Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities
Please discuss those issues on its associated talk page, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines.
Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg
April 28
Unlikely UK book ownership statistic
Channel 4 documentary The Human Footprint includes the following "interesting if true" statistic: "More households in the UK own two cars than two novels". UK census shows 31% of households have 2 or more cars[1]. Various surveys[2] put the number of people who don't read books or haven't bought a book in the last year at around a third. Can anyone guess at Human Footprint's source on this, or provide other (better?) sources for UK book ownership statistics. Thanks. -CarelessHair 01:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- There seems to be a disconnect in those statistics, to me. Even if a third of the people "don't read books" or "haven't bought a book in the past year", they may very well still have two novels in the household. There may be another reader in the household, or the novels may be left over from school or previous residents. Keeping this in mind, the portion of households with fewer than two novels would be significantly lower than 1/3. StuRat 02:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that this is a misreading by the program of a different figure. I found this: "The researchers, Book Marketing Ltd, asked 200 couples to record their reading habits for three months. The results show that the "two-novel household" is rarer than the two-car household, with 23% of couples both reading fiction compared with 26% each owning a car. (The Telegraph, 27 May 2002)" found quoted on http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/Database/Mori.html#never
"Bloodletting & Miraculous Cures" By Vincent Lam
Hey! I was wondering if anyone knew what the theme(s) of the book "Bloodletting & Miraculous Cures" is. As well, I was wondering if anyone could find any symbols/images in it. Thank you!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.103.119 (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
- You can read some reviews at Amazon.com that should give you an idea about the theme(s), and you can find more on the author's website. --LambiamTalk 04:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Last redact of my map
Hallo, here is my last design of the map of England in 1683. Schottland has another color because it belongs to England through personal union, not through conquest. It is possible, that the syncronization isn't so good - may be you must double-click the image to get the actual version of the map. Thanks to all, especially Clio the Muse and Marco polo. -- jlorenz1 08:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why does the map date the personal union to 1601? (It took place in 1603.) Scotland didn't belong to England, by the way. Nice map: though the yellow seems a bit strong compared to the greyish colours, and "The British Isles in 1683" might be a better title. qp10qp 14:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Two comments:
1) The inland waters (lakes) are a different color than ocean water, I'd use the same color for both.
2) The key is in German (I think), so I assume this is for the German language Wikipedia ?
StuRat 15:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, its in german, but the graphic is SVG. So you can edit this map in Inkscape or as XML in Notepad. So it is very easy to change the language. Sorry qp10qp, 1601 this was my own mistake. I'll correct it with the inland waters -- jlorenz1 18:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- The yellow does look very bright; when I first saw this image, I thought it was specifically highlighting Scotland. Laïka 20:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the map is factually accurate except for the date of the personal union. I also agree that the title should be "The British Isles in 1683" (or "Die Britischen Inseln, 1683"). "England in 1683" would be more appropriate if the map did not show all of Ireland and Scotland. Since the point of the map is to focus on England, I would use the brightest color for the area of England and Wales, and dimmer colors for the other countries. It is right that Scotland is in a different tint altogether from England since, unlike Ireland and the Isle of Man, it was not an English dependency. As for the use of different colors for inland bodies of water and seas, this is a question of style. There is nothing wrong with using different colors; this is a standard practice among British (and perhaps European) cartographers, though it is less common among American cartographers. But there is nothing wrong with it. Marco polo 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Kinsale is misspelt "Lingsale" ("Kingsale" would be acceptable as an archaism). Also, Lough Corrib north of Galway is a lake, not a sea inlet as the coloration suggests. If the map intends to show places important at the time, then note Carrickfergus was bigger than Belfast. Regarding colours, I suggest bright for England+Wales and bright+dark cross-hatching for Ireland and Isle of Man. jnestorius(talk) 18:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
USA vs USSR
Who was stronger (in all means, military, economic, cultural influence...), the USA or the USSR during every period of the Cold war? I guess the west was somewhat stronger, but I don't know to which degree. Thanks. --Taraborn 15:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Military: The US was more powerful early on, when they had far more nuclear weapons. Later, approximate parity in nuclear weapons was achieved with the USSR being superior in land forces in Europe and the US being superior in naval forces. So, hard to say who was stronger.
- Economic: The US was always far more economically powerful, it wasn't even close.
- Cultural influence: The US was also far more culturally influential. How many American brands, movies, and songs are known worldwide ? How many Russian brands, movies, and songs ? (Even famous movies about Russia, like Dr. Zhivago, tended to be American-made). Russian lit was more influential than other cultural influences, but most of that was from Tsarist Russia, or before the cold war, in any case.
- Political influence: You didn't ask about this, but I would say a rough parity existed here, as well, with many countries going to communism early on, but then switching to capitalism after experiencing all the shortcomings of communism. One odd case is China, which still insists it is officially communist, but is capitalist in almost any measurable way. StuRat 15:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
In many respects it is difficult to draw strict comparisons between the military power of Russia and the United States, and much depends on what point in time one's analysis begins; but in terms of conventional forces-tanks, guns, army divisions and the like-the old Soviet Union was considerably stronger than the United States at almost all stages in its history from 1945 onwards. As you will see if you read the page on the Military history of the Soviet Union, the Russians had up to thirteen million men in arms by 1945, far stronger than the United States or any other nation. Though this figure was reduced after the defeat of Germany, the Soviets still maintained a force of some five million. The real weakness at this time, with regard to the United States, was the abscence of a nuclear capability. This gap in offensive strength was made good in 1949 when the Russians tested their their first nuclear weapon. From this point forward the chief thrust of Soviet military policy was to attain parity in nuclear arms with the United States, a position they achieved in strategic weapons by the late 1960s. Even after the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks the Soviets continued to have a powerful arsenal which, by 1986, was reckoned to be the strongest in the world, with no less than 45,000 warheads, according to estimates supplied by the Natural Resources Defence Council. In terms of Naval forces the Soviets made efforts to keep up with the west, sacrificing, to some degree, quality in favour of quantity.
So, by the time of Leonid Brezhnev the Soviet Union was, in a number of respects, the strongest military power on the planet. But this came at a huge cost. The United States was able to maintain high levels of investment in both the military and the civilian economy; the Russians could not. From the time of the first Five Year Plan under Stalin the chief emphasis had been on military investment at the expense of consumer goods of all kinds. In the late 1980s as much as a quarter of Soviet economic output was being spent in the defence sector, with growing shortages in all other areas of the economy, from housing to food. Even areas like health care, in which the Communists had always taken some pride, began to suffer. Figures on infant mortality, for example, were so embarrassingly bad that they simply stopped being published. The whole impressive military superstructure was built, to use a Marxist analogy, on a weak and weakening economic base. The 'Race of the Economies' was comfortably won by the United States, stronger in all respects than the Soviets, even in periods of slump.
Cultural influences are the most difficult of all to determine, and it really depends where in the world one happens to be standing. In most aspects of popular culture, particularly in cinema and music, the influence of the United States-even in the Communist world-was well ahead of the Soviet Union. Russian directors, despite censorship and restrictions of all kinds, did make some very high quality movies, though these tended to have a limited 'art house' appeal in the west. Russian writers maintined their influence in the world right through the Soviet years, though the best among them, notably Solzhenitsyn, Pasternak and Shalamov, often operated in the most disadvantageous circumstances. But overall the Americans also won the battle of cultures. Clio the Muse 18:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am very grateful for your two excellent answers. To StuRat: ":Political influence: You didn't ask about this...". I did. That's why I typed "...". --Taraborn 20:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I suppose I should have said "you didn't ask about this explicitly". StuRat 16:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Name for Stalin's and Hitler's hat
Those two guys wear similar hats as shown in photos. Does it have a name? --Taraborn 15:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you could link to an example photo, that would help people respond. - Eron Talk 15:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, the politics of headgear! I think what you have in mind is the military-style Peaked hat, with a visor to the front. Hitler almosy always wore this for public appearances, and Stalin in his role as generalissimo. However, you should also note that Stalin, earlier in his career, usually wore the kind of cloth cap favoured by Russian workers, while Hitler, in his more casual moments at the Berghof, was to be seen in a bourgeoise fedora. For real style in hats you should check-out Mussolini, who, amongst other things, wore a fez! Clio the Muse 17:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Or Stonewall Jackson, who wore a cadet's cap that disintegrated and had to be patched several times. Lee and others made comments about how utterly shabby the cap was. Arguably, he wore it to make a populist point, but it's as likely that it was his lucky hat. I think, though, that the cap he wore, and the caps the questioner is referring to, is sometimes called a campaign cap. I'm not entirely sure, though. Geogre 18:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, the great Stonewall Jackson, an eccentric in most respects! Mussolini-who also had a flamboyant style-certainly wore the kind of campaign cap you have linked, Geogre, but most assuredly not Hitler or Stalin. I now have an absurd image of the Führer and the Vozhd in mind, wearing their caps at a jaunty angle! Hats, incidentally, was the one subject guaranteed to keep Hitler amused through the war years. Goebbels frequently pointed out to him the style of headgear favoured by Churchill, from sun-helmets to sailor caps, in his journeys around the globe. Clio the Muse 18:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, what would anti-"German" propaganda of World War One been without the wonderful picklehaub? If Otto von Bismark had not worn such a ... distinctive ... helmet, cartoonists would have been in trouble. In fact, I believe the venerable picklehaub (pickelhaub? pikelhaub?) has even survived as an object of humor to this day. It was a very immodest chapeau. Geogre 21:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Pickelhaube, Geogre. It is said [citation needed] it was invented to prevent the seagulls from sitting on the Emperor's head and soiling his statues. Dr Zak 01:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Aha! The Pickelhaube! Mein Deutsch nicht ist. One would also suspect the utility of a hat that would make one the instant winner in a game of Red Rover. :-) (Yes, we're a bit silly, and the RD isn't supposed to do that much. I will now return to po-faced academicism.) Geogre 13:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- (I'll bet there were no photos of Hitler in a bowler). I have sometimes envisioned a TV comedy sketch of opposing generals having a cap contest, in which they alternately put on caps with higher and higher peaks. Edison 01:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- A bowler? Well, if Stalin can wear one [3] why not Hitler? Clio the Muse 02:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Where the hell are the Monty Python gang, now when we really need them? JackofOz 04:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is this scene in The Great Dictator, where Anton Hynkel and Benzino Napoloni are the barber's, and they raise their barber's chairs ever higher. Dr Zak 12:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
de:Pickelhaube is something other, it's more a cap for pilots or captains on the sea -- jlorenz1 01:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair tax or fair crap?
