Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities - Wikipedia

Is there anything that explains the sheer tenacity of the English army in WWI when the Russians cracked, and the French and Italians came close to cracking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo McGoogle III (talk • contribs) 05:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

There were of course English regiments, but probably you mean the British Army, together with forces from the Dominions and the rest of the Empire. Clearly, the willingness of the British to die in huge numbers in a war of attrition (lions led by donkeys) was remarkable, but there's a lot more to the comparison you suggest than tenacity. The real difference wasn't between the capabilities of the British and Russian armies but between the strength of the economies supporting them. In 1917, the Russian economy, increasingly devoted to the war effort, was near collapse. There were also severe food shortages in Russia, on a scale which the British never faced. After the abdication of the Tsar the new Russian Provisional Government undermined what military discipline was left by abolishing the death penalty in the army, setting up soldier committees to take many decisions out of the hands of commanding officers, and so forth. It's better not to compare the courage or tenacity of the Russian fighting men unfavourably with those of the British. Xn4 10:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

There were also serious problems of morale in both the Italian and French armies that the senior command simply neglected. Contrary to the usual 'Lions and Donkey's myth, the British Army was well-led and morale generally very high, even in the worst of circumstances. But, I agree, the transformation over a four-year period of what was, in essence, a small imperial police force, backed up by part-time soldiers, into arguably the best fighting force in the world was a remarkable achievement by any standard. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Of course, given the rate of turnover at the front, that "transformation" was institutional rather than personal.

The myth of the "small imperial police force" persists to this day, I see. It is instructive to remember the level of experience that the professionals of that "police force" had to go on, especially as compared to the others; if, indeed, the two hundred thousand of the Indian Armies and the three-quarters of a million of the home army can ever be called "small". It is that prior institutional experience that helps explain the relative resilience of the imperial corps. --Relata refero (disp.) 02:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, it was no myth, and I hardly think the Boer War or the fighting on the North-West Frontier compares in any way with the Somme or Passchendaele. But I was, of course, referring to the British Army, not the Indian Army, two quite different things. The fact remains that this force, which was able to field only four divisions in 1914, this 'contemptible little army', was, by 1918, driving back across Flanders one of the strongest professional armies in the world. Its soldiers had learned a new style of war under one of the best general officers the army ever had. I've made my point, and intend to say no more. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think it is generally understood that the experience of the backbone of those armies - especially NCOs - in other combat situations was crucial to their resilience. Trying to compare such experiences is of, course, doomed to failure.

Otherwise, a somewhat ahistorical caricature. However, as a card-carrying Walpoleian Richard III revisionist, I can understand the heartfelt need to rehabilitate one of pop history's villains. --Relata refero (disp.) 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I’ve heard Christians claim that there are proofs and evidences for Christianity to be the “one true religion”. Those evidences include evidences that what the Bible says is true and evidences that Jesus Christ is God and the son of God.

But what about Zoroastrians? Do they also have, or claim to have, any proofs or evidences for their religion, Zoroastrianism, to be the one true religion? If so, then what are they?

Don’t tell me if those proofs and evidences of Zoroastrianism are true or false, right or wrong, really proofs or evidences of them or not. Just tell me if they have so or claim to have so.

Bowei Huang (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bowei, why do you think you would get the answers you want in this 'pedia? It is not a forum and you have been told this in many ways. Julia Rossi 08:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he wants to know if Zoroastrianism is the "One True Religion." Rather, he wants to know if Zoroastrians claim their religion is the OTR the same way many Christians do. I don't know the answer to the question, but it's certainly a legitimate one with a clear answer. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The concept of being the true religion - the revealed truth - was in fact, invented by Zoroastrianism. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You may find of interest that there are those who believe in a flat earth, and hold up proof of same. They're just a substantial minority these days, for some reason. Not that I intend such a comparison to invite any reflection on Zoroastrianism or Christianity, beyond allowing a comment on popularity versus validity. Please have a look at the article, and see if what you're looking for is there or in a related link. -- Ironmandius (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Religion is as inaccessible to words and logics as is Mozart´s Reqiem or Picasso´s Guernica. It is futile to deploy incompatible tools to a matter which is on a different level of human perception.

There are people to whom Mozart is noise and Picasso is blobs of grey paint, there are people (like me) to whom religion is utterly useless, not as a philosophy but as a "real" entity of creation and sin and heaven and hell and what not.

There is simply no answer to your question because language is the wrong tool to both ask and answer it. Like other folks on the WP:RD, I don´t have this one true answer. Maybe you find it someplace in your mind or in the rest of the universe. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bowei, sweetie, this is getting really boring. It’s time to get your mind out of the groove. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

At best a religion can only ever claim to be the one true religion. They can never prove it - because if they could prove such a claim, there'd be nothing to believe in anymore since the subject of those beliefs would have become established facts, and there is no need to believe in established facts. Belief is confined to claims that haven't yet been proven, or can't be proven. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

But, evidence is different from proof. Evidence suggests that a particular theory could be true without actually giving 100% proof that it is.HS7 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

When did people first become aware of tobacco related illnesses? Do we know who the first person was to die of a smoke related disease? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.9.137 (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You mean the "custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse" ? James 1 A Counterblaste to Tobacco 1604 although I imagine the first health effects were a long time earlier among the first users in South America. See tobacco and take the links from there, also be aware of differences between smoking and chewing Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is of interest as well [1] although I would be very careful of the objectivity of anything on the net, tobacco-wise Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I believe the effect of smoking in causing cancer was first discovered by a scientist in Britain called Sir Richard Doll in the 50's or 60's. Even forty or fifty years later, some people continue to smoke. 80.0.98.253 (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The first public campaigns against smoking are from the sixties; see e.g. this newspaper clipping.  --Lambiam 21:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Lung-cancer, of course, comes with the cigarette, but as early as the seventeenth century medical specialists who claimed that tobacco was harmful focused specifically on the increase of cancers of the nose, mouth and throat, perhaps brought on by the pipe-smoking and the consumption of snuff. The first recorded death from a tobacco-related illness is generally given as that of Sir Thomas Harriot, who accompanied Sir Walter Raleigh to Virginia in the mid-1580s, and was one of those to popularise pipe-smoking in England. Harriot died of a cancerous tumor of the nose in 1621. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The history of tobacco is quite contentious, in part because in the US it has become part of the legal strategy on the part of the tobacco industries. Robert N. Proctor, an historian of science, has done some interesting work on how historians (and other academics) have long been in the pay of the tobacco lobby as well, and the specific historical strategies used to create the tobacco industry's case in court (here's an article about Proctor's work, in case you can't get access to the above article). All of which to say is that it is a controversial minefield, even within the historical profession, as to what the answers to these sorts of apparently simple questions should be. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Some sources of unknown reliability have alleged that many modern and 'liberal" notions like the anti-smoking crusade originated with Hitler or the Nazis. See [2] , [3]. In the U.S. at that era there were lots of ads showing popular athletes smoking or chewing tobacco, (like Babe Ruth, who died of cancer [4] or with doctors endorsing some brand of cigarette [5]. Edison (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's definitely true that the Nazis were really the first one to push for state action against tobacco. The same historian who worked the most on that is the aforementioned Robert N. Proctor, who, by-the-by, was not making the argument that "Hitler was a leftist" like the second webpage you linked to claims (the author of that particular rant seems to find it unbearable that Proctor doesn't believe that a total lack of regulation of tobacco is a bad idea, even though the Nazis wanted to regulate it, as if one proposition was supported by the other; he also seems to find the fact that the Nazis believed tobacco was harmful to one is somehow good evidence that tobacco is not harmful to one, another wonderfully foolish use of logical faculties). But the question of whether the National Socialists were among the first to call for any sort of systematic "war on cancer" is uncontroversial. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do we know what life was like aboard the Atlantic slave ships?217.43.9.137 (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I assume you've looked at Slave ships and the links at the bottom. I seem to remember "Roots (TV miniseries)" had a bit on a ship. --Lisa4edit (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Read The Slave Ship: A Human History by Marcus Rediker (John Murray, 2007), as good an account as any. Rediker focuses not only on the experience of the human cargo, dreadful as it was, but also on the crews, whose own lives were nasty, brutish and often short. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This year is the 90th anniversary of the founding of the Royal Air Force. For a school project I am writing a history. I have all of the main details but I'm looking for stories of some of the early pilots and their experiences. Anything unusual would be a help, anything a little bit out of the ordinary connected with flying. Some people here know so much. Thank you for your time. Billy Newton —Preceding unsigned comment added by B T Newton (talk • contribs) 10:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's unlucky (but inherent in your question!) that the Royal Air Force wasn't formed until April 1918, as many of the interesting flyers of the First World War, such as Albert Ball, Richard Maybery, Donald Cunnell and Arthur Rhys Davids served only in the Royal Flying Corps or the Royal Naval Air Service. But see James McCudden, Christopher Draper, Edward Mannock, Tom F. Hazell, George McElroy, and Philip F. Fullard. Xn4 10:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

And don't forget it all started here in a lonely outpost of Empire despite what those upstart Yanks say. Oh, and this young man on his O E helped out during WW2. Mhicaoidh (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Now, here is a story for you, Billy. Among the first of the few was a man called Grahame Donald. While still a member of the Royal Naval Air Service he attempted a new manoeuvre in his Sopwith Camel, turning a loop. While at the top, and now completely upside down, his safety belt broke and he fell out of the open cockpit at a height of 6000 feet. This was the time before British pilots were issued with parachutes, in the belief that they would 'impair' their fighting spirit. Yes, it's crazy, but it's also true. Anyway, Donald was falling through the air, as he believed, to his death. Interviewed fifty-five years after the event he said "The first 2000 feet passed very quickly and terra firma looked damnably 'firma'" But the Camel continued on its loop. As it reached the bottom Donald landed on its top wing, managing to scramble back into the cockpit from there, going on to make a safe landing. It sounds absolutely unbelievable, I know, but I read about it in today's edition of The Sunday Telegraph, so it must be true! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's a lovely story, and Se non è vero, è ben trovato. (I've found it online here under the title Those magnificent men of the RAF...) Alas, dating from 1917, it rather makes my point that the adventures of the RFC and the RNAS can't be credited to the RAF. Clearly, the Telegraph's Joshua Levine came up against this problem and decided to rise above it! Xn4 00:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have three questions about Epicurus. Can his philosophy be in any way compared to pragmatism? How were his ideas received in the Christian middle ages? When can it be said that a proper understanding of Epicurean doctrines began to emerge? Jet Eldridge (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please read the Epicurus article and the pragmatism article. Come back here if you have specific questions, and we may be able to help. If this is homework, we can even review your answers fro you, but you must first formulate them. -Arch dude (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there is a pragmatic quality to the system of Epicurus. In the Principal Doctrines, for example, he defines justice as a system of mutual advantage, something that can be changed in accordance with circumstances. Human conduct, moreover, should be motivated, he argued, not by fear of omnipotent deities, but by correct reasoning over which actions to pursue and which to avoid.

Medieval thinkers, as you my not be surprised to discover, had a generally poor opinion of the Epicurus. John of Salisbury condemned him as a materialist and a sensualist, while Dante in the Inferno consigned him to the sixth circle of hell for denying the immortality of the soul. His reputation began to revive with the Renaissance. Lorenzo Valla was among the first to extol the virtues of Epicureanism, though with an understanding no greater than that of John of Salisbury. Erasmus, focusing on Epicurus' life of quiet simplicity, saw him as a precursor of the Christian ascetics. At the other extreme Michel de Montaigne and Giordano Bruno championed his doctrine of pleasure, together with his revolt against religions that deny the significance of earthly life in favour of some ethereal paradise.

But the real revival does not come until the seventeenth century, in the work of Pierre Gassendi, who published his Eight Books on the Life and Manners of Epicurus in 1647. This enjoyed considerable success in England, influencing the likes of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Walter Charleton, author of Epicurus' Morals, and Sir William Temple, who wrote Upon the Garden of Epicurus, or Of Gardening. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

How did the customary times for the start of the working day in various countries become formalised? I ask because while in Britain it is customary for white-collar workers to work "nine to five" with a hour off for lunch (although I knew of some office workers who had to do 9 to 6), or for children to do nine or eight-thirty to three or even two-thirty at school or to 4pm at college, when I did the American GMAT test it felt very unusual to have to start it at about 7am (I forget the exact time). I understand Americans often start work at 8am rather than 9am - is this true for office workers? In Britain builders tend to start at 8am and finsh at 4pm - this is probably due to the fact that it is dark by 4pm in Britain in mid-winter, but I suspect it may also be due to reducing the number of hours being pissed after drinking at lunch time. In mediaeval times I imagine that the working day started at dawn, in tropical countries it may still do so because of the 12 hours of night at the equator and the wish to avoid the midday heat. 80.0.98.253 (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your question implies that the standard white-collar working day is seven rather than eight hours in the UK. Is that the case? Or does the lunch hour count as a work hour? /85.194.44.18 (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Working hours are much shorter in the UK than in the USA, and in the rest of europe hours are even less. The last time I worked in an office we did 35 hours a week (not including lunchtime) and got six weeks holiday. That was and probably still is average for office workers. On the other hand, I've heard that UK office staff work at a faster pace than those in the US. 80.0.104.81 (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Whilst the working hours for most office jobs in the UK are supposed to be 9-5, a large proportion of people seem to work considerably longer, either skipping lunch or putting in unpaid overtime eiher before 9am or after 5pm. According to often mentioned research in the press, British workers work the longest hours in Europe.

In my experience, most other places in Europe tend to start the working day earlier (8am or even 7am) either to make room for a longer lunch break or to leave earlier to pick up children from school. In hotter countries I get the impression that many people shift their working day to the cooler times. As a holiday maker in Egypt for example, many stores seemed to be closed in the morning, but were open until 9pm or 10pm.

Astronaut (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, many Americans start work at 8 so they can take an hour lunch and still leave at 5. Others start work at 8:30 or 9 -- it really varies. I'd guess only a minority of workers still do the traditional "9 to 5" day, largely because few employers are willing to pay them for their lunch break. Czechs often start work at 7 or 8 and leave at 4. This probably has a lot to do with the Czech Republic's placement in the far east of its time zone, but one person told me it's because that's the way the miners worked, and the Communists set miners out as heroes of labour. (When they weren't being forced to mine uranium for political offenses.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The 8 AM work starting time is actually generally confied to the East and West Coasts of the United States. People who live in the Central Time Zone tend to start work at 7 AM. I don't know about those in the Mountain Time Zone. Corvus cornix_talk 20:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

From "Colloquial Croatian", Celia Hawkesworth, Routledge, 2006: Traditionally, in most Balkan countries the working day starts very early: at 7 or 8 am. This means that people finish work at 2 or 3 pm. ... Nowadays, however, Croatian working hours are becoming more and more similar to Western European ones. Spanish working hours : Many companies in the south of Spain now work a normal 10am to 6pm day, particularly on the Costa del Sol. The majority of Spanish businesses will still work from 10 am till 2 pm then 4 pm till 7 pm. However Spain and Croatia use the same (Central European) time, so the strange (early or late) working days work out rather similar to a 9-5 pattern when the local time by the sun is taken into consideration. SaundersW (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Starting times vary considerably not only regionally, but from workplace to workplace in the United States. For example, Corvus cornix states that people in the Central Time Zone tend to start work at 7 a.m., but when I lived in Chicago, most white-collar workers started work between 8 and 9, just as they do on the east and west coasts. What I have found, living in different parts of the United States, is that blue-collar workers tend to start work earlier than white-collar workers. Construction workers, for example, often start at 7:00 or 7:30 anywhere in the United States, probably to take maximum advantage of daylight. A lot of service workers start work early so that they can serve white-collar workers on their way to work. I have noticed that many white-collar workers in Boston start work at 8:00 or 8:30, whereas in New York City, most start at 9:00. I am speculating here, but I think that businesses may begin their day later in New York because workers face longer commutes there. Marco polo (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

(Sorry this is not completely relevant) I once heard that the Germans have the earliest rush hour...sorry, I just found it rather interesting and couldnt resist posting it here! = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

(To the OP) You're confusing two different groups: blue collar & white collar workers. Blue collar workers, traditionally, worked long days, almost every day of the week (depending on how religious their employer was, Sunday could be just another day of work) -- think about the hours & conditions illegal immigrants labor under in your country -- until unions & class solidarity won them better conditions. On the other hand, white collar workers -- who made their living from their brains or personal contacts -- were usually treated better. The point of unionization was to enable the blue collar workers to enjoy white collar working conditions. Of course, many white collar workers work long hours, but this is simply proof of the old truism that the self-employed have the most demanding boss.

However, none of this applies to Asian countries -- their thinking about work is far different than Euro-American conceptions. -- llywrch (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've just finished reading The Man In The Maze by Robert Silverberg. I'm now reading Lady Of Mazes by Karl Schroeder. What other science fiction novels have the word 'maze' in the title please? Or for that matter, non-SF novels? 80.0.98.253 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You may have to eliminate a couple of these, but it should give you a reading list for a while [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa4edit (talk • contribs) 13:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

A Maze of Death, classic SF novel by Philip K. Dick. Excellent reading. Rhinoracer (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can it include books with the word 'amaze' in the title?HS7 (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if it qualifies perfectly as "science fiction" but I recall reading a young adult novel called The Maze in the Heart of the Castle by Dorothy Gilman, and I think it might go along the lines of what you're seeking. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

to what degree does zola expose the hypocrisy of middle class society using the apartment block in the rue de choiseul as a metaphor?81.129.86.45 (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, 81.129, the only answer is for me to recite Pot-Bouille verbatim! Zola's book is a sustained, and biting, criticism of forms of bourgeois hypocrisy. The apartment on the Rue de Choiseul is a pleasant façade, covering a rotten core, where "The servants, in their hatred, had no sympathy for the masters. This was what it had come to-fornication beneath a downpour of rotten vegetables and putrid meat." You will discover all of this yourself...if you can be troubled to read the book! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Tsar Alexander I instituted major changes in Russian higher education. But how did his later reactionary policy effect this sector? Yermelov (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Badly, in the main, especially at the University of Kazan, where the new emphasis on religious orthodoxy hit hard. The policy of obscurantism was most closely associated with Michael Magnitsky, who called for a battle against 'godless rationalism', turning Kazan into a kind of monastic barracks. The library was purged of all of the pernicious influences of the Age of Reason; the university was flooded with Bibles; and the students made to attend compulsory religious services. The measure of Magnitsky's reactionary mind can be taken from the fact that he accused the Grand Duke Nicholas, Tsar Alexander's eventual successor, of being a free thinker! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think I remember some archaeological work, I think it was in Iraq, or somewhere around there, where they found a thin layer of deposited sediment, which they claimed was deposited during the mythical flood. There were also various ancient artifacts, probably mostly pottery, that were noticeably better made and more technologically advanced below the layer of sediment. Did they really find this, or am I imagining it? And is it realy evidence of a huge flood around there a while ago? And, can anyone point me to a website about it? I read the article on supposed evidence of mythical floods, and didn't see anything like it there, but I might have missed it.HS7 (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Have you read Flood geology? Some of the references and further reading might point you in the right direction. This area of geology is, however, highly dubious because it does not use the same scientific principles of other geological disciplines. Perhaps you were thinking of the Black Sea deluge theory? Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I did read that article, but not the links, which I will now go and do. I am quite sure it wasn't the Black sea flood, as the area excavated is now dry land rather than still under the sea.HS7 (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

First off,sorry for my bad english.

Of course,Kosovo is part of Serbia by international law and it will always stay part of Serbia.

But,as 30 or so countries recognized,if we imagine that one day Russia and Serbia recognize it and it becomes UN member(which will,of course,never happen).

My question is this: EU has demands that Serbia give more autonomy to the province of Vojvodina before joining EU,but some of EU countries recognize Kosovo. If Kosovo becomes independent,how can a country have only 1 province? I mean,without Kosovo,80 precent of Serbian population lives in central Serbia...Right now,Serbia is composed of central Serbia,and 2 provinces: Kosovo and Vojvodina....If Kosovo becomes independent,how can Vojvodina remain a province? Isnt it unfair to the 80 precent of people who dont live in Vojvodina? How can this province have bigger powers then the rest of the country?

So the main question that I wanted to ask,and I cant find the answer on the internet: Is there any country in the world that has only 1 province? And wouldnt it be unfair to the rest of the country that this province has its own parlament and autonomy+plus everything else that central Serbia has? Wouldnt,in the unlikely case of Kosovo legal independence,Vojvodina cease to exist?

Thanks for the answer

89.216.101.61 (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

If by "province" you mean an autonomous area, then yes, there are several countries each of which has only one autonomous area. This is not something that is highly unusual. See List of autonomous areas by country to find some examples. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Finland and Åland is one example. Jørgen (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not a case of one province, but the West Lothian Question also deals with the problems of what happens to the "remainder" of a state when power is devoluted to regions/provinces/countries with various levels of autonomy. /Kriko (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

That is a question, Kriko, that is beginning to demand an immediate answer, especially as we poor English are getting restive under the control of the Scottish Sopranos, in the shape of Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You say "Kosovo is part of Serbia by international law and it will always stay part of Serbia", but your only basis for clinging onto that rash notion lies in the United Nations Charter principle of territorial integrity. Kosovo is a classic instance of the need for that principle to have some flexibility. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1674 of 28 April 2006 reaffirmed paragraphs 138 and 139 of the World Summit Outcome Document, 2005, on the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Frankly, one of the lessons of history is that no territorial possession can be considered to be a possession for ever, and especially not when its population has such strong reasons for rejecting the supposed mother country. We can add that one of the lessons of the second half of the twentieth century is that no one should put any faith in the UN or in its Charter. In the wise words of Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein, "The attempt to freeze human evolution has in the past been a futile undertaking and has probably brought about more violence than if such a process had been controlled peacefully. Restrictions on self-determination threaten not only democracy itself but the state which seeks its legitimation in democracy." Xn4 23:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, 89.216, I recognise a cri de coeur when I see it, but the one thing you should understand about history is that one should never say never! Things change. On the assumption that you are youreslf a Serb I would ask you to look at the fluctutations of your country over time, particularly the fluctuations of its borders, which have come in and out like a tide. If one thing was almost certain to destroy Greater Serbia it was narrow Serb nationalism. But never mind. The Balkanization that you have seen in Yugoslavia (how apt that word is for once) is proceeding right across Europe. Soon the provincial will be the only meaningful basis for identity! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Jorgen and Kriko,your answers are very helpfull.

