said that, in Cuba I looked at the politics sections of several book shops and a university library and all the books were about different forms of socialism. I wonder which is worse, only providing one side of a story or pretending to provide both sides, but mutilating one of the sides, like Fox news does. DirkvdM 08:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Many sincere thanks to all of the above for their wide range of suggestions: it gives me a very good place to start. DirkvdM, you are right, of course, that Wikipedia had a wealth of possibilities at my disposal, but I regret to say that it's gotten sizable enough to be overwhelming for my poor brain, and I felt sure the RD regulars would be able to narrow the field rather rapidly given half a chance. As far as the alarm expressed here, I think my comments may have been read as too drastic--I meant the comments to be taken as a sort of tongue-in-cheek remark. But in all honesty, depending on your district and its parent community, yes, teachers and students still in this day and age must be careful not to appear biased (especially leftist). In 2003 a class of mine (these are 16 & 17 year olds) informed me that Saddam Hussein had been a communist, and when I assured them that this was not the case, the counter-argument given was "but isn't he a bad guy?" Such are the times. The area is still conservative enough that honors students in the government class occasionally bristle at being asked to read the New York Times over the summer (that socialist rag!). It was only a few weeks ago that I, in all honesty, had to advise a colleague not to make too big a deal of the fact that some of his material was from the ACLU for fear of a tense parent confrontation...again, no one would come close to losing a job over such a thing, and no student would face any real reprisal over being interested in socialism, but there are social and community pressures placed that make it advisable not to rock certain boats too much. Maybe I'm over-cautious. Certainly I'll make my recommendations about socialist reading and see what the consequences (if any) are--and honestly I doubt that in this case anything will happen as a result (it's not as though I'm railing against the oppressor in the middle of a class). If anything comes of it, I'll let you all know from my lonely cell (here I descend again to the tongue-in-cheek)... Jwrosenzweig 04:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought on your thoughtful response, Jrosenzweig, doesn't the ACLU exist to protect the Bill of Rights? Surely something that most Americans would agree is a good thing? DuncanHill 14:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You should really look into the "Road to Serfdom" by Nobel Prize winner Friedrich Hayek. A Wikipedia link is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom

sex ratio in public events

Why is it that there is always approximately 2:1 males:females at every social event, such as bars, parties, concerts, etc. ? As a young[ish] person this has been my experience. I am looking for an evolutionary explantion, but any insight is appreciated, Thanks. -- Diletante 05:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Where do you live (generally)? I've noticed the opposite. Wrad 05:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed this in concerts all over the USA, (I have attended many phish and the string cheese incident shows) and in bars in New York and Texas. I said 2:1 but it is probably closer to 3:2. -- Diletante 05:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess the question to ask is where the girls hang out. I have a guess. School. Women are outnumbering men in educational accomplishment quite a bit these days. Might sound silly, but it may be part of it. I spend a lot of time at school, in college, and girls always outnumber guys. I'm an English major, so that may have something to do with it. Maybe girls just don't hang out much anymore. I don't know. But that doesn't explain why there are so many at the parties I go to... Seems to me like it's all circumstance. Wrad 05:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I was a psych major and girls did easily outnumber guys in my classes. But I still think you can walk into any major event and find more guys than girls. why? -- Diletante 06:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Not the events I go to... Wrad 06:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, thanks for relaying your experience. -- Diletante 06:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It really just depends on where you go. The sex ratio is 1:1, and women go out just as much as men. My guess is that the concerts and bars you attend must be ones that attract a predominantly male crowd. If you went to a Justin Timberlake concert, you would probably notice the ratio is 3 female per 1 male or higher. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thinking from a point of view outside of the 'event'-selectivity (more men at sports events etc.)...Perhaps more men are likely to go out 'alone' than women so that means that there will be more men than women as the women who are 'alone' may decide not to go out unless friends are going. Whereas a guy may happily go along on his todd. Also it may be that men make their presence more 'known' than women so you feel like there are more men there. If you are single perhaps it is psychological and you just think that there are few women around as potential partners. If you are not single and perhaps are easily jealous you might see more men as potential threats to your relationship. I expect the divide is more in your head than in the real numbers, it might not be 50:50 but 2:1 is a big divide. ny156uk 11:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Something similar was discussed at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 11#Imbalance of women and men on dating sites and clubs , you may be interested in the answers there (though the person that asked the question then wasn't.) Rockpocket 02:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're a guy. I'm guessing you're a fairly typical guy. Thus, you tend to choose to go to places that guys choose to go to. Somehow, you have got the impression that the places you go out to are representative of all places. I really don't think there's anything more going on. Skittle 11:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

good points everyone, thanks. I went out to lunch just now, there were more men than women. What about the so-called ladies night? isn't this an attempt to reverse the usual ratio? Yeah I am a guy and and Skittle probably has a point that my choice of where I go could be a confounding factor. -- Diletante 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, you only tend to get 'ladies night' in places that have a shortage of women and want to attract more; in places where women choose to go anyway, they don't bother. I rarely encounter them. Skittle 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Product mix/Product assortment

What is Product mix? What is Product assortment? Any differences between them? -- 158.182.155.31 05:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There might be differences; it depends on the context. Do the dictionary definitions of "mix" and "assortment" not answer your question?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you call this phenomenon?

If someone gets a present, whether he is happy depends on who gave the present, not what the present is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.78.9.149 (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Present-giver bias? I'd be surprised if there is a word for this. ny156uk 11:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Socialization? If you're interested in the social forces at work in gift-exchange, start with the article gift economy. Wareh 19:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's the Thought That Counts? See also It's the Thought that Counts: A Signed Digraph Analysis of Gift-Giving. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Being in love? Rockpocket 01:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Board of associated loyalists

In the context of the American revolution who or what was the board of associated loyalists? 81.151.6.49 11:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a Loyalist organization led by William Franklin, who was an illegitimate son of Benjamin Franklin and the last colonial governor of New Jersey. Many loyalist refugees fled to New York City, where the Board of Associated Loyalists helped to organize support for the British war effort. Xn4 19:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Franklin's organisation was also responsible for acts of terrorism and reprisal against the Rebels, though this was not part of their official remit, which was to focus their actions against military targets alone, with no unprovoked attacks on civilians. But the Loyalists, having lost their homes and their property, fought with a commitment and a bitterness, that was not generally matched by the professional British forces of the day. They were particularly active in New Jersey, where the New Jersey Volunteers became the biggest Loyalist or Tory formation ever raised in the Americas.

The most famous, or imfamous of the New Jersey Tories , depending on one's perspective, was Ensign James Moody (no Wikipedia page, surprsingly), who took his own personal woes out on his Rebel neighbours. His raids across the the area became so notorious that for much of the war cries of "Moody is out!", or "Moody is in the country!" were used to alert the local people to his presence. In one raid in June 1779 Moody attacked Tinton Falls, taking prisoners and rounding up cattle. When intercepted by Rebel militia the Loyalists entered into a fire fight, breaking through in a bayonet charge, after running out of ammunition.

The attack on Tinton Falls, and many others of the same kind, were a source of horror and alarm to the rebels. The New Hampshire Gazette noted that the Jersey Loyalists chose "...the hours of darkness to perpetuate the works of darkness...generally land in the night and before the militia can be collected, flee to their vessels with precipitation, snatching up in their flight what plunder they can and then magnifying in their lying Gazettes one of those sheep-stealing nocturnal robberies into one of the Duke of Malborough's victories in Flanders." In essence it was the classic form of hit-and-run guerrilla warfare: hit where the enemy is weak and unprepared; retreat in the face of superior forces.

Moody, the great raider-in-chief, was eventually captured and taken to the fort at West Point, where he was badly handled by the commander, none other than Benedict Arnold. When General Washington learned that the prisoner was being kept in chains in a filthy dungeon he ordered Arnold to treat him properly, a favour Moody repayed by escaping to resume his raids!

After the surrender at Yorktown, with the British anxious to end their involvement in the Americas, it was only the Loyalists who kept the conflict alive, even endangering the prospects of peace with the capture by a force led by Captain Richard Lippincott of a small fort at Toms River in March, 1782. The Rebel commander, Captain Joshua Huddy, was subsequently hanged in reprisal for the death of the Loyalist Philip White while in enemy hands. Huddy's hanging, which did not have the approval of the Board of Associated Loyalists, caused an international outrage, with Washington threatening to hang a Loyalist officer unless Lippincott was handed over. The Loyalists refused, and it took the intervention of Louis XVI in person to prevent a renewal of hostilities. With the war coming to an end the hard core of the Loyalists finally took refuge in Canada. Clio the Muse 01:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

David Irving

Is David Irving a good historian or a fraud? Martinben 12:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There are differing opinions, and this is not the place to discuss them. I suggest you read the very thoroughly argued linked article and decide for yourself.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

When reading about controversial subjects, the present and archived (1, 2, 3) talk pages are often interesting as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As a historian myself, I would probably say (and this is my own opinion, now—and note that I am not deeply tied up in the Irving controversy in any real way) that: 1. David Irving was not a bad historian (and certainly not "a fraud"), 2. but he has been seduced by a bad ideology, and has colored his worldview with it. Once you get yourself into confirmation bias rut even a smart person can have trouble getting out of it; once they've been jailed for said belief, they feel like a martyr and to go back on their way of seeing things would be to acknowledge the truth of whomever jailed them (never fun). Much of his early work (e.g. The Virus House) is not bad at all, but once he started going down the path to Holocaust denial, not only did he start seeing what he wanted to see everywhere he looked but he became incredibly isolated from the rest of the historical community. He became ingratiated to people with no real respect for history—other cranks, whose sole shared values were hatred, a belief in conspiracy theories, and delusion—and he became alienated and despised by those who did care about history, and he became what we might now call a "crank". I think "fraud" is incorrect in any case—I don't think he is intentionally misleading, but I do think he is unintentionally very misled. I would not trust any of his later works to have been done with a clear head; his early works are probably not any worse than any other historians, though—colored by his own interpretations, his only feel for things, but that's a large part in reconstructing any historical narrative, whether we choose to admit it or not. I think Holocaust issues encourage this sort of "fall from grace" more than other ones, in part because once you are on the "wrong side" of it (even in a minor and unintended way), the alienation and isolation can be extremely swift, with resultant professional and eventually intellectual penalties. I don't think that's very healthy (and I would never work on Holocaust history for that reason), but it should be no surprise to a savvy historian why that is. --24.147.86.187 14:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read most of Irving's work, though not without caution. He isn't, of course, a trained historian. At the beginning of his career as a writer, he clearly had difficulty in distinguishing between reliable and unreliable sources: see, for instance, his approach to estimating the German civilian deaths in The Destruction of Dresden (1963) and the result of the Broome libel case (1968). However, he later learnt to work hard on good sources, and in some specialist areas he became very knowledgable. At the beginning of 1996, the New York Times canvassed the opinion of mainstream academic historians, and most of those they asked said they saw Irving as a "historian of repute". He chose to write revisionist history, looking at events anew from the German (and one could even say the Nazi) point of view, and there was an up-side and a down-side to that. As one of the first in the field, Irving had some bestsellers which helped his popular reputation. He also threw new light on what went on on the German side during the Second World War. But I should say he wasn't careful enough and was moved by strange forces. He has a streak of sensationalism which has helped his book sales but has fatally harmed his work and his reputation. Xn4 18:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm deeply impressed with the thoughtful and measured responses of both 24.147 and Xn4, which leaves me with very little to add, other than to say that Irving is a superb historian, which only serves to make his offense all the greater. You see, most Holocaust deniers and Hitler enthusiasts are either stupid or deluded or both. But Irving is not. I read a a first edition of Hitler's War (published in 1977, I think), in which he does not deny the Holocaust, he simply says that it 'emerged' as a result of ad hoc action by local Gauleiters and the SS. But anyone who knows anything at all about the Third Reich, and Irving, I do believe, knows more than most, would quickly conclude that nothing, nothing at all, no major initiative of this kind, could ever have happened without Hitler's knowledge and approval. The argument is simply unsustainable. So, unsustainable as it is, it gave way to outright Holocaust denial. In his blindness, in his political bigotry, Irving commited a sin which for which no historian, no researcher, can be forgiven: he twisted, denied and distorted the facts. He knows the truth: he simply chose to turn away from it in a perverse act of double-think. He gave over his formidable talents to a worthless cause. A superb historian became a wretched human being, the chief victim of his own fraudulent bad-faith. It's tragic. Clio the Muse 01:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

An outstanding thread and an early contender for next week's thead of the week award. --Dweller 10:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to all concerned for this incredible response. I intend to incorporate some of what has been written in the above into a research paper I am writing on historians and their methods. This really shows the true value of the reference desk. Martinben 12:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Is he a great historian or a fraud? is a false dichotomy. It is not for me to evaluate his historical output - I will leave that to his fellow historians - but, as others have indicated above, I understand that he has done both good work and bad (I would hesitate to say "great"). I doubt he has actually been fraudulent - in the sense of being actively dishonest or lying - but he has exercised an unforgivable degree of Nelsonian blindness. -- !! ?? 11:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler

How do people know that Adolf Hitler killed himself on April 30, 1945? --Hadseys 16:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read Death of Adolf Hitler.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

See also Magda Goebbels/Suicide, which supplies further details. Xn4 18:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hadseys, have you read Hugh Trevor-Roper's The Last Days of Hitler? The information for this was originally compiled when he was working as an intelligence officer for the British Army, and remains to this day one of the best investigations of the kind. The Soviets were also aware of the full facts very early on, though they chose to obfuscate them for years afterwards. Clio the Muse 01:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

People's convention

I am looking for some more detailed information on the People's Convention, a communist front organisation that operated in Great Britain in the early 1940s. 81.156.3.198 16:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That page, 81.156, only tells part of the story. The so-called People's Convention was not the initiative of the Hammersmith Trades Council; it was the initiative of Moscow. It was set up after the outbreak of the Second World War during the time of the Nazi-Soviet pact, the honeymoon of the odd couple. Loyal Communists were instructed to denounce the struggle with Germany as an 'imperialist war', hence the need for bogus front organisations like the People's Convention. It was all quite subtle, of course, in the usual Communist style. People were encouraged to join in support of initiatives like higher living standards or better bomb shelters. Once safely enrolled they discovered that the 'real enemy' was not Germany but Winston Churchill and those members of the Labour party who joined the wartime coalition. The best denunciation of the whole fraud came from George Orwell, Harold Laski and Victor Gollancz, who in 1940, under the auspices of the Left Book Club, publised Betrayal of the Left. In this Gollancz asked,

"Can anyone carry self-delusion to the point of being able to read through the file of the Daily Worker [The Communist Party Newspaper] and still believe that this motive was any other than to weaken the will to resist? When, at the same time, you tell people that this is an unjust war, fought for no purpose but to increase the profits of the rich: when you jeer at any comment about the morale and heroism of the public and call it 'sunshine talk'; what possible purpose can you have but to stir up hatred of the government and hatred of the war, with the object of underminining the country's determination to stand up to Hitler?"

The Convention, shameful as it was, attracted the support of some prominent intellectuals, including Raymond Williams and Eric Hobsbawm, who wrote a pamphlet defending the Soviet aggression against Finland, because Stalin was only seeking to defend Russia against an attack by 'British imperialists'! You will find more information on the Convention in All the Russians Love the Prussians, Chapter Eight of Nick Cohen's What's Left, an excellent expose of the moral cowardice of so much left-wing thought. Clio the Muse 02:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Life in Stalin's Russia

Hi. I'm looking for good sources of information on everyday life in Stalin's Russia. All references gratefully received! Mr. Crook 18:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There are several eyewitness books like Gennady Andreev-Khomiakov's Bitter Waters and Mary M. Leder's My Life in Stalinist Russia: An American Woman Looks Back. The trouble with everyday life under Stalin is that it wasn't much like everyday life as most of us know it and was largely overshadowed by the menaces of a police state. Indeed, for a large number of people, every day was spent in a prison camp. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn throws some light on that in Cancer Ward, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and The Gulag Archipelago. Xn4 19:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You could do no better than read Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times by Sheila Fitzpatrick, packed full of all sorts of fascinating details, including some on the humour current at the time, which in itself does much to explain how things were. My personal favourite goes as follows. Polish customs officers wake up to find thousands of rabbits at the border demanding to be allowed to cross. "What's wrong?", one asks. "The OGPU have orders to shoot all the camels in the Soviet Union", the rabbits reply. "But you are not camels." "Try telling that to the OGPU." Clio the Muse 03:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Xn4, you say "for a large number of people, every day was spent in a prison camp". You mean Gulags, I assume. At the end of Stalin's life and rule, the population of the Gulags was at its peaks at 1.7 million. That was just under 1% of the population at the time. For comparison, that is the same percentage as people in prison in the US at the moment and about double the amount in Russia at the moment (see Prisons in the United States#Comparison with other countries). Two complications here, though - the USSR and Russia aren't the same and I'm comparing prisons with prison camps. Did all prisoners go to Gulags? DirkvdM 09:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In English I prefer prison camps, Dirk, looking for the plain words, but perhaps Gulags is more authentic. And of course Stalin had prisons, too. The Lubianka must be nearly as well known as the Bastille?Xn4 13:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That was a KGB headquarter with a prison annexe, so I suppose it was not for long-term imprisonment, just for 'interrogation'. So my question remains - did all the long-term prisoners go to Gulags? Searching for USSR/Soviet prison(s) I found only Category:Prisons in Russia. Butyrka prison says that was also a temporary prison before people were sent to the Gulags. Same goes for Lefortovo prison. The Peter and Paul Fortress is an interesting case - it was used to protect the Tsarist officials against the angry mob. Solovetsky Monastery was a Gulag. Ognenny Ostrov and Sukhanovka appear to have been for exceptional cases. The other prisons were elsewhere or stopped being used as a prison in Soviet times. And that last bit suggests that indeed the Gulags were the only real prisons. So the amount of prisoners per capita was apparently indeed about the same as in the US now (which is by far the highest in the world - about a tenfold of the median elsewhere - so that doesn't quite make it ok). Of course, a more important question is how people were treated there. Since people were used for labour, it would make sense that they were kept healthy, but that's no guarantee (think Nazi Germany). I now remember having heard about a dissident 'intelligetsium' (now what's the singular for 'intelligentsia'?) who had been sent off to Siberia and who said that they could live a fairly normal life there, rather like in regular village. But I'm not sure if that was a Gulag or one of those famous USSR research towns.

Through the years I've learned that so many of the stories I heard as a kid about the USSR were complete nonsense that I am very careful with anything I hear about the Gulags. Those especially will have inspired many horror-stories because the were not verifiable. An extra complication is that it would have served the purpose of the government to make the citizens believe it was terrible, as a deterrent.

But the question was about everyday life, and this doesn't quite cover that. (Sorry, I started the spin-off before there was a proper answer.) DirkvdM 18:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Dirk. The Lubianka was the first example which came into my mind of a Soviet prison which wasn't a prison camp because at the moment I'm re-reading a book about Sidney Reilly, and he was held there. Better examples of good old-fashioned prisons may be the notorious Lefortovo, Ognenny Ostrov and Butyrka Xn4 23:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly here, Dirk, you seem to be attempting a direct comparison between Stalinist Gulags and the American penal system. Such a parllel is not just misleading, it is dangerously misleading, suggesting that the Soviet slave system was just another penal programme: it was not. Or, if it was, so too were the German concentration camps. Where did you get the figure of 1.7 million from? According to information derived from the archives of the NKVD, the population of the Gulags peaked in 1950 at 2,561,351, up from a base of 179,000 in 1930. But these figures do not tell the complete story. The total number of people in the Gulags at any given time only serves to mask the high turnover in the system. In 1943, for example, over 2,400,000 people passed through the system, though the figures at the beginning and at the end of the year show a decline from 1.5 to 1.2 million. We are dealing here with a system with an enormous level of prisoner movement, not reflected in the overall figures. In 1947, to take another example, 1,490,959 peoole entered the camps, while 1,012,967 left, again a huge turnover not reflected in the snapshot for the year. So the number of people being processed through the Gulags in constant movement was far, far higher than the bare statistics allow. It has been estimated that between 1929 and 1953 that as many as eighteen million people passed through the camp system; Khruschev himself claimed that seventeen million passed through between 1937 and 1953.

But even this is not the full story. Not all those sentenced to forced labour ended up in enclosed camps. Many thousands of ordinary Soviet citizens were sentenced to 'forced labour without incarceration', often for quite trivial violations of the fierce labour code. In addition to this the forced labour category also included prisoners of war, the inhabitants of filtration camps, and the huge numbers of 'special' exiles, including the so-called kulaks, deported during collectivization, as well as national minorities, like Poles, Balts, Caucasians, Tartars, Volga Germans and others. So, now we have a figure of 4 million for prisoners of war, and around 700,000 in the various filtration camps, though it is difficult to be completely accurate about the latter. Kulaks exiled to the deserts of Kzakhstan and elsewhere account for 2.1 million. The minorities forced into 'special settlements' has been estimated at 7,00,000 million in the period from 1930 to 1948. One conservative estimate of the total number of forced labourers in the U.S.S.R puts the figure at 28.7 million. The number who died as a result of this experience has again been conservatively estimated at 2,749,163. You will find all of this information and more in How Many?, the appendix to Anne Applebaum's Gulag: A History (London, 2004)

As for conditions under which people lived and worked I thought everyone now would be familiar with One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. Clearly not. But of all the camp literature I think The Kolyma Tales, Varlam Shalamov's brilliant collection of short stories, are the most revealing. His crisp, matter-of-fact and undemostrative style, very much in the fashion of Guy de Maupassant, only serves to make the horror that more stark and poignant. Do not ever attempt to justify that which cannot be justified, or accept the unacceptable. That is the path to the moral abyss. Clio the Muse 23:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What am I justifying according to you? I already mentioned the importance of what life in prison was like, apart from the numbers. I just reacted to Xn4's remark that "for a large number of people, every day was spent in a prison camp", and wondered how many people were indeed in prison, and that turned out to be 'just' 1%, so not quite an example of everyday life, what the question was about. And because from a recent thread I had learned that that number was the same for the US now, I thought that was a clarifying comparison. And then it spinned off from there.

