Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 28

List of people who died while testifying before Congress?

Kip Siegel died of a stroke while testifying before a U.S. Congressional committee. Has anybody else died while testifying before Congress? How common is it? I would guess it would not be too uncommon since it must be very stressful, but I hadn't heard of it before reading about Siegel. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OK—I found another by Googling "'died while testifying' congress". Randolph E. Paul apparently died while testifying to Congress in 1956. I've found a few lists of people who died in court, but that's not what I'm interested in. Any others? --98.217.18.109 (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not witnesses, but U.S. Representatives Edward Eslick and Morris Edelstein died while addressing the House of Representatives. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Edelstein's article says he died in the Congress building, not in the House of Reps per se; he finished his speech, walked out, and collapsed in the cloak room and died a short time later. Another case I know of, in a different House of Reps, was the first Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives, Sir Frederick Holder, who collapsed and died while speaking from the chair. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

John Quincy Adams died in the Speaker's Room of the Capitol, having had a seizure while about to make a speech. Corvus cornix_talk 19:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So I wouldn't be wrong then in thinking this is fairly rare, to die while a witness before Congress? (I'm interested in Siegel in particular, so it's relevant to me that he's one of the few few people who died in this manner; it did, incidentally, get a brief spot on the front page of the Washington Post at the time). --98.217.18.109 (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

HOW DID THE draft SUCCEED???

Hello I am interested in understanding how conscription was justified during the Vietnam war in the United States. The draft law at the time said that mandatory conscription was only allowed during times of declared war. BUT, Vietnam "war" was a police action, and Congress never formally declared war! How come nobody brought this up when the draft was enacted??????????????--Goon Noot (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

United States v. O'Brien states that a ban on burning draft cards was okay--let alone the draft itself.--71.105.244.219 (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

...and on the same day, the Supreme Court refused to consider two cases that argued your point, GoonNoot: Holmes v. United States, 391 U.S. 936, and Hart v. United States, 391 U.S. 956. --71.146.162.148 (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Congress made a formal declaration of war in the case of the Civil War either, but there was definitely conscription in the 1860's... AnonMoos (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I question the accuracy of your statement that "The draft law at the time said that mandatory conscription was only allowed during times of declared war." See Conscription in the United States which says that the draft continued in effect in the US through the 1950's and 1960's even before the Vietnam War. The last draftees reported or duty in 1973. There was no requirement for a declared war. The first peacetime draft was in 1940. Edison (talk) 05:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Joining the US Marine Corps

How long does it take from the time that I contact a recruiter to the time that I can join the Marine Corps on a full-time basis? I need to know this because I want to notify my apartment manager 1 month in advance.--71.105.244.219 (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Best to ask the recruiter! AllenHansen (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You might also ask `an acquaintance of mine. —Tamfang (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Taare Zameen Par

I've asked this on the Entertainment desk also. Does the movie Taare Zameen Par have any relevance with identity and how it is formed? thx. The Updater would like to talk to you! 08:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ubuntu

Looking at our article on Ubuntu (philosophy), I noticed this comment in the talk page. [1] Now I find it hard to imagine what possible philosophical criticism there could be of a philosophy that seems so 'nice', and the user never added anything further to the article or talk page. They left Wikipedia, so I can't ask them what they meant, and I can't find any criticism online (although everything is a bit swamped by Linux). So, does anyone know what philosophical criticisms there are of Ubuntu? I can imagine there might be criticisms of how things work in practice, although I can't find those either, but of the basic philosophy? Skittle (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There are those who view life as a grim malthusian struggle between isolated individuals, and that human progress is born of competition more than cooperation. Ubuntu is fundamentally about one's relationship with society; if you believe, like Mrs Thatcher said that (and I appreciate she's somewhat misquoted) "there is no society", then Ubuntu seems like dewey-eyed collectivism. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Those who uphold the principle of ubuntu throughout their lives will, in death, achieve a unity with those still living.

I selected that quotation at random from the article, Skittle, and can imagine just how Ludwig Wittgenstein or A J Ayer would have dealt with such woolly-minded nonsense. Philosophy is not about being ‘nice’; it’s about making meaningful statements about the nature of thought and experience. On the other hand maybe it’s all just ‘Pie in the Sky’! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I should have been a little clearer. I can see how you could think things didn't really work like that, but it seemed like the person was saying Ubuntu was a Bad Thing, a bad philosophy to be following. That's sort of where the niceness came in :) I can see now that if you believe that it impedes progress when people act in this manner, you might see it as a Bad Thing. Thanks both of you :) 130.88.140.43 (talk) 09:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC) (This is Skittle on a public computer today 130.88.140.43 (talk) 09:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

Philosophy is an ambiguous word, and in the case of ubuntu it doesn't refer to the Western scholarly discipline or even to a comprehensive, coherent, and consistent school of thought, but to an ethical doctrine, a contextual approach toward social interaction, a way of life, maybe even a "school" of thought after all :-). The article on African philosophy doesn't even mention ubuntu (not that that means a lot, and its influence has certainly been explored). Perhaps the lemma "Ubuntu (philosophy)" should be modified, but I'm not certain what it should be.

You'll be more likely to find scholary criticism of ubuntu in the field of social conflict studies. Wim van Binsbergen (Erasmus University)has published several papers and articles on ubuntu, see for example Reconciliation - A major African social technology of shared and recognised humanity (ubuntu). ---Sluzzelin talk 11:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I can think of quite a few bulletproof criticisms. For one: on an absurdist/nihilist existential level or just a cosmic level, human cooperation is pretty meaningless and a pretty dumb thing to have a philosophy about. :D\=< (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but then philosophy is a 'pretty dumb thing to have a philosophy about' from that point of view, and is itself meaningless. Doesn't seem that bulletproof to me. And it wouldn't make Ubuntu bad, just pointless. Thanks Sluzzelin for the link and leads :) 130.88.140.49 (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (Skittle)

The Queen's taste in art and music

This is perhaps a bit of an odd question, but I found nothing conclusive. Does anyone know anything about Queen Elizabeth II's personal preferences in visual art and music? (I mean as a private person, as far as this is possible, not as a patron of the arts).---Sluzzelin talk 12:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We can surmise a bit from her taste in decor - the private cabins (one for she, one for Phil) on HMY Britannia are quite sparely decorated, and in more of a Laura Ashley style than being terribly grand. By some accounts she rather thinks of herself as something of a green-wellie Country Life type. She (as her mother and Anne) is nearly obsessed with horses and dogs, so I rather imagine (this is me extrapolating - little of genuine human insight escapes Buck House's event horizon) that George Stubbs and Edwin Henry Landseer will be her thing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This Time article says "When it comes to Queen Elizabeth's tastes in art, the experts are diplomatic. "Despite her many virtues, interest in art is not one of them," ... "The most she ever did was commission a suite of Formica furniture." Deep in the bowels of Windsor Castle, there is said to be a 1950s room made entirely of Formica. The Queen was so displeased with it that she swore off contemporary art altogether. " -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, coming at the answer from a slightly different angle, you should look at how she managed the repairs to Windsor Castle after the fire. I think that the awful Sir Hugh Casson had a hand in the redesign.--Major Bonkers (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies, Finlay and Major. Smiles and snorts here, you guys have a marvelous monarch! (Still curious about the music) ---Sluzzelin talk 08:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but there's a brilliant story involved. She doesn't like football.

There's a possibly mythical story about the late magician/comedian Tommy Cooper, who apparently met the Queen at a Royal Variety Performance. He asked her "Your Majesty, do you like football?" She replied that she didn't, really. So he asked "In that case, can I have your Cup Final ticket?"

(For those that don't know, the Queen has, on many occasions, presented the trophy at Wembley Stadium)

I love Tommy Cooper stories. And frankly, that one's so good, I don't care if it's true or not, lol. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dweller! The Independent says it happened, "at the London Palladium for the Royal Variety Show back in 1964, a time when entertainers were expected to defer to royalty." See "Just like that! Tommy Cooper's final days". I didn't even really know Tommy Cooper, and just spent some happy minutes watching some of his antics. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that the same show where John Lennon told them to rattle their jewellery instead of applauding? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's always been rumoured that the Queen is a very good pianist and enjoys a wide range of music. I seem to remember, but certainly can't source it, that her tastes in live shows ran to Drama and Musical Comedy. Margaret, on the other hand, particularly enjoyed the ballet. Playing Charades has been a family entertainment for a long time and it is said that HM excels at it. With regards to painting, etc, she appears to have a very good knowledge of the Royal collection, which is quite vast.

Amandajm (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Setting the day of Easter

How was the setting of Easter established, 1st Sunday after 1st full moon after 21st of March?204.182.224.234 (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Easter, the section Date of Easter. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Easter originally inherited the timing of the Jewish Passover, which follows the Hebrew calendar. The Hebrew calendar is based on both the sun and the moon cycles, and uses intercalary months like the West uses leap days, and therefore fluctuates relative to the western calendar. After Christianity expanded to other countries where the Hebrew calendar was unknown some confusion arose, and new rules were formulated (e.g. at the Council of Nicaea) to make sure that everybody celebrated Easter on the same day. The story is complicated, but you can read about it at Easter#Date_of_Easter. --mglg_(talk) 18:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Although in the majority of the years, Easter for the Western Churches occurs at approximately the same date as the Jewish Passover (Pesach), there are some Jewish leap years such as this year, when Pesach will occur about a month after Easter for the Western Churches.Simonschaim (talk) 08:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

noir/mtv

I heard a song which featured a guy talking about MTV in statements such as "MTV is a __". First he used positive remarks, then started to talk negative about it. All I caught is that it's done by a band called, Noir, but Wikipedia showed no results for it. Can someone tell me about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.132.6.33 (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... Well, I know nothing of the band, but try Google-ing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaminglawyer (talk • contribs) 22:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Noir" is René Kristensen's nom-de-guerre. The track MTV (now usually titled My MTV) was first released in 2005, see discogs. Ever since, the scene has been swamped with numerous remixes. Chris Lake, for example, or The Dolphins remix of My MTV on Global_Underground_031. Just google or youtooble "My MTV" + "remix" for plenty of results. (Including lyrics). ---Sluzzelin talk 08:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't understand....

Please, can you see List of countries by population.... Chinese population has a mistake i don't know what happens... and i cant edit because it has an automatic editor. Thanks. Ahmed987147 (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You are better off putting something on Talk:List of countries by population rather than here. I had a look, and it looks OK to me. What do you think is the matter with it? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The population is given in exponential notation, ie 1.x * 10 power 9. This would seem confusing to those who can not interprete this notation, particularly as it is the sole entry in the list to use it. Maybe somebody can fix it. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Message to Ahmed: Exponential notation means that you have to multiply the figure 1.x by 1 billion (equal to 10 to the 9th power and represented as E+9). This gives 1.x billion inhabitants.

Greetings to Down Under. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the page to align China's formatting with the rest of the table. — Lomn 21:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Lomn, and forgive me!, I don't ask at all times!. xD Ahmed987147 (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem; the syntax was quite obtuse in there. — Lomn 17:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but it turns out whether you saw the E-notation in use or not was essentially random: it depended on which server processed the copy of the page that you saw. If interested, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#formatnum. --Anonymous, 00:02 UTC, March 1, 2008.

LaTeX issue

I've been able to resolve most of my problems with using Harvard style citations on latex, but one of them persists. I'm not able to get rid of repetition of author name in case I cite multiple consecutive references of the same author. For example, I get (Wainwright 1982, Wainwright 1988) whereas I want (Wainwright 1982, 1988). I've searched the net for hints on what I should do, but haven't found anything so far. It would be great if someone can help me out with it, or point me to a good source. Thanks a ton! deeptrivia (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC) copied from WP:Reference desk/Computing by flaminglawyer^c 22:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am just starting to get familiar with LaTeX, but this page seems to indicate you can do that using the natbib package with \citep{wainwright82, wainwright88}. --Michael White^T·C 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

February 29

Mestizos

Which Latin American nations have the current population of Mestizos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 00:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Our article Mestizo has everything we know about this subject. -SandyJax (talk) 01:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Mulatto

Which Latin American nation has the current population of Mulatto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 00:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Our article Mulatto has everything we know about this subject. -SandyJax (talk) 01:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Song called "Stickball"

I saw mentioned in a newspaper column [2] a song titled "Stickball", which was described as having sexually themed lyrics and having been recorded in 1973. The article identified the artist as Rod McKuen (although not necessarily the Rod McKuen -- the reference is unclear). A question and answer on Rod McKuen's web site says, "Over the years I've had several songs and even albums banned from radio play and for one reason or another there have been numerous limited editions of my works; but unless I slept more soundly through the seventies than I supposed I don't remember anything having to do with 'stickball.'" [3] Does anyone know who was the writer/performer of the sexually themed song "Stickball" that the column and the question on McKuen's site were referring to? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

enforcement of rules

We learn many rules at early ages. For instance, our first stand in line experience may be in Kindergarten where we are introduced to the "first come, first served" rule. From the moment we are introduced to almost our last breath we rely on this rule to make decisions as to how long we must wait in line, with allowances for exceptions. One exception, however, that we can not tolerate is the failure to enforce the rule such that using line length or line speed as the basis of a decision would become completely unreliable. Where can I find a study on the topic of the consequences of failing to enforce such public rules in terms of the detriment it poses for an orderly society? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.9.109 (talk) 08:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You might look into the literature (on or off the web) on sociological norms, which are largely what you are describing as "rules". --98.217.18.109 (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Also you may want to look into cross cultural studies. The frequency that ques are observed, on how common it is for people to cut in front of ques (and whether that is tolerated or not) etc varies from country to country and from situation to situation Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My question is related to cross cultural studies. Before the 60's civil rights era in America water fountains and sometimes complete bathrooms remained segregated. We were lead to believe this was because of racial prejudice. We find now this may not be the case. The true reason for separation may be that Blacks still do not uphold social norms and continue to spit in water fountains if not on the floor or sidewalk and pee in the bathroom sink or on the floor.

We have observed Blacks intentionally pushing shopping carts through department store isles, sideswiping Whites on their way as if to provoke a response. We have observed Blacks entering fast food restaurants and being served out of turn by Blacks behind the counter, ahead of Whites already in line. We doubt these behaviors result from ignorance of social norms. We believe they are intentional. Whether the work of Mocking Birds or not such aggression and behaviors make the case for separation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.9.109 (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Applied on a larger scale this is tied to the concepts of rule of law and Rechtsstaat, a state governed by the rule of law. Already Plato and Aristotle philosophized about the rule of law and its relevance for society. If there are good and just laws, but they are not enforced, a state of lawlessness results, governed by the "law of the jungle". What I remember reading about the consequences of that, as set forth in a (German?) theoretical political work whose title and author I've forgotten (although the name of Karl Kautsky comes to mind), is that in the absence of a Rechtsstaat, when citizens are subject to the whims of the powers that be and cannot reliably enforce contracts and in general predict the consequences of their actions, this paralyzes economic development, channelling all profits to a powerful few and killing the incentives for economic activity. I don't know if this is in any way relevant to what you are looking for, but perhaps it gives you an entrance for further research.  --Lambiam 08:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky's Politics

I noticed a question above about Chomsky as a junk scientist. Could it not also be said that he is a junk political theorist? Jeff Mutt (talk) 11:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Only in the same way as we could say yours was a junk question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Junk science" implies that it is not really science at all, as defined by a relatively constrained methodology. I'm not sure what "junk political theory" would imply, as political theory is not nearly as constrained in methodology as science. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you consider moral relativism true (the paradox!), normative political theory as a whole is 'junk'. User:Krator (t c) 16:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the Politics of Noam Chomsky, Jeff? I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'junk politics', other than that his standing in the wider academic world has given him an authority here which he does not really deserve.

I find it difficult to answer your question without being polemical, but I will say that, insofar as Chomsky can be identified with anarchism, he shares the same intellectual confusion of others who fall into this category; people like Emma Goldman, who was seemingly unable to distinguish between democracy and fascism. According to the view Chomsky puts forward in American Power and the New Mandarins the United States, his own homeland, is a state not that far removed from fascism, one in need of 'denazification.' Is that junk? Well, I leave you to judge for yourself. It might help you if I give a small example of this kind of confusion shown by others on the left. In 1930 when Heinrich Bruning was appointed to head a minority administration in Germany, supported by the emergency powers of President Hindenburg, Die Rote Fahne, the newspaper of the KPD, declared in banner headlines that 'Fascism is now here!'. Three years later they were to discover just how wrong they had been.

