Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg

When a member of the Hells Angels earns his 'wings' for his exploits, what do the different colours signify? There used to be a long list on the web. I can only remember the more commonly known 'wings' now - but there were loads.

• Red wings - oral sex performed on a menstruating woman
• Brown wings - anal sex
• Black wings - sex with a black woman (black wings usually means sex with a corpse, I've never heard it refered to sex with a black woman.)
• White Wings - Sex with a confirmed virgin

Any others? --Kurt Shaped Box 03:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Spicy wings - sex with a habanera pepper. (not recommended)

  Wing tips - sex with a Florsheim Shoe. Edison 03:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the list [1]? Donald Hosek 05:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Na, the list I saw was sourced from various books on the Angels. Some of that may be correct though. Thanks, anyway. --Kurt Shaped Box 08:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used to be friends with a biker. He wasn't a Hell's Angel but he'd heard of the 'wings'.

Yellow wings - getting pissed on sexually

Blue wings - having sex with a cop

Pink wings - recieving anal sex

Grey wings - sex with a woman older than your mom

They sound like scout badges for 'guys who do laugh at other guys doing grody stuff'. It's a big boy's club really, isn't it?

Hello, I was looking for information on an author of the 1800's by the name of C.A. White. I have searched the web top to bottom, but can only find people selling his book, "The Student's Mythology." As far as i can find, it's the only book he ever wrote. I even tried asking a reference librarian, but there was still nothing. If you could uncover any information regarding this author, I would greatly appreciate it. If it helps, the only information I have on his book is that the first publication date was 1870, and the last was 1927. It's called The Student's Mythology and has information on many different mythologies from Greece, Persia, China, Tibet, Ireland, etc. I own the copy from 1900 and it was published by Armstrong and Son. For that matter, if you could find any information on the publisher as well, that would be great.

71.105.116.54 05:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Rachel[reply]

The publishers appear to be A.C. Armstrong and Son. Check through the linked search. Corvus cornix 21:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Library catalogs show that the author is Catherine Ann White (1825-1878). Her publisher described her as "an experienced teacher."[2] She also published Classic literature, principally Sanskrit, Greek, and Roman, with some account of the Persian, Chinese, and Japanese, in the form of sketches of the authors and specimens from translations of their works (editions include H. Holt 1877 and an undated 19th c. edition by The Baker & Taylor co.). For queries of this kind you might want to try Worldcat. Wareh 16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! 216.116.120.200 17:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Rachel[reply]

To what degree was Neville Henderson, the pre war British ambassador in Berlin, implicated in the appeasement of Hitler? S. J. Blair 05:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Implicated? In what way, implicated? ie. to suggest that he was the main person driving appeasement?martianlostinspace 12:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inevitably. Britain was then in no position to pursue any other course. - CarbonLifeForm 15:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's article Nevile Henderson is rather short, but does suggest that he was of the appeasionist school. Perhaps Clio could enlighten us further. DuncanHill 15:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson was British ambassador to Germany at a crucial stage in diplomatic history and must, therefore, have been party to the policy of the Chamberlain government. I was hoping for a more detailed answer, but thank you all for the responses so far. I look forward to Clio's response. S. J. Blair 22:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she is now here, and will try to live up to the expectations of both Duncan and S. J. Blair!

The post of ambassador to Berlin during and after Munich was never going to be an easy one. No ambassador, whatever his private views, can afford to take a different public position from the Prime Minister or the government of the day and expect to remain in place. Henderson has thus been targeted as a leading appeaser, sometimes in quite distasteful terms, though he was never more than a scapegoat for policy failings elsewhere. Lewis Namier, called him an 'ill-starred man', and in The Appeasers Martin Gilbert and Richard Gott even refer to him as "our Nazi Ambassador in Berlin." So, what's the evidence? Does he deserve such opprobrium. No, quite frankly, he does not.

During his career Henderson made steady progress in the Diplomatic Service, and was particularly successful in Belgrade, where he enjoyed a good relationship with King Alexander. It was because of this that he was given the important Berlin posting in 1937. But from the outset there was a problem: he loathed Ribbentrop, and Ribbentrop loathed him, conveying his feelings to Hitler. He did, however, enjoy good realtions with Hermann Göring, whom he considered to be a 'moderate', who might exercise a restraining influence on Hitler. As far as Hitler himself was concerned Henderson believed him to be so abnormal that he might, as he put it, "have crossed the borderline into outright insanity."

Henderson's chief weakness was a failure to recognise the insanity of the whole Nazi system. He continued to believe that he could operate within the reasonable parameters of classic diplomacy. In this he was no different from many others, including Josef Stalin, who right up to the German invasion of Russia in 1941 believed that Hitler was moved by the same pragmatic considerations as he was himself. For Henderson, Hitler was simply an 'aggrieved nationalist', who could be expected to move down reasonable paths with proper encouragement, and the right kind of concessions. The story of his mission in Berlin is the story of increasingly desperate attempts to save the peace. Yes, he supported Munich, not just because of sympathy for the 'grievances' of the Germans, but because he was aware of Britain's military weakness at that time. If a war was to be fought it had to be winnable; and Henderson's appeasement went hand-in-hand with support for rearmament.

Like Chamberlain himself, Henderson recognised that the German occupation of the purely Czech lands of Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939 marked a new point of departure in international relations, and he warned both Ribbentrop and Hitler of the consequences of further aggression. He was fully behind the British guarantee to Poland. During a face-to-face interview with Hitler on 29 August 1939, he even had the courage to yell "I and his Majesty's Government did not give a row of pins whether Germans were slaughtered or not." And this to Hitler! All of this is detailed in Failure of a Mission, the memoir Henderson published in 1940.

In the end, no matter how vigorous a voice, Henderson was merely a messenger. And, as such, he has been unfairly shot, both then and since. Clio the Muse 01:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Clio, I have just found an etext of Failure of a Mission at this link [3]. Good to see a book written at the suggestion of a stationmaster! DuncanHill 01:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was worth the wait! Thank you for this, Clio. Are you a student of diplomatic history by any chance? S. J. Blair 07:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Clio's User page may answer your questions.  :) Corvus cornix 21:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very true! I thank you for your appreciation, S. J. Clio the Muse 23:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was camelin really made of camel's hair? Colors or natural? What colors? Was it called "wool" or anything else? When was it most popular in use? What medieval clothing was made from this? What countries used it and when? --24.247.236.10 13:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:33WIt-CiSk8J:www.medievaltextiles.org/reprintNMMcamelin.pdf+%22camelin%22+camel+hair&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=opera this explains it pretty well.

This individual has 364 books published by Kessinger Publishing; but I haven't been able to find out anything about him.

Listed below is a partial list of his books from Kessinger's web-site.

Thanks, in advance, for any information you will provide. --Kathygilders 15:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Profession Of Faith Of Omar Khayyam • Adapa And The Food Of Life • Al Biruni's Existing Monuments Or Chronology • Al Maqqari's Breath Of Perfumes • Ama-Terasu The Sun Goddess: Early Japanese Literature • An Ancient Babylonian Moralist's Council • An Ancient Babylonian Penitential Psalm • An Arabic New Testament Apocrypha Gospel Of The Infancy • An Introduction To The Kabbalah Or Secret Tradition • An Introduction To The Koran • Ancient Arabic Science And History • Ancient Assyrian Literature: Sennacherib's Boast • Ancient Assyrian Literature: The Black Obelisk Of Shalmaneser • Ancient Assyrian Literature: The Inscription Of Sargon II • Ancient Assyrian Literature: The Nimrod Inscription • Ancient Business Documents Of Belshazzar • Ancient Chinese Hymns And Eulogies • Ancient Chinese Songs For The Greater Festivals • Ancient Chinese Songs For The Lesser Festivals • Ancient Chinese Songs Of The Various States • Ancient Egyptian Hymn To Re As Sole God • Ancient Egyptian Hymns To Aton The Creator • Ancient Egyptian Hymns To The Nile • Ancient Egyptian Hymns To The One Universal God • Ancient Egyptian Literature Of The Age Of Weakness • Ancient Egyptian Literature Of The Great Empire • Ancient Egyptian Literature Of The Middle Empire • Ancient Egyptian Romance Literature • Ancient Egyptian Tales Of Romance And Travel • Ancient Hebrew Biblical Songs • Ancient Japanese Shinto Purification Ritual • Ancient Japanese Shinto Ritual For Evil Spirits • Ancient Japanese Shinto Rituals To The Sun Goddess • Ancient Moorish Literature • Ancient Records Of The Assyrian Conquering Kings • Ancient Texts In The Akkadian Or Oldest Semitic Tongue • Ancient Turkish Legends And Poetry • Ancient Turkish Literature • Ancient Turkish Poetesses • Artists and Authors: Great Men and Famous Women V7 • Artists and Authors: Great Men and Famous Women V8 • Autumn Of The Palace Of Han: An Ancient Chinese Historical Drama • Avicenna On Medicine: The Work Of The Arab's Chief Scientist • Babylonian Moral And Philosophical Texts • Babylonian Proverbs • Basho The Chief Japanese Poet • Biography Of A Soldier Under Thutmose III • Buddha And His Birth Stories From The Burmese • Buddha And The Red Fish • Buddha And The Strider Over Battlefields

Charles F. Horne, MS, PhD, was a professor at the College of the City of New York. He graduated from the College in 1889. The earliest title I could find (co)authored or (co)edited by him is from 1907 (Mosenthal, Philip J., and Charles F. Horne (editors). The City College Memories of Sixty Years. Edited for the Associate Alumni of the College of the City of New York. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, The Knickerbocker Press, 1907). In spite of his prolificacy in producing books, I don't find any further biographic detail.  --Lambiam 17:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gore won half a million more votes than Bush in the 2000 election. how can a system in which Bush wins possibly be justified? Willy turner 17:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be? See United States Electoral College#Arguments for the current system. And don't try to start political debates here, please; note the guidelines at the top of the page. --Anonymous, July 21, 2007, 17:17:17 (UTC).

The non-arguments on that page are pathetic. Does anyone have a decent argument? Or should we accept that the U.S isnt a democracy? Dont accuse me of trying to start a debate (heaven forbid, a debate!, what a terrible way of rationaly forming an opinion) what happened to assuming good faith? Willy turner 17:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it value-term, value-term, or value-term? That depends on the judge. The best argument against the abolition of the electoral college I have heard has been a cynical one: to do so means a constitutional convention, and, if a constitutional convention were opened, vast quantities of bullflop would be introduced (flag burning bans, gay marriage bans, equal rights guarantees that trip over their own language, rights of privacy delineated and therefore limited, property rights insistences that end up being only for one group, taxes specified as prohibited, balanced budget amendments, term limit amendments, ad nauseum). Few people argue that the college is particularly wonderful, but it's hardly the most compelling anti-democratic part of the US system (all or nothing voting, e.g. creates "landslides" when a person gets 50.01% votes). No citation of AGF, though: you have already said that you want to create an argument, and that's not what this page is for or what Wikipedia is for. Geogre 18:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't require a constitutional convention, it could be amended out of existence. But since smaller states are disproportionately powerful with the electoral college, that is unlikely. The most likely scenario where the e.c. becomes irrelevant is a series of state laws giving states' electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national vote total, with laws going into effect only if a sufficient number of states have them that they will determine the election. But eliminating the e.c. also means getting rid of the cool red v. blue maps on election night. Donald Hosek 18:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The smaller states would not have ratified the Constitution if they had not had the protection afforded them by extra electoral votes due to the 2 Senators per state in additional to the proportionally allocated Representatives. Today, the little states would still lose out in the Presidential electoral process if they lost the extra electoral votes, so they would have little incentive to ratify an amendment which made the Presidential election solely by popular vote. But the Constitution and laws leave it up to the states how they select the electors. It is now by popular vote within each state, but there is no legal barrier to making it largely proportional, which would make it unlikely one candidate would have 500,000 more popular votes, but lose in the Electoral college. Supreme Court opinions have noted that a state could have the legislature select the electors, or it could appoint any person to decide who the electors aree, or it could have it be by tossing a coin or any other predefined method. So like Maine and Nebraska, a state might pass legislation to assign an electoral vote for each Congressional district to the winner of the popular vote majority or plurality in that district, and provide a method for allocating the electoral votes representing the 2 Senators to 2 geographic portions of the state, or both to the candidate with the most popular votes in the state or by some other scheme more proportional than the present. Such measures would result in more elections where no candidate got a clear majority, since minor candidates would win a majority in a few congressional districts and more elections would be decided in the House of Representatives, with parliamentary maneuvering and coalition forming more like a parliamentary government. In the House, each state would get one vote, which would somewhat disenfranchise voters in the more populous states. A state could also pass legislation allocating all its electroal votes to the candidate with the most popular votes nationally, or to the candidate with the most popular votes in all the states who decided to allocate their votes by that method. If the people want popular election of the President, it can thus be implemented state by state. An elector can choose to be a Faithless elector and vote for anyone he chooses, which can be either a benefit or a detriment of having an actual living Elector cast the ballot rather than having "Electroal votes" cast without a human Elector. The present "winner take all " state electoral vote allocation has one benefit: if the voting in a state is completely corrupt and fraudulent, the most they can do is give all their votes to their favorite. They cannot stuff the national ballot box by adding hundreds of thousands of fake votes and thus swing the national election. Edison 19:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to understand that the Framers of the Constitution assumed the electors would be chosen by state legislatures (as they were for most states at first), not by popular vote. So we can't really blame the Framers for the faults of the system; they would not have envisioned a situation like what happened in 2000. The system is an anachronism. -- Mwalcoff 02:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best explanation of the way the president is elected in the US, that I've seen, is that given by James Madison in Federalist Papers, No. 39 (available here). As described at United States Electoral College#Arguments for the current system, Madison's argument is that the US is both a federation of states and a nation of people, so its government should reflect both aspects. In Congress this is achieved by having two houses, one of which is elected via a population-based method (the House, reflecting the "national" aspect of the US), the other via a state-based method (the Senate, reflecting the "federal" aspect). The electoral college, Madison argues, is a similar mixture of national and federal methods. I never understood the electoral college until I read Federalist 39. Makes sense to me. Pfly 07:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One way of making the Electoral College irrelevant would be if the individual states divided their EC votes proportionately based on popular vote within the state. There is some movement in that direction. Corvus cornix 21:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it makes sense in the context of an alliance of states where the smaller ones don't want to get marginalized. What doesn't make sense is assigning electors by a winner-take-all system in each state. Gzuckier 16:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes abundant sense to boosters who want their state to "matter" as much as possible. Candidates pay lots of attention to states where a small swing can change a fistful of EC votes; where a small swing affects at most 3 EC votes, as in the proportional states, the stakes are lower and thus the local politicians get fewer opportunities to bend the future President's ear. —Tamfang 02:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A true democracy is impossible, no systems are perfect. There is no method of implementing the philosophy behind a democracy in such a manner as to be completely inline with it, and as Rousseau wrote “Taking the term in its strict sense, there never have existed, and never will exist, any true democracy . . . It is impossible to imagine that the people should remain in perpetual assembly to attend to public affairs”. So really the question is pointless, yes the system is imperfect, but a balance has to be found between the various justifications of different systems. Where the balance lies is up to the discretion of the person whose opinion is formed. I would argue that no system of democracy could ever correctly represent the general will of the public, so effectively it is a pointless exercise trying to do just that. Philc 16:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still amused at how angry some people are that the power went to the political dynast who got 48% of the popular vote instead of to the political dynast who got 49% of the popular vote. —Tamfang 02:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what i mean is a system whereby legislation could be vetoed by a vote in an upper house composed of academics. ie if a bill regarding sentences was passed by the lower house it would be reffered to a panel consisting of criminologists, penoligists etc. If a bill regarding drugs was passed by the lower house it could be vetoed by the nations proffesors specialising in addiction, drug use etc, etc Willy turner 17:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Technocracy movement? Never mind. This group advocates "abolishing political controls". Clarityfiend 18:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totall off topicness, but one of the characters in Iolanthe tried to get the British House of Lords turned into a merit system-civil service legislature. Also, under the original constitution of New York State there was a (noxious) "Council of Revision" composed of various people who could reject legislation after it was passed, and the (unicamerial) Reichstag at some point was composed of a massive number of professors. None of that answered your question though, but as far as I know noone advocates that. The harder problem would be, how would you get them there? Election? Seniority? Retirement? 68.39.174.238 22:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how would you get them there? no elections- if youre a professor in a certain field then you get to vote on legislation that is within that field. obviously it would would require investment to recruit a lot more profs Willy turner 01:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would lead to a MASSIVE upper house. 68.39.174.238 02:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, against such ideas I think the most famous statement is William F. Buckley, Jr.'s that he would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. I would have to agree with him there.John Z 22:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

really? you dont think the faculty of harvard might have a little more expertise than the average voter? Willy turner 01:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm right in saying that John Stuart Mill advocated more voting rights for university graduates, based on the value of education. Not because these people should feel entitled to have any more rights, but because they are more educated and can by held that by extension, more knowledgeable, and more intelligent than arbitrarily selected members of the general public. Philc 16:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technocracy (bureaucratic) appears to be the most relevent article we have. Rockpocket 23:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes but isnt there anyone who is advocating what is described in the Technocracy (bureaucratic) page, even just an upper house being chosen that way? Willy turner 01:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This happened in an episode of The simpsons. Llamabr 01:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that article links to geniocracy. —Tamfang 08:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster before 1948(?) had a few seats elected by alumni of Oxbridge. —Tamfang 08:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Free City of Kraków (1815-1848) had a bicameral parliament where 3 out of 41 members of the House of Representatives, as well as 2 out of 13 senators, were elected by the Jagiellonian University from among its doctors and professors. Additionally, only university graduates (with few exceptions) could be elected to either house. The cathedral chapter had the same number of representatives (canons and prelates) in both houses as the university.

The Irish Senate is elected in different ways: 6 out of 60 are elected by university constituencies, graduated from the University of Dublin and the National University of Ireland; 43 are elected by specialist boards, to represent people with knowledge of and experience in specific fields such as culture and arts.

And indeed Tamfang, since 1603 until the Representation of the People Act 1948 there were University Constituencies in the United Kingdom elected by graduates from universities. Famous representatives include William Pitt the Younger, Ramsay McDonald and

"India had university constituencies before independence, but these were abolished with the adoption of the modern Constitution of India. Nevertheless, today the President of India has the authority to appoint not more than twelve scientists, artists, or other persons who have special knowledge in similar fields, to the Rajya Sabha."

Just as a side note: of the 75 members of the Senate, 15 members are also professor and 5 hold lower positions at universities. There are no requirements to create this situation other than the fact that Senator is a part time position and it is a chamber of reflexion.

C mon 10:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. P. Herbert was another university MP. —Tamfang 18:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing a humorous story where individuals can trade in violations of the law, much as the current Emissions trading market trades in violations of pollutant emissions limits (think eBay, but you can literally buy your way out of a speeding tocket). In doing so, I need to cite criminal code (presumably Code of Federal Regulations and California Penal Code) for several crimes ("I just sold a CPC 1234, insider trading, for $30000!"). The problem is that it's intimidating as Hell to tackle these documents cold. I'm looking for advice on how to go about this. Is there a database to look up key terms? Am I stuck slogging through the whole online documents?

Here are the crimes/infractions I'm using in the story along with the code I think applies:

• Excessive Speed (Speeding) - California Vehicle Code.
  • I am also willing to relocate this story to a different state, as long as I have a citation for handicapped parking, below.
• Insider Trading - Federal Code.
• Wire Fraud - Federal Code.
• Failure to have enough handicapped parking at a store/shopping mall - California Building Code
• Failure to obtain a street performance permit - I know this would be specific to a particular municipality, so I don't need a code, only need the proper way to phrase this in conversation ("Well, I have this old street performance permit violation I had wanted to sell, but finding a street musician with good credit is a lost cause...")

Also, I understand that these offenses might actually break multiple laws. For puposes of the story I'm ignoring that fact and simply need a single code section to cite.

Thanks. --KNHaw ^(talk) 17:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking someone to lookup and provide citations to all these statutes by topic area? If this is for a humorous story, and not for legal research, why don't you just make up phony citations? If it is for legal research, you will need to do more than just look for code sections, you will need to do research to validate your conjecture that the code applies in the way you think it does. Phony citations may help you there because it will help prevent unjustifiable reliance on the accuracy of your cites.

The end goal is for me to write something realistic looking, as 99% of readers will never look past the line on the page. It's the other 1% who will either care enough about the story to send me an "attaboy" if they find the citations authentic or a nasty letter if I screw it up. Note that I did not expect anyone to look these up for me - just point me to a resource so I can do my own work. --KNHaw ^(talk) 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If all you want to know is the proper format for constructing official-looking legal citations, find a copy of the Bluebook and just follow the very cumbersome rules. Better yet, go to "google books" and type in "user's guide to the bluebook". They may have a limited preview online. If that's not good enough try Westlaw or Lexis.

Thanks. This is exactlywhat I wanted out of this post. --KNHaw ^(talk) 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, this kind of request raises eyebrows though, because some might think it is simply a subterfuge for obtaining free legal research. dr.ef.tymac 20:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the concern, but no this is entirely for a story. I don't want advice - just a pointer to a resource that lets me write a realistic (preferably authentic) little scribbling to stick inside the story. --KNHaw ^(talk) 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the articels? I went to Wire fraud and it gave me the exact citaytion: 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The rest could probably be accomplisht by simple Googlewhacking of various sites in the .edu, .gov and .gov.ca TLDs. 68.39.174.238 22:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I honestly hadn't expected to find such a cite in articles on individual offenses. I'll check all the individual wiki articles before I dive into the U.S. code. --KNHaw ^(talk) 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The US code is here: [4]. There's a search function you can use, or you can browse by title. The California code is here: [5]. -- Mwalcoff 02:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Between all these resources, I expect this will be short work. --KNHaw ^(talk) 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the answer is more nuanced than we like/are good at fighting? Willy turner 18:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One would have to guess, but I would think that volunteer armed forces draw members from economically limited areas and from families with a tradition of service. Therefore, if the economy of Scotland is disproportionately depressed, there would be higher enrollment. Additionally, if such had been the case, the families might well grow to see the military as a familial trait. Geogre 18:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may be a historical reason for this, regarding the formation of Scottish regiments. Perhaps one of our resident historians could opine. Rockpocket 23:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would have to ask what the evidence for this contention is? Are there figures to prove that the Scots are over-represented in the modern British Army? Clio the Muse 00:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

% of british army that are scots is 13% [6] % of british population that are scots- 5 million out of 60 million- 8.3% the proportion of scots in the SAS is much higher than that though, ill get a figure Willy turner 01:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Scottish troops made up more than a quarter of the British forces who took part in the Normandy landings.[7] Willy turner 01:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. It says Armed Forces, which would include the Royal Marines as well as Her Majesty's Navy. Llamabr 01:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does; but the same questions still stand! Clio the Muse 01:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thus, the N.B., rather than some sort of contradiction. I meant to note that marines and sailors don't consider themselves to be in the modern British Army (one reason for which, is that they are not). Llamabr 03:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then the answer does indeed relate to issues of relative economic deprivation, as well as a pre-existing martial tradition. Recruitment, I imagine, is best in those areas, like Glasgow, with high levels of local unemployment, and in those parts of the country with strong links to a locally based regiment, like the Black Watch. It's an open question, I suppose, if the formation of the Royal Regiment of Scotland will impacat in any negative sense on this tradition. Clio the Muse 02:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Scotland doesn't have a lot of exportable resources, so they make the most of what they can export; whiskey, wool, and Scots, by ensuring that exported goods are of the highest quality. Similar to the reason it's not just the Enterprise, but half the ships at sea which have an engineer known as "Scotty". Gzuckier 16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ie the entire country was full of people before Europeans came, and where are they now? Was there a deliberate policy of extermination of 'Native americans'? and why does nobody seem to care? Willy turner 18:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population history of American indigenous peoples says that estimates of the indigenus population of the present US at the start of European colonization range from 8.4 million to 112.5 million. There were no census records, or historical population surveys before the arrival of Europeans, so only estimates are available. An historian quoted describes "the modern trend of high estimates as 'pseudo-scientific number-crunching.' " A 1976 "consensus count" estimate of the pre-Columbian population was 54 million. Europeans had a degree of immunity to devastating diseases which killed many of the indigenous population. Warfare also had a severe toll, both conducted by Europeans and by other indigenous tribes. Indigenous peoples of the Americas says in the section "Modern statistics on indigenous populations" that the indigenous population in the US is presently 2%, and with part-indigenous included, 7%, per the 2000 US Census. In the section "History and status by country" it says "Native Americans make up 2 percent of the population, with more than 6 million people identifying themselves as such, although only 1.8 million are registered tribal members." The 2007 US population is estimated at 302,104,000, yielding a present indigenous population of 6 million indigenous and 21 million part indigenous per the 2000 Census percentages. They live throughout the US, with some living on reservations. At some times and in some places there was certainly a policy of extermination. In other instances there was a policy of purchasing land and displacing the indigenous population as in the Jackson Purchase , or simply displacing the indigenous population to less settled land such as Oklahoma , which was then Indian Territory as in the Trail of Tears , or to reservations. Where are you looking that you find no one who cares? Some indications of concern are the American Indian Movement , movies and books such as Cheyenne Autumn , Little Big Man , Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee , and Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (film) . There have also been Native American rights movements recently which have banned Native American mascots , names, or symbols from athletic teams, such as Chief Illiniwek . Indigenous populations on reservations have limited sovereignty, which allows them to operate Native American gambling enterprises which presently bring in $14,500,000,000 a year in revenue. Edison 19:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your excellent answer edison Willy turner 19:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC) could it be called genocide though? Willy turner 01:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some cases of actions that qualify as genocide, especially toward the end of Indian independence (mid to late 1800s). Wounded Knee might be the prime example of this, although earlier, less well known examples abound. There were definitely some individuals who advocated policies of genocide. But I would say that for the most part the colonial and US governments, and people in general did not practice what we would today call genocide, although it depends on what exactly one means by genocide. If genocide is the systematic rounding up of people for the purpose of executing them, then no, such things occurred only rarely and on a small scale. On the other hand, if genocide means something less direct -- like forcing people into reservation "ghettos" and not helping much when disease and abject poverty cause deaths, or deliberating destroying the economic foundations of a people (like wiping out the bison), then the case for genocide is stronger. But genocide usually denotes something more than that. Wikipedia's page on it begins by saying that genocide is "the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group". While the history of US-Indian relations is pretty ugly, I think it only very rarely reached that level. Typically what was deliberately targetted and destroyed was the power of Indian Nations, not so much the lives of individual Indians themselves. After an Indian Nation was thoroughly defeated, the survivors were usually not rounded up and "systematically exterminated".

Even among people who forced Indians to give up land for reservations and worked to undermine traditional ways of life, many or even most were not trying to kill Indians outright. A great many such people were actually trying to "save" Indians. Sometimes their motives were misguided, at least as seen from hindsight -- such as the policies of "de-tribalizing" Indians via boarding schools, or the extinction of tribally owned land in exchange for individual owned parcels. Many people saw the fate of the Indians as disturbingly grim, and felt that the only way to avoid general extinction was to work to transform Indian societies and cultures to "fit in" better with the newcomers way of life. Many or most Indian societies resisted such assimilation to the point of war, but this does not mean they were resisting genocide so much as cultural destruction.

A slightly better term might be Ethnic cleansing. But even that does not apply in general. Many people advocated policies like Indian Removal without wishing to see Indian ways of life destroyed. Thomas Jefferson comes to mind. Also a great portion of the destruction of Indian societies came about through warfare between, or within Indian tribes themselves. In any case, while I certainly don't mean to downplay the catastrophe that occurred, I think genocide is too strong a word for the big picture. Pfly 08:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One could make this question more strict, asking, "If the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was in place at the time, could anyone have been found guilty of it and, if so, who?" The thing about the genocide convention is that one has to specify who has committed specified acts "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". You could probably find individuals for whom one could make a decent argument, but applying the Convention definition to the entire scope of deaths would be problematic as one would have to state that they were all done with the same genocidal intent. Though I'm sure that if one looked long enough through Genocide definitions, one could find a definition of genocide that would label the deaths of the Native Americans a genocide. - BanyanTree 08:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of "genocide" was introduced into international legal discourse in the 20th century. Although many attempts have been made to accuse Ancient Persians, Romans, Huns, etc, etc of "genocide", this fallacy of anachronistic reasoning is little more than an exercise in empty rhetoric. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note more clearly the widespread and lasting impact that outbreaks of imported diseases had. The tale of 'smallpox-infested blankets' is relatively widely known, but focusing solely on that would be a mistake: it brings to mind a picture of Europeans deliberately infecting tribes to gain a local advantage. This is historically incorrect, both in time as in scale.

When the first Europeans landed in the Americas, they did not land alone. They brought with them their animals, their plants, and also their germs. These germs caused diseases that, after centuries of lurking endemically in the sewers and hospitals of Europe, were lethal mostly to children and those that survived to adulthood, often had immunities for life. Europeans had lived with these maladies for generations: the genetically vulnerably had long died off and the hardy had spread around their genes, so that a relatively high level of resistance was present.

Of course, the native Americans had no such resistance. When the Europeans landed, their germs spread quite literally like wildfire. The Americas had had woefully little experience with epidemics of any kind; their medical knowledge and practices were catastrophically unable to cope. Disease, not only smallpox but also measles, typhus, the plague, cholera, malaria, influenza and many others, rode ahead of the invaders, wiping out entire villages and consuming the very fabric of society. Where the Europeans followed in its tracks, they encountered only ruins, ghosts, and weeping.

The following tale might illustrate. 'The Kiowa of the southern plains of the United States have a legend in which a Kiowa man meets Smallpox on the plain, riding a horse. The man asks, "Where do you come from and what do you do and why are you here?" Smallpox answers, "I am one with the white men - they are my people as the Kiowas are yours. Sometimes I travel ahead of them and sometimes behind. But I am always their companion and you will find me in their camps and in their houses." "What can you do?" the Kiowa asks. "I bring death," Smallpox replies. "My breath causes children to wither like young plants in spring snow. I bring destruction. No matter how beautiful a woman is, once she has looked at me she becomes as ugly as death. And to men I bring not death alone, but the destruction of their children and the blighting of their wives. The strongest of warriors go down before me. No people who have looked at me will ever be the same."'

More on this can be found in, among other books, Alfred Crosby's Germs, Seeds & Animals. Random Nonsense 18:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The genocidal disposition of the US government in the post Civil War era is shown by the quote attributed to General Phil Sheridan at a meeting with Indian chiefs in 1869:"The only good Indian is a dead Indian." [8] Future US President Theodore Roosevelt expressed similar sentiments in a speech in 1886, per the above site, saying ""I suppose I should be ashamed to say that I take the Western view of the Indian. I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth." Many educated mid 19th century Americans regarded Indians as a lesser race of subhumans, as in Horace Greeley's "Lo the poor Indian" denunciation, written in 1859, where he said they would likely become extinct within 50 years due to their own incapability, saying they were "..utterly incompetent to cope in any way with the European or Caucasian race".."a slave of appetite and sloth, never emancipated from the tyranny of one animal passion save by the more ravenous demands of another." and "These people must die out--there is no help for them. God has given this earth to those who will subdue and cultivate it, and it is vain to struggle against His righteous decree." [9] . So many 19th century Americans of European origin could have justified extermination of Native Americans based on such utterances from the leaders of society and government and as a natural process, hovever evil and misguided such words appear today. Such views of the indigenous populations are certainly not unique to the US; just look at how the European powers treated the natives they found in their worldwide empires in a similar era. Edison 15:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. However, I would argue that epidemics, and their impact, killed more native Americans than other humans did. Without wanting to minimise the killing done by European and ‘colonial' governments, I do think we shouldn't confuse the two phenomena: the post-contact outbreaks and subsequent deaths, which can't be attributed to Western malevolence, and the later wars and murders, which can be. Random Nonsense 19:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or are the funerals in Nottingham completly different then anywhere else in our country? Cause I`ve been to one yesterday,and I never seen anything like it before,coming from London...If anyone got some kind of explanation,please go ahead?? 81.133.89.171 19:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did they do that was out of the ordinary? Was it the flaming Viking longship drifting out to sea with the remains? Edison 19:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a funeral for someone with a different relgion/ethnicity; Nottingham has quite large populations of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs, who have funerals which seem odd from a British perspective (sombreness and mourning are smaller components of the service, especially in the Antam Sanskar (Sikh funeral)). Funeral services are usually the choice of the family or departed anyway; people often make idiosyncratic requests of their burial services anyway, whether by being buried in a Kiss Kasket or wearing a football kit in the coffin; I doubt that overall Nottinghamtonians are any stranger than Londoners or Novocastrians or Leodensians. Laïka 20:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a Morris Minor is used as a casket [10] . A Dr. John Jakway in New York requested burial standing upright with his skull exposed so people could crack nuts on it [11] . Edison 20:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above and in the header, be specific/give details. Can you mention anything about it, or what caught your eye? Also, what's "normal" for your country? 68.39.174.238 22:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My experience of recent funerals in the UK is that nothing is "normal" any more. In fact people take pride in arranging funerals that are creative, individual and more appropriate than the old-fashioned ones.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was the 'Death Ride of the Fourth Panzer Army'? Secret seven 20:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt someone with much more expertise will expand upon this answer, but, the short form appears to be that it is a term for the German defeat at Prochorovka (which has a number of spellings)in 1943. There was nothing about it in Fourth Panzer Army, but History.net calls it "death gully" in this article [12]. Bielle 23:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps the Death Ride refers to a later stage, on January 12 and 13, 1945, when the 4. Panzer-Armee was employed as a tank reserve force near Kielce and waited in vain for orders from Berlin in order to defend themselves against the overwhelming Russian superiority. (See Vistula-Oder Offensive) The order didn't arrive until 30 hours later, by when the Russians had already overrun and destroyed a number of tanks. The Russian troops under Konev already were behind "enemy lines" on their way to Berlin. The motto was "Run for your lives!" at that point. (From a German site on missing soldiers)---Sluzzelin talk 00:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what this is, it's a reference to the Battle of Kursk in 1943, part of Unternehmen Zitadelle, the last German summer offensive in Russia. So Bielle is partly correct in her mention of the Battle of Prokhorovka, which forms a part of the bigger struggle, in which Hermann Hoth's Fourth Panzer Army was engaged. The Wikipedia article describes this as 'one of the largest tank battles in human history.' I personally do not know of any larger. One German formation, the Grossdeutschland Division, which began the battle with 118 tanks had only 20 left after a few days of fighting. Clio the Muse 01:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As so often happens, the article about Prokhorovka was eroded by anonymous edits. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Bielle called Duncan too? :) DuncanHill 01:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; wrong attribution; I meant Bielle! I was still thinking in terms of the Henderson question above. My error has now been corrected. Clio the Muse 01:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the main factors causing the deterioration in the relationship between Britain and Nazi Germany leading up to the outbreak of war? S. J. Blair 22:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should have an articel on Causes of World War II... 68.39.174.238 22:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here a rocky road is to be followed! We know from a reading of Mein Kampf that Hitler thought the foreign policy previously pursued by Germany during the Second Reich had been a mistake, and that he hoped to draw Britain, as well as Italy, into a working partnership with the Third Reich. There were early moves towards establishing better relations, with the mission of Alfred Rosenberg in 1933 and later by Joachim von Ribbentrop. This 'honymoon period' reached its most successful expression in the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935, which in establishing a bilateral understanding on naval armaments undermined both the provisions of the Versailles Treaty and the whole notion of collective security. Thereafter relations went from bad to disastrous. Oddly enough it came not from any aggressive move by the Germans, but from Ribbentrop's complete misreading of the mood and attitude of both the British people and the political establishment.

As a reward for his part in securing the Naval Agreement Ribbentrop was appointed ambassador to London, one of Hitler's worst appointments. Shallow and vain, and completely incapable of understanding the political process at work in Britain, Ribbentrop made one faux pas after another, even at one point throwing a Nazi salute to King George VI. The cartoonist David Low started to refer to the hapeless ambassador as 'Herr Brickendrop'. Hitler, in defending him, said that Ribbentrop was useful in the position because he knew some important people, Göring responded by saying "Yes, but the trouble is, they also know Ribbentrop." Ribbentrop remained politically influential with Hitler, but left Britain with a violent sense of resentment, which was to play an important part in the outbreak of war in 1939.

The other thing was that Hitler was under the impression that Britain's interests were focused on the overseas empire, and that he would be allowed, in the right circumstances, to have a free hand in Europe. But he completely failed to grasp one simple point: the maintenance of the balance of power in Europe was one of the constant features of British foreign policy. The Munich agreement seemed to confirm Hitler's view that Britain was keen to disengage from Europe. The real position was summarised by Richard Overy in The Road to War (1989); The lesson that Hitler took from the crisis was that he could take the next steps in Eastern Europe without war; the British lesson was the exact reverse, that Hitler's next violent step would bring conflict. Hitler took the British concessions as evidence of weakness, and was all too ready to listen to Ribbentrop, now foreign minister, that they had no appetite for war. So, what were the main factors causing the deterioration in Anglo-German relations? Why, the usual wierd sisters who walk in the company of dictators of all kinds: ignorance, ambition, arrogance and stupidity. Clio the Muse 02:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for this answer also. It's quite admirable. S. J. Blair 07:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. In Isaac Asimov's Robbie. Doesn't Robbie break the 2nd law by (initially) not letting Gloria ride him even though she asks him to? - Akamad 00:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I don't know the story.) If giving Gloria a ride was at all dangerous then no: the Second Law explicitly yields priority to the First. (Three Laws of Robotics) —Tamfang 06:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of doing a historical illustration and I'm trying to locate some credible source on which to base the depiction of the work-clothing of English sailors in the late 13th century. I'm at a disadvantage for accessing British hard-copy material on this as I'm in Western Australia! Can someone suggest an online source or an internationally-published book? User:Retarius | Talk 08:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1290? Yeesh. That's a tough one. First, there weren't really uniforms at that point -- those came later -- and so you really want just general clothing of the time, and the navy wasn't quite a navy yet. Hmm. Geogre 13:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What to look for? Look for on-line illuminated manuscripts of saints whose hagiographies involve episodes at sea, and the "fishers of men" episode in the New Testament. All illustrations of events in Antiquity were shown in "modern dress" in the late C13. --Wetman 22:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very nice idea about the manuscripts, I'll try that. Thanks to Wetman & Geogre. User:Retarius | Talk 11:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the History of Western Fashion for some general ideas. Also, if you google 'Medieval Costume' you will get lots of useful links. You may also wish to consult Medieval Costume and Fashion by Herbert Norris, and Medieval Costume in England and France: the 13th, 14th and 15th Centuries by M. G. Houston. In addition to this, the Penguin edition of Langland's Piers Ploughman has an illustration of peasant dress on the cover, taken from a fourteenth century Psalter. The essential point is that there was little or no difference between the 'working clothes' of sailors and any other land-based occupation of the day. Men would wear hose and doublet, often belted round the middle and usually hooded. Clio the Muse 23:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's powerful plenty! Many thanks, Clio. User:Retarius | Talk 11:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to know what the Southern slave states' reaction was to the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin. Irishbard 12:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to read Uncle Tom's Cabin#Reactions to the novel and Anti-Tom literature. Short version: they did not like the book. Sandstein 12:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The true measure of how deeply Harriet Beecher Stowe reached into southern sensitivities lies the hack literary response generated by Uncle Tom's Cabin. I'm sure someone somewhere must have used the subject for a doctortal dissertion, considering the insight it gives to the culture, politics and psychology of the Old South. My favourite is J. W. Page's Uncle Robin in His Cabin in Virginia, and Tom without One in Boston, which contrasts the 'security' enjoyed by slave labour in the paternalist south as opposed to free labour in the capitalist north. Clio the Muse 23:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also George Fitzhugh... AnonMoos 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some southern writers mocked the notion fueled by the book that people in the south hated negroes and only treated them badly, while people in the north loved negroes and only treated them kindly and wanted to be around them, and that in the south all negroes were miserable and abused and starving, while in the north they were all happy, well fed and prosperous. Edison 15:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why is it immportant to examine management from different perspectives? what do we gain from this type of examination? think of other possibel perspectives we could use to describe managemnt (e.g. management is a profession; management means " being in charge"). What does our new perspective tell us about management that adds to our understanding? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.125.143.67 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 22 July 2007.

This looks very much like a homework question to me. We don't answer those here. You could try putting the word "management" into the search box in the left panel at the top of any Wikipedia page - that might be a good starting point. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean no offence but I find your article on the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 fragmented and perplexing. I would like to know something of the background to this measure and the impact the legislation had on Victorian society. Mr. Crook 13:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fragmented" is correct, but such is the way of the wiki. Look also at Reform Act of 1832, which is another coverage of essentially the same thing. Our Reform Bill articles in general are not up to par, and we could use all the help we can get. (The flippant answer would be sofixit.) I'm in a poor position to help with anything that late, but the articles can benefit from more eyes and hands. Geogre 13:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a poor piece on Poor Law! Amongst my favourite reading on this important subject is The English Poor Laws, 1700-1930 by Anthony Brundage, The Poor Law in Nineteenth Century England and Wales by Anne Digby and Poverty and Poor Law Reform in Nineteenth Century Britain, 1834-1914: From Chadwick to Booth by David Englander. Beyond that, Mr Crook (Bleak House?) you could do no better than read Charles Dickens, particularly Oliver Twist and Our Mutual Friend for a contemporary view.

The New Poor Law, guided into existence by Edwin Chadwick, was essentially intended to streamline and rationalise the whole system, along conceptual and organisational lines envisaged by the Utilitarian philosophy popular at the time. It also had the supplementary aim of making poverty 'undesirable', if it can be so expressed.

Chadwick and his commission set themselves the task of overhauling the Elizabethan Poor Law, that had been in operation for over two hundred years. By this each parish appointed overseers, local officials who collected a poor rate (a tax) from all householders. The money was then used as a form of 'income support' to enable the able-bodied poor to continue living in their own homes, a policy known as 'outdoor relief.' This was supplemented in 1782 by the Gilbert Act, which enabled parishes to group together and share the cost of building Union Workhouses, places where the sick, the elderly and the starving could be accommodated. According to Anne Digby, some parishes were effectively working in much the same fashion as the modern welfare state, providing housing, food, medical care, clothing allowances and fuel.

Though effective in a limited way, the old system broke down in the face of the huge social and economic changes brought on by the Industrial Revolution. Rural poverty became every more acute, a consequence both of the enclosure movement and a rapid growth in the population. In response, some of the parishes modified the forms of outdoor relief allowed for under the existing Poor Law. In Speenhamland in Berkshire local wages were toped up in accordance with a sliding scale, determined by the price of food and the size of each labourer's family, a practice that came to be known as the Speenhamland System. As can be imagined, this had the effect of driving down wages still further. It also caused resentment among local rate payers, upon whom the burden got ever greater. By the early 1830s poor relief was accounting for as much as 80% of local rates expenditure, some £7 million pounds in all. Central government's total expenditure at this time, on all matters, amounted to £19 million, which gives some idea of the magnitude of poverty spending.

Unpopular with rate payers, and economically ruinous, the final blow to the old system came with the Swing Riots, which swept across southern England, as agricultural labourers protested against low wages and new machinery. The Poor Law had been conceived of as a guarantor of social stability. As such, it was no longer of any effect.

Discontent with the Poor Law among farmers and land owners of all sorts was reflected in economic theory-known at the time as political economy-in which it was argued that it was an artificial distortion of the free market. By the Utilitarian calculus the old Poor Law was outmoded and inefficient. Thomas Malthus maintained that outdoor relief actually created poverty by encouraging people to have large families. For him the only solution was outright abolition of the whole system. Few others took such a radical view; but there was a widespread acceptance that the system needed to be overhauled.

In theory the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, set up in 1832, was meant to gather evidence before making recommendations; but the leading members, including Chadwick and Nassau Senior give every indication of having made up their minds in advance. For both men local relief had to be replaced by a centrally directed system of poor law administration, which had the twin values of rationality and economy. In 1834 the Poor Law Amendment Act passed through Parliament with the support of both the Whigs and the Tories. Now the 'Workhouse Test' was the only way to obtain relief. Outdoor relief was a thing of the past.

The principle was simple enough: the regime in the Union Workhouses, the backbone of the New Poor Law, was made deliberately harsh, a disincentive to all but the destitute. On the concept of 'less eligibility', the relief offered would be worse than the living standards of the lowest paid workers in the general community. The new workhouses, referred to as 'Bastilles', created a culture of dread among the working class, reflected in the attitude of Dicken's Betty Higden, who preferred to die by the roadside than enter the 'House', and in monologues like Christmas Day in the Workhouse. There was opposition, and not just among those most affected. Tory paternalists were outraged by the new system, in much the same fashion as liberals less motivated by market and utilitarian values. There was a huge outcry in 1846 when it was discovered that the inmates of the Andover worrkhouse in Hampshire were driven by hunger to gnaw the bones that they were supposed to crush to make fertiliser. But Victorian attitudes towards poverty as a moral failing in the individual were to persist right into the twentieth century. Only gradually were they replaced with new concepts of welfare provision, urged forward by classic investigations like Henry Mayhew's London Labour and the London Poor, and Charles Booth's Life and Labour of the People of London Clio the Muse 01:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

are there industries that will be immune to changes in the global environment and as a consequence will be influnced primarily by their domestic external environment? Name at least two and explain why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.143.67 (talk • contribs)

That looks very much like a homework question to me, and we don't answer those here. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, we do assume good faith and try not to bite newcomers. DuncanHill 16:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Name at least two and explain why" makes it pretty clearly a homework question. We are not a one-stop homework shop, and students who use us as such should be reprimanded (though not mocked), I think. --24.147.86.187 16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I don't need to say this, but I didn't intend to reprimand anyone, or mock them. People who ask questions here should read the instructions at the top before asking a question, but if they don't, or if they mis-understand, they should not be reprimanded, they should just be told, politely and in plain language, what they need to know. I hope that's how my post came across. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be more diplomatic to ask, "Could you put your question in a form that less strongly resembles a homework assignment?" —Tamfang 02:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. For my year 12 Modern History, I am doing an essay on how events during WWII contributed to the rise of communism. Was this a good topic to write about or should I do something else? I am having trouble finding stuff to write about. I currently have:

Stalin's leadership- His good leadership in WWII allowed Russia to stop the German advance. He was a good negotiator. He was prepared for war with Germany before it broke out.

Allied Indecisiveness- Compared to Stalin, the allies were not interested in anything other than stopping Germany. Stalin was given plenty of room to grow and unite countries under the USSR.

I guess I could also talk about Russia helping out the communist party in China.

Does anyone know any other events in WWII that contributed towards the rise of communism? I'm kinda stuck and just a few more things for me to write about would be great. I'm not asking for you guys to do my homework, just to provide a few pointers, as I'm sure you guys had to do this too. Thanks. --Babij 14:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that Stalin "was prepared for war with Germany before it broke out". In fact, Russia was ill-prepared, thus leading to major Nazi advances early on. Only later was Stalin (or, more accurately, his generals) able to formulate a strategy to win. StuRat 23:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to think about your framing term, "rise." You can immediately split this into two wide areas. The first is the revolutions developed by nations in a post-colonial era and those that were imposed from outside. These are quite, quite different. The former might be aided by an existing "communist" power, but they are essentially homegrown. Secondly, you need to have a concrete and useful definition of "communism." Be aware that the term encompasses both a political and an economic system in a peculiar formation. If you have these distinctions in mind, you can see how you have "rise of Soviet sphere of influence post-war" and "rise of socialism as a form of economic and political system after the experience of late capitalism and colonialism." Geogre 15:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I can give you little detail on this, but I am suspicious that this might have something to do with China. Communists and Nationalists had been fighting for some time, and it may be possible that the War, and the Communist victory of Russia, gave an impetus to the Communist Chinese forces.

Other than that, I would like to point out the case of Yugoslavia. Josip "Tito" Broz was, AFAIK, an immensely popular anti-German resistance leader during the Nazi occupation. Without the war to establish a sense of popularity (is that correct Clio?) he may not have been able to establish a Communist government in Yugoslavia. It is an interesting point to note that the Yugoslav regime was the first non-Russian Communist country: the rest of Eastern Europe was behind the infamous Iron Curtain - which was not just communist, but effectively the USSR's Empire, if you wish to take that perspective on it.

You could, I suppose, argue that Stalin had a excellent reasons for making "colonies" of Poland, Czechoslovakia etc. The economy of Russia utterly obliterated, it provided a useful place to get reparations. Defence buffer against Germany? Quite possibly. Russia had been invaded twice by Germany. Or was it just sheer Russian imperialism - for example, you could question - why did Stalin have to spread Russian Communism, and not be happy with the independent Tito regime in Yugoslavia? But then that may be erring into the area of how did WW1 contribute to the establishment of the Iron Curtain, not quite the same as the spread of communism.

If your question concerns how much WW2 contributed, you could have a section on other causes of the spread of communism. For example, would Cuba ever have became communist without WW1? My first impression is yes, because its revolution took place many years after the end of WW1. An automatic consequence of the Cold War? If the USA was supported by capitalist Western Europe, it may have been natural for the USSR to acquire communist allies.

I would also like to point out a note of caution of using my terminology of Eastern Europe being Russian "colonies". That is open to debate, and people will argue, though preferably not here. This is how I see the Russian policy there, your teacher may see it differently. And thankyou for saying "Can you help me with..." and not simply posting an essay question here. A much appreciated and commendable attitude.martianlostinspace 16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though please, anyone correct me if I'm wrong.martianlostinspace 16:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad topic at all. I think you are right to think about both China and Eastern Europe as the two important bits here. WWII allowed Stalin to consolidate and expand his regime (you might look at Yalta Conference for thoughts as to why he was able to do that), and allowed enough destabilization in China for the Communists there to gain a footing and eventually (1949) overthrow the Nationalists. I would avoid counter-factual speculation ("What would have happened if X Y Z?") as it is impossible to prove, easy to go astray, and often useless even in the hands of very knowledgable people.

The one thing that comes to mind that you haven't noted is that there were a lot of people who basically saw the world as a spectrum between Communism and Fascism on account of Hitler's rise to power. As a consequence, many people believed that if you didn't have Communism, you essentially had Fascism, and as a consequence embraced Communism very strongly. This is true both in Europe and in the United States, though in the U.S. this sentiment dies down quite a bit after the war. But that's a much harder thing to gauge, so you might want to leave that aside.

Lastly, you might want to consider the effects of the atomic bomb. It often gets the credit for creating a Cold War rather than a hot one; there is also an argument that it allowed Stalin et al to consolidate and cement their power, since it set a very high threshold for war and thus allowed the Soviets to act with impugnity with covert activity (the US wasn't going to start a nuclear war over a little issue like trying to get Communists elected in Greece, were they?). Instead of being a useful bargaining chip, it was often a straightjacket — when one party is not willing to "leave the table" (here meaning start a nuclear war), then it reduces their bargaining power to almost nothing. --24.147.86.187 16:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, possibly, but not definitely, what else contributed.martianlostinspace 17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, contrary to what you seem to think, the USSR was one of the allies.

Communism was on the rise before WWII began, as was fascism. Democracy was an experiment that people felt wasn't too much of a success. So they were looking for alternatives. Some wanted the strong leaders back (sound familiar on the modern political scenes?). But they didn't want royalty back (they had finally gotten rid of those egocentrists). So fascism rose. But another alternative had also been making inroads for about half a century was communism. In Germany, people were almost forced (by peer pressure) to choose between those two alternatives. I suppose that they realised communism was too far out, so fascism won (and not only in Germany). But after the war, the atrocities were blamed on fascism, so that alternative was out the window. Communism hadn't gained much appeal, despite the good work of the communist resistance. People were also beginning to hear stories about bad goings-on in the USSR and they blamed that on communism (which it wasn't - it was state socialism and it's not even true that that necessarily means death camps and such, but I'm talking about public perception). So of the four alternatives (royalty, democracy, fascism and communism), democracy all of a sudden looked like the best bet. So WWII didn't so much help in the rise of communism, but in the revival of democracy. And in an odd sort of way it also caused it. DirkvdM 19:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Babij. You have chosen a great subject for your essay, and I could offer you a guide to some practical reading, if you wish. You should not really have too much trouble in finding sufficient material to support your argument. All I would really seek to do here is to give you some general guidance, and perhaps shift your perspective ever so slightly.

First, I think it more accurate to say that the Second World War, and its immediate aftermath, created the conditions for the spread rather than the rise of Communism. Soviet Russia itself was created out of the First World War, and may conceivably have remained the only Communist power but for World War Two. Second, do not concentrate overmuch on personalities. Stalin's leadership, though undeniably important, was not necessarily among the most descisive factors; and the contention that he was ready for war with Germany in 1941 is quite wrong. Stalin's biggest mistake was to trust Hitler, ironic, when one considers that he trusted no-one else. For most of the war, moreover, he was, like the western allies, far more interested in the defeat of Germany than the promotion of Communism; he even went so far as to abolish the Communist International in 1943. Also, his policy in the 1920s actually impeded the advance of Communism, particularly in China. where the Communist Party was urged into co-operation with the Nationalists, which led to its near destruction in 1927. The ultra-left Third Period which followed was even more disastrous, leading to a serious underestimation of the Fascist danger in Germany and indirectly to the destruction of the KPD, the strongest Communist Party in Europe at the time.

So, the decisive factor in the spread of Communism, in the first place, to eastern Europe was the success of Russian armies against Germany, which saw the imposition of a Soviet-style system in various countries, and the descent of the Iron Curtain across the Continent, for reasons of Russian security, as much as anything else. The two exceptions to this process by 'external imposition' were Yugoslavia and Albania, where Communist resistance and a war of national liberation became one and the same thing; and yes, martianlostinspace, you are right about Tito. But there again, if it had not been for the presence of Soviet armies Tito might conceviably have been defeated by nationalist forces, supported by the western allies, much as the Communist party was defeated in the Greek Civil War. Elsewhere in Europe, outwith the sphere of Soviet influence, Communist parties associated with the Resistance made considerable advances in post-war elections, particularly in France and Italy, though further progress was hampered when they reached a ceiling of support. They could not take power in the kind of coup that came in Czechoslovakia in 1948 because they did not control the state security apparatus.

In the world at large, the war severly weakened the old colonial powers, leading to various national uprisings with Communist support. That in Vietnam succeeded under the Communists because Ho Chi Minh was able to unite all shades of national opinion in the struggle against the French; that in Malaya failed because the Malayan Races Liberation Army was dominated by the Chinese, and always appeared more foreign than national. Communist forces in Indonesia were eventually crushed by the nationalists, supported and aided by the United States.

China is an unusual case. Since the early 1930s the Communists under the leadership of Mao Zedong, had been involved in a civil war with the Nationalists, a period which saw the legendary Long March and the formation in the north of the country of the Chinese Soviet Republic. Although the Nationalist and Communists were 'at truce' after the Japanese invasion of China in 1937, both sides were more than ready to renew the struggle in 1945. Yes, Mao got some help from Stalin, but he seemed more interested in advancing his own position, taking more in the way of resources from Manchuria than he ever gave to the Chinese. This is a hugely contentious issue, but there is a strong argument that the Chinese Communists could have been defeated, much as they were in Indonesia, if the United States had give sufficient support to Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang. But they did not, and China was 'lost' in 1949. Further Communist attempts to advance in Asia were defeated in the Korean War, and in Europe by the Berlin Airlift.

So, this only leaves Cuba, where what was a peasant war, and understood to be a peasant war by the United States and others, only saw the creation of a Communist state after victory under the leadership of Fidel Castro. The Revolution, in other words, was not lead by the Cuban Communist Party, nor did it have a specifically Communist programme, at least to begin with. Once again Communism fruited on the tree of war. Clio the Muse 03:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 'communism' fruited on the tree of former oppressors, which led to uprisings at a time when communism was in fashion. Maybe it's a shame for the ideology, but indeed, all examples we have of rule by a communist party are the result of war. Which leads to war-like leaders, which would be enough to explain some things about their rule. Btw, the only example of real communism (not state socialism) that I know of, the Kibbutzim in Israel were also formed in a sate of war. Which is ironic because real communism is based on the assumption that everyone will be nice to each other (how else will they willingly share everything?).

Clio, you make it sound like Castro joined in a spontaneous uprising, but his 'invasion' of Cuba started it all. Or do you mean to say that an uprising was already 'in the air'?

About Vietnam, an interesting thing there is that Ho Chi Minh at first asked help from the US and had even based his new constitution on that of the US. Only when he didn't get help there did he turn elsewhere and the big neighbouring country was an obvious choice. Ironically, when that happened, the US did all of a sudden get interested in Vietnam and even as a result started aiding a colonial force (France).

I wonder now if a different attitude by the US might have affected the way state socialism developed. In Europe, socialism killed the communist revolution. In the Netherlands, for example, a left-wing uprising shortly after the Russian revolution of 1917 gave the right-wing government such a fright that they started taking all sorts of left-wing measures, just to appease the rebels. Maybe if the US had helped Ho Chi Minh, they could have 'softened' him. Talking is always better than fighting, not only for the killing, but also because it is not very likely to resolve an issue - it just aggravates it. But now I digress. :) DirkvdM 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point was making about Castro, badly expressed perhaps, was that he only declared himself to be a Communist after the victory over Fulgencio Batista, and even then not immediately. He was not understood to be so when he visited the United States in 1960, and met Vice-President Richard Nixon. Clio the Muse 07:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not getting back sooner as I am in the middle of my midyear exams. I am extremely grateful for all of the help you guys gave me and now I feel like I actually have something to go on rather than before when I felt pretty much alone on this. I'll look into Tito, Cuba and all those other things you guys mentioned. With any luck I'll have a good essay by the end of this term :). Thanks once again for saving me.--Babij 21:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Bangladesh have a provincial government like Canada does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.222 (talk • contribs)

Although the article Politics of Bangladesh mentions subdivisions, I can find no evidence of federalism in this article, or devolved provincial governments. I assume that such administrations would exist, but they may be little more than administrative units of the central government, and not so much legislative or executive bodies.martianlostinspace 16:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Bangladesh allow its federal gov't political party to participate in municipality election and be elected as mayor of the town or city? in Canada, they don't have any politicians from the federal gov't political parties participating in their municipality election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.222 (talk • contribs)

Why not? If what you say is true, then Canada is rather unusual. In the UK we certainly have candidates from all the major political parties (and many minor ones, and independent candidates) standing in our local elections. -- Arwel (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what they mean is that they don't have people at the state level running for posts at the city, etc. level, not that the parties don't field candidates for them. I KNOW all the Federal Canadian parties have provincial versions, or maybe that's what they mean, that there's no difference, it's all one party? 68.39.174.238 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify about Canada: the major federal parties do have separate counterparts in different; thus we have a Liberal Party of Canada, a Liberal Party of Ontario, a Liberal Party of Alberta, and so on, all separate organizations that consider each other as friends. In a federal or provincial election each of the major parties at that level will nominate one candidate in each riding. Municipal elections, however, are typically non-partisan. There is no "Liberal Party of Toronto" and there is no Liberal candidate for Mayor of Toronto or for Ward 1 Councillor of Toronto. There is no law prohibiting parties from running candidates in municipal elections: in the 1990s some candidates for Toronto city council did advertise a party affiliation (I assume with the provincial party). But the parties have not pressed to get involved in municipal elections, that's all.

Now, back to Bangladesh? --Anonymous in Toronto, July 23, 00:51 (UTC).

Which political ideologies are considered as left-wing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.222 (talk • contribs)

This is an encyclopedia, if you type "left wing" into the search box and click "Go", you will see the article Left-wing politics. -- Kainaw^(what?) 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Left-wing politics has good information which should answer your question. DuncanHill 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which political ideologies are considered as right-wing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.222 (talk • contribs)

This is an encyclopedia, if you type "right wing" into the search box and click "Go", you will see the article Right-wing politics. -- Kainaw^(what?) 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

- I was reading Germans in Czechoslovakia (1918-1938), and I was surprised to read that between the world wars, Slovaks were not the second largest group! This is maybe a dumb question, but wasn't the name Czechoslovakia kinda weird then? (It's more like a Czechogermania....)

- I see that politicians in Sudetenland had ties with the Nazi party in Germany. But didn't these Germans consider themselves "Austrians" instead of "Germans"? (They had been living under Austro-Hungarian rule)

- I read in a Wikipedia article that there are some Macedonian minorities in the western part of Bulgaria. But how? I read that the Macedonian language and the Bulgarian language are very similar, that Macedonians even used to refer to themselves als Bulgarians, and that there were people between the two world wars who wanted to unite Macedonia and Bulgaria. So what makes someone in Bulgaria feel "Macedonian"? Different accent? Different religion?

- The media often talk about the Albanians and Serbians in Kosovo, but there are also Croats, Bosniaks,... in Kosovo. Do they feel connected to one of the two parties? I heard that Albanians (christians, muslims,..) all tend to be united by their common language, my guess is that the Croats would feel tempted to side with the Serbians in that case?

- A comfortable majority of the people in Switzerland speaks German. I know that the Nazi party considered Germanspeakingpeople in Yugoslavia, Austrians, Belgium, Poland, Czechslovakia... "Germans", whose land should be part of the Reich....but I never hear anything about their plans with those Swiss Germanspeaking people?

Thank you,Evilbu 21:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of stuff, here, Evilbu! I think I can maybe give you some partial answers.

On the German question, there had never been an Austrian state as such, more a collection of nationalities owing loyalty to the Habsburg crown. When the Empire disappeared in 1918-19 there was a significant body of opinion in the newly created Republic of Austria, including the Social Democrats, wanting union with Germany. This was specifically forbidden by the Versailles settlement. The Germans in Czechoslovakia also had an ethnic rather than a state identity, and that was with the larger German commonwealth. Initially the Germans in the new state settled down to rule from Prague, and were to be found supporting a whole variety of political parties. This changed in the late 1930s, when the Sudeten German Party, under the leadership of Konrad Henlein and Karl Hermann Frank, switched its loyalty away from Czechoslovakia.

I cannot comment on the Macedonian language issue, but on the general political question you have raised you might wish to consult Treaty of San Stefano, Greater Bulgaria and the Balkan Wars. On Kosovo I have no sources of information on other minorities besides the Serbs. Are they statistically significant? I suspect not.

On the Swiss issue if you ever read Goebbels' Diaries you will find a reference to Hitler as the 'Butcher of the Swiss', which might give some insight the Nazis had in store for that country. Here Goebbels is alluding to Charlemagne, who, as a consequence of his war of conquest in northern Germany, was known as the 'Butcher of the Saxons.' Clio the Muse 03:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As regards Hitler's plans for Switzerland, see also Switzerland during the World Wars#World War II and Operation Tannenbaum about the planned invasion of Switzerland, although both articles are pretty poor. My non-expert impression is that Hitler intended to invade Switzerland and annex at least the German-speaking part of it at some point. Luckily for Switzerland, it was never a high-priority issue. Sandstein 07:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Croats in Kosovo question, I'm going primarily on my experience with friends and relatives of various south-Slavic identities, and based on that, the Croats would never side with the Serbs (while the common belief is that the Serb-Croat split is based on religion, my gut tells me that the Serbs and Croats chose different sides of the Orthodox-Catholic divide because of their mutual antipathy, not the other way around). Donald Hosek 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first question, you might want to read the article on Pan-Germanism. After World War I, the Sudeten Germans expected to join with the new republic of Austria in a country to be called "German-Austria," made up of the German parts of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. That idea faded away when the victorious Allies awarded all of the Czech lands to Czechoslovakia. A simultaneous current of opinion after WWI called for the merger (or Anschluss) of the new Austrian Republic with Germany. This too was ruled out by the Allies, but Hitler took up the cause 20 years later. So most of the Sudeten Germans turned to Berlin, which annexed Austria shorty after the Munich treaty. It wasn't a matter of the Sudeten Germans favoring Germany over Austria -- it was a matter of them favoring a super-Germany that was gobbling up all the German-speaking lands except Switzerland. -- Mwalcoff 23:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mwalcoff, I assume by Munich treaty you mean the Munich Agreement, which detached the Sudentenland from Czechoslovakia? If so, you should note that this came in September 1938, whereas the Anschluss took place in March. Clio the Muse 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course... a silly typo. -- Mwalcoff 22:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this up in class almost every year since middle school and I've never gotten GOOD answers on why we should keep it. I've even asked about taking the oaths at court.

Having all these god quotes around has to have an effect on people, especially children. It may completely alter someones behavior, so why do we keep it around? Ive already looked at some of the articles pertaining to this, and I'm dissapointed in the government for keeping it around just because "its tradition, and it has nothing to do with the seperation of church and state."

"Mommy, how do you know God is real?" "Well, sweety it says so right there in the Bible, and the Bible is God's word, and everything God says is true, so it must be true! And hey, if it wasnt true, why would the government have it on our money!?"

Just because this nation was founded on Christianity, doesnt mean centuries later we should continue the tradition. Were supposed to improve and not stick to primitive thinking. They need to put all that god stuff in the history books and start maturing.

Everyone holds and needs money, and its upsetting to own something that makes it seem like youre a certain way (believing in a deity). Taking it out will be a simple step to improving this nation, in my opinion anyway. But thats my rant, and I'd really like to hear peoples views on this. PitchBlack 03:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could use credit cards. Well, but that wouldn't solve that child's problem. Anyway, I guess that in a few years no-one will use paper money anymore, so that problem will stop existing. A.Z. 04:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says that, in Canada, they have been using debit cards more than cash for six years now. A.Z. 04:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia also features a section about the motto controversy. A.Z. 05:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note to non-Americans: This question is about the money they use in the USA.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Wow, that WAS kind of a rant. I always understand the "God" in question to be Mammon, which seems highly appropriate and self-referential: it's in the money itself that we trust. Thinking about it this way doesn't offend my tender atheist sensibilities, plus I've always felt that the Christian god wouldn't really be a fan of being so referred to on our currency; after all, it could lead to an unhealthy conflation of the ideas of god, money, and worship . My 2 cents. 38.112.225.84 09:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Theodore Roosevelt had a similar idea. 68.39.174.238 13:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the motto on the money is what causes people to believe or not to believe. I think it is easy for non-believers (myself included) to think of belief as a simple thing, you are told something and thus you believe it. In reality most people's understandings of religion come not from "mommy" saying they believe it and pointing to money or anything so trite; it is a deeper connection with tradition and ritual that reinforces beliefs. I don't think the slogan on the money makes any real difference (and I am an agnostic/atheist). That being said, I don't think there is a good reason it should be "kept" at all — it does nothing positive. I don't think it does a lot of negative, either, except reinforce the entanglement between religion and government in this country, but even with that I think it is a symptom not a cause. --24.147.86.187 15:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly would ban it on money if I were in charge. While the god isn't specified, the belief that there is one and only one god is clear, which should upset atheists, agnostics, and members of polytheistic religions, like Hinduism. StuRat 23:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you, but I think that the elimination of the slogan on US money would be a very slow process if the government (when could that be?) decided to do so. The number of bills in circulation today are in the hundreds of billions? trillions? i don't know exactly but... yeah. Marcocruz87 23:45, 24 July 2007

I'm not saying all the old money should be destroyed. I'd be happy to wait until it wears out naturally. StuRat 06:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Engel v. Vitale, a very liberal Court said this practice wasn't unconstitutional. Laleena^{talk to me contributions to Wikipedia} 20:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The US was not founded on Christianity. That is just a myth that radical Christian right-wingers would have people believe so that they can try to justify going against the 1st Amendment and instituting theocracy. The founders of the country were strong believers in creationism, which is the the belief that there is a god that created the universe, but not necessarily a specific god (e.g. Jesus, Allah, etc.). Some were Christians, some were not, but regardless of their individual beliefs, the country was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. I don't have too much of a problem with the motto on the money, since the founders did not mean for it to be an endorsement of Christianity. The problem is really with radical conservatives taking that motto out of context and using it to try to justify establishing a Christian theocracy. The Pledge of Allegiance, on the other hand, I believe should have the words "under God" removed, because it did not originally contain them. This phrase was added sometime during the 1950s, and ironically, radical conservatives try to make people feel that having them removed is somehow a slap in the face of the founders. Go figure.--67.67.216.252 21:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. I'm looking for a website (or a handful of websites) which contain archives of newspapers from WW1. Specifically, I'd like "well-known" papers like the Times, etc. I figure they'll be in the public domain, following the 70 years after death rule. Any ideas?

Thanks very much.

203.173.11.176 04:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)ThePatchedFool[reply]

They are public domain, yes, but unfortunately those that have been digitized have mostly been so under restricted pay-for-access systems. It would be possible to extract these materials and host them on a free system, but so far this has not been done. To access this common history, you'll mostly have to go through a university or a library account (on microfilm in libraries too of course), which is a real shame IMO.--Pharos 04:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's a shame, but unless you have access to a research library (or a major public library), you're pretty much out of luck with regards to major papers like the Times and so forth. EDIT: This information applies to the USA, but I see that you reside in Australia, so it may not be all that relevant. I don't know what kind of subscriptions Australian libraries carry, or how easy it may be for you to access materials held by a university. Carom 05:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I thought that might be the case. I probably do have access to microfilms of the Australian papers of the time, through the State Library, but it's sad that they're not digital, and I was hoping for a more international collection of perspectives. Still, I'll investigate that. Thanks for the idea, and for furthering my Googletrust. 203.173.11.176 05:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if by any chance you're a university student, you probably do have access to these collections.--Pharos 06:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many old microfilm newspaper archives are digitized, but you are charged for the service of using them (not a copyright issue). ProQuest Historical Newspapers does this for US newspapers, I'm not sure who would do it for Australian ones. --24.147.86.187 14:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out List of online newspaper archives. -- Mwalcoff 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you're hoping to find out, but it is worth bearing in mind that there were considerable restrictions on what newspapers could and/or were willing to report during the war period. This did not only affect military matters but also domestic dissent and anything likely to undermine morale or prove useful to the enemy. I've looked at The Times for the period, for various matters, and while it is by no means not worth looking at for the war period, it is clear that supporting the war effort was a bigger concern for the editors than providing an exhaustive historical source during 1914-18... 84.13.129.105 09:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wonder where printing blank pages of the appropriate length when forbidden to print lists of the dead fits into supporting the war effort or providing an exhaustive historical source? :) Sorry, not meaning to pick, just that it may have been more the government than the editors responsible for the lack of content. 86.140.170.177 23:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, self-censorship by mainstream newspapers was extremely prevalent and more important overall than Government-imposed censorship. There wasn't an existing framework for, or tradition of, press censorship in Britain in 1914. The Liberal adminstration was initially reluctant to go too far towards compulsion, which conflicted with Liberal ideology and the image of a free and liberal Britain stading against Prussian authoritarianism which was used to promote the war effort. Nor was there much of a need to impose censorship as mainstream newspapers were not prepared to rock the boat, while the small number of radical / revolutionary papers opposing the war were deemed too uninfluential to be worth the trouble and bad publicity of censoring or suppressing. This only changed gradually, and mainly from 1916 onwards, with the Russian Revolution and growth of dissent in 1917 being important turning-points. Yet overall, self-censorship by the press continued to outweigh the heavy hand of government. I'm basing this on Brock Millman's "Managing Domestic Dissent in First World War Britain", (Frank Cass, London, 2000), which is the first and latest in-depth examination of the subject. Not to pick, but what are you basing your comments on 86.140.170.177? 84.13.129.105 11:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was basing my single comment on the fact that British newspapers initially printed lists of the war dead; these grew quite long. Then the government forbade them to print lists of the dead, so they included as much empty space as would have been taken up by the lists of the dead. This is part of the GCSE World History syllabus of at least some exam boards, so I would image it to be fairly well known. I wasn't disputing your scholarship, just asking how this could fit into an image of newspapers censoring themselves for the war effort, without any compulsion. It suggests a more complicated image than had been painted in the earlier comments, an image of rather more rebellious editors. 86.140.170.177 00:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are all judges arrogant? - CarbonLifeForm 07:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, at any rate not more so than all other government officials or highly educated professionals are. Sandstein 07:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massive generalisation. Judges may have a stereotype of being rather boring, but most of us will barely meet a judge in our lifetime (I would think), at least out of court.martianlostinspace 11:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us wouldn't know if we had met a judge. They mostly live ordinary lives outside court. One lives a few doors down the street from me, and she is very nice.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are all RD questions as useless and unanswerable? 68.39.174.238 13:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact many of them are interesting and informed. Lanfear's Bane

Some judges are arrogant. Some are not. I've known a few judges (a close family member is a lawyer). They did haven't any single exceptional stereotypical qualities. --24.147.86.187 14:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else think CarbonLifeForm==XM and he's annoyed that his crazy gambits to get out of his parking ticket didn't work and it's clearly the judge's arrogance that's to blame? Donald Hosek 17:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Hosek -- that thought crossed my mind, also. But, if I remember correctly, XM stated that his court date for the speeding ticket was not until August. So he still has time to stew. Ha ha. (JosephASpadaro 05:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Based on the theory that "power corrupts", one would expect those with the most power to be the most corrupt, which includes, in my opinion, the arrogance of thinking they are always right. From what I've seen of judges on TV (and the legal profession in general), I haven't been very impressed. There's that crying judge in the Anna Nicole Smith case, for example, and everyone involved in the O.J. Simpson case. Those real judges in TV court shows also seem arrogant, deciding who is guilty based on appearance, refusing to hear all the testimony, or interrupting people during their testimony, then having a fit if they are ever interrupted. The ultimate arrogance seems to be the attitude that "if I decide someone is guilty, then they are". They seem to forget that whether the event occurred is an actual truth that exists outside the courtroom, instead thinking that they decide what reality will be. I cringe when I hear "they are guilty", after a ruling, when it should be "the court found them to be guilty" (whether correctly or incorrectly). StuRat 23:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what the longest fictional story ever published was. I think it might be the Wheel of Time, but obviously I haven't seen every book ever written. So I thought, maybe someone here will know. And your list on here isn't much help. So, anyone know of any longer stories? 172.189.174.82 14:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest novels has some contenders. Sandstein 14:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a basic problem of definition here. Many "long novels" are actually novel cycles. This would presumably apply to The Wheel of Time which you mention, also to things like A Dance to the Music of Time, The Lord of the Rings and even A La Recherche du Temps Perdu. So, do these count as novels or not? Personally, I would say not. Then there are things like Clarissa, which personally gets my vote as the longest novel in English. Then of course there are many long unpublished novels such as The Story of the Vivian Girls by Henry Darger, plus (I would have thought) countless others yet to be discovered. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the Lord of the Rings and A La Recherche du Temps Perdu were both originally written as a single book, but were too long to be published in one volume. whilst 'novel cycles' might not count as novels due to their being made up of more than one book, they still have the same plot running all the way through, and are therefore the same story.

Well, The Tale of Genji certainly SEEMED like the longest novel to me. --S.dedalus 02:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, that's always the book I think of when this comes up too. Recury 16:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know something of the background, motivation, impact and consequences of Khruschev's 1956 speech denouncing Stalinism. The page On the Personality Cult and its Consequences is not quite as informative as I would have wished. Thanks. Fred said right 15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was trying to exorcise the incubus of his dead master, whom he had served for so long, yet without calling into question the structure of the whole regime. Donald Treadgold.martianlostinspace 16:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with it should be noted that the whole speech was built on the oddest of paradoxes: a denunciation of Stalin's personality cult and authoritarian style by a man who had spent the three years since the dictator's death in undermining collective ledership, and establishing his own unparalleled power! By the time of the 20th Congress, in other words, Khruschev's political authority was almost as great as that previously enjoyed by Stalin.

Delegates at the Congress were given no advance warning of what to expect. Indeed, proceedings were opened by Khruschev's call for all to stand in memory of the Communist leaders who had died since the previous Congress, with Stalin being mentioned in the same breath as Klement Gottwald. Hints of a new direction only came out gradually over the next ten days, which must have left those present highly perplexed. On the 25 February, the very last day of the Congress, it was announced that an unscheduled secret session had been called for the Soviet delegates.

The speech itself began with vague references to the harmful consequences of elevating a single individual so high that he took on the "supernatural characteristics akin to those of a god." Khruschev went on to say that such a mistake had been made about Stalin. He himself had been guilty of what was, in essence, a distortion of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism. The attention of the audience was then drawn to Lenin's Testament, copies of which had been distributed, criticising Stalin's 'rudeness'. Further accusations, and hints of accusations, followed, including the suggestion that the murder of Sergey Kirov in 1934, the event that sparked of the Great Terror, could be included in the list of Stalin's crimes. While criticising the Man, Khruschev carefully praised the Party, which had the strength to withstand all the negative effects of imaginary crimes and false accusations. The Party, in other words, had been a victim of Stalin, not an accessory to his crimes. He finished by calling on the Party to eradicate the cult of the personality and return to "the revolutionary fight for the transformation of society."

So, what were his motives? Was it really a call for a return to Leninist 'collective leadership' destroyed by Stalin? Well, here we have to remember that Lenin himself had only called for collective leadership in his final days, in the belief that no single individual was fit to follow in his singular path. Khruschev himself, moreover, had, as I have said, effectively destroyed the new forms of collectivity that emerged after Stalin's death in 1953. In a sense, the Secret Speech was his own triumphal declaration, and he used it to undermine still further some senior Soviet politicians, including Georgy Malenkov and Kliment Voroshilov. The implication was clear enough: he was innocent and the rest were guilty, though the simple truth was that he was just as bloody as any of the others. He was simply shifting the burden of responsibility. Exempting himself and blaming others: the whole speech was not about principles and ideals-it was about politics, and it was about power. Khruschev had to demolish Stalin to establish his own imperium; Augustus had to give way to Tiberius. It may be of passing interest to make note of the fact that Stalin's portrait continued to hang in Khruschev's office long after 1956, as a kind of spiritual avatar. And those who took the speech at face value were soon to face the simple truth that the ideal was not reborn. Clio the Muse 01:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend reading Khruschev: The Man and His Era by William Taubman. It discusses the "Secret Speech" in detail. -- Mwalcoff 01:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the result worldwide, it had the effect of causing disenchantment among many of the former "true believers" in communism, such as in the United States. This finally made it clear, even to the most naive, that communism didn't produce the utopia that it promised. Skeptics, of course, had known this for quite some time. StuRat 23:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I incorporated two passages from Clio's reply into our stubby page about 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I have been wanting to use a quote for a website project, but want to know more about the guy who said it before I actually use the quote... All I can find out is that he was a writer and probably American!

Walt Streightiff - “There are no seven wonders of the world in the eyes of a child. There are seven million.”

Can anyone help please?

Walt Streightiff (if it's the same one) was my first editor at the St. Paul Pioneer Press in 1959. An ideal mentor for a young reporter: kindly but exacting. If Walt didn't mark up your copy, it was probably OK. He did forbid me, in weather stories, to forecast warmer or colder temperatures, since "temperatures" couldn't feel the heat, only register it. I believe Walt came to us from Harrisburg, Pa., where he had been bureau chief for the AP. Nice man. I never once thought of him as a writer. Good for him if so.

DAN SULLIVAN

Minneapolis MN

[telephone number removed per RefDesk policy]

Having read the entry for Washington DC, and then read the US Constitution, I remain unclear how over 500,000 people in the US capital area are without the right to vote (other than for municipal elections). I understand that Washington is a 'District', but why can residents not be able to vote in a neighbouring state? I rather liked the comment on a common bumper sticker proclaiming "Taxation without Representation" considering the basic premise of the founding of the US nation. Can anyone explain the constitutional, political or personal benefits of this situation? JonM267 18:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DC Residents didn't have the right to vote since its Founding, as DC was the seat of the Federal Government (per the US Constitution Article one, Section 8 which outlines the Powers of Congress). DC was seen be impartial, as the home of the Legislature, it was supposed to have no political leanings to protect its dignity and integrity. However, its populations always hated never being able to vote, and in 1961, the 23rd Amendment was passed that gave DC residents the ability to vote in Presidential elections and have 3 votes in the US Electoral College. They also get Delegates to Congress who represent them in the US House of Representatives (But not the US Senate), but cannot outright vote on any pending laws or in any of the Congressional committees. There has been some discussion of giving DC Voting Rights, but this is usually blocked by the Republican Party/Conservatives as it would give the Democrats/Liberals another vote as DC is primarily Blue due to it's minority, and Left leaning population. As for voting in a neighboring state, that would be Unconstitutional due to State Laws; each state runs itself and itself alone. On top of this, it is all complicated as DC is run both by a city wide government, and Congress on occasion. For more info, see District of Columbia voting rights. BTW, I'm from the DC area, and the license plate reference was a way to raise recognition of the DC voting issue. Most people realize it's unfair, and want them to vote, but DC is a Federal district, and as such cannot as it is not a State per se. Personally, I think it one of the great flub ups of the US Founding Fathers, no matter their logical reasons. Whew! I hope this helps.  Zidel333 19:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comprehensive answer. Along with your references it clears much of my confusion. I suppose there must be many strange and unusual repurcussions from having to follow (without too much question) a set of rules now over 200 years old, drawn up by primarily English landed gentry who were probably both trying to be fair and just to the citizens, and also protect their own social and financial positions at the same time. They did not do too bad a job all things considered.JonM267 21:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might add, albeit an obvious point, that Congress constitutionally only recognises states: the Senate 2 Senators per state (regardless of size) and the House dependent upon population, though every state must have at least one Congressman. The USA, at the time of the Constitution, did not rule many territories (eg. Alaska, before statehood), and as far as DC was concerned, I think the founders may have intended a seat of government, not a city. Why should the federation reputed to be the world's most democratic country deny voting rights to half a million citizens? This seems like a logical answer.martianlostinspace 22:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been on this site for sometime,but could not pass your question up. The real reason could be that the city of DC was comprised mostly of servants both black and white. I'd venture a guess that some unknown servant asked his master about voting rights and the political climate allowed for the passage of the only known and constitutional abridgement of basic US citizen rights. None of this will ever be proved of course, but think about it. It was chic.

In response to the above comment, I have NEVER heard of this before; the truth of DC Voting Rights lies in the intention of making a city purely for governmental use, and not for residence per se. Frankly, the above comment is nonsensical, since DC at its inception was decided to never be allowed to vote. Racial tensions had nothing to do with it. Zidel333 14:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have always objected to the idea of DC becoming a state, since many counties in the US are larger geographically and have many times the populations, and are not states either. Giving this enclave 2 Senators and a representative would give them disproportionate overrepresentation. If they want to be in a state, the DC should revert to being a county of the state of Maryland. But that state apparently does not want it. Edison 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell from District of Columbia voting rights and simple logic, there are other options. For example, you could given them a seat in the US house of representatives without being a state (which appears to be one of the proposals). You could given them a Senator without a seat in the house of representatives. You could give them one of each. I don't see why you have to make them a state and give them all the rights of a state... P.S. Having only one senato would I assume do away with the need to have the vice-president ready for tie breakers which may be wise given that there appears to be some confusion by the current one whether the tie-breaker role makes him not a member of the executive Nil Einne 17:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, according to Washington, D.C., the population is 580k and they would be the 50th smallest in terms of population (also see List of U.S. states by population). They wouldn't really be that much smaller then quite a number of other states in terms of population. Of course, it may seem unfair that they have the same number of Senators as California with a population of 36 million but isn't that the nature of the US federal system? Personally, not being an American, I would have to say I see little reason they shouldn't be a state or at least have equivalent voting rights other then the fact that certain politicians may not want to give voting rights to those they know don't tend to support them. Nil Einne 18:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You meant 50th or 50th largest (of 51). --Anonymous, July 25, 23:51 (UTC).

Can anyone familiar with Cicero point me to the actual sections in De Natura Deorum that ended up as the precursor (kind of) to the infinite monkey theorem?

Thanks,

Adambrowne666 22:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try this from Book II, section XXXVII:

Is it possible for a man to behold these things, and yet imagine that certain solid and individual bodies move by their natural force and gravitation, and that a world so beautifully adorned was made by their fortuitous discourse? He who believes this may as well believe that if a great quantity of the one-and-twenty letters, composed either of gold or any other matter, were thrown upon the ground, they would fall in such a fashion as legibly to form the Annals of Ennius. I doubt whether fortune could make a single verse of them. How, therefore, can these people assert that the world was made by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, which have no colour, no quality-which the Greeks call 'poiotes', no sense? or there are inummerable worlds, some rising and some perishing, in every moment of time? But if the concourse of atoms can make a world, why not a porch, a temple, a house, a city, which are works of less labour and difficulty? Clio the Muse 23:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're wonderful, Clio, thanks Adambrowne666 01:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC) - although, on reflection, is he arguing against the infinite monkey thing? - is he saying it's so unlikely that atoms of themselves can create a world that gods must've done it?[reply]

It's certainly an argument against particular patterns emerging by random chance. His word game example has the same general implications as the infinite monkey fallacy. Clio the Muse 02:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think calling it the infinite monkey 'fallacy' is a bit strong, infinity is a big number, I'm sure the monkey thing would work. I wonder what Cicero would make of quantum mechanics. Cyta 07:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theory places no limits on the possible, but my imagination is limited to what is, I must confess. After all, Cyta, I am a material girl and this is a material world! On monkeys and literature, I saw a pocket cartoon in The Spectator which may have some passing relevance here. Two men in lab coats standing behind a single monkey with a single typewriter. "Good Heavens", first man says to second, "he's typed out the complete works of Jeffrey Archer" Now that is one possibility I will accept! Clio the Muse 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been told by my mathematics professors that infinity is not a number. --Taraborn 18:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks yet again, Clio - sorry, but could you point me to the 'word game example'? Adambrowne666 10:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think when Clio says "word game example" she just means Cicero's analogy of throwing letters on the ground. Interestingly, the passage from Cicero also reminded me of William Paley's watchmaker analogy - and I found that our watchmaker analogy article does indeed quote another passage from De natura deorum Book II. Gandalf61 10:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh, I see, thanks for that. Makes me think of Fred Hoyle's analogy: expecting a mammalian cell to be created by chance is like expecting a gale to blow through a scrapyard and create a Jumbo Jet. Thanks again, Clio - the quote's perfect for what I need - and thanks Gandalf. Adambrowne666 20:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad. Gandalf was quite right about my meaning. My apologies for the confusion, Adam. Clio the Muse 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of balance, note that (i) argument by analogy is a useful rhetorical device but an unreliable method of reasoning; (ii) Paley's watchmaker analogy is used as an example in our false analogy article; (iii) there are crucial logical flaws in the whole category of teleological arguments. Gandalf61 13:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. Adambrowne666

In which, if any, societies with legal slavery would (a) killing one's own slave have been legal and (b) killing someone else's slave have been considered a property crime with the victim being the slave's owner? NeonMerlin 22:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, slavery law, what fun! Well, in any society based on Roman law, I don't think the penalty for killing someone else's slave is ever capital punishment. In sets of laws I have at hand (the Assizes of Jerusalem, the Lex Burgundionum, the Lex Salica, and the Edictum Rothari - the latter three compiled by Katharine Fischer Drew as The Burgundian Code, the Laws of the Salian Franks, and The Lombard Laws respectively) the punishment is always monetary compensation to the owner of the slave. However, I think killing your own slave was perfectly legal, although you probably wouldn't want to do that, as it would be your own financial loss (I can't find a specific reference to this at the moment, but I think that is true at least for ancient Rome, and probably also for any society, since you tend to be able to do whatever you want to your own property). Adam Bishop 22:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that’s not entirely true. In modern times there are numerous laws which limit what people can do with their property. Animal rights laws would be one example for instance. --S.dedalus 05:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rights of slaves in the US existed on paper in the various slave-holding states, but were not often observed by legal process. There were laws against maiming or killing slaves. There were laws which specified what clothing and food slaves were entitles to, and their working hours. But no slave (or freedman) could testify against an owner. Thus if a man beat, starved, and mutilated his slaves, another white man would have to actually witness it and file a complaint with the court. If the cruel owner did it in the privacy of his own farm, no one would see it except the slaves and his family and employees and persons he permitted on the property, so no one was likely to bring court proceedings. The affected slave or other slaves could not testify at the proceedings. Then the court would determine if the complaint was justified, and could fine the slave owner or could order the slaves sold to remove them from his ownership. These laws were on the same notion as animal cruelty laws: that it was an affront to public order to see a man whipping his horse to death in the public square. But "chastisement" or "correction" was proper, so a slave owner could whip a slave for insolence, for refusal to work, for stealing or for attempting to escape, just as a mule driver would use a whip to get the animal to pull a load. There was not even a theoretical legal protection against an owner raping a slave, or selling the children or spouse of a slave. It is very hard to find cases where any such protective law was put into effect. That said the treatment of slaves varied from appalling to the equivalent of hired hands or family or a sharecropper, depending on the location and the inclination of the owner. Some were paid for their work and could save enough money to purchase their freedom. Cruelty might be repaid by the slave poisoning the owner or burning down the owner's house while he's sleeping or simply running away. He culd not run a plantation like a Nazi concentration camp unless he had fences and guards like such an establishment. Certainly killing someone else's slave would have been a crime and the owner could sue for the value, the same as if the offender had deliberate burned down a barn. Slaves were extremely expensive. Edison 15:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read Atlantic slave trade and Middle Passage. Corvus cornix 01:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for more info on Roman slavery, where it was legal or illegal or semi-legal or extra-legal to kill your own and/or someone else's slave at different points in Roman history, try the entry for "Servus (Roman)" in A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, here. Adam Bishop 17:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying desperately to figure out where I have seen or read this scene before: a man is in the house of an older man or woman who's describing their daughter, and explaining that she's on her way to the house. Then they step into the light and with a gesture of horror the first man realizes that this person is insane, and then they have to escape because his daughter died years ago. It's driving me quite mad, so thanks for anyone who can remember it. 12.196.69.214 23:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish[reply]

Sounds a little Great Expectationsy? Lanfear's Bane

I cannot tell you precisely what this is, though I can tell you what it is not-and that is Great Expectations! Your outline, Melancholy Danish, does remind me slightly, very slightly, I have to stress, of a story by Saki Clio the Muse 00:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Echoes also of They by Rudyard Kipling (collected in Traffics and Discoveries). DuncanHill 00:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and then they have to escape because his daughter died years ago. Ooops. it would help if I had read that part a little more closely. A strikethrough to cover my blushing. Lanfear's Bane

Without more help, it is difficult to pinpoint as it is an old plot twist. It was already panned as an old trick when "mother" in Psycho turned out to be dead. -- Kainaw^(what?) 13:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hee hee, is the daughter coming by hitchhiking? —Tamfang 18:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds similar, but in some ways almost the opposite, of the Saki story "The Open Window." In that story a young woman convinces a visitor that her father and brother died years ago, and then they turn up alive causing the visitor to flee in terror. - SimonP 18:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that is just the story I had in mind! Clio the Muse 02:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, "The Open Window"! One of the funniest stories ever :) 12.196.69.214 20:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish[reply]

I posted this question here because it involves statistical data collected around the world, which most closely fits cultural and demographic natures.

I have heard from multiple sources that about 75% of the worlds population is without electricity. I believe this statement to be relatively close, but i am uncertain, and there seems to be no mention of this in wiki's "Electricity" article.

Can anyone supply me with statistical data/sources on this issue? Thank you!

172.129.238.63 00:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have it backwards -- 75% of the world's population does have electricity. [13] -- Mwalcoff 01:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing a paper on the nature of time in physics (among other things) but I also want to add background stuff about the philosophy of time. I've read our article Philosophy of space and time, but it doesn't cover things according to the individual philosophers (at least not many of them). I'm also reading Time by Philip Turetzky, but it doesn't cover every major philosopher or tradition, perhaps because those who are omitted in fact had nothing to say on the matter. Can anyone tell me did David Hume have anything to say about time, even if just to agree with Locke or Berkeley? Also, are there any major philosophers who definitely did not make any comments regarding time? Thanks, 203.221.126.205 01:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot recall what Hume says about time; but the one thinker who would seem to fit in with what you are looking for is Henri Bergson. I would refer you in particular to The Creative Mind: an Introduction to Metaphysics and Time and Free Will: an Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness. Also the work of Martin Heidegger may have some passing relevance, particularly Being and Time Be warned, though; that latter has a tendency to blow out all the intellectual fuses of less tenacious souls! Perhaps you wish to remain strictly within the Anglo-Saxon empirical tradition? Clio the Muse 02:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend, also, Leofranc Heofford Stephens's A Very Brief Introduction to Time. He does a pretty good job of a survey of the philosophical view. Bergsonian time is fascinating, not least because it seemed to square with relativity, but most people dismiss him (not me, though). The problem of time as a philosophical topos is that it is simply overwhelming. Most philosophers who approach it, other than perhaps Bergson and Paul Ricoeur, cannot stay on it or reason very far with it. Radical skepticism and empiricism seem to be the poles that the philosophers swing between. Geogre 03:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine also is known for his quote on defining time. Alternately, you may wish to look at philosophy of physics. The Rhymesmith 03:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discovery of deep time is largely of interest to geologists and paleontologists. It discovery and the unfolding history of its understanding were the theme of Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle by Stephen Jay Gould who discusses Thomas Burnet, James Hutton, and Charles Lyell. --Wetman 06:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's the Critique of pure reason and Zeno's paradox. A.Z. 23:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine's Confessions has a chapter or so on the nature of time.  --Lambiam 07:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know the focus of your paper is in the realm of physics but for additional context i would urge you to go beyond the western philosophical traditon and take a look at the conceptions of time in other cultures which can be radically different from that of the Judeo Christian. I havent got round to writing that article yet !! but happy to talk to you on my talk page. My research is in South Pacific notions of time and space, for instance the Maori perception of time is 180 degrees different from that of the European, their word for the past also means "in front", the future is "behind". There is also a lot written down here on how the European conception of time was another tool of colonisation etc, the linear "stream of time" supplanting the cyclic, static etc the notion of progress, working towards an end was used to overthrow happiness in the "now" and respect for the past . In terms of physics you probably know Paul Davies. A reasonable collection of writings on cultural concepts of time, as it relates to architecture anyway, is Anytime, Ed Cynthia C Davidson, MIT Press, although it is quite limited to the western. Mhicaoidh 13:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to recommend three books and one article, LePoidevin "Travels in Four Dimensions (Oxford: OUP, 2003)" and the second chapter of Ted Siders Fourdimensionalism and, finally, Craig Bourne A Future for Presentism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, December 2006). Also I can recommend Dean Zimmermans article [14] These are all current work in the philosophy of time that deal more with the issues/arguments/ideas then with who and when thought what. Eyeopeners for me are issues like: Presentism, The Growing Block View and Eternalism. RickardV 15:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent entry from the "time is an illusion" camp is Julian Barbour's The End of Time. Gandalf61 16:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone for the interesting answers, and especially to Mhicaoidh for his kind offer. Unfortunately, I was only looking for information for a kind of introductory paragraph, since the (intended) journal wants articles to be as accessible as possible. I won't have room for more than a couple of points. Still, I expect I can squeeze in that point about Maoris, because it shows the fundamentally paradoxical nature of time (we use before and aft terminology as if it's commonsense, but this is just a construct to save ourselves from confusion). I remember it from a previous discussion, but hadn't thought then of the potential to include it. I might also mention Julian Barbour's book, because it was all over the bookstores, and I think was also read by physicists. The idea of getting rid of time altogether is in fact very mainstream, and is exactly what my paper intends to debunk.

This has been really helpful, and that part (well, paragraph, but an important one) of the paper is taking shape. An interesting link for others following the thread is Time#Time_as_.22unreal.22. This was the thing that finally cleared up my confusion about how Barbour's theory fits in with J. M. E. McTaggart's and other stuff. 203.221.127.57 20:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The question is assumed to reside within the header) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 02:59, 24 July 2007 (talk • contribs) 75.17.15.133.

the very first one Marcocruz87

See United States Bill of Rights. BTW, I've taken the liberty of lowercasing the text of your question in the header. 152.16.188.107 03:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know how I can set up a radio station? I really just want to play my oldies and music. Wasn't the FCC saying something about this a couple of years ago? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Odell38 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your question has been answered on the Misc desk. Please do not double post.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're African, but I may be mistaken. I'm interested in the group of peoples who track animals for food, and when they reach a point where they lose the trail, they enter the mind of the animal to determine the way that they would have gone. Do we have an article on this practice? Capuchin 06:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? What you have described would seem to be global in hunting peoples. Some guys go off hunting. They lose the trail. They think "Oh bum. Now what would I do if I were that animal?"--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, okay. I saw it on a documentary. They had a good success rate using this technique, one guy from the group would wander around and act like the animal. It showed a phenomenal understanding of animal behaviour. Capuchin 08:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be thinking of the documentary film The Great Dance, a Hunter's Story which shows persistence hunting by a group of Khoisan men (Khwe). "When you track an animal - you must become the animal. Tracking is like dancing, because your body is happy - you can feel it in the dance and then you know that the hunting will be good. When you are doing these things you are talking with God." (!Nqate Xqamxebe 1998). Karoha is the bow hunter and most persistent running man in the film. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, or you might have seen them in David Attenborough's BBC docu The Life of Mammals, epiode 10, titled Food for Thought. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OOhh thank you, persistence hunting certainly rings a bell. Capuchin 12:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I believe this is it. I'm sad that none of the sources cover the "getting into the mind of the animal" bit when they lose the trail. Thank you for your help. Capuchin 12:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, and as Shantavira pointed out, identifying with the prey isn't unique to the Kalahari Bushmen. Perhaps some of the external links under tracking (hunting) have some more information. You're likely to find studies in anthropological journals. There is a lot of literature on various forms of animal spiritualism worldwide (shamanism, totems, e.g.) and on hunting dance rituals which can include emulating the prey. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By reading this interesting question and its even more interesting answers, I've come up with another one. I've always thought that those four-legged herbivores in the sabanas would outrun a human both in top speed and in endurance, in a way that the human doesn't have the slightest possibility of success of actually catching its prey. But now this article seems to challenge, at least, the second of my assumptions. Does this mean that a trained human can have more endurance than, say, an antelope? Or does it mean that the human has a significant advantage at running under extreme heat conditions? Or maybe the human can run at a constant pace, saving more energy, than the threatened antelope that would run in a less efficient way? Thanks. --Taraborn 19:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two relevant studies seem to be Persistence Hunting by Modern Hunter-Gatherers by Louis Liebenberg (Current Anthropology, volume 47 (2006), pages 1017–1026) and The Energetic Paradox of Human Running and Hominid Evolution by David R. Carrier (Current Anthropology, 1984 Vol. 25 (4):483-495.) According to Public Anthropology's summary, "Carrier credits the distinctive thermoregulatory system of hominids, their ability to alter the pattern of breathing while running, their potential to adjust diet to improve physical performance, and their complex glandular structure as assets which allowed them to overcome their energetic disadvantage compared to other cursorial mammals." ---Sluzzelin talk 05:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The basic idea appears to be that prey animal evolution has maximized ability to sprint to escape sudden attacks and ambushes. However, a series of sprints is much less energy efficient than simply jogging the same distance, for which humans appear to have evolved a comparative optimization. This obviously is much easier to do if you're in a savanna environment, where the upright posture of humans allows them to spot, from a long way off, the targeted animal stopped and trying to recover from its sprint. - BanyanTree 08:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the biographical part of his book Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays, Stephen Hawking says his parents moved to Oxford in part because it was not bombed during World War 2, a fact he attributes to an understanding between the UK and Nazi Germany such that Germany would not bomb Oxford and Cambridge if Britain did not bomb Heidelberg and Göttingen. But none of the articles for these cities, nor The Blitz, mention any such agreement. The closest is the Heidelberg article, which says (but doesn't source) "Heidelberg escaped bombing in the Second World War because the US Army wanted to use Heidelberg as a garrison after the war.", and our Baedeker Blitz article mentions minor attacks on Cambridge. What, if anything, is the truth in this claim? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by this, Finlay. Did they move to Oxford to escape bombing, or did they move after the war because the city had not been damaged by the effects of bombing? Was the alleged understanding between Britain and Germany publicised at the time, or did it only emerge after the war? Just imagine the outrage that would have been caused if Oxford and Cambridge were exempt from the threat of bombing, but other historic towns and cities were not, including the ancient university town of St. Andrews in Scotland. I am very suspicious about that Heidelberg claim, and will remain so until I see it sourced. Heidelberg was not bombed because it had no strategic value. If it had the British would have had plenty of time to attack it well before the Americans entered the war in late 1941. The Baedeker raids were really quite arbitrary, determined by the Luftwaffe high command on the basis of those places that had at least three stars in the Baedeker Guide. Also, I do not believe that the Wikipedia list on the places attacked is comprehensive; I have a feeling, for instance, the seaside town of Bournemouth was also attacked in 1942. Anyway, you might find some more details in Three Star Blitz: Baedeker Raids and the Start of Total War by Charles Whiting. Clio the Muse 23:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given Oxford's (then) significant industrial sector, I would find it hard to believe that the Germans would have deliberately avoided bombing it. DuncanHill 00:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Graham mentions a WWII bomb shelter in Oxford, noting that "tradition has it that Hitler exempted Oxford from bombing during the war, but the Trout Inn was ready just in case".[15] --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hawking doesn't go into much detail, only saying "I was born in Oxford [in 1942] ... Oxford was a good place to be born during WW2. The germans had an agreement that they would not bomb oxford and cambridge in return for the British not bombing Heidelberg and Gottingen. It's a pity that this civilised sort of arrangement couldn't have been extended to more cities." Frankly if I were of the Arthur Harris mindset I'd have bombed every university I could flat as a dutch pancake - all those clever people inventing cunning plots and clever devices to win the war - that's much more strategic than another ball-bearing factory. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A great many historic German university towns were destroyed. Hawking's statement is unconvincing; it's also trite and banal. The 'civilized sort of arrangement' would have been to avoid war in the first place. I certainly would not accept his point about Oxford without further evidence. Clio the Muse 00:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m no expert on WW2 history, but wasn’t night bombing during that war rather hit and miss. That was the point of all the blackouts wasn’t it? Too confuse anomy plains about the exact location of a city? In that case it would have been hard to insure that no bomb would fall on a specific city. Also, didn’t Germany call on its people to embrace “total war” at one point? (I don’t know the German term.) Making deals with the enemy would seem rather counter to this philosophy wouldn’t it? --S.dedalus 01:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wollt ihr den Totalen Krieg? This is Goebbels' 1943 Sportpalast speech in Berlin. "Now, people rise up and let the storm break loose." Clio the Muse 02:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay, I think the prof has bought an urban myth. Retarius | Talk 02:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well they may have let the storm break lose, but having sowed the wind, they then had to reap the whirlwind! Cyta 07:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If World War II had been that sophisticated, neither Dresden nor Coventry would have been bombed. Corvus cornix 17:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkins is obviously not a very good historian. Hang on, didn't he write A brief History of Time? We'd better check it for more of this dang OR. --Dweller 20:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cropper, William H. (2001) Great Physicists: The Life and Times of Leading Physicists from Galileo to Hawking, p. 452, from Oxford University Press makes the same claim:

It was wartime when Stephen, the Hawkings’ first child, came into the world, and his mother, Isobel, had chosen an Oxford hospital for the delivery because the university town was safe from German bombing. (The German Luftwaffe agreed to spare Oxford and Cambridge if the Royal Air Force would do the same for Heidelberg and Gottingen.)

—eric 20:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is, of course, only recycling Hawking's own claim. Clio the Muse 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of this kind of "scholarship": "The warring governments, in a rare display of equanimity, had agreed that if Germany refrained from bombing Oxford or Cambridge, the Royal Air Force would guarantee peaceful skies over Heidelberg and Gottingen. In fact, it has been said that Hitler had earmarked Oxford as the prospective capital of world government when his imagined global conquest had been accomplished and that he wanted to preserve its architectural splendor". - Quoted from Stephen Hawking: A Life in Science, by John R. Gribbin and Michael J. White (2002). --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found through google various anecdotal claims about Oxford not being targeted, either through a pact with Hitler, or because Hitler wanted to make it his capital of a conquered England - but nothing that comes anywhere close to a reliable source (and one or two at least are on very distasteful revisionist sites of the Hitler was inoccent, the British started the war type...eeuggh). I have also found a site which says that the Morris Radiators site was a Luftwaffe target, as it made the cooling systems used in Spitfires [16] DuncanHill 22:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would I go about doing this please, as a Trompe-l'œil effect on a ceiling. I recall that somewhere in Las Vegas there is a similar effect on a roof, which has the illumination altered during the day. I think sky painters were in the past also employed by theaters and film studios. Thanks. 80.0.124.214 12:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Las Vegas casino with the sky on the ceiling is the The Venetian - I don't think it is painted in the casino itself. It is in the shops attached to the side of it with the little Venice-style stream running through it. The ceiling is blue with wisps of white. Hidden blue and red lights adjust the hue of the ceiling throughout the day. -- Kainaw^(what?) 12:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture labelled "The Grande Canal Shoppes" (can't they spell?) does I think show the painted sky. Clearly, you would paint the ceiling all-blue first, and then add the clouds, and perhaps sunset effects also. I'm wondering how the white clouds would be done - perhaps by using something other than a brush. 80.0.118.211 15:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at the article on Faux finishing and go from there. This site has instructions on doing a faux finish with clouds, as does this article at the Sherwin-Williams site. You'll probably want to practice on some other surface, such as cardboard, before committing to doing the ceiling. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a tough one, but who was the first Vietnamese General to serve in the French army?

Thanks!! --Cacofonie 14:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This much I can tell you, Cacofonie: the Vietnamese National Army was founded in 1950 under the auspices of the French. It was commanded by Nguyen Van Hinh who, I suppose, has as much right as any to be considered as the first general officer fighting alongside the French when they were still the colonial power. His first loyalty, though, was to the Emperor Bao Dai. I do not believe there were any Vietnamese general officers in the French forces as such. Clio the Muse 23:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something about an inventor who made a set of wings, and flew to the king/emperor and told him that all mankind would be gifted with flight. The king had him killed, because he said if their enemies had wings, the walls would not hold them back.

I cannot for the life of me remember who the characters in the story were, specific phrases, or anything. So, does anyone know what the story is called/the author/etc? Much help appreciated ! 162.40.200.32 14:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it was Chinese? Sounds like a version of the story of Icarus to me. Although you're right, I seem to vaguely recall another story... СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 15:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is an old story, it must not be common. I have four volumes of old Chinese stories and poems. Nothing like that is in any of them. Also, it could be a story about China - such as the story of the inventor of Chess going to China and showing the game to the Emperor (which is a British story about China, not a Chinese story). -- Kainaw^(what?) 16:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google for 'chinese inventor wings emperor great wall china' found [17] Nil Einne 17:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected, it is a Ray Bradbury short story, "The Flying Machine", not a true Chinese story. -- Kainaw^(what?) 17:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I suspect the story is still copyrighted in the US, and potentially in Russia as well so the link may very well be a copyvio. Nil Einne 17:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During our recent visit to Equador we heard Church bells playing "hevenu shalom aleichem" a tune we know as an Israeli/Jewish tune about peace. Our guide sang the Catholic Church's Equadorian version which was the exact same lyrics and tune as the Hebrew one we know. Aside from being delighted we began to wonder about the relationship between these songs.

How can we best search for the origin of Hevenu Shalom Aleichem and it's Spanish equivilant (the tune and lyrics)? We have forgotten the Spanish lyrics which stymies our search.

Thank you 208.120.146.237 15:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Simon and Tehilah Eisenstadt-Feil[reply]

inspite of rise in prices of real estate in chennai, people who need money are not willing to sell their property for money.why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.149.32 (talk • contribs)

Why should they sell their property? I've heard that a kidney can fetch a nice price - why doesn't everyone sell those? Everyone has their own opinion on what they are willing to part with. -- Kainaw^(what?) 16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The real estate boom probably acts a disincentive to sell properties since people see it as a good investment and may even be willing to borrow to keep their investment Nil Einne 17:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a world-wide phenonmenon, not limited to Chennai. For most people, the only property they own is the house they live in (with or without farm land attached). If they sell that in boom times, where do they live? You just have to put the money right back into the same high market. It is the rare family who can sell high, and move either to an area where property is cheaper, or to a rental place and wait for the market to go down again, which is not something you can count on in real estate. The ones who benefit from a rising or strong property market are those who are down-sizing (though the smaller place is, relatively speaking, still at a boom price for its size), those who are leaving the area, and those for whom property is not their living space but merely an investment. The latter tend to sell out of high markets and buy into lower ones where they predict an upward trend. That's a simplistic view, but reasonably accurate. Bielle 18:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article about the order of admittance of the various states says that North and South Dakota became states on the same day in November, 1889, upon the signature of President Cleveland. But the President at that time was Benjamin Harrison. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.213.33.2 (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but it would be nice if you could sign your comments (see Wikipedia:Sign) Nil Einne 17:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The President when the bill was passed was Grover Cleveland, but it's an easily made mistake. Prior to the 20th Amendment, Presidential terms began on March 4 (see Inauguration Day and similar articles). The bill was passed on February 22, 1889 according to the North Dakota article, so Cleveland would have been in office for his first term for approximately ten more days. –Pakman044 17:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A follow-up is that Harrison signed the proclamations on November 2, 1889 (he was definitely sworn in by then!), but the actual order of the Dakotas is unknown since he the names were obscured (see South Dakota#History). –Pakman044 19:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about US demographics but was a bit surprised to find out in reference to an earlier question that the U.S. District of Columbia is nearly 60% black. Why is this? Do they make up such a large percentage of the bureaucrats and other public servents who I presume make up most of the people who work there? I'm not surprised that the percentage of public servents who are black is higher then the general US demographics but 60% seems awfully high to me. Or do a greater percentage of the people who work there who are right live outside the DC, perhaps because of generally better economic circumstances? A combination of these? Something I'm missing? Nil Einne 17:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unsusual demographic, but most of the people who are in power in Washington work there, but don't live there, which seriously skews the makeup of the area. –Pakman044 17:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really unusual at all. Blacks are concentrated in certain urban areas in the U.S. The U.S. as a whole: 12% black, New York City 28%, Chicago 31%, Kansas City 31%, Atlanta 59%, Detroit 82%. Rmhermen 17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the people in power (presuming you mean the politicians and their top advisors and stuff) would only make up a tiny percentage of the people who work there anyway I presume (according to Washington, D.C. the population is 600k) Nil Einne 18:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 410,000 commute into the District every workday, increasing the population by 72%. It's the largest commuter destination in the U.S. after New York City, and I assume the largest compared to the host population. Anyone with a family and means tends to run away from the horrific educational system for the suburbs of Virginia and Maryland. (This also tends to be why D.C. scores highly on "young, fun and single" surveys by magazines interested in such things.) The whites and other non-blacks are concentrated in the northwest quadrant of the city, and around Capitol Hill, while northeast and southeast are almost entirely black, with some notable exceptions like the affluent enclave clustered around Eastern Market Metro station and some encroaching gentrification on some northern Metro stops. (There is no southwest.) - BanyanTree 07:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an largely artifact of how the political boundaries are drawn; there's nothing particular about the demographic distribution of the whole area. DC is the old dense urban core at the centre of the Washington Metropolitan Area. With White flight in the '70s many whites moved out of the central city and into surrounding suburbs, just as they did in many other US cities. It's really pretty arbitrary which cities encompass a huge area (including all their suburbs) in the same political unit, and which don't. DC is 68 square miles, San Francisco is even smaller at 47. But Philadelphia is 142 square miles, Detroit 143, Chicago 234, and Dallas a whopping 385. So the big difference between DC and say Chicago isn't some major difference in population distribution, but simply that much of the suburbs of Chicago is counted as "Chicago", while much of the suburbs of DC aren't counted as "DC", but as parts of Maryland and Virginia. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that addresses the question. In fact I don't understand it. Chicago hasn't annexed any neighboring towns since the late 19th century, half a century or more before white flight and some of those former towns like Pullman and Roseland (97.8% black!) are the most black areas of Chicago. Even the southern "inner ring cities" like Phoenix, Harvey, Dolton all have very high percentages of black citizens. ..."much of the suburbs of Chicago is counted as "Chicago"... is simply wrong. It may be counted as Chicagoland but is not counted as the City of Chicago. Rmhermen

I also must disagree. The far north, south and west sides of Chicago have significant populations of African Americans. Moreover, they do not resemble the suburbs in terms of population density or other factors (Take Rogers Park, for example, on the border of Evanston.)

Perhaps Finlay is thinking of New York City, where Staten Island and parts of Queens and the northern part of the Bronx could be said to resemble a suburb, at least physically, with their detached houses and lawns, look a bit like the suburbs, especially when compared to the City. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at metro areas. 26% of the people in the Washington metropolitan area in 2000 were black. In the New York area, it was 24.6%; Philadelphia, 20.1%; Chicago, 18.9%; Boston, 7%; L.A., 9.8%; Atlanta, 28.9%; Birmingham, Ala., 30.1%. So while the Washington area, being close to the South, has a somewhat larger black population than most big cities, the real reason DC itself is 60% black is because many of the Washington area's black neighborhoods are in the District. -- Mwalcoff 22:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of you guys ever read any of the main Nazi newspapers, published before and during the Third Reich? I would be interested to know what some of the more unusual themes were, and how propaganda was used and developed. Thanks in anticipation. Captainhardy 17:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I skimmed through years' worth of Volkischer Beobachter, though only up to 1933, and Der Angriff for the period from about 1927 to 1935. I have also looked at Der Sturmer, though a few editions of this was about as much as I could stomach.

The diet presented in Beobachter is fairly consistent: lots of stuff on the Versailles 'Diktat', the failings of the Weimar Republic, and the twin dangers of Judaism and Communism. Lots of reports, too, on Hitler speeches and rallies, and very comprehensive electoral coverage, especially from 1929 onwards, when the NSDAP began to make breakthroughs in local and state elections, before the dramatic surge in the Reichstag election of September 1930. Many of the early reports on the inside pages are unintentionally amusing. The biggest danger faced was from the those left in charge of local funds running off with the loot! Street battles with the Communists are also reported with great regularity. Also in the early days there is very little commercial advertising, just small stuff. This changed in 1930, when full page adverts from Shell, Standard Oil and the like begin to appear. Der Angriff shared the same basic themes as Beobachter, though Goebbels' speciality was acute forms of personal abuse, most often directed against Dr Bernhard Weiss, the Jewish Police President of Berlin, regularly lampooned as 'Isador'. Besides Jews, Gypsies were also a target, with reports on their alleged cruelty to animals. I also remember one bizarre report about a clergyman beaten up at a Goebbles' rally, only to apply for Nazi Party membership a few days later! Stürmer has one theme, and one theme only, and it is difficult to believe that normal people could read this stuff and remain normal, and that Medieval nonsense like the blood libel was still being peddled in the twentieth century. Clio the Muse 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, as made clear by the recent Richard Littlejohn documentary for Britain's Channel 4, the blood libel is still alive and well in certain unsavoury sections of the Arab media, along with Arabic translations of Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. --Dweller 12:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also alive in unsavoury sections of the English speaking world, along with English translations of Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And the thought of Richard Littlejohn lecturing anyone on hate-crime is pretty repugnant to me. DuncanHill 13:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As is a lot of racist crap about other races Nil Einne 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any more data on Sir Thomas More campaign against English protestants? Judithspencer 18:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This, Judith, is one aspect of his career that tends to escape popular attention, because it is not at all in accordance with the saintly 'Man for all Seasons.'

In religious and intellectual terms More was highly orthodox. The primary message of Utopia, for example, is the need for order and discipline, not liberty. The society described is totalitarian, about as far removed from present day ideals of freedom as it is possible to get. This is a world where attempts to discuss public policy outwith officially allowed forums are punishable by death.

So More placed great value on the attainment of harmony and on a strict hierarchy of order. All challenges to uniformity and hierarchy were perceived as dangers; and in practical terms the greatest danger, as he saw it, was the challenge that heretics posed to the established faith. The most important thing of all for More was to maintain the unity of Christendom. The Lutheran Reformation, with all of the prospects of fragmentation and discord, was for him a feared and fearful thing.

His own personal counter-attack began in the manner that one would expect from a writer. He assisted Henry VIII with the production of the Defence of the Seven Sacraments, a polemical response to Martin Luther's On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. When Luther replied with Contre Henricum Regem Anglie, with all of the venom and vulgarity of which he was capable, More was given the task of firing off a counter-broadside, which he did in Responsio ad Lutherum. Just as violent and as vulgar as Luther, this book deepenend More's commitment to the forms of order and discipline outlined in Utopia. Heresy was a disease, a threat to the peace and unity of both church and society.

More was more than a writer: he was a lawyer, a politicial and one of the King's chief coucillors, so he was able to give his hatred of heresy some practical direction. His early actions included aiding Cardinal Wolsey in preventing Lutheran books being imported into England. He also assisted in the production of a Star Chamber edict against heretical preaching. Further literary polemics appeared under his name; but his greatest opportunity came in October 1529, when he was appointed Lord Chancellor of England. The task before him was simple enough "Now seeing that the king's gracious purpose in this point, I reckon that being his unworthy chancellor, it appertaineth...to help as much as in me is, that his people, abandoning the contagion of all such pestilent writing, may be far from infection."

Heresy was a cancer, and could only be stopped by burning, of books and of people. In June 1530 it was decreed that offenders were to be brought before the King's Council, rather than being examined by their bishops, the practice hitherto. Actions taken by the Council got ever more severe. In 1531, one Richard Bayfield, a book peddlar, was burned at Smithfield. Further burnings followed. In The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer, yet another polemic, More took particular delight in the execution Sir Thomas Hitton, describing him as "the devil's stinking martyr". The extraordinary persecution only came to a (temporary) stop when More resigned as Lord Chancellor in May 1532. It was the end of Utopia. Clio the Muse 02:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied certain details from Clio's reply to Thomas More. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "dabouke"? In the album notes for the band Spoon, this instrument is listed as being played by band member Brad Shenfeld, but I have not been able to find any information online about the nature of this instrument. All webpages simply reference the bands discography. Any information, including how to pronounce it would be appreciated. Thank you.

216.143.34.194 18:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC) <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">R. Henderson[reply]

If you search google for 打棒 (dabou), you get various instruments where you strike two items together, such as triangles. And the "dabou" listed on this site appear to be two wooden sticks. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the picture, the dabouke appears to be a percussion instrument usually referred to as Claves in English speaking countries. --S.dedalus 01:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All,

I would like to know more about collateral trading and how it works within finance, specifically in relation to hedge Funds. How Collateral Trading desks within Prime Brokerages trade. The more detailed your answer the best it would be.

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muredius (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what you mean by "collateral trading", but take a look at our articles on asset-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and let us know if you have any questions. Marco polo 14:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An alocoholic's life expectancyis shortend by how many years?72.192.157.100 20:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on the quantity of alcohol consumed and the effects of alcohol on the body. Because of the various effects and how each may impact an individual, it is difficult to place a specific number of years. I am also required to tell you that Wikipedia does not give medical advice, and that it is always best to consult a doctor. HYENASTE 02:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

Firstly I wish to congratulate you all who work for this innovative and revolutionary cultural tool called Wikipedia.

I need to do a BROAD RESEARCH (no matter how long it takes) on WORLD CULTURES, ancient and current ones, with the purpose of writing a book (in Portuguese and Esperanto) on World Cultures, with a particular approach that I believe to be IMPORTANT to mankind as a whole.

I would appreciate your help in this matter.

Yours truly,

Mr. Mario FONSECA Brasilia - DF

My e-mail: [EMAIL REMOVED] My phone #: [CONTACT REMOVED] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.41.124.246 (talk • contribs)

You haven't actually asked a question, and we do not do homework. What we do do is answer specific questions.

Have a nice day,

The Rhymesmith 21:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Fonseca, your contact details have been removed to help protect you from spam and hoax calls/emails. Answers to questions are answered here, rather than through email. If you could be a bit more specific in what you need, it would help editors to help you - are there particular aspects of world cultures that you need information on? Are you looking for a broad overview, or for specific details? The more information you can give - the more you are likely to get! By the way, it's good to always sign your question/comments here, you can do this by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. I've left a Welcome pack at your talk page - this has useful hints on using Wikipedia. DuncanHill 21:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "culture" can mean varied things. Do you mean "societies"? Surely, if you're going to write a book on the subject, you'd find it very easy to construct such a list... maybe that's why we're finding it very hard to help you. Can you be more specific? If your English is weak, feel free to post in Portuguese and one of our linguists will translate. --Dweller 12:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite an amazing story. With the recent High court decision to discontinue holding CFA Exams in India, the extent of competition & Stress on the educational forefront will significantly reduce it is definitely a great respite as the turnout consequently undermines the value of the degree..

Is there something you wish done with this information?

The Rhymesmith 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my ignorance, but I have no idea what CFA Exams are in this context – presumably not those of the article with the title CFA Exam.  --Lambiam 07:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it appears it is [18] Nil Einne 12:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently discovered your article on japanese family crests and was wondering if there was someone that could tell me where the origin of the information came from/if there was anyone i could contact about my own crest?--Soltisk 01:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The article in question is Mon (badge).  --Lambiam 08:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

At the bottom of the page you can see the references linked to the article. Lanfear's Bane

In the Bangladeshi Parliament, how many seats does it have and what does these seats represents?, like for example, if you look at Canadian gov't, its seats are representing its ridings that MPs are from like for ex. Jack Layton of NDP is from Toronto-Danforth riding.

See Jatiyo Sangshad, and please remember to search first - as it is a relatively simple piece of information which may not have taken long to find, via Politics of Bangladesh then following the links on that page!martianlostinspace 09:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

multi-national corporations leads to neo imperialism and uneven development

please give some light over this and please help me with examples case studies etc

You'll find "classic" examples by proponents of this idea as being McDonalds, Nike and Coca-Cola. Contrast the latter with Mecca Cola. Issues you'll want to look at include sweat shops and fair trade, comparing Nestle and one of the fair trade chocolate or coffee companies for the last. Oh, and next time, please sign your question by typing four "tildes" after it (like this ~~~~) Cheers! --Dweller 12:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also free trade, World Trade Organization, North American Free Trade Agreement, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, austerity. Neutrality^talk 23:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And neoliberalism, globalization, anti-globalization, alter-globalization, debt forgiveness. Neutrality^talk 23:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can Clio, or some other knowledgeble person, please have a look at the page on the Anglo-German Naval Agreement? There is something seriously wrong here. Is there anything to back up the claim that the Agreement sacrificed control of the Baltic to the Germans? A major objection to this article has been raised on the talk page, but it has not been answered. S. J. Blair 11:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This text [19] does not appear to mention the Baltic at all. DuncanHill 11:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a citation needed to the relevant part of the article, and also an external link to the agreement text as given above. DuncanHill 11:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AS Brown's thesis on the talk page would be a start. He can state, quite categorically, the claim about the Baltic is absolute rubbish. It would be a mistake to ignore someone who studied this at university, and has read the treaty text "a thousand times".martianlostinspace 11:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "...the British gave up naval mastery in the Baltic to Germany through the Anglo-German naval agreement of June 1935..." Aselius, Gunnar (2004) The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Navy in the Baltic 1921-1940, p. 118 citing "The Royal Navy and the Strategic Origins of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement 1935", Journal of Strategic Studies, 20(2) (June 1997).
• "Admittedly the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of June 1935 showed that the Admiralty had effectively abandoned the idea of intervention in the Baltic by the British fleet." Hiden, John, Patrik Salmon (1994) Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the Twentieth Century, p. 99.
• "...German domination over the Baltic which the Anglo-German naval agreement tacitly conceded in 1935." Reddaway, W.F. (1940) Problems of the Baltic, p. 58.
• "The Anglo-German Naval Agreement, he said, went along with Hitler's strategy of rapprochement with England and at the same time "gave Germany domination of the Baltic and de facto recognition" of the breaching of the Treaty of Versailles." Offner, Arnold A. (1969) American Appeasement: United States Foreign Policy and Germany, 1933-1938, p. 173. Quoting William Edward Dodd.
• " The British, overburdened by world-wide commitments and multiple threats, were forced to make some hard choices. The Anglo-German Naval Agreement of June 1935 was one such choice. As mentioned before, the British signed the agreement because German adherence to the global system of qualitative naval limitation would further the Admiralty's programme for defending British sea supremacy. Outwardly, however, the agreement appeared to condone Hitler's blatant violation of the military clauses of the Treaty of Versailles. It also appeared to signal British indifference to the strategic situation of the small northern states, particularly in the Baltic. As Laurence Collier, the head of the Foreign Office's Northern Department, lamented in July 1935, the bad impression made by the naval agreement in the region 'seems to be deepening and spreading'." Hobson, Rolf, Tom Kristiansen, Frank Cass (2004) Navies in Northern Waters, 1721-2000, p. 195.

—eric 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost I think eric should be commended for the tremendous work he has done in digging out these references.

Now to the main point. I agree completely with S. J. Blair and A. S. Brown that there is, to put it mildly, a serious problem with this page. Inferences are made which cannot be supported in fact, the above sources notwithstanding. The suggestion that Britain agreed to withdraw its navy from the Batlic as part of the 1935 Agreement is both false and misleading. Such an inference might be made, but this does not make it an established fact. According to Grunnar (op cit, 2004) Britain 'gave up naval mastery in the Baltic.' All I can say here is that this is a statement verging on the absurd. How could Britain give up what it did not have; and what it most assuredly did not have in 1935 was 'naval mastery of the Baltic'. Such mastery could only be achieved if Britain somehow knocked out Denmark, as it did in 1801 and 1807 during the Napoleonic Wars. Otherwise any British naval force operating in these waters, far from home and with no bases, risked being cut off and destroyed if the Germans occupied Denmark, and thus attained control of the vital passages of the Skagerrak and the Kattegat, a point made by A. S. Blair.

I also have to ask, as far as the Wikipedia treatment of this subject is concerned, where on earth does the quotation from Hitler in the first paragraph come from? Also, anyone reading the article is led (by the nose) to the conclusion that the Kriegsmarine somehow became a third as strong as the Royal Navy virtually overnight, at a time when it was weaker than the Russian Baltic Fleet, at a time when it possessed no battleships, few submarines and even fewer crusiers and destroyers. Indeed, even after the outbreak of war in 1939 the Germans had only 57 U-boats for every theatre of operation. The Navy envisaged in 1935 existed on paper only; this should not need to be said, but it clearly does.

So, perhaps a few background facts might help to understand where the Agreement fits, in naval strategy, in politics and in international diplomacy.

Politically the seeds of the Naval Agreement are to be found on Mein Kampf, of all places. It was Hitler's belief that the naval and foreign policy of the Kaiserreich had been a mistake; that the quest for overseas colonies had been wrong, as had the naval programme that followed from this, because it caused a clash with Great Britain. It was his belief, moreover, that Britain was one of Germany's 'natural allies', and a limitation of Germany's naval ambitions was one way to achieve a basis for mutual understanding. Supplementray to this, a bilateral arrangement between Britain and Germany had the advantage of undermining both the Stresa Front and the arms provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. The agreement of 1935 was held to be one of Joachim von Ribbentrop's great diplomatic coups; but, as always, Ribbentrop only ever kicked at doors that were already open.

As early as 1933 the British Admiralty had entertained the prospect of an arms agreement with Germany, for the simple reason that ever since the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 it no longer had the same capacity to deal with worldwide problems. In the mid-1930s Japan was seen to be a greater danger than Germany. The cabinet accepted this reasoning, and the idea of a naval limitation agreement was raised by Sir John Simon when he visited Berlin in March 1935. The agreement was thus concluded because it was in Britain's strategic interests to do so, and was pursued despite the temporary rupture it was to cause with the French. It was thus no more than an act of political and strategic realism. It was never implied or suggested that the Germans thereby would obtain control of any of the European waters.

In the end the Naval Agreement was one bargain that Hitler stuck to, if by default only. There was indeed a plan for significant expansion favoured by Erich Raeder and those of the old Admiral Tirpitz school; but it was far from completion in 1939, and the question of naval armaments was not uppermost among Hitler's priorities. He was later to consider scrapping the surface fleet altogether and switching the whole emphasis of German naval warfare on to the U-boat arm.

Please forgive me for going on at such length, guys. All this boils down to one simple fact: the Wikipedia page on the Anglo-German naval agreement verges on the intellectually worthless. The point can be made about possible German domination of the Baltic, but it should be considered under a heading of general implications. She says it as she sees it! Clio the Muse 00:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may have done a disservice to Gunnar by using the quote you took issue with. He is of course looking at the issue from a Soviet perspective, and explaining a shift in their strategic planning in early '35. Prior to this the theoretical war was a Great Power invasion through the border states with a neutral Germany, and where the Royal Navy would be dominate in the Baltic. Events of '35 forced the Soviets to consider war with a rearmed Germany. Still, he does say that the British "gave up naval mastery", and mentions that they ceased all friendly calls to Baltic ports for some time after signing the agreement.

Aren't you and A. S. Brown getting ahead of yourselves a bit? Fleets do not come into being overnight, but neither do armies and air forces which can invade Denmark and close the Baltic in two hours. The agreement was only three months after the beginning of rearmament and two months after Stresa. Your argument is that the Royal Navy could not have fought in the Baltic in 1935 because of the threat of a German invasion of Denmark, but really, could the German army have done any such thing at the time? Why couldn't the British dominate the Baltic when Germany was still limited by Versailles? and wasn't this agreement one of the first real indications that they would not be in the future?

By the way, found a couple more mentions of the British "agreeing" to exit the Baltic due to the agreement: Swedish iron ore during World War II#Background and British submarine flotilla in the Baltic#Aftermath. I hadn't seen that claim when i added the above, and wasn't trying to support it with those citations.—eric 22:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not assume you were! The fundamental point here is that the article in linking the Anglo-German Naval Agreement with alleged 'withdrawal' from the Baltic is grossly misleading. In operational terms the British could only truly 'dominate' the Baltic if they had both bases and control of the narrow straits; otherwise this bottle-neck could be lethal; and by the summer of 1935 the Luftwaffe, formally reinstated in February, had enough planes to cause serious damage. But the point about naval mastery was meant to be understood as a long-term strategic concept. The article is still atrocious, as you yourself have rightly noted on the talk page. Clio the Muse 02:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read this book a while back, very thick, author was relatively well-known, Stalin himself was one of the characters within the novel, there was an artist (I believe?) and there's a wiki article on it. I appreciate that the parameters here are fairly broad, but if anyone could help me find the name of the novel that'd be stupendous.

AlmostCrimes 12:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The First Circle could be what you are looking for. DuncanHill 12:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That or The Gulag Archipelago, although The First Circle is probably it. Utgard Loki 14:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might find One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich interesting, although I don't see Stalin or an artist, just the people in the camp. Edison 16:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This can not be anything other than The First Circle, which does indeed feature Stalin. Clio the Muse 22:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so it is. Thank you! AlmostCrimes 23:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, Mohammed, the Budha and all the other founders of a religion. Did they crack any jokes, did any of them have a good sense of homour? Which one would have made the best stand-up comedian. Willy turner 14:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Infancy Gospel of Thomas makes him sound like a bit of a bad egg at times. Child Jesus indicates he was excellent at killing off his playmates. Some people might consider the exploits and fictional writings of L. Ron Hubbard amusing. Lanfear's Bane

Child Jesus doesn't link to a text. Which one did you intend? Rmhermen 15:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Whose name is on the coin?" is a joke. Jesus pretends not to know whose name or face is on the Roman coin. Now, this is irony, in its strictest form, but it is also a witty play. The question is, though, why would the authors of the Gospel preserve light hearted comments? They were trying to preserve the teachings and lessons, and they didn't have the desire, space, or paradigm of a biography. As for others, it depends on what you consider a religion. Some koans may be jokes, although whether these are by Siddhartha or not I wouldn't venture a guess. Laughing Buddha is proper enough, but I think that is the laugh of deatchment rather than knee slapping. Utgard Loki 14:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some books on Jesus and humor (I haven't read any of them):

The Humor of Jesus: Sources of Laughter in the Bible by Earl F. Palmer, Regent College Publishing (April 2001), ISBN-13: 978-1573831802

The Humor of Christ by Elton Trueblood, Harper & Row San Francisco; New edition (August 1975), ISBN-13: 978-0060686321

The Humor of Jesus by Henri Cormier, Alba House (December 1977), ISBN-13: 978-0818903564

This site on Mohammed's persona has some quoted examples of his sense of humor. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the Laughing Buddha and the regular Buddha are different Buddhim. --TotoBaggins 19:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere, I remember Luis Bunuel mentioning Jesus roaring with laughter - it was a contextless surrealist image he was invoking in an interview, I think ... until then, I'd never consciously realised that Jesus is never depicted that way - he's at most gently amused, never even raising a chuckle, as far as I can recall. Makes me wonder too, about that kind of laughter; why wouldn't Jesus laugh that way? - because it's undignified? - because it's the kind of laughter that happens at others' expense? Just thought I'd mention it - it's something that's always stayed with me, for some reason Adambrowne666 06:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't religion in itself a joke?

Note: Buddha didn't found a religion but a philosophy. Others after him corrupted it into a religion. DirkvdM 06:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk? Is that OR? It's not what the lead of Buddhism says. And "corrupted" sounds like POV, to boot. --Dweller 07:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Thou art Peter, and on this rock I shall build my church" (Matthew 16:18) is a macaronic pun. Not particularly funny, but it's a joke nonetheless.64.236.80.62 10:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I was reading Bundestag and in particular this part [20]

-I don't really get it, the article seems to contradict itself : "The 598 seats are distributed among the parties that have gained more than 5% of the second votes or at least 3 direct mandates. Each of these parties is allocated seats in the Bundestag in proportion to the number of votes it has received (Largest remainder method).

When the total number of mandates gained by a party has been determined, they are distributed between the Land lists. The distribution of seats between the parties in each Land is proportional to the second vote results: (Largest remainder method)." Does this mean there is a fixed number of seats for each of the sixteen Länder (determined BEFORE the elections?) , and that this number of seats is then distributed between the parties in that Land, according to their results in that land?

I mean, was it determined before the elections that (for instance) Saarland should get 9 seats "nach Zweitstimme" ("after second-votes")

- Suppose people started acting weird on election day, and in all constituencies (or "Wahlkreise") 99.9% of them give their first vote to SPD, but their second vote to CSU. (I know this is unrealistic but you see where I'm going) Would this mean that there are way more people in the Bundestag than expected (like 897 instead of just 598?)

- Can I see a copy of a ballot somewhere? I know there is one in the article (this one : [21]) but the resolution isn't good enough to read all of it.

- Do I understand correctly that for the first vote, parties have exactly one candidate in each constituency, and for the second vote : one list for each Land? How long is that list?

Thank you very very much (I speak some German, but not enough to ask all of this in German)Evilbu 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through de:Bundestagswahlrecht, I have come up with answers to some, but not all, of your questions. It was not clear to me from that article how seats are divided among the Länder. I will post a question about that on the German Wikipedia, though perhaps someone here will provide the answer first. As for your first bulleted (hypothetical) question, if everyone voted for one party on their first vote and a different party on their second vote, you are correct that the Bundestag would end up with 897 seats. As for your second bulleted question, if you double-click the image [22], you will find that the sample ballot enlarges so that it is quite legible. As for your third bulleted question, yes, you understand correctly. For the first vote, each qualified party can offer one candidate in each constituency. For the second vote, each qualified party can offer a list of candidates in each land whose number is equal to the number of seats allocated to that land (though how those seats are allocated, I'm not sure, but presumably according to a census). With such a list, only if a party received no seats through first votes but received 100% of the second votes would every candidate on the party's second-vote list win a seat in the Bundestag. Marco polo 19:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, if you do post the question on the German wikipedia, can you give me the link( here or on my personal page) so I can lurk around a bit as well?:) About the Land list, I did some inquiries. Watch page 206 (out of 294) here[23], and you will see the names of the seven Greens (Grüne) elected in Bayern. However, on that ballot, there are only five names for each party. So where do number six (Anton Hofreiter) and number seven (Elisabethe Scharfenberg) come from?(By the way, this contradicts your last statement about there being only one case in which all names on the second list would be elected) Maybe this can help, the problem is that it's very subtle, and my German might fail me here :

"Die verbleibenden Proporzmandate (bei der Wahl 2002 596) werden entsprechend den bundesweiten Zweitstimmenergebnisssen nach dem Hare-Niemeyer-Verfahren auf die Parteien verteilt, welche die Sperrklausel überwunden haben (bei der Wahl 2002 SPD, CDU, CSU, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen und FDP). Anschließend werden die errungenen Proporzmandate jeder Partei ebenfalls nach dem Hare-Niemeyer-Verfahren entsprechend der Anzahl ihrer Zweitstimmen in den Bundesländern auf ihre einzelnen Landeslisten unterverteilt.

Nach diesem Verfahren ist festgelegt, wie viele Proporzmandate auf die Parteien in jedem Bundesland entfallen. Danach wird ermittelt, welche Kandidaten tatsächlich in den Bundestag einziehen:" Especially that sentence I marked (in bold) is important (I think), but I cannot translate it properly? Evilbu 20:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to help you without causing any more confusion.

• A Proporzmandat is the opposite of a Direktmandat, representatives that have a Proporzmandat come from the Landeslisten, which can be very long (CSU of Bayern or SPD of NRW have probably more than a dozen Proporzmandat representatives). Only the first five candidates are printed on the ballot (parties have to be trated equal and there's not that much space on the ballot). In many cases, candidates run both in a consituency and on the Landesliste. If they win their constituency, earning a Direktmandat, the next person from the Landesliste gets the Proporzmandat.

If you have any more questions, feel free to ask - I still remember the exam I had to sit on the electoral system in high school (!). Your question will also be answered at [24]. You can ask there in English as well if you want to.

Germans always mock the American electoral system but their own is so difficult that you can hardly understand it. --Gnom 20:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that there are more Greens in the Bundestag for Bavaria than were listed on that sample ballot. If you look at the ballot, there are only 5 names listed for each party. I recognize several of the names, although I do not follow German politics closely, so I imagine that these each party gets to choose the top 5 ranked names on its list. (Each party ranks the members of its state (Land) list, such that if there is only one seat for that party in that state, it goes to the top-ranked person on the list, if the party gets 7 seats in that state, they go to the top 7 ranked people on the list, and so on.) Certainly a party like the SPD would have more than 5 names on their list for Bavaria, because, while the CSU will win nearly all of the constituency races in Bavaria, the SPD will get at least 20% of the roughly 80 seats for Bavaria based on second votes. Yet only 5 SPD names appear on the ballot, probably because of space limitations. With the second vote, the point is that you are voting for a party, not for individual members.

As for the German passage that you set in boldface, I agree that it is difficult. Here is a translation: "Subsequently [that is, after the second votes are divided among the parties based on their second vote totals nationwide], the proportional mandates won by each party are likewise subdivided following the Hare Niemayer Process among their individual state lists according to the number of their second votes in the states." I interpret this (along with the preceding sentence) to mean that, first, seats are divided among the parties according to their shares of the second votes on a nationwide basis. Then each party's seats are subdivided (following the Hare Niemayer Process) among its state lists based on the proportion of the party's vote that came from each state. The Hare Niemayer Process is a detail that I don't completely understand, but I think that it is a method of proportional rounding. It is the same as the "Hamilton method of apportionment" described in our article Largest remainder method.

Incidentally, in my previous answer, the words "German Wikipedia" are linked directly to my question on the German Wikipedia reference desk. Marco polo 20:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the German Wikipedia Reference Desk again, where someone (Gnom?) has explained that the votes are divided among the parties based on their nationwide share of the vote, then among the parties' state list based on the number of votes they received in each state. This has the result that the number of seats held by each state depends not on the state's share of the national population, but on the state's share of the second votes cast. So there is no predetermined number of seats apportioned to each state. Marco polo 21:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You people are really kind, you've helped me a lot. Here are some points/extra question I'd like to add:

- I added a link to a map of all 299 constituencies to Bundestag (check the external links)

- The system is indeed a bit different : there are no fixed seats for each Land. But normally, it should be sort of proportional...or maybe not? Because voting is not compulsory in Germany. Suppose that for some reason practically nobody in Bayern would show up on election day, while the turnout is 95% in other Lands? Wouldn't this create some tensions? Do Germans in some or all of the sixteen Länder care about this? Do they feel the responsability to show up and make sure their region gets a lot of seats?

-I checked [25] one more time, and from page 258 on you can see how the system really works (in a very detailed way actually). It's just like you people explained :). That's a pretty neat document, really.

- Where do German voters check those "second lists"? As was explained here, the real lists consist of way more than just five names? - I was also interested in that turbulent period between the opening of the border and "die Wende". Volkskammer gives me the results of the first (and only) free election in the former country of the DDR (in 1990). Is that Party of Democratic Socialism the successor of the communist party? I was wondering if the results of that election (with percentages) are available somewhere? Because I find it amazing that they still managed to get 66 seats (out of 200 seats).

About Germans mocking the USA system, their system might indeed be a bit more complicated, but it's not a really bad system at all, since it guarantees that every region (of that huge country) gets some representation, while people are also able to vote for high profile politicians from somewhere else as well. Be glad that you learned this in school, my country is a double federation with a much more complicated system, and they never bothered to explain it (leaving many voters very poorly informed, even up to the point that they don't know which parlement they are sending people to) Evilbu 00:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the fact that different voter turnouts in different Länder cause any problems at all. German voters don't really check the "second lists" - they vote for the party and that's what it's meant to be: One vote (Direktmandat) for a person and one for a party (Proporzmandat). The fact that you can't vote for Bavarian Landeslisten candidates if you are from Berlin is a fact most voters are ignorant of, but since Germany is a federal state, that's the way it should be. --Gnom 14:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to know what was picassos style of art commonly known as?

See cubism. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cubism was only one phase in Picasso's wide ranging oeuvre. What was Picasso's style of art? Why, from the Blue Period to the late sketches it was only and always Picassoism. Other than that he can not be placed in a single defining category. Clio the Muse 22:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Picassoism lists a number of categories indeed, other categorizations exist as well. "Beyond category" was Duke Ellington's highest form of praise, and it certainly applies to Picasso. If pressured into adding a stylistic attribute to artist, the only one I can think of is modern. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple quiz/homework question that is probably aiming at "Cubism," but Picasso, as Sluzzelin says, was "Modernism." If we were feeling cruel and wanted the OP to get caught, we could say Fauvism, I suppose. Geogre 12:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of philosophical and legal questions regarding a counterargument, I have been thinking of, against the Pro-life movement and misscarriages. I guess, correct me if I am wrong, pro-lifers are appueled by the handeling of aborted fetuses/children at abortion clincs, given that they are handeled as medical waste. What they want are proper burials. And correct me if I am wrong, it is in most countries illigal not to report a corpse to the proper authorities. What do countries, where abortion is forbidden, do with the corpses of spontaniously aborted children, that for instance can be found in sewers or other waste places? Is there a political movement for DNA tracking for the parents to hold them responsible, or only the mother? Is there a philosophical debate about this issue - pro-right defenders who raises these issues for the defender of pro-life to answer?

Sorry for a lot of unstructured questions I would like to investigate this issues more. RickardV 21:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I have start added some comments, I don´t know if it is a faux pas in this forum. My intention is only to probe the issue a bit further. I skip commenting what I find irrelevant (I will not erase it, again.--RickardV 10:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I believe the main objection pro-lifers have to abortion is that they consider it to be murder, not the manner in which the bodies are disposed. StuRat 23:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is probably pro-lifers main objection to abortion. But a lot of spontanious abortions are occuring and given that dead bodies should be disposed in a morally manner - how is it regulated in countries where abortion is illegal? --RickardV 10:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a pro-lifer myself, the prospect of an aborted foetus being the subject of a funeral doesn't sound particularly unlikely as you would make it out to be, though I am aware even many pro-lifers would consider the lack of an abortion for a fetus aborted in the earliest stages of a pregnancy to be quite acceptable. My answer to "do they want proper burials" would be "No, I want every human being to have the right to live the life that they where given, and it never be taken away."

This comment seems to me to miss the point. Any part of a body or corpse have to be handeled by the proper authorities, it seems moraly right to me. --RickardV 10:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for countries where abortion is illegal, lets take Intact dilation and extraction (warning: graphic contents in that link) in the US as a simple example. In 2003, Congress imposed ban on it Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and in April, the Supreme Court declared it was constitutional to do so Gonzales v. Carhart. Now suppose an abortion of that procedure was carried out, illegally by an unliscensed "midwife". Common sense dictates to me that that "midwife" would dispose of the foetus themselves. Reporting it to the authorities would be asking for prosecution, and federal authorities should presumably not find it if a "good enough job" (please excuse my language, I can't find an appropriate way describe a practice which I find morally pathetic) of disposing of it. Hence, not likely to be the state's problem.martianlostinspace 23:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again then did the midwife and her/his assistent do both something wrong, given pro-life? Lets say that the midwife did the abortion but the assistent disposed of the remains. Did the assistent do anyting morally wrong or illegal? --RickardV 10:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only potentially distressing graphic content I could find at Intact dilation and extraction was George W. Bush signing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. In other words, apart from Dubya, there are no images that might offend, just some frank language describing abortion procedures from those who oppose the practice. Rockpocket 00:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct though you may be, I can't imagine that that comment should do other than invite soapboxing or other unproductive discussion, the continuation of which has (not entirely rightly, IMHO) been long since disfavored on the reference desks (one may surely adduce the archives of WT:RD toward that proposition). Joe 05:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the comment was to illustrate that a warning of graphic content usually refers to images. I was surprised to note that martianlostinspace used it to refer to text. I wished to inform readers of this, since one may be interested to read about intact dilation and extraction using a public computer, for example, but not click on the link because of a fear seeing graphic images. The counter-balancing of this point with the idea that one might find a image of the US president offensive was an attempt at humour, at the expense of his unpopularity. I'm sorry you inferred I was soapboxing, but I was not, especially as I never expressed a personal opinion on the issue, unlike the previous respondent (who I don't think was soapboxing either). Rockpocket 07:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I could remember some rather gory pictures in that article! (Should have followed it! Not a hint at GW Bush, though.)martianlostinspace 10:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i was havng a conversation the other day and my father kept incisting that weddings , (as in the union of 2 or more person for the rest of their lives) has always been in all societies , ever . i dont belive this but i dont know much about the history of more than 2000 years ago.

A wedding and a marriage are two separate things, although probably as soon as the concept of marriage was developed weddings tooks place. Neutrality^talk 01:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropologists seem to find marriage rites in all societies. Once we get to pre-history, we can only guess, but marriage seems to have always been there so far as anyone can tell. The better question is whether we are projecting onto mating custom the overlay of "marriage," or if "marriage" is merely a word that covers any bonding with cohabitation. Geogre 12:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a long shot, but I've been searching for any kind of music notation for a piece of music by Conlon Nancarrow called Boogie-Woogie Suite (later assigned the name Study No. 3 a-e). Nancarrow composed it for player piano, and I'm not sure there is any score of the music other than the original piano roll. Still I've searched for some kind of printed notation, but no luck. I'd even be happy to acquire something like scanned images of the piano rolls. So my question is -- can anyone help me find any kind of notated form of Nancarrow's Boogie-Woogie Suite? Thanks. Pfly 11:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an arrangement for human players is acceptable, see this Schott edition – I assume this is or contains Study No. 3 a-e. Our Conlon Nancarrow article further states: "In 1976-77, Peter Garland began publishing Nancarrow's scores in his Soundings journal", and here I see that indeed Soundings 10 Final Issue, Summer, 1976 includes work by Conlan Noncarrow. With some luck, Study No. 3 a-e was included in these scores. A good library should have these issues. You might further inquire at Frog Peak Music, fp@frogpeak·org, if Nancarrow: Collected Studies for Player Piano Vol. 4 (Sou13) contains what you're looking for.[26].  --Lambiam 16:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that doesn't work, perhaps you could ask User:Kylegann, who wrote a book about Nancarrow, for help. (Gann seems to have left wikipedia but there is an email address at his blog.) Skarioffszky 18:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What were the exact circumstances behind the death of the prince imperial, son of Napoleon III, in the zulu war of 1879? Bryson Bill 12:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a detailed account in Queen Victoria's Little Wars by Byron Farwell, published 1973 by Allen Lane. I do not have time to give a full answer at this moment, but will return to this subject when I can. In outline, he had been out sketching, accompanied by a Lieutenant Carey and seven troopers. They stopped at a temporarily deserted kraal, and used part of the thatch to make a fire. No lookout was posted. As they were preparing to leave, about 40 Zulus fired upon them and rushed screaming towards them. The Prince's horse dashed off before he could mount, the Prince clinging to a holster on the saddle - after about a hundred yards a strap broke, and the Prince fell beneath his horse, trampling his right arm. He leapt up, drawing his revolver with his left hand, and started to run - but the Zulus could run faster. He was speared in the thigh, pulled the assegai from his wound, and turned and fired on his persuers, another assegai struck his left shoulder. The Prince tried to fight on, using the assegai he had pulled from his leg, but weakened by his wounds, he sank to the ground and was overwhelmed. When recovered his body had 18 assegai wounds. 2 of his escort had been killed, and another was missing. Lt. Carey and the remaining 4 came together about 50 yards from where the Prince made his final stand - but not a single shot did they fire at the Zulus. Carey led his men back to camp, where he was greeted warmly for the last time in his career - after a court of inquiry, a court martial, intervention by the Princess Eugenie and Queen Victoria, he was to return to his regiment a pariah - shunned by his fellow officers for not standing and fighting. He endured 6 years of social hell before his death in Bombay. The Prince, who had begged to be allowed to go to war, taking the sword carried by the first Napolean at Austerlitz to war with him, and worried his commanders by his dash and daring, was described by Wolseley as "a plucky young man, and he died a soldier's death. What on earth could he have done better?". DuncanHill 12:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, Duncan, your answer, excellent in every degree, could not be that much fuller. I can only offer some additional supporting information.

Louis Napoleon was only allowed to go to Africa by special pleading of his mother, the Empress Eugenie, and by Queen Victoria herself. He went as an observer, attached to the staff of Frederic Thesiger, 2nd Baron Chelmsford, the commander in South Africa, who was admonished to take care of him. Louis accompanied Chelmsford on his march into Zululand. Keen to see action, and full of enthusiasm, he was warned by Lieutenant Arthur Brigge, a close friend, "...to avoid running unecessary risks. I reminded him of the Empress at home and his political party in France."

Chelmsford, mindful of his duty, attached the Prince to staff of Colonel Richard Harrison of the Royal Engineers, where it was felt he could be active but safe. Harrison was responsible for the column's transport and for reconnaissance of the forward route on the way to Ulundi, the Zulu capital. While he welcomed the presence of Louis, he was told by Chelmsford that the Prince must be accompanied at all times by a strong escort. Lieutenant Jahleel B. Carey, a French speaker, was given particular 'charge' of Louis. The Prince took part in several reconnaissance missions, though his eagerness for action almost led him into an early ambush, when he exceeded orders in a party led by Colonel Redvers Buller. Despite this on the evening of 31 May Harrison agreed to allow Louis to scout in a forward party scheduled to leave in the morning, in the mistaken belief that the path ahead was free of Zulu skirmishers. It was a constant feature of the whole campaign for the British to underestimate the capacity of the Zulus, particularly the skill of their light infantry in ambush.

On the morning of 1 June the troop set out, earlier than intended, and without the full escort, largely owing to Louis' impatience. Led by Carey, the scouts rode deeper into Zululand. Without Harrison or Buller present to restrain him, the Prince took command from Carey, even though the latter had seniority. At noon the troop was halted while Louis and Carey made some sketches of the terrain. Matters then proceeded as Duncan has described, the Zulus running out with shouts of uSuthu! (kill). Louis was struck in the leg by an assegi, thrown by a man named Zabanga from the uMbonambi regiment. Further spears followed, thrown by Zabanga and several of his fellow warriors. After death the Prince was ritually disemboweled by one Hlabanatunga, a common Zulu practice to prevent his spirit seeking revenge on his killers in the afterlife.

Louis Napoleon's death caused an international sensation, and in one slanderous account Queen Victoria was accused of deliberately arranging the whole thing. Zabanga, his chief assailant, was killed in July at the Battle of Ulundi. Eugénie was later to make a pilgrimage to Sobuza's kraal, where her son died. Clio the Muse 01:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent Le Tour de France doping controversy, I got to thinking. I've read the reason for these homologous transfusion discoveries may be mistakes, they were supposed to transfuse their own blood but there was a mixup and transfused someone else's. This go me thinking, if this sort of thing happens, has there been any cases when sports people have either died or at least required treatment due a mixup and the transfusion incompatible donor? It would seem not that unlikely given that I would guess they don't bother to test the blood if they think it's theirs. Nil Einne 12:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Marx spent a good bit of his life living in England. Much of his work is based on research he carried out in the British Library. There is a little in your page about about Marx on his life in England, but it would be interesting to learn some more, on his personal experience, his reaction to British politics and so on. Did he hope, for example, that their would be a revolution; how did he see the chartists and the rise of the trade unions and so on? Sorry if this seems too much of a tall order but all information would be gratefully received. Tower Raven 16:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm not really an expert, but I remember reading a book he co-authored with Engels called On Britain where he writes in some detail about his thoughts on the nature of the British economy. I seem to remember that he originally believed that Britain would be the first country to become communist as it was, at the time, arguably the most industrialised society in the world. Fortunately he was wrong. Strangely, and disappointingly, the book seems to be out of print and is pretty hard to find information on. Maybe my memory is faulty. If you can find it, you may find it a very useful source for his thoughts on the country. Sorry I can't give you a more complete answer. Anyone else? TreeKittens 19:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, nearly. It's Articles on Britain by By Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels. Published by Beekman Books, 1971. ISBN 0846401533. I think thats what I was talking about. It seems it has a chapter on the chartists and so on. Hope that helps a little. TreeKittens 20:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Marx in London: boils on his backside, harvested from hours spent in the reading room of the British Libary, an afflication for which he swore that the capitalists would pay!

Marx and family arrived in England in August 1849, settling in Dean Street, in the Soho district of London. He arrived 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 revolutionry 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 00:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading that makes me proud to be British. Much more is achieved by gradual change than revolutions as Burke and Orwell well knew. I do sometimes wonder what Marx would have made of the way his ideas were put into actions in revolutions as Marxism turned out to be a much better theory than a practice. Cyta 07:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which king said to his soldiers in battle 'rouges do you want to live forever?' SeanScotland 18:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you mean rogues, this has been attributed to Frederick II of Prussia, better known as Frederick the Great.  --Lambiam 18:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exact quotation is Ihr Racker, wollt ihr ewig leben?, (Rascals, do you want to live forever?) words Frederick shouted at the Prussian Guard Regiment after it hesitated to advance at the Battle of Kolin in June 1757, one of the engagements of the Seven Years War. Clio the Muse 22:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Rasczak said "Come on you apes. You want to live forever?" Lanfear's Bane

i am just trying this out so my question is who created the verizon wireless company?

Did you look at the Verizon article? Donald Hosek 18:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the news: "On July 17, the remembrance day of the Russian Royal Family, the Union of Orthodox citizens prayed for renaming of the metro station Voikovskaya that was named after Peter Voikov, a Soviet commissar who was directly relevant to the death of Nicholas II of Russia and their family."[27]

I'm seeking details about Voikov's involvement in the regicide/infanticide in order to incorporate them into our article. All I know is that this former Menshevik was killed in Warsaw and lies buried on Red Square. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A google book search revealed little other than Voikov apparently liked to boast of his role in the assassination of the royals and it was his role in the assassination that led to his own death (The Secret File of Joseph Stalin: A Hidden Life by Roman Brackman). There were some potentially helpful works that turned up that had limited access, so it might be worthwhile pulling references out of Google Books and then heading to the library. Donald Hosek 20:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Voikov was born in 1888. The son of a mining engineer, he became involved in revolutionary activity at an early age, and was expelled both from grammar school and later from the St. Petersburg Mining Institute. He went into exile in Switzerland, where he graduated from the University of Geneva. On returning to Russia in August 1917 he joined the Bolsheviks, and was appointed People's Commissar for Government Supply for the Ural region in 1918, where he was known by his party code name of 'Intellectual'. He subsequently became an important member of the Ural Soviet. He knew N. N. Ipatiev, and had visited the house before it was selected as the final residence of the Romanovs. It seems to have been on the basis of information supplied by Voikhov that Ipatiev was summoned to the office of the Soviet at the end of April 1918 and ordered to vacate what was soon to be called 'The House of Special Purpose.' Clearly party to the decision to murder the royal family, Voikov was given the specific task of arranging for the disposal of their remains, obtaining 150 gallons of gasoline and 400 pounds of sulphuric acid, the latter from the Ekaterinburg pharmacy. After the killings he was to declare that "The world will never know what we did with them." His role in the affair was fully investigated by the commission set up after the White Army captured Ekaterinburg from the Bolsheviks. Voikov was appointed Soviet ambassador to Poland in 1924, and was assassinated in Warsaw in 1927 by a Russian monarchist for his part in the killing of Nicholas and his family. You will find all of this information, Ghirla, in The Last Tsar: the Life and Death of Nicholas II by Edvard Radzinsky and Nicholas and Alexandra by Robert K. Massie. If you need the page references please let me know. Clio the Muse 22:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the article on this - it is one of the most important political organizations in China, the two most recent presidents were members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.98.44 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit! Just click on All-China Youth Federation, and add whatever content describes it best. I've added a stub in case you haven't registered yet (you have to get a free registration to create new articles). --TotoBaggins 22:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article and have run into a dead end research-wise. The article has two major holes: it needs more on long hair in non-western cultures, and on more contemporary, popular culture. I'm just at a loss as to where to get this information. Wrad 00:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrad, you might find some of what you are looking for in Hair: its Power and Meaning in Asian Cultures edited by A. Hiltebeitel and B. D. Miller, and Hair: Untangling a Social History by P. H. Jolly and G,. M. Erchak. I'm not sure if this is really your thing, but you might care to note that some of the 'hair history' could do with a trim! The bit about Cavaliers and Roundheads, for example, is not quite right. Clio the Muse 02:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources. How is it wrong? It's exactly what my source said. Perhaps it's just a small POV problem? Wrad 03:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at him, and him, and him. What have these men in common? Why, they are all 'roundheads'. There were some in the Parliamentary faction who adopted short hair, though not many and only in the early days. It was never a major point of difference, or dispute, between the two sides. In general, the myth of the long-haired Cavalier and the short-haired Roundhead is just that-a myth. There were also many on the Royalist side just as devout as the Parliamentarians-it's just that they expressed their feelings about religion in a different way. Clio the Muse 05:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank god, one thing that bothered me about my support of the Royalists was that the Parliamentarians had much better hair cuts. Now I know they weren't the 17th century's skinheads I can simply dismiss them as boring puritans and regicides! Cyta 07:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For long hair in popular culture, you can't beat Hair (musical), and the title song Hair (song): [28]. You might also want to look up particular styles of long hair, like dreadlocks. StuRat 06:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know anything about the Saint Pol conspiracy of the fifteenth century? Sorry to be so vague. Stockmann 11:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking on an online image library for an image related to the keyword 'justice'.

among other things, it's thrown up an image which appears to be 2 interlinked 's' shapes - one on top of the other.

can anyone please tell me whether this is a well-known symbol representing 'justice' or 'the law' - or something similar?

thanks 83.104.131.135 12:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Scales of Justice", although not mentioned in the justice article. Lanfear's Bane

I always thought that meant an actual set of scales (ie something you'd use to weigh with) - you're sure we're talking about the same thing? I can try to give a link to the image if reqd. thanks 83.104.131.135 12:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]