I got the 1.7 million from the Gulag article (about halfway the history section). That excluded the 'colonies' and I didn't know what that was, so I excluded it. Your number seems to include it. You're saying that a lot of people stayed in the Gulags for a very short time. That's not what I expected, considering what I wrote above. You mention 30 million over 75 years. Assuming an average of 1 million prisoners, that would mean 2.5 years on average per prisoner. Sounds fairly normal to me (don't know, really).

You also include Poles, Balts, Caucasians, Tartars and Volga Germans, but the question and my figures are about Russia. If you include those, you'll have to divide by the total population of the USSR plus the eastern bloc. and I can't find those figures, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was at least double that of the USSR alone, so that would leave the final number the same. And prisoners of war are a completely different thing, even less to do with everyday life.

In the Netherlands, we have 'forced labour without incarceration' too, called 'werkstraf' ('work punishment') and there is a lot of criticism on it for letting people off to lightly. But again, that comparison doesn't say much if you don't have details for how much, how and for what. I can believe that life in USSR prisons was harsh, but until I know I will not assume it. DirkvdM 08:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

When I read your remarks I was immediately reminded of the movie Remains of the Day, the scene where Sir Geoffrey Wren, a character with Fascist sympathies, says, in a response to some criticism of what was happening in Germany, "Every country has to have a penal system. Here we call them prisons; over there they call them concentration camps. What's the difference?" Well, we know what the difference was as far as the German system is concerned, and I personally find it altogether shaming that the same level of knowledge does not appear to exist with regard to the Soviet concentration camps.

In essence, it seems to me-and I have no wish to be unfair-that you are comparing, or seeming to compare, that which simply cannot be compared, in such a way that the inference could be drawn, whether this is your intention or not, that the Gulags were no worse than American prisons. They were worse, in both quantitative an qualitative terms. Your suggestion, moreover, that it would make sense that the inhabitants of the Gulag Archipelgo 'were kept healthy' confirms how little hard information you actually possess. As for the 'favourable' conditions under which the intelligentsia were kept, you might do well to add The First Circle to your reading list.

I do not mention 30 million over 70 years; I do mention 28.7 million forced labourers processed through the system during the lifetime of Stalin. I would assume when people write of 'Stalin's Russia'-and the questioner can correct me if I am wrong-that the reference is to the Soviet Union, not specifically to the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. The various national minorities I mentioned all came from within the borders of the Soviet Union as established by June 1941, some from within the RSFSR itself. The post-war satellite states are not included. Russian 'forced labour without incarceration' was nothing like the system now operating in the Netherlands: at least I assume it was not; for, if it was, I cannot imagine any complaints arising that criminals were getting off lightly. In the post war-period leading up to Stalin's death the annual population of the camps hovered around two and a half million, men, women and children. Beyond this you have the colonies, the forced labour settlements and ordinary prisons; for these also were part of the whole system. I have already given you a source where you can check the figures for yourself; I've also made suggestions on supplementary reading, which should give you some understanding of life in the Soviet twilight. After all, it can only be a good thing to avoid uninformed speculation, I feel sure you will agree. Clio the Muse 23:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Once more, I was just talking about the number of people in prison (by whatever name), to point out it is not a good example of everyday life. The comparison with other countries was indeed not necessary for that. But that it is little known what life was like there is indeed a problem, precisely why I don't make assumptions. If it was as horrible as the nazi concentrations camps (the comparison you make), wouldn't we know by now, more than a decade after the end of the USSR, with all the openness?

Concerning the keeping healthy, I merely suggested that that would have made sense, but then pointed out that that is no guarantee. There, even I made a comparison with the nazi concentration camps. So how can you accuse me of bias, which you appear to be doing?

You spoke about 28.7 million forced labourers (does that represent all prisoners?) in the USSR. You didn't specify 'under Stalin'. So which is it? And I merely gave a rough indication so rounding to 30 million made sense.

Concerning whether this is about Russia, the USSR or including the entire Eastern Bloc is one thing. But whichever figures you take, you should definitely make sure all the figures in one calculation are all about the same region.

"... at least I assume it was not ..." isn't that 'uninformed speculation'? That's the biggest danger here. Like I said, I've heard so many blatant lies about the USSR that I will no longer assume anything without hard evidence. Just like Soviet citizens were told all sorts of lies about the West (I once asked a Georgian about this), the same will have happened the other way around. It's an age-old story. When two peoples are opponents and there is no contact between them to verify things, all sorts of lies can and therefore will be told. DirkvdM 07:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny thing is, in my attempt to fight the bias I perceive around me, I have to be careful not to become biased myself, especially in the face of opposition by my surroundings. You pick up on my counter-bias and are then tempted to become biased yourself to get your point through. At least, this is how this feels to me. I suspect you have the same problem that I have, that because the other party puts a stress on one side of the story you have to put a stress on the other side of the story to provide the right balance. Notice that where we don't talk about the subject at hand but about the right methods to research things, we seem to agree, namely that one should question everything. And the best way to do that is to collect stories from both sides. Problem is that on this side of the iron curtain I (and you) have almost exclusively been exposed to one side. DirkvdM 10:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My politics are conservative and right-wing; I make no secret of that. But I adhere in the firmest way I can to the strictest standards of scholarly detachment; there is no other way of writing history. In a recent exchange I took issue with an editor who was allowing national pride to blind him to some simple facts. I made the point that while we have a duty to our own country, we have a higher duty to the truth. There is a huge body of literature on conditions in the Soviet camps, some of which I have pointed out to you, notably Anne Applebum's superb Gulag: a History, which won the Pulitzer Prize in 2004. It amazes me that you seem to be in total ignorance of work like this; of history, of literature, of testimonials of all kinds. In refusing to recognise this dimension of the truth you are coming dangerously close to the left-wing equivalent of Holocaust denial. For someone who claims to be studying philosophy you seem to me to be curiously lacking in qualities of reflection, of introspection and discernment. Your political attachments should not blind you to the wider significance of events. You might even consider the possibility that some of the things you were told about the old Soviet system, just some of them, might in fact be true. I've made reading suggestions; ignore them if you wish. But if you do decide to take matters further begin with Shalomov; you could do no better. You really, really need to stand back a little , Dirk. And I say this with all kindness. Clio the Muse 01:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I used to be right-wing and then left-wing and now I am a pragmatist (sort of like Buddha also found the middle way by exploring the extremes - a very illuminating strategy). I now find it strange to call oneself left- or right-wing. It's like taking a position before you've thought about it. Unless you mean you've thought about things first and then found all your conclusions turned out right-wing. But even then it is strange to say you are right-wing, as if that defines you. Aren't you what your thoughts make you? And it's dangerous because it may lead to the aforementioned prejudice.

I am interested in all sorts of things - history is just one of them, mainly because it's so important for our future. But hard sciences are at least as important, and that's really where my main interests lie. I occasionally read some stuff on history, but don't expect me to know specific books. You have here-above demonstrated a lack of insight in mathematical matters. We're both limited in what we can know. But having different perspectives is actually very fruitful. I like reading your lectures here. Maybe if you visited the science ref desk once in a while you could learn something from me. (in all modesty...)  :)

I don't study philosophy anymore. It's my way of thinking (looking at things from as far a distance as possible)* and temporarily made it my study. Mostly Logic and Philosophy of Science.

*Funny, I wrote that before I read you remark about standing back.

Don't worry about hurting my feelings. Insincerity would hurt me more. (Which is one of my main gripes with USians, but that's a different issue.) DirkvdM 07:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish clothing

Hi! What everyday clothes did a jewish man wear around the time of Jesus? Thanks. —Bromskloss 18:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably robes and cloaks not greatly different from those worn by many other peoples around that general time period. AnonMoos 20:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

How about a kippah? —Bromskloss 20:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That would depend on the person, most notably their position. I suppose you mean what clothes Jesus wore. He was a carpenter, so something cheap and sturdy. An educated guess: hemp. DirkvdM 09:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the men and boys would worn tzitzit. Proably over their clothing, unlike the modern day convention. Kippah would only be necessary if the head was not anyway covered in some other way, such as cloak, scarf etc. --Dweller 10:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fabrics used would have typically been flax (linen) and wool. They would not have mixed wool and linen. --Dweller 10:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I should add that the fabrics were commonly dyed. There's considerable archaelogical and written record of dye-making and processing in the region at this time. Presumably, the poorer people would have had more basic clothes, as dye would have been expensive and regarded as something of a luxury. Also note that the Holy Land was at a crucial point in the ancient trade routes between Egypt (Africa) and Mesopotamia/Asia Minor. (Indeed it was regarded as the geographical centre of the world, as much as the spiritual. See our various Mappa Mundi articles) Those traditional trade routes, added to those opened by the Roman conquest (particularly littoral links) mean that fabrics and fashions would certainly have been imported, for those who could afford them. It's hard for us to estimate the extent of this, espcially as fabrics don't survive the centuries as well as, say, weapons, but it may have made for a more cosmopolitan array of clothing than in more isolated societies. --Dweller 09:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Caravan trade routes overland from the orient, through Palmyra and Damascus and the Decapolis to the north and east, and around the coast of Arabia through Petra to the south (pretty picture in Silk Road). I dare say we can expect all sorts of unusual fabric, but I doubt they were widely available to everyone for everyday use. -- !! ?? 11:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Some more bits and pieces. Both shoes and sandals are referred to in the Mishna. And in those days, tefillin were commonly worn all day, despite periodic bans by the Roman authorities. It was later, in the time of the Talmud, that wearing of tefillin was restricted to time of prayers. --Dweller 20:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Two tunes

Looong ago, I was taught to play two tunes, that are now buzzing around my head demanding a name. I believe the first one is called something like "The White Rose of Scotland", but I've not been able to track it down under that name. The melody's notes are (with a high B and A): BEF#GBAGFEBFAGE.

This you-tube video sounds vaguely like the melody you provide, but only vaguely. It's called "The Wee White Rose of Scotland", and it was written in 1986, so it may be too new for what you're looking for. I do have a little bell tintinabulating inside my head about a more traditional song called something like "The White Rose of Scotland". When it accepts the invitation to come into my consciousness, I'll get back to you. -- JackofOz 01:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The second one is a Czech or something lullaby, but I've got no name to go on. This one's melody is EBBBGF#EAAF#F#E. Any help on either? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.147.66 (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you give some indication of the relative duration (length) of each note? That may help us track it down. Notes played with equal duration often sound quite unlike the tune they represent. -- JackofOz 01:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, attempting to overcome the limitations of text:

B

E

F#

G

B

A

G

F#

E

B

F

A

G

E

1/8

1/4

1/8

1/4

1/8

1/4

1/8

1/8 (slurred with next note)

1/8

1/8

1/2

1/2

1/4

1/4

E	B	B	B	G	F#	E	A	A	F#	F#	E
1/4	1/4	1/4	1/4	1/4	1/4	1/2	1/4	1/4	1/4	1/4	1/2

Should look like this in notation, if I've done it right... octaves may be off... - Nunh-huh 02:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sabotaging Relationships

Is there a name for a psychological disorder in which a person unconsciously seeks means of sabotaging all their closest relationships, for fear of loving or of being loved? In other words, the person doesn't even realize what they're doing or for what reason, but they have a hard time being close to people and whenever someone starts to get close to them they find a clever means of ruining it. And then they wonder why they can never have a successful friendship or relationship. 66.112.241.49 19:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

There are lots of different personality disorders with complex, and sometimes over-lapping behaviours. Only a mental health care professional could give a valid diagnosis based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. However, one disorder that appears to share some of the behaviours you mention is Masochistic (Self-defeating) Personality Disorder Rockpocket 01:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There's also a Wikipedia article on it.--Rallette 11:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits Needed - Angelina Grimke

Hi, Im not tech saavy - but the article on Angelina Grimke was vandalized. I would have fixed it, except I don't know how. They added a sentence that needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.232.120 (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Done, thanks for letting us know. For the next time: WP:REVERT. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

October 21

Need help interpreting St. Augustine

All right, I know it says not to cross-post, however I posted this question previously on Language and was advised to ask questions like it on Humanities. I hope it's okay if I post the same question here since I'm not trying to spam or anything. If it's a problem feel free to delete.

---

Hi. I'm cracking my head open trying to figure out what a certain passage from St. Augustine's The Literal Meaning of Genesis means. The passage in question is Book 2, Chapter 9, "The shape of the material heaven." The passage in question is available as a Google book preview at [1]. He appears to be discussing whether a Christian is bound by Biblical authority to take a particular view on whether the heavens are a sphere completely enclosing the earth or are rather suspended above it on one side. Augustine appears to believe that the heavens are spherical, however it seems that some were disputing this, quoting a passage from the Bible which talks about the heavens being stretched out like a skin.

The difficulty is that in paragraph 21, Augustine writes that "if [people who say that heaven is spherical] are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions. If it were, it would be opposed also to Sacred Scripture itself in another passage where it says that heaven is suspended like a vault. For what can be so different and contradictory as a skin stretched out flat and the curved shape of a vault? But if it is necessary, as it surely is, to interpret these two passages so that they are shown not to be contradictory but reconcilable, it is also necessary that both of these passages should not contradict the theories that may be supported by true evidence, by which heaven is said to be curved on all sides in the shape of a sphere, provided only that this is proved." That would seem to suggest that Christians interpreting the Bible can use their external, natural knowledge to throw light on the best interpretation of what the Bible is saying.

However, in paragraph 22, Augustine writes that "...the image of a skin presents a more serious difficulty: we must show that it is reconcilable not with the sphere (for that may be only a man-made theory) but with the vault of Holy Scripture." In this paragraph he seems to be saying that all that matters is that Christians' interpretation of the skin passage is consistent with the rest of the Bible, and that divine revelation through the Bible must take precedence over human reasoning, such that the spherical-heaven theory must be rejected if there is no reasonable way to interpret the Bible in a manner consistent with it. Note also that earlier he had said that "The truth is rather in what God reveals than in what groping men sumise," which is more consistent with the theme of this passage.

But it seems highly implausible that a great thinker like Augustine would have contradicted himself in the space of just two paragraphs. Could a fresh pair of eyeballs take a look at Chapter 9 and tell me if there's something I've missed? The main question on my mind is the extent to which Augustine believes that Christians' external, natural reasoning and knowledge should play in their interpretation of Scripture. Paragraph 21 seems to suggest that it should play a big part, but paragraph 22 seems to suggest that Christians may have to place their faith in a certain interpretation even if their reason tells them that the Bible, interpreted that way, cannot be right. (No, I am not worried that the sky is a flat like a vault...lol) Thanks! Schmitty120 00:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think in speaking about heaven as a sphere, the phrase, "provided only that this is proved," is important. I think the reasoning is that we must view the idea of "heaven as a sphere" as being a theory. Since it is "only" a theory, we are free to assume that "heaven is a sphere" is just a bogus conclusion derived from fallible human observations and reasoning. "the extent to which ....reasoning and knowledge should play" a role.....I think the text indicates that when our senses and reasoning agree with the Bible, then all is fine. When our senses and reasoning contradict the Bible, then we should just assume that our sense and reasoning are confused. The "contradiction" that I do not understand is why there is such a show of trying to reason it all out when the adopted line of reasoning is based on an unquestioned assumption that everything in the Bible is literally true. --JWSchmidt 00:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Judge's options

What are a judge's options after a jury has handed down a guilty verdict in a criminal case? --72.77.114.183 00:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)( Assuming the judge does not like the jury verdict)

For the U.S., see Judgment as a matter of law and Judgment notwithstanding verdict. GreatManTheory 00:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In the UK, it depends on the crime, but the court nearly always has some discretion after the verdict is arrived at. Most criminal offences are governed by statute law, and a range of available sentences is set out in the Act relied on. There are a few mandatory sentences (for instance, murder carries a sentence of life imprisonment, and possessing some firearms carries a minimum sentence of five years), but even in such cases a judge can recommend a minimum term before a prisoner is considered for release. When it comes to manslaughter, on the other hand, after the killer is convicted a judge has the power to grant an absolute discharge. In a magistrates' court, you get summary justice and most sentencing is on the spot, but the sanctions available to magistrates are limited. In higher courts, it's common nowadays after the verdict for the court to adjourn for psychiatric and other reports which will help in arriving at a fair sentence. Xn4 02:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

India National congress

Which parties are India National Congress's arch-rival? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.124.89 (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Politics of India should contain the answer, if one exists!87.102.16.28 10:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka political arch-rivals

Which parties are Sri Lanka's political arch-rivals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.124.89 (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

See Politics_of_Sri_Lanka#Political_parties_and_elections and please do you own research - in this case it would involve going to the Sri Lanka article, moving to the "goverment and politics" section, clicking the link to the main article - looking at that article for a list of the main parties - and then reading it.87.102.16.28 10:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

CIA in Tibet

What evidence is there that the CIA aided the resistance in Tibet after the Chinese invasion of 1951? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thin Cassius (talk • contribs) 04:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Tibetan resistance movement (this article is uncited)

Also try http://ww.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=+resistance+in+Tibet+cia+help&meta= or similar

The information found typically may be debateable...87.102.16.28 10:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

William Walsingham

In the movie Elizabeth: The Golden Age, William Walsingham, the brother of Francis Walsingham, is revealed to have been involved in the Catholic plot to assassinate Queen Elizabeth. His brother managed to spring William from prison, and apparently shipped him off to France. What happened to William from there? Corvus cornix 04:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was one of the movie's flights of fancy. Surely, there wasn't a real William Walsingham, except that it was the name of Francis Walsingham's father? Xn4 04:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Corvus cornix, I have not as yet seen Elizabeth: the Golden Age (it's not scheduled for release in England until November), but if it is anything like the prequel it would be best not to take the history too seriously! Clio the Muse 00:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How disappointing. Thanks, guys. Corvus cornix 18:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

i think they might be getting him muddled with william stafford who was the brother of edward stafford ambassado in france.  william was involved in the stafford plot of 1587 and there is the possibility that edward stafford was a double agent working for the spanish.  there was no william walsingham as francis was an only child.  why can't they get someone to advise on these films that knows their history!!

Robert Reston

Another Elizabeth: The Golden Age question. Rhys Ifans plays a Jesuit named Robert Reston who was involved in the plot to assassinate Elizabeth. Was Reston a real person? Corvus cornix 04:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Not under the name of Robert Reston, at least. Xn4 04:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the character was based upon John Ballard, a Jesuit priest involved in the Babington Plot?

Jesuit Robert Person is thought to have been involved in the plot to assassinate Eliazabeth.

Cawnpore Massacre

I understand that the Mutiny of 1857 is now celebrated in India as the first war of independence. Is the massacre of the women and children at Cawnpore also celebrated? Thin Cassius 04:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely isn't it.87.102.16.28 10:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Some links: Indian Rebellion of 1857 and Siege of Cawnpore.

The precise facts are somewhat confused, and, inevitably, disputed. It is not clear who gave the order to massacre the 200-odd captive women and children, but it is clear that the rebelling sepoys refused to do it. They were dismembered by four local butchers and their bodies (some apparently still alive) cast into a well the next day. Remember Cawnpore! became a rallying cry for the British.

I would be interested to know how this event is considered in India currently. I doubt it is "celebrated" - perhaps taken together with the other despicable and brutal acts of violence perpetrated on innocents (and not-so-innocents) by both sides? -- !! ?? 11:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Madaba map (mosaic)

(question moved from misc desk for better chance at an answer)87.102.16.28 10:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read your articles on the mosaic Madaba map in St. George's Greek Orthodox Church in Madaba.

Please, can you tell me who did the mosaics??

You say when it was done but you don't say who did the work... who ordered it done.

I need this information. If you can't help me, please tell me who can ... thank you very much.

(email removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.184.86.250 (talk)

I'm sorry, 87.102, I have a feeling that this is unknown and unknowable. Clio the Muse 02:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronanciation of a Sanscrit word

How yhe sanscrit word 'Sadhana' is pronanounced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.220.117 (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

11:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)85.75.220.117a

alsid

Unfortunately, I don't have IPA on my PC. It rhymes with "pardoner" or even "gardener". The first a is long, pronounced as in tart, the other two a's are short, pronounced like the u in butt. The d is aspirated, though most western speakers wouldn't bother with that subtlety.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So something like [saːdʰənə]? Note that it only rhymes with pardoner and gardener in non-rhotic accents. If you're American, those words could mislead you, because there's no actual R sound in sadhana. —Keenan Pepper 19:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't think the questioner is troubling with macrons, there are three possible Sanskrit words: (A) sadhana, (B) sādhana, (C) sādhanā. Keenan Pepper's advice is correct for (B), an adjectival form meaning "directing to the goal; procuring; expressive of, designating; carrying out, effecting; subduing, vanquishing; gaining power over (by spells), summoning (spirits, deities)," etc. (A) is an adjective meaning "wealthy" (literally, "together with riches"); I doubt it's the word in question, but its pronunciation would require a stressed version of the schwa in the first syllable (IPA ʌ? if so, [sʌdʰənə]). It is possible that the questioner means (C), a noun meaning "magic": [saːdʰəna:]. All three three are stressed on the first syllable. Wareh 02:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

For pronunciation in English, a lot of leeway is given. As to how older (as in centuries older) Indians would have pronounced it, Wareh has it well. I would add, though that Sanskrit probably wouldn't have reduced unstressed vowels to schwa, especially the final one, as it is quite important to the phonology of the language. Although English speakers are generally not used to distinguishing unstressed vowels, it is very much possible. We're assuming here that the 'd' is /d/ (dental), rather than /d̪/ (retroflex). Modern Sanskritists don't make the distinction when pronouncing it in English discussion, but in Sanskrit itself, it's quite important. 130.56.65.24 02:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not assuming; there are no Sanskrit words with retroflex d that fit the bill. And I've never met a modern Sanskritist who didn't make the distinction. In Sanskrit, a is the only short vowel that is reduced to schwa, so there is no ambiguity. It has nothing to do with stress; I just couldn't bring myself to write schwa in a stressed syllable. Wareh 02:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fascist Poland?