In denouncing one form of 'Fascism' he saw no contradiction in supporting another; or at least no contradiction in signing a petition on behalf of Robert Faurisson, the French Holocaust denier, on the grounds that he was defending the right to free speech. But it was so much more than that: the petition was a document that gave credence to Faurisson, a 'respected professor', 'who has been conducting extensive research into the "Holocaust" question'. There were those on the French left who could not quite believe that Chomsky had put his name to this, assuming that it must be some mistake, or that he had not read what he had signed. When told that the 'respected professor’, was a notorious anti-Semite, who believed, amongst other things, that it was the Jews who had declared war on Hitler, Chomsky insisted that, so far as he could determine, Faurisson was merely an 'apolitical liberal.' In defending himself Chomsky then proceeded into the deepest forms of sophistry, saying that Holocaust denial was not in itself proof of anti-Semitism because "if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite. That suffices to establish the point at issue." What, one has to ask, about those like Faurisson who have studied modern history and still deny the Holocaust?

There are other areas where Chomsky's peculiar blindness, his obsession with American 'corporate Fascism', took him from one true extreme to another. Did you know, for instance, when the New York Review of Books praised François Ponchaud's Cambodia: Year Zero, Chomsky accused it of being guilty of "extreme anti-Khmer Rouge distortions." If there were atrocities in Cambodia, Chomsky continued, they were the result of the American bombing campaign.

This should really come as no surprise, as Chomsky's Manichean politics have continued to place all the good on one side and all the bad on the other; so the good naturally included people like Slobodan Milosevic, as well as Pol Pot. You see, when it comes to any form of action in the world, there is nothing, simply nothing, that the west can do right in the Chomsky scheme of things. I really do not know if this is 'junk' or not; but it is the politics of black and white. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Clio offers the usual right-wing distortions of Chomsky's comments on Cambodia. Fortunately they have been refuted in detail long ago, for example by Christopher Hitchens in his article The Chorus and Cassandra (which also discusses the Faurisson affair with more accuracy). What happened, in short, is that the New York Review of Books published a review by Jean Lacouture of Ponchaud's Cambodia: Year Zero in which the reviewer wrote that the Khmer Rouge had boasted of killing two million people. Chomsky pointed out that the reviewed book didn't say that at all; and that, according to Ponchaud, the US bombings had killed 800,000 people and 1.2 million were killed in the atrocities that followed. Lacouture published a correction. To conclude on the basis of this that for Chomsky "the good naturally included people like (...) Pol Pot" is really very silly. David Šenek (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's most definitely not a distortion that Chomsky called Faurisson "some kind of apolitical liberal", and never offered any meaningful apology or retraction whatsoever for that particular remark (so that those who took objection to the remark can only conclude that Chomsky still stands fully behind it to the current day...). AnonMoos (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is what he wrote:

... it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense. Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort. In support of the charge of anti-Semitism, I have been informed that Faurisson is remembered by some schoolmates as having expressed anti-Semitic sentiments in the 1940s, and as having written a letter that some interpret as having anti-Semitic implications at the time of the Algerian war. I am a little surprised that serious people should put such charges forth -- even in private -- as a sufficient basis for castigating someone as a long-time and well-known anti-Semitic.

Is that really something he needs to apologize for? And to whom? David Šenek (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky could start by apologizing to all those who were offended by the fact that Chomsky described someone whose life seems to be consumed by an obsessive dedication to Holocaust denial activities (and who later prominently attended Mahmoud Ahmadinajad's infamous 2006 "Hitler Didn't Do Anything, But We Sure Do Want To Wipe Israel Off The Map Now" conference in Tehran) as an "apolitical liberal"[sic]. Part of the problem with the way Chomsky does things is that he never seems to offer the slightest meaningful apology or retraction for any past remark -- no matter how problematic other people may find it. Instead, sometimes he merely loftily ignores all objections, while in other cases he indulges himself in a casuistic microparsing of each separate clause and phrase, producing a lengthy justification and commentary with the apparent goal of proving that at no time has Chomsky ever made a mistake. This particular way of doing things ensures that his critics are not appeased, and that past problematic issues are never really resolved, but instead just keep piling up in an ever-growing heap. AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right that Chomsky doesn't seem to enjoy admitting mistakes. But I doubt that that's the reason this old stuff keeps coming up. It's his politics. The Cambodia thing is the most obvious example, there is absolutely nothing there, and yet it's dug up on every occasion to discredit him as a Pol Pot apologist. David Šenek (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I'm in a really good mood tonight: I think I might just offer you all two 'right-wing distortions' for the price of one! No, I simply hate upsetting people; really, I do. So, back I go to the piece dear old Chomsky and Edward Herman, his sidekick, wrote criticising the reports coming out of Cambodia, just to make sure I read it correctly. I seem to remember words of praise for two authors who swam against the 'imperialist' tide, publishing propaganda broadcasts from 'Radio Pol Pot'. Perhaps I was wrong? Perhaps Chomsky is indeed always to be found in the ranks of the just causes, like that of Faurisson.

Oh, I almost forgot; there is one other 'just cause' he aligned himself with, the Serbian crusade during the Bosnian Civil War. For just as he defended Faurisson so, too, did he defend Diana Johnstone, whose book, Fools' Crusade, showed how the deception of the wicked western media only served to provide justification for the wars against Milosevic, wars that were, of course, intended to reinforce the 'hegemony' of the United States. Were the dead of the so-called Srebrenica massacre really dead? No, of course not! How could they be when Chomsky and others described Johnstone's book as 'an outstanding work'? I also seem to remember something about him providing some indirect support for those who maintained that the photographs coming from the Serb concentration camps were forgeries? Or maybe that's me being silly again!

Oh, and finally, as a correction to my perceived right-wing bias, I suppose I should mention the response of Pierre Vidal-Naquet, a prominent radical French historian, to Chomsky's 'defence' of Faurisson;

The simple truth, Noam Chomsky, is that you were unable to abide by the ethical maxim you had imposed. You had the right to say: my worst enemy has the right to be free, on condition that he not ask for the death or that of my brothers. You did not have the right to say: my worst enemy is a comrade, or a 'relatively apolitical sort of liberal'. You did not have the right to take a falsifier of history and recast him in the colours of truth.

But it would seem for Chomsky that the truth, whether in Poland, in Cambodia or in Bosnia is a highly flexible concept. And there I rest! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the facts remain quite simple. Chomsky has never denied the Holocaust, Pol Pot's atrocities or the Srebrenica massacre (Johnstone too, by the way, says she never denied it, as anyone familiar with this affair would know). Both in the case of Faurisson and in the case of Johnstone, he defended their freedom of speech, not the content of their works. So the assertions that for Chomsky "the good naturally included people like Slobodan Milosevic, as well as Pol Pot" and that for him "the truth, whether in Poland, in Cambodia or in Bosnia is a highly flexible concept" are still based on nothing. David Šenek (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

However, Vidal-Naquet has a valid point -- adopting a Voltairean position of defending the right to speak of people whose positions you disagree with does NOT actually require getting all buddy-buddy and chummy-chummy with those who have expressed morally-repugnant views (the way Chomsky sometimes seems to do). AnonMoos (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Mikoyan Purge

I read in the article on Anastas Mikoyan that Stalin was considering him and others for a new purge before he died. I would like to know more about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.104.203 (talk) 14:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am certain you will receive a more detailed and authorative reply, if you're patient. Meanwhile, this is from the Time Magazine 's article given as reference in Wikipedia's article on Mikoyan:

"Yet the day came when Trader Mikoyan's supreme assurance broke down. In the last months of Stalin's life, Mikoyan's name was mentioned in connection with the mysterious "doctors' plot"; in his famed secret speech to the 20th Party Congress, Khrushchev said that Stalin then scathingly "characterized Molotov and Mikoyan" and "evidently had plans to finish them off." (Time Incorporated. 'Russia's Mikoyan: The Survivor. Time Magazine. September 16, 1957. Retrieved on February 29, 2008)

---Sluzzelin talk 15:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There are indications, 217.42, that Stalin was turning against Mikoyan in the period just prior to the Nineteenth Party Congress in October 1952, as well as Vyacheslav Molotov, the other old Politburo stalwart. There was always an element of mistrust and superstition in Stalin's personality, but it became particularly acute towards the end of his life. Mikoyan had been foolhardy enough to show himself less than enthusiastic over the new political line laid out by the leader in his Economic Problems of the USSR. After the Congress, at the Plenum to elect the Presidium and Secretariat, Stalin made sure than both Mikoyan and Molotov were deliberately excluded from the inner Bureau, saying that they were 'scared' of American power. Most ominous of all, he accused them of being 'rightists', linking them with Alexei Rykov, who had been shot in 1938 during the Great Purge. It seems likely that they were only saved by Stalin's death in March 1953. Mikoyan was later to write "It was becoming clear...Stalin wanted to finish with us and that meant not only political, but physical destruction." Clio the Muse (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Into the wild

Why in the film Into the wild the river in Alaska isn't frozen? It has hot water? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.21.234.134 (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen the film, but it really depends what time of year it was and what river it was. Wrad (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think Alaska is constantly frozen? It isn't Antarctica, you know. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. If it's summer, in Fairbanks it could be anywhere from 70 - 90 degrees farenheit on a typical day... Wrad (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Christopher McCandless went there on April (temperature between 20-40 F) and died in the summer. Mr.K. (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it wasn't cold enough to freeze a river, then, to me. Wrad (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Post Cold War

What is a nice long article about post Cold War europe, especially the countries part of the Warsaw Pact. If there isn't one article maybe a category containing post cold war articles. The Cold War category isn't what I'm looking for. I'm really only interested in events after Glasnost and Perestroika in former Yugoslavia and other former communist countries. Thanks, schyler (talk) 15:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest, schyler, that your best strategy would be to look at the articles on the modern history of the individual nations involved in the Warsaw Pact, as well as the pages on Mikhail Gorbachev, the Berlin Wall, the Revolutions of 1989, the Velvet Revolution, the Romanian Revolution of 1989 and the Breakup of Yugoslavia. I suppose I should also mention Eastern Europe, though, to be frank, it is too skeletal to be of much worth. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

most popular vacation times in USA?

Does anyone know where I could find a graph or table of the most popular days or weeks for Americans to take vacations, especially in the summer? Thanks! --Allen (talk) 16:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

By "vacation" would you include someone taking a day off of work to extend the weekend? Or do you mean going to the extent of traveling somewhere specifically for a vacation? Dismas|^(talk) 01:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, the latter... people leaving both work and home overnight or longer. But I'll take whatever you've got. --Allen (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

First morning cigarette

Why is it that first cigarette in the morning always feels the best?? 77.105.28.221 (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Having gone all night without a nicotine hit (this being, for most of us the longest smoke-free period of our "day") the body responds immediately to the nicotine rush. I am sure there is a clearer explanation out there, though. I suspect you would get better answers on the Ref Desk: Science, than here.៛ Bielle (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That experience may differ from person to person. Many smokers find that none are better than the first one after a meal. Of course, if you don't have your first one for the day until after breakfast, that may amount to the same thing; but it doesn't explain why the first smoke after lunch or after dinner feels better than the others. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, what this has to do with Humanities escapes me. The guys over at the Science Ref Desk are probably far better equipped to give you a good answer. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

prose edda, aesir, troy etc

In Snorri Sturluson's Prose Edda the gods (aesir) are said to have come from troy (asgard).

a. Are there any other sources that make this connection.

b. Is there any other evidence for this connection (archeological etc), can anyone provide a discussion of this connection eg essay/book etc.87.102.38.45 (talk) 18:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That was common in the ancient world, for gods and humans. The Romans believed they were descended from Trojan refugees (see the Aeneid). Nennius linked the first Britons with Troy as well (see Trojan genealogy of Nennius). I think Saxo Grammaticus linked the Norse gods that way too but I'm not 100% sure of that. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the question can be phrased thus: is there any evidence that the Norse mythology of Asgard goes back on the reality of Troy, and that the æsir populating Asgard evolved from stories about the nobility of Troy, told and re-told until the notion that these were mortal actual and historical figures had vanished from consciousness? I don't know the answer – in general it is difficult to state that something that potentially might exist somewhere, does in fact not exist anywhere – but I can say confidently that I doubt there is any substantially stronger evidence than the tenuous evidence put forth in the Prose Edda. Generalized to the form that some myths go back on historical figures, the thesis is plausible enough; for the specific connection Asgard – Troy (Asia), it is less so (at least in my opinion).  --Lambiam 08:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You (the original poster, that is) may find some relevant information in the article Euhemerus. Note the section "Snorri Sturluson's 'euhemerism.'" Deor (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, but it's the attempts to 'legitimise the current rulers' that cause me to doubt that the association contains any truth. I see that makes my viewpoint cynical. Geoffrey of Monmouth did a similar thing, though the situation is quite different. Perhaps the colonisation of north western europe really did come about from some cataclysmic event in Troy, that is remembered only as echos in folk tales. Or is it just appropiation, and collation of myths?

Again any more info would be appreciated..87.102.83.246 (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a demon named Diophosys

In Timmy 2000, "Timmy & The Lords of the Underworld" contains a lyric "Diophosys will rise again" referring to some kind of demon (the song also mentions Beelzebub). I've checked google and several variations of the name and nothing relative shows up. Is it a real demon or was it something South Park made up? --Ouzo (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That word doesn't really mean anything in Greek, as far as I can tell, though it appears to be an attempt to combine the roots of the Greek words for "Zeus" and "light"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

According to this website, the lyrics are actually, "The auspices will rise again." ◄Zahakiel► 22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

At a Public-Domain-Content website Under -Religion -Grimoires -The Book of Ceremonial Magic, by Arthur Edward Waite. Chapter IV there are a list of Demons. I didn't see your guy Dio. This may or may not be connected, but there's a heavy metal band named 'Dio' that is basically latin for God. but if you take the Album title upside down, it spells 'Devil.' So this could be a play on just words and points of view. Plus AnonMoos mentions Zeus and Light, Lucifer means Light Giver. Light Given from Zeus is one take. Etcetra Etcetra. My personal opinion on Marvel Comics is that they are just updated versions of A.E.Waite, which his original versions being the Greeks, and before that even the witches of yore. Side note, Beelze I guess is the #2 guy, so maybe this Diophosys is the Devil himself. Or herself. Depends on what side of the bed he/she wakes up on that day. --i am the kwisatz haderach (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The name of the heavy metal band Dio comes from its founder and vocalist Ronnie James Dio, who named himself after the mafioso Johnny Dio, whose birth name was Giovanni Ignazio Dioguardi. While Dio in Italian means God, I see no clear indication that that played a role in the adoption of that name. As to the DIO logo upside down reading DEVIL, that requires too much imagination to my taste. According to Ronnie James Dio himself, "that just happens to be some incredible coincidence".[4]  --Lambiam 08:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It look likes Diophosys is a relative of that other demon, Gladly, aka the Cross-eyed Bear.  --Lambiam 09:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe it's a misspelled diaphysis, because it chills us to the marrow. drrrr tching whack! ---Sluzzelin talk 11:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As a previous user mentioned the actual lyrics go: "The auspices will rise again.", one may notice that the involved phonemes (how it is spoken) are identical to "Diophosys". This is most likely a case of a misheard lyric. 82.74.31.215 (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The Bodhisattva and Buddhahood

Hi all I have read the articles on the Bodhisattva and Buddhahood but I still have a few things I am unsure about. Any help with the following questions would be much appreiciated. First of all, is a Bodhisattva (according to the Mahayana schools) an enlightened being? The article on the Bodhisattva says a bodhisattva 'already has a considerable degree of enlightenment'. I have read elsewhere that when a person takes the bodhisattva vow they are unenlightened; but I am unsure as to what is correct. My second question is about buddhahood. I realise that Buddhahood is the ultimate goal of a mahayanist and this can be achieved by following the 6 paramitas (perfections) which in turn lead to progession along the ten bhumis (stages) the eleventh of which is buddhahood. My question is this: How is a Buddha different to a Bodhisattva? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.141.231 (talk) 21:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that a Buddha is a wholly englightened being, while a Bodhisattva is one that is on the path to enlightenment, but has not achieved it yet, or has chosen to delay enlightenment in order to help others. However, there are complications. In Buddhist mythology, Guanyin or Avalokiteśvara has already achieved Buddhahood, but "returns" as a Bodhisattva to guide others. Dizang or Ksitigarbha delayed his buddhahood unitl all hell is emptied and the beings of the hells are delivered. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

how many generations of grammar-based language users have there been?

Unless I'm wrong humans are the only animals who use grammar-based language, and unless I'm misfiguring, I am a direct descendent of a grammar-based language user whose parents failed to fit that description. So approximately how many generations are tehre between me and those parents, ie for approximately how many generations have there been grammar-based language users on Earth?

You can move this to the science desk if it more appropriate there...