For other two answers,I really dont want to get into the disscusion on that topic.You say:"things change",but it reads "DOUBLE STANDARDS"....When Republika Srpska gets the right for independence,when Krajna,where 300.000. Serbs got ethnicaly clensed get independence,when north part of Montenegro gets independence,when Abhazia,Chechenia,Tibet and all the other regions that want it get the independence,then Kosovo will also be allowed to become a real state...Until then,they are never going to become member of UN(Security Council-China and Russia will block it),EU(Spian,Greece,Slovakia,Cyprus and Romania will block it),MMF(Serbia will block it) and so on...

Kosovo is heart of Serbia for 1000 years,Serbian Jerusalem...It was under the Turks for 500 years though,but it became Serbia again...Jerusalem was not Jewish for 2000 years,but it became Jewish once again...There is justice in this world,even if it takes centuries...

"Restrictions on self-determination threaten not only democracy itself but the state which seeks its legitimation in democracy."

Kosovo can only get legal recognition when Serb Republic in Bosnia and other regions around the world get the self-determination right for them selves...Untill then,Kosovo will remain integral part of Serbia...Otherwise,its double standards...BECAUSE ALL CROATIA AND BOSNIA WARS WERE BECAUSE WEST DID NOT ALLOW SERBS THE RIGHT ON SELF-DETERMINATION....So,now how can you expect us to allow someone else what wasnt not granted to us? Thats why Kosovo will never become independent

Anyway,thanks for your help everyone 89.216.101.61 (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, as I have said, a cri de coeur. I would suggest that you stand back a little, but how can you? I understand just how important certain events are in your national martyrology. My very best wishes. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Alas, the "Serbian Jerusalem" argument sets an awful lot of hares running. We can pause for a moment and look at the fate of Jerusalem. Xn4 11:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You are right about the double standards in international politcs, 89.216.101.61. But I'm afraid there's little the Wikipedia Reference Desk can do about it. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Glad to be of help. Do you now think that it's OK if Vojvodina retains some autonomy? Jørgen (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm old enough (just!) to remember the riots of 1968 in Paris. It seemed almost as if there was about to be a full scale revolution, perhaps a little like that of 1848. Is this an accurate impression, or was the whole thing somewhat tamer?ZZT9 (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm too young to remember this, but I know it wasn't just Paris. In 1968, there was wave of unrest that swept through the First, Second and Third worlds. Alas, for now, we don't seem to have a good article that would sum up the events in France, the US, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Mexico, Brazil and elsewhere. We only have something between a start-class article and a messy list at Protests of 1968. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

See also May 1968 in France.  --Lambiam 20:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Look at the 1968 article. I remember the situation in the United States that year. The 1968 Democratic National Convention, two assassinations, and sundry other nastiness. -Arch dude (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, 1968-the Revolution of the Poster! As far as a possible comparison with 1848 is concerned, ZZT9, the words of Charles Baudelaire come to mind-"The Revolution was charming only because of the very excess of its ridiculousness." Never mind, though; the Poster lives! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's far too glib.

For the French, 1968 was a watershed year i n many more ways than elsewhere, because cultural change that elsewhere took much of the 1960s and 1970s to be implemented happened there - at least in national memory - in the course of a few months. For an interesting take on this, the very good John Lichfield in the Independent.

That's in France: Germany and the US had their own problems. It is useful to remember that the English had it easy that year. It is difficult to appreciate the stresses that the civil rights movement was putting on American society, not to mention young Germany's confrontation of older Germany's Nazi past. --Relata refero (disp.) 01:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

One more quote, then, of genuine ’68 vintage, this time from Jean-Jacques Lebel, an antique guru of the left, speaking at the Sorbonne;

We are for the total destruction of categories. We want everyone to use the university for whatever they want. Not only for education, but to eat, sleep, fuck and get high...We want to demolish the structure of the consumer society-and that includes culture.

How could this be bettered? For the Revolution of the Poster must, indeed, be accompanied by perfect forms of egoism, the very Ideology of the Poster! Perhaps another revolutionary was present in spirit?! Ha-ha! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, Clio, if you knew what French culture of the 1950s was like you would have cheered Lebel as he said that. The stodginess of the French mainstream, especially as compared to Italy, was a large part of the reason for that contempt for the dominant culture - one shared, as it happens, with the filmmakers of the nouvelle vague. The link between that lot and the students on the streets was nicely summed up by an Italian who happened to be in France at the time and made a film about it thirty-five years later.

And the "university" comment is actually quite on-point: the riots started as a demand for co-ed housing... --Relata refero (disp.) 06:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I confess I have no direct experience of French culture of the day, but the whole event, the personalities it attracted, and the causes it embraced, just seems so terribly ephemeral, an example on the role of silliness in history; or Revolution not as the carnival of the people, but just a carnival! Some Revolutions might indeed be said to be tragic; others verge on farce! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Trust you, Clio, to dismiss the events of May '68 with reference to ephemerality and silliness. I, on the other hand, dearly wish I had been there, that I might have felt part of a rare period of history that was bold enough to question and ultimately reject the repressive traditions that you hold so dear. Never mind Cohn-Bendit, the true philosopher of 1968 was Guy Debord, whose searing analysis of the Society of the Spectacle has never been bettered as a diagnosis of the terminal sickness of both western and east European societies. Debord wanted to "wake up the spectator who has been drugged by spectacular images"; a call to arms that is as relevant as it is radical. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 00:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, how right you are, sweetie; I simply love oppressive traditions! After all, what more could a girl ask for?! Boring old Debord and reification? I'd much rather be drugged by the spectacular! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I rest my case. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 00:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm looking for a recognizable list of people who got famous as senior citizens. I already have Grandma Moses, Colonel Sanders, Luara Ingalls Wilder. Need this for a motivational presentation to a group of unemployed seniors on Wed May 7. Can you help??? 66.45.202.194 (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Karen WrightReply

Immanuel Kant, among the world's greatest thinkers, did not achieve widespread recognition until the publication of the second edition of his Critique of Pure Reason, by which time he was in his sixties! A more down-to-earth example is Francis Chichester, the first person to sail single-handed round the world while he was in his mid-sixties. For this achievement he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth, using the same sword with which Sir Francis Drake was knighted by Elizabeth I all those centuries before. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Morgan Freeman Tomgreeny (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Penelope Fitzgerald wrote her novels in her sixties. Addere (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Rosalie Gascoigne Her first serious exhibition was when she was 57; it was an instant success, and four years later in her 60s she had become a major figure in the Australian art world. Mhicaoidh (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

How about Granny D, who became famous at 88-90 by walking across America to promote campaign-finance reform (and collected keys to 13 cities along the way)? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This might not be good for a motivational speech to seniors, but Emily Dickinson wasn't famous until after she died. I wouldn't tell them this. Paragon12321 (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

How about James Tiptree, Jr (Alice Bradley Sheldon)? Hugely respected within her field for her insight and originality, she embarked on her writing career at the age of 52, and her success lasted until her death at 71, in which year she was still winning awards for her work. -- Karenjc 07:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since there's another question about him above, odd that no one mentioned Miguel de Cervantes, who had little success until Don Quixote in 1605 at age 58.John Z (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Although she had published books for children in her 50s, Mary Wesley became a best-selling author for adults in her 70s, and published her last book in the year before she died at 90. SaundersW (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Josef Fritzl became internationally known at age 73. Maybe the wrong motivations to promote. Edison (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You also might want to look at the page late bloomer. WikiJedits (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Olga Marie Mikalsen Jørgen (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

More importantly - at least to me and the beneficiaries of the charities I intend to leave my money to upon death - what about people who became multi-millionaires after 50, when previously they did not have much wealth?

Side note - one hundred years ago when age expectations were largely set, people rarely lived beyond fifty or sixty. Now with a healthy lifestyle people may live on average to above eighty or ninety. So being fifty now is like being 10 or 20 years old 100 years ago. Am I wrong? 80.0.98.216 (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Partly. A significant part of the lower life expectancies back then is infant mortality. Once you grew to a certain age, your chance of being sixty, while of course lower than today, was far from zero. (Of course the original poster doesn't have to mention that in his/her motivational speech...) Jørgen (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Look at US Presidents. One might argue that some of them were already famous before they became president, but it is a peak for most. Lisa4edit (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Grandma Moses. Corvus cornix_talk 21:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Olga Masters (had seven children (in order): rugby league coach and journalist Roy Masters, radio broadcaster Ian Masters, film maker Quentin Masters, investigative journalist Chris Masters, media producers Sue Masters and Deb Masters, and Michael) but her own career only started when she was about 58 or 59; and Aboriginal artist Emily Kame Kngwarreye started at 80 and became a major world artist. Not that being the top gun is the main thing, but if they didn't express themselves, who would they be? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I can't help thinking of Jeanne Calment, the oldest human ever (122 years) - although she really only became famous because of her record-breaking age rather than any active achievement. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It says on the main page that he succeeded power in 1950, that means he's only been on the job for 58 years, how would that make him the longest serving monarch? 99.226.26.154 (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you saw a version briefly vandalised by a member of the British royal family? I see "Having reigned since June 9, 1946.." which would indeed make him the longest-serving monarch. It would also mean that he's been on the job since before Israel, India or the People's Republic of China even existed. --Relata refero (disp.) 02:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

India didn't magically appear out of thin air in 1947, you know. It's been there for many thousands of years, as the Mughals, the East India Company and the Empress of India would attest, were they alive to do so. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah well, the very idea of a politically unified India didn't really exist till the modern era...--Relata refero (disp.) 09:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the film version of the book, The Tin Drum, can you tell us what Oskar's mother died of over-eating from a barrel? We have two different opinions here: one of eels and one of sardines.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.99.246 (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

According to a user review on the film's imdb page, the eels were in another scene. You could also ask your question there. WikiJedits (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It was neither eels nor sardines, 203.166; it was herrings (either that or very big sardines!) Clio the Muse (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

After a friend mentioned he was reading Anna Karenina, another person suggested he should try "Shautaraw". This is all we know, and we can't track down the other person to ask. A Google search turns up 0 results. I'm assuming it's a gross misspelling. Does anyone know what "Shautaraw" could refer to?

Kuanche (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've done quite a thorough search and come up with nothing, :( sorry. I've also tried a few alternative spellings, but none of them seem to come close to anything you're looking for. Maybe another volunteer here has more luck. PeterSymonds | talk 06:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

What was their accent like? Could it be Tolstoy's works After The Ball or The Kreutzer Sonata? Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sholokhov? Solzhenitsyn? Does anything in Category:Russian novelists ring a bell? (edit - sorry, that was me. WikiJedits (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am wondering if your friend was being a little facetious, and recommending Shotaro manga, the prolific manga author Shotaro Ishinomori or else Japanese author of Tales of Murder, Shotaro Ikenami. (Both o's in the name Shotaro are long) SaundersW (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

If I'm born with that ethnicity, I will be that ethnicity forever in my lifetime? I know ethnicity is not a race. I'm dominant Thai, tiny Chinese, and maybe Indian. I suffer discouragement because my dominant ethnicity, Thai is not recognized (classified as 'Other Asian', no separate category) and there is no userbox on Wikipedia for 'Thai'. What can I do about it? Jet (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Create your own Thai or Thai+ userbox? They're not handed down by God (or Jimbo) and set in stone. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

People can hold multiple ethnicities and, in fact, create whole new ethnic identities. (See Ethnogenesis.) So your ethnicity is definitely not fixed at birth. --D. Monack | talk 07:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ethnicity is not etched in stone. It depends both on how you define yourself and on how others define you. How others define you depends a lot on environment. I see from your user page that you live in Southern California. In Southern California, there are numerous Asian ethnic groups, each of them with a distinct community and identity. In other parts of the United States, especially outside of the major cities, there are very few Asians and not much in the way of Asian community institutions. In these parts of the United States, you will be seen as Asian or "Oriental" because of your appearance, but if you speak English with an American accent, many people will accept you as American. Even in many parts of California, non-Asians will not care which Asian country was home to your family. They may just see you as "Asian" and accept you as another Californian if you speak with a typical California accent. Of course, other Asians may see that you are not part of their ethnic group or wonder which group you belong to. You can always answer, "I just think of myself as American", and many people will accept that, again unless you have a non-American accent. A non-American accent will mark you as an immigrant, and non-Asian Americans will consider you ethnically Asian. More sophisticated non-Asians and many Asians may want to know the ethnic origin of your family and may consider you part of that ethnic group because your accent helps to mark you as a member of that group. On the other hand, if you grew up in the United States and then went to some other country, you may well be perceived in that country as American. Even if you went to Thailand and said that your parents were Thai, you might be perceived as American. You can certainly change how you define yourself. If you change your cultural environment, you can change your perceived ethnicity. Marco polo (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

just like we have the names such as blondes and brunettes do we have any specific name for girls having black hair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.99.18.202 (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article black hair states that it's called "jet-black" or "raven black", so there's nothing like "brunette". I've also heard somewhere that brunette can also describe black hair, but rarely. PeterSymonds | talk 12:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Melanie"? --Milkbreath (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, She is a brunette. --LarryMac | Talk 13:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Both "blonde" and "brunette" are loan words from French. The equivalent for a black-haired woman with olive skin would be "une brune". SaundersW (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is "la noiraude" (from noir=black) but that's talking about a cow. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why is writing an important feature in ancient civilisations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisiblebug590 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This probably has many different answers, so I'm only going to pick the communication aspect. In the ancient world, communication outside the immediate circle was nearly impossible, and therefore writing would be used in the same way as today's email. Messengers would send messages from, say, the Roman Imperial court to the Turkish court, conveying messages from the Emperor etc. Writing was important in books as well; for example, the poems of Homer would've been read like any other book today. The importance of the written word was, in short, extremely important, but I'll let others expand on specifics. PeterSymonds | talk 12:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

One of the most important functions of writing in ancient and modern times has been its use for record keeping. Writing helped merchants keep track of their inventories and their deals, and it helped rulers keep track of their territories, persons and properties subject to taxation, and so on. Peter Symonds mentions the poems of Homer, which were almost certainly memorized and recited by illiterate bards for centuries before they were written down. However, the advent of writing allowed the poems to be recorded permanently so that they no longer risked alteration or embellishment by oral bards. Writing also made possible the accumulation of large libraries. Writing also made communication more efficient. PeterSymonds also mentions messengers. Before the invention of writing, there were very likely messengers, but they would have had to memorize their messages and to deliver them by speaking them. Writing allowed messengers to carry messages more numerous, lengthy, and detailed than they could possibly memorize. In these ways, writing facilitated the growth of trade and of the state. Marco polo (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Writing is essential to our own civilisation, everything from our laws, to our religions, are codified within specific texts. And so, our historians thus consider the developement of language as a prerequisite of civilisation, we can't imagine life without the written word, thus, life without the written word is unimaginable - the developement of text thus serves as a convenient starting point for 'civilisation'. Ninebucks (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

And without people writing about stuff, we would know almost nothing about what actually happened during history.HS7 (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

HS7, that observation comes close to being a tautology! Almost by definition history is the recording of events. Before there was history there was, well, pre-history! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

When writing was first invented, the people of that time were just as intelligent as modern people. As most people were illiterate, they compensated with other methods such as heroic poetry as mentioned by PeterSymonds or singing songs. I can only think of two large ancient libraries, the Babylonian cuniform tablets and the library of Alexandria on papyrus. So, large libraries are rare.
Sleigh (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

We often joke about the internet as an external memory bank. Likewise, the invention of writing and then books enabled humanity to achieve its first externally stored memories. Before that, people may have been illiterate (a word we associate with ignorance), but they had fantastic memories. Patrick Leigh Fermor spent years with the Greek resistance in World War II, and months hanging out in damp caves with Cretan shepherds. He describes how he would go to sleep to the sound of them reciting the Odyssey, and wake up the next morning to hear them continuing it. Or check out the Manas cycle of Central Asia. You may want to look at Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I meant it in the sense that other forms of archaeology usually don't reveal as much about the past as reading what they wrote back then, so we know very little about the peoples that didn't write. The ancient civilizations we know more than just a very little about all wrote, so it is important to us that they did, as well as important to them.HS7 (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

the film-industry at kolkata (India)is nick-named and normally referred as TOLLYWOOD. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.99.18.202 (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Our Kolkata article says the Bengali film industry is dubbed Tollywood from the suburb of Tollygunj plus Hollywood. However, the Tollywood article says the term refers to Telegu plus Hollywood, meaning the Telegu film industry based not in Kolkata, but farther south in Andhra Pradesh. Maybe there are simply two Tollywoods. Perhaps someone who knows how to do this could consider renaming or otherwise disambiguating the pages Tollywood and Bengali cinema? WikiJedits (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cool, thanks! WikiJedits (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

India also has Bollywood. Similar constructions include Lollywood and Wellywood. Gwinva (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not to forget Nollywood. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Isn't there a Dollywood too?HS7 (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

And the article on that also mentions a Dhallywood. But I don't think this is the point of the question.HS7 (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

What is the longest time that one generation of a family has been at a particular school? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 12:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good question. I'm not sure of any notable examples (there's no record or anything from what I can find), but I should think that many families, especially in the aristocracy or nobility, would've spent hundreds of years attending the same school. For example, Edward VII, George V, George VI and Prince Charles all went to the University of Cambridge, and that's a longevity of at least 120 years. PeterSymonds | talk 12:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The OP said 'one generation'. I don't know where you'd find such information, but FWIW various members of my family attended the same school continuously for 16 years. Algebraist 14:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, sorry :S misread the question. PeterSymonds | talk 14:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Both of my brothers went to the Winchester, but taken together their time there (allowing for the overlap) still falls some four years short of Algebraist's total. However, if you add my father, my grand-father and my great-grandfather the line goes all the way back to the early years of the twentieth century! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

My generation of my family was going (continiously) to the same primary school for 21 years AFAIK. But I doubt that's even close to a record Nil Einne (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Between me, my younger sister and my brother, we will have been at the same school for 17 years by the time he leaves. However, this doesn't really answer the question. if we look at it mathematically, assuming a woman has their first child at 18, and their last at 45, and all the children attend the same school for seven years each, with no gaps between them, that would be (45-18)+7years, which is 34 years. That's should be about the maximum possible, but the problem then is proving that a family has done that.HS7 (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Although that doesn't include cousins, who are members of the same generation of the same family, or second cousins, and given that, for example, I have a cousin about the same age as my parents, and more being born all the time, the range then is much more. A big family in a little village might hold the record, but I doubt anyone will ever find it. sorry.HS7 (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I guess it depends how far you want to go. Do you include 2nd cousins? 3rd cousins? If you include half-siblings but no cousins, it strikes me as likely that a polygamist somewhere would hold the record. For example men in some of the polygamist cults in the US seem to have have like 10 wives or so and because they are isolated communities, most of their children probably go the the same 'school' (if you count whatever they attend as school). I'm not sure but I believe sometimes the men are having children into their 60s or later. You could easily see their children being at the same school for 50 years Nil Einne (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Weasleys at Hogwarts?hotclaws 02:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think I remember that Jeremy Clarkson's fathers entire extended family made up most of the population of a tiny village somewhere, so maybe they would hold the record. At least, I doubt you would be likely to find out about any other families like that, that can beat them.HS7 (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

IIRC there has been a member of the Indo-French Fanthome family at La Martiniere Lucknow for at least the past half-century. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have this assignment on EC law nd I am really confused with the EClaw. I know i need to look at the EClaw status and see what conflicting between the provisions of EC law and the UK statue, also i need to find out weather the UK provisions can post date treaty articles. Lisafoden (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Law of the European Union will help you. Xn4 23:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Were there no objections to the plan to bomb Dresden? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.104.148 (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not at the time, it would seem. This page gives a lot of information. It was not until a few weeks later that MPs started to say "we shouldn't have done it", and then even Churchill said the same. But when it was carried out, it was thought that it would be a swift end to the war. PeterSymonds | talk 13:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

That particular raid may not have been intensively discussed, as I do not believe anyone thinks that it was intended to cause particularly severe loss of life. The internal objections to the nature of the bombing campaign, however, were considerable. The scientific establishment in particular viewed it both as immoral - though they did not waste time on that argument - and a waste of resources. (The latter, they thought paradoxically, might be better spent on researching the atomic bomb.) Some of the big wheels, including Patrick Blackett and Henry Tizard disagreed vehemently with dehousing. IIRC, C.P. Snow dramatises some of the tension between the scientists and the others (who read Greats, perhaps?) in Strangers and Brothers. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

As our article points out (Bombing of Dresden in World War II), the raid was similar in size of attack, weight of bombs and loss of life to other attacks carried out in 1945 against the other large German cities. So there was little reason for anyone to have objected specifically to the Dresden attack. Rmhermen (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is a sinister logic to the attack. If bombings were confined only to the industrial cities, then those Germans not from the industrial cities would not feel at any personal risk, and thus would not have any reason to oppose the Nazi war plans. If the Allies were to create a climate of fear, in which no German could feel completely safe from Allied attack, then Hitler's government would very quickly lose the confidence of the people, and thus, Germany would be brought to surrender. Ninebucks (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ninebucks, I hardly think these points make all that much sense in the context of the times. By February 1945 Germany was weeks away from total defeat. There is no evidence at all that the attack on Dresden advanced this goal by even a single day. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, 217.42, there was an objection to the planned bombing. It came from Wing-Commander James Rose, head of the air section at Bletchley Park, who was appointed Deputy Director of Operational Intelligence at the Air Ministry in February 1945, shortly before the execution of Operation Thunderclap. As a general principle Rose took the view that there was little to be gained from further indiscriminate attacks now that the war was coming to an end. He raised particular objections to attacks on poorly defended cultural centres, and was particularly disturbed by a proposed raid on Bonn, the birthplace of Beethoven, even though it only contained a single clothing factory.

Soon after he heard of the planned joint Allied offensive against Dresden-the Americans by day and the British by night-he wrote "It was the only important city in Germany that has never been bombed. It seems to me tragic that this beautiful city should be destroyed. We are getting near the end of the war." He telephoned Carl Andrew Spaatz, head of the USAF in Europe, to ask if the American attack was going ahead. He was told that it was, with the agreement of the British. When asked why Spaatz said that it was because the Sixth SS Panzer Division was being moved east through Dresden, on its way to defend the Hungarian oil-fields. Rose said that ULTRA intelligence revealed that the division in question was nowhere near Dresden, but was being routed west of Prague. Spaatz replied that he had no wish to bomb Dresden and would call his attack off if the British agreed.