Fair governments that depend upon source of revenue have always given favor to that source. Labor currently finds favor with government as the result of earned income. If earned income as the source of government revenue is replaced by sales will government then favor the consumer instead of labor and even more so the rich, who always have plenty left over after meeting basic needs and virtually anything else they want? 71.100.8.252 15:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- You said: governments ... have always given favor to that source but you don't define what you mean by 'favor', nor do you specify the analytical basis of your premise. For that reason alone, your assumptions need more support for your question to be meaningful. For example, from an economic perspective, what you call "favoritism" could be called the systematic application of a discretionary counter-cyclical fiscal policy, with the objective of stabilizing fluctuations over the entire economy, (balance of trade, aggregate demand, govt. budget etc.). dr.ef.tymac 17:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- What I mean in regard to "favor" is that although little sis loves mom when it comes to money she "favors" dad. 71.100.8.252 05:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Essentially the question comes down to this: What will the difference be for labor, the consumer, the poor and the rich if the primary source of government funding comes from people who have money to spend rather than labor to sell? Such a dramatic change in the source of funding cannot help but to have major impact of an unwise and dangerous kind. Where is the sandbox in which this proposal was tested and on what other basis would you risk your life and others that I am wrong? 71.100.8.252 07:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- The difference in the effects of a sales tax and an income tax is mainly that a sales tax hits people with lower incomes harder than an income tax. The reason is that people with lower incomes have to spend virtually all of their income on consumption. However, people with higher incomes spend a much smaller portion of their income on consumption, because their incomes exceed their needs. People with high incomes devote a substantial share of their incomes to savings and investment. This saved and invested income would be subject to an income tax, but not to a consumption tax.
- Also, it isn't really right to say that the government "favors" the people from whom it takes most of its revenue. How so? Is it doing them a favor by forcing them to pay more than their share of taxes? The government does not favor people who spend most of their income on consumption (that is, most people of low or middle income) by taxing mainly consumption. In fact, it disadvantages those people by taxing them disproportionately.
What a difference a decade makes...
Typically, when thinking back to 20th century events, every decade has its own distinct flavour; the fashion, tastes, music, architecture and politics of 1950s were very different to those of the 1940s or the 1960s. But further back, would 10 years have such an effect on society? Would people in 13th century think the 1250s to be all that different from the 1260s? Laïka 19:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is fairly safe to say that the pace of change in the western world has become ever more rapid since the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in the eighteeth century, so much so that, by the twentieth century, it was possible to determine differences in style by the decade, as you indicate, Laika. In our century perhaps the half-decade will become more significant as a period of measurement. But the further back in time one goes the slower the rate of change becomes; indeed people in the 1350s are likely to have noticed little change from the 1250s; so a measurement in a single decade would have no significance whatsoever. If you want a contemporary example you might care to look at some Third World economies and societies. Life for the African peasant today is hardly much different from life fifty years ago. Clio the Muse 19:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- The 1890s were known as the Gay Nineties, so it goes back further than just the 50s or 60s. I think the analogue to "decade" in the middle ages would have been the rule of a particular king or queen. Think of the "Elizabethan era," for example. (Okay, not the middle ages, but you get the idea.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
If you're interested in the concept of an ever-quickening rate of change, you may want to read the book Future Shock. Personally, though, I believe there are some limits on the rate of change, such as humans only being able to change at a relatively slow rate (for example, many older people still don't use computers at all). StuRat 22:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Back to the original question, I'd say that there has to be a concept of a decade for there to be a cultural image of one. People in 1250 were surely aware of the date, but their understanding of history, while epochal, probably did not have a space for things such as decade-long zeitgeists. They thought of, wrote of, and spoke of "rule of X" more often than decades. Their organization of time would be more likely to be along the lines of "In Leo X's time, things were..." than "In the 1310's, we all...." In other words, they conceived of the character and temper of the times as being organized much more along the lines of the leader or the national movement than they did as if the time had within itself an independent spirit.
- Additionally, for there to be a knowledge of a decade, there has to be communication. We know what the 1980's were because of the news industry, television, and rapid communication and transmission of culture across distance. We cannot speak of the 1980's, unless we have a picture of what happened then. Knowledge of the outside world was at a serious premium prior to the regularized postal system, and that had to wait for stable national borders and the concept of the nation state, as well as navigation and transportation improvements.
- Things change, and the rate of change is one of those things that we always perceive to be too fast. Whether history is actually moving more quickly these days than it formerly did or not, we are almost compelled to think that it is. After all, we find the same hand wringing in the preface to Lyrical Ballads in 1798. We found it in the letters of Alcuin, too. They may have all been wrong and we may be right, or it may all be the same, but I'm not sure we can know. Geogre 00:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- These are all superb points, Geogre. There is much in this whole question which is to do with perception, and the nature of time as a social and historical construct. I would even question if most people in 1250 were aware of dates, in the sense we understand them today. They may, indeed, have referred back to the time of a particular king or lord, though only in the most general terms. However, daily life for most would have been determined, in age-old fashion, by the rhythm of the seasons; and by this simple calculation there would have been little, if any, difference between 1350 and 1250. The peasant farmer in the Middle Ages might be said to have lived in a kind of perpetual present, with horizons extending no further than the borders of the manor estates in which they played out their lives. Clio the Muse 01:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Another point is that although fashions in architecture, clothing, and the like may have changed from year to year, they may not have changed for the vast majority of citizens, and we may not know what those changes were. We know, for instance, that changes in clothing fashion (among the wealthy and the comfortable) date at least as far back as the 1660s in England. Samuel Pepys discusses fashion in his diary, especially in relation to his wife's spending habits and her new clothing, and in at least one entry I recall off the top of my head complains that his wife's new tabby dress cost a fortune and would likely be out of style next year. (He didn't mind much, though; her appearance was essential to his status as an up-and-coming bureaucrat.) However, the overwhelming majority of men and women didn't and couldn't follow fashion and might not even have known it existed. Most clothes were handmade, sometimes from scraps of clothing that had worn out, and were only replaced when they became unwearable. Women sewed what they knew and what they had the fabric for, usually simply replacing what they had been forced to throw out. And most people only owned two or three changes of clothing at most.
- What's more, we don't really know what most of those fashions were. Yes, we have paintings from that time, but they don't show what people wore on an everyday basis as much as they show what people wore to have their portraits painted. It was standard to hire or borrow an expensive, often exotic robe or dress to have one's picture painted, and many women were painted in costume as saints (Elizabeth Pepys, for instance, was painted as St. Elizabeth) or ancient mythological characters. --Charlene 07:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oooh, well, when it comes to Restoration dress, the serious culprits were men. First, this is a time when people wore worsted wool, and that means that they could not wash their clothes many times. (One reason cotton was king, later, is that it replaced a difficult fabric.) So, clothes needed replacing frequently. People had their smelly everyday wear and their very expensive luxury wear. In class conscious societies (England, France, Spain, Portugal, HRE) anywhere in a city (and, later, all over when rapid communication occurred), each class attempted to dress like the class "above" it. The nobles had to look like the royals. The merchants had to look like the nobles. The artisans had to look like the merchants. The peasants wanted to look like the artisans and small holders. An estimate I read when I was in college (yes, citation needed) said that, prior to the Civil War in England, nobility spent on average, one third of their income on clothes. Imagine spending more on clothes than rent/mortgage every month. The system was untenable and impractical. After the Restoration, things did not change a great deal. Ultimately, it would take the water looms and textile factories to reduce the base cost of clothing enough for the upper classes to compete with each other on a different basis (architecture, horses). And we sneer at $1,000 purses today. :-) Geogre 13:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the more closely one researches a given era of the past, the more complex and changing it seems. When asking whether 10 years would have much of an effect on society, it's only fair to compare societies of reasonably equivalent cohesion and communication.