It might actually be more appropriate to the language reference desk. If we take a rough stab at a guesstimate and say that fully modern human language may have originated roughly 40,000-60,000 years ago, and say that the average number of generations per century is 3.5 to 4, then we might get crude estimations of 1400 to 2400 generations. Different assumptions will yield different results... AnonMoos (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How many generations of chickens have there been? A chicken today is a direct descendent of a chicken whose parents were not chickens. Except that chickenhood, in particular moved back in time like that, is a fluid concept. Along the path of evolution leading to today's Gallus gallus domesticus the ancestors acquired more and-more chickenlike characteristics, but there is no specific generation you can point at and say: here the junglefowl turned into the chicken. It is likewise at least plausible that the grammatical competence of modern humans did not arise wholesale at once in its present form, but was also acquired piecemeal. For example, a Subject+Predicate grammatical structure may have preceded relative clauses or verbs with aspects and tenses by tens of thousands of years. The fact of the matter is that we know preciously little about the origin of language, although there is no lack of academic speculation. Most researchers appear to agree that humans had an advanced language facility sometime between 100,000 years and 50,000 years ago, but the evidence is essentially completely indirect: the (not very well attested) emergence of forms of human culture that are conjectured to be impossible without relatively advanced language.  --Lambiam 09:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't grammar simply the mechanics of speech? In that case, all are grammar based, even if primitive. AllenHansen (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Grammar in this sense is how relationships between individual elements of meaning are made clear. Without grammar, there's no way to arrange the words "John", "Mary", and "kissed" to make it unambiguously clear that either John kissed Mary or Mary kissed John. Some form of differentiation of sentence roles and basic recursion are indispensably necessary for a language to serve the functions that modern languages serve in modern human societies. It's conceivable that earlier hominins could have had moderately complex communication systems, but without any real grammar in the sense of modern languages... AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

75 Year Public Domain, Copyright Law Questiones? Re: FILM

I just watched a Georg Wilhelm Pabst film with Louise Brooks called Pandora's Box (film). I also watched The Threepenny Opera. Watching these Criterion Collection films made me think of the Wiki-copyright-laws in regards to wikisource and the 100 year law of published artists. I would hope that we continue in this same style of Open Source. How would I go about seeing this as a reality? Should I contact the law firm that processed the 100 year book law? I'm thinking 75 years is a good time limit on films, get the entire silent film database and soundies and first in film out there for the peoples. Let me know where to go first, advice on what I should study? Thanks. I'm at gmail as specialagent777 Subject WIKIPEDIA. Cheers! --i am the kwisatz haderach (talk) 22:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you're referring to. Works published before 1923 in the U.S. are generally out of copyright in the U.S., and some works published between 1923 and 1978 in the U.S. can also be out of copyright in the U.S. in certain specific circumstances. If you live in the U.S., look at what films are available on $1 DVDs in your local discount emporium... Works published outside the U.S. are subject to international treaties governing copyrights. None of this has anything to do with open source. AnonMoos (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Elephant's Dream is an actual open-source movie... AnonMoos (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Movies are complicated in terms of copyright laws. I'm not sure at what point it became standard but at some point actors in the US gained copyright control over their performances. Adds an entire huge horrible wrinkle to things. They are, if I understand correct, considered to be works with many, many authors. That makes copyright determination tougher, assuming they don't fall under the simple (pre-1923 in US, pre-1909 out of US) designations. (A good resource on when things fall into the public domain in the US is [5]).

If you don't know the ins-and-outs of copyright laws in regards to movies you probably shouldn't start down this path as an amateur. It's not as straightforward as things that have single authors.

That being said, the Prelinger Archive has a lot of out-of-copyright movies in it and dedicates themselves to putting such things online. So it's not unheard of. Personally, I'd leave it to them and their lawyers. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

March 1

United States Citizenship Policy

In the US right now, it's ok for even illegal immigrants to come into the US, have a child "anchor baby", and then the entire family becomes entitled to stay in the US. What's preventing us from passing legistlation redifining citizenship to those with ATLEAST ONE American parent? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The 14th amendment to the Constitution states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." A redefinition would thus probably require a constitutional amendment, not mere legislation. - Nunh-huh 00:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. What I mean is, are there any reasons why we SHOULDN'T pass an Ammendment to redefine citizenship to those with ATLEAST ONE American parent? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak to the should, or shouldn't. But the fact that an amendment is needed means such a change is very unlikely; amendments are very hard to pass. Because of this, opponents of birthright citizenship have focused on the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". They have proposed that Congress could exercise its Section 5 powers to prevent the children of illegal aliens from automatically becoming citizens of the United States. For details of their argument, you can take a look at this page. Any such attempt would probably be reviewed by the Supreme Court. - Nunh-huh 01:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. This is what I found on wikipedia: Congress first extended citizenship to children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." I'm wondering why they stopped allowing children of citizens born out of the US from being natural born citizens. thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

They didn't. Children born abroad to American parents are natural born citizens. That's why George Romney and John McCain could run for president. - 01:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I thought they were born in US territories, and that's why they could run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, Romney was born in Mexico. - Nunh-huh 01:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It was Barry Goldwater whose citizenship was questioned, because he was born in Arizona Territory before it became a state. Corvus cornix_talk 23:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Marxist analysis of the Pacific War

Does anyone know of any good books that give a good Marxist analysis of the causes and origins of the 1941-1945 Pacific War between Japan and the USA? --Jacobin1949 (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Age restrictions on drinking alcohol

When were the first age restrictions put on drinking alcohol? Was it before or after we really knew the effects that it has on the body from a scientific viewpoint? Dismas|^(talk) 01:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that even in Ellada they used to frown upon youngsters consuming alcohol. But then, it was thought that wine makes people reckless and moderation was a social value. Asthmor (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Songs about drugs and rehabilitation

I'm searching for inspirational songs about recovering from a drug problem, but I'm having a difficult time finding some good ones. It's for my brother who just recently entered rehab for a drug addiction. He's a young adult, so music targeted at his age would be nice, but any era or type of song suggestion is appreciated. Heck, any inspirational song at all is welcome. Thanks for all of your help and suggestions! --71.117.36.209 (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I recommend "No More" by Neil Young, from his album Freedom. --Allen (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Life by the Drop by Stevie Ray Vaughan and Doyle Bramhall is about recovery from alcoholism. Very touching. It's twelve-string guitar and voice and was released on The Sky Is Crying (album). –Outriggr § 03:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Other songs by Stevie Ray Vaughan that are somewhat on the subject are "Wall of Denial", "Tightrope", and maybe even "Crossfire", from In Step. "We've all had our demons, from the garden of white lies/Dressed them, amused them, pulled the wool over our eyes/Go so far as to love them to keep from letting them go/All the while they were killin' us, but we couldn't let it show". This album was his first after rehab from cocaine and alcohol addictions, and these songs aren't necessarily literal in their mention of SRV's addictions, but they're on theme. –Outriggr § 04:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"Lonesome Day" by Bruce Springsteen is my go-to song for anyone getting over a personal trauma. It's not about drugs, but your brother might appreciate the melancholy but encouraging lyrics and rousing melody. For something a little more heart-wrenching, you might consider "I See a Darkness" by Will Oldham, which was movingly covered by Johnny Cash in 2000 (I slightly prefer the Cash version). It's a great song to send to your brother--with its themes of fraternal love and redemption from destructive impulses.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Although not about addiction, Dido's "See The Sun" may be a good choice. "Don't Leave Home" is about addiction as well but it's written from the point of view of the drug and being sung to the user. May not have the effect you're looking for though. I'm not sure if this is actually what the song is about but David Gilmour's "There's No Way Out of Here" could be about addiction. Also, you might want to give a listen to Neil Young's "The Needle and the Damage Done". And finally, Google has a number of results related to this, just search for "songs about drug addiction". Dismas|^(talk) 05:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thought of a few more... Lynard Skynrd (never could spell it) "The Needle and the Spoon", and "That Smell". Red Hot Chili Pepper's "Under the Bridge". "The Pusher", not sure who originally wrote it but Steppenwolf has an excellent version of it. Dismas|^(talk) 05:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fall to Pieces by Velvet Revolver, and probably many other songs written by Scott Weiland. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Depeche Mode's Clean is a celebration of recovery. SaundersW (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Premature, as it turned out. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ringo Starr had a song about not doing any more drugs which was a minor hit in the 1970s, but I don't remember its title. AnonMoos (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Tne Ringo Starr song is "No No Song." I am a Beatles fan so I thought it was a major hit. It is so typically Ringo Starr with a very catchy, fun tune. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 15:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you everyone so much for your responses thus far! They've been very helpful. Keep 'em coming! --71.117.35.80 (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How many Nazis, how many Allies?

I read somewhere, probably here, that it took the combined might of Britian, the British Empire, and the United States to conqure Nazi Germany. So just how may soldiers were on the German side, and how many on the British side? German allies would include Italy (some of the time) and other countries. 80.0.127.106 (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, you seem to have left out a major member of the Allied countries, and by far the most populous one: the Soviet Union. And the problem with exactly this sort of reasoning is made all the more clear by this omission: the Soviet army vastly outnumbered the Germans, but were poorly trained, poorly equipped, and poorly led. As a result they suffered many, many defeats—it was not an issue of numerical superiority at all. The Americans and British had much better equipment, training, technology, etc. than the Soviets did, and saw many more victories on account of it. Simple weighing of numbers tells very little by itself.

Anyway, some of the the numbers are are World_War_II_casualties#Casualties_by_branch_of_service. The Allies vastly outnumbered the Axis powers (due largely to the USSR's +34 million man strong army), but, again, numbers ain't everything. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget that the Allies had to deal with the empire of Japan at the same time, and that Nazi Germany had to help Fascist Italy from its military incompetence at least twice, resulting in two extra campaigns. Flamarande (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I should correct some possible misconceptions made here about Soviet military strength. It is quite wrong to say that the Soviets had an army in excess of 34 million, an absurdly high figure. Just imagine the logistical problems! That particular figure obviously relates to all those who were processed through all branches of the Soviet armed forces between 1941 and 1945. Indeed, at the outset of Operation Barbarossa the Germans outnumbered the Russian forces in the west by more than a million men. The great battles of envelopment in the summer and autumn of 1941 severely decimated the Soviet army, so much so that by the time of the fighting around Moscow the only significant reserve left was the Siberian divisions transferred from the Far East.

Also, it is quite, quite wrong to say the Soviet Army was 'poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly led', if by that direct military leadership is meant. Russian soldiers were as well trained as their German counterparts; they had more artillery, and more and better tanks, including the incomparable T-34. The problem to begin with was not one of military but political leadership, with Stalin insisting on a static defence, which simply allowed the Germans to by-pass strongpoints and envelop enemy forces in wide-sweeping pincer movements. By the summer of 1942 even Stalin had come to recognise that 'defence at all costs' was a mistake, as the Soviets traded territory for strategic advantage. As for Soviet military leadership there are few to parallel the likes of Konstantin Rokossovsky, Ivan Konev, Andrei Yeremenko and, above all, Georgy Zhukov, arguably the best soldier of the war on any side. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Versailles

how did the boxes containing the Treaty of Versailles entered into the Philippines?Jelien paul (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's a reliable source, but this article may answer your question. Bovlb (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Upon first reading, I didn't understand the question. Now I still don't understand the question, and I also don't understand the answer. If the Treaty of Versailles appears in that blog, I can't see it. ៛ Bielle (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand either, but the article mentions a '"chest, with the words 'Treaty of Versailles' emblazoned on its lid, [that] contained a metal scroll" which some people tried to ship from the Philippines to Switzerland. And it cites three web sources which I haven't read. Bovlb (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sport - Currie Cup Cricket Statistics

Can anyone please tell me, or give me the link to a good website that has all the various batting, bowling & fielding statistics for both individual players and teams that have played in South Africa's Currie Cup cricket competition (now known as the SuperSport Series). My current query concerns the various batting partnership records (the sixth in particular) in the competition but I am constantly needing information of this nature for a potential book of my own.

Could you also explain to me what the Currie Bowl competition is or was. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adscm (talk • contribs) 09:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

CricketArchive.com has records of this from 1889 here, whether complete or useful for your purposes I don't know. You may find more help by asking at WikiProject Cricket who may have better sources than this and cricinfo. Nanonic (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Britain and the EU

Was joining the EU a historical catastrophe for Britain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.38.105 (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes though catastrophe might be putting it a bit strong-Artjo (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to let into a secret: the United Kingdom joined the EU in order to delay everything as far as they are able, and if possible turn the EU into something negligible. "When you can't beat them, join them, and destroy them from the inside." Flamarande (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this was the aim when we joined. It has been our practice in recent years, however, with one notable exception, which is expansion. I sometimes wonder whether the support for expansion was because the Euro, etc. was going really well without us and maybe a few poor countries added to the pot would wreck it. -- Q Chris (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My friends, you have been watching far too much Yes, Minister. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What gives you that idea?. - Gwinva (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Impossible! There's no such thing as too much Yes, Minister. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to watch too much Yes Minister? Well, if you ask me for a straight answer, then I shall say that, as far as I can see, looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another in terms of the average of programmes, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably isn't very much in it one way or the other. As far as one can see, at this stage. Gwinva (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah ha-more polemics! Catastrophe? Possibly. Mistake? Certainly. What has membership achieved? Well, it has made Britain part of a bureaucratic pseudo-state, one marked by unimaginable degrees of corruption, waste and inefficiency. It lacks any kind of popular legitimacy, judging by the numbers who bother to vote for the peripatetic 'parliament'. Even when people are allowed a direct voice, as over the question of the constitution, they are simply ignored. The said constitution has simply walked in the back door. The British people have been continually misled over Europe by government after government. Harold Macmillan deliberately suppressed a report on the legal consequences of membership, one that warned of the loss of national sovereignty. Edward Heath continued the deception by saying that there would be 'no loss of essential national sovereignty', when the whole European project could not exist but for this surrender. Both the Labour and the Liberal parties denied that European integration had anything to do with federalism, though both happily associated themselves with Jean Monnet's Action Committee for the United States of Europe (ugh!). In the 1975 Referendum on British membership Harold Wilson said that European Monetary Union would never occur. Well, it has!

Deception followed hard upon deception, as the Common Fisheries Policy has all but destroyed the British fishing fleet, as the absurd and wasteful Common Agricultural Policy has meant dearer and dearer food. Membership of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism induced arguably the greatest British economic recession since the 1930s, and cost billions to exit. Peter Mandelson went on record not so long ago, saying the idea of a European superstate was dead. Who now believes that? I would like to see my country take the bold step and get out, once again asserting full sovereignty over our affairs in a truly meaningful declaration of independence. Alas, the truth is the iron law of oligarchy is likely to take an even deeper hold. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wanda Coleman Poet

Out of curiosity and and concern how does anonymous user can be at liberty to butcher an article and get away with it? It seems to me that the last anonymous user tinkering with the article on Wanda Coleman really did a job of truncating the article without any juridiction. Pjt48 (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you could have taken care of vandalism yourself, as Krator has just done. --Wetman (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

;) User:Krator (t c) 18:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Wetman I wanted to thank you and Kator for emending the Coleman article. I'm a bit of a tyro when coming to rectifying possible vandalism. I imagine it is an easy task to do but I'm at the stage of sensing out possible vandalism and bringing it to the attention of wiki's humanity ref. Thanks again Pjt48 (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of Irish Catholics compared to that of other people in the mid-1800s?

From the article about the Irish Potato Famine is the following quote:

"Irish Catholic citizens were prohibited by law from owning land, from leasing land, from voting, from holding political office, from living in a corporate town or within five miles of a corporate town, from obtaining education, from entering a profession, and from doing many other things that are necessary in order to succeed and prosper in life."

Just how true is this, especially when compared with Irish Protestants, or English people? Did non-landowners in England for example have the right to vote at that time? 80.0.121.148 (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your last question, 80, 0, is yes, there were non-landowners in England who had the right to vote, as you will see if you look at the page on the Reform Act of 1832. Even before this the 'property qualification', such as it was, had been established for the counties during the reign of Henry VI, when the franchise had been limited to 'forty shilling freeholders', that is to say those who held land or property worth at least forty shillings. This sum was never adjusted for inflation, so the amount of property in question became ever more modest over time. The boroughs, in contrast, operated a much more varied franchise qualification. In some cases all those not in receipt of poor relief had the right to vote. The situation in Catholic Ireland was altogether different. The defeat of the Jacobite Rebellion in 1691 led to the Protestant Ascendancy and the imposition of the fiercely discriminatory Penal Laws, which had the effect outlined in your quotation. Matters only improved gradually with the eventual emergence of the movement for Catholic Emancipation. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of retirement: did any European monarchs return after abdicating?

I know there are examples of European monarchs who have abdicated in favour of a younger successor but are there any who have returned from retirement? R U Dunn (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The case of Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha would stand as one of the weirder examples of this. The man has been the monarch of Bulgaria and, 55 years later, became its Prime Minister. As he never abdicated, he still bears the title "Zsar", even if the monarchy was abolished donkey´s long ago. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I think Nechtan mac Der-Ilei would fit. There are other examples of kings abdicating and then coming out of retirement to fight, but Nechtan probably, but not certainly, succeeded in regaining power whereas the others I can think of (e.g. Selbach mac Ferchair) didn't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The one figure who leaps to mind here is Philip V, the first of Spain's Bourbon monarchs. He abdicated in January 1724, after a reign of twenty-three years, in favour of his son, Louis. But Louis died of smallpox in August of the same year, forcing his father eventually to resume the throne.