Rose then rang Bomber Command to speak to Sir Arthur Harris. Instead he was put through to Air Marshall Robert Saundby, telling him of his conversation with Spaatz, adding his own view that Dresden was of no importance to the advancing Red Army. Saundby dismissed his objections, "I don't care what you say. We are going to bomb Dresden."

You will find some of the details of this story in Fall Out: World War II and the Shaping of Postwar Europe by Peter Calvocoressi, where the author recalls discussing the movements of the Sixth Panzer Division with Rose. Calvocoressi concludes that the Dresden raids were illegal because of the disproportionate force used. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Clio. I didn't know any of that. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

She delights, Relato refero, in the role of educator! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can someone verify the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the following statements :

• 1) In countries where women's literacy is high or higher than in poor countries, abortion rates are also higher while infanticides are down.

• 2) The Soviet Union was the first country to fully educate the large mass of women.

• 3) Nations that have aging and non renewable populations are almost always those same nations where the woman has been sexually liberated.

• 4) During the 60s and 70s, the woman's rights movement was immediately accompanied by the gay liberation movement.

• 5) Emancipation of women has meant the utter disapperance of the patriarch male and its replacement by a more equalitarian counterpart.

• 6) The emancipation of women is corollary to the decline of religion in the West.

• 7) A grave economic crisis involving large and long-term inflation might paralyse the job market and freeze the liberation of women.

• 8) More women on the job market has often been translated by more government taxes.

• 9) Female presence in modern armies has decreased the possibilies of war.

• 10) The phenomemnon of judicial activism is often directly linked to the women's rights movement.

• 11) The massive presence of both men and women in universities has ultimaltely led to a deflation of the value of a Bachelor's Degree, which is now devalued to the profit of a PHD. In contrast, men still earn more PHDs than women.

• 12) The philosophy of organicism teaches that social ills occur when society goes beyond its natural and ultimately organic functionalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.243.164 (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

• 13) One of the last unregulated sectors of the economy is prostitution, where women and men do not yet earn equal pay, because of offer and demand laws which precede any kind of government legislation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.243.164 (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

69.157.243.164 (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Some of those look really weird. Where did you get these statements from?

4) everywhere I know of gay rights legislation lagged many decades behind women's rights legislation.

6) Even if they were contemperaneous doesn't mean one is a 'corollary' of the other.

9) looks like complete speculation if only because it isn't the female soldiers (or any soldiers) who decide to go to war; it's usually their civilian leaders. Female soldiers are a relatively recent phenomenon (last couple of decades) and I certainly haven't noticed a reduction in wars over that period.

10) I'm pretty sure this is entirely wrong, because there are a lot of countries where 'judicial activism' is not an issue, and yet women have plenty of rights.

11) I see no way there could be a link. Whatever forces are driving the alleged deflation of degrees they are nothing to do with gender.

13) Prostitution is frequently regulated. In some places it's forbidden in some places it can't advertize, in some it is legal but you can't base in in a building; in other places it's legal. Other activities regulated to a similar degree (depending on location) include drug dealing, insider trading, copyright piracy. Also why would you think that male prostitutes make less money than female ones? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

5) The patriarch male is still quite visible in every society, even ones that are supposedly quite liberated. One cannot say there has been an "utter disappearance" of said trope, though a decline, sure.

9) I don't see the connection. Wars have been fought by female leaders, wars have been fought with female soldiers. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, the fun and peril of statistics. Should we add to the list that there is statistical proof that our measures against dragon attacks are highly successful. Statistics prove that storks deliver babies in Podunk because the fluctuations in stork population is directly reflected in the local birth rate. When Jill moved into the house there was a 100% increase in the female population there. :-)Lisa4edit (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could you please confirm, Lisa, if there is a positive correlation between the problem of evil, female emancipation, and the consumption of apples? It's something I've been troubled by for quite a while now. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

;-} I'm absolutely certain that, given enough time and computing power, one could draw positive correlations between apple related facts, such as number and distribution of apple orchards, ownership of apple computers, apple juice consumption and number of females with the first name Apple; and emancipation related topics like percentage of female company managers, ratio of female university graduates in "male dominated subjects" and pantsuit sales figures; and established measures of evil like spousal homicide rates, number of females accused of violent crimes and a detailed numerical study of evil female attempts to seduce males from following the path of pure good. Proper selection of suitable populations, geographical areas, time periods and statistical methods should guarantee the desired outcome. Just think of the increase in urban violence, clearly mirroring the fact that emancipated single mothers are sending their kids to school with an apple instead of investing the effort of preparing a PB&J sandwich. Thereby inciting social peer pressure, resentment towards females and authority, and limiting their kids ability to communicate (Who wants to talk about apples?). The feeble attempt to hide the sheer malicious evil intent behind nutrition claims only compounds their obvious guilt. There should be no problem with proving this fact with selective analysis of statistical data and survey results. :-) Sorry to anyone taking offense at this digression from desired ref:desk quality levels, but it may tell people to handle statistical results with a pot (instead of a grain) of salt. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)oops Lisa4editReply

While the physical sciences use a significance threshold of p<1%, in the social sciences a threshold of p<5% is often acceptable. This means that the given correlation or a higher correlation would occur by chance in less than 5% of cases. Now, if you take 7 variables and cross-correlate them, you will have 21 correlations, of which one is likely to be acceptable by social science criteria. It is a well known peril of statistical investigation of multivariate problems. SaundersW (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Most statistical results in peer-reviewed papers are aware of the problem of Degrees of freedom (statistics) and take that into account. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Excellent answer, Lisa. I'm truly impressed by your understanding of the semiotics of the apple, a truly dangerous fruit...or is it the fig?! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Right.

• Nos (1) and (2) are generally correct. For the first, see any recent Human Development Report. For the second, see this recent paper and this overall study.
• If you accept the standard assumptions of the demographic transition, and the link between literacy, education, and smaller families current in the literature, then (3) is indeed true.
• I can't speak for (4) in detail. My knowledge of the rhetoric of the gay rights revolution suggests that it was more inspired by the civil rights movement than women's liberation.
• (5) is almost certainly over-stated.
• (6) is considered to be true in the literature, but it is also believed that some causation runs in the opposite direction. As the Encyclopedia of Women and Religion in North America puts it, "the emancipation of women meant that they no longer needed to turn to religious life in order to realise the professional and personal accomplishments that it afforded previous generations."
• (7) is not generally considered true. It might reduce the number of women in the job market, though.
• (8) doesn't seem to make sense to me at all.
• (9) Impossible to tell, too many other factors.
• (10) Judicial activism was necessary for many civil rights advances, so this is true of America. Not elsewhere.
• (11) The returns to education decrease with the number of individuals possessing it, regardless of gender. In countries which had more female PhDs than male (the old USSR for a time) there were no changes in the returns to that degree. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

What sort of socks would a well-off lady in medieval France have most likely worn? And would peasants of that period have had access to socks? 96.233.8.220 (talk)Perenelle —Preceding comment was added at 15:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here is a nice site on mediaeval underwear, from which I quote the following:

Women's Hosen

It is rare that a clothed woman is portrayed in medieval artwork with her feet or legs exposed, beyond /perhaps/ the point of her toes sticking out of her gown. The exceptions tend to be laborers (and even in the field, women's legs are often covered to the ankles) and full nudes (Rebecca caught bathing, for instance). There is a 14th c illustration of a musician playing something akin to a hurdy-gurdy, with her ankles & lower shins visible (gasp!); her two dancing musician girlfriends however have their ankles fully covered! (The seated musician has parti-colored hosen, by the way.)

From all of this, we can safely surmise that women's hosen /never/ rose to or above calf-length. Lower, and they won't stay up. Higher, and they waste material. If the multiple dress layers (sufficient to keep the body warm) aren't enough to keep the legs warm, well, young lady, perhaps you ought'n't be lifting your skirt up!

As always, there are also health and hygiene considerations. No wool on the inner thighs is a good thing, for obvious reasons of comfort, and doubly so for the lady who might very well own only one pair throughout the month.

There is slim proof of this theory that women always wore short-hosen, in depictions of couples in flagrant delecto.

Similarly, since the ankles are rarely visible, there is little reason to envision a separate styling for women's and men's hosen below the calf. Also, since garters suffice nicely, there is little reason to suppose any other method was ever used by women, rendering what became for men a mostly decorative nicety, an essential part of the feminine wardrobe. This neatly answers all of the problems from the knees on up, in fitting the hosen! SaundersW (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe that site! Skirts do *not* keep the legs warm – socks have nothing on stockings in this regard.

Nevertheless, Google thinks that knee-high is period-correct. Have a look at these:

*a pair of silk stockings from 14th century Germany

*the stockings of Eleanor of Toledo (16th century Tuscany)

*link collection: medieval underwear research

Google also pulls up a Museum of Hosiery, though I get an error message trying to access it. WikiJedits (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

See also the bottom left hand corner of the picture to the right

SaundersW (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

• You could always try actually looking at our articles in Category:History of clothing (Europe) (by century), which have a good deal on this, or Hose (clothing). Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are there any estimates on the proportions use metals used militarily as opposed to domestically? For example the amount of iron or bronze used for armor and weapons instead of pots and pans etc. thanks, Czmtzc (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This strikes me as a hard task, but for anyone to have a chance with it you'd need to be more specific on the place and period you have in mind. Of course, we know swords could be beaten into ploughshares, so the two uses you outline aren't exclusive of each other. No doubt a lot of ancient iron was recycled... and perhaps a good many pots and pans have been used for killing people! Xn4 23:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Metal was uncommon enough in the Middle Ages, even though far more iron was produced than in earlier times. There was more iron around in the Early Middle Ages (aka Dark Ages) than during Antiquity. What kind of metal artefacts would ordinary people have? A knife, perhaps an axe or an adze, possibly a spit and a skillet, but that's more or less it. No iron ploughs, not even iron-shod ones. Cranes and other "machines", carts and ships(carvel-built, held together by wooden tenons or ropes or both) contained little or no metal. Apart from bronze statuary, and other decorative uses, the main uses of iron and bronze must have been weapons and armour. The only mention of iron in connection with civil machinery that I could find in a cursory look through Landel's Engineering in the Ancient World was the lewis, used when lifting stone blocks into place.

Roll forward to the Viking Age and clinker-built ships could contain up to 80 kg of iron nails and rivets. Horses, sometimes even oxen, were shod. Iron domestic artefacts became more common as time went on. Especially in northern Europe, where bog iron was a renewable resource if managed, iron production in the "Dark Ages" was on quite a large scale. The area around Møssvatn (in Hardanger I think), perhaps not very typical, is reckoned to have produced 4 tons of iron a year in Viking times and production only ended when there were no more trees for charcoal. Even so, wooden and earthenware domestic objects were far more common than metal ones. But in "antiquity" some places had more iron than others. Han China, for example, had cast iron, poor quality it's true, but suitable for cheap(ish) domestic objects. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, a great many murders in the Middle Ages were caused by the violent misuse of agricultural implements, just as peasants in rebellion used pitch-forks and the like! Indeed, the very weapon that brought the English victory over the Scots at the Battle of Flodden in 1513, the brown bill, was originally designed as an agricultural tool. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Pots and pans were made of pottery not iron. Bronze was more expensive than iron and was used for jewellery and mirrors. As Angusmclellan said, metal was used for knives, axes and other tools but not ploughs (which were made of wood).
Sleigh (talk) 05:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Where can I find out which candidate has used the most crude oil during their campaign so far? --Schaum 17:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that is a pretty impossible task and likely to yield highly biased results. Where do you want to put the cut-off for using crude oil. For their own transportation? Including staff transportation? Hotel room heating/cooling? etc. Are you going to count the crude oil expended in transporting their breakfast fruit? How about the crude oil that the farmer used to grow and harvest it? ... As you can see this list is endless. Crude oil is also processed into various products with varying efficiency, so how would you quantify that? Lisa4edit (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm using the same standard which the candidates are using to promote a reduction in crude oil price. --Schaum 00:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any such "standard." Care to point it out? -- Kesh (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your brilliant answer to my question on Epicurus, Clio. I now return to Wittgenstein. Can you, or anyone else, tell me where exactly he gets the notion, used in the "Tractatus", that language gives us a picture of the world? I'm not even sure that I fully understand his argument. Jet Eldridge (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, again, J E. Wittgenstein derived the idea from a newspaper report about a court case, where model cars were used to represent an accident. In other words, they pictured what had happened. More important, they shared the same logical form, in that both obeyed the rules of logic. So, the model cars (language) could also be used to describe all possibilities, everything that had built up to that particular outcome. But they could not describe two cars occupying the same space at once, or one car occupying two separate spaces at once. Logical form prevented this-both in reality and in language. Language, then, consists of pictures of reality, when analysed down to its atomic proportions. It is in this way that propositions can represent the whole of reality, all facts, because propositions and reality have the same logical form. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Beyond popular prejudice is there any evidence that Edward and Piers Gaveston had a homosexual relationship?86.157.195.94 (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

In short, no. This is a very interesting section from the ODNB:[7]

"Contemporary chronicles describe the prince of Wales's love for Gaveston in such terms as ‘immoderate’, ‘excessive’, and ‘beyond measure’, and it has been generally assumed that the two men developed a homosexual relationship. Recently, however, it has been suggested that they had entered into a compact of adoptive brotherhood. The extant records will bear either interpretation, although neither can be proved; in any case it is clear that by early 1307 the future Edward II was emotionally bound to Piers Gaveston more deeply than he was ever to be to any other person. This bond of affection was to have grave consequences for both men, and for the kingdom as a whole."

PeterSymonds | talk 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's no conclusive evidence that they had sexual relations, and there's no conclusive evidence that they didn't. It's hardly "prejudice" to suspect that the greatest affectional commitment in Edward's life might have had a sexual component. One could as easily impute prejudice to those who are skeptical as to those who are not - indeed, more easily, as their prejudice comports with the prejudices most generally found. - Outerlimits (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Humanities Desk is a becoming a little like the Eternal Recurrence! Anyway, this is another road I have travelled in the past, and here is what I said. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, beloved Piers! I said recently with reference to a later king that the question of his alleged homosexuality was one that could not be subject to any test of evidence; that it was essentially unknown and unknowable. This is also true of Edward II, though to a far lesser degree, and there is enough material to make out a good circumstantial case, if one were so minded. So, at my peril, here it is.

Piers was introduced into Edward's household by his father, seemingly as a suitable role model for the young prince. Later the Chronicle of the Civil Wars of Edward II was to claim that an immediate bond formed between the two; that Edward felt such regard that "he tied himself against all mortals with an indissoluble bond of love." The first contemporary reference we have is from a letter written by Edward himself in 1305, after the King had reduced his household, separating him from Gaveston and Gilbert de Clare, another young knight. In this he urges his sister Margaret to persuade Queen Margaret their step-mother, to intervene with the King to allow both men to return-"If we had those two, along with others we have, we would be greatly relieved of the anguish which we have endured and from which we continue to suffer from one day to the next."

Both were eventually restored, but in 1306 Gaveston was banished for unspecified reasons. He was only allowed to return after the King's death in the summer of 1307. It is now that expressions of disquiet become ever more evident in the sources, including that given by the Vita Edwardi Secundi. Robert of Reading goes even further in the Flores Historiarum, saying that Edward entered into 'illicit and sinful unions', rejecting the 'sweet embraces of his wife.' In the Chronicle written by John of Trokelowe, Edward no sooner brought his new bride, Isabella of France, to England after their marriage at Boulogne in 1308, than he rushed to greet Gaveston, showering him with 'hugs and kisses.' During the Queen's coronation Edward's attentions to Gaveston, and his neglect of his bride, caused her uncles, Louis de Everaux and Charles de Orleans to storm out in anger. That same summer Isabella wrote to Philip the Fair, her father, complaining of ill-treatment.

The final piece of evidence comes in the spring of 1312 when Edward fled in the company of Gaveston from the Baronial forces of Thomas of Lancaster, abandoning jewels, plate and his pregnant wife in his haste.

None of this amounts to a conclusive case-and one always has to be mindful of the bias in Medieval sources-, but it shows both an astonishing lack of judgement and degrees of intimacy with a single individual that exceeds all reasonable fraternal bonds; a degree of intimacy that would seem to go beyond mere considerations of personal loyalty. Edward was a king who came close to losing his throne not for the love of a woman but for his love of a man, in whatever form that was expressed. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Comment on the view that iron technology is not indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa.82.206.239.131 (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Iron_Age#Sub-Saharan_Africa would indicate that that's not true. Corvus cornix_talk 21:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, what is different in s-S Africa is that they skipped the Bronze Age and went straight to iron. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

What's the most trivial war ever fought? 99.226.26.154 (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure you mean "trivial", but no war can be trivial if even one person is hurt in it. The Anglo-Zanzibar War lasted 38 minutes, so maybe that will do. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, no war is entirely trivial; but as for trivial causes you could look at the War of Jenkins' Ear. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Pig War in which only one tasty pig was killed. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War appears not only to be a protracted but also a trivial war – although I'm not sure it qualifies, as it does not quite satisfy the requirement that it has been fought.  --Lambiam 01:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you can have a "trivial war," because war, by definition, involves killing people. But wars can be fought over trivial things. The casus belli for the Franco-Prussian War was something completely absurd. The resulting war killed tens of thousands of people and changed the balance of power in Europe for generations. In 1999, India and Pakistan fought a war over a chunk of largely uninhabitable and useless mountain terrain. In 1925, Greece and Bulgaria fought something called the War of the Stray Dog. Then there's the Pastry War of 1838, which led to a French occupation of Mexico. (Mexico?) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just a remark on the Kargil War of 1999: uninhabitable, yes. Useless, no. The heights looked down on a crucial road connecting Srinagar and Ladakh. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Depending on your definition of "war", take a look at WP:LAME. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Football War comes to mind. While the Wikipedia article claims that the casus belli was not the outcome of an international soccer game, it does point out that both countries involved could be considered to have lost the war. (Or am I confusing "most trivial" with "most pathetic"?) -- llywrch (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

What about the Cod War, although it might not quite meet your definition of having been fought.HS7 (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oops, sorry, I meant war started over the most trivial matter. 99.226.26.154 (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Then the Ear must surely have it! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Surely it must. But wasn't that war actually fought over British attempts at imperialism, with the ear incident just being a convenient excuse. In which case I would like to renominate the Cod war as having the most trivial cause. That is, of course, if you consider food to be less important that sorting out which government officially owns which bits of land.HS7 (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It grew out of Anglo-Spanish commercial rivalry. But I was focusing not on the conflict itself, or its root causes, but on the monumental triviality of the casus belli, Robert Jenkins' pickled ear! The course of the ensuing conflict was not in the least amusing, widening, as it did, into the War of the Austrian Succession. As far as the Cod War is concerned, I completely disagree that the causes were in any way trivial, despite the silly and inflated name given to the episode by the press. After all, Iceland was attempting to defend what was, in practice, the central and defining part of its economic life. We are now all too well aware of the disastrous effects of over-fishing on the stocks of cod and other fish in the Atlantic. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

As I understand it, Trinity means triple unity. Christian teaching holds that G-d is Thrice One. It's three times the same charm.

• The Love of the Father is the Love of the Son, and the Love of the Son is the Love of the Spirit, and vice versa.
• The Mercy of the Father is the Mercy of the Son, and the Mercy of the Son is the Mercy of the Spirit, and vice versa.
• The Will of the Father is the Will of the Son, and the Will of the Son is the Will of the Spirit, and vice versa.
• The Creation of the Father is the Creation of the Son, and the Creation of the Son is the Creation of the Spirit, and vice versa.
• The Grace of the Father is the Grace of the Son, and the Grace of the Son is the Grace of the Spirit, and vice versa.
• The Joy of the Father is the Joy of the Son, and the Joy of the Son is the Joy of the Spirit, and vice versa.
• The Wisdom of the Father is the Wisdom of the Son, and the Wisdom of the Son is the Wisdom of the Spirit, and vice versa.
• The Power of the Father is the Power of the Son, and the Power of the Son is the Power of the Spirit, and vice versa.
• etc

At what point to the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics disagree with this ? The Orthodox say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father only. [8]

What is the Orthodox belief on the Godhead and is it really that different from the Catholic one ?

For example most Orthodox would hold : that the Love of the Spirit is also the same Love as the Son ; that the Eternity of the Son is also the same Eternity as the Spirit ; that the Omnipresence and Omnipotence of the Son is alo the Same Omnipresence and Omnipotence as the Spirit.

This issue is rather important because it is the object of a 1 000 year schism that I hope will be resolved soon. In fact, it was announced recently that the Ecumenical Patriarch had agreed to hold top-level discussions with Rome on this. [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.243.164 (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Our article on the filioque clause has quite a lot on this subject. --Delirium (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The law of supply and demand tells us that prices decrease when supply is greater than demand and prices increase when demand is greater than supply.

Which candidate then has demonstrated by their own reduction in demand for gasoline or jet fuel, their commitment to reduction of demand as a means of reducing crude oil prices, or have promoted increasing supply as a means of reducing crude oil prices?

In other words will a gas tax holiday have the effect of increasing supply and reducing demand, thus reducing prices, or will it have the effect of increasing supply and increasing demand, thus keeping prices the same (depending on ratio of change), or will it have the effect of decreasing supply and increasing demand, thus increasing prices, or will it have the effect of decreasing both supply and demand, thus keeping prices the same (again depending on ratio of change)? --Schaum 05:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxa (talk • contribs)

71.100.6.147 my old friend, why do you persevere with this cheap scam of "signing" your posts with words put in a special coloured font so that they look like an account name? Your account name is no more "Schaum" than it was "Taxa" in your earlier post. We all know it's not a wiki account, because you can't click on it, and we all know that you are a persistent troll who insists on posting tedious and barely comprehensible diatribes. Please stop doing so. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

To bring out persons such as yourself from hiding, my friend. However, the question is quite genuine and asked by no less than five of my fellow students. --Schaum 10:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Five students?A whole five? Oh well, that makes all the difference.hotclaws 02:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually the whole class. Only five wanted to include the reference desk opinion. -- Taxa (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's kind of a skeezy thing to do, man. Would you *please* either register for a username or honestly ask your genuine questions as the anon IP that you are? -Toptomcat (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bet you feel the same way about the opposite sex. -- Taxa (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the spirit of answering the question...It would depend. Is a 'tax holiday' just one day in the year where no tax is payable? If that date is 'known' in advance then you would expect supply to increase as higher-demand would be anticipated. If they don't get enough warning then you might expect supply to be limit thus meaning prices may temporarily shift. The problem is how does the 'tax holiday' work? I could be misunderstanding the question though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The tax holiday is proposed to run from Memorial Day to Labor Day. The object of the tax holiday is to eliminate the Federal sales tax on gasoline. --Taxa 16:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxa (talk • contribs)

In a short answer both 'candidates' (and I'm assuming you mean US Democratic Presidential nomination candidates - there are other elections and other candidates in the world you know) have demonstrated their unbelieveable ability to pander to the short term desires of the electorate at the cost of long term benefits to the US and the World.