So, let's look at, say, 17th century social changes in places like England, Scotland, France, Germany, New England, Virginia, New York, the West Indies, etc. This may bring up the issue of familiarity. People today (who read wikipedia!) are probably familiar with the 1950s and 1960s and have a feeling for how things changed. Perhaps one can feel a kind of empathy (or even memory!) for what it was like to live during those times. But how familiar are people with the 1670s, 1680s, 1690s? Can you list off the major events effecting people in England, Virginia, New York? (clearly I'm testing readers for knowledge of things like King Philip's War, Bacon's Rebellion, the founding of South Carolina and Pennsylvania, the final transformation of New Amsterdam into New York, Rampjaar, the Glorious Revolution, War of the Grand Alliance (aka "Nine Years' War"), the not-unconnected mass migration of Germans to Pennsylvania, Covenanter rebellions and such things as the Battle of Drumclog, and the not-unconnected beginnings of Scottish migrations to Pennsylvania, the Monmouth Rebellion, La Salle's voyage down the Mississippi River and the French claim to Louisiana, the Edict of Fontainebleau, the not-unconnected migration of Huguenots from France, the Boston fire of 1679, Leisler's Rebellion, Massachusetts' invasion of Quebec (Battle of Quebec (1690)), the creation of the Dominion of New England and then the Province of Massachusetts Bay, the Salem witch trials, the destruction of Port Royal, the publishing of Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, and even the extinction of the dodo!)
And that's the short, mainly political list. How many people can honesty say they have the same feeling of the difference between the 1950s and the 1960s in, say, London, as they do of the difference between the 1670s and 1680s in, say, Boston?
I'm not arguing that the size of "society" and the speed of communication has not been accelerating lately, for some of the planet's people. But I do wonder how much of the sense of accelerating change is due to a general forgetting of the past and an increasing inability to imagine what life was like long ago. Pfly 07:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, here is a little true story for you, Pfly, drawn from history, which might serve best to illustrate the 'timeless' nature of certain modes of existence. After the defeat of the Jacobite Army at the Battle of Culloden in 1746, Prince Charles Edward Stuart, aka Bonnie Prince Charlie, fled to the west of Scotland, where he remained in hiding for a number of months, moving from place to place. During this time, the government of George II made serious efforts to track him down, by land and sea. One naval sweep made it as far west as the remote archipelago of St Kilda, where they found that the inhabitants not only knew nothing of the existence of the rebel Prince, but also they had never even heard of King George! Clio the Muse 08:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Which King Louis was insane?
I remembered hearing about one of the Louis being insane but can't remember which one. It was said that he used to capture mice and hang them and all sorts of other weird stuff. I've looked through the pages of Louis XIII to Marie Antoinette's son and cannot find record of it. Iluvelves 20:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's possible that it is not a Louis at all, and that you are thinking of Charles VI, also known as "the mad," but someone else may have better information. Carom 21:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Mad king Louis of Bavaria?
It's more likely to be Charles than Ludwig, as there is still some doubt over the nature and degree of the Bavarian king's madness. All the French Louis' were sane enough, though some of them were highly eccentric. I'm not familiar with any accounts of a king hanging mice. It's worth remembering, too, that the historical record can occasionally be quite scurrilous, and there is often an explanatory gap between what did happen and what is occasionaly said to have happened. Perhaps the most notorious example of this is The Secret History of Procopius, with its savage caricature of Justinian and Theodora. Clio the Muse 22:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Florida child custody laws
I'm 17 years old, and my parents have been divorced for 12 years. Over that period of time, I have lived out of a suitcase and switched houses at LEAST twice a week, every week, for these past 12 years. how can my father get full custody of me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sooroopoof (talk • contribs) 22:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
- If you're 17 you might want to just wait until you turn 18, then you can go wherever you like. StuRat 22:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you're looking for legal advice, Wikipedia cannot offer exactly that. Talk to a legal professional. Splintercellguy 23:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- You have my full sympathy. If you have put up with this for 12 years, can you just somehow put up with it for the remaining months? Perhaps get a calender and mark off the days. It will pass quicker than you think. Edison 01:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm no lawyer, but presumably your father can go to the family court and ask for a change of the custody arrangements. Lots of child-custody arrangements change when the child reaches adolescence and can make up his or her own mind about where he or she wants to live, although that's usually written into the divorce settlement from the get-go. -- Mwalcoff 07:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- State laws are very different on this kind of thing. It is even possible that given your age, you may have a better case with independence given your proximity to age of majority, which is usually 18 in most places, but not everywhere. I won't go any further than that, but there are means for intolerable situations. A lawyer with experience in family law may be willing to discuss the issue with you on a pro bono basis if you look around, and you may also be able to find assistance from school guidance counselors. Only you can decide how intolerable your situation is, but waiting the situation out, if at all possible, would likely be the path of least resistance. In fact, your 18th birthday could moot the issue before formal proceedings were completed if you went that route. –Pakman044 23:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
WII and the War With Japan
I have never understood why the war with Japan became part of WII and not just another war that was happening at the same time.
While I realise both Gerrmany and Japan were reacting to similar issues, such as Treaty of Versailles, I don't see many other similarities.
Why for example, after Pearl Harbor did this lead to the US supporting Europe in defeating Germany rather than just Japan. It seems to me that it would seem sensible for both the Germans and UK to not get involved in another war when they had so much going on closer to home.
Why are these wars lumped together and given the single label "WII"? Caffm8 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I take it you have read the page on the Second World War, Caffm8? If you picture a conflict growing in ever increasing circles, then you will begin to appreciate the full significance of WWII. By late 1941 it had subsumed and united what might be said to be three distinct conflicts: the Sino-Japanese War, the War in Europe and Africa, and the war in the Pacific. In every conceivable respect it had become a war which had embraced the whole of the planet. You must remember also that when Japan attacked the American base at Pearl Harbor it launched simultaneous attacks against the British in Hong Kong and the Malay States; so Britain, already at war with Germany and Italy, was automatically pulled in to the war against Japan. Hitler was under no obligation to assist Japan in its war of aggression against the United States, but chose to do so on his own initiative, declaring war on 11 December 1941, as did Mussolini. By the end of the year, therefore, the United States was at war with all three of the Axis Powers. Roosevelt could have given priority to the war against Japan, but in discussions with Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, it was decided that the war in Europe would have the first call on men and materials. But as it turned out, America was able to fight effective campaigns over two Continents. Incidentally, the Japanese decision to go to war had nothing at all to do with the Treaty of Versailles, which was a specifically German grievance, and much more to do with obtaining the resources, particularly oil, to enable it to sustain its aggressive war in China. Clio the Muse 23:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why did the US give priority to the war with Germany? The Germans may have declared war on them but it seems unlikely to me that they could or would have brought the war to US's doorstep being rather busy fighting the war in Europe. Caffm8 23:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- For this particular question you need to refer to Europe first and the Arcadia Conference. The simple answer is that Germany was considered to be the greater threat. And as far as an immediate challenge, and bringing the war to America's doorstep is concerned, German U-boats began sinking tons of US shipping in the so-called Second happy time. It was a question of strategic priorities. Clio the Muse 00:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- The American people would have preferred a war against Japan first, since Germany had not launched such a vicious assult against us. The U.S declared war on Japan on Dec. 8, 1941, then Germany honored their mutual defense pact with Japan and declared war on the U.S. They could have remained at peace with the U.S, because the pact only required them to aid Japan when it was the victi\m of external aggression, and the U.S. might theoretically have remained neutral in the European war for a time, just as Russia was at war with Germany but not Japan until mid 1945. As it was the U.S. declared war on Germany on Dec. 10, 1945. Churchill was said to be very happy that Japan attacked the U.S. and brought us fully into the war.Edison 01:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Edison, just one small correction to what you have written here: the United States declared war on Germany on the afternoon of December 11 1941, not 10 December 1945. Also, Hitler did not declare war on the United States to honour his mutual defence pact with Japan. The Tripartite Pact put him under no such obligation. He did so for reasons unconnected with any existing treaty, as you make clear further on in your submission. Clio the Muse 02:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I should not rely on memory. But from where comes "Hitler did not declare war on Japan !" Edison 07:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Edison, just one small correction to what you have written here: the United States declared war on Germany on the afternoon of December 11 1941, not 10 December 1945. Also, Hitler did not declare war on the United States to honour his mutual defence pact with Japan. The Tripartite Pact put him under no such obligation. He did so for reasons unconnected with any existing treaty, as you make clear further on in your submission. Clio the Muse 02:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Touché! The error has now been corrected, kind sir! Clio the Muse 07:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect Germany took top priority for a couple of reasons. First, England was in danger of falling, which would mean losing a base from which to launch an invasion to free Europe, whereas in the Pacific theater, the timing wasn't as crucial. Second, the US had stronger ties with Britain than with the Phillipines, China, etc. Also, Germany simply was a bigger threat. If it had conquered all of Europe and the USSR, it would have posed a long-term danger to the US (today Europe, tomorrow the world). Japan, on the other hand, had its hands full with a divided, ill-equipped Chinese enemy. It just simply did not have the resources or industrial might to threaten the US. The entire Japanese strategy was to grab a large amount of territory and natural resources and hold on for dear life, hopefully making the cost to take it back so great that the Allies would sue for peace (big miscalculation). Clarityfiend 04:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- England was not 'in danger of falling' in December 1941, Clarityfiend, though Russia looked as if it were about to go under, with the Germans within miles of Moscow. If the Soviets had collapsed, it is difficult to see how England could have remained in the war, especially after the main German army returned west. Europe completely under the control and influence of the Nazis would, indeed, have been a far greater threat to the security and integrity of the United States than Japan ever could be; hence the Europe first strategy. In the circumstances, any other policy would have been strategic madness. Clio the Muse 06:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- My mistake. The Battle of Britain had come and gone by then. Clarityfiend 10:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- England was not 'in danger of falling' in December 1941, Clarityfiend, though Russia looked as if it were about to go under, with the Germans within miles of Moscow. If the Soviets had collapsed, it is difficult to see how England could have remained in the war, especially after the main German army returned west. Europe completely under the control and influence of the Nazis would, indeed, have been a far greater threat to the security and integrity of the United States than Japan ever could be; hence the Europe first strategy. In the circumstances, any other policy would have been strategic madness. Clio the Muse 06:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
April 29
Can someone please tell me what an average coureur des bois would take with him/her on an expedition? Thanks. --Drahcirmy talkget my skin 01:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about "average", nor have I ever heard of a female in the role; however, you might go to Coureur des bois, though there seems to be some internal inconsistencies as to whether it is "coureur des bois" or "coureur de bois". Most of what would be taken, aside from trade goods of their employers, would be the tools to allow them to keep themselves alive: like, for example, hunting and fishing equipment, tinder boxes, salt . . .Bielle 01:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- If Toussaint Charbonneau can be considered a Coureur des bois, then Sacajawea could, as well, I suppose, so she would be a female Coureur. Corvus cornix 21:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it is unlikely that she was so considered, or considered herself, but I have no evidence for the negative. Bielle 23:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Would companies abuse if government turned its back...?