Is it right to describe Poland as a Fascist-style dictatorship after Pilsudski's coup of May 1926? I am thinking here of a possible comparison with the Clerical Fascism of the Dollfuss regime in Austria. 217.42.110.227 12:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In a word-no! There are some superficial comparisons between the Pilsudski regime and that of the Fascists, in that ultimate power lay with one man, boyed up by themes of national renewal. But Pilsudski never sought to monopolise all the channels of power. His principal office was that of foreign minister, and he was only premier for two brief periods. There was, moreover, no enforced ideology, like that of Clerical fascism in Austria, and the only Polish Fascist party, the Falanga, was banned by the regime. Pilsudski was also a sincere Catholic, and never embraced any form of anti-semitism. Yes, the Sanacja government established after the May Coup was authoritarian; yes, it ended the chaos of Polish democracy, but in terms of policy and practice the Pilsudski government was never more than a old-fashioned military dictatorship. Clio the Muse 00:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Nazis and Christians

I have two questions on this topic. First, in what ways did dislike of the Weimar Republic generate support from the Christian churches for the Nazis? Second, what degree of support did Hitler receive from the different Christian denominations in Germany? 217.42.110.227 12:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Nazism and religion may be of use. Algebraist 15:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the following goes rather off-topic.

That article says under the catholicism section "With the Church's strong view against Communism and its cooperation with Mussolini's fascist regime in Italy, some in the Church looked at the Nazi party as an ally at first." (my italics) But in the film Massacre in Rome, which depicts an event that took place towards the end of the war right under the pope's nose, hundreds of people (mostly Jews, don't know if that is of any relevance) were killed as retaliation for a resistance attack. And the pope did nothing to change the minds of the Germans, despite the fact that they themselves weren't too keen on doing it, so he might have easily convinced them to reconsider. One reason given by a representative of the pope was that between the two rivals the nazis and the communists, the former were the lesser evil. At least, all this according to the film, and I can't say how accurate the depiction is. DirkvdM 19:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The churches found the political atmosphere of the Weimar Republic uncongenial; it was at variance with an authoritarian tradition embraced by the Lutherans, and its social policy on issues like education and abortion offended many of the core Catholic beliefs. Hitler, moreover, was careful not to offend the the sensibilities of the churches. Alfred Rosenberg, for example, was forced to publish The Myth of the Twentieth Century, his anti-Christian polemic, privately. So, when the Nazis emerged as the main opposition to the Republic they obtained the support of many Protestants, including such prominent figures as Martin Niemöller, though the Catholic community for the most part continued to give its main support to their own church-sponsored Centre Party. Clio the Muse 01:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Austerlitz

Was the allies decision to face Napoleon at Austerlitz a mistake? 86.147.184.120 14:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at Battle of Austerlitz? It's a good article. Xn4 19:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was; and it was a battle that would never been have fought if the old fox had been allowed to follow his instincts. In retreating towards the Carpathians, the Russian commander was drawing Napoleon into a desert, extending his brittle lines of communication still further. By joining up with Bennigsen in Hungary, Kutuzov would have further boosted his strength. But Alexander was with the army, and Alexander wanted glory. There was glory alright, but not for Alexander. Clio the Muse 01:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Royalty and Passports

A current question on the Misc. Ref. Desk has led me to these questions: does reigning royalty carry a passport when travelling? While I am quite sure that Queen Elizabeth, for example, joins no line for customs, immigration or security, is she still "wanded" and asked the usual questions about the purpose of the flight and whether she packed her own bags? (And what do they do when she says "No.") Is royalty assumed to have such allegiances to their own country, at least, (and history notwithstanding) that they pose no risk to offend? And then, as a follow-on, now that the world has gone mad about security checks on airlines, are diplomatic bags coming in and out of the country by whatever means of transportation, still accepted without being checked? Bielle 14:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Queen does not require a passport (as passports are issued in her name), this also applies to her as Queen of Canada, Australia, etc. The rest of the Royal Family do require passports. Here is my source. [2]. DuncanHill 15:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What about when travelling outside the Commonwealth? Surely the schmuck at JFK won't recognize most of the royal family (note lower case). —Nricardo 16:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, DuncanHill. As for Nricardo's question, the Queen is unlikley to see the "average schmuck" at any airport, and anyone who is assigned to deal with her entourage is likely to have memorized the faces of everyone involved.

I am still curious about the security matters, though. Bielle 16:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume she uses chartered vehicles, if not her own, so she wouldn't be asked airline security questions like whether she packed her own bags. —Tamfang 04:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure she wouldn't be asked about her business in the country or the purpose of her flight. Anyone involved would know all that ahead of time. Incidentally, I think that those questions are only asked of people travelling to the US, but I could be wrong there. As for standard security matters. With the Queen's lugage being under tight surveillance by the Secret Service, or whoever takes care of it, I think it would be quite useless to doublecheck. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

See also Diplomatic immunity. Xn4 19:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

discrimination of Germans in Norther Ireland

I am from Germany and I have the possibility of working in Northern Ireland.

Would I as a Protestant be discriminated by the Catholics because I am protestant and by the Britons because I am German?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.233.33 (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is mostly Protestant. It's the Republic of Ireland that's predominantly Roman Catholic. Britons are probably less xenophobic than Germans, but may still harbor animosity.—Nricardo 16:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is only slightly more protestant than catholic these days. In my experience, British people are often more xenophobic than German people, tho' having never visited NI I cannot comment on attitudes there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs) 16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I would add that Irish people of both North & South have a very good reputation for hospitality. DuncanHill 17:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the comment concerning the alleged xenophobia of the Germans. I can, of course, only speak from personal experience, but in all of my travels across Germany I never encountered any trace of hostility or discourtesy. Even my mangled attempts to speak the language were received with great patience!

Anyway, 83.59, sectarian tensions in Northern Ireland arose under very specific historical circumstances and are highly unlikely to affect outsiders, regardless of their confessional attachments. Local people will generally recognise each other's background by their names, where they live, where they socialise and by their political attachments, if these are openly expressed. Going to any given church would, in itself, not serve to mark you out. And if you are every asked if you are a Billy (Protestant) or a Dan (Catholic) just say you are an Old Tin Can! Clio the Muse 22:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Clio's right, if you're an outsider, that will likely 'let you off the hook', so make that plain (speaking with a heavy German accent might help :) ). Actually, what you call what is more likely to get you into trouble. Geographic names can be tricky in the British Isles, and especially in Ireland. See British Isles (terminology). I started that article, but I'm still confused. The Euler diagram includes Ireland in the British Isles, but some (many?) Irish will object that that terminology makes their island an 'annexe' of Great Britain. And of course 'Ireland' can mean several things. So it's easy to make mistakes, especially since what is a mistake depends on whom you are talking to. Whenever geography, politics or religion enter a discussion, be prepared to become apologetic, make it clear you're a foreigner and ask people to explain. If next you listen with interest, that is bound to ease the tension. Then again, don't get too uptight about it. I never encountered a serious problem with this in Ireland (the Republic, that is), and I imagine it will not be very different in Northern Ireland. DirkvdM 09:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A doubt that I can't find answer!!!

I really be thankfull to someone that tell me who said: " if there was a fire, and i saw a cat and a picasso pic, i'd take a cat, coz i choose life over art.."? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.107.187 (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Something similar is attributed to Alberto Giacometti (referring to a Rembrandt painting though, not a Picasso)

«Dans un incendie, entre un Rembrandt et un chat, je sauverais le chat.»

Meaning: «If I were caught in a fire and I had to choose between a Rembrandt and a cat, I'd save the cat.».

As often, I couldn't find out when, where, and why Giacometti was supposed to have made that statement. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to return that compliment. If I had to choose between saving a Giacometti sculpture and a cat, there would be no contest. Xn4 22:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The sculpture probably could whidstand the fire anyway! Keria 09:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And if it melted a bit, who'd know the difference? —Tamfang 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's quite enough, ye philistines! You know the statement wasn't deprecating Rembrandt. On the contrary, he's saying that even the most valuable and sublime work of art cannot be worth more than the life of a creature (or something like that, I don't know whether the quote would work if "cat" were replaced with "slug"). Anyway, stop slagging off Giacometti, I happen to love his art! ---Sluzzelin talk 20:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not alone! Clio the Muse 21:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Go Giacometti!!! :) --S.dedalus 04:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a pity the talented Giacometti mentioned cats. e e cummings puts the thought better: "a pretty girl who naked is is worth a thousand statues". Xn4 19:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading aloud in the 19th century

How common was it for a family member to read a book aloud in the nineteenth-century U.S.? I searched Wikipedia on reading aloud but found no history of the practice. I know that the Bible was often read aloud, but what about books and serials, such as those by Charles Dickens? 69.201.141.45 18:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

For a crude start, there is some (uncited) discussion in print here. Wareh 01:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't give many details, but I do remember reading about things like that happening in various books from the period. These might be one of your best sources. Little Women, for example, I think talks about reading aloud to one another. Although it's not the US, Jane Austen talks about reading aloud to people at the beginning of the 19th century in England (I think Mr Knightley reads aloud to Emma and Mr Woodhouse in Emma - corrections welcome, it's been some time).130.56.65.24 02:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In English cotton mills in the early C19 the girls would chip in together to pay one girl to read aloud. --Wetman 07:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bible, at least, was usually read aloud in evenings. Corvus cornix 18:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Muslim women in 19th century Egypt

In the 19th-century work A Yankee Engineer Abroad, Part II: The East, the author states on page ll that the women in Egypt were not acknowledged to have souls. Was this correct? I have found writings in Wikipedia concerning the houri and whether there are more females in Muslim paradise than men, but nothing concerning the "soul." 69.201.141.45 19:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about that (a doctrine that women don't have souls is more usually attributed -- incorrectly -- to a local Christian episcopal synod in France in 585 AD). However, there are some hadith which state things like Narrated Ibn `Abbas: The Prophet said " I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful" (Sahih Bukhari 1:28) / Narrated 'Imran bin Husain: The Prophet said, "I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women."(Sahih Bukhari 4:464), etc. - AnonMoos 22:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

AnonMoos's quotations, whatever their currency, would seem to offer support for the view that women do have souls, since otherwise what immortal substance would be subject to punishment after the end of bodily life? Wareh 01:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Born at sea

What are the rules on the nationality of a baby born at sea (or in an aircraft over the sea for that matter!)? -- Sgroupace 20:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It depends. Note that not all countries use a Jus soli (right of soil) system to confer citizenship: many, such as Japan (see Japanese nationality law) use a Jus sanguinis (right of blood) system. In this case, it would likely be a question of what citizenship the parents are, and if the boat/plane is in a country's sovreign territory. --Ybbor^Talk 20:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

linking to other wiki articles

i am new at this. i cant firgue out how to link the entry i just created to other relevant wiki articles. how do i do this?Meilanfang 20:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Use [[double brackets]] around the words you want to link. See WP:LINK for more information. --Ybbor^Talk 20:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You should probably read over Wikipedia:Introduction before you start editing, if you want to get the most out of your time here. --24.147.86.187 02:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

October 22

Religion and Excuses

I once heard that if a person were to skip school/work and they said it was "for religious reasons", then the teacher/boss has to accept that and ask no questions (this is in the United States). Is there any truth to this? Could one (hypothetically) abuse this system and get of the hook for skipping 3 weeks of work for staying home and praying to His Great Holiness if they claimed it was a religious sacrament? 67.165.190.246 01:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't have to accept it and ask no questions. And no, doing it for your own silly reasons is not going to get any sympathy from anyone. Basically if you felt you were being legitimately discriminated against you'd have to take up with an administrator or an agency of the government or with a judge in court. And none of those are going to take more than 5 minutes to evaluate an obviously B.S. claim. Anyway, the most relevant law is Religious Freedom Restoration Act, from what I can tell. That article has links to a number of related articles. There are certain things an employer is not allowed to ask about (e.g. about your sexuality), but as far as I know none of the restrictions have anything to do with you claiming time off for any purpose. --24.147.86.187 01:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

US employers don't have to do any such thing. I've seen many people unable to keep their beliefs because of their jobs. I think what you're referring to is the fact that you can't be fired or hired for your religious beliefs alone. Wrad 02:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and as long as the questions are couched in a religion-neutral way, it is perfectly legal to use criteria that would disqualify employees with certain beliefs or practices. For example, "Do you have a problem working Saturdays?" is fine. Now, I do believe you could win a suit if you could show that the Saturday-availability criterion intended religious discrimination rather than having a justifiable reason. Wareh 02:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Some workplaces would allow you to exchange the traditional (i.e. Christian) holidays for those of your religion, but there is no obligation to do so, and taking time off for your religious holidays would be taken out of your recreation leave. Doing so for a ficticious religion or even a legitimate but uncommon religion is likely to cause suspicion. If you're caught abusing the regulations in this way (i.e. taking a holiday for to worship your non-existant cat because you have a hangover) leaves you open to disciplinary action (loss of pay, suspension, being fired).130.56.65.24 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"A fictitious religion". As opposed to all the provably true ones? --Psud 16:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is no longer good law. The Supreme Court invalidated it in City of Boerne v. Flores (Government may deny, so long as it has a rational basis in doing so, a permit to expand a church where local zoning ordinance restricted such expansion.) The RFRA tried to overrule Employment Division v. Smith (Government may restrict, so long as it has a rational basis for doing so, the use of peyote, even when consumed for religion-related purposes). Smith is still controlling law today. It overruled Sherbert v. Verner (Government can't deny, without a compelling reason, unemployment compensation to a woman who was fired because she refused to work on the Sabbath). Jordan 03:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanotto (talk • contribs)

Virginia elections.

How is it possible to you to say that a specific person is running against and incumbent US Congressman from the 6th congressional district of Virginia in the 08 Congressional Election? You state that a specific democrat is running against a Republican. You cannot make that statement at this time. Candidates to run int this Election can NOT file until January of 08. Someone may have announced that they are running but they cannot assume that they will be on the ballot. They must either circulate petitions and turn them in to SBE after the start of the 08 year. Also political parties may decide how they intend to nominate persons to represent their party in this race. I believe your information is flawed by assuming that this person will by a candidate. Other people could come forward to challenge someone who has announced his candidacy and their could be independents who file by the appropriate deadline by circulating petitions. A more accurate statement would be that someone (a democrat) has announced that he intends to run. Please check the Va. Election code which is 24.2 or the Virginia Constitution which clarifies the procedures for becoming a candidate and the deadlines that are in this portion of the Code of Virginia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.12.80.193 (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I corrected Virginia's 6th congressional district to state that Sam Rasoul "is seeking the democratic nomination to challenge Goodlatte." I see that the page Sam Rasoul was deleted as a vanity article, so there could be some undue promotion going on here. If the primary election is contested, please do add the names of other candidates. (Anyone can edit Wikipedia by clicking on the "edit this page" tab at the top of each article.) Wareh 02:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of saying

what is the meaning and origin of "you shoot the queen's arrows, you wear the queen's scarlet"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susyq123 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the source, but I'd guess that the person saying this is implying that the arrows that they are using and the (scarlet) clothing they are wearing are supplied by the Queen. This means that there is also an obligation of loyalty to the Queen because of the Queen supplying the goods that they're using. What's the context of the saying? Is it from a book? 130.56.65.24 02:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"We wear the Queen's scarlet" is attributed to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, when a contingent of U.S. Cavalry escorted a band of disaffected Cree who had fled to U.S. territory back to the border in 1885— and were astonished to find just four Mounties waiting to escort the Cree back to their reservation lands in Canada: "Where's your regiment?" the American officer asked. "We're all here," a young officer responded. "You see, we wear the Queen's scarlet." The anecdote is quoted in Daniel Francis, The Imaginary Indian: The Image of the Indian in Canadian Culture 1992, p. 72. --Wetman 07:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what the "queen's arrows" are - which queen? when? arrows? - but the "queen's scarlet" is presumably an allusion to the red coat of the British Army and Queen Victoria (also works for Queen Elizabeth II, of course) - and not the Redcoats at Butlins, say! -- !! ?? 11:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Which Queen? Isn't the answer to that question obvious? The saying is in English, therefore the queen is obviously the British queen. - Fipher

Gustav Mahler. . . Violin Concert?

Is there actually now a Mahler Violin Concerto (!), or is this a joke of some sort? --S.dedalus 03:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I'd never heard of any Mahler concerto. This website seems kosher, although I must say for an "editor-in-chief" to make so many bad spelling mistakes does not bode well for his credibility. (Deryck Cook > Cooke, Wilhelm Mengelberg > Willem, virtuostic > virtuosic, piannisimo > pianissimo, attaca > attacca, preemting > pre-empting). Deryck Cooke has been dead since 1976, so I'm very surprised this realisation of his hasn't come to light till now, or even been mentioned anywhere afaik. They say the score was kept in top secret, but surely some other Mahler researchers would have been aware of any attempt he may have made to write a violin concerto. If it is a hoax, it's quite an elaborate one. A photo of the CD cover is provided, for example, and it's in the usual DG style. If it's legit, I am much intrigued, and can't wait to hear this. Thanks for drawing it to our attention, S.dedalus.

Oh, I must make this disclaimer: "Right now I half-expect Jack's beanstalk to pop up in my garden" does not mean it had anything to do with me! -- JackofOz 04:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The "scanned original score" is riddled with spelling mistakes as well. The title Konzert für Violin und grosser Orchester (Solist-Partitur) should be Konzert für Violine und großes Orchester (Solopartitur) or (Solistenpartitur). Violin fora see it as a hoax as well. See violinist.com, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the more I look at this the more things look funny; sounds like it’s a hoax unfortunately. I just noticed that the piece is supposedly in F sharp minor, the hardest possible minor key on the violin. (No open strings correspond to tonic or dominant, and since the lowest sting is G scales go very high on the instrument.) The copyright also says “Derek Lim, completely responsible person” :-) Still, a very good photo job on that Deutsche Grammophon picture! --S.dedalus 21:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I was really hoping for some new Mahler! I guess if it really was true, it would have made headlines in the Mahler world 18 months ago. I liked the quip: "I especially enjoy his somewhat exhausting sonata number three in E-flat minor, subtitiled, "Bombastic Reflections on the Death of Children," especially when played in a hushed and sinister manner suggesting bathos, pathos and sort of transcendent nobility." I wonder what long-forgotten masterpiece will be "unearthed" next - Brahms' opera? Schubert's clarinet concerto? Puccini's harpsichord sonata? Chopin's symphony? I can't wait. -- JackofOz 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to dispel any remaining doubts, scroll right to the bottom and check the date that the article was written. If even that isn't enough, check the Internet Archive version of the page from 1999. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was also hoping for a new violin concerto in the repertoire. I guess us violinist have enough concertos as it is though. :-) By the way, there doesn’t seem to be a List of compositions by Gustav Mahler article yet as there is with most other major composers. Anybody want to collaborate on it? --S.dedalus 04:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What day is it?

Have there ever been any significant breaks in the cycle of the days of the week? Cases where two large groups of people following the Jewish seven-day calendar met and couldn't agree on what day of the week it was? --67.185.172.158 04:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

From Claus Tøndering 's Calendar FAQ: "There is no record of the 7-day week cycle ever having been broken. Calendar changes and reform have never interrupted the 7-day cycles. It is very likely that the week cycles have run uninterrupted at least since the days of Moses (c. 1400 BC), possibly even longer. Some sources claim that the ancient Jews used a calendar in which an extra Sabbath was occasionally introduced. But this is probably not true." - Nunh-huh 04:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not Jewish, but some local jurisdictions have dropped days from the calendar in order to correct errors. From International Date Line:

• The Philippines was on the east side of the date line until 1844, though decidedly on the west side of the line today. As a Spanish colony, its most important communication was originally with Acapulco in Mexico. At 00:00 in London, Great Britain, 17:20 in Acapulco was about 08:04 in Manila. A 9 hour, 16 minute difference, Manila ran nearly a half-day behind Acapulco. During the 1840s, trade interests turned to China, the Dutch East Indies and adjacent areas, and the Philippines was changed to the west side of the date line. Monday, 30 December 1844 (ending up as a 365-day year) was followed by Wednesday, 1 January 1845. -- JackofOz 05:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Other places that have skipped or repeated a day of the week in order to change to the other side of the Date Line include Alaska, parts of Kiribati, and Kwajalein. There are not examples of "correcting an error", though. --Anon, 23:45 UTC, Tuesday, October 23, 2007.