Philip had taken the unusual step of abdication because he suffered from bi-polar disorder all of his life, a condition that became particularly acute in the early 1720s. It had been his intention to devote himself to religious matters, initially refusing to break the oath of abdication even after Louis' death, telling a friend "I don't want to go to hell, so I'm leaving. They can do what they like, as for me I'm going to save my soul." It was only after the Pope intervened was he persuaded to change his mind. Philip continued to rule until July 1746, though he fostered the desire to abdicate for a second time, right to the end of his life. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If one can call a Roman emperor "European", then Maximian would fit the description. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 04:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Constantine I of Greece abdicated in favor of his son, and eventually returned to the throne after his son died. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In 1706, King Augustus II of Poland formally abdicated, under the terms of the Treaty of Altranstädt, in favor of a Swedish-backed antiking, Stanislaus I. Three years later, however, the Swedes were defeated by Russians at Poltava, Stanislaus was exiled and Augustus came back to the Polish throne as if he never had abdicated. I'm not sure if this is an answer to your question, R U Dunn, as Polish monarchy was elective rather than hereditary, but certainly Stanislaus was younger (by 7 years) than Augustus. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Carol II of Romania renounced his right to the throne in favor of his son, Michael of Romania, who subsequently ruled from 1927, when his grandfather died, to 1930, when he was forced to abdicate. He was succeeded by his father, Carol II, who reigned from 1930 to 1940, then abdicating in favor of his son, who ruled again from 1940 until the monarchy was abolished in 1947. - Nunh-huh 19:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

When sultan Murad II abdicated in 1444 in favour of his 12-year-old son Mehmed II, the Ottoman Empire had conquered the larger part of the Balkans, forming about half of the territory of the Empire, and the capital at the time was the European city of Edirne. So you can consider him a European monarch. He came out of retirement only 2 years later, in 1446.  --Lambiam 22:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Although this obviously didn't happen, the Duke of Windsor, the ex-king Edward VIII of the UK, was said to have favoured a plan whereby Germany would conquer Britain and re-install him as a puppet king. Why anyone at all, and particularly the former monarch, would actually want to be a puppet king subservient to a foreign power is beyond me, but there you go. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if he can really be considered European, but Hetoum II, King of Armenia (Cilician Armenia, that is) abdicated in favor of his brother in 1293, but returned to the throne in 1295. Choess (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Purgegate

If Mukasey is "required by federal law [to] convene a grand jury" [6], then why can't Pelosi seek a Writ of Mandamus? Bovlb (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If Mukasey refuses to do his duty the only remedy is impeachment, with the hope that who ever is appointed after him will do his duty, or through a right of mandamus, a court order for him to do his job. An of mandamus would be a faster and more efficent way to get him to do his job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.239.144 (talk • contribs) 2008-03-03T02:18:16

Strasser, Goebbels and the Nazi left

I read they represented a serious challenge to the domination of hitler in the mid 1920's. Is this true. Also is it true that goebbels continued to push for a socialist direction in party policy. If yes how was this demonstrated before the party took power in 1933. Thank you. John James. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.38.105 (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, John, it is not true. After the movement was reformed on Hitler’s release from Landsberg, Gregor Strasser, responsible for organisation in the north, formed an Arbeitsgemeinschaft-Working Community-of the North and West German Gaue of the NSDAP. A newspaper, Nationalsozialistiche Briefe, was launched, edited by Josef Goebbels, which took a slightly more 'leftward' stand to that of party headquarters in Munich. But first, second and last the principle loyalty was to Hitler, despite marginal ideological differences. When Strasser drafted a programme in November 1925, hoping to replace that of 1920, he failed to achieve consensus, even among his own supporters. At a meeting held in Bamberg in February 1926, Hitler reasserted his authority over the northern Gaue with ease. The Bamberg meeting, which conformed the established priorities of the Party, had the effect of temporarily unsettling Goebbels, possibly the most radical of the northern group; but he was soon reconciled, becoming Gauleiter of Berlin in November 1926.

To the end of his life Goebbels was associated with the left-leaning tendency, insofar as that is a meaningful term within an organisation like the Nazi Party. He always believed that the movement should adopt policies that would appeal to the working-class, and his radical instincts were to be most pronounced during the Berlin Transport Strike of November 1932, which saw the Nazis in alliance with the Communists. He was later the one senior Nazi-apart from Ribbentrop-in favour of continuing co-operation under the Nazi-Soviet Pact. But Goebbels, from first to last, was an amoral and neurotic opportunist; loyal to Hitler, to himself, and to no-one besides. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Date of the ordination of Rev. John Williams D.D.

John Williams (1582 - 1650) was created Archdeacon of Cardigan by Archbishop Bancroft in 1609, while he was still at St. John's College77.68.116.158 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC). In the same year he was ordained as a priest. Next year it will be 400 years since then. Is it possible to establish the date of John's ordination, so that it can be respectfully celebrated next year by a serious researcher of his life and times? 77.68.116.158 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

how to refer to the Book of Genesis

Hi, all - if I'm referring to the Book of Genesis, is it italicised, as with normal book titles, or is there some special rule in its case? Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Refering to it in what? I haven't really seen a "standard" way to reference it, but I know I don't remember seeing it italicized very often. ◄Zahakiel► 21:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style indicates that italics are not used for standard works of religion. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks both of you - and for pointing me to the Manual of Style. Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. PS: The manual also states: The titles of articles, chapters, songs and other short works are not italicized, but are enclosed in double quotation marks. I assume this also applies to the Pentateuch and individual books thereof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk • contribs) 22:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

PPS to Adam Browne: And if Adam and Eve are any relatives of yours, don´t forget to mention that the stuff about "an apple a day" may have Biblical consequences. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style wants us to write of the book of Genesis—just so, lowercase "b" and neither italics nor quotes. This goes for all holy stuff. It would be sacrilegious to treat such things as though they were mere writings on a par with other writings, I guess. Our MoS is silent on books of the Bible, I think. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Milkbreath has the reason backwards. We don't write "the Book of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone", so we shouldn't write "the Book of Genesis" either. "Book" isn't part of the title, and just because some people capitalize it for religious reasons (as they might capitalize He when referring to God), that doesn't mean everyone should. At least, that's my guess as to how they're thinking. --Anon, 17:12 UTC, March 2, 2008.

That indeed would backwards be. I was talking about the italics and quotation marks. I was obviously unclear about that, sorry. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Musicianship and IQ: any correlation?

Is there any known link between composers and musicians and a high I.Q. rating —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.157.216 (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Conventional IQ test measure (if, indeed, they do):

• verbal intelligence
• spatial imagination
• logical / mathematical skills

The specific creative intelligence of Amadeus Mozart, of Orson Welles or Pablo Picasso does not rate a measly point. Any correlation may be coincidental. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: The last two, of course, are not musicians. I included their names as the intelligence of actors and painters is not measurable by classic IQ test, either. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree with that hypothesis, composers and musicians are very very intelligent. Not to mention sexy, creative, brave, sympathetic, loyal, sexy, altruistic, modest, and sexy. Especially violinists! Okay, maybe not modest. . . :) --S.dedalus (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There are studies linking exposure to music training with cognitive test scores, but unfortunately for S.dedalus, when a specific instrument is mentioned, it is usually the piano. A study conducted at UC Irvine in 1997, for example, "showed that preschool children who received basic piano keyboard instruction scored an average of 34 percent higher on tests of their reasoning skills than children who were given computer and singing lessons."

They didn't test the violin or any other instrument, but chose the keyboard instruments, because it "gave the children both a linear and audible representation of the relationship between sounds." [7]

A famous earlier study conducted in 1975, showed that a group of children undergoing seven months of Kodály training, 40 minutes a day, scored significantly higher in reading skills than the control group.[8]

This is but a tiny selection, and Music and Cognitive Achievement in Children reviews some more studies, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Darn! I knew my sister had some edge over me at scrabble. . . I guess we can always fall back upon the disputed Mozart effect though. --S.dedalus (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2

Effects of Late-19th Century Imperialism

Does anyone know of a certain country, maybe in Africa or Asia, where you can still clearly see the effects of late-19th century European imperialism?

-Julio

Well, you can arguably see it in practically every country in Africa or Asia. It really depends on what exactly you mean "the effects of late-19th century European imperialism" and what model of historical causality you are using. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just looking for a country where you can still see, through pictures, the corruptness brought on my the Europeans in the late 19th century when they tried to "civilize" countries in Africa and Asia. Anyone else?

Our article on political corruption indicates that, excluding Europe, North America and Australia, it is widespread in all other areas. Whilst this includes former colonies in South America, Africa, the Near and Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and SE Asia, it also takes in Russia and China. Of course, these latter two have been expansionist empires in history.

I think, however, that the causes of corrupt systems and dysfunctional officials in a wide range of nations are more complex than you seem to indicate. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Julio, here is a modified form of an answer which I gave earlier, one which has some bearing on your question, so far as I understand it.

There is a colonial background to Kenya's present day crisis, which you may not be too surprised to learn. In a way it is a problem that repeats itself across colonial Africa, where the ruling powers favoured one local tribe or group over another. The worst example of what this can lead to is to be found in the Rwandan Genocide of 1994. And just as the Belgians favoured the Tutsi over the Hutu, the British favoured the Kikuyu over all of the other indigenous tribes of Kenya. In building the railway line from Mombasa to Kisumu on Lake Victoria in the late 1890s the colonial power established a key supply depot at Nairobi, immediately adjacent to Kikuyu land, later to become the colony's capital. This gave the tribe a crucial political advantage, both before and after independence. More schools were also established on Kikuyu territory than anywhere else in Kenya. So, the Kikuyu were well placed to become the dominant group in Kenya after independence. And as Kenya was a state before it became a nation a democracy was created on the basis of the politics of ethnicity, not plurality; a politics where the winner takes all and the winner holds all, or attempts to hold all. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The corruption was there even before imperialism. Imperialism tried to reduce corruption, because it was out to make a profit. What Clio said, the politics of ethnicity, is far more pertinent.AllenHansen (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? Corruption, as we understand it today, is the oppurtunistic syphoning off of goods and services from a complex state beaurocracy. Pre-colonial Africa didn't have complex state beaurocracies, they relied on small-scale communal resource distribution, which, by-and-large, worked quite well. The weakness of African states is just one side on this issue, the other side is the strength of African society. In the first world, it is well established that the state is the primary distributer - but outside the first world, the state is just one actor, who has to constantly compete for primacy. The majority of the wealth African states lose through 'corruption' often ends up in traditional kin-based distribution networks. Ninebucks (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

a resident gentleman in every parish, continued

I missed the boat by not responding before the day containing my previous question got archived. Than you to those who responded. I want to squeeze a little more understanding out of this. Assuming Coleridge was the first to state the idea of having a priest of the Church of England in every village, in what context was he writing? Was he making comparisons to other countries, or other epochs in England? What was the response to his essay? Did the Church relish this role? Did they ever formally relinquish it? Part of what I am trying to tease out is how a country got to the state at which its established church could be described as the Tories at prayer. There is this fundamental intertwining of church and state, religion and nation, at more than official levels, at psychological or even mythic levels. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We'll need one or two of the ref desk's heavy hitters to step to the plate here for answers, but i don't think we're wrong to start with Coleridge's essay. According to Basil Willey it was a "distinctive blend of religion with politics and education which made Coleridge's teaching so influential," teaching which informed the writings of Thomas Arnold, Gladstone's The State in its Relation with the Church, the ideas of Frederick Maurice and the Christian Socialists, was both accepted and challenged in some measure by John Stuart Mill, and carried on to the 20th century in William Temple's Church and Nation (1915) and T. S. Elliot's The Idea of a Christian Society (1940).

Coleridge conceived On the Constitution of the Church and State in consideration of events since the Act of Union 1800. The full title is: On the Constitution of the Church and State, According to the Idea of Each: with aids towards a right judgement on the late Catholic Bill. The bill mentioned is the Catholic Relief Act 1829, the ultimate act of the Catholic Emancipation in Britain and Ireland. However, only a small portion of the work is toward that topic, and his only objection to the final form of the bill was that it contained no provisions which excluded the Roman Catholic Church from the 'Nationality' (financial support). This was necessary because of the influence of a foreign power, and because the vow of celibacy prevented the priests from becoming the persona exemplaris of progressive society as only married men and heads of a household could be.

The greater part of the essay, that part which influenced later thinkers, dealt with the 'Ideas' of Church and State. By 'Idea' Coleridge meant something along the lines of the ideal state of a thing. He was not "making comparisons to other countries, or other epochs in England," but rather describing "that conception of a thing, which is not abstracted from any particular state, form, or mode, in which the thing may happen to exist at this or that time, nor yet generalized from any number or succession of such forms or modes, but which is given by the knowledge of its ultimate aim." Indeed, later criticisms were that the 'Ideas' were ahistorical, were specific to a single nation, and that Coleridge failed to evaluate the then form of the Church of England in comparison.

I think there are some seminal concepts in Coleridge's essay which would necessarily be a part of answering your questions—e.g. the notion of Christianity as a "blessed accident"—but to place them in correct relation to the actual development and practice of the Church of England is beyond me.—eric 23:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"On the rory"

What does it means when he say: "On the rory,on the rory"

What is a rory anyways,I thought it was a male name?

79.175.65.251 (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

According to The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English it is rhyming slang for "on the floor" in the sense of "being destitute". Rory is indeed a given name, that of legendary Irish rebel Rory (Roger) O'Moore, whose surname not only rhymes with "floor", but also with the alternative meanings "door" and "whore" (obsolete). ---Sluzzelin talk 11:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dates: what are CE and BCE?

While reading about the Vedas, I came across the terms BCE and CE. What would be the 2nd century BCE and the 11th century CE? Sheetal.a25466 (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• They're equivalent to BC and AD, respectively. So the 2nd century BCE would be the years from 200 to 101 BCE (or BC), and the 11th century CE would be from 1001 to 1100 CE (or AD). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

See Common Era.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The term BCE is an abbreviation for "Before the Common Era" and CE is for the "Common Era". They are used in place of BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini - the year of our lord) by non-Christians who understandably could not use BC and AD. Simonschaim (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Anno domini means "in the year of the lord". It is only Christians who impose the traditional translation "in the year of our lord". The in the bit comes from the fact that anno is the ablative case of the word annus ("year"), which adds the sense of in.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 09:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note that "AD" makes no sense when talking about centuries or any other unites of time other than a year. "Second century AD" would translate as "second century in the year of the Lord". "Second century of the Common Era" sounds obviously much better. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

However, the traditional construction is to say "1530 BC" and "AD 1530" (ie. 1530 years before Christ; the year of the (our) Lord, 1530). But as Malcolm says below, the translation/meaning is almost irrelevant; the abbreviations have evolved to mean something conventional rather than literal. -Gwinva (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with "second century annorum Domini", the second collection of a hundred such years? —Tamfang (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In any case it is, at this point, just convention. The real practical difference is as far as I can see nonexistent. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I fail to see why renaming "AD" to "CE" makes the calendar any less Christian – it is still marking the passage of time from the birth of Christ, after all. Why don't those people who object to it so much, whoever they are, use Anno Urbis conditae or the Mosaic calendar, I wonder?

I'm not a Christian, but still use the terms "BC" and "AD"; "CE" and "BCE" are little more than worthless political correcticisms. Malcolm Starkey (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not just political correctness- it's more accurate. Jesus was not born on year 1- he was born several years after that (or before- I don't remember). Anyway, it obviously isn't correct to say 50 BC if Christ wasn't born on year 0. 70.162.25.53 (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a very strange use of the word "accurate". A calendar which antedated the BC/AD crossover to the correct point (circa 4BC, I think) would be more accurate. This is exactly the same calendar, measuring from the same point in time.

Also, don't forget that there was no year 0. Malcolm Starkey (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It would make eminent sense to use AUC for Roman history; I wonder why no one does. We rarely need to compare such dates exactly with the current calendar. —Tamfang (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Jews often use the Jewish (Hebrew/Mosaic) calendar year which is now 5768. However when dealing with the wide world, one cannot detach oneself from the universally utilised year of 2008.Simonschaim (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Noetica's point about "domini" meaning "of the lord" and not "of Our Lord" is correct from a translator's point of view. However, the "lord" referred to is the same person as "Our Lord", so the substitution is understandable. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

But if he's not your lord, the difference is significant. --Anon, 01:03 UTC, March 5.