Would government still focus its concern on protecting and benefiting labor if labor were not government's primary funding source or would companies and employers find it easier to abuse labor in the absence of labor doing the primary funding and government giving its help and protection to spenders without need to be employed? 71.100.8.252 08:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I could believe that most tax revenues come from workers, not from companies (who have tax shelters and such). However,
bribesdonations to political candidates and parties come from both companies (and their industry PACs) and employees (and their unions). StuRat 08:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) This is a loaded question. Take a country in which the political system is democratic (truly, not only in name), so that the country is governed by the rule of law without corruption, there is freedom of speech and organization, and people can freely participate in fair elections. If a majority of people in that country earn their living through paid labour, then a government that does not protect labour, and political parties supporting such a government, will quickly lose popular support and be ousted at the next general election (if not sooner). This does not depend on the government's primary funding source; for example, this is also the case if that source consists of the revenues from natural resources, such as oil. If the country is not democratic and run by a coalition of special interest groups, then the labour laws will reflect the interests as perceived by the powers that be – which need not have a clear connection to the government's main sources of income. --LambiamTalk 08:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- When asked who they work for career government employees who are guaranteed a job through civil service usually reply: "The taxpayer." So who do you think career government employees will say they work for if their salaries are funded by natural resources? "Natural resources" of course. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that career government employees who's salaries come from sales tax would say (or at least think) "The consumer is my ultimate boss." Thus, if you as a citizen have achieved self sustenance - produce everything you consume and pay no or minimal sales tax then career government employees when asked who do they work for will say you are the last person that comes to mind and possibly that they don't even consider you a citizen. (Check out how some of the self-providers who have settled in Alaska are treated.) On the other hand if you spend boo coo dollars on everything from fancy yachts to new houses to vacations in space what do you think they will say (or think)? "That's the guy I'm working for and proud of it too!" So now Classism is not just a theory but a real down to Earth issue practiced and supported by government. Nebraska Bob 11:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Verbal Contract
Hi,
Can you tell me if a verbal agreement is enforceable if agreed upon under the influence of alcohol? The sober party lost money from the other not doing the job.
Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.193.125 (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
- We don't give legal advice, but I would nevertheless like to quote Samuel Goldwyn who said that "a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." The alcohol does not make the sober party's case stronger, in my opinion. Skarioffszky 10:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Are not all contracts verbal? I think Goldwyn meant "oral". - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am not a native speaker of the English language (neither was Samuel Goldwyn), but I thought one of the possible meanings of "verbal" was "spoken, not written". That's also how the original questioner uses it. Skarioffszky 13:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Are not all contracts verbal? I think Goldwyn meant "oral". - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not all oral agreements have the nature of a contract, and in some cases contracts are required by law to be in writing. The precise rules will depend on the jurisdiction, so do not interpret the following as legal advice. In general, in the absence of specific requirements concerning the form of a contract, an oral agreement is just as binding and enforceable as a written agreement. Whether drunkenness can be invoked as an argument that the contract is void or unenforceable depends, again, on the specific laws of the jurisdiction, but usually this is not considered a strong argument as long as the agreement itself, at the time it was reached, was unequivocal. --LambiamTalk 11:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Per Kittybrewster's comment, actually not all contracts are verbal: see implied in fact contract and implied in law contract. An example (I think) is that when you order food in a restaurant, you have entered into a contract to pay for it, although probably none of that contract was put into words. </nit-picking> Algebraist 18:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- IANAL, but I think that when you use words to order food, those words are taken as implying that you agree to pay for it, and that would be a reasonable inference for the supplier to make. Even a tick in a box on a motel breakfast menu is considered to be a "word" in this context. In some (usually formal) contexts, it's necessary to say "oral" to distinguish between speaking and writing. But Skarioffszky is right, "verbal" is usually taken to mean speaking as opposed to writing. Goldwyn's pun could be criticised for saying it's written on paper when clearly it's not. But that would gut the point of it, and reveal the gutter as singularly lacking in the last vestige of humour. Leave my friend Sam alone! :) He did a lot to enrich our great language. -- JackofOz 00:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Another thing to consider when lamenting a drunken evening of ill-advised contractual arranging is that contracts with patently unreasonable provisions will generally not be enforced (or at least have those provisions struck). If you drunkenly promise to kill yourself or to be someone's slave, no court will enforce that promise. I'm not sure what the legal name for this sort of exception would be, but I've read about it on occasion. --TotoBaggins 20:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Difference in breach
Hello, with a law contract can you please explain to me the difference between a breach of a condition, and a breach of a warranty? Cant find condition in wikipedia. Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.193.125 (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
- A generic term is breach of contract. The term breach of warranty refers, more specifically, to a situation in which something (goods, or services) was sold, but failed to meet agreed or reasonable expectations. It is not used if the contract does not have the nature of a sales agreement. Usually a contract may specify certain conditions, so if a party violates a condition to which they are contractually bound, this form of breaching the contract takes the form of breaching one of its conditions. For example, my neighbour may agree to pay me money if I agree to take trumpet playing lessons and additionally to not do my exercises or otherwise play the trumpet before 10 o'clock on Sunday mornings. My not playing that early is one of the conditions of the contract, and should I start my etudes on a Sunday morning at quarter past nine, I breach that condition. --LambiamTalk 12:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Anonymous IP, the distinction applies variously in different contexts, and is sometimes too subtle to be of note outside academia. One important application, however, is in the context of a sales agreement between a buyer and a seller of goods (I'm assuming this is what you're asking about, If this is homework, stop reading now.).
Here is an extremely simplified illustration that should help clarify this:
- buyer contracts with seller for goods
- seller is obligated to deliver, and buyer is obligated to pay upon reciept
- when all goes right, the contract is said to have been performed and everyone is happy
- if seller delivers non-conforming goods this is one way things can go wrong
- if a bitter dispute ensues, seller will try to argue it was only a breach of warranty; buyer will try to argue it was a breach of condition
- the reason they will argue differently is because it affects the remedy that a judge will impose if they cannot resolve their dispute:
- breach of warranty generally means the seller has a right to try to cure the defect by delivering conforming goods, and then the buyer still has to pay the contract price
- breach of condition generally means the buyer can repudiate the contract, and reject seller's delivery with no further obligation (other than to return the goods)
- for extremely complicated situations, the distinction can be difficult to make, but result in a major loss depending on how it is resolved
The reason this is important is because, sometimes, buyers may find the same or similar goods at a cheaper price, and then try to get out of a contract in order to buy the goods from someone else. This is called opportunistic rejection. (see also Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer, Uniform_Commercial_Code, Key Topics in the Uniform Commercial Code(not very good), and Warranty). dr.ef.tymac 15:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
"Once more into the breach..." StuRat 16:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Appendicitis
Am I right in thinking that appendicitis is becoming more unusual in UK? If so, I wonder why? Kittybrewster (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Appendicitis has a link to the following: Hugh TB, Hugh TJ, "Appendicectomy — becoming a rare event?" MJA 2001; 175: 7-8. I can't tell you if it answers your question, or even deals with the UK, as I can't get the link to work. The title is suggestive, however.(I wonder if the spelling of "Appendectomy" is the problem with the link.) Bielle 13:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- MJA is The Medical Journal of Australia, so it probably doesn't have much to do with the UK. PubMed doesn't have an abstract. However, I did find a copy of it online (cached link). Here's a quote: "It is likely that the fall in appendicectomy rates is because of more accurate diagnosis, possibly associated with the use of ultrasound examination, computed tomography and laparoscopy, and to a change in surgical attitudes to avoid "unnecessary" operations." --Joelmills 14:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's just what I was going to suggest. Appendectomies were once almost done as a preventative measure. That is, anyone who showed any possible symptoms had the operation done "just in case". I believe that after they cut the patient open and found no evidence of appendicitis, they still removed it, both in case they were wrong and in case it became a problem in the future. A cynic might also argue that this was a good way to pad the doctor's pockets. StuRat 16:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- The MJA link is working for me now. As to the spelling, appendicectomy is an alternate form of the word common in Britain and Australia. --Anon, April 29, 2007, 21:09 (UTC).
- Not to nitpick, but I'd argue that appendectomy is the later alternative to the original (and correct) appendicectomy. It's formed from the word appendix. There's no such bodily organ as the append. :) JackofOz 00:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then perhaps we should append one. :-) StuRat 05:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Lord Hanuman
Please let me know the botanical and English name for the leaf(Known as Aakda in Hindi offered to Lord Hanuman. Is it poisonous? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.71.137.235 (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
- It's possible the plant you are referring to is Calotropis gigantia, although the common name for this seems to be "akda," rather than "aakda" (I don't know if that makes a difference). According to this , Calotropis gigantia has a poisonous sap. Carom 16:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Calotropis gigantea -- I came to the same conclusion. And this page warns pretty seriously that it's poisonous. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Arlo & Janis
Can anyone explain to me what Jules Feiffer has to do with today's Arlo & Janis? Dismas|(talk) 12:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to be an homage to one of Feiffer's more famous cartoons, see here. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Or go to Feiffer's web page [4] and wait while "A Dance to . . . My Very Own Web Site" comes up. Bielle 13:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... I get it now. Thank you both. Dismas|(talk) 13:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Homework (legal liability for motorbike)
Hi, i have to do a school project on basic law and I have listed one of my questions below.
This is not a real case so just looking for an opinion to help me get started with some legal terms. My teacher says it is just an interpretation so nothing binding. Thanks very much.
Question 4:
One day during a break in lectures Sam offers to sell his ‘restored historic motorbike’ to Tim, saying the offer would remain open until last lecture on Friday.
Sam then sells the motorbike to Jill who is seen by a reliable witness falling off it an hour later. She claims it is her bike. Tim, suspecting that Sam has already sold the bike to Jill ‘accepts’ the offer prior to the Friday deadline.
Briefly explain the principles likely to apply in a Court Case if Tim sues. Will he be successful? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.193.125 (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
- IANAL, but from my layman's perspective, Sam didn't specify that he wouldn't sell the bike to someone else, it was just implied when he said that the offer would remain valid until Friday. I doubt that helps you out though... Dismas|(talk) 13:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- While I'm still not a lawyer... I thought these links might be helpful: List of legal doctrines. It's a relatively short list that you should be able to go through and pick out the ones that you think apply. Dismas|(talk) 13:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- There was no consideration for the implied promise to sell the bicycle. A contract consists of offer + acceptance + consideration + an intention to create legal relations. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- While I'm still not a lawyer... I thought these links might be helpful: List of legal doctrines. It's a relatively short list that you should be able to go through and pick out the ones that you think apply. Dismas|(talk) 13:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
If he purports to accept and the vendor says the offer is no longer open, his maximum potential damages are the difference between the actual value and the agreed price. Which will be a question of evidence. And could well be nil. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at Specific performance, Option contract and How to ask a question (above). dr.ef.tymac 15:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Do a Google search for "Dickinson v. Dodds" This hypo is very close to that case. GreatManTheory 16:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Economic class
I'm looking for information on economic class, not socio-economic class or social class where the Wikipedia article on economic class currently points. As an example of what I am looking for consider one dentist, who operates a free clinic funded by donations and grants while a former classmate operates out of a Manhattan office which serves the financially elite. Both dentists belong to all of the same fraternal and social clubs but one is poor (by comparison) and drives and eight year old ford compact while the other is rich and his Bentley is chauffeur driven. They are friends with different tastes but believe themselves to be in the same social class although not in the same economic class. Clem 14:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that economic class and social class are so interwoven that they can't be separated like that. In your example the rich person likely is a member of expensive private golf clubs, goes on vacation in Paris or other expensive locations, has a yacht, and attends black tie charity events. All of this allows the rich person to move in completely different social circles than the poor person. StuRat 16:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You might, conceivably, find what you are looking for in the work of the German sociologist, Max Weber, particularly in the three component theory of stratification, with its emphasis on the importance of social status and political affiliations, as well as social class. In the example you have given, differing interpretations of the importance of wealth and income has placed these people in distinct economic strata within society, though they may enjoy the same status in terms of background, education, profession and taste. Weber develops these ideas in Economy and Society, published in 1914. I suppose if the two friends had differing religious backgrounds, and thus a differing set of ethics and values, you might find some clue to the paths they have pursued in life in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber's great seminal monograph. Clio the Muse 17:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Homework (gambling and the law)
Thank you everyone for helping me.
I have another question that I cannot find any examples for and have no idea. Please give me some general ideas again! I am really stuck.
Question 5: Tom and Mary were happily married. Tom however tended to spend almost all his pay packet at a casino on his way home. Mary insisted that Tom agreed to pay her $500 per week for housekeeping. The following week Tom forgets about the agreement and looses all his pay at the casino. What are Mary’s legal rights?
- Hi, Anonymous, I seem to have answered one of your earlier questions prior to reading all of the Reference Desk board and noticing that you seem to be using this as a free homework-help service. If you want a hint, consider that T and M are married, and whether that might affect their rights relative to one another under contract law. Consider also that T may be in violation of the 2005 marital equanimity act, which strictly prohibits casino gambling with marital property. Consider also that T may be able to plead temporary loss of sanity because of his addiction. Consider also that M may have violated the parole evidence rule by insisting instead of making an "re-optionable offer" under the Uniform Commercial Code. Consider also the terms "offer" "acceptance" and "consideration" that were in your course materials.
Consider also that what you are doing may constitute academic misconduct.
Consider also that I and others may have deliberately given you some misleading information, because people should be punished for not doing their own homework. dr.ef.tymac 15:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Do a Google search for Morone v. Morone (Court of Appeals of New York, 1980) for case law on what sort of contracts couples can enter into. GreatManTheory 16:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear dr.ef.tymac
I appreciate your help although sarcasm really isn't nice.
I asked for help on 3 of 45 questions that I have. This is only a small percentage of what I need to do. I am working really really hard and clearly labelled my headings as homework so I was honest from the start. I dont have anyone to help me so if you feel I am taking advantage of this wonderful site then do not reply to questions that clearly state are homework.
- Ok, If I was mistaken regarding your objectives, or otherwise unfair to you, I sincerely apologize. As far as I saw, though, only two questions were clearly identified as homework, and I had no idea how far you were planning to take this line of questioning. I appreciate your candor and efforts to clarify. For future reference, if you have any other issues with me, individually, and not the RefDesk in general, please post that to my user talk page instead. Again, please accept my apology if I over-reacted out of prejudice. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 16:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Follow-up: Oh yeah, another thing, I wasn't joking about the possible misinformation, you definitely got some answers up there that you will need to check against your course materials ... but then that applies to all material within Wikipedia, right? Wikipedia:General_disclaimer. dr.ef.tymac 16:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Update: If you are the same person who asked about "Difference in Breach" (making that
34 out of 45 questions?) you might also want to google search "Jacob & Youngs v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)". dr.ef.tymac 18:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
GreatManTheory you are a genius!!
Thank you so much
April 30
Military brat (U.S. subculture)
The lead section of today's Featured Article, Military brat (U.S. subculture), says: "Military brats typically have a love for their country, and have been raised in a culture that emphasizes loyalty, honesty, discipline, and responsibility. Sometimes these values are so strong that they cease to be virtues and become weaknesses." I have no access to the reference for this assertion, and I'm not a social scientist. I would like to know what constitutes a weakness, and what those weaknesses are in this particular case. AecisBrievenbus 01:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Excessive patriotism can give way to jingoism. An overly-developed sense of discipline can lead to a lack of empathy for others with weaker constitutions (children, say). It seems like a flimsy statement to not have a reference, but these are some things that came to mind. --TotoBaggins 01:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's a really bizarre statement, but the FAC people have been haywire for a while now. ("We don't know what any of them say, but they must have footnotes, whether to legitimate things or not.") In fact, children have a tendency to adopt and then reject the atmosphere of their parents' cultures, no matter the job. The "preacher's son" is the wildest. The "military brat" is the most anti-military, etc. In other words, it's the old, old story of differentiation of ego. When a child adopts his or her parents' ideology, the child will do so without the life experiences and nuances of the parents (if any), and so they tend to be the same, only moreso. This is the case with the child of the religious, the child of the intellectual, the child of the soldier, etc. Then, when the child begins to experience ego differentiation (i.e. "teen rebellion"), the more constraining the previous expectations had been, the more noticeably or violently the child reacts. So far as I have seen, this is not unique to the children of soldiers. Then again, I only have life experience to draw upon, and not a footnote to a website. Geogre 02:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- However, what is (nearly) unique to this case is that not only does the child have parent(s) in the military, but all the child's friends also have the same, and the teacher is provided by the military, etc. The uniformity of the culture is unusual, perhaps being mirrored in children raised in communes. StuRat 04:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- In particular, I was concerned about the following quote violating wikipedia's suggestion of Avoiding weasel words: ``Many are typically highly educated, outgoing and patriotic, and they have been raised in a culture that emphasizes loyalty, honesty, discipline, and responsibility. Many struggle to develop and maintain deep lasting relationships, feeling like outsiders to U.S. civilian culture.Llamabr 11:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I removed what I thought was least defensible in the lead (namely, the sentence quoted in the original question here). The material below is quite unbalanced, but at least gives (eventually and slightly) a more nuanced view. Wareh 13:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Newspaper question
When did the practise of printing a big edition one day a week start? Why is it Saturday in Canada and Sunday in the US? What is it in other countries? Clarityfiend 02:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's usually Saturday in Australia. The Weekend Australian is published on Saturdays but the title acknowledges it's meant to keep the reader happy for the whole weekend. Most Sunday papers have inserts that increase their bulk too, but I literally put 50% of my Saturday paper straight into the recycling. JackofOz 03:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's meant to provide more "entertainment" when readers presumably are off work on the weekends. Note that expanded comics, crossword puzzles, etc., are often included. StuRat 03:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's usually Sunday in Brazil (if anyone cares). A.Z. 04:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure Clarityfiend cares; he did ask about other countries. -- JackofOz 04:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just remembered an interesting fact: the Sunday newspaper can be bought already on Saturday afternoon here. I don't know how it is in other countries. The newspapers on other days of the week are impressed on the same day that they are sold. Is is like that in all countries? (added later: I just saw StuRat's comment below... Now I wonder if they sell the papers on Saturday with or without the part containing the news) A.Z. 06:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- There are both Saturday and Sunday newspapers, each containing that day's news, which are still delivered on the proper day. Only the "non-news" portion of the Sunday paper is often delivered a day early (but the dates on them still say Sunday). Specifically, I think the non-news parts of the Sunday paper are delivered to the paper boys on Saturday morning, and they may opt to deliver that portion early or leave it for the Sunday paper. Most opt to deliver those right away. StuRat 15:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette used to deliver the entire "Sunday" paper on Saturday to some areas. This "Sunday" paper contained only feature stories, with no daily news. Other parts of the delivery area received a regular Sunday paper with both feature stories and daily news from Saturday. I don't know if they still do this. -- Mwalcoff 02:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- There are both Saturday and Sunday newspapers, each containing that day's news, which are still delivered on the proper day. Only the "non-news" portion of the Sunday paper is often delivered a day early (but the dates on them still say Sunday). Specifically, I think the non-news parts of the Sunday paper are delivered to the paper boys on Saturday morning, and they may opt to deliver that portion early or leave it for the Sunday paper. Most opt to deliver those right away. StuRat 15:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, in the US, even though the big paper is officially on Sunday, they often deliver the comics, magazines, coupons, ads, etc., on Saturday, instead, making the Saturday paper the biggest. StuRat 05:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- For history: "1861, April 21: Responding to the thirst for Civil War news, major dailies, including The Times, start Sunday Issues." (From The New York Times website. It doesn't say anything about quantity or other parts of the world. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's Saturday in France. According to the fact that most papers sellers are closed on Sunday. -- DLL .. T 07:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- While in Britain, most national newspapers have a big saturday edition and a semi-independent sunday sister paper with a different staff. Algebraist 10:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's mostly the case in Australia, too. JackofOz 00:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems clear that it's Saturday here in Canada because the idea of doing business on Sundays was much slower to develop here than in the U.S., so most cities didn't have Sunday papers until relatively recently, if they even do now. The Toronto Star didn't publish on Sunday until 1977, for instance. Hence the "big paper" on Saturday was traditional. --Anonymous, April 30, 2007, 23:17 (UTC).