I celebrate the subtle way you corrected "my" error, Anon. Thanks. -- JackofOz 00:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been documented occasions, notably in World War Two, where groups of fleeing Jews came close to, or crossed the International Date Line, with drastic implications for their religious practice. To confuse matters further, there is no universal agreement among halachists on the location of the dateline and strong arguments exist for dissenting from the use of the IDL. I know that this was on occasion "resolved" by the doubters needing to keep 2 days Sabbath... and fasting 48 hours (+1=49) for Yom Kippur. Rather them than me. --Dweller 09:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Male-female sex ratio using Social Networking Sites

I would like to know the male-female sex ratio of users on social networking websites..like facebook,orkut,myspace,etc Any sources/resources/stubs that will help me to find it ? Thanks Ritesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.248.121 (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're happy with self-declared gender (and I doubt you'll get anything better), then you can get this within Facebook, at least on for individual networks. If there are stats for the whole thing, I haven't found them yet. Algebraist 13:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Giulio Genoino

what part he play in neapolitan rising in 1647? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.78.9 (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Giulio Genoino, the 'mind of Masaniello', was a key figure in the 7 July, 1647 popular insurrection against spanish authority in Naples. A priest, lawyer, and academic, Genoino had for three decades attempted to influence constitutional change to involve the Third Estate in the government of the city. Despite being a representative of Spain to Naples, he was accused of spreading sedition and instigating riots during unrest in 1585 and 1620. After periods of imprisonment and exile, and then in his 80's, he returned to Naples and began advising the fisherman and smuggler Tommaso Aniello—later know as Masaniello—a popular figure among the city's populace. Genoino was the real power behind the popular movement, and supplied the directionless and illiterate Masaniello with advice and a coherent policy. Following the uprising of 7 July, and the assassination of Masaniello on 16 July, the Viceroy attempted to restore order by handing governance of the city to Genoino. He was unable to resist the extremest demands of the populace, and following a second revolution in August Genoino was exiled and the Neapolitan Republic proclaimed.

References

• (July 1997) "July 7th, 1647: Masaniello's Naples Revolt against Spain." History Today. '47
• Calabria, Antonio (1990) Good Government in Spanish Naples. p. 254. OCLC 19815217
• Kamen, Henry (1971) The Iron Century: Social Change in Europe, 1550-1660. p. 362-3. OCLC 278868

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

Bravo, Eric. Since that included the references upon which it was based, I just turned it into the article Giulio Genoino. Wareh 21:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Winter War

What did the Brits do to help Finland in the war against Russia and should they have done more? Irishbard 12:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See Winter War#foreign support. No. Algebraist 13:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Just imaigine what would have happened if the British and French had managed to send an expeditionary force to Finland, having first obtained permission from Norway and Sweden for the transit of troops and supplies. For a start they would have ended up at war with both Hitler and Stalin at the same time, which could only have strengthened the Nazi-Soviet Pact still further. Western Europe would have been even more exposed than it already was, and Hitler would would have a perfectly valid excuse for attacking the Scandinavian countries, almost certainly cutting lengthy lines of communication, catching the Allies in the rear as they faced the Soviets in the front. The best assessment of the 'Artic gamble' is that of A G Mazour, who in Finland Between East and West emphasises the importance of the Finnish decision in March 1940 to make peace with Stalin, rather than request help from the West:

On March 1, 1940, Finland, stood before a great decision: to ally herself with the West or to succumb to the East. As the small nation analysed all the possible hardships each choce entailed, it decided to take the humble road to Moscow instead of the westward road. By taking it Finland at least spared her neighbour Sweden from being drawn into the conflict. And who can tell? Perhaps by the same token Finland averted a Soviet-German military alliance, surely a contribution for which the Western Allies could be grateful.

Absolutely! But in the long run Finnish tenacity did have important consequences for the whole course of the Second World War. The poor performance of the Red Army caused Hitler to make some serious miscalculations, one of the most significant factors in the planning of Operation Barbarossa Clio the Muse 00:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that the Finnish decision meant that after Germany attacked the USSR, that country as a result became one of the allies and consequently Finland unintentionally became one of the axis power (an 'ally' of Germany). If the British had attacked the USSR before that, that would have made it weirder still - they would have been fighting an ally and consequently become one of the axis powers too, despite being attacked by Germany. I wonder what historians would have made of that. Would they have branded GB an extraneous power or something? DirkvdM 17:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I can untangle some of that, for the benefit of the viewers, you understand. First of all, although the Finns accepted some military assistance from the Germans, they always maintained that in the Continuation War they were fighting their own limited parallel conflict, refusing to join in wider operations, like the offensive against Leningrad. They did not join the Tripartite Pact and were not therefore part of the Axis. The British never had any intention of 'attacking' the USSR: the aim was to assist the Finns in their own defence. There is no evidence that the British or the French ever planned to declare war. It would have been quite possible to engage in major military operations without such a declaration, just as the Soviets and the Japanese had shown on the borders of Manchuria. In any case, the Allies would have been caught between a Russian hammer and a German anvil, which would have driven them out of Scandinavia, in much the same fashion as they were by the Germans alone in the Norwegian Campaign of 1940. 'Being at war with Russia', I stress again, would not automatically make a country an Axis power. There are no conceivable circumstances in which Britain would have taken the positive step of making peace with Germany-the main enemy-to join the Tripartite Pact. The suggestion is quite ludicrous. What is likely to have happened is that, assuming a state of semi-belligerency, Britain and Russia would have set aside mutual grievances to fight against a common enemy. Clio the Muse 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, having a common enemy doesn't necessarily make allies. But it would have created an awkward situation. Note that there is a section Axis powers#Finland, although it starts by saying Finland wasn't an axis power. But then goes on to say in what ways Finland and Germany cooperated. Also note that the map at the top of that article first shows Finland as neutral, then as an axis power and then, towards the end of the war, as one of the Allies. I suppose an important factor here is that, afaik, Finland has long gone its own way and stayed neutral since WWII. So it's likely they wouldn't have taken sides in WWII either, had they not been forced to. They were fighting their own war, just cooperating with whoever happened to be their enemy's enemy. DirkvdM 08:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Armada

How important was the English victory as an event in European history? 86.151.241.81 16:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Protestantism would have been curtailed in England, I don't know how it would have applied to the continent. Corvus cornix 18:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See Spanish_Armada#Consequences? Exxolon 19:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It showed that Spain was not invincible, encouraging the Protestant factions in the Netherlands and France to continue with their struggle. If the Spanish had won it is difficult to see, with Philip II in control of England, the North Sea and the Channel, how the Dutch coould have maintained their independence, or how Henry IV could have emerged as king of France. Henry brought the Wars of Religion to an end, which had kept France weak in the face of Habsburg power in Spain and the Empire. France was now set to emerge as a serious rival to Spain, which was to do much to contribute to that country's ensuing political and military decline. The Armada crisis also ended the alienation between England and Scotland, occasioned by the execution in 1587 of Mary Queen of Scots. James VI, wary of the greater danger, assured Elizabeth of his support in the dangerous summer of 1588, thus moving the countries further forward on the path of eventual dynastic union. As far as James was concerned the victory of his cousin was a victory for "the Ile of Britain." Perhaps, in the deepest sense, the defeat of the Armada gave shape to a new and lasting identity, at once Protestant and British. For the subsequent course of European history that is perhaps the greatest consequence of all. Clio the Muse 00:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It also cost Spain. There were costs in terms of ships, men, arms and bullion. Also, as Charles V found out to his cost, it cost in terms of attention-span. The Spanish empire was so vast and administrative processes were so cumbersome, it was difficult for the King to multitask appropriately. Paying attention to a crisis that ends in failure was therefore all the more galling and costly. Finally, it reduced the impact of the threat Elizabeth felt from excommunication, as the most likely executor of the penalties of that punishment had been stymied. --Dweller 11:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the effect it would have had on the Netherlands. The fact that the English won in one fell swoop meant they could build up strength against the new major opponent, the Netherlands - see Anglo-Dutch Wars. If the Spanish would have won the sea battle, the two would probably have had to fight a land war after that, which would have weakened them both. In the meantime, the Netherlands would, at least at first, not have been affected and been able to build up strength. Then again, if Spain would have won eventually, then it would have been a bigger single force, so the Dutch would have needed that strength. But more importantly, Philip II was a religious fanatic, who may have been much more eager to attack the Netherlands. It's risky to speculate about such details because it's all much too intricate, but I suppose the biggest effect was that an old power had not only lost a major battle, but also face, which gave others more courage and gave room for new powers to arise. I wonder now, was this the decisive factor in the decline of Spain, or was it a symptom of something that was already happening for some time? DirkvdM 18:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Attitudes to slavery

This year marks the two hundredth anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in the British empire. In the eighteenth century slavery had been such an essential part of the economy. I was wondering when and under what circumstances opinion turned against the trade. Brodieset 18:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was formed in 1787, but the Quakers had been campaigning against the slave trade since at least the early 1700s if not earlier. There was little moral argument for slavery - it was just more profitable than alternative investments: ship owners could make handsome profits from the three legs of the triangular trade, and so were rather keen to keep the trade running; not to mention the operators of collateral businesses, such as the manufacturers of tools and equipment for use by the slaves on the plantations.

Perhaps we can stir in the pot factors including the court cases, like the Somersett's Case and the Zong; the loss of the American colonies (and the encouragement of the Black Loyalists to fight for the British); and the active campaigning of the Committee, and people like William Wilberforce, Granville Sharp and Thomas Clarkson; slave narratives and other books, like those of Ukawsaw Gronniosaw and Olaudah Equiano; the Haitian Revolution; and images like the Wedgwood image of the slave saying "Am I not a Man and a Brother?", and the cross-sections of slave ships.

But I'm not sure that slavery was "essential" - the economy carried on after abolition of the trade much as it did before. Of course, the Slave Trade Act 1807 only abolished the trade - the slaves had to wait another 26 years for the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, and until 1838 for full abolition.

See this lecture earlier this year. -- !! ?? 19:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There is another dimension here to do with the actual location of slavery and the slave trade, activities both remote from British shores and thus removed from popular consciousness. This changed after the conclusion in 1763 of the Seven Years' War, when ever increasing numbers of enslaved men and women began to appear in London, brought there by their owners. The immediacy was shocking enough, but it also raised questions about the validity of the institution in a country where there was no slave law. It lead directly to Somersett v Steuart in 1772, when Granville Sharp argued before Lord Mansfield at the Court of King's Bench that slaveholding in England was a violation of the Common Law. To ship slave law into the country would, as Sharp put it, make England "as base, wicked, and tyrannical as our colonies." Mansfield, in finding for the plaintiff, effectively curtailed the liberties of the slave owners. Though evading the more general question about the legality of slavery as such, he had, in effect, encouraged the view that the practice was "repugnant to English laws", as one slaveholder expressed it.

There was an acute irony at work here; for the Mansfield decision defined Britain as a 'land of liberty', not long before the slave-owning American colonies began to object to being subordinated to the 'tyranny' of Parliament. "Why", Samuel Johnson asked, "do we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of Negroes?" In the ideological debates between the two sides, slavery became a political issue in a way that it had never been in the past, with the Americans insisting that if there were slaves in the colonies it was because British traders had put them there. Pratically speaking, of course, it was all posturing, and neither side took any meaningful steps to address the issues raised; but it still drew attention to slavery as a moral problem; that slavery was a vice and that opposition to slavery was a virtue.

Before the American Revolution, the British Empire was little more than a commercial opportunity; afterwards it started the process of rebirth as a kind of moral mission, where rule should be exercised, as Edmund Burke put it, "for the benefit of the governed as well as the governors." Evangelicals within the Church of England pressed for the proper pastoral care of slaves within the Empire, just as officers returning from the war urged the government to give support and assistance to the escaped American slaves who had fought with the British Army. It was now that the Quakers, who had always disliked slavery, but had not challenged the existence of the institution, began to press for abolition. Boyed up by the conviction that the British people now considered slavery as a national embarrasement, the movement moved forward, gathering support and momentum along the way. By the early 1790s the consumption of West Indian Sugar, the chief product of slavery, was plummeting, showing that abolition had indeed become the cause of the nation. Clio the Muse 02:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Church of England owned slaves, of course.

The website of the recent exhibition at Westminster Hall includes a cartoon by Gillray from 1792, satirising the "Anti-Saccharrites". Sales of sugar fell by a third, but the trade remained profitable until the end. -- 10:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have often wondered how important slavery was to the economy. The countries that abolished it flourished afterwards, didn't they? So maybe there was some realisation that it was not as profitable as it seems. Slaves are not free, but have to be kept healthy and strong so they can work hard. By contrast, a worker in a capitalist society (as appeared in the 19th century, after the abolishing of slavery) may be free in name, but can be exploited to a much higher degree. Of course, this contradicts what I just said about keeping workers healthy and strong. Am I missing something here? DirkvdM 18:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Dirk; but-hey-what's new!? Sorry, I could not resist that. So, now free labour is subject to a higher degree of exploitation than that of the slaves! Well, you are consistent, I suppose. I was rather under the impression that slavery was nothing but exploitation; that it is defined, it might be said, as exploitation in its purest form. Have you by chance been reading Uncle Robin in His Cabin in Virginia, and Tom without One in Boston, one of the many southern literary responses to Harriet Beecher Stowe? No? Well, it contrasts the condition of the happy black living under the security of slavery with that of his poor cousin living with the insecurity of free market capitalism. It's truly enlightening. Were the slaves healthy? Well, putting to one side the pneumonia, the typhus, the cholera, the lock-jaw, the tuberculosis, the intestinal worms, the rotting teeth, the malaria, and the many other trivial ailments that were endemic in slave cabins, yes, I suppose the slaves were healthy. I suppose also that the four out of a hundred who made it to the age of sixty must have been extraordinarily healthy. I remember some quotations from Ken Burns' superlative TV documentary, The Civil War, which I thought summed up the position of black people under ante-bellum slavery rather well; one from a white Mississippian, who said "I'd rather be dead than be a nigger on one of those big plantations"; one from a free black, who wrote "No day ever dawns for the slave, nor is it looked for. For the slave it is all night; all night forever." They obviously failed to recognise how healthy it all was! Clio the Muse 00:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read those books, but I do read Wikipedia. :) From the slavery article: "In times of dire need such as famine, people have offered themselves into slavery not for a purchase price, but merely so that their new master would feed and take care of them." According to the economics section (an interesting read), a slave in 1850 cost about 38,000 US$ in today's currency equivalent, so it was a huge investment. (Of course, as the slave became older, he also became less valuable, I suppose.) It also says the slave/paid worker choice has in part to do with the price of land versus labour. And in America, land was more plentiful than in England, so that may have been a factor in the abolition movement in England. DirkvdM 08:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

George Fitzhugh was the most thorough and systematic and quasi-"scientific" advocate of the position that many southern slaves were better off than many northern workers. AnonMoos 09:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Which, if true, still says nothing until you know the condition of the northern workers. DirkvdM 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hearing my native language spoken abroad

I have experienced this countless times. Every time I'm abroad, I have no problems hearing my native language (Finnish) spoken by coincidence when I'm at my destination. In faraway places (outside Sweden and Estonia, where every Finn goes at least once per year), it's actually refreshing. But when I'm coming back home, hearing Finnish spoken annoys and irritates me. I take great relief whenever I hear a fellow passenger speaking a foreign language. When I'm back in Finland, it's business as usual, and Finnish doesn't annoy me any more. Can anyone explain why this is so? JIP | Talk 19:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is really a psychological question. My native language is American English, which has a rather different relationship to the world than Finnish, of course. Still, I experience something like what you are describing. After I've spent some time in a place where I don't hear many Americans, I have an unpleasant feeling suddenly being surrounded by Americans in the departure lounge or on the flight home. The unpleasant feeling goes away more or less after I get off the plane. Personally, I enjoy being a foreigner (for a few weeks or months, anyway) and being exposed to different ways of being and talking, and there is something deeply disappointing about being part of the herd again. Marco polo 01:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of the irritation could arise from the knowledge that your trip is now truly over and you are headed back to real life. I have had similar feelings on my return journey, but not when the trip was one for business. Bielle 01:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Australians are often informed by Americans that we sound like cockneys. We of course don't believe this, because as far as we're concerned cockney-speak is significantly different from Oz-speak. Yet, many Australians have remarked that on returning home after a few months or more overseas where they haven't been mingling with other Australians, their first impression on hearing Australians speak is that it's a lot more cockney-like than they had previously been prepared to accept. But they soon get over it and get on with their richly rewarding lives. -- JackofOz 13:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a place where most people are native English speakers is not a good place to ask this, because they hear all sorts of variations of their language when traveling, so the experience will be quite different for them. Having said that, I'm Dutch and I have traveled a lot, but alas I can't relate to what you say. Maybe it's because I generally travel for about half a year. When I get home it's more like an odd culture shock. But I don't find it annoying. Actually, once when I had been away for a whole year and returned because I started to become homesick, I sat in the metro station and wasn't aware that I was smiling, but also staring at a couple, happy to see some Dutch people again, upon which the guy gave me a look of 'what are you looking at?". I was instantly cured. DirkvdM 19:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Finnish is just an irritating language? :) kiddingggggg DirkvdM 19:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean, JIP. I've experienced the same thing, but I never realized it till now. I'd always thought that it was just that Americans in general are ignorant assholes and their talk was harsh and pointless. Now I think it's that when I was abroad I could tune out the foreign talk, especially if it was in a language I don't know at all, and let the alien intonations register more as music than speech. --Milkbreath 00:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Trouble with US colonies

Which of America's new colonies gave the U.S. the greatest amount of trouble to control, and how did this struggle affect the political debate about whether a republic like the U.S. should have them
THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnl1101 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, we don't really offer homework answers here, and the likelihood is that your teacher probably has specific (assigned) readings in mind when they gave you the question. So why don't you look over your assigned reading that might pertain to this topic, and then come back if you have more specific questions about it. --24.147.86.187 00:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the Philippine-American War and take it from there. Clio the Muse 00:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

See also Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy , War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and Iraq War. Edison 02:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Colonies? Oh dear! Clio the Muse 02:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq have every been a colony of the United States of America, and currently the U.S. government has not publicly expressed any desire for colonization, and so neither of these cases should have anything to do with this question. -Fipher

October 23

Here is a silly question

If Muslims astronauts establishes a moon base on the surface of the moon. How do they determine as to when the holy month of Ramadan begins? I don't suppose they can stick their head out and look for a sign of a new moon. 202.168.50.40 03:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, presumably they would call someone on Earth and ask – also, they could just do as the Koran says: "And whosoever of you is present, let him fast the month, and whosoever of you is sick or on a journey, let him fast the same number of other days. Allah desireth for you ease; He desireth not hardship for you; and He desireth that ye should complete the period..." That is, they could just pick a month to fast in and Allah would be happy with that. And He's not too much of a stickler about the direction in which you say your prayers, either, it's the thought and effort that count. (Some people of cours disagree and insist on silly extremes of precision.)--Rallette 08:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny question. If they're smart enough to have a moon base, they're smart enough to figure out when Ramadan is without the moon's help. Wrad 16:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

One would assume that they would simply use the declaration of a sighting of the new moon by the authorities in Mecca, which some earthbound Muslims do anyways. It's also worth noting that the first official guidelines for Muslims in space during Ramadan have just been issued, prompted by the launch of Malaysia's first astronaut at the end of the recently concluded lholy month. See Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor#Spaceflight and religion for a fairly good overview and references to external links, though I imagine that someone will start the article Guidelines for Performing Islamic Rites at the International Space Station at some point. - BanyanTree 22:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Damn, Rallette, you spoiled my fun. I wanted to ask "on their way to the Moon, if the space vehicle is over Mecca at prayer time, would they have to stand on their heads?" Alas, I have the answer now. Ignorance can be much more fun than knowledge. DirkvdM 09:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've always enjoyed the idea that a Muslim near Fangataufa Tematangi in the South Pacific could turn any way s/he wishes and still be pointing the shortest route to Mecca. :) --Sean 19:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Iranian Numerology

I don't know if anyone can help me with this but I'm stumped so here it goes.

A friend of mine recently returned from a stay in Iran, while there she purchased a ring for me. It is inscribed with Eastern Arabic Numerals on the topside and Koranic caligraphy on the bottom. She said it is some sort of traditional numerology but is unaware what purpose it serves. The numbers are, as best as I can make out, reading from right to left:687 2468 8642 4286 6824 . Anybody have an idea?