In case nobody had noticed, the US has pretty much the lowest gas prices in the industrialised world. Other countries pay two or three times as much, and it doesn't seem to be hurting their economies. Oil is in short supply, and it's price is going to go up, no matter what you do.

The only way to deal with this in the long term is to reduce dependency on oil (the US consumes a ridiculous fraction of the world's oil). Doing that isn't easy, but it is possible - new technologies, tiny adjustments in lifestyle. But it needs people to be thinking about how to do it - both ordinary people and politicians. Instead statements about 'tax holidays' are encouraging people to do the reverse. Instead of reducing their costs by reducing their energy consumption people are trying to reduce their costs by lobbying for tax reductions, which is a false economy (hey folks, you're going to have to pay those taxes on something). DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

My solution for that is for everyone with a job they can do from home via the Internet to roll out of bed into their luxury home office instead of scraping ice and rolling out the driveway... Next I would demand the right to vote over the Internet and not be force to use gas to get to the polls.... But I'm not running for office so fat chance of this every really happening because of me.;-) --Taxa 16:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The simplest answer to the original question is that a "tax holiday" would have an initial effect of reducing retail prices in the United States. It would initially do nothing to reduce wholesale (pre-tax) prices and would therefore have no effect on supply. However, by lowering retail prices, the tax holiday would increase demand in the United States. That would tend to drive wholesale and retail prices up somewhat in the medium to short term. Since supply seems to be fairly inelastic (in that it has not increased in response to rising prices), supply is unlikely to increase in response to the slightly higher prices. In effect, the tax holiday would likely end up transferring revenue from the US government to oil-producing corporations and nations, with little ultimate change in the retail price (since the initial drop from the tax holiday would lead to higher demand and higher pre-tax prices). Marco polo (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sub question

About ten years ago I recall seeing a picture of two scientist standing over a pressure container which they said could turn stuff into crude oil but it was very expensive. Then about a week or so ago I read where an American lab found a way to make gasoline directly through a series of chemical transformations using electricity and poop that was less expensive so that gasoline might cost more but would not have to be supplied from the Middle East. Maybe I'm daft but if electricity can turn poop into gasoline then why haven't we started building nuclear generators to power the gasoline production equipment and become totally independent of the Middle East or did I miss something? --Taxa 16:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if the process is that easy (and that efficient to be used in industry), opposition to nuclear power is fairly widespread throughout the US (~60/~40 favor/oppose) and those opposed are particularly vocal in their opposition. You'd need to convince people to put nuclear power plants in their back yard before this strategy will work.--droptone (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just guessing but recalling my own "price is no object" attitude toward the cost of computer hardware over the past thirty years it is not difficult to imagine that most people probably have the same attitude toward not only the vehicles they own but toward the cost of the fuel to keep them on the road. Just guessing I bet there is nothing they would not sacrifice to keep their ride on the road, even making gas for themselves in their own back yard. -- Taxa (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You missed something.hotclaws 02:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hullo,

I would like to publish a photo of a painting of my dead father's produced in the 1960's and already publishes on american newspapers at the time of the landing on the moon and kept online from 1995 to 1998 on teh Artnet Italia web site that used to be at: http://www.thru.com/art The original painting was acquired by the Kennedy collection. Please give me hints about the possibility and the tags by which I can download it as my previous attempts were deleted.

Thanks, Fabrizio Bartolomucci —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbartolom (talk • contribs) 07:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you take your question to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, where there are many people able to assist with such queries. Gwinva (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Oedipus Rex article indicates that Voltiare's Third Letter on Oedipus observes that the evidence appears to exonerate Oedipus of patricide and incest. However, the argument quoted- the inconsistency between Oedipus' and Jocasta's versions of Laius' death- seems to exonerate him only of patricide. Is there content in the Third Letter addressing the incest question? -Toptomcat (talk) 09:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Toptomcat, it's a while since I have read Voltaire’s Third Letter, but from memory it's chiefly concerned with the murder. The incest, an unintended by-product of that act, hardly receives a mention. The Letter itself, of course, is not so much an analysis of Oedipus' crime as a critique of Sophocles’ play. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The guidelines above are against cross-posting. As this question has now been move to the Science deak, I have deleted it here. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

What jobs or offices do mayors of cities most often take after their term limits expire? -- Taxa (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well (I don't know where you are, but I'm going to answer from a British perspective), nothing glamorous. I live in Crawley (which is basically a city except in name) and our last mayor remained a local councillor before retiring. Now he's a private citizen just like the rest of us. Our present mayor lives on our street, and her only perk is the Jaguar with a flag on the bonnet that sometimes appears! Then when her term comes to an end, she's going to retire I believe. The Mayor of London is really the only "high profile" mayorship, so I predict that the former mayor, Ken Livingstone, will remain a public figure in his own right. However, in most other places, if the mayor has a job (store manager at Sainsbury's for example) then they'll retain it, and not look for anything more "public". I don't know about Lord Mayors, but I shouldn't think it would too different even then. PeterSymonds | talk 19:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Obviously there are a wide variety of options for an ex-mayor. Reelection is often the preferred option. Some stay in their jobs until the bitter end. In the U.S., many seek higher office in Congress, as governor, or even president. Some may seek "lesser" office as, say, city councilman. In many smaller towns, the office of mayor is part-time so ex-mayors just return to their day jobs. Academia is often an option. Some ex-mayors end up in prison. Some do a variety of things: Ex-NYC mayor Ed Koch ran for governor, practiced law, was the judge on The People's Court, wrote a children's book, became a newspaper columnist and film reviewer. --D. Monack | talk 21:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hm. Has any former mayor ever become President of the US? Corvus cornix_talk 19:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Calvin Coolidge was mayor of Northampton, Massachusetts after previously serving as city councilman and city solicitor. --D. Monack | talk 19:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and Grover Cleveland was mayor of Buffalo, New York. Two very underrated presidents, IMO. --D. Monack | talk 19:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It seems so much more politically glamorous over there! PeterSymonds | talk 19:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

There seem to be quite a few mayors who's follow up career move is toward imprisonment. Charges span everything from shoplifting, battery and drug use to fraud and corruption and even the occasional homicide. One guy whose fancy had turned to bank robbery at least admitted that that was "a dumb move." So much for glamorous. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the British perspective will interest the OP very much. Nearly all mayors in the UK are indirectly elected and hold a remarkably uninfluential position for a short time, usually one or two years. There's usually a gold chain to go with the title, but little or no pay, which reflects the rather hollow reality of being such a mayor. The few exceptions to this are the UK's directly elected mayors, further to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Local Government Act 2000: they have some real executive powers and are paid enough money to live on, but there are only a handful of them. What these mayors do after losing office depends mostly on their previous life outside politics, and not on their having been a mayor. Xn4 23:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

To what extent can it be argued that the tactics of commanders during the great war were responsible for the mass casualties suffered on the western front. Thanks --Hadseys 19:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest reading some of the comments under 'British in WWI' at the question above, asked May 4. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hadseys, first of all, let me draw your attention to a book with the English title of Is War Now Impossible?. It was written by one Ivan Bloch and first published in Paris in 1898. In this he argued that conflict between industrial powers, one balanced against the other, would inevitably degenerate into attrition and trench warfare, with famine and revolution following on in style of the apocalypse. I'm sure you will agree that this is a reasonably accurate prediction of the course of the Great War, with Revolution and upheaval spreading towards the end across the whole of central and Eastern Europe.

So, now let me focus on the main thrust of your question, which is concerned specifically with the tactics of British commanders. Yes, some, it is true, were more limited in imagination than others, but all were dealing with some unique circumstances, and not just the British, circumstances anticipated by Bloch. The size of the armies, and the length of the fronts-some 475 miles in the west-meant that the outflanking manoeuvre, the classic way of defeating an enemy in battle, simply was no longer available. The only way to win was to fight through the opponent's defensive system, and this entailed disastrously high casualties. It would take time, and technical advance, to work a way through this problem. In the meantime stalemate was inevitable. There was already a foretaste of this during the Crimean War and in the American Civil War, specifically in the 1864-5 Siege of Petersburg.

Now I turn to the one man long considered to be the very acme of incompetence and insensitivity; namely Douglas Haig. I take the view that only the English could have developed such a negative picture of arguably one of the nation's greatest commanders. His contribution in defeating the Germans was widely recognised at the time, by both the people of Britain and a number of foreign observers, including General Pershing. It was several years later when the true extent of the sacrifice involved in winning the Great War began to sink in that a new mood of hostility and revisionism began to emerge. This developed over the years, finding popular expression in John Littlewood's stage production of Oh! What a Lovely War, as well as support in several academic monographs.

The whole campaign of vilification seemed to be based on the assumption that Haig sacrificed men unnecessarily; that battles were fought simply for reasons of attrition, and nothing besides; that there was somehow another, less bloody, road to victory that Haig and his colleagues did not take. But wars cannot be won without confronting the main enemy army in battle; and this, sad to say, is inevitably a gruesome process. Consider the example of U. S. Grant, who in his campaign from the Wilderness to Petersburg in 1864 and 1865 was arguably responsible for the death of more Americans than any other man in history. At one battle alone, that at Cold Harbor in the early summer of 1864, the Union losses, as a proportion of the total strength of the Army of the Potomac, were as great as some of the battle losses on the western front. Grant could have taken the same road as McLellan, Burnside, Hooker and so many others before him and retreated back to his start line; but he pushed on, to Richmond and victory. Likewise, in the Second World War, Georgy Zhukov, the greatest of all the Soviet commanders, sustained losses at Stalingrad and Kursk quite as dreadful as those at the Somme and Passchendaele. What other way was there of defeating the Germans?

Haig, like all other commanders at the time, began without knowing what the new warfare, the great battle of men and materials, was really about: heavy prolonged artillery barrages were followed by unsupported and uncoordinated assaults on enemy positions, with the inevitable consequences in casualties. However, by 1918, he had moved through a sharp learning curve, turning the British Army into one of the best in the world, a remarkable achievement when one considers that the country had little in the way of a military tradition, and in 1914 was only able to field four 'contemptible' divisions in France. In the final offensive of 1918 Haig, in carefully co-coordinating a creeping artillery barrage with measured and discreet infantry attacks, was able to advance in relentless stages against the German positions, covering more ground than the rest of the Allied armies. It was this that broke the back of the German army and assured victory. For further information on this subject I would urge you to read John Terraine's Douglas Haig: the Educated Soldier, which, despite its age, is still the best treatment of the subject. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to address the question of the commanders' competence (or otherwise), but rather make an aside which may or may not be relevant. It intrigues me how many people (and that is vague, and by no means directed at the OP) assume the commanders (of both sides) were incompetent because they engaged in trench warfare, which is a "Bad Thing" because it led to high casualties, and while lasting months/years gained little ground. "All those deaths for a few square feet of mud" and all that. But why is success determined by what is gained rather than what is not lost? The trenches were held. Is that success? What if the trenches had not been held? What if the army (of whichever side) had retreated? Or reduced the men they threw at the front line? Answer = the enemy would have advanced. Would that have been a "Good Thing"? Or preferable to lives lost in the trenches? Would that have turned the course of the war? In a good way? As in all things, we need to look at the big picture if we want to pass judgements on the relevance/correctness of the small things. Gwinva (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Winning, Gwinva, is, I suppose, the only truly "Good Thing". Clio the Muse (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes. So if holding the trenches (at whatever cost) prevented the Germans advancing and gaining enough territory to win (a "Bad Thing" for the Allies), then the Allies gained more than "a few feet of mud" by pursuing their trench warfare. If this is the case, them perhaps the commanders were not incompetent, but playing their (costly but necessary) part in achieving the eventual "Good Thing": Victory. Gwinva's Guide to the Great War: all you need to know. Of course, this does not address the tactics of the individual commanders, but at least reminds us to consider the strategy. Trench warfare ≠ Bad Thing.→ Trench commanders ≠ Incompetent. They may have been, of course. And there might have been a better strategy. But that's another debate. Gwinva (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Moved question to Language desk, where you will find many people knowledgeable about language. Gwinva (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why did Louis XIV of France join the second dutch war on the side of the dutch in 1666? I have heard he had some sort of alliance with the Dutch but was reluctant to join their side and even when France formally joined the war they did not do much to help the Dutch (correct me if that is wrong). Why would Louis do this when he attacked the Dutch a few years later? Any help would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.140.194 (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

See the 1665 section of the Second Anglo-Dutch War article. There was indeed an alliance - but also the war was expanding in a way which alarmed hhim. Rmhermen (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

He was bound by a treaty arrangement with the Dutch, 172.142, dating back to 1662. However, Louis' chief preoccupation was to lay hold of the Spanish Netherlands, an ambition which was to be a source of continuing trouble in international relations. He had no particular love of the Dutch but he was concerned that the alliance between England and Spain would see the collapse of the Republic and the revival of Habsburg power on his northern border, the one thing that he most assuredly did not want. In the event there was really no need for Louis to do much to aid his allies, other than keep the Spanish in check, because, in what was essentially a conflict at sea, the Dutch proved well able to defend themselves, inflicting reverse after reverse on the English, including one of the most embarrassing incidents in their long naval history.

For Louis to achieve his aim in the Spanish Netherlands the Dutch would have to have collaborated with his plans, becoming, for all practical intents, a client state. In the end, under the guidance of William of Orange, they were to be among his most formidable opponents. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Speaking of personification as a literary device, is there an opposite term, where, instead of assigning human characteristics to inanimate objects, you objectify a human? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiilaiqualyn (talk • contribs) 22:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Objectification seems to be the standard word, though its somewhat less specific than this. Algebraist 22:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dehumanisation would fit, if you look at some samples of political propaganda. Maybe alienation, as in Kafka´s The Metamorphosis? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see. Thanks. Kaiilaiqualyn (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

People as "chattel" is when people are traded or enslaved as personal property. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Like in how wedding ceremonies, when the one who's doing the wedding says to speak now or forever hold your peace. Is there any famous mid-wedding objections throughout history? Bellum et Pax (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know of at least one, in fiction, admittedly! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the Vicar of Dibley, in a dream that the vicar had when she was about to marry David Horton. Sean Bean comes and rescues her. Does that count...? :) PeterSymonds | talk 05:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Vicar of Dibley has an even funnier one, during the wedding of Alice and Hugo (a sweet, innocent, dumb couple) where a woman appears at the back of the church at the critical moment and says something like: "He is already married to me and has three children.". As the shocked congregation turns to her she says: "Oh sorry. Wrong church.". DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hahaha, yeah, she has to pick Alice up off the floor! Love that show, shame it's gone. :( PeterSymonds | talk 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Graduate! Corvus cornix_talk 19:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, in The Graduate, Dustin Hoffman's character, Ben, is too late for the "forever hold your peace" part. He gets to the church right at the "you may kiss the bride" moment. Elaine apparently is married but she goes off with him anyway. --D. Monack | talk 19:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure I remember another occasion when the groom said 'I do' at that point and was told he was to early, but really he wanted to object. I think it might have been the modern remake of one of Shakespeare's plays, but I forget which one. And Coronation Street and Eastenders have probably both had this happen lots of times. But it seems noone knows of any famous real weddings where it happened, which is a shame.HS7 (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

In most places where that is a part of the service, it is usually the last chance to respond to the previously published Banns of marriage. Most objections, I would imagine, are brought to the attention of the officiant prior to the service itself - that is the reason for publishing them prior to the service. Pastordavid (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know that Senator Clinton plans to but a cap on college tuition prices. Does Senator Obama also plan to do this if elected? If so, what is the difference between their plans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.8.220 (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Neither one can do that if elected. A cap on college tuition prices would be the result of a law from Congress. As President, he or she could only agree to the law, not create it. Even if he or she were to veto the law, Congress could still enact it. -- kainaw™ 14:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since very few colleges are federal institutions (and those don't have any tuition), it is not clear how easily this could be done. U.S. colleges are generally private or state-run. Rmhermen (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

A large proportion of the College-going students in the US rely on Federal Student Aid. The government probably has some clout and leverage by denying student loan payments to Colleges and Universities which do not toe the line with their policies - and it's hard to run a successful school if you do not get students. This is reminiscent of how 21 is the national drinking age. Technically, the federal government does not have authority to regulate the drinking age, as that is left to the States - however, Federal money for road repair is tied to having a 21 year drinking age, so unless the States want to lose billions, they all set the drinking age to 21.

As far as what a President can and can't do, while Kainaw is correct that a President needs Congress to pass a law first in order to sign it, a large number of laws actually originate from the White House. (That is, the President drafts a law he/she wants, then gives it to loyal members of Congress to "officially" present.) Additionally, the President may deem that a law already exists which gives him/her the authority to regulate student loans. Thus, he/she may not need an additional law but may accomplish the same thing with an executive order. Most of the federal agencies are part of the executive branch, and are thus under the (indirect) control of the President. Although Congress is needed to authorize the creation of the departments, and give them their mission statements, the day-to-day operations and regulations are not covered by legislation, but by internal rules created by the government agencies (to the fulfillment of the duties set out for them by Congress). As such, they can (usually) be altered by the President without having to involve Congress. I don't know if the Clinton/Obama plans fall under this category, though. -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3671 --this is what I was referring to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.8.220 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

That isn't putting on a tuition cap, that's giving a $3500 tax credit, which is a drop in the bucket when it comes to tuitions, and doesn't do anything to keep the colleges from increasing tuitions. Corvus cornix_talk 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

BTW, according to http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/#higher-education, Obama is offering a $4000 tax credit, but it's still a drop in the bucket. Corvus cornix_talk 19:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I'm sorry I thought I heard her mention a tuition cap in one of her speeches but I guess it was just tax credit. Thank you. Anything else either of them is planning on doing to help families send their kids to college? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.8.220 (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Marx and Engels always used Britain as the example of the most developed capitalist country, a place where the revolution would come first in accordance with their theory. Yet, not only was there no proletarian revolution but the country, unlike Germany, never even developed a mass party organized on Marxist lines. What is the reason for this? Big Sally (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

In a meeting of the General Council of the First International on January 1, 1870 a resolution was passed - of which Marx is assumed to be the author - that said that "[t]he English have all the materials requisite for the social revolution; what they lack is the spirit of generalisation and revolutionary fervour." (Not much of an explanation really - why do they lack the spirit and the fervour, that is the question - so maybe he just didn't know.) 194.171.56.13 (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could it have anything to do with us being the 'nation of shopkeepers', that so many people here base their income on capitalism that a communist revolution wouldn't help much? Or maybe we're just such nice people that we don't go around doing stuff like that, and just let our government gradually pass laws leading toward socialism and a better life for average people.

Maybe being foreign he didn't understand what it means to be british, and didn't know to include that in his theory.HS7 (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Even until this day Britain retains a deep respect for their monarch. The monarchy in the United Kingdom has always been advanced and modern (despite what people say!). The monarchy in Britain has learned to evolve and adapt to the people's needs and desires. That is a very brief summary, you may also want to read Monarchy of the United Kingdom for more information on the evolution of the institution...--Cameron (t|p|c) 19:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yep. While the German Empire, Russian Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed during WW1, the monarchy here adapted to the people's desires, and therefore managed to avoid the same fate. It changed its family name from the heavily German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor, and even blocked Nicholas II of Russia from coming to Britain (which would have saved his life) in the face of public opposition. The key thing, as Cameron says, is being able to adapt and change. Probably if Queen Victoria had been alive during WW1... well... but her successors certainly saw the monarchy as an institution of guidance, continuity and moral support, rather than autocracy, authority and power. That's why, I believe, there has been no revolution here, because our monarchy is able to respond to public opinion, and the public love them for it. PeterSymonds | talk 19:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

According to our article on the House of Wettin, "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" was the British Royal Family's Royal House name, while the equally German "Wettin" was their personal surname. Both were changed to "Windsor" in 1917 for the patrilineal descendants of Victoria and Prince Albert.  --Lambiam 10:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I suspect the supposed British love of the monarchy has very little to do with it - there is very little evidence of such a love amongst the common folk for most of the period from the time the British lopped off their king's head (some 150 years before it occurred to the French to do this) up until the later years of Victoria's reign. The fondness of (certain) Britons for the monarchy only began to emerge around the time the monarch largely withdrew from political affairs and became a figurehead (i.e. between the beginning and end of Victoria's reign).

What the United Kingdom had by around 1870 - and what Germany, Russia and Austria all lacked - was a constitutional monarchy with an enfranchised middle-class who could elect actual governments. The best that Germany, Russia or Austria managed before 1918 was a partial franchise that voted for legislatures who could be over-ruled by a monarch-appointed government. The potential educated middle-class leaders of any revolution were therefore separated in the UK from the discontented masses. Of course Marx talked of a proletarian revolution but in practice the Marx-inspired revolutions in Europe, successful and unsuccessful, of the years from 1917 onwards were largely led by members of the educated middle-class, not horny-handed autodidacts. In addition, in the late 19th and early 20th century the franchise in the UK was repeatedly extended so that the number of those who were cut off from having a say in their own affairs was reduced repeatedly - and even those who had yet to be enfranchised could see the possibility that they might obtain political power soon and so were less likely to turn to violent means to attempt to obtain it.