Dark Side of the Moon
On Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon, the song Any Colour You Like has a very different sound from any of the other tracks on that album. Are there any other Pink Floyd songs that have the same kind of funky, trippy feel? (I apologize; this question is an opinion question and I know it's not really appropriate for the reference desk.) Jolb
- Answering on your talk page since this is opinion. Dismas|(talk) 05:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's hard for me to see what the Humanities desk is for if not for asking about things like the stylistic connections among artists' works. The question is completely appropriate and could obviously be answered by someone in no danger of spewing mere opinion but possessing authoritative knowledge of Pink Floyd's works and styles. Wareh 13:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I own every Pink Floyd official release (plus a few more, wink, wink) and have been listening to them my entire adult life. I have been a member of discussion groups about the band and have read books on the band's history. Though any thoughts that I would give on what songs sound "trippy" would be my opinion. I know of no quote from the band members or critics who espoused on this song in particular as it's one of the least written about. And the only time it has been played in concert, that I can think of off the top of my head, is when the band was doing a full Dark Side show. And because of that, I didn't want the editors who feel that the Ref Desk should be devoid of opinion to start chanting "Hammer, Hammer, Hammer..." Dismas|(talk) 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's hard for me to see what the Humanities desk is for if not for asking about things like the stylistic connections among artists' works. The question is completely appropriate and could obviously be answered by someone in no danger of spewing mere opinion but possessing authoritative knowledge of Pink Floyd's works and styles. Wareh 13:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Pax Romana
Could someone explain how the very first sentence of the Pax Romana article could need a cite? Is it the dates that could be called into question? Dismas|(talk) 08:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- This question may be better asked at the article's talk page, but the present article has not a single reference, and the editor who added the tag remarks on the talk page: "It is modern, disputed term that is retroactively applied. I wonder who came with it." --LambiamTalk 09:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- At least the person who tagged wrote on the talk page. The term is disputed, but this is partly due to allegations of ethnocentrism. The point in that case is that the term has a huge, huge, huge cultural life, so there is every justification for having an article on it. Of course it's a retroactively applied label. Augustus didn't say, "My fellow Romans, I plan to begin the Pax Romana today. Let's all work together." It's just a label applied a long time ago and discussed for a while. It's very important for Christology for example. Geogre 10:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- How so (the importance of Pax Romana for Christology)? --LambiamTalk 10:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- For one of the prophetic settings of the incarnation, the Messiah must appear in a time of global peace. I cannot recall now which of the Church Fathers first made the point about the "100 years of global peace" of the Pax Romana being coincident with the birth of Jesus, but, of course, as we know and the critics point out, "global peace" did not occur. It was peace in the west, and then only in the sense of peace between nation states. There were plenty of rebellions and civil wars and fully fledged wars in other parts o fhte world. Geogre 11:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- "The son of David will come only in a generation that is either altogether righteous or altogether wicked" - see Jewish eschatology Dr Zak 12:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- For one of the prophetic settings of the incarnation, the Messiah must appear in a time of global peace. I cannot recall now which of the Church Fathers first made the point about the "100 years of global peace" of the Pax Romana being coincident with the birth of Jesus, but, of course, as we know and the critics point out, "global peace" did not occur. It was peace in the west, and then only in the sense of peace between nation states. There were plenty of rebellions and civil wars and fully fledged wars in other parts o fhte world. Geogre 11:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- How so (the importance of Pax Romana for Christology)? --LambiamTalk 10:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Augustus made much of the fact that there was finally peace (after two generations of uninterrupted civil war). In the Res Gestae he wrote "Our ancestors wanted Janus Quirinus to be closed when throughout the all the rule of the Roman people, by land and sea, peace had been secured through victory. Although before my birth it had been closed twice in all in recorded memory from the founding of the city, the senate voted three times in my principate that it be closed." Well, he is allowed to. The Res Gestae amongst other things report that he rebuilt the bridges of Rome (thirty in all) and fixed the failing water supply. The infrastructure must have been totally in ruins. Dr Zak 12:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- In any case it is a mis-use of the citation requested tag. No citation is requested. --24.147.86.187 02:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Flowers offered to God
Please tell me which flowers and leaves are offered to hindu gods and goddesses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.71.137.235 (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
- From what I could discover there do not seem to be any specific requirements for what types of flowers and leaves should be offered to the Hindu deities, though I'd imagine that those "traditionally" offered would be ones native to the areas where it has been widely practiced the longest. So apparently they are not picky about the exact type, although I did find something that says not to "sniff" the flowers to be offered, as the smell is all for the gods, and to not use flowers that have fallen to the ground, along with some other helpful tips and hints.[5] Also the Lotus flower seems to be important to Hinduism in general and Vishnu in particular, so he might be partial to those.--Azi Like a Fox 11:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
lotuses?--Lerdthenerd 11:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Marigold blossoms are used extensively for this in Nepal, and I assume India. Many houses have marigolds growing in pots or small gardens to use for daily puja (worship), and you see many people of all walks of life with the flower petals in their hair in the morning on the way to work or school or market. The flower heads are also strung in garlands over doors and window frames for a certain festival but I can't remember which one. You also see what I think are poinsietta blossoms being sold outside temples for offerings, but marigolds are the most common.--killing sparrows (chirp!) 00:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Scottish War of Independence-also a civil war?
Hello Wikipedia. I need an urgent answer to the question why was the Scottish War of Independence also a civil war? SeanScotland 09:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Our article on the Second War of Scottish Independence explains how this war became also a civil war. --LambiamTalk 10:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Interestingly the article also refers to, "a civil war within a civil war" occurring. Also worth noting, as the article Civil War alludes to, the definition and application of the term "civil war" is often hotly debated and inconsistently applied; one person's civil war is another's Sectarian strife.--Azi Like a Fox 10:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Welcome, SeanScotland. This is a complex issue that goes back to the demise of the Canmore dynasty in the person of Alexander III and his infant grand-daughter, Margaret, Maid of Norway. The death of Margaret in 1290 left no generally accepted successor to the Scottish throne. Unable to solve this deadlock by any internal process, the Scottish political community, fearful of a dynastic war, appealed to Edward I of England to resolve the matter by arbitration. There were thirteen Competitors for the Crown of Scotland in all, but only two of real significance: John Balliol of Galloway and Robert Bruce of Annandale, the grandfather of the future king. At a feudal court held at Berwick-upon-Tweed, then the chief port of Scotland, the matter was decided in favour of John Balliol. The Bruce family accepted this with an ill-grace, keeping alive their claim to be the rightful heirs to the Scottish crown. When war broke out between England and Scotland in 1296 the Bruces, also subjects of the English crown, sided with King Edward, despite their Scottish connections. Though John was duly deposed they were disappointed when Edward refused to recognise their claim.
The Scottish Wars of Independence broke out in 1297, with the Bruces sometimes being on one side, and sometimes the other. However, in 1306 Robert Bruce of Carrick, the grandson of the Competitor, killed John Comyn, a leading rival, and the nephew of the former King John Balliol. Bruce went on to gather a party and have himself crowned king of Scots at Scone. This caused a huge earthquake in Scottish politics: men with Balliol and Comyn associations, who hitherto had been in the forefront of the war of national liberation, now began to side with the English against the Bruce monarchy. Well before his great victory in 1314 at the Battle of Bannockburn, King Robert had spent time in defeating his domestic enemies in a short, but intense phase of civil war, with victories at the Battle of Inverurie and the Battle of the Pass of Brander. This seemed to settle the matter, though the latent hostility of the Comyns and Balliols-now largely living in English exile-to the Bruce monarchy never entirely went away.
In 1329 the death of Robert Bruce opened up a fresh opportunity. Scotland's king was now the infant David II. John Balliol was long dead, but his son, Edward Balliol, grown to manhood, was ready to renew his claim to Scotland, which he did in 1332 with the support of Edward III of England, winning a remarkable victory at the Battle of Dupplin Moor. Soon after he was crowned king of Scotland, though the Bruce faction, refusing to accept this, began a fresh civil war, that engulfed Scotland in the years to come. Although King David eventually prevailed, the matter did not finally come to an end until 1356, when King Edward Balliol finally resigned all of his regal claims. Clio the Muse 12:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Douglas Haig
Was Douglas Haig a great soldier or a butcher? SeanScotland 09:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- To read about various views on this issue, see Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig#Controversy. --LambiamTalk 10:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a matter of abiding controversy, Sean, that I do not suppose will ever be settled one way or the other, though I have a feeling that the pendulum is beginning to swing in Haig's favour. I have long been of the view that only the English could have developed such a negative view of arguably one of the nation's greatest commanders. His contribution in defeating the Germans was widley recognised at the time, by both the people of Britain and a number of foreign observers, including General Pershing. It was several years later when the true extent of the sacrifice involved in winning the Great War began to sink in that a new mood of hostility and revisionism began to emerge. This developed over the years, finding popular expression in John Littlewood's stage production of Oh! What a Lovely War, as well as support in several academic monographs. The whole campaign of vilification seemed to be based on the assumption that Haig sacrificed men unneccesarily; that battles were fought simply for reasons of attrition, and nothing besides; that there was somehow another, less bloody, road to victory that Haig and his collegues did not take. But wars cannot be won without confronting the main enemy army in battle; and this, sad to say, is inevitably a gruesome process. Consider the example of U. S. Grant, who in his campaign from the Wilderness to Petersburg in 1864 and 1865 was arguably responsible for the death of more Americans than any other man in history. At one battle alone, that at Cold Harbour in the early summer of 1864, the Union losses, as a proportion of the total strength of the Army of the Potomac, were as great as some of the battle losses on the western front. Grant could have taken the same road as McLellan, Burnside, Hooker and so many others before him and retreated back to his start line; but he pushed on, to Richmond and victory. Likewise, in the Second World War, Georgy Zhukov, the greatest of all the Soviet commanders, sustained losses at Stalingrad and Kursk quite as dreadful as those at the Somme and Passchendale. What other way was there of defeating the Germans?
Haig, like all other commanders at the time, began without really knowing what the new warfare, the great battle of men and materials, was really about: heavy prolonged artillery barrages were followed by unsupported and uncordinated assaults on enemy positions, with the inevitable consequences in casualties. However, by 1918, Haig had moved through a sharp learning curve, turning the British Army into one of the best in the world, a remarkable achievment when one considers that the country had little in the way of a military tradition, and in 1914 was only able to field four 'contemptible' divisions in France. In the final offensive of 1918 Haig, in carefully co-ordinating a creeping artillery barrage with measured and discreet infantry attacks, was able to advance in relentless stages against the German positions, covering more ground than the rest of the Allied armies. It was this that broke the back of the German army and assured victory. For further information on this subject I would urge you to read John Terraine's Douglas Haig: the Educated Soldier, which, despite its age, is still the best treatment of the subject. Clio the Muse 12:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- GREAT! Thank you Clio Muse for giving such complete answers to my questions. I have two more. How can an english girl know so much about Scottish history, and how can a girl knows so much about about militry history? SeanScotland 17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Sean, this 'girl' knows quite a lot about this, that and some of the other. Clio the Muse 18:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Some other reading that you may find interesting is a fairly recent edition of Haig's war diaries and letters, edited by Gary Sheffield and John Bourne. It is, I believe simply titled 'War diaries and letters," and also contains a fair amount of (rather good) scholarly analysis.
- On your original question, I think Clio has the right of it, and Haig is perhaps better thought of now than at any point since his death. It might be argued that he was not the best of the British Empire commander (some historians prefer Herbert Plumer, others Arthur Currie), but he was certainly not as inept and unfeeling as has been claimed in the past. Carom 19:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Popish Plot
What was the Popish plot and what effect did it have on the goverment of England. I looked at your page but its not very good. 193.39.159.3 09:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- There are indeed better or in any case more extensive articles than our Popish Plot at the German Wikipedia (Papisten-Verschwörung) and the Japanese Wikipedia (カトリック陰謀事件). If you google ["popish plot" site:en.wikipedia.org], you will find more material, although unfortunately not in well-organized form. --LambiamTalk 10:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- For more information on English Wikipedia, see also Titus_Oates#The_Popish_Plot. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, 193.39. You are far too generous. The Wikipedia page on the Popish Plot is truly dire! You will find some additional leads in the articles on Titus Oates, Charles II and James duke of York, though hardly enough to give a complete answer to your question. The Popish Plot itself was a wave of anti-Catholic hysteria that overtook Englnad from 1678 onwards, but the political roots of the crisis go back several years, and has to be viewed against a background of the growing distrust between Parliament and the Crown. It is also important to understand that for English people of the day Catholicism was not simply a set of religious beliefs: it was, rather, an all-embracing ideology, with strong associations with Continental despotism, represented, above all, in the person of Louis XIV. This would have had little bearing on England but for one thing: in the early 1670s James duke of York, the brother and heir of King Charles, who had no legitimate heirs, was known to have converted to Catholicism. The anxiety this caused led to an ever more vocal opposition to royal policy, from the alliance with the Catholic French against the Protestant Dutch, to Charles' attempts to introduce, by royal prerogative, a measure of toleration for Catholics and Protestant Dissenters. It was a highly unstable political mixture that, by the late 1670s, simply needed one spark to cause a major explosion. This came in 1678 when Titus Oates, in collaboration with a half-mad clergyman by the name of Israel Tonge, started to spread rumours that there was a plot by the Jesuits to kill the king. This story went through various metamorphoses; but in the final version the assassination was conceived as part of a grander strategy to replace Charles with the Catholic James. Nothing may have come of these stories but for the mysterious assassination of Edmund Berry Godfrey, a magistrate who had been appointed to look into the whole affair.
It was this murder that really sparked off all that was to follow. It gave substance to the stories of Oates and Tonge, made all the more credible when it was found that Edward Coleman, secretary of the duke of York, was in treasonable correspondence with the French. England was now gripped by collective hysteria. Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, chief among James' enemies, was soon demanding that the Catholic duke be exluded from the succession, thus beginning the Exclusion Crisis. Shaftesbury and his allies, loosly known as the 'Country Party', to distinguish them from the supporters of Charles and James, known as the 'Court Party', formed the Green Ribbon Club, opposed to Catholicism, Absolutism and James in equal measure. Their enemies began to refer to them as Whigs, after a group of extreme Presbyterian rebels in Scotland. The Green Ribbons responded in kind, referring to their enemies in Parliament as Tories, after Irish Catholic bandits. It was on this inauspicious basis that English party politics took shape, which was to be the chief legacy of the Popish Plot. In the end Charles managed to sidestep, though not resolve, the issues that had been raised by dissolving the Oxford Parliament in 1681, bringing the Exclusion Crisis to an end. James duly succeeded to the throne in 1685, held up by a wave of Tory reaction against the Whigs and the murderous excesses of the Popish Plot. But fear of Catholic Absolutism did not go away; and in 1688 sections of the Whig and Tory parties united to remove James from the throne in the so-called Glorious Revolution. Soon after Parliament passed an act outlawing any future Catholic succession, and the Whigs and Tories became a permanent part of the English political landscape. Clio the Muse 11:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good summary. Clio, you ought to rewrite our PP page. The only caution is the objections raised by George Namier in Politics at the Accession of George III (I think that's the name), where he argued that there were no whigs and tories at all, that it was illegal to have a political party, and therefore there weren't any: there was only the king's ministry. Of course the Namierite hypothesis must now be seriously limited. After all, they called each other Tory and Whig in 1737, so, if they didn't pay dues to a central committee and develop united election strategies, they still knew what they meant and still split along country/city, court/country, high/low church. The usefulness, for me, of the Namierite hypothesis is that it reminds us that the evolution of such things as the Patriot Party from a collection of "whig" and "tory" MP's was more flexible than we might assume. Utgard Loki 12:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Utgard Loki. The book you have in mind is, I think, The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III by the brilliant Sir Lewis Namier. Actually, what he argues is that the Whigs and Tories were not tightly organised groups, in the sense we understand political parties today, but highly fluid 'alliances' of like-minded individuals, who could concentrate and disperse as the occasion demanded, often in relation to specific issues. Even so, this great political fracture determined the general shape of English politics from the reign of William III onwards. People at the time would have been very well aware that Walpole was a Whig and Bute was a Tory. But the fluidity of the whole structure is fully demonstrated by the career of William Pitt the Younger, a Tory Prime Minister who came from the Whig political tradition, and always though of himself as an 'independent Whig.' Clio the Muse 19:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I wrote the Patriot Whig article, and it was a revelation to me at the time that such a group came into existence. I'm a naif with the field, but I've been interested for a while in how the "patriot" movements meant what they did in the 30's. Later, with the Pitts, it has a really definable meaning, but it seems to be "anti-Walpole" and "anti-war" in the 30's. This is the period when God Save the King was written, probably by Henry Carey (writer), who seems to be a "patriot" to be an anti-Walpolean. It seems to be an under-discussed era and one that's very hard to stick. Geogre 19:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you want information about the Popish Plot, you must have a free google-account, then you find herea lot of e-books -- jlorenz1 02:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC) See also commons:Pictured Cards of the Popish Plot
Catholic churches response to criticisms
so how come catholik cherch iz whore of baby lon lol...
Sorry... I had to do it =P. But I have a serious (!) question. What is the current approach to protestants, in terms of evangelism? Do missionaries have a hierarchy to decide who to convert? I know that many protestants send priests to Catholic Africans/Mexicans, but what about the other way around?--Kirby♥time 12:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do these Protestant missionaries try to convert Roman Catholics? They're not supposed to, as most churches regard proselytizing as a thing to avoid. It's quite possible that the protestant missionaries are just spreading the word in general, with their interpretation, and aiming at the non-believer and catching members of other faiths. I would assume that the same would be true of those Roman Catholic orders that have missionary branches. They would not intentionally go after protestant believers, but rather go after non-believers and non-practicing. Utgard Loki 12:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- There are many Protestant churches (in particular the evangelicals) who don't consider Catholics "good Christians". I can remember my grandmother calling Catholics "idol worshippers". Many evangelicals, in particular, consider proselytizing as a good thing, bringing in the deluded into the True Church. Corvus cornix 20:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
air turbulence
What is the most damaging event in the aviation history caused by air turbulence? Also, where can I find some air turbulence related videos, I searched "you tube" but they are mostly irrelevant. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.108.217.130 (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
- Not a complete answer, but the articles on wind shear and wake turbulence may help you out. - Eron Talk 18:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- You haven't really defined "damaging" very well, but I presume you equate damaging to loss of life. You may consider looking in Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners and in Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners caused by bad weather, although I wouldn't be enthusiastic about their completeness. In addition, you should definitely look at the above articles, as well as Clear air turbulence. –Pakman044 23:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Antonio's orderal
In Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, if Antonio defended who he thought was Sebastian but was actually Cesario and Cesario denied Antonio, why would Antonio leave a note at the Elephant? I am guessing that Sebastian received Antonio's note, written after Antonio's arrest and before Sebastian arrived at the Elephant. Sebastian was sightseeing at the meanwhile. --Mayfare 19:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've never seen a problem with this: I've always assumed that Antonio went to the Elephant for a few hours, and then left, "leaving word" that he was going to range the town to seek Sebastian out, then ran into Cesario and the knights having their swordfight. Is there a reason why that order of events doesn't work for you? AndyJones 20:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Courtship Rituals/Dating in the 70's, 80's
I need to know what people did in the 70's and 80's to go out on dates. I am only 20 years old and do not know what people did back then. What did guys take girls to do? 76.202.62.120 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Jack
Movies, dances, theatre, skating, skiing, bowling, swimming, long walks, bars, long drives, lectures, concerts, parties, lunches and dinners, picnics, beaches, parks . . . Most of the same things that girls took guys to do and that girls and guys do today, I think, in North America, at any rate. Bielle 22:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Some things never change! There is a page on Youth culture, though it's not a very good introduction to the subject. Jack, why not just ask your people, your mum and dad, I mean? Clio the Muse 22:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- You could always watch some of the great romance movies of the time for indications. Say Anything to me implies that guys were fond of holding beatboxes outside of girls' windows, for example, which I'm sure was quite common back in those rowdy times. --24.147.86.187 01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Personal experience...The movie, Love Story, at a drive-in theatre, if you can't score there::, you've got real problems!
"Beatboxes?" "Rowdy times?" I was there, I thought. I don't recall any of this. Bielle 04:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
copyright status of PRC propaganda posters
Hi there, I posted this question on 'Can I use' (twice) and 'Media copyright questions' and got no response, so I thought I'd try you. I am trying to determine the copyright status of low-res images of political propaganda posters created in the People's Republic of China during the 1950's. This collection of posters and the site's copyright information and attribution policy seem to say that they would fall under GFDL and that {{Attribution}} would apply, but images from the same site, which are currently being used in Criticize Lin, Criticize Confucius, Propaganda in the People's Republic of China and other Wikipedia articles are used under {{politicalposter}} as fair use. Any ideas on the actual status of these images? AFAIK the image I am looking to use was created in the mid-1950's, probably from artwork done by some artist working for the PRC and then reproduced extensively, the site consists of low-res scans of posters in the siteowner's collection, which are the images I want to use. Thanks!--killing sparrows (chirp!) 23:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well low-res doesn't matter if you are not talking about fair use. Neither does the fact that it is scanned in. In the end all that matters is whether or not works created by the PRC in the 1950s fall under any sort of copyright protection, or whether they are in the public ___domain. I don't know much about the issue except that in recent years China has joined various copyright conferences and as such I'm pretty sure its back works should be considered likely copyrighted unless explicitly indicated otherwise. The fact that a website owner has claimed copyright over them (even to proclaim them released as GFDL) has no legal weight. Scanning something surely does not create a new copyright. --24.147.86.187 01:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually he doesn't claim copyright, he states that he believes they are not copyrighted on the page listed above, he just wants attribution for the scans if they are used, which I believe then we can use here under GDFL. I thing at the time in China copyright was considered 'capitalist,' and things created were for the 'people'. I just don't know if his claim is correct.--killing sparrows (chirp!) 02:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The GFDL is a copyright license. You can't license something under GFDL unless you own the copyright to it. You can't GFDL things in the public ___domain. So either the site owner implies he/she owns the copyright, or they don't understand the GFDL.Nevermind, I misunderstood what you were asserting. You're saying that attribution is allowed under the GFDL. His desire for attribution does not read to me like a legal requirement so I don't think you have to worry about that compicating things, and of course we can attribute (in a non-binding legal fashion). In any case as he is in any case not the copyright owner he does not really have any standing to set those sorts of terms in a legal sense; it might be polite to comply but there's no legal mechanism backing it up. ... And claims about their assumed ideological approach do not give any indication of what their copyright law would be. In any case intellectual property is at least as much about control as it is about profit, and in the area of control no one excels like a socialist state. --24.147.86.187 02:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Cool and thanks for the replies. The images being used on WP are labeled 'fair use' and I think as low-res scans of political posters that were distributed widely that is probably correct. I wanted to use one on my user page and since fair use images are not allowed there I was looking for another way to label them that would be legal and clear. Since the status is not clear I'll just forego the image on my user page. Thanks for all the replies!--killing sparrows (chirp!) 02:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
May 1
Lessons of the wars
I have another question for Clio the Muse, or anyone else who knows the answer. What military lessons did England learn from the wars in Scotland and how were these applied? SeanScotland 05:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Focus, specifically, Sean, on the Battle of Dupplin Moor, a seminal contest in the Anglo-Scottish wars. At the beginning of the war the English army's main offensive weapon was heavy feudal cavalry, with infantry appearing as something of an afterthought. But the charge of the knights against the Scottish infantry schiltrons had shown how disastrous this tactic was when confronted by compact ranks of enemy spearmen, standing in a good defensive position. In the years that followed things began to change, and in 1322 Andrew Harclay, had demonstrated the value of dismounted archers with wings of supporting infantry fighting against knights at the Battle of Boroughbridge. In a more fully developed form, Edward Balliol had used wings of archers to create a cross-fire, cutting down the Scottish infantry charge at Dupplin. Edward III later employed these tactics on an even greater scale, and to a more devastating effect against the French at the Battle of Crecy at the outset of the Hundred Years War. For a good bit of the following century the English were able to dominate the battlefields of Europe, with great wedges of long-bowmen destroying the advance of enemy knights, no matter how heavily armoured. Clio the Muse 05:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Far be it from me to argue with Clio, but I believe the English got the idea of the longbowmen from campaigns in Wales, and the Welsh provided longbow troops from the time of Edward I, who also introduced compulsory archery practice. I am sure they learned the tactics of using them in Scotland too though.137.138.46.155 07:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please argue with me, 137; I love being argued with! Yes, you are quite right: the English did indeed learn the use of the longbow from the wars in Wales, and a great many of the best archers at both Crecy and Agincourt were Welsh. You will find longbowmen in English armies sent to Scotland as early as the Battle of Falkirk in 1298, though there was still a predominance of Continental cross-bowmen in the army of Edward I. The point is that it took the English a number of years to learn the effective use of bowmen as an independent arm, as opposed to an auxiliary for the support of cavalry. This comes in the battles I have mentioned above, first Boroughbridge, then Dupplin, and finally, in the most developed form, at Crecy. Clio the Muse 07:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Bears in Britain
Bear baiting used to be popular. Beowulf, the eponymous hero of England's national epic poem is often interpreted as a kenning for bear. And the crest of Warwick involved a bear. Were these bears imported? Known about from the continent? Or were bears, like wolves once native to the British Isles?137.138.46.155 07:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)