150.108.160.114 05:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Arabic (and Hebrew) numbers are read from left to right. One of the groups is almost certainly in reference to the Islamic associations of 786 (number) (see also Abjad numerals), while the other groups seem to be permutations of the even digits. AnonMoos 13:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you get really technical, Arabic numbers aren't read left to right, they're read right to left, sort of. When they read 25, they read it like "five and twenty", in the end, though, the number is the same. 325, though, is read "three hundred and five and twenty". They used to only read right to left on all numbers, no matter how big, but now that's changed a bit: now only the last two digits are. Still, in western eyes, it makes no difference. Wrad 15:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that in Dutch and German, numbers are read out in that way too, except with one less 'and'; three hundred five and twenty. DirkvdM 09:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Influence of abolition

I read with great interest the answer to yesterday's question on the slave trade, which prompted one of my own. How important was the British decision to end the trade in 1807 for the rest of the world? Stockmann 05:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it brought international focus to the whole issue. Britain was not the first country to abolish the trade: the Danish had in 1792, though this was of limited significance. The French went further, abolishing slavery outright in 1794, though later subject to partial reversal. During the course if the Napoleonic Wars the British seized slavers, thus serving their strategic aims, their commercial interests and the wider moral purpose. It was after the war that the real test came. Britain exercised what pressure it could on clients and protégés, including the Dutch, the Portuguese and the French Bourbons, as well as the emerging countries in Latin America. There was also direct action against the Barbary States of North Africa, ancient centres of slaving. It was a slow process of persuasion, policing and pressure that brought a gradual shift in attitudes across the globe. Clio the Muse 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Clio. Stockmann 07:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way the U.S. constitution in 1789 had a provision preventing Congress from passing a law banning the slave trade before 1808. AnonMoos 09:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Denikin's Moscow Offensive

I'm doing some background research on aspects of the Russian Civil War, and have been browsing through some of your pages on the subject, unfortunately not quite as complete as I would have wished! Nothing is perfect, I suppose. What I am looking for in particular is for some more detail on the course of Anton Denikin's Moscow offensive of 1919. Thanks for any help you can offer. Zinoviev4 08:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are two standard references for you to get hold of. Xn4 15:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Lehovich, Dimitry V: White Against Red: the Life of General Anton Denikin (New York, 1974)
2. Kenez, Peter: Civil War in South Russia 1917-1920: The defeat of the Whites (Berkeley, 1972)

P.S. For a short overview, see the article Anton Denikin at 1911encyclopedia.org. Xn4 15:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would, in addition to the above suggestions by Xn4, recommend Ewan Mawdsley's The Russian Civil War (Edinburgh, 1997), specifically Part 2-1919:the Year of the Whites (pp. 115-194). It was in Tsaritsyn in July, 1919 that Denikin issued Order No. 08878-the Moscow Directive, outlining the future projected strategy of the Volunteer Army. The offensive, which began later that season with great promise, was ro fail because of numerical weakness, poor organisation and lack of mass appeal. Clio the Muse 02:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

humanities

HOW DO WE WRITE AN ABSTRACT FOR AN AN ARTICLE OR A SEMINAR PAPER? SOMENZÁ61.2.183.171 10:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not in all caps. Skarioffszky 11:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The abstract is summary of the paper. It should stand on its own, be really short and concise, stating what the paper is about and what the results are. It should be an advertisement for the paper that makes the reader want to read the whole thing. Make sure that you state clearly, as soon as possible (ideally in the very first sentence) what the problem or issue is addressed by the paper. Also make clear (very briefly!), if it isn't completely and totally obvious, why that is an important problem or interesting issue. Then give your main results (if they are improvements on earlier results, make clear how they improve them), and your main conclusions: for example, if it isn't completely and totally obvious, why your results should make us happy, or what we can do with them we couldn't do before, or what we know now we didn't know, or why this means we need to do more research.  --Lambiam 15:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Roman salute

Was the Roman Salute compulsory in Mussolini's Italy? 86.147.190.207 11:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was some moves after Achille Starace was appointed Secretary of the National Fascist Party in 1931 to make Italians more militant by, amongst other things, making the Roman salute the compulsory form of greeting. Mere hand shaking was denounced as effete and foreign. The Roman style was also, so it was said, healthier. The Fascist press noted how much better it would be if politicians, like the American President, Herbert Hoover, who had to shake so many hands, threw up their arm in the Roman salute instead! (Just imagine Dubya!) Starace, in justifying the measure, urged all Fascists to lead by example 'among their family and in public.' "It cannot be said", he wrote, "that the Roman salute is being imposed out of false showmanship since it has not been dreamed up coldly by someone sitting at a desk or consulting books. Rather the salute has returned [from Roman times] spontaneously, as a logical necessity in our epoch of squdrism." I have no idea if it caught on. Ah, well, Me ne frego! Clio the Muse 00:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

James I of Scotland and Pope Eugenius IV

You are my last hope! I know this is probably a really, really obscure request but I urgently need to know the date of Pope Eugenius' letter to James I (r. 1406-1437) appointing a nuncio to the Scottish court, together with the name of the nuncio in question. I trust you good people, so I hope this is not too much to ask. 193.130.15.240 13:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Dictionary of National Biography (3rd Google hit for "eugenius james nuncio") indicates the nuncio was William Croyser, Archdeacon of Teviotdale, and that this happened in or soon after 1429. Wareh

If you look in the Calendar of Papal Registers-Papal Letters, vol. VIII, 1427-1447, ed. J. A. Twemlow, 1909, you will find a letter from Eugenius IV to James I dated July 1436 (p. 229-no precise date is given). The legate in question is Anthony, Bishop of Urbino. There seems to have been some delay in giving decision on this matter, and more than one request, for the letter says;

"The Pope was unable to do so quickly, on account of his attention being distracted by divers hindrances and the badness of the times."

This clearly supersedes any earlier missive, but for further clarification on the matter I would suggest that you consult James I King of Scots by A. A. M. Duncan (Glasgow, 1984) or James I, King of Scots, 1394-1437 by E. W. M. Balfour-Melville (London, 1936). Clio the Muse 23:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, man. 193.130.15.240 12:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ecna or Ecne

In the context of Irish foklore who or what is Ecne or Ecna? Irishbard 13:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

He was the god of knowledge, one of the Tuatha Dé Danann. See here. Xn4 16:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've created a new stub, Ecne. Xn4 16:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

National Vocational Competition

I came across a mention of this in an old account of life in Nazi Germany. Any idea what it is?

Look like it's to do with the Hitler Youth see http://ww.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=National+Vocational+Competition+nazi&meta=87.102.7.135 18:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This surely has to be the Reichsberufswettkampf-National Vocational Competition-an annual competition for manual workers on their understanding of their work and its connection with the Nazi way of life. The idea was to demonstrate the loyalty of workers to the regime. Introduced in 1933, it was extended in 1938 to include virtually all forms of employment, as well as students. The winners were presented to Robert Ley, head of the German Labour Front, and to Hitler in person. Clio the Muse 23:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hanlon's Law

This is a follow-up to an earlier discussion on the 15th October 2007 vis à vis malice as opposed to stupidity in the direction of people's conduct or pronouncements. There's an entry for Hanlon's Law but who was the Hanlon that coined it? Any ideas Jatrius 14:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you have a look at Hanlon's Law? According to the article a certain Robert J. Hanlon submitted it for a book compilation of various jokes related to Murphy's law; see also this external link from the article.  --Lambiam 16:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did and all the article stated was the maxim itself rather than any reference to Mr Hanlon himself. A search of Hanlon brought up several alternatives, mostly sportsmen but none were credited with the coinage. Hence my posting. Strange. Be that as it may, thanks for the reponse. Jatrius 16:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Jatrius, did you look at the blog link above? It is pretty explicit about who Hanlon was. He was just some guy who sent in the offer. He apparently died relatively young and is otherwise not terribly notable. --24.147.86.187 01:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Some say "Robert Hanlon" is a corruption of Robert A. Heinlein. —Tamfang 18:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fernão Mendes Pinto

He was elected mamposteiro(deputy) of São Lázaro e Albergaria. Is this a village, a church or what?--Tresckow 17:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Many things have been named after São Lázaro. Do you have any context such as when and where this happened?  --Lambiam 17:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Portugal, the late 16th century. In context with abovementioned guy.--Tresckow 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There's someone on the German Wikipedia who uses that exact phrase... oh, wait - that's you. Okay, back to the drawing board. Lambiam wasn't kidding when he said that a lot of things were named for São Lázaro. It turns out there are many, many places, buildings, etc. so named. The Portuguese Wikipedia redirects "São Lázaro" to Lázaro, which doesn't shed any light on place names. I found that the Raio Palace (scroll down to #5) in Braga, Portugal is named after a Viscount of São Lázaro, indicating that São Lázaro was probably a place. The Portuguese WP disambiguates Albergaria, but I think the proper one would be Albergaria-a-Velha, a distrito in Portugal which happens to be near Braga. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that "São Lázaro e Albergaria" is (or was) a place within the distrito of Albergaria. I wish I could be more specific, but the only webpage that Google returns for that phrase is your German WP page. There are no other references to it. 152.16.59.190 04:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort I hoped some Potuguese would be able to give a precise answer. However I think you are right. Most likely it is a village around Braga. Thanks again.--Tresckow 10:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

MBA

What are the conditions related to decision making? How it affects various types of decision making? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaya Mishra (talk • contribs) 17:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The page Decision making may be helpful. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Low Equity

Hi there, I am a father with a high school education, working as a taxi cab driver. I have 2 two children, 6 and 4 years-old. I want to know is that what are the monthly payments to the City Of Toronto, Government Of Ontario and Government of Canada and what are the social programs provided by the City Of Toronto, Government of Ontario and Government of Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.152 (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

See the answer above to an almost identical question posed on this Ref Desk a week ago on October 16th (#13). I certainly have no more information on the topic for you. Bielle 00:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your local members of the provincial and federal parliaments may be able to direct you to the social-services people you need to talk to. -- Mwalcoff 01:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

October 24

$3000 in 1849

How much is the equivalent of $3000 (USD) in 1849 worth today? Obviously such historical calculations are going to be pretty imprecise, but if I could just have some sort of barometer, even in the terms of the 19th century (e.g. "a year's pay for someone of profession X", or "the cost of X number of horses" or whatever), it would be great. I'm just looking for the right order of magnitude here. --24.147.86.187 03:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• See The Inflation Calculator which can handle such calculations for any year from 1800 to 2006. "What cost $3000 in 1849 would cost $67483.88 in 2006." --Metropolitan90 04:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Related question: Is a barometer really that imprecise? Why do people refer to it metaphorically as if it's a very imprecise guage? --ffroth 05:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because they tend to get less precise over time. DirkvdM 09:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A barometer can accurately measure atmospheric pressure at any given instant, but it is the change in measurements that is used in predictions. When used metaphorically, it is used to mean something that indicates changes - "a barometer of public opinion." This should be on the Language Desk, but I couldn't tell where that was with only colors to guide me. --LarryMac | Talk 14:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Coincidentally, for another thread I just now read in the slavery article that 1000 US$ in 1850 (close enough) is 38,000 US$ in present equivalent currency. So that would then be 114,000 US$, almost twice what that inflation calculator says. I suppose it's very difficult to compare. Probably depends on what you want to buy. DirkvdM 09:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Precisely - given its name, I suspect the calculator only adjusts for inflation. To get a better feel for the value of money, you also need to take into account the cost of living (that is, how much it costs to maintaing a similar standard of living). -- !! ?? 11:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. But those figures help me a bit. My figuring is that it was in the range of at least $100,000 today, but just wanted to make sure I wasn't totally in the wrong ballpark. That's close enough for my purposes. Thanks a bunch; I was having trouble finding historical converters that went back to the 19th century, but I obviously wasn't searching with the right terms. --24.147.86.187 12:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tumbo, 3rd son of Shiva

I am looking for information on a Rom God (gypsy) called 'Tumbo'. I was told that the name means 'stupid' and that his incarnation is elicited by seducing the village 'idiot' during a specific time and in public. The child resulting is the incarnation of this God. In the DIVINE world, he is supposedly the third son of Shiva. Can anyone direct me to source information?BrianzXz 05:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Does this help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix (talk • contribs) 21:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Help with an origami envelope

I have to make a guess as to whether this is the right desk to ask at, because the nice pictures with subcategory captions in the main reference desk page have been removed and replaced with a pretty ugly looking sidebar. Anyway, here goes.

I'm trying to fold this envelope, but I'm having a lot of trouble going from steps 7-9, mainly with doing step 8; I have no clue at all what step 8 is asking me to do. Can anyone help on this?

lvlarx 07:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why you posted this on the Humanities page...

However I hope this helps. I have folded the envelope and wonder if you proceeded right from step 5. You fold the triangle down on the _.._.._ line and tuck in the squares at the sides like gussets.

Then at step 8 you take the two points at the bottom and fold them up so their edges lie along the sides of the envelope. The tips of the crane's beak and tail are the two points that lie together at the bottom at step 8. The little strips of the reverse colur are flipped over when you fold.

It's hard to explain: I hope the pictures help! SaundersW 14:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• step 5
  step 5
• step 6
  step 6
• step 7
  step 7
• step 8
  step 8
• step 9
  step 9
• step 10
  step 10

---

This diagram, with a slightly different start, might help. This close-up of the finished product might help you figure out some of the folds. I couldn't find anything else online that might help with the folding process. 152.16.188.107 06:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

taxes for international travelers

I saw that you have to pay taxes only if you live more than 185 days in a country. But what happens if you live in three countries about 100 days in each? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tax laws vary from country to country; there is certainly no international law such as the 185-day thing. In your three-country example, it may well be the case that country A requires you to pay no tax, B requires a pro-rated tax, and C requires a full year's tax. — Lomn 14:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tax law does vary, but, assuming that you live in three countries with a 185-day tax free law, you would, in theory, avoid paying tax. You do have to be quite careful in doing such things, because if you're living off business income from one of those countries, or something similar, you may have to pay tax on it, regardless of your time in the country. There are some regulations to restrict the ways that you can do these things. You would have to consult a financial advisor in each of the proposed countries to be assured that it is legal/possible. Steewi 01:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

kabballa

Resolved

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#keira_knightley.'s_religion

Is this really a religion - without starting a debate can someone with some knowledge of these things explain - ie clarify what it means when someone is described as a kabballist - (is the word related to 'cobblers' - joke?).87.102.94.157 12:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For instance can a jew be a kabbalist - would this be recognised as a sect of judaism by other jews - or not/what?87.102.94.157 13:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We have an article on kaballah that may help. Kaballah has quite a long history before it became the new Scientology. Friday (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering what a 'typical jew' (I think I mean proscribed jewish response - or whatever the equivalent is - can't think of the word) would think of a non-jew decribing themself as a kabbalist - disbelief, anger, curiosity, happiness?87.102.94.157 13:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Kabballa is not a religion. It's a mystical area of study within Judaism. Traditionally, people had to be extremely knowledgable, married and 40+ (ie studious, mature and worldly wise) before they were allowed to study Kabballa's secrets. I've heard the analogy of Kaballa being like the roof on the house; trying to put the roof on (study it) before digging foundations and building strong walls (getting a good basis of study in more conventional Jewish learning) is doomed (at best) to being a waste of time. --Dweller 14:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, going back as far as the middle ages, the Christians (and others) appropriated kabbalistic teachings and symbolism. So you can't call it exclusively "Jewish" anymore (altho I've no doubt there are Jews who would dispute this.) The top of the article even links to other articles on non-Jewish kabbalah. Friday (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Kabbalah is Jewish mysticism. Christians have "appropriated" elements, which then however cease to be "Kabbalah", but instead qualify as Renaissance magic. dab (𒁳) 14:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Renaissance magic from which another question arises - see below Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#spatula/scapula87.102.94.157 14:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - reminds me of 'new-agers' in the 80's all reading about Hinduism..87.102.94.157 14:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarfiy, it's not a religion; it's a way of perceiving the world, the universe and God. Its deepest secrets can supposedly unlock the barriers between the "natural" and the "supernatural", which is one reason why down the centuries, it's attracted magical quackery and charlatans, as well as well-intentioned, sincere devotees. --Dweller 16:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a practicing (Qabalist/kabalist/cabalist). Yes, Jewish tradition incorporates Qabala, and as a matter of fact a popular Sidur is "Tehillat HaShem" which relies on Qabalistic theory as developed by the "Zohar" (Book of Splendor). The Zohar was apparently written in about the 11th or 12th centuries and describes specific spiritual practices which are congruous to Jewish beliefs but are not prevalent in common Jewish practice. While Qabala is Mystical Judaism, it's departure from common traditions could be interpreted as a unique religion. The first written Qabalistic treatise is credited to the first century CE and is called "Sepher Yetzira" (Book of Formation). This book decribes 32 paths of widom or intelligence which create a map from the human mind to the throne of GOD, and formulate a tool for identifying phenomina in the observable and invisible universe. The secrets of the Qabala are encoded into the first four books of the Torah, but are withheld from Deuteronomy. The system is creditied to Moses who was learned in ancient Jewish mysticism, called Merkevah, Egyptian mysticism, and Zoroastrianism as learned from his father-in-law, a 'priest of fire' (see: Zarathustra). Christian mystics adopted the system after the 12th century, however "Renaissance Magick" is a bit broad since it contains other elements other than Qabala. Christian adaptation of Qabalistic material would be better pursued under the heading of ROSICRUCIANISM. (Source material: Christian Rosenkreutz, Fama Fraternitatis, Templars, Masons)BrianzXz 21:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish people hearing about Madonna studying Kabbalah have the same eyes-rolling reaction as a Buddhist monk from Thailand must have when hearing about Jack Kerouac's interest in Zen. -- Mwalcoff 23:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Schattendorf Incident

What was the Shattendorf Incident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qurious Cat (talk • contribs) 12:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The shooting of two people, one of them an eight-year-old child, in a demonstration in Schattendorf in 1927. See Austrian Civil War, third paragraph of that section.--Rallette 13:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

see here: The Schattendorf led to the July Revolt of 1927. The incident itself is also mentioned.--85.180.47.137 15:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So would someone (anons can't do this) like to create Schattendorf Incident, and I guess also Schattendorf incident, as redirects to one of the above pages? --Anonymous, 22:00 UTC, October 24, 2007.

Thanks, that's better. --Anon, 01:59 UTC, Oct. 26.

Oleksh Rozumovsky

In the context of Ukranian history who was Oleksh Rozumovsky? S S Septimus 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

could this be Alexey Razumovsky?87.102.94.157 13:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

editing an entry

Hi, I'm trying to make a few changes to the entry on me (Sidney Wade) but when I hit the "edit" button on the biographical section, what comes up is the "Work" section for editing. How do I gain entry to the biographical page to edit it? Thanks, SidneyWadeSidneywade 14:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit link you are hitting (indeed the only "section edit" link on the page) is for the Work section. You would need to use the "edit this page" link at the top. However, it is very much frowned upon to edit one's own entry. If there are factual discrepancies, you might want to post an entry on the Talk page and request that somebody verify and make the changes. --LarryMac | Talk 14:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The section edit links identify the section by sequence number, not name. When you click on the link and it brings up the wrong section, that means that you were looking at an out-of-date copy of the page: someone has edited it to add or delete a section, which changes the numbering. So you need to do whatever you do in your browser to ignore any caching and force the loading of a new copy of the page. (In Firefox on Linux, View->Reload or control-R.) Then the numbering will be correct and the section edit link will do what you expect.

This happens most frequently on pages that are frequently edited, like the reference desks. --Anonymous, 22:07 UTC, October 24, 2007.

Happens on some static pages, too. Pages with many images are usually the culprits. Hover over the link to see what section it applies to. BTW, the Wikipedia cabal "frowns on" many things. Just go for it! —Nricardo 04:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

spatula/scapula

From the page Renaissance magic - a link to Spatulamancy - divination using shoulder blades..

I'm aware of the term scapulimancy - (looks like a redirect or merge is in order..)

But.. Is the term Spatulamancy even correct? eymology of spatula says 'spoon' - is this a spelling mistake, or is the term in proper use?87.102.94.157 14:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Spatulamancy is indeed divination through the shoulder blades of an animal. Etymologically Spatula comes from the Latin feminine for Shoulder-blade.

Scapulimancy is divination by means of the cracks made in a shoulder-blade when it is put in a fire.

A small difference but an important one. (Still begs the question how you read such dividations...) Lord Foppington 16:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmmh the article scapulimancy makes the distinction between pyroltic scapulimancy and just plain old scapulimancy.. I'm in no position to make changes here..

The interpretation of pyroltic scapulimancy is well describe by the way - try oracle bone, as for the other.. no idea.87.102.94.157 19:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds not unlike extispicy, but rather less messy! Xn4 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Confederate armory

Can anyone tell me anymore about the confederate armory in Richmaond? 86.148.38.68 15:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The subject is from an early enough era that Google book search allows you to view the full text of a number of vintage books which discuss this armory. See "A Short History of the Confederate States of America" (1890) By Jefferson Davis, page 119[3]. The establishment of the armory is discussed in "The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union" ... By John Sheldon Moodey et al pages 491-492 [4]. See also "Jefferson Davis, Ex-president of the Confederate States of America" By Varina Davis, page 374 [5] . The machinery came in large part from the arsenal at Harper's Ferry which was burned by the federal government, as related in "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" By Jefferson Davis, page 317 [6]. The burning of the Richmond armory when the city was facing capture is related in "History of the United States of America Under the Constitution" By James Schouler page 606 [7]. A good overall discussion is in The ordnance of the Confederacy" chapter in "The Photographic History of the Civil War in Ten Volumes By Francis Trevelyan Miller, Robert Sampson Lanier" [8]. There is a tabulation of all armaments issued from the armory. There is also the interesting calculation that it took, on average, more than a man's weight in bullets to kill each soldier slain. There is a photo of the armory after its burning on page 307 [9]. You can find other facts about it in other books from Google books. A visit to a library will add more recent coverage from civil war histories. Edison 15:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A legal question

What is the difference between mens rea and specific intent? I am writing an article called Settled insanity and am getting confused. Thanks! --Mattisse 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As mens rea says, is one of the two required elements that need to be proven in common law jurisductions to establish that a criminal offence has been committed. It is the mental element ("guilty mind") - the other required element is the "guilty act" (actus reus).

The level of mental volition required varies from crime to crime - it is often broken down into could be intention (i.e. intending to do something wrong - compare malice aforethought), knowledge (of what you are doing), recklessness (as to whether you are doing something wrong) and negligence (that is, breaching a duty of care - sometimes limited to gross negligence).

Specific intent is a special sort of mental element required for certain crimes in certain jurisductions (as opposed to a "basic intent"). Intent here just means the mens rea required for the crime in question - it does not necessarily mean intention (although that may be the level of the "specific intent" required).