To this gradual spread of political power (as a result of which those who also sought greater economic power might also see a way to obtain this through evolution rather than revolution) must be added the fact that the UK did not suffer the same degree of economic, military and political failure as Germany, Russia and Austria all did by the end of World War 1 and it would seem that a great societal breakdown - a sense that things have got worse and only radical change can fix this - is generally required to precipitate a revolution. The people of Britain in contrast generally saw their material conditions improve throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries (and World War I and its aftermath did not change this). I am sure more learned posters will be able to add more detail and probably with greater succintness. Valiantis (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Before proceeding to my own answer I would like second what Valiantis has written here, particularly in relation to the monarchy, which has not always been 'advanced and modern'! For much of the nineteenth century the institution was, in fact, highly unpopular, particularly in the shape of the viciously caricatured George IV and William IV, his equally unprepossessing brother. The institution regained some of its popularity in the early years of Victoria, but declined again in stature and estimation after the Queen disappeared into exaggerated and morbid forms of mourning following the death of Prince Albert. This was a time when the republican movement began to gain ground in Britain. It was really only in the later years, as she came back into public view, that the 'Widow of Windsor' managed to restore the reputation of the crown. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

As I am (supposed to be) working on a very boring report, I wonder is it too late to have one now? -- Q Chris (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sally, Marx arrived in England in August 1849 with high expectations that the 'British Revolution', long in gestation, was shortly to be born. After all, this was the most industrialised country in Europe with the biggest proletariat. He placed particular faith in the Chartists, a mass movement which aimed at the democratic reform of the whole British political process. Before arriving he had written "The most civilized land, the land whose industry is the most developed, whose bourgeoisie is the most powerful, where the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are divided in the sharpest fashion and stand most decisively opposed to one another, will be the first to witness the emancipation of the workers of all lands. That land is England.".

Chartism, however, was not to be the vehicle of emancipation. Already in decline when Marx arrived, he held on to his unrealistic hopes as long as he could, but eventually agreed with Engels, who had a far better understanding of English politics, that the proletarian movement "...in its old traditional Chartist form must perish completely before it can develop in a new vital form."

This, in fact, is a key moment in Marx's personal and intellectual evolution; of the transformation of the young optimist into the ponderous critic of capitalism. A new crisis would come, that was always his belief, but if the revolutionary phoenix was to arise it would only do so through a proper understanding of the "law of motion of capitalist society." Das Kapital, volume one of which appeared in 1867, is not an analysis of capitalism in general: it is an analysis of English capitalism, or at least it is from this that he draws most of his practical examples. However, just as the English economy encouraged Marx in his model of historical development, his observations of English politics made him increasingly pessimistic. And here we have the key to the very thing that was to perplex not just Marx but generations of Marxists thereafter: namely, what was the precise relationship between objective economic forces and subjective revolutionary action? English capitalism may have been 'classic'; but English politics and the English working class was 'unclassic' in every degree!

The greatest puzzle for Marx was that England's political clothes simply did not fit its economic body, at least in the terms his theory prescribed. For Marx parliamentary republicanism was the political form best suited to advanced capitalism; but England retained not just a monarchy but a powerful aristocracy, which should have passed away with feudalism. It was the capacity of the English to absorb change without revolution that perplexed him most. England had a capacity for reform which;

...neither creates anything new, nor abolishes anything old, but merely aims at confirming the old system by giving it a more reasonable form and teaching it, so to say, new manners. This is the mystery of the 'hereditary wisdom' of the English oligarchical legislation. It simply consists in making abuses hereditary, by refreshing them, as it were, from time to time, by the infusion of new blood.

It was the English working class, which preferred to work within the existing system, that was to cause him his greatest annoyance, particularly in its support for the bourgeois Liberal party, parliamentary reform, moderate trade unions and the co-operative movement. The English had all the material necessary for a revolution but what they lacked was "the spirit of generalisation and revolutionary fervour." He became ever more pessimistic, towards the end of his life, seeing the English working class as no more than the 'tail' of the Liberal Party. Worse still, he came to agree with Engels that the English proletariat "was becoming more and more bourgeois, so that the most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat as well as a bourgeoisie."

Alas the 'Red Doctor', as he came to be referred to in the British press after the Paris Commune, never understood the country he lived in for over thirty years of his life. His last recorded words were "To the devil with the British." Ah, well; Marx is dead, but capitalism lives! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sally, as several posters have already said, the answer almost certainly lies in the nature of change. The Marxian theory of revolution is predicted on increasing contradictions within society that will end with revolution. This would require political power to continue to be concentrated in a smaller and smaller oligarchy, as economic monopolies grow. In England, as in one or two other countries, this did not happen - probably because of Marx's youthful hope, the Chartists. Periodic extension of the franchise served as a pressure valve to control growing unrest over economic inequality. This, the current consensus in political science, is summed up in one of the most-cited and influential research papers of recent years here. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The above article is one of my favorites. I was curious if our 3 candidates for president could be linked in such a way to the former presidents as listed there. Bill Clinton isn't listed there, but perhaps Hilary is related in a closer fashion? Obama being linked would be surprising and extremely unlikely. Mccain would be interesting to see. If anyone can help me out with this that would be amazing. I've tried looking around here for some info but couldn't find much. Chris M. (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Obama and McCain are cousins. One of their relationships (common descent from King Edward I of England) is delineated on this page. For further info, see McCain's ancestry, Obama's ancestry, Clinton's ancestry, and Reitwiesner's notes on the ancestry of the presidential candidates. The first two have royal descents; as far as I know, there's no known royal descent for Clinton, though she is a cousin of Alanis Morissette and Madonna. - Nunh-huh 06:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Maybe it's my browser playing up, but not a single one of those links works for me, Nunh-huh. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmm... I don't know what's up...I just clicked on each of them, and each opened for me. Maybe copy and paste the urls into your browser? - Nunh-huh 06:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Still no luck, I'm afraid. I've cut and pasted them, to no avail. I must have this matter investigated. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

(All the links are fine for me) Wow, what a fantastically speedy and informative response. These links will bring up some very exciting discussion, thank you very much, anyone else with anything, feel free to add. Chris M. (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Obama is also related to George W. Bush, and McCain is related to Laura Bush - [10]. Corvus cornix_talk 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, this must surely count among the higher forms of silliness! Obama and McCain are descended from Edward I?! Why, of course they are; who could possibly doubt such a thing?! But why stop there? Why not Henry III and through him to King John? But let's be really ambitious. After all, there is Conqueror himself; there are even links back to Alfred the Great and the old Saxon monarchy of England, perhaps all the way to Hengest and maybe even to Horsa, to say nothing of Gog and Magog! Guys, I hope you won't think it an awful cheek if I tell you that people in England think the American obsession with 'roots' verges just a tad on the ridiculous! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Of course not. Why would we care what people in England think? They completely misunderstand football. And they talk funny, too. On the other hand, I think it's a bit difficult to square the success of, say, Who Do You Think You Are? with your assertion about the British opinion of genealogy. I suspect it's a bit less monolithic and a bit more nuanced than you claim. - Nunh-huh 23:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

That show you've linked, Nunh-huh, is far more about celebrity, the contemporary religion, than genealogy. Sorry for treading on your toes, but the American obsession with links and roots seems to me to arise from a sense of personal insecurity; a feeling of not quite being sure of one's exact place in the great order of things. The silly attempt to draw a link between Osama, McCain and, of all people, Edward Plantagenet would seem to be a perfect example of this. Ah, but it's fun, is it not? And it makes no difference to me; for I, at least, know who I am, all said in my best plummy accent! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're certainly entitled to your opinions, which never fail to entertain. - Nunh-huh 01:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I assume you mean Obama -- come on, the "S" and "B" aren't that close together on your keyboard. Anyway, your critique of the American obsession with their "roots" is fair enough, but I find it strange that someone who has dedicated so much of her time to the history of kings, queens, emperors, dictators, wars, treaties, elections, social movements, authors, artists and revolutions would be so nonchalant about discovering her own history. I guess it's different when your family may have lived in the same village for 900 years. Until I discovered distant relatives on the Internet, I had no idea where my ancestors lived in the 19th century. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ooops, I slipped on a 'B' and landed on an 'S', or perhaps I simply can't tell my Osamas from my Obamas; how silly of me! Oh, but there again, I think dear-old Osama has as good a right as anyone to claim descent from Edward I, or Genghis Khan or Messalina, or whomsoever he chooses. I suppose my own history, as you put it, has really never commanded that much importance because I have a comfortable sense of where I belong in space and time; of where I have come from and where I am going. My precise 'roots' just never seemed all that relevant when there was a far bigger picture to examine; things altogether more exciting. I'm sure you are very pleased to learn of your Lithuanian antecedents, Mwalcoff. I would just ask you please not to take that extra step and tell me you are the twenty-ninth cousin, six times removed, of Gediminas! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure I'm more likely to be related to this person, this person or even this person, all of whom trace their origin to the same area. But as far as kings go, this guy is a more likely match than a pagan Lithuanian. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

For some, like me, genealogy is interesting as a kind of semi-personal way to look into history. I once read somewhere that the westward migration of Americans tended to occur along particular, generalized routes -- and usually kept relatively close to the same latitude as people went west. I figured I'd see if this held true for my own paternal/surname line. The results were striking enough that I made a rough map -- due west indeed. Pfly (talk) 06:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I confess, Pfly, that I have always viewed genealogy with, I suppose, more than a touch of snobbish condescension, as one of the lesser breeds of historical inquiry. I have to say, though, that the information you have uncovered clearly has a more general relevance with regard to patterns of migration and the like. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the snobbish condescension towards genealogists is a fairly well-known disease of historians. It probably makes them more comfortable in their sense of knowing "who they are". :) - Nunh-huh 00:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Given that mathematical models seem to predict that the most recent common ancestor of all Western Europeans (and due to migration those Americans with Western European ancestry) may have lived as recently as 1000 AD, it's not at all surprising that so many US presidents and presidential contenders may have common ancestors. The point is that if you go back to the people who lived in the 14th century - say 20 generations ago - they will either have no living descendants at all or probability would suggest they will have hundreds of thousands of descendants. At 20 generations remove I have 2²⁰ ancestors - that's 1,048,576 potential ancestors. It's thus hardly a revelation if many people who appear to be unrelated turn out to be my twentieth cousins. This is a clear example of something that is mathematically obvious being newsworthy - I've seen these purported relationships reported in the press on this side of the Pond too - simply because most people don't have a grasp of mathematics. Indeed if you factor in that most US presidential contenders come from WASP backgrounds (including Obama on his mother's side) and the number of individuals of this background who actually migrated to the US is relatively small, then the likelihood is that most US presidential contenders, past and present, are related to each other at a distant remove. Valiantis (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's certainly no surprise that we're all ultimately related to each other, and that indeed we're all related to everyone who's ever lived. But those are mundane and dull facts, and they're not what drive genealogists. In this case it's finding out the precise connections between notable people whose paths have crossed at historic moments in this lifetime. Analogy alert: It's not enough to deduce that there must be other populated and civilized planets out there somewhere - we want to know exactly where they are and precisely what life forms inhabit them. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree that genealogists' interest is in tracing the link. However, what is considered newsworthy by the public at large is that there is a link at all. Such reports are quite common - in the UK some years ago the "revelation" that Margaret Thatcher and John Major were distant cousins made the national press - and the tone is consistently that it is surprising and even amazing that this might be so. The news reports generally give relatively little time to the work of the genealogists in determining what the links are (and the article linked in the title of this section also presents the relationships as a fait accompli rather than showing the actually genealogies). Clearly many people do not understand the mathematics of the matter when even such an erudite person as Clio the Muse dimisses as ridiculous the suggestion - fairly well supported in the form of a full genealogy at the website linked to - that McCain & Obama are both descended from Edward III. The maths makes it likely that many many people of English ancestry are in fact his descendants (and thus descendants of his royal forebears). Valiantis (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can a reader please let me know how many trains ran each day from Vienna to Magdeburg in 1889? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I doubt that there were any direct trains from Vienna to Magdeburg in 1889. A rail journey from Vienna to Magdeburg would almost certainly have involved more than one change of train, at Prague, Dresden, Leipzig, and possibly at Halle and one or more points between Vienna and Prague. Information on these train schedules is probably not available online. If it is available at all, it is probably only from archival timetables, which might or might not be available from one or more state libraries or archives. This may be beyond the capacities of the Reference Desk. Considering that rail travel was relatively costly and time-consuming in the 19th century, particularly over long distances, I would be surprised if there were more than two direct trains per day between Vienna and Prague. I would not be surprised if there were only one per day or even only three or four per week. Marco polo (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

According to [this document] (p4), In 1879, (the Verein Deutscher Eisehnbahn Verwaltungen) united 110 railway administrations from Germany, Austrio-Hungary (sic), Luxemburg and the Netherlands, representing in total a network of 53.385 kilometres. There was, it appears, coordination of many aspects of railway administration in northern central Europe. SaundersW (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I stand corrected. According to the German Wikipedia's article on Schnellzüge (express trains), there was in fact a direct train from Vienna to Dresden beginning 1862. Very likely, such a train would have continued on to Berlin by 1889. However, I still think it unlikely that there would have been a direct train from Vienna to Magdeburg. To get from Vienna to Madgeburg, you could have taken the express to Dresden, but you would most likely have had to change at least there, if not also in Leipzig. Marco polo (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see this question follows on from Simonschaim's previous question, Journey from Vienna to Magdeburg in 1889, posted on 13 February 2008, when Angr thought that the journey would probably have taken about two days. Pending the timetables turning up, I'm inclined to think she may be right. Xn4 21:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Dr Simons. There is a railway museum in Vienna which may have historical timetables and other suitable data for your research, address is archiv@eisenbahnmuseum-schwechat.at. The person responsible for the archives is Dr. Dietmar Ganzinger. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you.Simonschaim (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the following [11] article David Baxter, an individual who was indited during the Great Sedition Trial in the United States in 1941, states that "actually, the Anti-Defamation League was the catalyst behind the entire Sedition Trial. I couldn't prove it then but I can now. A few years ago I demanded, through the Freedom of Information Act, that the FBI turn over to me its investigation records of my activities during the early 1940s leading up to the Sedition Trial.... Oddly enough, in a great many cases, it wasn't the FBI that conducted the investigation but the Anti-Defamation League." This is an extract from a memoir published by the the Journal for Historical Review (a questionable journal I know) in 1986. Furthermore, it was originally presented at a "revisionist" conference. I know practically nothing about the Great Sedition Trial, and was wondering if someone who did could confirm if there is even a sliver of truth in the statements Baxter made. Was the ADL involved in any way in calling for or carrying out the investigation of those who were tried? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.174.0.10 (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

198.174, on a small point of information the said trial was in 1944, not 1941. As far as your question is concerned, unfortunately I cannot give you a precise answer. It seems to me, though, from a reading of Baxter's paper that he is remarkably vague for a man who is claiming that an interest group, like the Anti-Defamation League, was able to exercise such power and influence over the whole criminal and judicial process in the United States. It simply wafts up, once again, the old stale odors of 'conspiracy theory'. On a more general point, and in the full awareness that I am expressing a purely personal prejudice, if the Journal of Historical Review said that the world was round I would immediately send off for the literature of the Flat Earth Society! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Silly mistake on my part. There were investigations related to the Smith Act (the legislation behind the Great Sedition Trial) in 1941. Baxter's testimony does seem pretty worthless; I'll try to find more reputable resources. One reason I asked was because that link came up third (after two wikipedia articles) when I searched for the Great Sedition Trial on Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.174.0.10 (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone know about where one can obtain free information or advice about the system for compensation of rape/sexual assault victims in Germany - and specifically, in Munich? I'm contemplating something like community legal centres/citizen's advice bureaus, legal aid, rape crisis centres, or university services in or around Munich? Thanks in advance. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

A rape victim is called "Vergewaltigungsopfer" in German. "sexuelle Gewalt" is a more general term including rape probably equivalent to sexual assault. I can't tell you if any national organization dedicated to this topic exists. The German wiki didn't say. Most cities have a phone-helpline "Frauennotruf," Munich even seems to have several. Victims of domestic violence can find shelter at a "Frauenhaus". For citizens below a certain income level there is a free public legal advice center "öffentliche Rechstauskunft" operated by the government. Given however that the German legal system is one of the most complicated ones there is, one should really try to get a lawyer. As far as I know only lawyers and that government "Rechstauskunft" may give legal advice in Germany. As far as university services go, you'd have to ask at the student committee "ASTA" or the student services office of the respective university. Most university hospitals (Universitätsklinikum München) have a sort of ER for psychological trouble. ( I thought that was called Sozialpsychologischer/psychosozialer Dienst, but could not verify either of those.) Both the catholic and lutheran churches offer counseling for victims as part of their community service. "Frauenhilfe" and "Wave-Network" are two organizations offering help in Munich. Compensation is "Schmerzensgeld". The vicitm may either choose to obtain a judgement on that as part of the criminal prosecution or file a claim separately. By law all victims of sexual assault are entitled to compensation. (since 2002) Apart from that there appear to be thousands of self organized groups offering help and counseling. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much for the detailed answer. They look promising! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

A question about the problem of mind. How do we know, how can we prove, beyond intuition, that other beings have minds? Is the qualitative character of the world, how things are felt and experienced by others, beyond the scope of philosophical ionquiry? Not too difficult, I hope! Steerforth (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's one of those big questions, isn't it? I don't think we can ever prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, any more than we can prove that everything we experience isn't just a really complicated hallucination or a dream. (This is the old "am I man who just dreamed that he was a butterfly, or am I a butterfly dreaming that I am a man?" thing.) Articles like dream argument and simulation hypothesis touch on this, although they really are more about reality and existence in general than about whether other individuals really have minds -- but it comes down to the same thing, pretty much. Of course, you can always employ a bit of Occam's razor here -- is the simplest explanation really that you happen to have a mind, but everyone else around you doesn't? Wouldn't you have to come up with something pretty weird and convoluted reasoning for why these people who look like you and, to a great extent, act like you, wouldn't also have minds? (I'm going to assume that you have already concluded beyond a shadow of a doubt that you yourself have a mind; cogito ergo sum and all that. If you're questioning that, too, you're probably way beyond any insight I might have. =))

But while this stuff is very interesting, in the end it easily comes down not seeing the forest for the trees. On a practical level, we just have to accept that we probably aren't hallucinating when we go about our daily lives, and that the people we interact with are not some kind of automatons, simulations or hallucinations. I mean, I know you can get very, very deeply into this whole thing, but in the end, on a purely practical level, the way you know that your friend has a mind and that he experiences emotions and has free will of his own is that you see him express these things, and that it makes sense that they have minds just like you do. Either you believe it or you don't.

And if you honestly don't, you're probably living a very challenging life... -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Our article on Problem of other minds covers some of this, and Solipsism touches on some as well. --Delirium (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

What makes you think that other beings, such as myself, have minds? Of course we don't have minds. You're just paranoid, that's all. -79.71.252.66 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Look at Analogy and Deductive reasoning for one approach to your question. Most of us would apply a variation of "Looks like a duck , walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ... It's got to be a duck." to evaluating the possibility of the other individual having a mind like one's own. Note that common language would describe the phrase "out of his/her mind" when the qualifier "acts like he/she has a mind like mine" is no longer met. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's a problem, Steerforth, that has been addressed by both Bertrand Russell and A J Ayer. Russell puts forward one solution: the argument from analogy. We see that other people's behavior resembles our own, and we know that our own behaviour arises from mental processes, so it follows that other people also have these processes, though, of course, this proceeds from intuition, it might be said, rather than proof. The example here is that if I experience pain on the basis of certain unpleasant experiences, then if someone else reports pain I assumer that they are having the same unpleasant experience.

It's not a particularly strong argument, as Ayer was quick to recognise. To assume that it is possible to generalise one's own thoughts to those of other people is not a justifiable inference. Ayer also rejects a behaviour-based version of the argument from analogy. We learn what words like 'pain' mean by observing the behaviour of others. This means that our justification for attributing pain to them simply comes from the fact that their behaviour exemplifies what pain means. Put this way pain doesn’t refer to a particular type of inner sensation at all. It is, rather, whatever causes a certain type of behaviour. In other words, if the behaviour is present so, too must pain, as pain is simply the cause of the behaviour. In such ways is the problem of mind dissolved.

But for Ayer this is quite wrong, because he sees no reason to suppose that the meaning of words should be strictly determined by the way in which they were learned. Just because we learn what mind-words mean by observing behaviour, this does not imply that the meanings of these words can be exhausted by what can be observed in behaviour. It is a mistake, as Ayer sees it, to confuse the method of learning a word with its actual meaning. You may learn what a tiger is from seeing a photo of a tiger, but it does not follow that 'tiger' means 'photo of a tiger’. So, on this basis, it does not follow from the fact that we learn about mental concepts from behaviour that the manifestation of certain kinds of behaviour ensure that which the mental concepts refers to are present.

The argument between Russell and Ayer gets ever more complex to the point where it seems impossible to discuss the problem of mind on any common philosophical grounds. But Ayer offers a solution in the work of Hilary Putnam, who argued that the belief that others have minds like mine is justified because it explains human behaviour. More than that, there is no other rival theory which explains human behaviour so well.

I suppose it's a solution, it might be said, of simple exhaustion; it is because it is! For, as with all other sceptical problems, we simply cannot prove beyond all doubt that other people have minds. In the end the words of Aristotle have abiding relevance-"It is a mark of the trained mind never to expect more precision in the treatment of any subject than the nature of that subject permits." Amen! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely BRILLIANT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steerforth (talk • contribs) 08:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

One thing I've never understood about philosophical discussions of these problems is that they always seem to use such facile examples. It's not hard to imagine an unconscious explanation for the observable pain response, but that hardly seems to matter. If one's theory of mind is any good it needs to explain even the most surprising human behavior, and it seems to me that the most surprising human behavior in this context is talking about our subjective experiences. What compels us to do that? If we don't have minds, or if the mind can't influence the body, then there must be some unconscious unit in the brain which produces the behavior of claiming explicitly to have subjective experiences and writing philosophical essays analyzing the "problem of mind". What would be the evolutionary purpose of such a unit? It seems to make no sense. I can imagine that there might be a counterargument to this. What I don't understand is why philosophers of mind don't spend all of their time on those counterarguments and rebuttals to them. It seems a waste of time to digress into anything as trivial as the pain response.