China will end one child policy

Hi, I'm a new user here and I don't know if I'm right asking here.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/china/article3451974.ece

China will end one child policy. What would we do. Edit 'one child policy' article and Demographics of China true? 190.49.121.130 (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note that the one-child policy has not yet been abolished according to the Times Online article you cited, but its ending is under consideration. If the policy is abolished, that should indeed be mentioned in that article and Demographics of the People's Republic of China as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"There’s a whole world beyond this field of dreams we’re all dancing in, and I want to see that world"

"There’s a whole world beyond this field of dreams we’re all dancing in, and I want to see that world" is a quote from a TV series called 'Skins'. It's stated to be a literary reference. To what literary works does it refer? (thanks) ----Seans Potato Business 14:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this old quote: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet, Act I, scene v. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There's the film Field of Dreams but, having never seen it, I've no idea if it's relevant. -Gwinva (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That quote is not in the Kevin Costner film, Field of Dreams. Dismas|^(talk) 21:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It makes me think of Lord Dunsany's phrase "beyond the fields we know". —Tamfang (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreement or pact of so called "Congress of Vienna in 1939"

Through that agreement should be confirmed the position of Bratislava as part of the new established Slowak Republic. What were the contracting parts of that congress. Was in the time of the Congress any military involvement of the Czech army against Slowak Republic ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.152.30.158 (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

212.152, there was no 'Congress of Vienna' in 1939. I rather suspect you may be confusing the famous 1815 Congress with Hitler's Vienna Awards. The First Vienna Award of November 1938 emerged as a consequence of the earlier Munich Agreement. Amongst other things this provided for the ceding of territory by the newly autonomous Slovakia to the Hungary of Miklos Horthy. The Czech state was in absolutely no position, militarily or otherwise, to raise any objections to the arrangement. This border later became that of the 'independent Slovak Republic of Josef Tiso, established in 1939. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dictatorship of the Proletariat

How did Marx arrive at this idea and how does it relate to the notion of the 'withering away of the state'?217.42.109.159 (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, 217, you have identified the two elements in Marxism that have had the effect of turning matters of politics and doctrine into articles of faith and belief! There was always going to be a problem here: for how could the extreme authoritarianism of dictatorship somehow be transformed into the extreme libertarianism of a stateless society? This contradiction, absurdity, if you prefer, is nowhere better illustrated than by Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, the 1962 official Soviet handbook, which said of communism that "the birth of this new, higher system is a matter of the not very distant future." And this when one of the most brutal acts of state repression had taken place in the not very distant past!

Anyway, on your specific questions, according to Eduard Bernstein, writing in the 1880s, Karl Marx's source of inspiration for the concept of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was the work of Auguste Blanqui, a French revolutionary and thinker. It's possible, though Blanqui himself never used the term. What Marx almost certainly had in mind was the forms of dictatorship evident during the French Revolution, when the Committee of Public Safety established emergency rule during the Terror, invoking the earlier example of Roman dictatorship, supposedly a temporary expedient.

Where the second notion comes from-that of the 'withering away of the state’-is altogether more puzzling. You will be hard pressed to find any reference to it in Marx's published writings. It has to be traced through his earliest musings, back to those disreputable folk the 'utopian socialists', and through them to the work of Hugo Grotius, a seventeenth-century Dutch jurist and philosopher, who conjured up visions of a distant primal age, when the earth was open to all; a time of plenty and prosperity without coercion, property or the state-the timeless time, in other words, of the Garden of Eden! This 'age of gold', so the thesis continues, was only brought to an end as population grew and resources became scarcer, making agriculture and collective forms of labour necessary. And on the back of these came the state.

But then, several millennia down the line, came Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations, showing the great productive gains to be made by the unhampered division of labour. It only took the apocalypse of the French Revolution, and the energy unleashed by the Industrial Revolution, to show all was possible with the right political will. New prophets appeared, not least among whom was William Godwin and Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon, predicting the end of scarcity and the emergence of a new golden age, in which the 'government of men would be replaced by the government of things', to use the phrase eventually favoured by Marx himself.

You see, 217.42, this idealism or, better said, 'utopian' phase of Marx's thought rose and fell with the Revolutions of 1848. Afterwards came new, altogether more hard-bitten notions, emphasising the need to defend the revolution against the counter-revolution. Now entered the dictatorship of the proletariat, with Lenin on one horizon and Stalin just beyond-dictators without a proletariat-, not a temporary expedient but a permanent condition, with the state at the most coercive phase of its history.. It was thus that Communism, with all its incoherence and all its contradictions, made its way painfully through the twentieth century. I can think of no better illustration of the absurdity of this than the words of Michael Kalecky when he returned to Poland just after the Second World War-"Yes, we have successfully established communism; all we have to do now is abolish feudalism." Clio the Muse (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What happened in Fall 1913?

According to a history textbook,

"The economic boom of the Laurier era cme to a crashing halt in the fall of 1913, when British investors suddenly withdrew much of their capital from Canada in anticipation of a major European war. By the spring of 1914, tens of thousands of Canadian workers were unemployed..."

What happened in the fall of 1913 that foreshadowed World War I? --Bowlhover (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Second Balkan War had just ended, and leaving Serbia bigger and stronger - and even in 1913 Russia jumped on board to support whatever Serbia did. This made Austria-Hungary uneasy, since Serbia had gained control of Macedonia and Kosovo and obviously wanted Bosnia back from Austria-Hungary, which had annexed it in 1908 (the "Bosnian crisis"). Germany supported Austria like Russia supported Serbia, so it was sort of a proxy argument between Germany and Russia. Britain was also allied with Russia and had been in a naval arms race with Germany for decades, which would explain the British anticipation of war. In the end, of course, a year later Serbs killed the Austrian archduke in Bosnia, sparking World War I. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you won’t mind, Adam, if I offer one or two minor historical corrections to your submission here. Bosnia was never part of Serbia, well, not since the distant Middle-Ages, and I do not think there is any evidence that the Serbs wanted it back in 1913, Slav nationalism notwithstanding. Russia certainly saw itself as a protector of the Balkan Slavs, but this is a long way from saying that it was prepared to support the Serbs in all circumstances. Britain was not allied with Russia or any other Continental power. The Triple Entente of 1907 merely established an 'understanding' on issues of outstanding concern. Britain was in a naval race with Germany, though this had not being going on for 'decades'. Please forgive my pedantry!

In answer to your question, Bowlhover, investors are always nervous, and the situation in the Balkans may have been a cause of particular alarm; but as far as the wider picture is concerned I can detect nothing that would in any way suggest that a major European war was immanent in 1913. Indeed, when it finally came in the August of 1914 it still had the effect of taking all parties by surprise, the great powers most of all. I would suggest that the statement in your history text is worthy of further investigation. Unfortunately, some authors are in the lazy habit of using convenient explanations to explain complex events. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgiven! I'm afraid the Reference Desk has made me lazy - I am always willing to write off the top of my head, as if there is some pride in giving the first answer, assuming that you will come along with a better one! Adam Bishop (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Blushes! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Crimean War

I read your article on this. There is one thing that is not very clear to me. Why did the war end as quickly as it did? None of the important issues seem to have been resolved. Victor Eee (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I read a very good article on this subject recently by Brian Jones, a specialist in military history (Allies in Disarray: The Messy End of the Crimean War, in History Today, March, 2008,pp. 24-31). The argument is that Britain and France, the principle powers at war with Russia, no longer had a common strategy for ending the conflict. Britain wanted to continue the struggle until all of the war aims were achieved, whereas France, satisfied by the capture of Sebastopol, no longer saw any reason to go on fighting. There was always the possibility for the British to continue on alone-and a major naval offensive was planned in the Baltic-but this opened fresh strategic concerns, and not, perhaps, those that are commonly perceived.

It should always be remembered that Britain and France were at this time only allies of occasion. The Napoleonic Wars were still within living memory at a time when another Napoleon sat on the throne of France. The government of Lord Palmerston was distrustful of French ambition, even to the point of considering the ally a greater danger than the enemy. Palmerston was aware of secret talks between France and Russia, talks that would have ended in a post-war alliance-with Britain excluded-aiming at the domination of the Continent. The fear grew that with the army and navy fully engaged in a war with Russia, the French would take the opportunity to launch a cross-Channel invasion, to avenge the defeats of Trafalgar and Waterloo. This is not quite as implausible as it sounds, because advances in naval technology meant that such an attack had better prospects of success in 1856 than in 1805, when the French were at the mercy of the wind and tides. So, unable to risk fighting on alone, the British agreed to the compromise peace. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There was an invasion scare in Britain at the end of the 1850s. AllenHansen (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sexual Imagery in Gaskell's North and South

I'm reading Elizabeth Gaskell's novel North and South. According to the Victorian Web (a site operated by the National University of Singapore), there is explicit sexual imagery in chapter 10, Wrought Iron and Gold. The first part describes how Margaret Hale has a bracelet

"on one taper arm, which would fall down over her round wrist. Mr Thornton watched the replacing of this troublesome ornament with far more attention than he listened to her father. It seemed as if it fascinated him to see her push it up impatiently, until it tightened her soft flesh; and then to mark the loosening-the fall....She handed [Mr Thornton] his cup of tea...and he almost longed to ask her to do for him what he saw her compelled to do for her father, who took her little finger and thumb in his masculine hand, and made them serve as sugar-tongs. Mr. Thornton saw her beautiful eyes lifted to her father, full of light, half-laughter, and half-love, as this bit of pantomime went on between the two, unobserved, as they thought."

The first is obviously a metaphor for intercourse, but the second? There is some level of masculine domination here, but I'm confused on the what the imagery truly implies. Any help would be appreciated as always. :) Zidel333 (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is clearly not "explicit sexual imagery". It would be fairer for the NUS to describe the chapter as containing coded sexual references. So the puzzlement of the modern reader is not surprising! Yes, I think you are right, it is a play on domination. Note the contrast between the word "compelled" and her pleasurable acquiescence to his use of her body. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, Zidel, I think there is a constant-and unfortunate-tendency to reinterpret the works of the past in the light of contemporary obsessions. Knowing Elizabeth Gaskell, knowing her work and her life as I do, I think she would have been quite shocked by your suggestion! The passage is indeed about sexual attraction, but in an altogether more innocent and subtle way. I also completely fail to see any play on 'domination', the finger tongs notwithstanding! It's a simple gesture of familiarity, of affection between father and daughter, an intimacy that Thornton wishes he was in a position to share. Alas, poor Clio: my mental world is most decidedly BF (Before Freud). Clio the Muse (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Properly chastised Clio. I was just led astray from the website I linked above. Perhaps if you read the article, you could give me your interpretation. Thanks. :) Zidel333 (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I, in turn, am quite shocked to learn that Clio is a very, very old woman. Knowing Gaskell's life and works is all very well, any decent scholar can do that, but knowing her, wow, that's quite something. Clio, you poor old dear, put your feet up and I'll make you a nice cuppa.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Clio is substantially older than that. Algebraist 01:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

She is immortal; you should know that, Jack. But thanks for the cuppa, just as long as it's a good strong brew of nectar and ambrosia! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't be chastised, Zidel; it was an interesting and provocative reading. I'll post my thoughts on the article in question on your talk page tomorrow. Clio is now about to go up the wooden hill to Bedfordshire! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As my sister would say - I think that says more about the people who wrote the article than it does about 'Mrs Gaskell' - sounds like they won't be able to read many books without being stimulated into a pornographic metaphorical literary sexual frenzy..87.102.93.158 (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The imagery doesn't 'imply' anything (to be absolutely correct) It's not some sort of code to be cracked.87.102.93.158 (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Don't read this: if you really want full analysis of the second part - you can assume it to read that Mr. Thornton wished he had as big a penis as Margaret Hale's Father; who had a very big penis and a lot of control over his daughter.. It also suggests that Margaret Hale was aware that she had originated in her Fathers bollocks (note thus use of sugar cubes here). 87.102.93.158 (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding 'racist' I put forward the view that 'asians' tend to over-analyse 'english literature' in general, as well as having problems with grammar. Probably because they don't actually have full command of the language.87.102.93.158 (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of a similar passage in another book:

Mr. Brown enter the hall and noticed the maid was polishing the banister. Her hand moved swiftly up and down the baluster shaft and periodically she would spit on it. He couldn't help thinking he wished he was a staircase. "Can I help you with your balls?" she enquired. Mr. Brown handed her his bag, he had had a good game of croquet that morning and only a small breakfast, they felt heavy in his hand." etc etc

It continues..87.102.93.158 (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh. What a unique response to my question. At least it was humorous....Btw, I look forward to your critique Clio. Zidel333 (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The said critique is to be found on Zidel's talk page! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For the mindset you might be interested in Censorship in Singapore. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Kapp Putsch

Your article on the Kapp Putsch says it failed because of opposition of the working class. But working class hostility had done nothing to stop the Freikorps in the past. Is that, then, the only explanation?81.129.82.113 (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Kapp piece is not one of Wikipedia's better articles. The reason for the failure of the attempted coup, beyond the general strike called by the unions, was simple enough: Wolfgang Kapp was a political nonentity, unknown to most Germans, unknown even to many of his armed supporters; and the Freikorps, full of violent energy as they were, lacked purpose and direction; anything that could in any way be described as a coherent political programme. There is little doubt that if Kapp had ordered his Freikorp units to suppress the strike they would have acted with their usual brutal efficiency, because they looked for violence above all things. But the 'Chancellor' hesitated, reluctant to force a showdown with the unions. In essence the whole thing simply died of boredom. Ernst von Salomon, a leading Freikorps commander, was later to write of the movement's lack of purpose "It was no inspired controversial political idea that spurred us to protest. The actual cause lay in despair, which is never articulate." Clio the Muse (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

'Tips for a Beginner'

Is anyone availible for tips for myself to master the ear-playing technique on the piano? I find sheet music being just too hard and frankly irriating as when you have to keep flipping pages when you've come to the end of a line. And with a downgraded testimonies to sheet music, not all the artists publish their music and you can't add spice and play around to and on it as if were strong full-chord piece without a melody. You must simply read from what you see on the staffs. Where as I see otherwise. I'm an average beginner and I am familiar with remembering the exact sound of the keys. It's almost like I'm trying to multiply two-decimals together when I call forth a note I'm either hearing on the radio or just trying to lower it on half step.

I'm open for any suggestions both on my talk page: User Talk: Writer Cartoonist or autographed user comments in reference to the topic. Thanks! --Writer Cartoonist (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Until more comes this way, you might like to go to Learning music by ear and improvisation. But from what I've heard (mmm) of people who only play by ear, at one level it's impressive, at another it's limiting. So I guess it has it's uses - have fun and good luck, Julia Rossi (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind, you don't have to simply read what is on the stave if you play from sheet music. You should certainly be playing around at least a little, not playing it straight like a machine. And, as with playing by ear, you can do what you like with the music once you've started. The purpose of the written music is to record the music, much as you record what you've heard in your head. It tells you where to start, but there's no reason you couldn't play with it as much as you like, just as you don't have to play back exactly what you've heard. 130.88.140.49 (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hitler statues

Were there many Hitler statues during the Nazi's reign? I don't think I've ever seen a picture of one; contrast this with the innumerable Lenin and Stalin statues.128.163.224.222 (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There were none, so far as I am aware. I have a feeling that the Soviet statues were all erected after the death of the subject in question. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There were, at least, some small ones. The poet Philip Larkin's father, an admirer of Hitler, had a small statue of the Führer on his chimneypiece. At the touch of a button, it gave the Nazi salute. (from James Fenton's The Strength of Poetry, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 49) Xn4 01:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Larkin's father was an admirer of Hitler?! This would serve to explain much. After all, They fuck you up, your mum and dad...! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely that was a joke - did the statue really exist?87.102.93.158 (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was a joke, then John Banville (New York Review of Books, 2006), Hugh Bonneville (The Daily Telegraph, 2003), and Allan Massie (The Independent, 2005) fell for it. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone got a picture of one of these?87.102.93.158 (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find anything on eBay. Google's image search on "Hitler" + "Toy" was interesting. The only miniature with movable arms from the 1930s I found is this one, manufactured from something similar to elastolin by the company Lineol (exact date unknown). ---Sluzzelin talk 11:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Kurt Schmid-Ehmen, who also created the Feldherrnhalle's monument for the "victims" of the Beer Hall Putsch and a 9 m tall bronze Reichsadler for the World Expo's German pavilion in 1937, sculpted some bronze statues of Hitler as well. Allegedly, some of them are for sale at the usual suspect Nazi-glorification-memorabilia sites to which I won't link you. I still found no large and public Third Reich statues of Hitler, and I think I'm done with this question now. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The only Hitler statue I ever saw in Germany was Cattelan's kneeling wax sculpture titled "Him". ---Sluzzelin talk 09:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, is that figure life-size? It seems an odd thing to say, but I find it strangely moving. 'He' looks so vulnerable; like a penitent, or even like a frightened little boy. And I never thought I would ever say anything like this about 'Him'! I’m reminded of a comment I once read by a Jewish writer-I forget which-that he hoped Hitler's tortured soul had at last found peace. Amen to that. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Spot on! The statue is life-sized ... the size of a little boy. Big head, little body. Spectators should react the way you did, and then perhaps proceed to find their own reaction disturbing, or not! Maurizio, the old mischief-maker, strikes again! ---Sluzzelin talk 02:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant; quite brilliant! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange, my reaction is more of an uncanny valley response, perhaps accentuated slightly by who he was. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In his magnificent film "M", Fritz Lang has used a similarly disturbing dichotomy in the character of the pedophile murderer, played by the then widely unknown Peter Lorre. In a key scene this evil and despised serial killer of children bares his hunted Ego to those who are about to lynch him and shouts "Who knows what it is like to be me ?"

Despite the intervening years - I watched the movie when I was somewhere in high school - I still remember this scene and the sudden compassion it created for a suddenly pitiful victim. As pointed out by Clio and Sluzzelin, this pity does then generate a moral backlash in the minds of the audience.

You may be aware that "M" is regarded by some to be a sort of parabola on the situation of Germany in the face of rising national Sozialism. Fritz Lang left Germany two or so years after completing the film in 1933.

For pre-Freudian C_the_Moose I have linked Ego. The surgery in the Berggasse is but a few tram stops away from my home. And after all, the man also wrote a treatise on the Uncanny. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Pork in the Bible

It says in the Bible that you are not supposed to eat pork. Why do so many Christians eat it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Because of a vision Paul had in which the Lord said it was now OK to eat pork, also found in the bible, in the Book of Acts. Wrad (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe it was Peter. See Acts chapter 10. GreatManTheory (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ooops. Yep, that's the guy. Wrad (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A prohibition on eating pork is also conspicuously not listed as a requirement of Christian behavior in Acts 15:28-29 (see Council of Jerusalem, Noahide). AnonMoos (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The rational answer is that early Christians wanted to convert the the whole Roman empire (and beyond) and to able to do that many of the rules of the Old Testament had to be canceled and declared null and void (not eating pork, not eating shellfish, circumcision). The "guy above" agreed and sent an appropriate vision to his representative (that is if you believe in such a omnipotent figure). Flamarande (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you peruse the book of Acts, you'll see that not all the early church leaders were enthusiastic about the idea of accepting non-Jews (who did not follow Jewish customs and laws) as Christians. The decision of the "council of Jerusalem" was that such conversions were allowed, but there seems to have remained a certain balance between the Jewish and non-Jewish wings of Christianity (with the Jewish Christian leadership in Jerusalem retaining some kind of seniority) until the Jewish Christian community in Judea-Galilee was completely disrupted by the First Jewish Revolt. -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a view mentioned for example by Steven Pinker in How the Mind Works that dietary laws in general serve the sociological purpose of marking out the particular religious or cultural group as different. (I think this view is relatively uncontroversial, but he goes further and suggests that because most people's view of what is and isn't palatable is formed early in life, dietary laws allow a community to restrict the contacts of its young, and presumably most impressionable, members, since they can't even eat with another tribe. I have not met this argument anywhere else). If there is any truth to this argument, then Christian acceptance of pork (and indeed, substitution of a completely different set of dietary laws), can be seen simply as a mechanism for differentiating them from the Jews. --ColinFine (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, some weren't very happy about converting Romans (and Greeks, and Germanics, etc) in the beginning but they changed their minds quickly enough. I wish to point out to Colinfine that such religious rules mainly serve hygenic purposes: there are lots of diseases which pork meat (or shellfish) can pass on to humans in a dry and arid climate. Leave such a problem in a largely ignorant society without modern freezers or medicine for a couple of generations and you will end with the rule: "You shall not eat pork because it is displeasing in the eyes of the Lord." However it would be much more harder to sell this excuse/reason/rule to the Romans and Germanics (etc) who simply liked to eat pork and lived in a better climate. This is also true in the issue of circumcision (shudder). Flamarande (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Were they perhaps onto Trichinosis when it was decided pork was unclean? It's uncited here[9] but I've heard about it. Not a problem these days though. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The official line in Judaism is that we refrain from eating non-kosher animals because God says so, not because of trichinosis or any other earthly reason. Therefore, the development of refrigeration and modern slaughtering practices has no bearing on the commandment to only eat kosher meat. While the Bible doesn't give a reason why certain animals are not kosher, it's notable that God tells the Israelites those animals are "unclean for you." God draws a distinction between what is OK for the Jews and what is OK for the Gentiles. It clearly appears to serve the purpose of differentiating the Jews from their neighbors. Archaeologists can tell ancient Jewish settlements from Canaanite or Philistine ones by their lack of pig bones. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A nice article describes the issue quite well: Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork. Flamarande (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

March 3

Educational facilities in Louisiana: Technical College part of Tech University?

Is Louisiana Technical College part of Louisiana Tech University?72.229.136.18 (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• The template at the bottom of the University page has them in completely different sections, so I doubt that one is part of another. Paragon12321 (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• A history of LTC on one of their web pages does not refer to the University. Conversely, according to Google search, there is no mention of LTC on the University's pages. Unlike what is suggested by our Louisiana Technical College article, Baton Rouge is just one of many campuses of LTC, others being West Jefferson, Jefferson, Sidney Collier, Slidell, Folkes, Jumonville, Westside, Lafourche–Galliano, Lafourche–Thibodaux, River Parishes, Young Memorial–Morgan City, Young Memorial–Franklin, Acadian, Charles B Coreil, Evangeline, Gulf Area, Lafayette, Teche Area, T H Harris, Alexandria, Avoyelles, Huey P. Long, Lamar Salter, Morgan Smith, Oakdale, Shelby M. Jackson, Mansfield, Natchitoches, Northwest, Sabine Valley, Shreveport Bossier, Bastrop, Delta Ouachita, North Central, Northeast, Ruston, Tallulah, Sullivan, Ascension, Florida Parishes, and Hammond.  --Lambiam 15:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand parliament dates

What are the dates that each New Zealand parliament opened and dissolved? The articles on each individual parliament give unsourced dates, but most of them are redlinks. --superioridad ^(discusión) 10:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Castle to Castle

Has anyone read this? I can't make it out. Is it meant to be some kind of joke? Was Celine a fascist or not? 86.148.39.84 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To start with last question, see for a recent discussion of the issue Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 February 18#celine anti-semitism. While Céline was virulently anti-Semitic, and apparently attracted to fascist ideas, he was perhaps too much of an individualist to be a true adherent of hard-core fascism and Nazism, very anti-individualist ideologies. If you consider the human condition a joke, then Castle to Castle is a (not very good) rendering of that joke. But I don't think it is meant as a joke in the usual sense of the term. It gives you a more direct view on Céline's political thought than Journey to the End of the Night.  --Lambiam 16:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I can understand your obvious bafflement, 86.148. Just remember one thing: Céline was Céline: a misanthrope and cultural pessimist, who found in Fascism a way of giving some degree of coherence to his thoughts. But Lambian is absolutely right: he was far too eccentric; far too much of an individualist ever to be constrained by an ideological straightjacket. You see, Céline does not discriminate in the forms of prejudice he displays: he hates everybody, regardless of race or creed! I'm not quite sure I agree with Lambian's assessment of Castle to Castle, though. The sheer intensity of the prose, the machine-gun staccato of his delivery, the passion with which he carries his thoughts forward, displays to me the blackest of black humour and satanic irony, though I admit this may not have been the author's intention! Intentionally or not, he makes the absurd look absurd; and what better way of perceiving the dust of Vichy! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Mussolini and socialism

Why did Mussolini abandon his socialist beliefs for a movement as anti-working class as fascism? 86.148.39.84 (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Both are more anti-individual than anything else imho. —Tamfang (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mussolini was thrown out of the Partito Socialista Italiano in 1914, never a good way to endear a person, and certainly not Mussolini. As soon as he had a chance he had his Blackshirts torch the quarters of Avanti!, the daily newspaper of the PSI of which he had been editor only five years before. The ideology on which Italian fascism was based is national syndicalism, which is not explicitly anti-working class, but rather against the Marxist concept of class struggle, and therefore against socialism and communism. For common roots of Italian socialism and Italian fascism, see Fascio.  --Lambiam 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You might find it worthwhile to read a good biography of Mussolini; you might even find it worthwhile to read La mia vita, an autobiography which describes his life up until 1912, when he was twenty-eight and still a member of the Socialist Party. There is one passage in the latter that I would draw your attention to, where he says-"I am a restless man, with a wild temperament...". This is the key to the man and to his whole political persona. Intellectually the sources of his inspiration extended beyond the usual Marxist texts, to the work of people like Gustave Le Bon, whose Psychology of the Crowd was a particular favourite, to George Sorel, the prophet of revolutionary syndicalism; and, above all, to that of Friedrich Nietzsche. In 1908 he wrote an essay, The Philosophy of Force, published in the Republican weekly, Il Pensiero romagnolo, which illustrates well the direction his thought was heading;

The 'super man' is the great Nietzschean creation...Nietzsche has wrung the bell of an imminent return of the ideal. But it is an ideal fundamentally different from those in which past generations believed. To understand it, there will come 'free spirits' of a new kind fortified by war, by solitude, by great danger, spirits who will have experienced the wind, the ice, the snows of the mountains and will know how to measure with a serene eye the depth of the abysses-spirits equipped with a kind of sublime wickedness-spirits who will liberate us from the love of our neighbour, from the desire for the void giving back to the earth its purpose and to men their hope-new, free spirits who will triumph over God and over the Void!

Now, could you imagine Lenin writing that?! Mussolini was never going to be confined by the pedestrian politics of Italian socialism, by its caution and by its narrow parliamentary horizons. He was a revolutionary in the most complete sense of the term. After the expulsion of the reformist wing from the Socialist Party in 1912, an action in which Mussolini played a central part, Il Nuovo Giornale noted: "The theory of Professor Mussolini was somewhat mad...but he was a truly original thinker." In the end Fascism was to be his original madness; not opposed to the working-class as such, but to the fiction of left-wing internationalism, which had collapsed in the summer of 1914, spinning his mind off in new directions. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Franco a fascist?

Was Franco a fascist or not? 86.148.39.84 (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By most definitions of fascism both his ideology and his regime would be considered fascist. The ideology underlying fascism in its original form (which does not include National Socialism with its racist preoccupations) is national syndicalism, and a fascist regime is then an authoritarian regime whose policies are informed by that ideology. By that definition, the Falange and the Franco regime were definitely fascist.  --Lambiam 15:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not believe he was. He was a caudillo, a phenomenon of the Spanish-speaking world, to be found time and again across the history of the nineteenth century, in Europe and America. It's just that his particular Pronunciamento came at a time when all such actions had to be viewed in twentieth century terms, giving the whole thing, insofar as it was a challenge to a a left-wing government, Fascist ideological overtones. But it might help you to understand the difference between Franco's 'Fascism', 86.148, if you compare it with that of Mussolini and Hitler, particularly in the way in which each attained power.

In Italy the Fascist state was built on an alliance between radicals and reactionaries, with a slight advantage, to begin with, to the former. But in 1943 the reactionaries, the cliques around the the King, gathered sufficient strength to overthrow Mussolini. In Germany Hitler attained power on the basis of a similar alliance, though the conservative elements were far weaker than the radical. In 1944 the failure of a conservative reaction saw the complete triumph of the most radical forms of Fascism. In Spain the Falange radicals were always weaker than the conservative forces behind Franco. In the end, though the only official party allowed after the Civil War, it was entirely subordinated to a conservative dictatorship, providing little more than an increasingly irrelevant ideological gloss. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

But, but: Franco was fond of Hitler and vice versa, and he fought against communists and socialists and internationalists, and the Abraham Lincoln Brigade fought against Franco, then in 1971 marched against Nixon's Vietnam policies. Surely there is Fascism by association? ;<) Edison (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Hitler was so fond of Franco that after their meeting in October 1940 at Hendaye he said he would rather have teeth pulled than go through another such interview! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The rumor has it that Franco didn't refuse flat out to enter WWII at the side of the Germans. He cunningly made a couple of impossible requests. One of them was half of all the German petrol and Hitler refused. Franco a fascist? Certainly. Flamarande (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Where to find Frank O'Connor's Downfall of Heathendom in print?

The subject says it all really. Would anyone know which of Frank O'Connor's books The Downfall of Heathendom - a verse translation of part of the prefatory poem from the martyrology of Aengus the Culdee - was published in? There's a literal translation can be found in Whitley Stokes's edition of the martyrology here at the Internet Archive, but a verse one would be handy. TIA, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

On this page concerning The Martyrology of Oengus the Culdee I found a reference to:

David Greene and Frank O'Connor, A golden treasury of Irish poetry (London 1967; repr. Dingle 1990) sections 10--11, pages 56--59, 61--64 (36 quatrains from the Prologue).

Google books gives two editions (Macmillan 1967 ISBN 0333045033, Brandon 1990 ISBN 0863221130) without previews. Amazon.com also offers no preview.  --Lambiam 16:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. That's what I was hoping the answer was. Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

history in mass communication

should a course in history of mass communication be taught in the school of journalism or in the department of history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.87.170 (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Both seem appropriate. It is reasonable that aspiring journalists, especially those who will engage in some form of mass communication, should know something of the history of mass communication. And in principle, for any topic T with a history, it is (in principle) appropriate to teach the history of T in a department of history (although this would be a specialist topic that might fall outside the scope of the particular studies offered by a given department). In all cases, I assume this would be an elective.  --Lambiam 17:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Often such courses are cross-referenced, one course with two course listings. Personally, though, I would expect the tone of the course to probably be set by the disciplinary affiliation of the professor. It is very common for the "same subject" to be taught very differently; e.g. a historian teaches the history of physics often very differently than a physicist would. --140.247.152.94 (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Crowds and Power

I went first to the page on the writer Elias Canetti to look for an answer to my question but it is really very disappointing. My question is this-can Canetti's book Crowds and Power tell us anything about the nature and purpose of present day Islamic militancy? I hope this is the right place for this question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gail Hunter (talk • contribs) 16:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is imperative to make a distinction between militant Islamism – which is not necessarily violent – and Islamic terrorism – terrorism that seeks its justification in Islam. What you can learn from Canetti that may be relevant in this context is the need of individuals to belong to a group (a "crowd" or Masse in Canetti's terminology), how a group will seek to destroy those who threaten its existence, and how the need of the individual to "disappear in the crowd" may be manipulated by a small group to attain power. But I don't see how that might more or less directly tell you anything about the nature (and even less so of the purpose) of Islamic militancy in whatever form. It may, perhaps, serve as a theoretical frame, a context in which to formulate and conduct an investigation of the issues.  --Lambiam 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Crowds and Power, Gail? The answer to your question might, perhaps, be found in Islam is a Religion of War, a sub-section of The Pack and Religion. I think one quotation will suffice;

The bi-partition of the crowd in Islam is unconditional. The faithful and the unbelieving are fated to be separate for ever. The war of religion is a sacred duty and thus, though in a less comprehensive form, the double crowd of the Last Judgment is prefigured in every earthly battle. (1981 Penguin edition, pp.164-5). Clio the Muse (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Navvies: are they Irish?

After re-acquainting myself with the XTC song "Towers of London" over the weekend, I wanted to read up a bit more on the navvies referenced therein. Our article is not great, and I noticed that a sentence that had once read "Many navvies were immigrants ... and were mainly Irish" was changed a few months ago to say "... and some were Irish." That change seems to have blunted the sentence somewhat, so I was simply wondering if it is commonly believed that navvy = Irish ? --LarryMac | Talk 19:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this have something to do with the potato famine and a wave of migration from Ireland particularily with reference to the building of the railways and canals in the UK. see Irish migration to Britain.

I think it should read 'many were Irish' but don't have the absolute facts to make the change.87.102.93.158 (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The association is common - particularily in the Irish=manual labour direction http://www.movinghere.org.uk/galleries/histories/irish/working_lives/working_lives.htm There are numerous jokes involving irishmen and wheelbarrows - perhaps you can recall one?87.102.93.158 (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Rough alike in morals and in manners, collected from the wild hills of Yorkshire and Lancashire, coming in troops from the fens of Lincolnshire, and afterwards pouring in masses from every country in the empire; displaying an unbending vigour and an independent bearing; mostly dwelling apart from the villagers near whom they worked; with all the strong propensities of an untaught, undisciplined nature; unable to read and unwilling to be taught; impetuous, impulsive, and brute-like; regarded as the pariahs of private life, herding together like beasts of the field, owning no moral law and feeling no social tie, they increased with an increased demand, and from thousands grew to hundreds of thousands. They lived but for the present; they cared not for the past; they were indifferent to the future. They were a wandering people, who only spoke of God to wonder why he had made some so rich and others so poor; and only heard of a coming state to hope that there they might cease to be railway labourers. They were heathens in the heart of a Christian people; savages in the midst of civilisation: and it is scarcely an exaggeration to say, that a feeling something akin to that which awed the luxurious Roman when the Goth was at his gates, fell on the minds of those English citizens near whom the railway labourer pitched his tent. Francis, John. (1851). A History of the English Railway Vol II. pp. 68-9.

In the 1840s and 1850s with the exception of those employed in agriculture and textiles, navvies made up the largest occupational group in Britain. An average of 60,000 men were engaged annually in railway construction between 1831 and 1870 or about 1 per cent of the occupied male labour force. Construction booms led to sudden surges in demands for labour, and especially for unskilled labourers, who made up over 80 per cent of those recruited. During 1847 some 6,455 miles of line were being built by over 256,000 men, 4 per cent of the male workforce. The annual wages in 1845-9 were about £11 million, or 2 per cent of the national product. It is little wonder that to the communities upon which they descended, they were an army. Brown, R. (1991). Society and economy in modern Britain, 1700-1850. p. 240. OCLC 21146703

The term navigator had by this time a general and a special meaning. There were the gangs of experienced men who had professional skill and commanded a corresponding wage, the navvies proper, and there were the rough diggers of the rank and file. "As far as my experience goes," said a Scottish witness, "in Scotland we have not yet any of the class of people called navigators; they are generally mere labourers who come for the occasion, and probably do not return to that sort of work afterwards." For the most part they were Highlanders or Irishmen. In the North of England "perhaps one-half of the navigators," in the wider sense, were Irish; but in the South, where rural population was denser and rural wages lower, most of the labour was local. The South Devon Railway, for example, was being built in 1846 principally by Dorset, Somerset, Wilts and Devon men who had worked their way down along the line of the Great Western. There were a few, but "very few," North-country men and the Irish are not mentioned. Nor were there at that time any of the specially expert navvies on the works. Such men wanted something like 5s. a day, and work was being done in South Devon at rates varying from:2s. 6d. to 4s. 3d., the maximum being paid to "miners" on tunnelling, which was really an expert's job. The 5s. experts were only called in to do jobs of special difficulty, or when it was necessary to work against time: the "contractor generally knows where to put his hand on a body of these men." Occasionally they formed a large proportion of the working staff. The five thousand Englishmen who made the Paris-Rouen railway were mostly "true navigators," for, as the contractor explained, "we had some long tunnels." These were the men whose meat-eating and day's work so astonished the French. Their wages, even in England about double those of an average unskilled labourer, left a wide margin for steak, plush waistcoats, and whisky. What proportion they formed of the whole body of the railway makers it is impossible to ascertain; but the evidence suggests that, at least in 1844-8, that proportion was not high, since whole railways managed without them. Clapham, J. H. (1930). An economic history of modern Britain: the early railway age 1820-1850. pp. 406-7. OCLC 59919084

Amongst the unskilled the Irish predominated, especially in the north of England and the lowlands of Scotland. In the construction of railways further south redundant agricultural labour was more frequently employed. A witness before a Select Committee in 1827 declared that in any job where there was extensive excavation work he would ‘not feel in the least surprised to find, that of 100 men employed in it, 90 were Irish’. Bagwell, P. S. (1988). The transport revolution. p. 91. OCLC 59978006

—eric 22:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

LarryMac, you might also have a look at The Railway Navvies: the History of the Men Who Made the Railways by Terry Coleman. It's a good read, covering all aspects of the lives of these 'aristocrats of labour'. I particularly enjoyed the descriptions of their mass rampages! Many were indeed Irish; but more were English and Scots. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff, eric, and I'll search for that book, Clio. Certainly Mr. John Francis seems not to have been enamored of these "heathens". I will leave the Wikipedia article as is for now, flawed though it may be, and do some more research. Hmmmm, nearly 30 years of simply humming along with that song before finally investigating the lyrics, and now I'm going to have to learn something. Thank you. --LarryMac | Talk 13:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Anna Louise Strong on Mao

I would like to know why the American journalist Anna Louise Strong's 'The Thought of Mao Tse Tung' and 'Dawn out of China' were so badly received by the Kremlin? ZZT9 (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because she suggested that there was another way of looking at the world, different, that is, from the vision of Stalin. Statements like Mao 'changed Marxism from a European to an Asiatic form' or 'all Asia will learn from China more than than they will learn from the USSR' were never going to be favoured reading in Moscow! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Adam Smith

What were th negative impacts on the ideas of Adam Smith? Invisible hand and division of the labor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 21:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

They lead to more wealth, with the arguably negative side effects of materialism and decadence. See those articles for more information. User:Krator (t c) 21:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Do you really mean "negative impacts on the ideas of Adam Smith", as in "what negative events in Adam Smith's life influenced his ideas", or possibly "what dissuaded Adam Smith from free expression"? Or you mean "negative impacts of the ideas of Adam Smith"? --M@rēino 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

None; it's all good!. However, it has to be said that Smith's economic model never operated in in all of its Platonic purity, not even for him, as you will see if you read The Theory of Moral Sentiments alongside The Wealth of Nations. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

ethics and values?

What would be a good way to define personal, societal and professional values? Any good sites regarding them in healthcare? 172.203.147.196 (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• You might want to start with our article on medical ethics. The article has dozens of sources and references from which you can quickly figure out the leading opinions, or even begin to form your own value system. --M@rēino 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Constitutionality of referring to God in schools

can a teacher in a public school discipline you for saying "oh my god" or any other phrase with the word god in it because does not want any one disrespecting her lord and god in her class room —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.94.8 (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously they can. Whether or not it is appropriate or legal for them to do so is another matter, but it's nothing to do with constitutionality; you can't take someone to court for breaching your "constitutional rights". The constitution doesn't constrain individuals, it only constrains laws and official processes of the government. FiggyBee (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

42 USC § 1983 "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage"?—eric 22:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the teacher is constrained because she is employed by the government. There is master-servant liability. It looks as though a strong First Amendment case can be argued. To actually answer the question, though, is legal advice, which we are not permitted to do. It is much harder to determine constitutionality than it first appears. Where this happened is important, too.

75Janice (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)75Janice

In the unlikely case that such a ridiculous case could make it to any form of court - who knows what the outcome would be. From a logical position - a teacher holds the 'power' in a classroom, so it is their discretion around what language they allow from students. If they believe a student is using language purposefully to create a scene/insult others/cause negative sentiment then they may feel that the action justifies some form of discipline. Few would consider that unreasonable. If blasphemy (is that the term?) were used in general conversation between two students with no malice/intent of insulting others then more people would probably consider any discipline to be unfair/unreasonable given the circumstances. Context is hugely important to the validity of anything to do with language. ny156uk (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The teacher is constrained by the First Amendment b/c of the first Amendment. The particular circumstances, the policy of the school board, where this occurred and how many times are important factual questions. It boils down to giving legal advice. I am certain something similar has been addressed in cases. Whether those cases control the result is an another matter. It is a legal question. I just desired to clarify that when teachers act as teachers and not private citizens the constitution is applied.75Janice (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of misconceptions out there about separation of church and state and U.S. schools. Schools can teach about religion. They can have Bibles in the school library. They can rent out facilities to religious groups before or after school. What they can't do is use school resources to promote religion or force students to take part in a religious exercise. So while it's OK for students to gather before school on their own initiative and pray, the school can't organize a prayer assembly or teach the Bible as fact. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment has always been interpreted more broadly than the Establishment Clause. Having spent last year researching Establishment Clause law, user Mwalcoff provides a good summary. I found the cases tainted by political concerns not found in other cases. Establishment Clause violations are subjective. The result is determined, in my opinion, not so much by jurisprudence as by the particular judge who hears the case. --75Janice (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Is flirting illegal in New York?

A website (http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/new-york) says so. Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be leery of these trivia websites. I doubt that a police officer will pull you over for wearing slippers past 10 PM, in this liberal day and age. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 23:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed about the problems with trivia websites. I'll add that I personally witnessed thousands of violations of this law when I was in New York, many of them in the plain view of the NYPD, with no legal consequences. --M@rēino 00:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Often they stretch a legal provision to its most absurd limit in order to make it a "dumb law". If you manage to find the actual provision, usually it is quite reasonable and makes perfect sense. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I certainly wasn't worried about being confronted by a cop for flirting in the state. But we do have stupid, outdated laws, so I was just wondering. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See Dumb laws. Newspaper writers would sometimes take a law which said "Animals may not be tethered to fire hydrants" (Yeah, a sensible law, since it might slow the connection of fire hoses) and add it to a "dumb laws" article by taking an extreme instanciation: "In Miami, Florida, it is illegal to tether an ostrich to a fire hydrant" (yeah, an ostrich is an animal). Look for a sensible law with a silly sounding instanciation. Like "Murder is illegal in Tennessee" being changed to "It is illegal to beat someone to death with a printout of Wikipedia in Nashville." Edison (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note the difference between a "law on the books" and an "enforced law". For example, where I live it is illegal to make a left-hand turn at a red light. However, if you are on a one-way road turning left onto a one-way road, that particular law is not enforced. Nowhere is there a disclaimer to the "no-left on red" law. It is simply not enforced by the police. Similarly, they do not enforce the "no spitting" law. All our roads and sidewalks are paved now. When they were all dirt, you definitely didn't want a bunch of people spitting on the ground as they walked. You ended up with a sticky muddy mess. Instead of going through the hassle of paying lawyers and politicians to take the law off the books, the police simply do not enforce it. -- kainaw™ 03:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

When I said we have stupid laws, that was what I was thinking--uneforced laws. Like the interracial marriage ban repealed several years ago in Alabama and South Carolina, or Article 19 of the constitution of the state of Arkansas: "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."[10] I hope they're not enforced, anyway. Imagine Reason (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not flirting in New York, but FYI as of last month it became illegal in South Africa for anyone under 16 to kiss in public. No, this isn't a joke. So far though noone's been arrested and frankly I think the police have too much else on their hands. Zunaid©® 15:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Such kind of laws are so sad. Instead of trying to solve true problems (like crime, unemployment, and rampant corruption) governments waste their time creating retarded laws which the police and the courts are not going to apply anyway because they still follow the rules of common sense. Flamarande (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The solution may be imperfect, but there is a real problem of sexual abuse of young children by older children. The law states that such "sexual violations" are not an offence if consensual and the perps differ by no more than 2 years in age.  --Lambiam 02:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I know someone in South Africa. The crime problem there is overwhelming. From his accounts as well as just what I read online, if you're a female, I'd strongly advise going there, period. Imagine Reason (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

On average, crime (and especially violent crime) in South Africa is much higher than in other parts of the world, but, as with every other country on this planet, there are good areas and bad areas. You wouldn't want to be caught in one of the seedier suburbs of New York, for example. But that's as much as I'm going to say, this is a whole new topic on its own. (p.s. I think you wanted to advise against coming here?) Zunaid©® 14:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

March 4

FARC and uranium

I´ve just read on cnn: "Naranjo said other evidence in the computers suggests FARC purchased 50 kilograms of uranium this month."[11] What would FARC be doing with uranium?? Thanks for info, --AlexSuricata (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are plenty of civilian uses for uranium. Since FARC has a history of violent activity, however, I believe that Naranjo is alleging that they planned to either build an atomic bomb, or more likely, a dirty bomb. --M@rēino 00:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can pretty much rule out making an atomic bomb. Aside from not having the infrastructure needed to enrich uranium (at least, I've never heard of anyone alleging that FARC had enrichment plants or production reactors), 50kg of uranium oxide is not enough for a single bomb (it ends up being only a few hundred grams of enriched material assuming 100% efficiency; I don't know how much plutonium you'd get out of putting that into a heavy water reactor but I'm pretty sure you'd need more uranium than that unless you REALLY knew what you were doing). (Unless they mean 50kg of HEU, but that wouldn't be a casually mentioned thing, as that is about the amount you'd need for a working fission bomb. If they don't specify it as HEU, assume it is LEU.)

Uranium would not be a good material for a dirty bomb either—you'd want a much more radioactive element for that. Uranium is not very radioactive, and as such it would be a lousy dirty-bomb material. You'd be better off stealing a medical X-ray machine or something like that.

Personally I'm suspicious of this aspect of the story, without more details. I don't see any real nuclear terrorism implications in 50kg of LEU. I see a lot of hype and hope for misunderstanding. What they wanted it for, I don't know, but it's not enough LEU to be used for any nuclear implications. You can, of course, use uranium for other military applications; see depleted uranium, for example. But that's not a news story. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Africans: how many kinds are there?

how many categories are there in the african race —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.184.38 (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• You'll have to be more clear about what it is that you want to know. --M@rēino 00:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess the OP wants to no about subclassifications of race in Africa (perhaps sub-Saharan Africa). Steewi (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no 'African race' any more than there is a European or an American race. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are thinking of ethnic groups in Africa there are a great many. See List of African ethnic groups for a start. For some larger-sized "categories" of Africans take a look at Bantu, a very large and diverse group that includes smaller (but still large) groups like Swahili people. For a non-Bantu group there are the Khoisan people. These are just a few starting places to learn about the diversity of Africans. I can't recall ever hearing the Bantu and Khoisan people referred to as different races, but it wouldn't surprise me, even if it is a poor word choice. Pfly (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP is referring to the traditional division of "distinct" races in Africa, e.g. Caucasian North Africans, black sub-Saharan Africans, pygmies, Bushmen, and any other that I've left out. Not an expert in the field. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the above comments about the inadequate and misleading nature of racial categorization. The OP may want to look at Negroid, however, for some information about scientific attempts to define the predominant "race" of Africa. --M@rēino 15:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What does this quote mean

"To be great is to be misunderstood" - Ralph Waldo Emerson. I'm not able to understand it. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• You can't understand it because Ralph Waldo Emerson is great. --M@rēino 00:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

To be great is to be misunderstood = All great men will be misunderstood = Great men have great ideas, that the non-great will not be able to comprehend. - Nunh-huh 00:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If this was deliberate, Legolas, I enjoyed the self-depracation. If not, it may be even more funny. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A list of Catholic converts to Evangelicalism or Protestantism?

Where can I find I can't find anything on the net but there are plenty of statistics on Protestants who convert to Catholicism.

Thank you!

XXXXXXX@XXXXX.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amkmyr (talk • contribs) 02:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is... there's only one "Catholicism," so it's probably easier to get statistics on that than Catholicism to any one of a vast number of groups, organizations and sects under the heading of "Protestant." I really wouldn't know where to begin. ◄Zahakiel► 02:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I deleted your email address (part of Wikipedia's policy to protect you from spam). Anyway, here are a couple ideas:

1. Check out this list of people who converted to catholicism at NNDB. You'll have to cross-check it yourself to see who's protestant.
2. I haven't read it, but I've heard that the article From Wheaton to Rome does a good job of explaining why some Evangelicals convert to Catholicism.
3. I'll also hand you the names of the two highest-profile converts of the past decade: Senator Sam Brownback and the Right Honorable Tony Blair.

--M@rēino 15:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I should point out that my answer comes from reading the body of your question, where you ask for information but not statistics on "Protestants who convert to Catholicism". In the title ("A list of Catholic converts to Evangelicalism or Protestantism?"), you ask the reverse question, and the information I provided would not be of use to you. --M@rēino 19:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, the user is pointing out that such information can be found (i.e., protestant to Catholic), but "can't find anything on the net" regarding the reverse. The title is sort of tied in to the question. ◄Zahakiel► 20:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh, I freely acknowledge that my interpretation is an unlikely one. I just thought it made more sense to spell out why I posted what I did than to delete my post. --M@rēino 20:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote from van Gogh letter

In Vincent van Gogh’s letter to Theo from Isleworth on October 31, 1876[12] he says he is reminded of this quote: “Once at the evening of my life, tired from care and strife, I'll bring Thee praise more loud and fair, for each day given to me here.” Where does this quote come from? (Unfortunately I don’t have an annotated collection of his letters.) Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's from gezang 390:

Eens aan den avond van mijn leven,

breng ik van zorg en strijden moe

voor elken dag mij hier gegeven

U hooger, reiner loflied toe.

The gezangen (hymns) are a collection of religious songs performed in Dutch reformed churches. As sons of a minister, Vincent and Theo probably knew a lot of these texts by heart. David Šenek (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is curious that the translator, who apparently wanted to translate rhyming verse to rhyming verse, did not choose to use the perfect rhyme clear – here instead of the half rhyme fair – here.  --Lambiam 02:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The translator was Johanna van Gogh-Bonger. Go figure. --S.dedalus (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the Australian word "pohm"?

I would like to know where the word pohm originated from and why? If it means Prisoners Of Her Majesty, who sent them to Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.27.30.92 (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We cover this alleged meaning at False etymology#Acronyms in the examples, section, and in Alternative words for British#Pommy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Red Cross Societies

It's understood that the Red Cross Society of Eritrea and the Tuvalu Red Cross Society are invited as observers to the IFRC's General Assembly. Both Societies are still pending recognition and admission. Will they ever be officially recognized and admitted?72.229.136.18 (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What I meant to ask was what's their status right now?72.229.136.18 (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Burgermeisters in Latvia

Hi I am looking for a burgermeister by the name of Wilhelm Frederich Schwede who lived in Latvia approximately between 1850 - 1900. I have not been able to find this information and was wondering if you could help.

Thank you!

Anne Schwede from Australia… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.31.248 (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In [13] it says: "An Edward Schwede was born around 1860 in Riga Latvia - he came to Australia sometime prior to 1889 and married Annie May Louisa Wright in Brisbane in 1890. She is sometimes known by any of her first three names. His parents were Frederick and Louise Schwede." There is a hotmal contact of a source who may be able to help with your query.

In [14] it says: "...Frederick Schwede married to Louise or Dora. Frederick's occupation was a farmer. His son, Edward Schwede, was born in Riga Latvia about 1856-1860. Edward migrated to Queensland, Australia about 1883." On the same site: "...Barbara Schwede who married Cornelius O'Leary in 1878 in Wellingrove NSW. They had 9 children in the Glen Innes area. She died in 1890 at Glen Innes. Her parents were shown on the marriage certificate as Joseph and Louisa."

Both e-mail addresses of the querents are in .au, so you probably know these people and the references, anyway.

Also consider contacting the Latvian reference desk. There is an entry an a Juris Svede in Toronto, but it being a non-IE language I can not even guess the meaning. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I mixed up Latvian and Estonian, but I still don´t understand it. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Where does one find the Latvian reference desk?  --Lambiam 20:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question, but I can´t answer it. I simply looked up the main page of the Latvian Wikipedia, http://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sākumlapa. As I could not understand / guess most words I typed the surname "Schwede" (in a few spellings) into the query box.

There are a few icons on the main page, one - or more - of which could go to a reference desk.

I had hoped that a Latvian speaking Wikipedian would stumble across this question and may give some further assistance to Anne. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Their Juris Švēde is our George Swede. Švēde/Swede is apparently not his birthname.  --Lambiam 02:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Drumbeats

I'm keen to look up what common drumbeats (swing, 8-beat) look like when expressed in regular musical notation. Our article at Percussion notation is very basic on the subject. Is there anywhere on the internet that has this? Or, if I bought a "drumming for beginners"-type book, would it be there? (As you can tell, I'm no percussionist.) AndyJones (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are some simple examples of beats notated for the drum set. Note that swing rhythms don't always use the triplet (or triole} notation, the way it's done in that example; often, the ride cymbal's "ching ching-uh ching ching-uh" is notated as simple eighth notes and the swung notes are implied (making it easier to read). ---Sluzzelin talk 09:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For a slightly more complex example, here is a transrciption of Vinnie Colaiuta's Slink. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Iconoclasts from Iran in Holy Land in 614

I've just returned from a trip to Israel 3-4-08. Our guide told us that Iranian iconoclasts destroyed Christian churches save the church in Bethlehem, in 614. This happened before the Moslem move into the Holy Land. Can anyone give me more information on these Iranian iconoclasts? Mikesvd (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC) mikesvd

Quite a lot going on in that period, by the looks of Hadith of the prediction in Sura al-Rum#Timeline of relevant events. The perps would be the Sassanid_Empire of Persia --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of odd to describe them as "Iranian iconoclasts". The Holy Land, and Mesopotamia in general, was a battleground for the Sassanids and the Roman/Byzantine Empire. In 614 it was Khosrau II against Heraclius, and Khosrau captured Jerusalem, destroyed some churches, and took the relic of the True Cross. I don't think this is related to the iconoclasm movement in the Byzantine Empire (which happened later), it's just that Khosrau was Heraclius' arch-enemy, and this was a good way to stick it to him; if Heraclius had taken the most important symbol of the Zoroastrian faith, it would have been similar. Heraclius did pretty much overrun the Sassanid Empire in the following decades anyway. (Interestingly, at least to me, in the 12th century, this event was sometimes considered the starting point for the crusades, as the destruction of the Sassanids allowed the Arabs to expand and conquer the Holy Land themselves.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not iconoclasts, conquerors making a point. Jerusalem had resisted them, so when they finnaly took it, they massacrd much of the population and destroyed the churches. Standard procedure. The Jewish population also collaborated with the Persians, getting revenge on the Christians, who had mistreated the Jews, imposing taxes, enforced conversions, that sort of thing. The Persians were seen by the Jews as saviors. The sage Shimon Bar-Yochai stated. "If you have seen a Persian horse tethered in the land- expect to see the feet of the Messiah." AllenHansen (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the relevance of the comments about the Jews, (unless you're suggesting it was Jews who smashed up churches) and you include anachronism - the events of 614 post-date the death of Shimon bar Yochai by about 400 years. --Dweller (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Congressional term limits

From Talk:Term limit —Random832 20:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}} For research, I need to find arguments for and against U.S. Congressional term limits. Would someone please help me out on this one? But please, don't post it here; click here to post it. Please and thank you! BlueCaper (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Atatürk's Societal Impact

Was Atatürk's impact on society primarily accomplished through public speaking or writing? User:Vikramkr (signed for Vikramkr by ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

Well, first and foremost, the impact he had on society was a direct consequence of the authority he had built up as a soldier, particularly in the Turkish War of Independence. He was both a speaker and a writer, but in a country like Turkey, still at that time with high levels of illiteracy, the ghazi was most effective in the personal appearances he made around the country, coming not to deliver grand set-piece speeches in the style of Hitler and Mussolini, but in an altogether less demonstrative way as an educator. You might enjoy Andrew Mango's Atatürk, Vikramkr. I certainly did. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Without his authority, his charisma, and his ways of reaching people, Atatürk would not have had the impact he had. It must be said, though, that once he was in power, the impact Atatürk had was also mediated by the power of the state, in the form of what is known as Atatürk's Reforms, which were laid down in laws, laws that were enforced by force if necessary. As President of the young Republic, but also as the founder and leader of the Republican People's Party, then the only political party in Turkey (see Single-Party Period of Republic of Turkey), he was in control of the state apparatus, which he used quite effectively to realize his reforms. And, finally, his reforms had the revolutionary impact they had also because they were chosen with apparently great political insight in what was needed, what was possible, and what would be effective. See also Kemalism for the ideology that may be considered Atatürk's legacy.  --Lambiam 02:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

my question about israel and palestine

i asked a questino about israel and palestine a few days ago but now i can't find it here, can someone point it out for me? thank you.

It's been archived. You can find it here. Gwinva (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

March 5

How is Lani Guinier's name pronounced?

--zenohockey (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Like it was spelled "Lonnie Gwahneer" - Nunh-huh 10:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added IPA to her article. --Sean 15:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

University degrees: why year of graduation, not age at graduation?

When people say when they got some sort of degree in university, why do they say the year they did it instead of how old they were when they did it? 124.181.64.190 (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tradition, Equal opportunity, anti-discrimination, avoiding ageism? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Because when you (or an employer) need to verify their credentials, you will need to know what class they graduated with, not what age they were when they did it. - Nunh-huh 10:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Also, it's usually more important to the employer to know how long the person has been out of school (and therefore how many years of experience they might have) rather than whether the person was relatively young or old for their graduating class. --M@rēino 14:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Murder assignment

I am currently doing a forensics's assignment which needs me to write about a case where forensic evidence has been used to convict the criminal can you recommend a case for me to study? it would be of great help

Litvinenko? Not that there's been a conviction, but it's recent and complicated enough. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look at Barry George, who was convicted for the murder of Jill Dando on the basis of a particle of gunshot residue found on his clothing. The conviction has since been overturned and George is to be retried later this year.

Does DNA evidence count as forensic? If so, you could also look at the case of Steve Wright (serial killer), who was convicted last month of the murders of five women in England. His DNA was found on all five of the victims' bodies. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Colin Pitchfork, the start of using blood/DNA as forensic evidence.Joseph Wambaugh wrote a book about it called "The Blooding"" hotclaws 11:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The recently concluded Suffolk Strangler case included a huge amount of forensic evidence. --Dweller (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

mao voluntarism

in what way did Mao Zedong voluntarism harm chinese people? C C Chan (talk)

Great Leap forward, backyard furnace, Great sparrow campaign, Cultural revolution... AnonMoos (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Clio the Muse?

who is Clio the Muse really and why she so brilliant? i think maybe she is a Wikipedia collective?

Hmm, no, just one very smart woman I suspect, and if she hasn’t posted that information on her user page I suspect she doesn’t feel like making it available to anybody with an internet connection. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

She has a talk page where you can ask her these questions yourself. Soliciting personal information on editors is not a purpose of the Ref Desk. Rockpocket 07:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The thought of a collective (probably of Oxbridge post-grad students, or unemployed PhDs) has crossed my mind. Remember that the Greek muses were a group of nine. But a cursory knowledge of forensic linguistics would suggest Clio is indeed one person, albeit without too many other pressing time commitments, for which I for one am grateful. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Unemployed PhDs? A shameful thought! --98.217.18.109 (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Like Homer? (Allegedly) --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Clio is certainly an individual. It would be impossible for a collective to consistently generate her wit and personality. Marco polo (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what stylometry leads me to assume, amusing though it is to speculate on collectives. Joe Klein], the journalist who wrote Primary colors anonymously, was outed by his ideolect. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Glasgow 1915

What was Mrs Barber's army?86.141.249.43 (talk) 08:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Churchill and Goebbels

As our article on the Iron Curtain makes clear, Joseph Goebbels used the phrase "Iron Curtain" to refer to the division between Western and Soviet-occupied Europe a year before Winston Churchill did.

Is there any evidence that Churchill was aware of Goebbels' use of the term before his Fulton speech? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Rodney King and the LA Riots 1992

This will sound a bit weird but plse can someone give me a good website where there are FACTS (preferably from television coverage) about the Rodney King case and the resulting riots? All I get is opinion after opinion however I search. All I need is a list of facts regarding the court case and the situation. Thanks.

Did you google "Rodney King trial transcripts" ? Stuff comes up. Example[15] Julia Rossi (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

After Flodden

I would like to call on the expertise of you good people once more. I'm looking to set a task for my history group on Scotland in the immediate years following the Battle of Flodden in 1513. What I really need to know is why the English did not follow up on their victory when Scotland was prostrate? What were the immediate political effects in Scotland after the battle? Was their extensive raiding? Did the English make any indirect attempt to impose their will? I've had a look around the encyclopedia, but I can't really find what I am looking for. Unfortunately your pages on John Stewart, Duke of Albany and James V are somewhat cursory. Any additional help would be greatly appreciated, for the educator seeks to be educated! Thanks. Hamish MacLean (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Jung and the Nazis

There is an interesting section in the Wikipedia article about C G Jung about accusations of Nazi sympthies. Is there anything in his published work that would give support to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.191.136 (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

managing figures in a Company

I'm a student in economics; I was reading the article about the main managing figures o f a Company; now i would like to ask if does exists the possibility that in a company, ruled 100% by another company, exists the figure of a Chief Strategy Officer that belongs to that main company.

Thank's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.67.127.2 (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Chinese discovery of America

Were the pre-1492 Chinese ships capable of sailing to America? Jacob Lundberg (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware of the book and TV series discussed at 1421: The Year China Discovered the World? BrainyBabe (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the article doesn't answer the question if the could have sailed to America. It is quite clear that they didn't. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, the ships most certainly could have, if the sailors had a reason to venture that far away from home, if they had enough provisions, and if they could find a way around the massive navigation problems that existed during the early age of exploration. Consider, for example, our article on Norse colonization of the Americas. The Norse had much more primitive ships, but the idea that they explored eastern Canada is completely plausible (if not completely proven). If you want to ponder even more, check out what I consider to be one of the best articles on Wikipedia: Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. There are plenty of civilizations with less imposing vessels than the 1400s Chinese who could have plausibly reached the Americas. The problems, always, were motivation, provisions, and navigation. But the ships definitely were up to the task. --M@rēino 14:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese certainly could have sailed across the Pacific, but the more important question to my mind is, why would they? The great voyage of Zheng He was not one of looking for undiscovered lands but rather one of a massive show of force within an ancient and well-established maritime trading system (the Indian Ocean mostly). People who sail off into unknown seas usually have some pressing reason why they would take such a costly risk, which the Chinese didn't seem to have (everyone was trying to sail to China already!). Additionally, only the most foolhardy or desperate navigators sail with the wind at their back far into unknown seas without knowing there are other winds that will take them home. It took something like 150 years for the Spanish to figure out how to cross the Pacific from west to east, after Magellan's first east to west crossing. And the Spanish had good reasons to try and had already unlocked the wind patterns of the Atlantic Ocean. What I find more interesting than a possible Chinese voyage to America is the Polynesian exploration and colonization of the Pacific islands (note that they did almost all of it by sailing into the prevailing winds). A recent issue of National Geographic stated without reservation that the Polynesians managed to reach South America, which was something I had thought was controversial. Pfly (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also there are many stylistic similarities between some central/south american civilisation's art and the taotie mask designs of very early chinese dynasties. So it looks possibe that they did. Whether they got there in boats, or an alternative method is another question.87.102.85.28 (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sartre and 68

What was Sartre's attitude towards the uphevals of 1968 in France? Did he support the student protests? F Hebert (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Byzantium and the Crusades

Although the crusades began as a consequence of Byzantine appeals for aid against the Turks they ended being as much if not more of a danger to the eastern empire than the muslim enemy. The fourth crusade showed how much of a danger the latin west was to the east. I assume that there must have been a recognition amongst the Byzantines of the danger to their security of unruly western armies. They asked for the first crusade but how did they perceive the second, the first they did not ask for? P D Bee (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

They didn't really ask for the First Crusade either - Alexius I Comnenus expected some mercenaries, not tens of thousands of knights, some of whom attacked Constantinople on their way, and almost all of whom needed food and money from him. They definitely recognized the danger of large groups of western knights wandering around their territory and even around their capital city, especially since one group was led by Alexius' bitter enemy Bohemond of Taranto, who had attacked the Empire in the past and would do so again in the future. An excellent perspective on this is Alexius' daughter Anna Comnena, who wrote much about the crusade; one anecdote talks about a French knight who even dared to sit on Alexius' throne. It was all Alexius could do to hurry the crusaders into Anatolia as quickly as possible. In 1101 another crusade passed through Constantinople and he sent them all off to Anatolia too - mostly to certain death, now that the Turks knew what to expect! The Second Crusade was somewhat better organized. The crusader states in the east were a legitimate diplomatic entity and had a respectful relationship with the Empire; Byzantine princesses and crusader princes were beginning to intermarry. Byzantium saw itself as the protector of the crusader states, although this did not always work out in reality. As for the west, well this was the first crusade to be led by kings, so, to the Byzantines, it had more of a legitimate air than the rabble that showed up in 1096. But the Second Crusade didn't start off very well either; the Byzantines had learned from the First Crusade and had more troops ready to defend their territory. The Germans under Conrad III fought with those troops, and Manuel I Comnenus, just like his grandfather, sent them off as quickly as possible - mostly to defeat and death, and very few of them ever reached the Holy Land. Conrad and Manuel seem to have been friendly though, and after Conrad was wounded in Anatolia he recuperated with Manuel in Constantinople. Then the French under Louis VII arrived, and they were similarly troublesome. It also did not help that Manuel had made a peace treaty with the Seljuks in Anatolia, in order to concentrate on defending himself from crusaders. The crusaders assumed he was a Muslim ally and worthy of attack himself! They were sent away just as quickly, and just as quickly ran into the Turks. By the time the French reached the Holy Land they were too small a force to be beneficial. I do not know, off the top of my head, what source would give the Byzantine perspective on the Second Crusade; possibly John Cinnamus. Forty years later, it was almost the same story for the Third Crusade. Isaac II Angelus made treaties with the Muslims in order to defend himself, and tried to get Frederick I Barbarossa out of his hair as fast as he could. Frederick must have expected this, as he was a participant in the Second Crusade, as the young Duke of Swabia. Frederick was more successful in Anatolia, but he ended up drowning in a river. The other leaders, Richard I of England and Philip II of France, perhaps recognizing what a hard time they would have marching through Constantinople, avoided the whole problem and travelled by sea. And ten years after that, there was the disastrous Fourth Crusade, which all but destroyed Byzantium.

There are many books about the Empire and the Crusaders; aside from Anna Comnena and Cinnamus, another contemporary is Nicetas Choniates, who witnessed the Fourth Crusade but wrote about the earlier ones as well. The best modern book on the subject is probably "Byzantium and the Crusades" by Jonathan Harris. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mongol invasions of Japan

Would this essentially equate to China invading Japan, or Mongolia invading Japan? I'm not too familar which country really represented the Mongol Empire. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, neither really, the Mongol Empire was its own entity. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the soldiers who invaded Japan. Where did they mostly come from? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Much like any empire the troops were not entirely mongolian - but the leaders were

mongolia, and chinese recruits as well - see and read for more info: Mongol_invasion_of_Japan - some koreans too.87.102.85.28 (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Texas primary, Texas caucus

I heard Clinton won the Texas primary, but the Texas caucus was still open. I thought primaries and cacuses were the same thing? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)