"Specific intent" can also mean a specific intention (i.e. the intention to do something in particular); or an intention in addition to some other mental element; or a state of mind that can be negatived by voluntary intoxication (i.e. the fact that you are drunk can be taken into account in working out whether you have the necessary mens rea, as opposed to a "basic intent" that cannot be negatived by intoxication, even if the mens rea is not actually present). I presume this is what you are thinking of, in the context of settled insanity? -- !! ?? 18:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. I will have to think about what you said so I can grasp it! Thanks! --Mattisse 22:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Motorway cult

Is there such a thing as a cult or religion that worships motorways or roads? Keria 18:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mankind? DirkvdM 19:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to see long flat surfaces as gods, though I rather think the modern world would quickly collapse into barbarity without them. However, in the UK we have a revivalist body, the Campaign for Better Transport (better known as Transport 2000), which believes zealously in railways. I've noticed that as the religion of global warming gathers pace, the demonization of the car is beginning to cross the Atlantic. Xn4 20:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Some people might feel that NASCAR and other motorsport fans could be so described, but as for specific organized worship of roadways themselves, I doubt it. Also, be careful of describing anthropogenic climate change as "religion", lest you anger the all-mighty prophet: Al Gore, Inventor of the Internets...and because by so describing climate predictions backed up by numerous peer-reviewed studies and relying on this thing we call science you insult religion. Now then, I believe I was in the middle of selling you some carbon credits and beachfront property in Arizona. Interested? 38.112.225.84 23:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And Gore even got a Nobel Prize for his little film. Scientists the world over make this impressive report, for which they justly receive the Nobel Prize, and then he makes a flawed documentary about it and gets to share the stage with them. Worse even, the media put the spotlight on him as if the IPCC didn't matter. They're the ones who did all the work. DirkvdM 07:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's little hope of angering the mighty prophet Al Gore, but ever since climate predictions began they have always been backed up by any number of peer-reviewed studies. Oddly enough, we have no record of these climatologists ever getting it right. Our global cooling article reveals that temperatures were falling around the world from the 1940s to the 1970s, leading to predictions of a new ice age. Alas, like the equally inconvenient medieval warm period, that fails to help the current theories of global warming caused by industrial emissions. So perhaps there is an insult to religion in comparing it unjustly with climatology. Xn4 05:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What, you expect scientists in this difficult field to always get every detail right? The main prediction was that climate change would take place and that globally there would be warming. Which is exactly what has been happening for the last decades, the last decade even so severely that we need only a very limited number of measurements (we only get one per year) to have (as good as) certainty that the Earth is warming up. Statistically, that is quite impressive to say the least considering the chaotic system that's being researched. So it's happening at an incredible speed. And still you claim that the prediction has not come true? What planet are you from? DirkvdM 07:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I know it's shocking that science has self-correcting mechanisms and is subject to changes based on new technology and evidence, but there it is. Also, I fail to see how noting past variability in the paleoclimate record, accounting of course for sensitivity to both known and unknown events, automatically invalidates concern about current anthropegenic forcing caused by significant CO2 emissions. All the science is rarely ever "in" but the overwhelming consensus is that the globe is warming. It's undoubtedly true that the models do not have a perfect representation of the climate. All models are wrong, but some are useful. Existing models have reasonable skill in forecasting observables such as global temperatures over multidecadal timescales, when fed modern instrumental forcing data. If you don't buy all the predictions, fine, nothing wrong with a healthy dose of skepticism, but that skepticism should be tempered by a firm grasp of the relevant science and dismissing people's concern over disruptive and preventable change based on the 1970's "global cooling" strawman is asinine. However, this is not the place to discuss this, so I'll refrain. 38.112.225.84 15:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Los Angeles? --24.147.86.187 23:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we're addressing this in the wrong place, but the climatologists' change of tune (from predicting a new ice age to predicting cataclysmic global warming) isn't based on "self-correcting mechanisms... new technology and evidence", it's based on a real change of direction. Between the 1940s and the 1970s the world was getting cooler, and now it's getting warmer again. If the biggest factor in climate change is human CO2 emissions, then there are some mysteries still to be explained. Many of the scientists stress lack of certainty about the causes of global warming, and I gather there's a strong case for a lot more research into the historical variations in solar radiation. (Isn't it odd how heretical it is to say these things, nowadays?) Xn4 00:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't play the martyr and use argumentation instead. After all, this is science we're dealing with here.

Anthropogenic global warming is something that has been researched and affirmed by the vast majority of the world's scientific community - see IPCC's fourth assessment report, which also addresses the variation in solar radiation (it's a minor factor compared to CO2 and methane). Afaik there was never such an in-depth research into that ice age theory. The fact that there is a theory that may explain something doesn't mean the theory is correct - it has to be tested first. The global cooling is something that was observed and for which some possible explanations (theories) were suggested. Global warming is something that was predicted and then observed. Quite a different thing. This is a theoretician's wet dream - you predict something and hey presto it happens. It means you've got a very strong case. But it isn't proof yet. So after that, the biggest scientific collaboration ever was started, which led to four reports over 15 years. Can you point to anything anywhere near that having been done for the global cooling theory? DirkvdM 10:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Montrose's Highland War

Please account for the rapid success of the Marquis of Montrose in the Highland war of 1644 to 1645 and the ultimate reasons for his downfall.

Is it right to say, as some sources have, that Alisdair MacColla, Montrose's second in command, was a brave but stupid man? Was he negligent in failing to defend the passes into Kintyre in the campaign of 1647? Thanks. Donald Paterson 18:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Donald, Montrose had, at the core of his army, a regiment of professional Irish musketeers, superb soldiers brought to Scotland by Alasdair MacColla in the summer of 1644. Beyond that he had the support of the anti-Campbell clans, headed by the MacDonalds, who provided a source of continual recruitment of men who, while not subject to the discipline of regular soldiers, were long-practiced in the arts of war. To the east he also had the support of the royalist Gordon clan, who provided almost all of his cavalry. So, a hard core of trained troops, supplemented by tough and adaptable irregulars, both of horse and foot, made for a formidable combination. This was a time, moreover, when the Scottish army was in England, fully engaged in the Civil Wars as allies of Parliament. The forces raised to meet Montrose in the field were simply not adequate to the task: Lowland troops with little in the way of military training, hastily raised, and just as hastily destroyed, at Tippermuir and Aberdeen. The Scottish government responded slowly to the crisis, and though it brought troops back from England, they did not come in sufficient numbers and were given too many tasks, often divided in the face of the enemy. The mixture of regular forces and local levies also continued to be a serious weak spot, the occasion for further defeats at Inverlochy, Auldearn, Alford.

It might be said that the chief reason for Montrose's downfall was also the chief factor in his success: the reliance on irregular Highland clansmen, who concentrated and dispersed at will. The royal army was also fighting two wars at the same time: Montrose's war on behalf of the King, and the MacDonalds war against the Campbells. For a time the two elements came together; but after the battle of Kilsyth, and the occupation of Glasgow, they came apart, never to be welded together again. Montrose, with a greatly reduced force, pressed on towards the Borders, while MacColla and the clansmen returned to the hills. But there is another factor accounting for Montrose's final downfall, one that is not often given proper consideration: he was an intuitive rather than a disciplined commander; and when it came to the importance of military intelligence, his intuition was simply not enough. Often he simply did not know where the enemy was, which brought him close to disaster on several occasions. At Philiphaugh in September 1645 he was caught napping-literally-by a large force of Covenanter cavalry. The magic was gone. It would not return.

The myth that Alasdair MacColla was 'brave but dim'-and it is a myth-is largley the work of George Wishart, Montrose's pastor, who later compiled a memoir, De Rebus, celebrating the one and denigrating the other. MacColla was not perhaps a great commander, but he had proved himself in both Ireland and Scotland. He was skilled enough to lead his own lengthy campaign in the western Highlands from 1645 to 1647. In the end he failed because the force at his disposal was not strong enough to cover all eventualities. He was caught in an impossible position, having to defend the long Kintyre Peninsula against a threat from both land and sea. The passes into Kintyre were defended; they were simply not defended, nor could they be defended, in sufficient strength. Clio the Muse 22:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for such such a great answer, Clio the Muse. Are there some books that you could recommend on this? Sorry to be a nuisance. Donald Paterson 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Donald. Go for Montrose by E. Cowan, Highland Warrior: Alasdair MacColla and the Civil Wars by D. Stevenson and A Land Afflicted: Scotland and the Covenanter Wars by R. C. Paterson. All good stuff! Clio the Muse 02:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Purges

Heh, I really enjoyed the-lengthy-response to my question on life in Stalin's Russia, so i would like to get the ball rolling with another. What were the main factors determining the shape and progress of the Great Purge. and does the whole thing stand comparison with Mao's Cultural Revolution? Come on now, guys! Mr. Crook 19:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you writing a book? Bielle 20:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There is lots of useful information available in the two articles you linked to; all the answers you need will likely be found there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is an apt an interesting parallel between two sets of political events, seemingly so different, but aimed at at the same purpose; namely of eliminination of all obstacles on the path of supreme power. In the Purges the whole tone was set by the trial of Georgy Pyatakov, the former supporter of Trotsky and member of the Left Opposition, and the leading representative of what might be referred to as new forms of Soviet managerialism. It was this class, represented at all levels of the state apparatus, from local Soviets up to the Central Committiee, that was the object of Stalin's 'Cultural Revolution', as he, Vyacheslav Molotov and Nikolai Yezhov, head of the NKVD, hinted in speeches from February 1937 onwards. The theme was consistent: there were 'wreckers', unnamed and unspecified, who were to be found everywhere, in every branch of the economy and society, overlooked by complacent Communists. Most worrying of all, for the majority, compliant and conformist, was the suggestion that not all werckers were to be found among the ranks of the former Opposition.

Once on his feet Moloch began to feed, and to feed on the apparatus of the state itself; where 'enemies of the people' were discovered at all levels, and in all areas. The whole thing was quite subtle, in that the press campaign was essentially directed against a privileged elite, long a source of resentment among ordinary people, but one beyond criticism. Now they knew who the 'bullies' were, the people who had made their lives intolerable; now they could hate and be free in their expressions of hatred; against the old bosses, whose power had supported a lifestyle of dachas, banquets, cars, expensive clothes and luxury goods. There was no need for a Chinese-style Red Guard; the people themselves channeled all the hatred that was necessary against targets that were acceptable. The whole atmosphere of the times, known generally as 'the year 1937', even when it gave way to 1938, was anti-elitist, anti-specialist, anti-managerial, the very same things that were later to be features of Mao's Cultural Revolution. In October of the year '37 Stalin proposed a toast to the 'little people'; for "Leaders come and go, but the people remain. Only the people are eternal." But the people were only there as stage extras, to serve a greater purpose; and the purpose was Stalin's; and the purpose was Mao's. Political power comes not from the barrel of a gun; it comes from fear; it comes from hate. Clio the Muse 00:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

America and Americas

Would it be true to say that the United States has traditionally viewed the emergence of nationalism in Latin America as a threat to its own political and cultural dominance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLostPrince (talk • contribs) 20:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is certainly a defendable thesis. 38.112.225.84 22:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast... I think the U.S. certainly welcomed the independence movements of the early 19th century. The Monroe Doctrine, as later interpreted, seemed to say that Latin American independence from European powers allowed the U.S. to dominate Latin America. -- Mwalcoff 23:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a long standing tendency in the United States to equate its system of government as better, purer, more moral than almost any other. Nowhere is this more evident in the realationship to Latin America; nowhere more so that in the attitude towards Cuba. You see, the problem with Cuba is not so much that it is Communist, though that is bad enough, but that it 'broke ranks'; it developed a national alternative to the American model, casting off the suffocating blanket of the Monroe Doctrine. How else is one to explain the hostility, the prolonged and unreasonable embargo? How else is one to explain the resentment towards Cuba, a country with whom the United States has never been at war, and the friendship towards Vietnam, Communism and Conflict notwithstanding? It was all part of a process encapsulated in the words of Woodrow Wilson wnen he said in realtion to the US's most immediate Latin neighbouur "I will teach those Mexicans to elect good men."

The assumption of the Monroe doctrine was that America was the voice of, well, America; of the whole of the Western Hemisphere. Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and before then Juan Peron, were actors who had been historically miscast; on the wrong stage, playing the wrong parts. American policy was based on a failure to undersatnd that other people, other nations, may have a different set of priorities, a different set of values and a different set of aims. For Cuba, so long the subject of oppressive forms of imperialism, so long the plaything of the Platt amendment, the truly important thing is national self-worth, defined in distance from the United States. It is not Communism, a shabby and failed experiment, that has kept Castro afloat for so long; it is nationalism born of a deep-rooted sense of resentment; resentment against the arrogance and condescension of the northern neighbout.

At its worst this arrogance was most acutely expressed in the power of American mult-nationals, not just in Cuba but across the Continent, a power often greater than that of the national parliaments. The United States before and after 1945 freely criticised imperialism across the globe, while attempting to maintain its own suffocating hold on the Monroe Protectorate. Latin American nationalism, wherever it is found, and whither of the left or of the right, was almost bound to define itself in distance from the United States. Washington was simply unable to accept that resentment of its policies had local causes; it came rather, from 'outside forces'; first from Nazism and then from Communism, attempting an ideological breach of the Monroe Curtain. The fact that Argentina refused to break diplomatic relations with Germany in 1941, perfectly proper for a country determined to maintain both its independence and its neutrality, was not a sign of the vigour of its politics, of its rights to self-determination, but evidence that it was a Nazi satellite. Castro did not come on the stage as fully formed Communist, but as the leader of a peasant revolt against an unpopular and American and mafia sponsored dictator. Perceived as a tool of Communist conspiracy he became a tool of Communist conspiracy. He was placed beyond the limits of the legitimate. The problems will only end when the Americas, all of the Americas, find their own freedom in their own way. It cannot and should not be imported. Clio the Muse 01:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Monroe Curtain. Now why don't we have an article on that? DirkvdM 08:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Attendees of the Roman Colloseum

Did people in the Roman Colloseum do "The Wave"? Or, to put it another way, what is the history of the coordination of movement among thousands to create a kind of mass art or dance? Wrad 20:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Audience wave says it was invented in the 1980s. That said, the Colloseum is still standing, so presumably The Wave could be performed there. --Sean 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thumbs up or thumbs down; a sort of wave, I suppose! Clio the Muse 01:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that I've heard that it wasn't done like that. Can't remember what was done, but I remember thinking "how are people going to distinguish between those two signs at a large distance?". I suppose there will have been accompanying exclamations (like 'boo' or 'hurrah'), which were the clearest sign of the 'will of the people'. DirkvdM 09:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

According to QI it was simply the other way around.Thumbs down meant 'swords down', and thumbs up meant death. risk 14:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but you see, Dirk, only one thumb counted, and that could be clearly seen from the arena. Caligula once gave the thumbs down when the crowd gave the thumbs up. Clio the Muse 02:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but how could he know what the crowd was saying? DirkvdM 10:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Single parent

Hi there, I am a single parent with high school education, driving as a taxi cab driver and have two kids, 6 and 4 years old. I need to know what are monthly payments to the City of Toronto local government, provincial Government of Ontario and federal government of Canada? and what are the social programs that are provided by the City of Toronto local government, provincial Government of Ontario and federal Government of Canada for me and my children? Please I need the answers immediately that way I can support my children easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.54 (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You have asked this question at least twice before. Please go back and see my answer to it from yesterday. -- Mwalcoff 23:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have gone to the Ministry of Community and Social Services for the Province of Ontario's website. The contact information for the Toronto Region is:

Address

477 Mount Pleasant Road, 3rd floor

Toronto, Ontario M7A 1G1

Phone

Tel.: (416) 325-0500

If you call the main number, someone will be able to direct you to the proper places to find answers to your questions. We cannot do so here on Wikipedia Bielle 00:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Single parent

I am a single parent(widow-my wife died) from Bangladesh and I have a high school education, as you know my English is bad and I have two kids, one is 6 and other is 4. I need to know some things: what monthly payments to the local government of Toronto, government of Ontario and government to Canada and what are these social programs, i hear and who provides them? local government of Toronto, Ontario or Canada? what are these social programs name? Please, I need the answers now. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.54 (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition to all the other suggestions in the numerous forms of this question you have asked, there is also the Bangladeshi-Canadian Community Services group, located around Dawes Road and the Danforth in the east end. Their website is [10] and their telephone mumber is 416.699.4474. Someone there may have the information you need, or know how to access it, and they will also be able to help you with any language problems. Bielle 01:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter the Great

Did Peter the Great have any ambassadors to the court of King Louis 14th? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.54 (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I am not certain, it seems unlikely that Peter sent ambassadors to Louis XIV. The culture and conventions of diplomacy were not yet well established in Russia during Peter's reign. Peter's major diplomatic venture, the Grand Embassy of Peter I, purposely avoided France because of France's traditional alliance with the Ottoman Empire, Russia's foe. If I am wrong, I hope that I will be corrected. Marco polo 01:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not wrong! Besides embassies at this time, Russian embassies in particular, were usually appointed for a particular purpose, and in a peripatetic form. A permanent diplomatic presence was still something of a rarity. Clio the Muse 01:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

October 25

Fleetwood Mac Everywhere song

The fleetwood mac music video for their song everywhere is said to be based on a real life event, can somebody shed any light onto what this event was, thanks --Hadseys 00:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It was based on a poem, The Highwayman. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{Articles touched by my noodly appendage} 00:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Divorce in Protestant Christianity vs. The Christian Bible

I've been reading the Christian Bible over the last little while and was surprised by many things. One in particular I found striking.

As can be expected from all sacred texts, the Christian Bible has its share of ambiguity: What is the role of Gentiles vis-a-vis early Christian Jews? Who is ultimately responsible for Jesus' crucifixion? The Romans? The Jews? What about the Eucharist? Was the bread and wine REALLY Jesus' body and blood as some contend? Was it transformed in some sort of supernatural way as others do? Or as others believe, was it mere symbolism?

It's no surprise that the Bible abounds with endless ambiguity.

However one of the most unambiguous of positions taken by the Christian Bible is Jesus' position on divorce. In each Gospel, in clear and in no uncertain terms, Jesus firmly states that Divorce is a sin in that it (almost) inevitably culminates in what Jesus considers to be adultery; that is, marriage is the permanent bonding between husband and wife, and should they divorce and find other mates, their relationship with those other mates would be no less than the committing of adultery against the first.

What I don't understand, then, is how Protestantism managed to find a way around what would appear to be one of the clearest and least ambiguous of Jesus' teachings.

I'm hesitant to ask this other favour, but I must. I would greatly prefer to get a wide spectrum of opinion and conjecture as to the many possible answers to this question, and as such I would humbly request that Clio the Muse take a pass on this one, and leave this question for other editors to reflect upon. Serinmort 06:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark and Luke are unambiguous that any remarriage after divorce is adultery (Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18), but Matthew allows a little leeway on the grounds of cheating (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9), and I don't think there's any reference to divorce in John, so it's simply not true that divorce is unambiguously disallowed in each gospel. How protestants, or any other believers, rationalise the discrepancy is a matter for them, but I don't see it as a problem for any but the strictest literal fundamentalist. --Nicknack009 07:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I realize that the method of rationalizing anything is a matter for those doing the rationalizing. Still, all rationalizations have at least some surface logic to them. Even the most heinous of crimes are committed with at least the thinnest veneer of rationality. Take perhaps the worst of all, Nazism. Even the Nazis clothed their absurd racial philosophies with scientific pretense. Not to compare the two in the slightest, but the Protestant Reformation was certainly not without rationale, and when it comes to Divorce, I'm not really concerned with the validity/invalidity of that rationale, only the substance of it. It's true that Matthew allows a little leeway on the grounds of cheating, yet from what I understand of Protestant Divorce, cheating isn't a pre-requisite for Divorce. (I confess I haven't gotten to John yet...I suppose I was being a bit too presumptuous there :). Still, in the case of, say, domestic abuse, no Minister would deny a Protestant Divorce to a battered wife despite Mark, Luke and even Matthew. And if Divorce isn't mentioned at all in John, I can't see how anyone with the least bit of rationality could take that ommission and stretch it so far so as to say that the entire Bible now condones Divorce, despite the previous three Gospels.

I'm neither Protestant nor Catholic, and I'm not taking sides here. As I said, sacred texts like the Torah, the Christian Bible or the Koran abound with ambiguity. Yet having read a bit of all three, I'm hard pressed to find any teaching in any three of these texts to be as unambiguous as the Christian Bible's position on divorce. I don't know any Protestant Ministers personally, and so I've come here to see if any of you could tell me, based on actually experience or conjecture, just how a Protestant Minister would respond when asked why, according to his faith, and despite Biblical accounts of Jesus' condemnation of Divorce as a sin akin to adultery, Divorce just isn't any sort of sin at all, and no obstacle to being a good Christian. Serinmort 11:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a fascinating departure from the Jewish attitude to divorce - that is, it may be a (far from ideal) necessity for all sorts of reasons. I wasn't aware that Jesus had preached against divorce. Do any of the Gospels cite Jesus' rationale, explaining this difference? --Dweller 12:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Gospels don't seem to condemn divorce so much as remarriage, although that's a bit of an academic distinction as a divorce that doesn't allow you to remarry isn't really much of a divorce. I suspect the answer your looking for is that theology doesn't usually start with the Bible and work out a position from there, it more often takes a position and then tries to use the Bible to back it up - which it usually can, if it ignores the bits of the Bible that say the opposite. And a good thing too - allowing divorce, like not stoning disobedient children to death, is sensible and humane. My opinion on the protestant reformation is that it was less a theological dispute than a war of independence in disguise. Organised religion is always politics. For a lot of the Middle Ages the Catholic Church was pretty much the Roman Empire in drag, and countries that wanted to be politically independent seized on Luther et al as their excuse to break away. If the issue was sola scriptura rather than political autonomy, I don't think it would have been so bloody. In England, of course, the disguise was weaker than elsewhere, and the excuse was (to bring us back on topic) a divorce. --Nicknack009 17:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a divorce, heaven forfend, but an annulment! Here in Sweden (the eastern part of which is now Finland) it was more about money – the king wanted to get his hands on church property and tithes. Anyway, I looked this divorce matter up on the Church's website (Finnish Evangelical Lutheran) and it seems they don't really have much of a theological argument in favour of allowing divorce, they just accept it as a fact of life that divorces happen and try not to alienate their paying members by making any kind of fuss. Rather unimpressive, theologically. --Rallette

Perhaps theologically unimpressive, but as Nicknack pointed out, all things considered, it's a good thing for certain of the harshest of canon to be relaxed in order to be more humane. Still, I can't avoid imagining the gargantuan hypocrisy of a divorced and remarried Minister preaching about how gays are destined for hell, the Jews killed Jesus, and even going waaaaay back to Genesis and the story of Noah's son Ham, purported to be the ancestor of the "Black Race", who, because he accidentally saw his dad Noah drunk and naked, was punished by God and all his progeny to be a slave to his his brothers Shem and Japheth in perpetuity due to some comparatively cryptic language in Genesis 9:20-25. They've relaxed the rules against divorce, if only they'd prioritize and give the whole "Christ-Killer", "Gays destined for eternal damnation", and "Blacks punished by God to be slaves to Whites". Thankfully, fewer and fewer hold such astonishingly hypocritical beliefs, yet not too long ago it was quite the norm. (I realize I'm soapboxing here a bit so I'll stop). But that, in a sense, is the essense of my question. Even what I consider the most abomidable of abomidable institutions, the institution of Slavery, whereby one human being OWNS another was rationalized as being in keeping with the values of the Christian Bible. If they found a Biblical passage to rationalize Slavery, I have no doubt that there must be, at the very least, some token Biblical rationale more forgiving of Divorce.

I can't possibly imagine Luther or Calvin simply and without any further explanation just lifting the ban on Divorce "because they felt like it". After all, a key aspect of Protestantism was its emphasis on allowing the masses access to the Bible (by translating it into the vernacular), and removing the intermediary that is the Priest so that they can construct for themselves a more personal, more direct, more informed, and I would say more intellectual examination of their faith. The relaxing of the prohibition on Divorce just strikes me as the exact opposite of everything Protestantism stood for: Following the word of Jesus rather than those of the paternalistic Priests and the often corrupt Pope who would literally "sell" free passes to sin to the wealthier classes in the form of indulgences. I'll stop ranting now, except to say that waiving the prohibition of Divorce just seems to go against the grain of everything I know about the Protestant Reformation. Rather, I would have imagined the Catholics to be far more likely to reverse the prohibition through the simple issuance of a papal bull. Now with the Pope being infallible, (and, once again, often corrupt) and the flock never having even read the Bible in a language they can understand, I would have imagined that the whole thing would have gone over a great deal more easily within Catholicism.

But again, is anyone aware of ANY prominent (or for that matter even unknown) Minister who might have explained how his faith had led him to conclude that Divorce is OK? I appreciate the cynics among you, you've probably got it down better than any of the rest of us. I'm just hoping to get a non-cynical view from a sincere Protestant adherent, as I've no doubt that there are plenty sincere and intelligent people of faith among us. Serinmort 07:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Luther explains the restricted set of circumstances in which he would allow divorce in On the Estate of Marriage (see Part Two). I suppose it does amount to "lifting the ban," if you mean "ban" strictly as a total prohibition. But I think you would probably consider Luther's scriptural arguments for those exceptions more earnestly careful of scripture, and less casuistic, than the kind of arguments contemporary Protestants must use to justify a much more permissive attitude (a lazy Googling turned up this essay, which may serve as an example). It is true that many Protestants of Luther's age (say, William Tyndale, who expressed himself on the subject of Henry VIII's divorce) took a much stricter line and saw such dissolutions as Luther allowed as grave sins. After writing the preceding, I notice this article (cf. another article), which I think you will find very interesting. One point it emphasizes is the Protestant reclassification of marriage from the category of sacrament (this is the real break with Catholic doctrine, and it's not scripturally outrageous) to the category of an ordinance like other ordinances. This would seem to be the basis of Calvin's willingness to put adultery and desertion in the balance with divorce (there are historical monographs on marriage in Calvin's Geneva, if you need to know more: ISBN 067400521X [review], ISBN 0802848036). Surely Luther and Calvin are not even close to approving of divorced preachers. Wareh 02:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wareh! Now that's exactly what I was looking for!

And to Dweller: Though as Jews we may be noted for our tendency to be well educated and for excelling in so many other intellectual pursuits, one enormous exception tends to be our ignorance with regards to non-Jewish, and in particular Christian theology.

Though not based on Jewish Law proper, but rather upon the evolution of Jewish cultural norms as they developed in the Common Era, we seem to have developed a tendency to not only disagree with, or even reject Christianity from a theological standpoint, but to go so far as to shun it; a position I've always taken great issue with.

Certain Christian rituals and traditions which in no way violate any Jewish Law are often treated as if they were sacrelege; for example I wouldn't dare let my father see me "crossing myself" (Is that what it's called? When one reproduces the sign of the cross on one's body, lifting the hand to one's forehead, down to one's navel, and then too each shoulder?) he'd absolutely flip out, despite the fact that I would in no way be violating Jewish Law. I've even heard that there was a time when synagogues would frequently make use of pipe-organs and choirs, that is until it became a "Christian thing", and was therefore abandoned by Jews.

Unfortunately, though I reject it, a bit of my father's almost superstitious aversion to all things Christian has rubbed off on me, to the extent that I'd feel uncomfortable going out to a bookstore and buying a copy of the New Testament to proudly display on my bookshelf. Fortunately, however, I just recently came across a group of Gideons handing out little paperback Bibles and I seized on the opportunity to take one. Still, many friends and family members see it as rather odd for me to actually be interested in reading the thing.

Though Jewish and true to my faith, I've always been fascinated by Christianity, (and more recently, Islam as well) for purely intellectual reasons.

I'm doing some seriously rambling here, but to get to my point, most Jews seem to be seriously misinformed about what Christianity is all about. Dweller seems to be displaying the same misconception of Christianity as I always had; that is, that Christianity differs from Judaism little more than by the fact that Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah as prophesized in the Book of Isaiah whereas Jews do not.

In fact, as I've recently learned, it's far more than that. A great part of Jesus' teachings consists of a complete repudiation of Jewish Law. For example, I always simply thought that for some reason, Christians celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday, whereas Jews do on Saturday. I hadn't realized that Jesus indeed recognized Saturday as the Sabbath Day (Matthew 12:1-12, Mark 2:23-3:5, Luke 6:1-10, John 7:22-23), yet disagreed with supposed Jewish Laws concerning how it should be observed. I say supposed, because in the first three cases Jesus heals on the Sabbath, which for some reason was considered forbidden. This could not be a more innacurate representation of Jewish Law. From what I was always taught, it is not only permissible to break the Sabbath for health reasons, indeed it is commanded that a Jew enthusiastically break the Sabbath when serious health matters are concerned.

With regard to Jewish dietary law, though outlined quite clearly in Deuteronomy 14:3-21 that certain animals are forbidden for consumption, Matthew 15:11 is quite telling of the manner with which Jesus rejects Jewish Law: "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man." Hello bacon!

Sorry for the rambling. I'll shut up now. Serinmort 09:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicknack says it's not divorce that's the problem, it's remarriage. Why? I believe Christianity regards marriage as a sacrament, so wouldn't you want people to be back within that sacrament? Finally, does the Gospel aversion to remarriage apply equally to widows/widowers? --Dweller 10:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Liberals versus Tories

Was the political struggle over the Third Reform Act in 1884 a foretaste of of later battles between the Liberals in the Commons and the Tories in the Lords? 217.42.103.165 07:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly was! Joseph Chamberlain, the great Birmingham radical, described the Lords' intransigence over the extension of the franchise in the Reform Bill as 'the Peers versus the People.' With the possibility of a dissolution of parliament, and a huge demonstration in Hyde Park in July, organised by the Liberal radicals, it was the political harbinger of the much more famous battle in 1910 over the People's Budget. But under pressure from Queen Victoria, amongst others, Lord Salisbury, the Tory leader, decided to reach a compromise with the government of William Ewart Gladstone, allowing the bill to pass, along with the Redistribution of Seats Act, which addressed some of his concerns over electoral bias. The extension of the franchise was a significant step in the democritisation of England, which meant that the question of the power invested in the unelected House of Lords would one day have to be addressed and settled. Clio the Muse 02:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Bess Meyerson

How about a page on this fascinating woman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.113.54 (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you perhaps thinking of Bess Myerson? If you're thinking of someone else, you can request the article at Wikipedia:Requested articles. - BanyanTree 11:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have added a redirect from Bess Meyerson, since the spelling of her last name is a little unusual. --Sean 13:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Black heads of state

Excluding hereditary monarchs and tribal leaders, who was the first black head of state? 80.254.147.52 10:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "black", "state" and "head of state"? By excluding hereditary monarchs and tribal leaders, are you limiting yourself to modern nation states? Does the person have to be elected?

Would you count someone like the Roman emperor Septimius Severus? Or Alara of Nubia (the first king in his dynasty and hence - one assumes - did not inherit the throne)? Or Toussaint Louverture? -- !! ?? 11:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Toussaint Louverture is the closest of those three to what I meant, yes - modern nation-state, and not ruled by a monarch. I am aware that the Caesars were "hereditary" only in a rather tenuous sense, but I wouldn't really consider berbers to be black anyway, so I don't think Septimius Severus cuts it. Since you raised the issue, yes - let's define it as an elected leader. 80.254.147.52 11:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Having been born in Africa doesn't necessarily make you black, any more than having the name of Scipio Africanus does. See Race and ancient Egypt. Corvus cornix 21:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, define "black". Septimius Severus is generally considered to have at least some Berber ancestry (our article says that he "came from a distinguished and wealthy local berber family"), but that may not be sufficiently "black" for you, I suppose. I guess there is no guarantee that a King of Nubia is "black" too (or, indeed, that at least one Pharaohs is not black, for some value of "black"). Shrug. -- !! ?? 23:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Joseph Jenkins Roberts was elected President of Liberia in 1847. --Sean 13:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If Norman Schwarzkopf became U.S. President, would he be called the "Blackhead of State"? :) -- JackofOz 00:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

taxes for international travelers

If you live more than 183 days in one place, you pay taxes there, but where do you pay taxes if you live about 120 days in three different countries?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.233.33 (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been asked before (see above). The rules for tax residence differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction - some tax their citizens, whether they are resident or not; some may continue to consider you to be resident, even if you only visit foe 120 days; some may tax you pro rata, or only on income earned during your visits. See also tax exile and perpetual traveler; the cruise ship The World is an example of a way of trying to avoid being resident anywhere in particular. -- !! ?? 10:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

pentecostal

its sort of a riddle,an ancient expression with pentecostal origin.what is it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.202.195.74 (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Happy Shavuot? Really, I think you'll need to give us a bit more information. --Dweller 12:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Lloyd George Protest

Today Prince Charles will unveil a new statue in front of the Houses of Parliament of David Lloyd George, a former British prime minister and war leader. The Daily Mail, in reporting this, says that the honour has been condemned by some left wing pundits and anti war campaigners, including Harold Pinter and John Pilger, who intend to protest at the event, because Lloyd George talked of of "reserving the right to bomb niggers". While he was still prime minister britain bombed insurgents in Iraq and other such places. Did he use those words and is the protest then justified? Qurious Cat 11:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, man, I'm sorry for posting this twice, but you've got a SERIOUS problem. For a start its really, really slow and each time I got an error message. It was only when I checked did I see that that my question had appeared. I see from the above that others are having the same problem. What's wrong? Qurious Cat 11:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the double posts. You're right, editing Wikipedia is terribly slow these last few days. I once even lost an edit, so I advise you write in a text editor or something first and then copy that here, in case something goes wrong. And then when you get an error message or it's terribly slow, open the page in a new window (top left of the page) and you might see your edit has already come through. If you want to help prevent this, you might give a donation. The conspirationist part of my brain even suspect that it's done deliberately to give people an incentive to donate. :) DirkvdM 11:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You can also simply right-click and copy your edit to your clipboard as I always do. Just in case something goes wrong, all you have to do is refresh the browser, right-click again and paste. Dirk's just being overly European about the whole thing with his complicated method. It may be less efficient, but then again, if it wasn't for people like him, the text editor he's speaking of would be without work and unemployed. :-) Serinmort 12:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I always have an editor window open for the various things I am working on, sort of like a Wikipedia sandbox. Concerning efficiency, in the Netherlands it is standard to work 32 hours per week. In the US that's about 50% more (58 hours per week - is that about correct?). But the GDP per capita is in the US only about 12% higher. So now who's less efficient? DirkvdM 10:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried googling that? I don't know about the reliability of those sources, but there are 20 hits. There's one link to Wikiquote talk page, where there is a short discussion on this. And David Lloyd George#Later political career (1922-1945) also mentions it. It appears to be genuine. DirkvdM 11:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It was 1934, for goodness sake! As the man said, the past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.

According to nigger, In the United Kingdom, "nigger" is now established as a derogatory and often "criminal" word, but as recently as the 1950s it was widely regarded as acceptable in Britain for black people to be referred to as niggers. Modern sensitivities about racism and policital correctness in thought and word and deed were some way off in the 1930s - I dare say that you will find an awful lot of people using the "n-word" in those days, if you look hard enough. And are we sure he said "nigger" and not "negro"? -- !! ?? 12:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely the problem is not George's use of the word 'nigger' for the subject peoples of the British Empire but rather his insistence on Britain's to indiscriminately slaughter those peoples if it found it expedient? This was, after all, back in the days when deliberate targetting of civilians was widely considered an outrage. Algebraist 13:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would make the same point: that was then; this is now. The protest about the statue is motivated by the current British government's overseas entanglements, and has little to do with Lloyd George (the only Welshman to become British Prime Minister; Prime Minister at the end of the First World War; proponent of the People's Budget). Heaven knows, he was no saint - as the affair of Maundy Gregory shows; but then there are statues to all sorts of dubious figures in London - perhaps a better place to start would be Bomber Harris. -- !! ?? 14:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the letter from Pinter and Pilger in the Daily Telegraph. Lloyd George does not happen to be one of my political heroes, but I felt moved enough, had I been in London, to have trotted along to Westminster to pay my respects to the old goat! The protest is ridiculous, a way of reappraising the past in the light of contemporary concerns. If we are to vet our statesmen for the things they said during their lives and times, then take down every statue in London, every statue in Washington, every statue across the world, to be replaced by-what else?-momuments to Pinter and Pilger! Lloyd George was one of the most significant figures in British history, the founder, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the Welfare State, including, for the first time, provision for the elderly in the form of old-age pensions. Himself at one time an anti-war protestor, he went on to be a superlative Minister of Munitions and an inspiring Prime Minister during the Great War.

As for the remark in question, I wonder if the two Ps have even bothered to consider the context, or, indeed, the meaning and significance of the phrase in question. It was recorded in 1934 in the diary of Frances Stevenson, his second wife, the only source we have for these words. Lloyd George, of course, had been out of power for twelve yeras, and not in a position to bomb 'niggers', or anyone else for that matter. It has been taken by some, clearly those with less subtle intellects than Pinter and Pilger, to be an ironic reflection on the stand of the British government during the disarmament talks sponsored by the League of Nations in 1932. The German delegates had called for an end of aerial bombardment during conflicts, but Britain argued that this option should be retained. I personally welcome the Welshman to the pantheon, and will go along to give him a passing nod this weekend! Clio the Muse 01:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

On the British bombing of Iraq in the 1920s, I seem to remember that one target was Kurdish rebels who were out for independence, and Winston Churchill, the Colonial Secretary at the time, was the most gung-ho member of the British cabinet. He made an infamous remark supporting the use of poison gas against "uncivilized tribes" which was far more extreme than anything Lloyd George said. So if LG is to be pulled down, Churchill should go first.

On nigger, I know one or two old people (white people, that is) in the UK who still use it without any self-consciousness, but they are over eighty. I've also heard much younger black people using it. The title of Agatha Christie's book Ten Little Niggers (UK title) wasn't changed in the UK until 1985. When I was a child, I learnt the jingle from other children Eenie, meenie, minie, mo, catch a nigger by his toe, if he hollers, let him go, eenie, meenie, minie, mo, and remember not knowing at the time that nigger was supposed to be a bad word, except that if you used it around grown ups, some of them disapproved of it. I haven't heard that jingle for a few years, I suppose it's died out, now. Anyway, I support the point that one really mustn't moralize about people's use of words in a different age. The world moves on. Xn4 01:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Czar Nicholas in London

I hear Czar Nichlas I visit London in 1844. What is known of visit and purpose? S S Septimus 13:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Following the signing of the London Straits Convention, Nicholas visited Vienna and Berlin in 1841 and London in 1844 to persuade those governments that "the downfall of Turkey was imminent" telling the British Government "In my Cabinet there are two opinions about Turkey: one is that she is dying; the other is that she is already dead". See [11], ultimately these events led to the Crimean War, see also [12]. Foxhill 23:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

An interesting and largely forgotten story, a pity, really, for Queen Victoria made some remarkably insightful observations about Nicholas in correspondence with her uncle, Leopold, King of the Belgians.

Anyway, the whole thing came about in a fashion unique to Nicholas. He governed Russia in the manner of a military command, whose subordinates had always to be on the alert for the sudden appearance of the commander-in-chief. He saw no reason why he should not conduct state visits in the same precipitate style. He was also motivated, in part, by fear of assassination, a prospect that had haunted him ever since the suppression of the Polish uprising in 1831. On a visit to Prussia in 1834 he even wrote to his son and heir, the Grand Duke Alexander, with a testament full of advice on how to govern Russia in the event of his death. He was less apprehensive in 1844 though all those connected with the visit, apart from Victoria, her chief ministers, and the Russian ambassador, were only told to expect a 'Count Orlov'.

The said 'Count' arrive at Woolich on 1 June, with the minimum possible notice. Accompanied by Prince Albert and Robert Peel, the Prime Minister, he visited Viotoria and Buckingham Palace and then at Windsor. Victoria later recorded her impressions in a letter to Leopold;

He is certainly a very striking man; his profile is beautiful, and his manners most dignified and graceful; extremly civil-quite alarmingly so, as he is full of attentions and politeness. Bur the expression in his eyes is formidable, and unlike anything I ever saw before. He gives me and Albert the impression of a man who is not happy, and on whom the weight of his immense power and position weighs heavily and painfully; he seldom smiles, and when he does his expression is not a happy one.

The visit itself, of just over a week, was largely trouble-free, though there was a small demonstration at Ascot, where he attended the races with the Queen, when leaflets were handed out among the crowds, describing him as a greater tyrant than either Caligula or Nero. Victoria was in continual anxiety that anti-Russian feeling would lead to an assassination attempt. However, the only incident of any note was when a Polish emigre who tried to bribe a footman to allow him entry to Windsor Castle when the Tsar was in residence. Generally, the Nicholas left a good impression among the people invited to the functions he attended. After he left on 9 June Victoria recorded her final impressions;

He is stern amd severe, with fixed principles of duty which nothing on earth will make him change; very clever I do not think him and his mind is an uncivilized one; his education has been neglected; politics and military concerns are the only things he takes great interest in; the arts and all softer occupatiosn he is insensible to, but he is sincere, I am certain, sincere even in his most despotic acts, from a sense that that is the only way to govern.

As Foxhill says, the chief, indeed, the only purpse of the visit, was political; even the socialising was political. Nicholas hoped to establish a firm understanding with the British on the Eastern question, the issues arising from the continuing decay of the moribund Ottoman Empire. There was some basis for his optimism: both powers were concerned by the ambitions of the French July Monarchy, particularly in relation to Egypt. At Windsor Nicholas had openly said "I highly prize England; but for the French choose to say about me, I care not at all-I spit upon it." But in the end the visit only deepened mutual misunderstandings: Nicholas thought that he had obtained the friendship of Victoria and agreement with her government; for the British it had only been an 'exchange of views' on matters of mutual interest, from which no firm bond had emerged. Much suspicion of Russian motives still remained. Clio the Muse 00:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Deja vu dreams?

This should possibly be at the Science desk, but I find Humanities always garners more numerous and interesting responses, so here goes: what's the term for those dreams you get where you picture a scene, then days/weeks/months later you experience the exact scene as in your dream (often accompanied by the immediate realisation that you've dreamt the exact scene before)? More importantly, what causes them and have they been studied in any great detail? What does it imply about the nature of time? Zunaid©® 13:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually tried to study this. I'd dream of a situation weeks before hand, then I find myself reliving it and I actually be able to know what was going to happen next; only a few seconds then my prediction would go wrong - like I'd seen some sort of alternate situation that was close to the one I was in but the outcome would be different. Anyway, I recorded these occurrences over a few months and tried to see if there was a pattern (correlation between moon phases, temperature, weather etc), but there was none. I think they still call it Deja vu (french for already seen), just over a longer period of time. Think outside the box 14:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Recurring dream --Dweller 15:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not a recurring dream, this is many different, unconnected dreams that later actually happen in reality. Think outside the box 15:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not a recurring dream. Its a bit eerie, like a fore-telling almost. Hmmm, I can't recall having deja vu's that deviated from the dream, they seem to be pretty exact in my case. They are generally about very mundane things e.g. I once dreamt of a driving past a roadside scene with trees along one side and a signpost and farmstall on the side of the road. Months later we went on holiday and we drove along a stretch of road with exactly the scene I had pictured. I seem to have abstracted it one layer further though: sometimes in the dream itself the dream-me realises that he's seen this scene before, then when I relive it for real, I not only realise that I've seen this before, but I realise that I realised that I had seen this before. Weird. I haven't had such dreams in a couple of years now, I wonder if it goes away after a few years or a certain age? There must surely be research out there, and probably a good few theories too. Anyone else experienced this? Can we push to win the refdesk thread of the week award? :P Zunaid©® 15:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought I was unusual for having these. I guess Tyler Durden was right and I'm not a snowflake... Dismas|^(talk) 10:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me try a somewhat scientific (statistical) approach nevertheless. After you've had a dream, how many situations do you find yourself in over the next few months (say 100 days)? Depends on what you call a situation, but let's say 10,000 (100 situations per day). Now how many dreams have you had in your life? Let's say 1 per day over 30 years. (Notice I'm using very conservative estimates.) That would be 10,000. So there are 100 million possible dream/situation combinations. Now comes the tricky bit. How many possible situations are there? Again, it depends on what you call a situation, but if there are less than 100 million then pure coincidence is a sufficient explanation (assuming this happened to you once). If there are more, it could still be coincidence, but the chances decrease as the number rises. Let's say there are 10 billion possible situations, then the chances are 1%. Small, but still possible. You need to come with something better than that to support any new theory about the nature of time.

Of course, there are many more situations of the magnitude of driving past trees, a farmstall and a signpost (how many of those are there?), but that means you have to adapt the numbers on both sides of the equation, so the result is still the same. And you say it happened more than once, so you need to adapt for that too. But I just wanted to hand you the basic reasoning. Working the actual numbers here is impossible because they are not available. Which is why you can't draw any conclusions. (Conclusions based on lack of knowledge would bring you dangerously close to religion.)

For a more everyday illustration, long time ago, when my father bought a new car I noticed there were lots of those cars around. They appeared to have come out of nowhere. Of course they had 'always' been there, but there was no reason for me to notice them (very un-boyish, I was not 'into' cars at all).

But maybe a better approach is this: you see what you expect to see. That's how your mind works. This is needed for everyday 'survival' - if you fully analyse everything then you won't get anything done. So your mind makes shortcuts. So if two things are sufficiently similar then you (for the moment) assume they are the same. And a remembrance of a dream is a vague recollection at best, so it's easy to make links when you're open to the possibility.

I'm not saying that there is nothing out of the ordinary at work here. It's just that when I can explain it with something ordinary, then that makes more sense. DirkvdM 11:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I realize that it's not something that seems normal to everyone and that the more scientific among us will try to find a scientific explanation including figuring out rough statistical odds. But when I have these dreams, the reoccurence in real life includes the exact dialogue of the dream, hand movements, people's reactions, etc. They aren't simply everyday things. Dismas|^(talk) 11:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What Dismas said. It's not about statistical odds or human beings trying to make a vague recollection fit into a pattern (as we are wont to do). It is EXACT, even the deja vu-within-deja vu that I get is exactly as it occurred in the dream. That roadside farmstall scene was exact to the last detail. Dusty gravel along the sides, a stand of trees on the right (not e.g. a row of trees along the road), the farmstall, the sign, everything...and so too have been the other dreams (which for the life of me I can't recall now, years later. I should have kept a journal). I've spoken to quite a few different people and they have these same dreams, so it doesn't seem like a rare phenomenon. Zunaid©® 12:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

INFO: Googling for "deja vu dreams" brings up this page which briefly mentions the phenomenon and calls it precognitive dreams, and apparently between 18 and 38% of people have had them. Googling for "precognitive dreams" brings up a WHOLE lot more. Have to go, I'll catch up with this on Monday. Zunaid©® 12:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the monks

What happened to the monks and nuns after Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.15.240 (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most of the institutions dissolved by Henry had less than a dozen monks or nuns in residence. Even the largest had barely fifty. In 1536, when the Dissolution began, there were only 12,000 monks and nuns in all, a population that had been in rapid decline for some time. Henry, contrary to popular perceptions, was not completely oblivious to public opinion. He knew the measure would be unpopular and took steps to appease hs critics. It is true that most clerical land went to the government, but a proportion was handed over to the Court of Augmentation. The income generated was used to fund schools and colleges, thus taking up the educational function once practiced by the religious houses. It also paid pensions to the evicted monks and nuns, at such a rate as to enable them to live a modest rural lifestyle. Only a few monks opposed closure to such a degree that violence had to be used against them. Most accepted the pensions and lived their lives out in peace. One abbot in Shropshire even bought his old monastic lands, declared himself a Protestant, beginning to live as the local squire! Clio the Muse 23:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As a small illustration of Clio's comments, I've done some work on the Augustinian priory at Beeston Regis, Norfolk. The last Prior, Richard Hudson, and his four canons all subscribed to the Act of Supremacy 1534 and were granted pensions. Hudson himself became Rector of Newton Flotman. Xn4 00:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Truckle/trundle bed (history of)

Dictionary.com's "word of the day" on 10/12/07 was truckle. Within the explanation of its origin, it was stated that a trundle bed was the smaller bed of the pupil, stored under that of the master's. Is this related to the practice of having a boy sleep in the locked room of a single man to serve as watch-dog? I remember seeing in the film version of The Decameron such a situation. Also, wasn't there a murder of a political figure in the Middle Ages that was witnessed by the boy unbeknownst to the assassin? Was this a practice in Scotland during the time of MacBeth? LShecut2nd 14:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a quote in the diary of Samuel Pepys' diary from the 1st May 1662 - "To bed all alone, and my Will in the truckle bed" - which supports that having a boy Valet sleep on a truckle bed was common in the 17th Century. (Will Hewer is the servant Samuel mentions in the extract by the way).

The earliest known use of the word "Truckle Bed" (according to the OED) comes from the statute of Magdalen College, Oxford which also agrees with your point of a pupil sleeping in the same room as a master in a smaller, lower bed.

As regard to the murder and Macbeth I don't know. But there is a line on a trunkle bed in Shakespeare: "There's his Chamber, his House, his Castle, his standing-bed and truckle-bed" (Merry Wives of Windsor IV.V.6) Lord Foppington 16:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

searching for article describing neocon 'plot' to affect a permanent Republican Presidency and Congress

Somewhere I read this article, but I've been unable to find it again. It was attributed to the American Enterprise Institute and to notable members of that organization, i.e William Kristal, Paul Wolfowitz and others. I have scanned my file of New Yorker essays, which I thought might have been the source, looked at the AEI website to see if any of their publications sounded familiar, and reviewed "Truthout" publications. Can anyone point me in another direction, or find the article? It wasn't long, just a couple of pages, if I remember correctly, and I believe I saw it within the past year.86.207.184.103 14:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's Karl Rove's dream of a "permanent Republican majority" if that's what you're referring to. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the idea but if you Google it you can find a large number of references. --24.147.86.187 15:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I assume you mean 'effect' instead of 'affect'. The latter would imply there already is such a thing. DirkvdM 11:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you looking for the Project for a New American Century? Aecis^Brievenbus 11:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The progress of "economics."

Recently the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize in Economics were announced. With due respect to the winners, my response was apathy. What difference has all the economic theories since Adam Smith really amounted to? Is the problem that the "science" is not really a science? Or, perhaps, the human factor is not a constant. We in the U.S. have been living under the "trickle down" idea where the rich are made richer so that the people beneath them will benefit. It has been more like "piss on" than trickle down. People who have played by the rules often end up in poverty, even though they have been college-educated and worked hard.Is the problem that governments follow only those economic ideas of a select few who have only their own interests in mind? "Economics" originates from "house-keeping." Yet, there were high-level economists who, a decade ago, argued that national debt was a good thing. Citizens have gone into debt in order to buy houses and cars. Is debt good for the nation but bad for the individual? Why is third-year algebra taught in high school but nary a course in personal finance? Gore Vidal once suggested that those in control want to keep the educational system right where it is, in order to easily manipulate those who have been educated enough to be good workers, but not so much as to be good thinkers. Forgive me for my rambling, but one thought led to another. I have to ask these questions,because I was educated in the Arts and Sciences, yet am unable to fathom what I see happening. LShecut2nd 15:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no answers to your questions, but you may find some meagre comfort in the fact that it's not really a proper Nobel Prize.--Rallette 18:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not referred to as "the miserable science" for nothing. Economics does lend itself to absurdity. My favorite is when Carter proposed the entirely rational policy of a gas tax that would be entirely refunded back to consumers, with the sole purpose of reducing gas consumption and dependence on foreign oil sources. (This works because consumer demand drops as the price of a good increases, regardless of the change to consumer wealth.) Then the opposition screamed, "You want to raise taxes!", and it all went away. Oh, there are some knee slappers that would make you weep. - BanyanTree 22:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear what some of the above has to do with economic science (vs economic rhetoric). But tell me, if Carter's fuel tax was to be refunded to consumers, how could it have any effect, other than to encourage people to carry more cash? Or do you mean it would be transferred to the People in general (in which case the word "refund" is a fraud)? — The epithet dismal science, by the way, originated in a diatribe of Thomas Carlyle against those who refused to consider the intangible spiritual benefits of such institutions as slavery. —Tamfang 22:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll let Robert H. Frank give details. - BanyanTree 01:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course (in a 'modern state'), in principle all taxes (minus overhead) are transferred/refunded (whatever) to the people in some way or another. Only if it were given back to the same people in the same proportions would it not be effective. DirkvdM 11:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, economic theories are pretty vague. The reason is that it is exceedingly difficult to experiment on societies, so the theories can't be verified. A good example is communism/state socialism. This turns a society completely upside down. The number of variables is staggering. Yet the number of experiments has been pathetically low (in the dozens at most). And that is probably the best argument against such experiments. Getting all the variables right would be an astonishing coincidence. Or an incredible insight. One might say economics has more to do with gut feeling than with science - but gut feeling can be a good guide. The problem is whose gut feeling to follow. The best strategy would be to keep as many things as possible equal, change just one thing and see how that works out. But that takes an enormous amount of time, and sometimes people aren't patient enough for that. Especially when they are being suppressed, as was the case with all (?) instances where state socialism arose. Actually, given the pathetic state those countries were in when state socialism was introduced, some did surprisingly well, but I suppose that has mostly to do with people wanting to build a better world for themselves, after all the misery they had been through.

But economics also works with hard numbers, expressed in money. But a major problem there is that one cannot assume the participants in a society to behave rationally. Take the free market. The basic idea is that a manufacturer who produces the better products will grow because the (rational) buyers buy his products. But then we have commercials. These are effective because people are influenced by them. But commercials are basically manufacturers saying that their products are better. Well, they would, wouldn't they? So commercials are the worst source of info on the quality of a product. Still, they work. Boy, do they work. They pretty much dominate the buying behaviour of consumers. So where's the rationality here? Still, the system has brought us an incredible amount of progress. One might argue that socialism (the state playing Robin Hood) made sure of that. Giving workers buying power gave a huge boost to the economy. At least, that makes sense to me, so one can say useful things about economy. But it's still largely a crystal ball. I'm sure there is a much better system, but how are we going to find it? Certainly not by not looking. We should just be very careful with what we try. So be conservative, but not too conservative. DirkvdM 11:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

U Boats and Ireland

Is it true that U-Boats werre refulled during World War Two in hidden coves on the west coast of the Irish Republic? 86.151.240.194 15:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This says not, although U-1206 was sunk by a lavatory.[13]

However, the British did consider using military force to gain access to the Treaty Ports, which were only handed back to Ireland in 1938; and there was Plan W if Germany invaded Ireland. -- !! ?? 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to explode myths like this, which keep surfacing, submarine-style, regardless of the facts. However, I always lead the forlorn hope, so let me try to shoot this down, once and forever!

Eamon de Valera's obduracy over British use of the Treaty Ports, which would have greatly increased the security of Atlantic conoys, was a source of considerable resentment. It is almost certain that the U-boat story was invented at this time as a way of discrediting the Irish government and their policy of strict neutrality. But the simple fact remains that in 1939 Eire had tiny stocks of the type of diesel fuel used by U-boats. More than this, the country was suffering from an acute shortage of fuels of all kinds. The suggestion that Ireland would give assistance to the Germans to sink the very ships that carried the little oil it did receive is absurd to a quite extreme degree. There is, moreover, not a trace of documentary evidence; there are no eyewitness accounts and no German sailor has ever made such a claim, though plenty have spoken of their vessels refueling in Spain, supposedly another neutral country. U-boats did operate in Irish waters-one landed a the crew of a Greek tanker they had sunk-though this was a dangerous practice, in view of the British bases in Ulster. It did not happen; it could not happen. Let the story die. Clio the Muse 23:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems incredible that the British would return the Treaty Ports in 1938 and then require them again a year later... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.41.139.85 (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Feminist critique of Sociology

I was wondering if anyone knows of any online articles or journals that talk about women being excluded from sociological theories/research or ignoring gender differences. My essay is on whether theories are neutral. --Stacey _talk 15:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Quiet, woman, can't you see the men are talking? I'm just kidding, but seriously Clio, even if she doesn't have an answer, will at least have an interesting opinion on this matter. Beekone 16:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, Beekone, for this is really quite far from my chief areas of concern in feminism: but, what the hell, I'll do my best! Stacey, your terms of reference are a little unclear to me. Are you suggesting that theoretical models themselves disallow a feminist perspective, or that there is some process of practical discrimination at work against women in the field of sociological research itself? Beyond that I really do not want to anticipate your conclusions, but it would seem obvious to me that there is no such thing as a 'neutral' theory, which always begins with a particular perspective or set of assumptions. After all, as Louis Althusser might have said, we are all guilty of a particular reading! I do not know of any online articles that might be of help, and I am reluctant to suggest a specific set of texts, because I think from a past encounter that you are a sociology student, and should be weighed down with reading lists. I can tell you, though, that I personally found Barbara Littlewood's Feminist Perspectives on Sociology (2004) quite useful, as well as Feminist Sociology: Life Histories of a Movement (1997) ed. B. Laslett and B. Thorne. I wonder if you have perhaps gone beyond these? So, off to the library! Clio the Muse 23:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wife of the neurologist Dr. Moritz Benedikt

Can any user please tell me the name of the wife and the date of marriage of the Austrian neurologist Dr. Moritz Benedikt who lived between 1835-1920. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.52.239 (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the article on the German Wikipedia (see Moriz Benedikt), he married Adele Krohn, born 30 April 1847 in Breslau, died 1934 or 1935 in Vienna, who was the daughter of Samuel Moritz Krohn (born 1810) and of Sophie Silberstein (1818-1900). No date of marriage is stated in that article, but one of their sons has another article over there (Ernst Benedikt) and his date of birth is given as 20 May 1882. There's a citation to an obituary for Adele, In memoriam Adele Benedikt in the journal „Die Österreicherin - Zeitschrift für alle Interessen der Frau“, March 1935. There's also an article on the German Wikipedia (though not on ours) for Adele's grand-daughter Friede Benedikt, known as Anna Sebastian, who wrote novels in English. Xn4 00:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that article is about the journalist Moritz Benedikt, not the physician Moritz Benedikt! The German WIkipedia seems not to have an article on the neurologist. - Nunh-huh 07:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

An autobiography of Moritz Benedikt (the physician) has been scanned in by Google books: Aus meinem Leben: Erinnerungen und Erörterungen. Unfortunately, I can't find the actual name of his wife in it. They were married 20 January 1868 in his final Dozentenjahre, and she died 8 March 1905, shortly before the book was written. Therefore, he tells us, he cannot write much about her out of grief. The mention of his marriage is on page 126: "In meine letzten Dozentenjahre fällt ein glückseliges Privatereignis, meine Verlobung und meine Heirat (20. Jänner 1868). Ich habe mir ein Weib errungen, wie ein edleres und besseres nicht zu erringen war. Aber auch auf diesem Ereignisse lag ein Fluch meines Lebens; ich mußte mir mein Glück durch schwere Kämpfe und Opfer erringen. Die Geschichte meiner Verehelichung ist ein Ausschnitt aus der politisch-konfessionellen Geschichte Österreichs der damaligen Zeit . Ich habe jetzt nicht die Kraft und den Mut, diese Geschichte niederzuschreiben, da eben in den letzten Tagen (8. März 1905) mir meine edle Frau durch eine schmerzliche Krankheit entrissen wurde." You may have better luck than I did scanning for an actual name. - Nunh-huh 10:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a place on the web - which I cannot find at the moment - that permits access to the archives of various Viennese newspapers (perhaps the Weiner Zeitung?) If you could find that and look at marriages on 20 January 1868 and the days following, you might find Frau Benedikt's maiden name. - Nunh-huh 10:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sliding average of economic growth

Is there anything that makes it inappropriate to calculate arithmetic averages of (economic) growth? If growth is 2 % the year 2000, 3 % the year 2001 and 4 % the year 2002 the average is 3 %. The problem is obviously that 1,02*1,03*1,04 = 1,092624 and that 1,03^3 = 1,092727. (The inaccuracy gets much bigger with more variables.) Is that a problem? I am thinking of drawing a graph with a sliding average of US GDP growth over the last 200 years, to show the development over time. Is it approriate to do that from a scientific point of view? Thanks. 17:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's way wrong. What you want to do is calculate the geometric mean: ${\sqrt[{n}]{\prod _{i=1}^{n}r_{i}}}$ which will give you the number you seek. Donald Hosek 18:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

To put it another way, the average is correct if you first put everything in logarithms. —Tamfang 22:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

German short story

I'm trying to track down the name and author of a German short story set towards the end of the war. It concerns a small girl in Berlin preparing for an important celebration, a birthday or something, I can't remember exactly what, oblivious to the anxieties of the adult world. T Eulenspiegal 18:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Could this possible be Der Erstkommuniontag by Elisabeth Langgässer, from her collection Der Torso, published in 1947? It certainly fits your general description: the excitement and anticipation of a child set against the fears of the adults around her, and is set in Berlin in the final stages of the war. The event in question is, of course, not a birthday but first communion. Clio the Muse 22:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Needles

I recently came across this strange controversy: Was the rock known as Lot's Wife which might have been part of The Needles originally tall and thin or short and squat? --Filll 19:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Republican Presidential Races

Coming from somebody who generally has to fight against Republicans, I've found something kind of puzzling. It seems like, from what little I've been able to gather about him, Ron Paul stands for things most Republicans (or conservatives or Hannity type people) have been waiting for. From news clips of debates and other things, like I recently heard some GOP forum had banned RP people, it seems like Republicans don't like Ron Paul either. Does nobody like Ron Paul, or is the US two party system not really loyal to the idea of loyal opposition anymore? I'm confused, please help. I try to be a good patriot, but sometimes it's hard to be american. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.144.36 (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr Paul didn't get the memo that such ideas as small government belong only in campaign speeches, not floor votes. —Tamfang 22:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know much about Paul (and am not a Republican) but a skim of his bio makes it look to me like alienated himself from the GOP party leadership himself — while he is aligned on many issues, he doesn't seem willing to play the political game as much as the GOP would probably like (the GOP in the last decade has rated loyalty much higher than ideological fidelity). So I wouldn't be surprised if he was marginalized for a reason relating to that, despite the obvious ludicriousness of such an approach to picking a national leader. --24.147.86.187 23:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

SIngle Parent

I am single parent from Bangladesh and my wife died of bone cancer in that country so I came here for my children's education. one is 6 and other is 4. I need to know something before I come to Toronto, Ontario, Canada. What are the monthly payments to the local government of Toronto, provincial government of Ontario and federal government of Canada? and what are the social programs provided by the local government of Toronto, provincial government of Ontario and federal government of Canada? Please I need the answers immediately. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.132.26 (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My condolences on your loss. When you say "monthly payments", do you mean taxes? In Canada, municipal governments only collect property taxes. If you do not own property - i.e. if you rent - then you don't pay these taxes. (Your landlord pays and they are built into your rent.) Income taxes are paid to both the provincial and federal governments. However, there is an income threshold below which people pay little or no taxes, and tax rates increase as your income increases. It is impossible to say what your tax rate would be without knowing your income. As you ask about social programs, I assume that you would have a fairly low income and so you would probably pay little tax.

There are a range of social welfare programs adminstered by the three levels of government, and it is difficult to say what you would qualify for without knowing more about your situation. You could probably start by looking for information on the web sites for the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario. Social programs in Ontario are provided through the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The City of Toronto also provides some social services.

I hope these links help. Good luck. - Eron ^Talk 01:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

October 26

Another legal question

I received a really good answer to a legal question above. Now I want to know where on Wikipedia can I find elements of a crime or some other wording that means the same thing. That phrase is in several articles I have written but I cannot find a list or and explanation to link that phrase to.

For example: An ultimate issue in criminal law refers to a legal element of a crime... Thanks! --Mattisse 01:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Every crime is going to have slightly different elements, which may differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. An example is "robbery consists of [1] the taking and carrying away [2] of property of another [3] by force or fear [4] with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property." Generically, the elements usually fall into the classification of actus reus, a voluntary act or omission, and mens rea, the intent to commit (or omit) that act. Our articles at those names should suffice to further confuse you :) - Nunh-huh 10:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A different path?

I was wondering if the Soviets could have taken a different path in the 1920s, if there was a realistic alternative to Stalin? Zinoviev4 05:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course there was. There are always loads of alternatives. Do you mean if Stalin's rise to power could have been stopped or what would have happened if there had been no Stalin? Or do you mean, irrespective of that, who would have been a better/realistic alternative? DirkvdM 12:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Efficiency in Europe vs the US

In an above thread someone accused Europeans of being inefficient. Which of course will not do. :) So how do we compare efficiencies? Let me compare GDP per capita per hour worked in the US and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands a standard working week is 32 hours. Suppose a standard working week in the US would be just over 40 hours. That would be about 30% more. But the GDP per capita in the US is only about 12% higher. Which suggests the Dutch are much more efficient. Are these numbers and reasoning correct? DirkvdM 10:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Tudor supremacy

By what political means did the Tudor's achieve dominance in England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.104.197 (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)