In any case, that's why I personally think that other people have subjective experiences—because they say they do. If they were unconscious, I'd expect them to say so, or simply show incomprehension when I raise the subject (either of which would create an observable difference between them and me). -- BenRG (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

As much as I know Picasso and his friends in Paris appreciated the foundation of Israel in 1948. But I really wasn´t able to find reliable sources for that. Can anybody help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.121.214 (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

During the Six-Day War, Picasso was one of hundreds of left-wing intellectuals in France (including Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and Marguerite Duras) who signed a statement supporting Israel and condemning the leftist line of thought identifying Israel with imperialism and aggression. This statement appeared in Le Figaro on May 29 and Le Monde on June 1. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Mwalcoff, interesting. But anyway if somebody knows what Picasso thought and did in 1948 I would still be highly interested. 77.2.100.115 (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I'm writing a report on The Octopus by Frank Norris and would like to make a comparison with Tolstoy's War and Peace, in that both books display a sense of fatalism concrning human actions, placing strong emphasis on the impersonal forces of history. Is this a reasonable view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.184.112 (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Depending on what subject your "report" is for, it really doesn't matter much if it is reasonable. If I write an essay on my grandmother having green hair and supply well phrased solid arguments and examples, who's to argue? What they usually want to know when they ask "is it reasonable" isn't "does it make sense" but rather "can you supply enough evidence to support that view?" So put you view in the intro, then look at support for your argument put those in your outline chart and then find similar aspects in the other book. For example answer these questions: What actions are fatalistic? Why? What methods does the author use to create this feeling? (look here for other question ideas [12]) Do this for at least 3 scenes or situations. Compare to the other book : (same questions). If not enough material or strong enough evidence can be found then your view isn't "reasonable". Make sure, though that your instructor is not looking for a certain style of essay. "Book report" may be strictly defined and may not include comparison in their view. (look at [13]}. Purdue has some excellent pages on writing online. Unfortunately they are a bit spread out and not that easy to navigate. [14] But they do have a "search" feature. You could run your ideas for an outline by the desk, but once you have one, I don't think you'll need to anymore. Hope this helps. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's an interesting thesis, and you might very well be able to sustain it, just as long as you do not make the parallels too close. Just as in War and Peace history has its own dynamism and logic, pushing people forward in a relentless fashion, so in The Octopus rancher and railroader alike must serve the impersonal forces of supply and demand. Remember Shelgrim's words to Presley? -"Men have little to do with the whole business. Can anyone stop the wheat? Well, then, no more can I stop the road." All Presley’s radical convictions are shattered by this encounter. The next time we see him is at a railroad executive's dinner party.

If you are looking for a key to Norris' thought, to understand why the great conflict ends in resolution, fatalism and acceptance, then you should realise just how important the work of Joseph Leconte was on his thinking. In was Leconte's view, expressed in books like Religion and Science and Evolution, Its Nature, Its Evidences and Its Relations to Religious Thought, that Divine Will was operating in nature through evolution. Science offered one perspective, religion another, but both science and religion merely sought to comprehend the will of God in the natural universe. Evil can never be considered an isolated phenomenon. Nature might break some, but only in pursuit of the greater good. So it is that Norris, Leconte's former student, is able to write at the end of The Octopus:

...the individual suffers, but the race goes on. Annixer dies, but in a far distant corner of the world a thousand lives are saved. The larger view always comes through all shams, all wicked-nesses, discovers the Truth that will, in the end, prevail, and all things, surely, inevitably, resistlessly work together for that good.

So it is with Norris as it is with Tolstoy; people are carried forward by History, by Destiny, by God, by Fate by Nature or by what you will. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

How accurate is the traditional view of the Kaiser as a pantomime baddy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.240.240 (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

He was pretty bad, yes, but not perhaps intentionally. He was an incompetent ruler, stubborn, strongly suspicious and jealous of anyone who seemed "better" than he was. At the end of the First World War, he abdicated, effectively stabbing the generals that had supported him in the back. The Treaty of Versailles signed in Paris the following year was one further humiliation that the German blamed on the now ex-Kaiser. Before that, there was an incident called the Daily Telegraph Affair, in which he aimed to promote Anglo-German relations. During the interview, he made emotional outbursts, and managed to aggravate the British (by calling them "you English are mad, mad as March hares"); the French and Russians; and also the Japanese, by admitting that the German naval build-up was meant for them, and not for Britain! In Germany, serious calls were made for his abdication, but he kept a low profile and survived. He was popular in Britain until the death of Queen Victoria, but reports soon emerged that he began a naval expansion; he was attempting to negotiate with Russia and France, so Britain naturally assumed that it was meant for them, and B began its own process of re-armament. As mentioned, during the First World War, he was incompetent and relied too heavily on his generals, so much so that the Empire became an effective military dictatorship under Paul von Hindenburg. His abdication was thus a shock for the Generals that had remained loyal.

The key thing to remember is the "pantomime baddy" image is mainly stemmed from British anti-German feeling after the First World War. He was portrayed as "Wicked Willy", responsible for the deaths of thousands of British soldiers. Queen Alexandra had a particular hatred for Germans, but that stemmed back to the Second Schleswig War of the 1860s. He did have some successes to his name, but his incompetence and flight after World War I was the reason for his ridicule. PeterSymonds | talk 19:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Peter, I think you might be just a little confused over some of the issues here. The Kaiser did not, as you have put it, stab 'the generals that had supported him in the back' by abdicating; it was the generals who were telling him to go! If anything it was the generals, particularly Wilhelm Groener, Erich Ludendorff's replacement, who betrayed the Kaiser, by saying that he could no longer count on the army’s support. I know of no source that says the Germans 'blamed' the ex-Kaiser for the Treaty of Versailles. Why on earth should they? Indeed many Germans thought that, in the absence of their former ruler, their new democracy would get a fair peace, one based on Wilsonian principles. The ensuing diktat was blamed on the supposed hypocrisy of the Allies, not the Kaiser. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm pleased to say, 86.151, that the old-fashioned image of Kaiser Bill as a cardboard villain is giving way to a far more nuanced view, represented, most particularly in the likes of Giles MacDonagh's The Last Kaiser: William the Impetuous (Widenfield and Nicholson, 2001). He was far from being the archetypal Prussian militarist and warmonger. Indeed as Europe rushed towards conflict in 1914 Wilhelm urged caution. As the war progressed he was effectively sidelined, a spectator to all the major events, both military and political. The suggestion in his Wikipedia page that he personally arranged for Lenin to return home, thereby ensuring the death of the Russian royal family, is quite laughable in its absolute absurdity.

The real problem was that Wilhelm, an intensely vulnerable character, was a little man called upon to play a big part, one for which he was temperamentally unsuited. His tactlessness and his bluster were all too often ways of making up for his own perceived deficiencies as a man and as a ruler. He was in every respect the perfect imperial counterpart to Heinrich Mann's Man of Straw, an actor, as one spectator put it, "effusive, voluble...striving for effect." In many ways, with his withered arm and his periodic bouts of clinical depression, he was a quite pitiable figure; a teenage Emperor of a teenage Empire, full of sound and fury that signified nothing. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Imagine: a country going from a leader with a withered arm to one who could hold his arm in the air for extended periods. Edison (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The recent biography, and its nuanced treatment of the Kaiser's psychological condition, is indeed useful. It is also useful to remember that if he is remembered as a pantomime bully, it is because German royalists of the time expected that their emperor be something of a bully. I wish I could remember which of those royalists it was who said of the possibility of strengthening parliamentary democracy in the German empire that any system that did not permit him to march into the Reichstag and shoot its members if the Kaiser so demanded was unacceptable.

Clio, the Lenin section in the article is gone. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that, Relata. I suppose I should have done this myself, but I'm always wary of starting yet another of those tiresome Wiki-Wars! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

What were the issues in Canada regarding with the iron ore, nickel, zinc, copper, gold, lead, molybdenum, potash, diamonds, silver, fish, timber, wildlife, coal, petroleum, natural gas, hydropower? the previous questions did not get any right answers. Please refers this questions to any website that has the answers for this question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.21 (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by 'right answers'? If you know the answers already why are you asking us? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I guess we just have a language problem. The OP seems to be in a Toronto public library but is clearly struggling in English. For 'right', try reading 'good' or 'helpful'. Xn4 21:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think what you may be looking for it this Economic history of Canada. Economy of Canada also holds some clues. Canadian and American economies compared is worth a look. But Geography of Canada will probably get you closest to picturing what went on. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

BTW could s.o. have a look at Extreme communities of Canada there seems to be something missing in "Furthest west entirely within Saskatchewan is ??." Since that phrase has looked like that ever since the table was created it doesn't seem to be vandalism. (Anyone got a map?) --71.236.23.111 (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The "??" is a blank asking for someone to complete the sentence. It means "of communities entirely within Saskatchewan (i.e. excluding Lloydminster), the westernmost is (please fill in the blank)." No, I don't know the answer. For all I know, the answer might be some place too small for typical highway maps to show. --Anonymous, 00:12 UTC, May 8, 2008.

Who is the author of the poem Alladin's Lamp? The first section of the poem reads "When I was a beggar so poor, and lived in a cellar so damp, I had not a ? nor a ? but I had Alladin's lamp" 76.101.255.137 (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC) John R.Reply

Thomas Henry Huxley. [15] It's number 43 in that list. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 20:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's James Russell Lowell's poem "Aladdin's Lamp" that is being referred to in that footnote:

When I was a beggarly boy,

And lived in a cellar damp,

I had not a friend or a toy,

But I had Aladdin’s lamp.

When I could not sleep for the cold,

I had fire enough in my brain,

And builded, with roofs of gold,

My beautiful castles in Spain!

The second stanza is here.

--Wetman (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Many of the pionneers of sociology were 19th century leftists such as Comte, Durkheim, Vilfredo Pareto, Max Weber, etc. They advanced the views of positivism, naturalism, dialectic materialism, etc.

Were these sociologists completely in line with their time or were they forward thinkers, indirectly responsable for the social systems of today ?

Why have their been so few non-leftist, non-communist, non-socialist, non-atheistic sociologists ? It seems that many of these folks were unhappy when the Berlin Wall fell down.

Also, since the Welfare State has been largely achieved thanks to many sociologists, what is the general mood in the socio-community about the decline of this socio-paradise (ie free economy + aging population) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.246.246 (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your second question, one of the most famous Conservatives of our time perhaps summed it up best: "you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families." If you don't believe in the concept, then its unlikely you will chose to study it! Rockpocket 02:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think most sociologists would take issue with your statement that they though the end of the Cold War was a bad thing or that they supported either the USSR or the GDR. Most American leftists in any case were not pro-Soviet, even if they were self-described socialists. There's a big difference in thinking socialism is a more just system of government and believing the implementation of that in Russia or East Germany was a good one.

I don't really know how to answer the question about them "forward thinkers", but you've set up a false dilemma. It's highly possible, perhaps most likely, that they were both not in line with their time but not very much responsible for the social systems of today. Just because one is not "completely in line with their time" (whatever that means) doesn't mean one is actually influential in the sense you mean.

Is the "welfare state" in decline? The very term "welfare state" is a pejorative coined by those who think it is in decline, so you're biasing things from the beginning then. Personally I think there's a strong argument to be made that the idea of some state care of its people is not in decline even if some implementations are currently inefficient or purposefully failing (there have been many attempts to purposefully botch many of the elements of the "welfare state" in the US by those who would like to see it fail).

I am also, personally, not sure how one puts positivism and dialectical materialism on a scale of "leftist" ideas. It strikes me as a rather crude application of modern day political debates to rather complicated 19th century concepts about the nature of knowledge.

Lastly, as to professional biases among sociologists: 1. I'm not sure I buy that there is one; just because a few of the big names in the discipline fall into a given category doesn't mean that the entire discipline does, but if it did, 2. sociology is an approach that cares more about the collective than the individual, the point where the idea of individual free will is implicitly ignored in favor of aggregate understandings. It's not too much of a leap to assume that such an approach would be more naturally appealing to people of one political stripe or another. But again, I would be dubious of such an easy dismissal. It's true that for many reasons academia itself currently leans left, but whether sociologists are more left-leaning than, say, historians or anthropologists, I am dubious. I am not sure we need to create a special explanation just for sociologists, is all I am saying. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, a 'question' that already suggests a desired response! Before I proceed I have a confession to make which you may feel, 69.157, invalidates my answer. You see, my boyfriend took a sociology degree at King's College, Cambridge and is now advancing the world revolution as a junior partner in a firm of City of London stockbrokers. Venceremos!

Anyway, I sympathise with your need to deepen your understanding of the nature of sociology as an academic discipline, because it really is most terribly weak as it stands. Anyone who believes that August Comte, Emile Durkheim, Vilfredo Pareto and Max Weber were nineteenth century 'leftists', whatever that is supposed to mean, really is in need of some serious enlightenment. Pareto, for example, was one of the proponents of elite theory, and was greatly admired by the Italian Fascists. Mussolini himself is alleged to have attended his lectures at Lausanne. After the March on Rome he honoured Pareto by appointing him a Senator of the Kingdom of Italy.

The one obvious 'leftist' that you did not mention is, of course, Karl Marx, whose notions of Historical materialism have had some influence on certain branches of sociological inquiry. Dialectical materialism, in contrast, a later invention, belongs to the arena of philosophy and political polemic, not to sociology. The political thought of Marx was, of course, the inspiration for twentieth-century Communism, though I seriously doubt that he would have recognised or understood the 'social systems' established in his name. Pareto, I suppose, might be said to have given the loosest credibility to forms of right-wing authoritarianism. So far as I am aware there are no Comteist, Durkheimist or Weberist social systems!

Now, if I think of sociology as a modern discipline I think primarily of its expansion in the United States, where a strong tradition of Functionalism was established under the influence of Talcott Parsons, that well-known leftie! Taking the opposite approach (in methodology, if not in politics!) is the ethnomethodology of Harold Garfinkel, as well as the other currents of microsociology. Latterly the Postmodernism and Post-structuralism have become important, but the positivist tradition is alive and well in the likes of the American Journal of Sociology and the American Sociological Review. Have a look, why don't you?

Yes, I'm sure that there must have been 'some of those folks' who lamented the fall of the Berlin Wall (surely there must?) though I suspect most sociologists in the Marxist tradition were not that enamoured of the hide-bound and bureaucratic forms of Stalinism prevalent in Eastern Europe, a doctrine never that sympathetic to original thought, or social inquiry, of any kind.

I have no idea which 'Welfare State' you are referring to, but I can assure you the variety established in England owed nothing to sociologists and everything to old-fashioned Liberals, like William Beveridge. I can offer no comment on the 'socio-community' or the 'socio-paradise' because I have not the least idea what either of these terms means. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why are most African Americans from the Southern states? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 10:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Start with African American history and come back if you still have and questions Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Additional information: the plantations where the African slaves were put to work were located in the Southern Colonies, whose area constitutes largely the current Southern United States. The reason they were located in the South and not in the North is primarily the climate needed for growing tobacco, rice, and later cotton, the main cash crops. In the Southern Colonies, winters were mild and summers were hot.  --Lambiam 14:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

What is the age range for university students? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 10:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

8 to 95.--droptone (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

For age 8, see Song Yoo-geun; and here is one at age 9: [16].  --Lambiam 14:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Although there is no age limit, the usual range (at least in the US) is the four years immediately after high school - this works out to around 18-22. Note that even within the "usual" there is some flexibility, with 17 year old high school graduates, super seniors, and people who take a break from education for a number of years after high school to join the military, work at a company, or travel the world. -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I should also mention that after completion of the bachelor's degree, some people choose to pursue advanced degrees like a Ph.D. or an M.D.. The time for these degrees is much more variable than the bachelor's, ranging from 4-8 years (or even longer). Although these people are technically considered "students" at the university, usually when people refer to "university students", they usually are thinking of bachelor's level, not the Ph.D./M.D. level. -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, yes, but if we exclude outliers we can provide a more useful answer. In England many students start universiy either straight after school or after a gap year, so a typical age on entering university is 17 to 19. Most undergraduate courses are three, four or five years (including a gap year in industry for some courses such as enginneering), so a typical age at graduation is 21 to 24. There are, of course, many exceptions. Medical degrees take longer. Students studying for a second or higher degree will tend to be older. It is possible to go to university at any time during your adult life (financial constraints permitting), and become a mature student. And the age profile of students enrolled at a distance learning university, such as the Open University, will be very different from the norm. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Gandalf, I'm confused, surely you've got this wrong. In England you're in the upper sixth in the academic year of your 18th birthday, so even the youngest members of the year would have turned 18 by the time they are freshers. Surely that makes 17 unusually young (if only a little). I know my hall of residence had a bar, without worrying whether the residents were old enough to drink at it. AndyJones (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Students in Scotland take their Highers at 17, and Scots with good enough grades can get into English universities. (Although they have to pay fees, which they would not hva to in Scottish universities.) Scots students regularly start university at 17 in Scotland. SaundersW (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

who is the guy marching in to the fanfare that oscar turns into a dance? L S M M (talk) 11:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's Parteigenosse Albert Forster, Gauleiter of Danzig. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Did Eva Braun share her husband's views? L S M M (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You probably mean his political views? According to some informed accounts, such as Speer's, Eva Braun was indifferent to politics but completely devoted to Hitler. It seems she would have agreed with almost anything he said or did, and no doubt much of her charm for Hitler was that she didn't question or challenge him at all. So I think it would be a mistake to say she actively agreed with him, but true that she was happy to accept the worst sides of him with the better.

You say "her husband". In the day or so of their marriage, Hitler's mind was focussed on what to do in complete failure, and his new wife evidently agreed to die with him. Is there a more complete agreement than that? Xn4 23:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Angela Lambert touches on this issue (the question of possible anti-Semitism) in her The Lost Life of Eva Braun (Arrow Books, 2007). A lot of this book is, given the nature of the subject, really quite tendentious, and all the author says is that anti-Semitism was not part of Eva's emotional world. It would hardly be possible to describe her as having any kind of intellectual life, at least not that we know of; for she left no traces. Personally I can see no reason to dispute Lambert's subjective conclusion, though I think I would have preferred to say that there is no evidence that she expressed any form of hatred towards the Jews, Hitler's views notwithstanding. It's as well to remember that goodness is sometimes just as banal as evil. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please can someone help me. My name is John Evans. I am doing a project on the english cival war of the time of Charles the first. We have all been told to select some aspect of this and present a report. I thought I would write about how prisoners of war were treated. So far I've not found an awful lot of information. If you can give me an outline and sugest where else I can look I would be really pleased. I hope this is alright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John D Evans (talk • contribs) 13:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi John, it's fine. And a good question, because our prisoners of war article skips right over that period, and our two civil war articles this one and this one don't say much about prisoners (though they do say a bit, so you might want to check). As to where you *could* look, here are some starting suggestions. I'm sure you'll get more and better soon.

• Although this is after the war, Samuel Pepys in his diary discusses prisoners of war fairly often – mainly I think how much it costs to look after them, so you can infer they weren't eating well.
• Ask at the library for these books: The Oxford History of the Prison and Encyclopedia of Prisoners of War & Internment.
• Or if your library has a subscription to British History Online I see there are some documents from the period on the topic.

Best on your project WikiJedits (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

John, it's a good topic, though I suspect that you may find it difficult to discover the kind of secondary sources that you obviously need.

The first thing you should note is that the opposing armies a adopted formal Articles of War, based on the Laws and Ordinances of War published during the Bishops' Wars with the Scots. Under these Articles a soldier surrendering in battle had a right to quarter, though, in practice, this was frequently violated. Even troops who had been guaranteed safe conduct were often robbed, even of the clothes they were wearing. After the Battle of Naseby in 1645 soldiers of the New Model Army massacred a number of women in the Royalist camp on the pretext that they were 'Irish and of cruel countenance.' The year before Parliament amended its own Articles of War by forbidding the granting of quarter to Irish soldiers captured in England. This was only rescinded after Prince Rupert, Charles I's leading commander, hanged thirteen Parliamentary prisoners in February 1645 in retaliation for the hanging of thirteen Irish Royalists.

As far as the bigger picture is concerned, the taking of prisoners en mass, you must remember that the seventeenth century state had neither the means nor the ability to take care of large groups of captives. There were, in other words, no prisoner of war camps. One way round this was to release captives on parole, on promise that they would not take up arms in future against whatever side they happened to be fighting. Alternatively, many might opt to join the enemy army. Where this was not possible, or practical, then the outlook for the prisoners could be quite bleak. Here you might consider the fate of the Scots taken captive in the Battle of Dunbar in 1650. Most of these were marched south to Durham, and there incarcerated in the Cathedral, where a great many died of starvation or neglect. Of the 5000 or so men taken at Dunbar it is thought that over 3500 subsequently died, more than had been killed in the battle itself. Those that survived were transported to the English colonies in the Americas, or to the Caribbean, as slaves. The same fate awaited those taken at the Battle of Preston and the Battle of Worcester.

So, prisoners of war died in their thousands, less because of deliberate cruelty and more because neither side had the apparatus or the means to deal with the problem of large numbers of captives; but they still died.

I have one interesting piece of trivia that you might wish to make use of. The phrase to Send to Coventry, meaning to ostracise someone, is thought to derive from the Civil War period. In his History of the Rebellion and Civil wars in England, Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon says that Royalist prisoners captured at Birmingham were taken to Coventry, a Parliamentary stronghold, where they were shunned by the local people. The best of luck! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is there any legal reason that prevents the President of the US from nominating the Vice-president of the US for another cabinet level position such as Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense? Is there a reason a person could not hold both posts at the same time? Could a person serve as both US VP and Director of the National Security Agency(NSA)?

Could Barack Obama offer Hillary Clinton the VP slot on the Democratic ticket with the understanding that she would also serve as Secretary of State? In effect, upgrading her role in his administration.

129.230.236.1 (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Constitution doesn't allow the same person to hold two Constitutional positions at the same time. Corvus cornix_talk 19:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You sure about that? It doesn't allow members of Congress to hold other offices; I don't see where it says that about the Veep. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The veep is the president of the senate, voting in ties, so he holds two offices by the constitution. The cabinet is mentioned only as "principal Officers in each of the executive Departments" appointed by the president, with the "Advice and Consent of the Senate.", so I don't think there's anything illegal about it.John Z (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Was Hadrian's foundation of this settlement, which led to the Bar Kokhba revolt, a deliberate act of provocation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.191.139 (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hadrian, prior to the revolt, was notably sympathetic to the Jews, and his promise to rebuild Jerusalem should be seen in that light. In retrospect, putting a giant temple to Jupiter at the centre of the plan, while hardly surprising in that it followed the template of imperial cities elsewhere, was probably unwise. It was after the bloody battles of the revolt that he turned against the religion, believing it to be the cause of frequent revolts in Syria Palaestina. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not at all sure that is the case; I can certainly detect little in the way of sympathy towards the Jews on the Emperor's part. From the outset Aelia Capitolina was intended as a wholly pagan city, to be populated by Roman soldiers. Hadrian must have known that to erect what was for all practical purposes a military garrison on the sacred city of the Jews was an immense provocation. There was no magnanimity or generosity in the action, no attempt to pacify the local people, or to remind them that their Emperor had their well-being at heart. Jews were specifically forbidden to enter the new settlement, except for one day a year. But the most serious affront of all was the erection of the Temple of Jupiter on the foundations of the Second Temple, an unmistakable symbol of Jewish subjugation and humiliation. It would seem that Hadrian could not have done more to provoke the Bar Kokhba revolt, whether that was his intention or not. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Did Koestler base the character of Rubashov on any particular individual? Yermelov (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Darkness at Noon#Characters has some discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nikolai Bukharin is the generally accepted candidate, though Stephen F. Cohen, his biographer, has exploded the connection. In practice Darkness at Noon is Arthur Koestler's own confession. He is Rubashov, not Bukharin. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Did Stalin play ping pong? 99.226.26.154 (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The only scenario I can envision in which Stalin would have played ping pong would have been if Mao introduced it to him when he visited Moscow - which did not happen. Mao was too busy talking about his political and social ideas and, in my opinion, Stalin was just trying to get him to go home. So, they had no play time. -- kainaw™ 21:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It could be argued that sometimes he played ping, and sometimes he played pong. But never in a row. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, but he's great at Hip hop! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I believe the Soviets actually banned ping pong between 1930 and 1950, because they thought the rapid movements of the ball would cause eye damage in spectators (this is briefly mentioned in the Table tennis article). So my guess is he wouldn't have played it in public, anyway... Dooky (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

How do organizations get the information to calculate GDP? I suppose tax reports must help, but what other resources do they use to compile the figures? Especially in developing countries, even if they make estimates, what evidence do they base it on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.26.154 (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

See GDP. The most-used raw equation is the "expenditure method":

GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or,
GDP = C + I + G + (X-M) Spencer^T♦C 22:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

He/she's not asking what formulae they use, he's asking where they get the data for the formulae from. Where do you get raw data for "gross investment" and "consumption" and "exports"? ("government spending" is in the government's budget, obviously). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict, covered by above too) Be aware there are two separate ways to calculate GDP. One, the market value of all final goods and services produced in a country, and two, consumption + investment + government purchases + net exports. To calculate GDP the second way is relatively easy, because its components can be estimated or calculated from readily available tax-related information, specifically, the wages of consumers, the budget of the government, and the investments of firms.

In developing countries, these statistics are usually available as well, but are less accurate, because developing countries generally have a large informal economy of goods and services produced that are not monitored by the government. The problem appears in Western countries as well: if I mow my lawn, it is not counted in GDP. If I establish a holding company for my lawn, and I lease my lawn from that company for €1, then employ myself there to mow the lawn for €1, GDP suddenly increased by €1. User:Krator (t c) 23:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Further to the above: Following links from our GDP page gets you to this UN site [17] which should help answer the question. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am looking for an art painting, which is on a wall or dome/ceiling. There is Prophet Ezekiel in the painting. He is standing on the right. There is also Prophet Jonah in the painting. He is standing besides Prophet Ezekiel. Prophet Jonah is naked. There are two angels in the painting. The angels are on the left of Prophet Jonah, and they are flying horizontally towards him. One angel is seraphim angel, who is blowing a trumpet. The trumpet indicates it is not very old painting. The other angel is cherubim angel, who is blowing air. On the left of the angels is a hand. This hand is presumed be that of Jesus. This hand is just one hand, it includes the whole arm. Behind the angels are other people. The Prophets, the angels, and the other people are Heralding the Dawn, welcoming the dawn. I have seen this image in a magazine, years 2004, 2005 or 2006, in the early part of the year. The magazine is either Newsweek, or Harvard Magazine, but I am not sure which one it is. I do not clearly remember the painter, but I think it is someone called Rainer; just one name was given in the caption of the image. This name indicates it may be a French painting. Can you help me locate this painting either on the Internet, Wikipedia, or a book, which I can purchase?

Manilal.daya (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I only know of Arnulf Rainer but his work doesn't really match your painting, that I can find. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is a tendency within the legal system to employ social science to an extent which declares that certain crimes are no longer crimes anymore, but have become mere social phenomenon.

How does one correctly draw the line between the two ? Is all crime sociological, being the product of an interdict ? And currently, isn't there a legal campaign to have declare that pedophilia is a mere fact of society, and that some pedophiles are socially acceptable, as was previously done with homosexuality and abortion ?

Is it possible to live in a society which recognizes no crimes, merely social trends, or is that a utopia ? 69.157.246.246 (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

How does one correctly draw the line between a crime and a social phenomenon? In the simplest terms, the line is drawn by having a government declare it illegal. For example, domestic violence is a social phenomenon until someone makes a law that says it is a crime. Most human activity can be safely classified as social phenomena. As to how that is done "correctly", that pretty much depends on the system of government, the moral atmosphere and other related things, but that's getting to be another discussion.

As for a legal campaign to declare pedophilia a "mere fact of society", there are probably a number of them out there somewhere, but seeing as I don't even know what country you are in, I couldn't begin to comment on that with any degree of accuracy. Suffice to say that organizations like NAMBLA have campaigned to legalize relations between adults and children. However, it should be pointed out that there are always campaigns to declare something something else, and that doesn't necessarily mean that they are significant, influential or reasonable -- and in any case, views towards homosexuality are not necessarily compatible with views towards abortion, and neither view may be compatible with pedophilia. They are not related issues, except on the level that at some point in time, they were or are illegal in various cultures. But that's not much of a connection, really; a lot of things that used to be illegal are now legal, and a lot of things that used to be legal are now illegal, all over the world.

It's theoretically possible to live in a society which recognizes no crimes, but I'm not at all confident that it would be a utopia. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Let's just cut to the chase, 69.157-Sociology is the root of all evil. That's what you want to hear, isn't it? Clio the Muse (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, looking at the edit history, it does kind of look like there's an agenda here. Ho hum. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

See Decriminalization. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm looking for a spreadsheet or table of an index or indicator of global food prices (either international trade or local prices globally). I'm interested in the last 50 years, but can't find the raw data anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.98.44 (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's part of the Consumer price index This link [18] may have what you need.--71.236.23.111 (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

In Michigan, can you shoot someone if they break into your house? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

According to the Michigan Legislature, and more specifically, House Bill 1542, that appears to be the case, provided that you have "reasonable fear of imminent peril or great bodily harm". There are apparently some exceptions to this, such as if the person breaking in happens to be the house's owner or resident or a police officer. If you feel that this is something that applies to you in any way, I'd suggest you check with somebody knows Michigan criminal law, as not only is the reference desk the wrong place to ask for actual legal advice, it's entirely possible that there are other laws that also impact on this in one way or another that some guy on the internet -- me, that is -- is unaware of. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't know about Michigan, but in some areas you can register your property with the police. You then put a sign up that says "posted property". That's sort of an exaggerated form of "No trespassing". If then someone climbs your fence and you shoot them or they drown in your pool you're not liable. But you really should check with a lawyer for details. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You can shoot at any people anywhere if you have any loaded and working long range weapon, but you might get arrested/shot back at for it.HS7 (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know there are some similarities from Socrates to Buddhism such as the Phaedrus and his don't know mentality is similar to Taoism. Overall, how similar, do philosophers consider Socrates and Buddhism kindrid? What other areas do they have similarities or not? Thanks--208.102.189.190 (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello?--208.102.189.190 (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I asked this question a few months ago, but I transferred to a different junior college, so I am studying different texts.

I will still take Othello. Last time, a few of you said it was like Macbeth, which I studied in secondary school.

My other four texts are:

The Handmaid's Tale Great Expectations Brave New World Edgar Allan Poe

I started reading the first two already. They are difficult to understand because there is a lot of complex description, so it is difficult to follow the plot and events.

Any advice for studying these texts?

--166.121.36.232 (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

A good start can be had at The Handmaid's Tale, Great Expectations, Brave New World and Edgar Allan Poe. These (well, the first three) outline the plots and characters, so you can get them sorted in your head before you read; refer back whenever you get confused. The above articles also contain brief thematic discussions, and critical comment (some better than others), which can get you thinking about the issues (but you'll need to go deeper). Start with one book rather than reading them all at once, so you don't get them mixed up. Write down notes as you read: queries and things to look up later, first impressions, what it reminds you of, phrases and themes you've read elsewhere in the book. It can often be good to buy a cheap copy (from a second hand shop, for example) and make notes on the actual pages, underline significant passages and so forth. Brings back memories! I have a rather old, dog-eared, page turned, note-strewn Handmaid's Tale somewhere... Gwinva (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I teach writing and always say to my students dont take reading too seriously: because you will kill the book or the book will kill you. Instead, read the book quickly once and dont worry about taking notes or what you should be thinking. Just skim on through and try and enjoy it. Reading novels is after all supposed to be both intellectually stimulating and a pleasure, but we in academia do try and make it useful work for us and unfortunately work too for our students! Then think about what you think. Then read what others think of the book. Then read it again more slowly, and think about what you think and what others think. Then think about those conflicting thoughts, and read a bit more about what others think of the book, then write an essay thats about all those conflicting thoughts. And I know I have repeated the word think a lot, but thats what we have to do in academia, hopefully though we won't kill the simple enjoyment of reading. By the way, I love The Handmaid's Tale and Brave New World, its definitely worth reseaching dystopia. Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

What is a Famous Virginian with a last name that startes with Y? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.65.190 (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

See Category:People from Virginia and select Y. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

More directly, this link. Spencer^T♦C 13:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is there a key to understanding the personality and the politics of Oswald Mosley? What I would like to know if there was some theme to his career, related perhaps to a personal ideology, or ambition, or overall attitude, which explains why he changed party so many times? How could a one time Tory and then a Socialist end up as a Fascist? What was it in his that allowed him in the end, a man of his background and education, to associate with a collection of violent thugs, both before the war and after? Thanks for your help.217.43.14.177 (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Clio the Muse reminded us not long ago of Stanley Baldwin's biting remark in 1929, "Tom Mosley is a cad and a wrong 'un and they will find it out." (By 'they', he meant the Labour Party.) For P. G. Wodehouse's more charitable view of Mosley, see Roderick Spode. Rightly or wrongly, I've always seen more Spode than cad in Mosley. So far as he was a racist, that was how he (and thousands like him) were brought up. He was a prima donna with a towering ego, but so was Churchill. Mosley believed passionately in his own vision and leadership and in his power to do good. Even after the War had effectively discredited him, he was puzzled that his country didn't want him in public life. Perhaps the key to him is egotism. In the twentieth century, he was a fish out of water. He played for one team after another because he just wasn't a team player but had no hope of getting to the top without a team. Again, an echo of Churchill. Xn4 19:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

How exactly did the work of Arthur Schopenhauer influence Wittgenstein? Jet Eldridge (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

No? Jet Eldridge (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I intended to leave this for Clio, but just for now she has sailed into the West. Wittgenstein read Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation at the age of sixteen. Schopenhauer seems to be the source of his insights into ethics, aesthetics, the will, and the metaphysical self, and he later told Georg Henrik von Wright that his earliest philosophy was a Schopenhauerian epistemological idealism. While writing his Notebooks and his Tractatus, Wittgenstein is thought to have re-read much of Schopenhauer, and A. Phillips Griffiths notes that "...some of the remarks there [in the Notebooks], some of which are repeated in the Tractatus, are so exactly Schopenhauerian as to appear culled from the text." For instance, the ladder image of the Tractatus is Schopenhauer's. Xn4 13:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, of general relevance, is that Wittgenstein didn't think of Schopenhauer as a particularly "deep" philosopher, claiming that, unlike Kant, he could "see the bottom of him." This is from the appendix to the other translation of Die Welte als Wille und Vorstellung, entitled The World as Will and Idea, which I don't have in front of me, but I think my memory serves me just this once. 203.221.126.227 (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

A jew is someone who has a jewish mother. As I was born my mother was not jew, but what would happen if she converts to Judaism? Will I be automatically be jew (not convert) or will I still be what I am now? 217.168.1.109 (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have no authorized answer to your question, but the article on conversion to Judaism led me to "What is the status of a child when the mother converts to Judaism during pregnancy?". The discussion there seems to imply that your mother's religious affiliation is only relevant from conception to birth. Once you're born, you are your own person, and your mother's postpartum conversion does not make you Jewish, unless you convert as well. The article on matrilinearity is interesting as well, and mentions different views on the stringency of matrilinearity in modern Judaism. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The phrasing of your initial question is problematic; consider that a Jew is someone born to a Jewish mother (not "who has..."; the Judaic status of a child adopted into a Jewish family is a separate issue with its own protocols). The status is relevant under Jewish law observed by the Orthodox stream of Judaism and in the State of Israel. If you're interested in other forms of Judaism (e.g. Reconstructionist, Reform, and Conservative), try the "Contact Us" feature of their websites (External links on those pages). -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I haven't read it lately, but Who is a Jew? might clarify it. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Has anyone read your page on the Popish Plot. It's REALLY TERRIBLE, full of errors and POV judgements. Please can some expert help sort out this mess? I thought I would find someone here, rather than leaving a message on the talk page. The reputation of Wikipedia is at stake. You must help!!!Pere Plex (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It would be helpful if you could detail some of these errors, POV judgements, &c, on the talk page. I've read the article, and it does not stand out as especially poor; on the contrary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid I agree with Pere Plex, there are bad errors and POV judgements. For instance, it's too simplistic to say that Oates was "a low level clergymen" [sic]. He was a rogue, but we don't need to hurl unfocussed abuse at his professional status. The nonsense begins with the claim that Charles II was married to "the Queen of Portugal"... perhaps someone will get on and correct that, so don't be surprised if you read this and it's gone, but there's a lot more that's wrong. Xn4 14:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I fixed the Queen of Portugal, but ...eewwww.... we really need to start over. - Nunh-huh 22:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll begin a rewrite tomorrow, here. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 22:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi all, I'm trying to help an artist friend do some research on what things looked like on the high seas in the 1700s, with a particular focus on British, French and Spanish naval uniforms. I've looked at the Wiki articles on the navies of these respective countries, but they're (obvious) overviews of hundreds of years of history and can't really get into uniform specifics for a particular era. Any ideas on how I wouldt go about finding images of this era of naval combat? Thanks!

Try the Museum of Costume. The National Maritime Museum has excellent online image resources, e.g. [19]. And you could contact the archivist of each country's navy. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the Royal Navy, there was no uniform for officers until 1748, when new regulations created the 'best uniform' or 'dress uniform' (embroidered blue coat with white facings over white breeches and white stockings) and an 'undress uniform', commonly called the 'working rig', which was similar but plainer. See here. Uniform regulations for the Royal Navy's seamen didn't come until 1857, but before that a ship's crew did look much the same, as the men were generally supplied with the materials to make their own clothes. Xn4 16:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

When I was young I had a copy of what was called the "junior edition" of the Britannica; it had illustrated uniforms for at least the British and French navies through the modern era. You might want to look around in your local public library for an old edition of that. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Some Spanish naval infantry uniforms, and you may find the Anne S.K. Brown Military collection helpful, too. SaundersW (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Osprey Publishing are an excellent source for matters military; their books contain detailed illustrations of uniforms, weapons, technology and so forth from all eras and disciplines. Check out their catalogue at [20] Some are available as limited preview on google books: see [Royal Navy 1790-1970, for example. Gwinva (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why do the French celebrate the revolution of 1789? The whole thing seems quite ugly, something to be ashamed of, gruseome and bloody, an episode that marks the beginning of all modern tyranny, from facism to communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.162.194 (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd answer this now, but I'd prefer to wait till Clio agrees with you and then swoop in and explain why bliss it was in that dawn to be alive. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good strategy, Relata refero. I'll hold off as well. Marco polo (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

To be fair to the French (not always an easy thing, I know), what the Fête nationale actually celebrates on 14 July is (informally) the Storming of the Bastille on 14 July 1789 and (formally) the Fête de la Fédération of 14 July 1790, which marked the creation of a constitutional monarchy in France. At the time, that was widely seen as a satisfactory outcome to the Revolution, and the King took part in it (the 1790 celebration, that is). I've been in different parts of France on 14 July (that's to say, in conservative and more radical parts) and I've never seen a public celebration of the Terror, although I know there are some hotheads who still defend it. It has to be remembered that the French Revolution is one of the sources of Animal Farm - the Revolution's beginnings were idealistic, and those ideals are still the foundation of the modern French state. Xn4 20:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

For the same reasons the Americans celebrate their revolution? Matt Deres (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The American Revolution (which wasn't really a revolution) was about independence from colonial rule. The French Revolution was about freedom from the rule of an absolute monarch and about democratic ideals, even if later excesses were not in keeping with those ideals. It is the ideals (liberty, equality, fraternity) that are celebrated on July 14. Marco polo (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Note that if refrained from celebrating anything that has historically inspired people to be wicked, it is hard to say what we could celebrate. Christianity and Darwinism would have to go out the window one and the same as well. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not British but I've lived in the UK and I have listened to a lot to British commercial radio. Many radio advertisements ends with the fine print statement, "Terms and conditions apply. Offer excludes Northern Ireland". I have never heard ads that excludes Scotland or Wales. Are there any reasons for this treatment of NI? Thuresson (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure, but it may be a matter of the added shipping cost. Or, if the offer is dependent on some kind of contact with a local retail outlet or distribution infrastructure, many firms may not have extended their network to Northern Ireland for similar reasons. For example, you can set up a central warehouse and a small fleet of lorries in Leeds to service England, Scotland, and Wales, but sending a lorry on a ferry to Northern Ireland and back would add considerable expense, not least for the driver's time. On the other hand, Northern Ireland's population (1.5 million) and income might not support a warehouse and lorry fleet there, whereas the 58 million or so potential customers on the island of Great Britain might well support such a distribution infrastructure. Marco polo (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's a shipping and distribution issue, much like US companies that exclude Alaska and Hawaii from some offers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.32.211 (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are the adverts for insurance? I've noticed most TV adverts for car insurance in England have "excludes Northern Ireland" on the bottom of the screen in the closing seconds - presumably because car insurance rules are different for NI but the advert can still be seen there (either that or the insurance companies have the mistaken belief that "The Troubles" are still a part of everyday Northern Irish life). I've also seen some financial services adverts (usually for IVAs) say "not available in Scotland". Astronaut (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It may also be an issue of differing standards or regulations which the company doesn't want the cost or hassle of having to deal with. We get the same thing here in Canada, where the offers often exclude Quebec, which has more stringent language regulations for 'most everything. Different taxation rates could also be a factor. Matt Deres (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Tax rates are the same in all parts of the UK, but thanks to the 49 years with a separate legislature from 1922, Northern Irish law can be quite different from the law in England & Wales, and Scotland - in Trade Union law, for example, the laws on opting in or out of a union's Political Fund if it has one are diametrically opposite from the laws which apply in the rest of the UK. It is, however, mainly a matter of distribution costs - it's also not unusual to see adverts excluding the Scottish Highlands and Islands (Hebrides, Orkney, and Shetland). -- Arwel (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I pulled these references from Ibn Battuta's main article. Which one of these has the best description of his travels?

• Mackintosh-Smith, Tim (ed.) (2003). The Travels of Ibn Battutah. Picador. ISBN 0-330-41879-3.
• Dunn, Ross E. (1986). The Adventures of Ibn Battuta. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-05771-6. Reissued and revised in 2004 ISBN 0-520-24385-4
• H. A. R. Gibb, translator (1929), Ibn Battuta Travels in Asia and Africa (selections) London: Routledge. Reissued several times.
• H. A. R. Gibb (1958, 1962, 1971, 1994, 2000), Ibn Battuta Travels in Asia and Africa (full text) London: Hakluyt Society. 4 vols. + index.
• Ibn Battota's Safari : Tuhfat Al-Nothaar Fe Gharaa'ib Al-Amsaar , ISBN 9-953341-80-X

• OR if anyone knows of other works better than these.

The reason I ask is because I've owned multiple books on a certain subject and one always stands out among the rest as the best. This is more of a personal preference thing, but I'm sure there are specialists out there that can make a well-informed choice. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, since the fourth item on your list (Gibb's multivolume translation) contains an English rendering, with commentary, of the entire text of Ibn Battuta's work, it would seem to be the fullest possible account of the travels. I own a set, and it's pretty fascinating. Deor (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

not an advise but since you have lots of info regarding Ibn Battuta you might be interested in sourcing Urduja. Thanks! --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good evening. In the course of some reading on the National Service League, set up in Britain in 1902 to campaign for compulsory military service, I came across a suggestion that an army raised in such a way could be used to overthrow the government. Were there any good grounds for this fear and did the League itself embrace a particular political perspective? My thanks in advance. G F Shee (talk)

Sorry can't help with the question, but it gives me a good idea.....--Artjo (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

A new one to me. In days long gone even in 1902 it had been a professional army, Housman's Army of Mercenaries, loyal to their paymaster, who were seen as a threat to the political order. The case of the New Model Army and James II's attempt to establish a Catholic and substantially Irish army prior to the Glorious Revolution were seen as particularly relevant. Going further back, there were endless examples of military men seizing power in Italian city states, and, probably better known to classically educated Britons, in Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. But in 1906, that was not a very effective bogeyman. Britain had had a large-ish professional army for over a century and there had been no man on horseback. The National Service League was largely a conservative group, but a populist one. Their members were likely to be interested in eugenics, in public health, in mass education, and other ideas which put them on the progressive side of the conservative movement. It certainly wasn't some sort of Boulangist trojan horse aiming to replace Edward VII with Bobs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I came across a "Dear Abby" column where parents complained about other parents not allowing their child to get a haircut. The columnist encouraged the party asking the question to convince the other child's parents to concede. I found that a rather intolerant position, considering that there are groups that ban hair cutting as part of their practices. Thinking more I came up with the Sikh. I also seem to have a couple of orthodox Jews who seemed to not cut theirs although our article doesn't seem to mention, maybe it's a subgroup or a personal preference. Could s.o. clarify and are there any others? Thks.Lisa4edit (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know some Christian denominations here in the Philippines forbid the cutting of hair in females. Too bad I don't have an online cite so I can't name them here.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

For the Orthodox Jewish tradtion, see payot. - Nunh-huh 02:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

See Long hair. Wrad (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks yalls. Obviously a hairy subject. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.23.111 (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Niuean boys do not cut their hair until they become become teenagers, in a ceremony where women tend the hair for the last time before it is cut. Members of the extended family plaster the youth with banknotes – all part of a large informal Niuean economy that links families and ensures the community looks after its own. This is a tradition continued wherever Niueans live, especially in New Zealand where many Niueans are now, indeed my young sons went to a friends first hair cut last year. We need to expand the rock's entry to acknowledge this well known custom Mhicaoidh (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The biblical Nazirites did not cut their hair. The nicest story dealing with the subject is the one on Samson. User:Krator (t c) 18:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Pentecostal women do not cut their hair. Same goes for followers of the splinter groups of the Latter-Day Saints such as those who were recently detained in the US state of Texas. Dismas|^(talk) 18:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Likewise Rastafarians. And there are other groups that discourage or prohibit the cutting of beards, and yet others that encourage or require the removal of certain types of body hair. All ways of identifying "our people" as different from "those others". BrainyBabe (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

My grandparents were Pentecostal and I attended their services frequently when visiting them, and there was never any prohibition against hair cutting among them. Corvus cornix_talk 22:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not Pentecostal, but the Exclusive Brethren proscribe cutting the hair for women[21]. Oddly I can't find it in the article or the Raven-Taylor-Hales branch, though the women are identified easily by long hair and head scarves. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The ancient Chinese only shaved their head once at birth, and never after, as a sign of filial piety. Confucianism says that one's body and hair is given by one's parents, and so as a sign of filial piety, one should never damage them (身体发肤，受之父母，不敢毁伤，孝之始也). In Pre-Confucian times, cutting of one's hair or nails was an important religious ritual, with the cut-off hair and nails offered to the gods as sacrifice.

After the advent of Confucianism, the importance of hair did not diminish. In the Han dynasties, one of the five corporal punishments in the Imperial Code was that of cutting the hair (髡刑).

By contrast, the nomadic tribes of northern and western China who did not subscribe to Confucianism had different customs for cutting or shaving parts of their heads. When the Manchus conquered all China, they sought to implement their custom (which was to shave the front part of the head and weave the rest into a queue). They met great resistance from the Han Chinese, and implemented a policy of "if you want your hair, you lose your head; if you want your head, you lose your hair" - i.e. a death penalty for those who do not dress their hair in the Manchu custom. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I got a low grade for my first University degree. Is it acceptable to apply for a master degree? Would a good GRE grade solve the problem? Should I try publishing something in serious but unknow magazine? 217.168.4.133 (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

If your grades aren't strong enough to apply for an MA program, you could go back to undergrad for another year as a "special student" (or whatever the equivalent for you is) and pad your grades. (Worked for me!) Adam Bishop (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

At what university was it? What was the official name? "special student"? 217.168.4.133 (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The situation will be different from country to country and university to university and even program to program. Some Master's programs are almost like an intense version of the Bachelor's - there are regular classes, etc. and the thesis is less important, more like a capstone to the whole thing. Getting into that kind of program would be difficult with poor grades; I would suggest following Adam's advice. On the other hand, some Master's programs are more like a apprenticeship, where a professor agrees to personally take you on and guide you through the steps to writing a well-received and published thesis. There may be few or no regular classes. For that kind of thing, a good rapport with the prof is much more important than the grades you got... keeping in mind that good grades help create that good rapport. :) Those are only a couple of examples; there are more. Publishing anything in a peer-reviewed journal will certainly help your cause, but that's because it's hard to do; getting something published in a regular magazine wouldn't hurt your cause, but it probably wouldn't help much either. Matt Deres (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

And just to reaffirm a point: it will matters what type of program you are trying to do. There's a very different attitudes towards grades in, say, the sciences than there are the humanities. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, what is the attitude in humanities and what is the attitude in science? In what field are universities more liberal? 217.168.4.133 (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

My experience is in Canada if that helps. Publishing something, as Matt said, is hard, and if you don't have an MA or PhD you likely won't be taken seriously, so that's an unlikely route (there were a few discussions about this in the past couple of months on the reference desk, actually). Adam Bishop (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if this comes out a bit blunt. One question that comes to mind is why your grades didn't come out better. If you want to join a Master's program just because you dream of getting a degree, that's most likely not going to work. Unless your low grades had some specific cause that no longer exists, you have markedly improved your organizational skills and study habits, Master's aren't handed out after a couple of years on the merit of being present. If you felt that your focused interests and abilities in one subject have limited your academic achievements so far and you would be able to contribute significantly to the advancement of the field, you might be able to convince the professor or the acceptance committee of some program to let you in despite your grades. Your reaction above indicates that to be a rather unlikely scenario since you're not even sure what you'd like to focus on. As the other posters said there are many paths to overcoming low grades, but they all involve that you prove that you can handle the requirements of the program you are applying for. The first one you'd have to prove that to is yourself. Publishing "something" is only going to help if you'd like to go for something like writing or journalism. Lisa4edit (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, indeed my low grades had a personal cause that no longer exits. Besides that, they were not systematically low, just a part of it. 217.168.0.94 (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are lots of second echelon schools which offer Masters degrees. Anyone who received a Bachelors degree from a respectable (non-diploma mill) college should be able to enroll at one of these lesser schools with a Masters program and take some courses as a special (non-degree program) student. If one area of your undergrad program was weak (say mathematics) and you passed these courses in your new academic career with good grades, you should be able to write a convincing application saying that you would do better this time. Just the intent to do better would have little weight, absent evidence. You could also take courses at an "open" college, such as a community college, and a couple of semesters of good grades in hard courses should be convincing. Test scores alone would not be completely effective in overcoming a poor track record, since the brightest person can be a goof-off slacker. If you have a good excuse as you suggest (there was some impediment to scholarship which has been removed) then a letter of recommendation from a respected person with knowledge of your circumstances would help. Good luck. FairmontMN (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, is there a website with countries' past economic growth rates? Since, say, the 1990's? The specific countries I am interested in are Canada, Singapore and China. Any help would be much appreciated, thanks in advance. 79.78.35.112 (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is the best I could find. Hope it helps.Anonymous101 (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good sources for economic data are the websites of: IMF, World Bank, OECD and the Fed St. Louis for the US ([22]). User:Krator (t c) 18:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The UN has lots of data, but maybe not exactly what you were looking for. Try http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Default.aspx or http://unstats.un.org/unsd/databases.htm. Hope this helps. Lisa4edit (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Manorial records show that manslaughter rates were particularly high. Is there any known reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.162.162 (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's difficult to speculate unless we know which manorial records, and when (and what their definition of "manslaughter" was). Do you have any more info? Adam Bishop (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

If some one never had a girlfriend and they are gay, do they have the right to become gay? I think they should experience a woman first before they go on that side, don't you. Mr Beans Backside (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I nominate you to be in charge of enforcing that rule. Good Luck. Makey melly (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

As an after though, I have to disagree. I would really not like it if I had to sample some gayness before I earned the right to be heterosexual. Makey melly (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This isn't the place to judge people or their actions, so please do not do so. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 14:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The question is a little confused. If a person "is gay", then they've already arrived. Sexual orientation is not about rights, it's about our personal nature. Some young people are unsure which way they're heading, sexually speaking, so it makes sense for them to try various things before they identify whether they're straight, gay or whatever. But if they know from an early age what their orientation is, why should they be forced to try alternatives that they already consider undesirable, a turn-off, or even repulsive? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

When was a presidential nominee selected by the super delegates over the popular choice? Has this ever happened? Mr Beans Backside (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Nope. Note that there have only been six primary seasons under the superdelegate setup. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Today, there is much discrimination around the world when it comes to females receiving an education, particularly in underdeveloped nations. Does anyone have any unique ideas that could help solve this problem?

-Julio

In places where gender inequality is prevalent in education, it is usually part of an overall lack of gender equality, and cannot be solved without tackling the greater issue. Do you have any examples of countries where inequality in education is a lot more prevalent than in other areas? A specific 'unique idea', as you phrase it, Julio, could be necessary in that situation. User:Krator (t c) 18:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The internet is making knowledge a lot more accessible. One needs access to a computer, though, and someone to help up to the level of basic reading skills. But that's only part of the equation. If gaining knowledge is discouraged and an education can not be applied later this opportunity only helps a little. Unique ideas there are aplenty. The problem is that any good idea can turn things for the worse just as easy as it can improve the situation. Lisa4edit (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

What would you recommend for job interview success, I'm only 17 and this is my first job interview, so a little nervous. Thanks in advance Hadseys 17:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

On one aspect, dress in something you've worn before, i.e. do not buy a new suit for the occasion. Depends on what the job's about though. User:Krator (t c) 17:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Lol just a sales assistant for Marks and Spencers, I've already done a list of possible questions and prepared my answers though, so I'm well prepared --Hadseys 18:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Speak intelligently, don't use any slang, say "yes" instead of "yeah", and don't slouch. I've no idea what a Marks & Spencers is but just basic courtesy and things like that help anywhere. Dismas|^(talk) 18:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

If it is not already part of your life, buy and practise wearing a couple of articles of their clothing, and buy and consume a couple of types of their food, and be prepared to talk about what you liked about them. But don't wear an entire outfit of brand new M&S clothing to the interview. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Even for a sales assistant job, dressing smartly will count in your favour - don't for heaven's sake go in jeans, t-shirt and trainers as someone did to an interview at my employers' last year! -- Arwel (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to reiterate the issue about speaking clearly and intelligently. As someone who deals with a lot of college-age young adults, I have noticed that most are entirely un-selfconscious about the fact that they speak with huge amounts of slang, as well as very poor grammar. Avoid unnecessary use of the the word "like" if possible. Remember, you want them to think that you will be a good person to sell things to others — you need to sound like you know what you are talking about at all times, even if you don't. Part of that is speaking clearly. Unfortunately it's a skill that is not very much extolled these days; even Ivy League undergraduates often "like like like" their way through a seminar and it's hard (as the instructor) to avoid thinking of them as idiots just because they don't put very much care into how they express themselves. (Of course, I am speaking of what is probably a specifically US example here, but I'm sure there's a similar one in the UK.)

Also, I should maybe point out that I'm not opposed to the new suit approach. Sure, it looks affected, but that's not bad: you're projecting that you care enough about the job to do something extra. Some people show up to job interviews wearing the same slouchy clothes they'd wear to school or around the house; that might look more "natural" but it doesn't show you care very much. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm with Brainiy and 98 on the suit. Preparing a little "sales pitch" about yourself is a good idea. Don't go with I am, I can, I want to. Instead say: (you want me because) I've done /achieved this applying these qualities/skills (that you are looking for).

Run this by as many people as you can. The more familiar you become with the "product Hadseys" the more confident you'll be and then a lot of the nervousness will pass. (Don't worry if you still have a bit of the jitters, everyone does.) Lisa4edit (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

And you should have a list of questions you want to ask them too. Apparently if you write a list of everything you want to know and go through it at the end, finding all the stuff that hasn't yet been discussed, that impresses them.HS7 (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the US at least, a job interview is a two-way affair, where the applicant decides whether or not the job and the employer, and the employer decides whether or not they like the applicant. If you spend too much time asking about the pay, benefits, time off, etc., then the employer will think thta yuo don't really care about the job. Therefore, Try to ask questions about the actual job and try to show some enthusiasm about the actual work. -Arch dude (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You look reasonably intelligent and smart (actually I liked your old photo much better) and seem to have wide ranging interests and a solid personality.

I would not worry too much about the interview. Your potential employers will understand that you are nervous, but you would not have been invited for an interview unless your CV / application has already implied your suitability for the position.

Good luck. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Hidden secret 7. It's an inter-view, not an interrogation. You're entitled to ask about them, just as much as they're entitled to ask about you. But apparently it's considered bad form these days to ask about how much they're going to pay you, unless they raise the issue and want to negotiate about it. If they just say "The pay is $X; does that suit you?", or something like that, then it's a take-it-or-leave-it statement. Only if X is seriously lower than your expectations would you say anything other than "Oh, that's fine, thanks". Also, if they ask you what you've been doing lately, for heavens sake don't do what someone did on a panel I was sitting on once - she replied, "I don't do nuffink [sic] much. They don't give me enough work to do and I spend half the day reading a novel". At least pretend to be industrious and proactive even if that doesn't quite resemble your operating style. This is all about impressions; what actually happens in the workplace on a daily basis is far more complex than any interview can ever hope to capture. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is an inter-rrogation. You ask too. If it were a proper inter-view you will only see and be seen. 217.168.0.94 (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

No one's yet mentioned what I think is key advice before a job interview: Do some research about the company ahead of time. Visit the company's website. Definitely read the Wikipedia article. If you're not a regular shopper at Marks & Spencer, walk through the store. Pay close attention to the employees: how they act, dress, relate to one another and the customers. It can't hurt to talk to a few employees about their job and the company. Once you've done your research, demonstrate what you've learned in the interview. For example, the Wikipedia article mentions that in February Marks & Spencer started charging 5p for plastic bags. You might want to mention that like the company's commitment to the environment and ask how the policy is working. Are more customers bringing bags from home? Don't fake interest though. If you think this policy is stupid, don't pretend it isn't, just don't mention it. If you like one of the company's products, mention that. Most often, what an employer is looking for is a sign that you're enthusiastic about the job. Showing you're interested in the company is one of the best ways to demonstrate that. --D. Monack | talk 07:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I read Marks & Spencers annual review and I've compiled a list of job interview questions they might ask me; I've mentioned some of the statistics they've used in their annual review, and hopefully they'll be impressed, I'll publish them on a subpage on my user space on here and maybe you guys could give my responses an appraisal, if you don't mind? --Hadseys 10:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Here are some questions I anticipate being asked during my interview and also listed there are my responses to them, please feel free to scrutinize them :-) --11:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Did the Greeks really think the mind was in the heart? I've heard this a lot but I can't find a source anywhere. Anyone know? Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Tell me, where is fancy bred, / or in the heart, or in the head?" A cursory search via Google didn't give me the best evidence, but this link gives some good info, and suggests that both Aristotle and Homer would be places to look for citations. Perhaps someone else will be able to offer a more direct citation to ancient authors? User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.112.32.46 (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The link above is nice, and here is an account of the subject, from a referred journal, with references, tracing the topic from all the way back to ancient Egypt. SaundersW (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks guys, those were both great. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello friends, I have seen I can ask on here about laws. Tsutomu Miyazaki, a Japanese serial killer was sentenced to death in 1990 for the murders of four little girls. My question is: why isn't he dead?. Why if he was sentenced to death in 1997 (however, he was in prison since 1990) he's still alive in 2008?? Thanks a lot! 201.254.89.87 (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looks like he (or his lawyers) have filed for appeals many times; the most recent one being ruled on in 2006. I know nothing about the Japanese court system, but assuming it is somewhat like the American court system (a big assumption, but since the US did help re-draw the Japanese government after WWII, maybe not a stupid one), death row appeals drastically extend the amount of time until execution (which is not necessarily a bad thing, given the problems of false conviction in the US at least), and even after appeals have been exhausted it can take quite some time for the actual execution to get scheduled and enacted. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm always amazed at the delays built into the US legal system, given that by the time people are executed many seem to have been in prison for as long as they would have served for murder in Britain and then been released on licence. Back in the first two-thirds of the last century, when Britain had the death penalty, the average length of time from conviction through appeal to execution was about ten weeks; John Amery, who was the first person in 300 years to plead guilty to treason and therefore could not appeal, was hanged exactly three weeks after his trial. If you're going to have the death penalty, at least get it over with quickly. -- Arwel (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

As I understand it the death penalty in Japan is often used symbolically, but rarely then actually executed...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.220.202 (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

We can compare this with the way these things were done in the 18th century. James Hackman killed Martha Ray on 7 April 1779, was tried at the Old Bailey on 16 April 1779, found guilty of murder the same day, and hanged three days later. Xn4 22:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't mean to start a debate about the death penalty but I thought I'd respond to Arwel's comment about "get(ting) it over with". I heard a story on NPR last week some time that was talking about the death penalty in Texas. Texas is known for its use of the death penalty and carrying out the sentence more than most other states. Apparently, with the prevalence and ease of DNA testing, a number of lawyers have asked for help from various local law colleges in the Dallas area to sift through all the records of those who were sentenced to die in Dallas. So far, they've been able to get the sentences thrown out for many men because their DNA didn't match was was on file in evidence lockers. Dallas is the only area that they're concentrating on since Dallas is the only city where evidence with DNA on/in it (hair, skin samples, blood, etc.) is actually preserved for any great length of time. Most every other jurisdiction destroys evidence in a more timely fashion. Dismas|^(talk) 01:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, to the OP, you might want to check out Capital punishment in Japan. I haven't looked at it due to my internet connection being horrible tonight but it might shed some light on the subject. Dismas|^(talk) 01:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

What is battleship diplomacy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.220.202 (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is some (obviously biased or even biassed) information under the entry for cowboy diplomacy.

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The usual term for what you mean is gunboat diplomacy. Xn4 22:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am the secretary of a small club. The President tries to take over what I understand to be my role. Exactly what is my role? Islofts (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Normally, the role of the club secretary is to deal with matters (especially correspondence, taking minutes, making arrangements for meetings and events, less often supervising permanent or temporary staff, if there are any) on behalf of the Committee. Decisions are normally taken by the Committee, unless the club's Rules specifically delegate them to someone. Xn4 22:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Such squabbles are why clubs draw up "club rules", a "club manifest" or some such. Maybe you'd like to put that on the agenda for the next meeting. You could fix such things as quorum, roles of officers (e.g. the president, the secretary), membership, etc. If you already have club rules you might want to expand them. Google for "club rules" to get ideas of what you might put in. They don't have to be cast in stone. You can fix in the quorum rules how many people have to agree to make changes. There are people who object to having rules instated, feeling they would unduly hem them in. That only delays having to make decisions to the point when conflicts arise. Lisa4edit (talk) 07:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know this question is a little bit languages and a little bit psychology (which goes under science, apparently), but I think it's more suited here. Can anyone give me some different definitions of the mind? I'm basically looking for one from ancient Greece, one from Freud or a contemporary and then a sort of "medical standard" one from nowadays if one exists. Thanks in advance. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're just not a believer yet, are you? Wikipedia has an article on everything. Mind has several definitions and links that should suit your question. Philosophy, which includes most of the "mind" debate, goes under Humanities. So your were right on the first try. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

In philosophy, essentialism is the view that, for any specific kind of entity, there is a set of characteristics or properties all of which any entity of that kind must have. This view is contrasted with non-essentialism which states that for any given kind of entity there are no specific traits which entities of that kind must have.

Does the Enlightenment specifically reject most kinds of essentialism ? I've heard it said that essentialism was at the root of all forms of bigotry and was thus rejected by the 18th century philosophy of Tolerance. In other words, is it right to claim that essentialism is essential to non-enlightened people ?

What I find most difficult with this view is that essentialism can mean a lot of things, it can mean some strands of ancient Greek philosophy, it can mean certain religious views, it can also mean outright racism and nationalism. 69.157.246.246 (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the generalization that the Enlightenment was anti-essentialist, any more than it is correct to say that the Enlightenment it was anti-racist or pro-tolerance (other than religious). Many fine treatises on racial inequality came from Enlightenment minds, and cries for tolerance were usually restricted to religious and political tolerance at most. On the other hand, essentialism is at the core of much Aristotlean philosophy, and underlines much of the philosophy of the Enlightenment as well. As to whether it is the root of all bigotry, that's sort of like saying bricks and wood are at the base of all death camps, in my opinion. It may be necessary for bigotry, but it not sufficient, and bigotry has much more to it than believing in shared properties or kinds. Some of the greatest works of the Enlightenment were all about finding the shared characteristics, and some of those same works were early works in racism as well—see Linnaeus, for example. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am having difficulty finding anything about an oil painter by the name of A. F. Gerstmayr. I have an oil painting signed A.F. Gerstmayr that belonged to my Grandfather. I first saw it in his home in the late 1950's in America. My Grandfather was well traveled so it may not be an American painter. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, lowkeyturner,<> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.182.243 (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Googling around revealed no record of an A. F. Gerstmayr. Combinations with common first names also didn't reveal much promising material. (Someone bought a farm and someone else filed a patent.) That makes it rather unlikely that it was done by a talented amateur. I found an artist Hans Gerstmayr from Austria. He was born on April 14, 1882 in Rubring an der Enns and lived in Maulhausen. He died Oktober 1987. (Not a typo, he did get that old.) He would fit your timeframe. Problem is he didn't do oil paintings. He was noted for doing something called "stahlschnitt" (Steelengraving). Since it's also not a match on the first name, this might either not be the one or it's a one off. Maybe it was done in the course of his training. Given the fact that there were 2 wars there in his lifetime he might have done it by special request in exchange for something useful. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 06:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is one Alfred Frank Gerstmayr, born 1893, naturalised 1907-24, died in 1968 in Florida, probably buried in San Mateo Cemetery, Putnam County, Florida. Additional info on him require signing up with www.ancestry.com. There is nothing I could find about the person himself, unfortunately.

A whole stack of Gerstmayrs seem to have immigrated to the USA (probably from the Mühlviertel / Upper Austria / Austria) early last century, settling mainly in New York and Chikago. Sorry, this is not much, but maybe it helps in your further research. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ahoy the ref desk! I have a problem with Guthrum II, supposedly a king of East Anglia in the time of Edward the Elder. The link to Johann Martin Lappenberg's book in the Guthrum II article takes you to the right page (87), where footnote 4 refers to "Anc. LL. and Inst.", or, Ancient Laws and Institutes of England; Comprising Laws Enacted Under the Anglo-Saxon Kings ... With a Compendious Glossary, Etc. edited by Benjamin Thorpe. The 1840 versions on Google books don't seem to contain the relevant material, the supposed "Laws of Edward and Guthrum", but the 2003 version does. The footnotes say that John of Wallingford mentions a Guthrum in Edward's time, but John of Wallingford is hardly to be believed over the evidence of Guthrum II's absence from modern lists of rulers and in any case John explicitly states that it was the same Guthrum (I) as in Alfred the Great's reign. (Yes, you've guessed, Google books also has a C19th edition of John of Wallingford.) In his defence, there was another Guthrum [PASE] active at about this time, an important man who witnessed a number of charters in the reign of Æthelstan, Edward's successor. Historians today are just as keen to reduce the size of the cast by identifying people. We can only hope that they're rather more successful.

So far as I can tell, at some point in the past historians banished King Guthrum II back into nothingness. The "Laws of Edward and Guthrum" were, so various modern books plausibly say, written by Wulfstan II, Archbishop of York a century after Edward died. My problem is that without some sort of statement along the lines of "Guthrum II didn't exist" we are left with an article which is patently wrong, but entirely unfixable. The only option would be to delete it, but someone would add Guthrum II back again eventually, and we'd be back at square one again. Someone, somewhere, and probably in the C19th, must have demolished the idea of a Guthrum II. But who, and where? Help! Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply