Revision as of 00:42, 22 March 2007

Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/headercfg

March 19

Legal definition

I need the true definition for Residential Entry supposedly a class"A" misdemeanor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.46.70.231 (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I imagine this depends on which country/city/state etc that you are talking about. - Akamad 04:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In the state of Indiana, residential entry appears to be a Class D felony. We can't give legal advice here, but perhaps it is time to find a lawyer.  --Lambiam 10:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

copyright information for the article Micheangelo

I need help finding the copyright information and author of the article Michelangelo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Michelangelo the article consists of 10 pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.240.63.109 (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

The article is released in the GFDL. You will find the authors under this history tab. Picaroon 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

GFDL link, if you want to learn more. That said, if you are asking for this information in order to cite the article for a paper or school project, note that Misplaced Pages articles have no "author" for citation information, and have a copyright date as of their last edit; this and the other citation information you need can be easily found by clicking on the "cite this page" link to the left of any Misplaced Pages article. Jfarber 02:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Statistics on educational attainment in the US

Misplaced Pages has three articles representing two sets of data which seem to contradict each other about the educational attainment of different demographic groups in the US.

The first set of data is located in two articles, and cites "Logan & Dean" (without a more detailed footnote) as well as . It is based on 2000 Census data

• Model minority#Black immigrants from Africa
• Africans in the United States#Educational Attainment

The second set of data is from a census link and is based on 2003 Census data

• Educational attainment in the United States#Race

The data seem starkly different. Do they in fact contradict each other? If so, which one is right?

--JianLi 04:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to tell, but I note that one set of data refers specifically to "Black immigrants from africa", while the other refers to "non-native born african americans." These are not the same group, though there is some overlap; the latter group would include, for example, anyone of african ancestry who had immigrated to the US from Canada, the UK, or any number of other countries; the former would seem to only include people who are both racially African and originally from Africa themselves. It is thus possible that both sets of data are correct. Knowing how much those two data sets DO in fact overlap, and what they otherwise comprise, would help us know more. Jfarber 04:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've not looked at the references, but you should be aware that educational research is not without controversy. In NSW, we give kids a SNAP test in years 7 and 8 to test numeracy, also an ELLA test to test literacy. Both tests overlap and the reason why they are run is because State authorities own one test, while federal authorities own the other. The results influence funding, and no one trusts others to run tests independantly where funding is concerned. Schools are placed in the awkward position of wanting year 7 to do badly, and year 8 to do well, suggesting school induced improvement. Similaraly, in the early '80s, Ronald Reagan spent big on education after a report suggesting a decline in achievement. However, further analysis showed every single ethnic subgrouping had improved in achievement. The reason for the apparent contradiction stemmed from more poorly achieving ethnic subgroupings comprising a larger percentage of candidates providing later results. DDB 07:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Music of the holocaust and other

I am doing a powerpoint presentation on the book Maus by Art Spiegalman. I was wondering if anyone knows where I can get some music of the holocaust from the camps. Also, I need some music that would illustrate the internal struggle of the author trying to write about the holocaust.

Thanks, and this is only a small part, so you wouldn't be doing the work for me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.130.41.63 (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

How serendipitous! Italian composer Francesco Lotoro has recently compiled an archive of music written by prisoners of war from WWII. Hopefully there will be quite a bit written by Holocaust POWs. Check out this Associated Press news story. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of information that you can access on this question. In the first instance you should look here and here . My favourite piece of music that deals with the subject of Nazi persecution of the Jews is A Child of Our Time, an oratorio by the English composer Sir Michael Tippet. It was written as a response to Kristallnacht, and makes effective use of negro spirituals, first and foremost in musical terms, but also linking the persecution of the Jews with earlier forms of injustice. It's very moving. Clio the Muse 06:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The movie Everything is Illuminated might have some food for thought, as well as this. DDB 07:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You can also try the music composed by pianist Władysław Szpilman, whose story of astonishing good fortune in surviving The Holocaust by hiding in occupied Warsaw was the subject of the 2002 film The Pianist (film) --Dweller 13:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

For music within the camps per se, check what might be mentioned in Fania Fénelon's Playing for Time and the film based on her book. Though there's some question as to whether the Theresienstadt ghetto had the characteristics of a concentration camp, it was the source of original music such as Brundibár and other compositions created and performed there. The deportations as a theme is featured in the evocative "Different Trains" by contemporary composer Steve Reich, recorded by the Kronos Quartet. (Oh, and depending on the purpose and intended distribution of your presentation, be sure to check into usage rights). -- Deborahjay 19:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Slightly away from the holocaust per se, but not entirely unrelated, Olivier Messiaen's Quartet for the End of Time was written in a POW camp while he was imprisoned by the Germans in WW2. JackofOz 03:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably the most famous composer to die at Auschwitz was Viktor Ullmann; some of his works are available, many of which he wrote while held at Terezín. Other composers murdered by the Nazis include Dawid Ajzensztadt, Dawid Beigelman , Vladimir Durmashkin,Mordechai Gebirtig, Israel and Jakub Glatstein, Jósef Koffler, Joachim Mendelson, Marian Neuteich, Nochem Shternheim, and Izrael Szajewicz. You may wish you use the song by Hirsh Glik, "Never say you have reached the very end" ("Zog nit keynmol az du geyst dem letstn veg") which became a powerful unifying song during the Warsaw uprising, if I remember correctly. Martin Gilbert titles a chapter after it in his history of the Holocaust; I've heard it sung. There is a complete collection of songs of the Holocaust period by a survivor of the war, Shmerke Kaczerginski, who escaped from the Vilna ghetto and was able to join the Jewish underground resistance movement. He died in 1954 and published a collection, all in Yiddish, entitled Lider fun di getos un lagern (songs of the ghettos and camps). Looks like we do not have a Music of the Holocaust article, and indeed these redlinks could use some attention.

There is a lot of music by others about the period, of course: the Symphony No. 3 (Górecki) is extremely famous, but other music includes the Dies Irae of Krzysztof Penderecki (aka the "Auschwitz Oratorio"), Arnold Schoenberg's Survivor from Warsaw, the marvelous and intensely moving oratorio by Tippett which Clio mentioned above, and it's hard not to be tempted by the ethereal beauty of some of the Messaien. Antandrus (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of posting Antandrus's valuable information and observation regarding WP's lack thereof at WP:JH. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Art Siegelman said he listened to a 30s choir called The Comedian Harmonists during the drawing of Maus. Rhinoracer 15:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a palace or some such thing

Where is this place? Link: http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/4499/untitledin4.jpg --Seans Potato Business 06:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I´d ask this question on this site . A.Z. 07:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the magnificent Château de Chambord in the Loire Valley of France, built for Francis I as a hunting lodge. Work started in 1519 and was completed in 1547. Leonardo da Vinci is reputed to have been involved in its design. When it was nearing completion Francis showed it to the Emperor Charles V, his old enemy, in what has to be one of the greatest examples of one-upmanship in all of history! Clio the Muse 08:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

May I ask how did you become aware of that? I actually spent some time trying to find out what castle it was. I didn´t find anything on the Internet, though. A.Z. 09:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I know the Loire Valley quite well, having spent some wonderful summers there when I was a little girl. For me Chambord was the palace of the Beast, and I kept expecting to see him and Beauty walking in the garden together! Clio the Muse 09:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Clio, that's great! Seans Potato Business 16:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone once described the turreted roof of the place as looking like a game of chess, or words to that effect. --Anonymous, March 20, 2007, 18:35 (UTC).

Probability of future human existence

I read a feature article (don't recall where, when) where the writer uses statistical hypothesis about the survival of other species to estimate how long the human civilization is expected to survive. So, I am looking for theorists/statisticians who have done this work and to see how they made their estimates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.189.150.48 (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

It's called the Doomsday argument, and as I recall Mr. Mark Twain had something interesting to say on this type of reasoning.--Pharos 08:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the survival of other species is relevant to our own survival, as technology both gives us opportunities to survive things which would kill other species and allows us to endanger our species in ways no other species can. Whether our technology allows humans to spread to other planets, solar systems, etc., faster than our destructive weapons technology grows is the real test. If we get to a point where thousands of people have to ability to each wipe out humanity single-handedly, then we won't survive. Limiting the spread of nuclear weapons is thus absolutely critical to our survival. StuRat 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, "signs point to 'no'". The rate of technological advance is so enormous, and increasing so quickly, that individuals will have enormous powers of destruction in just a few short decades (genetic engineering, laser-based nuclear enrichment, etc.). Any off-Earth colonization going on at that point, which doesn't seem very likely at all, will be very fragile in comparison. --TotoBaggins 00:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be greater energy devoted to finding ways to end human life than to finding ways to enhance and prolong it. This bodes ill for the long term survival of the species. I see unintended consequences of nanotechnology, robotics, genetic engineering, and biological warfare as a greater menace than global warming, terrorism, pollution, guns or bombs. Edison 04:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How far in the future? Human existence is likely to continue for the foreseeable future (barring a freak cosmic incident like a black hole destroying earth). Civilization, however, is far more fragile. An asteroid strike, nuclear war, etc. would leave many survivors, but would damage or destroy the infrastructure of civilization. Undeveloped areas of South America, New Zealand, and possibly parts of Central America would likely go on as normal.

Gibbon's remarks on the prophet Muhammed

In his Decline and Fall, Edward Gibbon makes numerous comments about the prophet Muhammed. Is he factually accurate in this regard? Are there any reputable Muslim apologists who have defended the prophet against his accusations? The Mad Echidna 17:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have specific 'accusations' in mind? Gibbon was first and foremost a historian, one that engages too closely with his subject, perhaps, for contemporary taste, but a remarkable one nontheless. He could be highly critical of the impact of forms of religious belief on civil society, and the contribution they made to the corruption of the perfect ideal of the Roman state, so much so that Decline and Fall was placed on the list of banned books by the Catholic Church. He says many things about the Prophet, which I dare say that Muslim scholars would object to; but it is not all accustion, and he looks at Muhammed's life from the point of view of a historian, not a Christian polemicist. I have a copy of the Decline and Fall in front of me, in the 1978 reprint of the six volume Everyman edition, first published in 1910. Gibbon's remarks are too lengthy to quote in full, but here is some of his summation of Muhammed's life from volume five, pages 273-4:

The author of a mighty revolution appears to have been endowed with a pious and contemplative disposition: so soon as marriage had raised him above the pressure of want, he avoided the paths of ambition and avarice; and till the age of forty he lived in innocence, and would have died withut a name. The unity of God was an idea most congenial to nature and reason; and a slight conversation with the Jews and the Christians would teach him to despise and detest the idolatry of Mecca. It was the duty of a man and a citizen to impart the doctrine of salvation, and to rescue his country from the dominion of sin and error. The energy of a mind incessantly bent on the same object would convert a general obligation into a particular call; the warm suggestions of the understanding or the fancy would be felt as he inspiration of Heaven; the labour of the thought would expire in rapture and vision; and the inward sensation, the invisible monitor, would be described with the forms and the attributes of an angel of God...Charity may believe that the original motives of Mohammed were those of pure and genuine benevolence; but the human misssionary is incapable of cherising the obstinate unbelievers who reject his claims, despise his arguments, and persecute his life; he might forgive his personal adversaries, he may lawfully hate the enemies of God; the stern passions of pride and revenge were kindled in the bosom of Muhammed, and he sighed, like the prophet of Nineveh, for the destruction of the rebels whom he had condemned.

This is fairly typical of Gibbon, and there are indeed more critical passages; but there is nothing that bears any similarity to 'Show me just what Muhammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman...' There may be much in Gibbon with which Muslims would take issue; but he makes a sincere attempt to be honest in his judgements and scrupulous in his facts. Clio the Muse 20:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Clio, but you have mistaken my question, and ended up with apologetics for Gibbon, which are unnecessary here. I'm a Gibbon fan, and as you say, he takes great pains to be accurate and just in his appraisals. This is exactly why his accusations, and they are exactly that, are worth looking into for a believer in the Prophet. I'm a Baha'i, and belief in what we call the Manifestations of God is one of our most fundamental tenets. Hence for Baha'i apologetics, it is worth situating oneself in relation to credible skeptics like Gibbon.

The accusations start about where your quote ends, because as you state, you have not selected the cream of his attack. It really gets going here: A philosopher will observe ...that his conscience would be soothed by the persuasion, that he alone was absolved by the Deity from the obligation of positive and moral laws. and ...in his private conduct, Mahomet indulged the appetites of a man, and abused the claims of a prophet. A special revelation dispensed him from the laws which he had imposed on his nation; the female sex, without reserve, was abandoned to his desires... (from the same paragraph as your quote, and the one following). This is something that would surely raise the ire of the average Muslim, and need a reply, so I expect there must be something out there. The Mad Echidna 23:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right, Echidna (I can't call you Mad!), and I did say there were more critical passages; but overall he attempts to be fair to his subject, which is worthy of mention in itself, considering the attitudes of his time. The thrust of your question was unclear to me, so I did feel some apologetics were necessary, not for you, obviously, but for a wider audience. The passage you quote would indeed be viewed with disfavour; but so, I suspect, would mine. But I honestly do not believe that the arguments of an eighteenth century historian, even one as enduring as Gibbon, carry weight, or have every carried weight, in the Muslim world. As far as those particular remarks are concerned you would really have to draw on his sources for a true test of credibility. Clio the Muse 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Where Gibbon editorializes on the life of Muhammad, declares his intention to "balance his faults and virtues" and "decide whether the title of enthusiast or impostor more properly belongs to that extraordinary man", it might be worthwhile to examine the sources he had available and the context in which the work was produced. In Islam and the West, Bernard Lewis details the difficulties faced by eighteenth-century scholars—difficulties which impacted Gibbon's work—especially the "attempts to present Muhammad and Islam in terms of current controversies in Christendom":

The honor and reputation of Islam and its founder were protected in Europe neither by social pressure nor by legal sanction, and they thus served as an admirable vehicle for anti-religious and anti-Christian polemic. Gibbon occasionally accomplishes this purpose by attacking Islam while meaning Christianity, more frequently by praising Islam as an oblique criticism of Christian usage, belief, and practice. Much of his praise would not be acceptable in a Muslim country.(p. 96)

Though Lewis is not a "Muslim apologist", if that is really what you are trying to find.—eric 20:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Starbucks Gift Card

If I buy a starbucks giftcard at one store and use it at another, which specifically profits from my transactions? 172.191.88.24 18:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I couldn't find anything on the Starbucks site about this. Perhaps a starbucks franchisee might be able to answer this accurately but I would expect it to work like this: If you buy a $10 giftcard that $10 goes to the individual starbucks you bought it in. When you buy a drink in another store (using the card) they will receive nothing. I suspect that over the period of a year this would 'even out' and that any more formal arrangement could potentially be more costly to work out than is worthwhile. I wouldn't say this with any authority but that is how it would seem best to do it in my mind (you could for instance have the coffee-serving firm charge annually the other firms that sold the giftcard for the cost of the coffee production). ny156uk 19:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Try a search on "gift card accounting," the rules and procedures for which can vary from state to state and company to company. I'm not personally familiar with SBUX policy. . dr.ef.tymac 19:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Just to clarify with an example, ZZZ corp. can distribute and sell gift cards through its franchisees. For every gift card sold, ZZZ corp. gets a cut and so does the individual store. ZZZ may get $8 and the store may get $2 for every $10 gift card sold at that store. When a customer redeems that card at a store (regardless of which one) ZZZ corp then reimburses that specific store accordingly. You may ask yourself, "how can they make money with this arrangement?" Easy, lots of cards never get redeemed, and even the ones that do can be seen as a Loyalty Marketing expense. HTH. dr.ef.tymac 19:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Starbucks is not franchised. In general, a Starbucks store is owned by the company, not by any individual franchisee. Sometimes you will see a Starbucks location within a hotel that is owned and operated by the hotel, not Starbucks Corp. (you can often tell because the baristas wear hotel name tags). The same thing goes for Starbucks outlets within department stores and grocery stores (see Starbucks#Stores). The question I have about Starbucks cards is how they deal with different currencies. For example, suppose I buy a Starbucks card in Canada for $100 CAD, then I take it to the United States and make purchases at Starbucks totalling $60 USD, and then I add $60 USD back to the card. Then I bring the card back to Canada. Assuming that the interbank CAD/USD exchange rate has remained constant at all relevant times, will a Starbucks in Canada read my card as having a balance of exactly $100 CAD? --Mathew5000 14:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Merchant Navy spiteful in WWI?

Where Merchant Navy officers angry in World War One when the Admiralty chose to take control of their ships? If so, or even if not, could you provide a quote either way? Thanks. Computerjoe's talk 20:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Computerjoe, the Admiralty did not 'take control' of merchant ships in the First World War. If you are referring specifically to the convoy system, that was not introduced until 1917 on the suggestion of David Lloyd George, the Prime Minister, during the second phase of the German unrestricted U-Boat campaign. The Admiralty had been reluctant to embrace this tactic; and even at the height of greatest peril it was not made compulsory for private vessels to join naval convoys, and some continued to run the risk entailed in free-lance operations. However, fully protected convoys greatly reduced losses in merchant tonnage, which obviously had a clear appeal to ship owners. Individual captains may have been frustrated by the slow pace of convoys, which compelled all vessels to travel at the same rate; but even for them the advantages must have been obvious, especially as convoy losses amounted to 2%, compared with 10% for unaccompanied ships. Clio the Muse 21:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Weren't some changed into troop transports? Computerjoe's talk 21:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes; but only the fastest and, as far as I am aware, with the full co-operation of the owners. Indeed, the Cunard line built the Lusitania and Mauritania, with the supplementary aim that they could be fitted out, if needs be, for wartime service. For this they received generous loan provisions from the British government. A month after the outbreak of war in August 1914 the Cunard ledger shows that the Lusitania was enrolled as an armed auxiliary cruiser. It was allowed to continue on civilian duty for the time being; but her sisters, the Mauritania and the Aquitania, went straight into service with the Royal Navy. Clio the Muse 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Were their skippers Royal Navy, RNR or Merchant? Please could you find any quote made by their crews/owners. Thanks. Computerjoe's talk 22:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Computerjoe, I think the skippers and crew were seconded to the Royal Navy from the Merchant Marine, but I cannot be absolutely certain about this. It would seem to make sense that such large vessals continued to be managed by those who knew them best. However, I would suggest that you have a look at The Cross of Sacrifice: Officers, Men and Women of the Merchant Navy and the Mercantile Fleet Auxiliary, 1914-1919 v.5 by S. D. Jarvis and D. B. Jarvis, published by the Naval and Military Press. I do not have a copy of this book to hand, so am unable to search for the specific information you are looking for. On Cunard there is Atlantic Liners of the Cunard Line from 1884 to the Present Day by Neil McArt, published by Patrick Stephens Ltd. It really depends how serious you are about this topic, but there is also a lot of information in the relevant editions of Jane's Fighting Ships and The Merchant Navy by Archibald Hurd, published in three volumes in London by John Murray Ltd. between 1921 and 1929. This is the official history of the arm during the First World War. You would obviously have to look this out in a good research library. Unfortunately, I cannot locate the kind of quotations you are looking for. Clio the Muse 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

March 20

Art reference for ethnic groups.

I'd like to get some reference photos (or paintings, or drawings, for that matter) for ethnic groups other than English, which all the characters are coming out as. Is there a good resource for this? Many of the ethnic group articles have a montage at the top of them, but I was wondering if there's a resource especially designed as an artist's reference. grendel|khan 03:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the question. What are you looking for? If you want guidelines for the montages, there aren't any currently but I've proposed some at Template talk:Infobox Ethnic group#Portrait guidelines.--Pharos 05:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I've been working with an artist, and all her pictures of people come out looking like English folk. She was looking for references so she could draw people who didn't look English. Guidelines describing what makes English people look English, and what makes other ethnic groups look like other ethnic groups, would be much appreciated, but I doubt anything like that exists. grendel|khan 13:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I think I'm a bit skeptical that the English would really look very different from, say, Frenchmen. Anyway, if she feels that the faces of her drawings all look the same, I would suggest working more from models (either actual models or photographs); just working from real-life may help her get around any preconceived notions she may have drawing generic faces.--Pharos 15:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How about Paul Gauguin's Tahitian images ? . StuRat 13:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Pick the name of some ethnic group from List of ethnic groups, for example Abenaki, or Zuni, type it in the search box of Google Images, press "Search Images", et voilà.  --Lambiam 14:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember stumbling upon this website a while ago. While their ethnology is a bit... dodgy, it does catalogue a variety of persons of different ethnicity. 194.80.32.12 21:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The word " yellow or yeller" orginate?

One of my college friend told me that to call somebody yellow originate from when the Chinese people where here (U.S.A) during the railroad era; they use that word in reference to the Chinese men- whom they think isn't manly. Thats how that word become an insult. But my husband doesn't agree with me. He say that it just originate from chicken and have nothing to with anything else. But I don't think Chicken is yellow except when they are chicks. So I would like to know how's that word become an insult. Thanks Amy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.188.195.32 (talk) 05:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Amy, there is some obvious confusion here. The page on the Yellow Peril will give some information on the origin and application of the racist term. However, there is also a quite separate usage of the word 'yellow'. It has long been employed, along with 'chicken', to denote cowardice, and in this context has nothing whatsoever to do with Chinese people. Clio the Muse 06:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It has to do with the character of the individual's liver: for reading the liver, see hepatoscopy. The liver was the seat of passions in Antiquity. "Yellow" is akin to "lily-livered." Nothing Chinese about it.--06:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "yellow" to denote cowardice or fear has been documented as early as 100 AD, in the works of Galen. It predates the European colonization of the United States by well over 1,400 years. --Charlene 07:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Careful, there. "Yellow" is a word in English, which did not exist in 100 AD. This sort of thing does not necessarily carry over from one language to another. Anyone got an OED handy, or access to OED Online, to see what date it gives for the first use of "yellow" meaning cowardly in English? --Anonymous, March 20, 2007, 22:38 (UTC).

The link between the colour yellow and notions of treachery and cowardice was well-established by the Middle Ages. Judas Iscariot is often depicted wearing yellow robes, and in France the houses of traitors were painted yellow. I have not been able to determine the specific origins of this association. Clio the Muse 00:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting: The first reference for "yellow" meaning "cowardly" in the OED is from a 1856 book by P.T. Barnum. The dictionary does not say how the color came to be associated with cowardice. Before the mid-19th century, "yellow" meant "jealous." -- Mwalcoff 02:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Almost any story you hear about a word having racist origins turns out to be false: "handicap," "picnic," "yellow," etc. One exception is "gyp," which comes from "gypsy." -- Mwalcoff 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, what were the supposed yet false racist origins of "handicap" and "picnic"? I'd never heard anyone claiming them to have racist origins. In fact in reading those two words, though I'm deperately trying, I can't seem to even loosely associate them with any minority group. Loomis 01:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See and -- Mwalcoff 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Once we're on the subject of false etymologies, I'd add the false notion that the name for the sport of "GOLF" originated from the sexist acronym "Gentleman Only, Ladies Forbidden". Another ridiculously false sexist etymolgy is the notion, believed by surprisingly many, that the word "history" is a contraction of "his-story" (as opposed to "her-story"), when in fact its true Greek origins have absolutely nothing to do with gender. Loomis 02:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have always seen "his-story" and "her-story" as clever puns, not as perceived actual etymologies. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only is that a false etymology, but the word "story" is actually a shortened form of the older word "history".  --Lambiam 15:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

They may indeed be mere clever puns, yet many radical feminists go so far as insisting that the word be "re-spelled" as "hystory". If it's indeed just a clever pun or joke, are these particular womyn in on the joke? Loomis 17:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, "man" in Old English only meant "person", that the word for a male man was "werman", and the sensible way to object to male being treated as the default sex would have been to revive the sex-specific term, rather than objecting to every instance of a root that's meant "person" for a couple thousand years. Instead, they've crusaded against "policeman" and "fireman" and "chairman" and "mailman" and even "woman". So why wouldn't they also crusade against instances of "his" that have nothing to do with maleness? Ehrbar 09:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

poetry

I remember a poem of which I have recollection of only two lines. The poem is about smugglers and the two lines, which may not be correct, but have the essence of meening are; "Brandy for the parson, baccy for the clerk" and Face the wall my darling, while the gentlemen go by". Can anyony enlighten me about the author and the name of the poem? Regards to all,

Michael L. Pascoe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Revdmike (talk • contribs) 09:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

It's A Smugglers' Song by Rudyard Kipling. The poem can be read here (scroll to the bottom of the page). ---Sluzzelin talk 09:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Oh, and it should be "Watch the wall, my darling, while the Gentlemen go by!" ---Sluzzelin talk 09:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And here it is on its own! Wonderful stuff. It appears at the end of Hal o' the Draft, one of the prose items in Puck of Pook's Hill. I have to say, though, much as I love them personally-especially the exhilarating Mandalay-Kipling's poems and songs are not among the best of his work. He is, rather, one of the great prose artists of the English language, deeply sensitive to the rhythms of everyday speech. His short stories and novels are tremendously entertaining and insightful. For far too long his reputation as a writer has been sullied by his association with British imperialism. But with the baggage of history slowly being discarded, he is at last beginning to emerge as one of the foremost craftsmen of English letters. Clio the Muse 10:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Jerome's De Viris Illustribus Chapter 80

Chapter 80 of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus says Chapter 80 Firmianus (Lactantius): Firmianus, known also as Lactantius. In Latin I believe it reads: Firmianus qui et Lactantius -- close to meaning of ...who (or which) is also.... The question: is the Latin meaning closer to "which is also" or would it be "whom is also"? Would the two names of "Firmianus" and "Lactantius" be considered one and the same. From those words it appears this way. Or could it be that "Lactantius" is a surname (i.e. family last name) and "Firmianus" is a First Name (i.e. given name at birth). --Doug 10:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As you can see in our article Lactantius, "Lactantius" is the cognomen of Lucius Cae(ci)lius Firmianus Lactantius. ("Lactantius" is also listed in the list of Roman cognomina.) The antecedent of who (or which) is a human being, so who is the usual English relative pronoun here. The meaning is appropriately captured by the English translation quoted.  --Lambiam 13:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The chapter heading "Firmianus (Lactantius)" is true to how Jerome puts it. He basically says, "Firmianus, a.k.a. Lactantius" (the omitted verb is not "is," but "is called," or, as in the English translation "is known as"). While the writer can be & is sometimes correctly referred to as Lactantius Firmianus, Jerome would not seem to be prescribing this, but simply letting his readers know that this is the author often known as Lactantius. ("Whom is also" is grammatically impossible. I don't understand how your proposed translations relate to the various interpretations you think the words might bear. As Lambiam says, the antecedent would seem to be the human being, not the name, if the latter is what you're suggesting with "which.") Wareh 14:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these great answers. Now I understand that the heading "Firmianus (Lactantius)" is true to how Jerome puts it. I thought that was the case. The wording "is called" makes perfect sense to me. I was told otherwise, so I just wanted to get this clear. Thanks again for the help. I have a handle on it now. The name known by or cognomen also makes sense. I notice in the article cognomen they use for an example my friend "Scipio". Scipio (plural, Scipiones) is a Roman cognomen used by a branch of the Cornelii family. Cornelius (fem. Cornelia) was the nomen of the patrician gens Cornelia, one of the important families of Ancient Rome. This is all beginning to make perfect sense to me and is coming together. I then assume some wording like Firmianus the rhetorician, surnamed Lactantius would not be correct. Using the above arguments for example the Cornelii family is where the name Cornelius comes from. In the case of P. Cornelius Scipio, his family name is Cornelius however he goes by the name "Scipio" (like a nickname). So in our case Lactantius would not be a surname, but a cognomen (the name known by). This is like Robert Smyth, where Robert is called "Bob". So as a comparison "Firmianus, a.k.a. Lactantius" would be like "Robert, a.k.a. Bob"; and the surname is Smyth (an entirely different name meaning because it is the family (tribe) name like Cornelius). --Doug 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The comparison is not entirely correct. The classical Roman naming conventions have no clear correspondence to English naming systems. If you want to compare P. Cornelius Scipio to Robert Smyth, then the best correspondence is as follows:

• Given name: Robert / Publius
• Surname: Smyth / Cornelius Scipio

The father of "your" P. Cornelius Scipio was also a Cornelius Scipio (and in fact another Publius Cornelius Scipio; see further the Scipio-Paullus-Gracchus family tree). The Romans had nothing comparable to English nicknames like "Bob". Given someone's full name, it is not quite predictable what shorter form(s) are conventionally used; compare Tiberius Claudius Nero and Tiberius Claudius Drusus, or Titus Flavius Vespasianus and Titus Flavius Vespasianus.  --Lambiam 22:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Great information, thanks. Yes I was aware that my friend "Scipio" (famous Italian general) had a father by the same name of "Cornelius Scipio". Thanks for making that more clear. Now the real question is then: the wording of Firmianus the rhetorician, surnamed Lactantius would not be correct then, right? This is because "Lactantius" would be a cognomen, not a surname. In other words,

• Given name: Firmianus / (Lactantius)
• Surname: unknown

Would the above then be correct, since the wording used of "is called" and "also know as (a.k.a.)" and "known also as" are used? Also then am I correct in the knowledge that Jerome conveyed this as "Firmianus (Lactantius)" ; not of this wording above in bold italic that I believe to be wrong (...surnamed Lactantius)? I don't see here in Chapter 80 where Jerome says Firmianus the rhetorician. So do you believe the above bold italic to be correct or "Firmianus (Lactantius)"?--Doug 23:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If his full name is Lucius Caelius Firmianus Lactantius, then his praenomen (given name) is Lucius, his nomen (extended family name) is Caelius, and his cognomen (closer family name) is Lactantius, and Firmianus probably shows that he (or possibly an ancestor, I'm not sure about that) was born into the Firmius extended family and adopted into the Caelii Lactantii. In modern terms, his "surname" would be Caelius Firmianus Lactantius, or any part thereof. As an example, Julius Caesar's full name was Gaius Julius Caesar, so "Julius Caesar" is his surname, but in contemporary records like Cicero's letters and speeches he's usually referred to as "Gaius Caesar" or simply "Caesar". The phrase "surnamed Lactantius" is not entirely incorrect as Lactantius is an inherited family name, but it's a bit misleading if your only point of reference is English naming practice.

The only "pet" form of a name (equivalent of "Bob" for "Robert") I'm aware of is Cicero's daughter Tullia, whom he often calls "Tulliola". --Nicknack009 01:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I somewhere remember Agrippina the Younger being called "Agrippinilla", and not just in Robert Graves's novels. --Charlene 05:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

O.K., then based on this I should re-think what I wrote about and perhaps put it this way then

• Given name: Lucius
• Surname: Firmianus / (Lactantius)

In this case then the expression and the wording of Firmianus the rhetorician, surnamed Lactantius would not be correct then, right? This is because it is implying "Firmianus" to be a first name and "Lactantius" to be a surname; two differenct entities as it is written this way. Wouldn't it be more correct to just write it as "Firmianus (Lactantius)"? The way it is written above does not indicate that "Firmianus" and "Lactantius" are basically one and the same: it indicates these as two different items. Besides Jerome himself never wrote it that way (wording of bold italic).--Doug 12:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think using the term "surname" in connection to Roman names is anachronistic. But, as pointed out above by Nicknack009, the closest correspondence to this terminology for English names we can present for Lactantius is:

• Given name: Lucius
• Surname: Cae(ci)lius Firmianus Lactantius

We don't know enough about the person to be even certain about the gens: is it "Caelius" or "Caecilius"? In Lactantius' period the Roman naming conventions were applied much more loosely than in the ancient days of the republic, and by the lack of further information we can't be entirely certain of the respective roles and importance of the parts "Firmianus" and "Lactantius". Quoting from the introductory notice to a translation of some of Lactantius' work:

Lactantius has always held a very high place among the Christian Fathers, not only on account of the subject-matter of his writings, but also on account of the varied erudition, the sweetness of expression, and the grace and elegance of style, by which they are characterized. It appears, therefore, more remarkable that so little is known with certainty respecting his personal history. We are unable to fix with precision either the place or time of his birth, and even his name has been the subject of much discussion. It is known that he was a pupil of Arnobius, who gave lectures in rhetoric at Sicca in Africa. Hence it has been supposed that Lactantius was a native of Africa, while others have maintained that he was born in Italy, and that his birthplace probably was Firmium, on the Adriatic. He was probably born about the middle of the third century, since he is spoken of as far advanced in life about a.d. 315. He is usually denominated "Lucius Cælius Firmianus Lactantius;" but the name Cæcilius is sometimes substituted for Cælius, and it is uncertain whether Firmianus is a family name or a local designation. Some have even supposed that he received the name of Lactantius from the milky softness of his style.

There is nothing wrong with using "Firmianus (Lactantius)", or, more or less following Jerome, "Firmianus (known also as Lactantius)".  --Lambiam 13:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with you and as a matter of fact believe this to be the better way to express it. This would be the proper way to write this heading to Chapter 80 ""Firmianus (Lactantius)", or even "Firmianus (known also as Lactantius)" ; however what I am concerned about is that this wording misrepresents Jerome's intended heading: Firmianus the rhetorician, surnamed Lactantius. I believe this bold italic to not be correct. What do you think? Below is what I suggest is correct and incorrect

• Correct: "Firmianus (Lactantius)" and "Firmianus (known also as Lactantius)"
• Incorrect: Firmianus the rhetorician, surnamed Lactantius

Need a "Third Opinion" on the above bold italic, which I do not think is the way Jerome intended it. I believe Jerome intended instead "Firmianus (a.k.a. Lactantius)". Is that right? --Doug 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Firmanius (a.k.a. Lactanius)" and "Firmanius, surnamed Lactanius" are equivalent, thought the latter is likely to be misconstrued by those who know only the secondary meaning of "surname". The primary meaning is "an added name derived from occupation or other circumstance: nickname". I agree that the former is therefore preferable, but that does not make the latter wrong. - Nunh-huh 02:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and clarification. --Doug 16:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

1956 baby deaths

i went to the ft. mcclellan military cemetary and while i was looking at the tombstones i noticed there were multiple graves belonging to babies under two months old. these babies were born in 1956 and most had died within three months of being born. i was wondering if there was some kind of plague or disease that was responsible for the deaths. why did so many babies die in this time frame?

-A Bedsole —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.116.197.194 (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Maybe this has some information. meltBanana 20:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the majority of the infant deaths there occurred in 1956, or just a few from the ones you looked at. Perhaps that particular year had some extreme climate, particularly hot days, or cold nights?

Or perhaps we are thinking about this the wrong way, maybe the instances of infant mortality remained roughly constant but that for the year of 1956 Ft. McClellan became a particularly popular burial ground? While it may sound morbid, cemetaries have to go through the same competition as any other venture does. 194.80.32.12 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not military cemeteries, who in the 1950s buried military members and their dependents for free. (I believe now veterans and their spouses still theoretically have the right to be buried in military cemeteries, but the lack of land (and the fact that a substantial percentage of World War II veterans are now reaching the end of their lives) means that in practice there are limits as to how many deceased can be accommodated. --Charlene 05:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not talk to the military authorities responsible for the cemetery? If the cemetery contains many victims of a particular epidemic, diasaster, war, or anything else, I would certainly expect them to know about it (more so than people would here if it was a local thing) and be willing to tell you. --Anonymous, March 20, 2007, 22:42 (UTC).

Without access to the 'stats' I would suggest that perhaps this is just your mind thinking it is unlikely rather than it statistically being unlikely. Additionally I understand that some cemetaries are 'adult only', some are 'any' and some are 'child own'. It could be that if the cemetary you visited is the only one in the region that is 'both' then that could attribute the higher proportion of child-deaths as the other cemetaries don't do that type of burial. Additionally there could be an explanation based on the families involved and their viewpoint and their choice of burial type. Also as the above user notes it could be down to a business-drive by the cemetary. Whilst not very nice (the idea of '25% off burials this week' is rather horrible) I would expect it is only logical that there is some form of competition. ny156uk 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ny156uk, this is a cemetery at a military site. It wouldn't have been a business - members of the military and their dependents at the time would have been buried for free. However, there may be a couple of reasons why 24.116.197.194 saw this:

• There was a huge outbreak of polio in the southern United States in 1956. Although the first vaccine was developed in 1955, it took some time for it to be produced and distributed to all Americans. Perhaps more infants died that year than in previous or subsequent years.
• It's quite common for a cemetery attached to a military base to set aside a special area for infants, and some cemeteries set aside a different "special place" every year. It may just be that the part of the cemetery the OP was in contained all the 1956 infant burials. --Charlene 04:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

English speaking priests in Pesaro

I have friends who have recently moved to Pesaro in Italy, they are without telephone or internet and have asked me to find the nearest English speaking Priest in order that they may go to confession before Easter. Can anyone please help?(82.46.84.112 19:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Why don't they just go to the local church and ask around? I'm sure someone there will speak enough English to help them find an English-speaking priest in the region.--Pharos 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Perdonimi Padre, dato che ho pecco."

Attempt of English phonetic spelling: "Per-DAWN-i-mi PAAH-dre, DAAH-toh ke aw PEK-koh." 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Once your friends say that it should be fairly clear to the priest what they want to do. Once that is over with they can probably just give their confession in English, as, as far as I am aware, it is not imperative that the priest fully comprehend what you are confessing. After that, if all has gone well, he should instruct them to say a certain amount of 'Ave Maria' or 'Padre Nostro', (I trust your friends are at least aware of the Italian numbers, that is tourist phrasebook stuff), and, in the eyes of the Lord ;-), your sins should be forgiven. 194.80.32.12 22:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your input, I have now located a priest quite close to where the are living.82.46.84.112 11:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Silence as discourse

Who is the best writer on silence as a discursive means? John Eagleton —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.134.164.106 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

I cannot say with any certainty who the 'best' writer on silence as a mode of discourse may be, but your question reminded me of the work of the French historian and philosopher Michel Foucault, particularly The History of Sexuality, where he notes:

Silence itself-the things one declines to say, or is forbidden to name, the discretion that is required between different speakers-is less the absolute limit of discourse, the other side from which it is separated by a strict boundary, than an element that functions alongside the the things said, with them and in relation to them within over-all strategies...There is not one but many silences, and they are an integral part of the strategies that underlie and permeate discourse. (1978, p. 27)

In general Foucault focuses on forms of power and the way in which identity and notions of the self are socially and historically constructed. His work is certainly challenging on a whole number of levels, though I personally feel that he represents a passing intellectual fashion, and shows very little in the way of true greatness and insight. His notions of what passes for good historical research would not stand scrutiny in the Anglo-Saxon world, as declamation and speculation often seem to substitute for the absence of hard empirical knowledge. His prose, moreover, is quite atrocious. As a thinker he will always stand in the shadow of Sartre, as Sartre stands in the shadow of Heidegger. Clio the Muse 20:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome choice of quotes. I had forgotten about that particular bit from HoS but it is an excellent quote. I disagree on your ultimate assessment of him (his historical assertions, as broad categories, have held up pretty well over time, unlike the historical assertions of most philosophers, and in any case I always interpret Foucault to be more about the method of looking at questions of power rather than attempting to be a strict historical account, and I say this as a historian; and I find Foucault infinitely more interesting and useful than Sartre) but he's a good source for this sort of thing generally. --140.247.248.59 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a writer, but someone who explored the meaning of silence artistically was John Cage, specifically in 4'33". Meelar (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually John Cage wrote several books, including one specifically about silence -- silence in music and also silence in a broad, somewhat Zen-like way. The book is called, naturally, Silence, published in 1961. Pfly 23:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I learn something every day. Meelar (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks- I had considered Foucault (probably should have mentioned that!) I agree with your criticisms as well. Given that practically everythings a social construct, he's a bit constricting. Still, I'm struggling to find anything comprehensive and powerful enough to consider any other views of silence. Perhaps Derrida's differance might be an interesting way of thinking of silence? JE

I'm puzzled by the social construct throw-away criticism — what does that have to do with this? Foucault's point is certainly not that everything is a social construct (in any case what else could it be, really?), and I'm not sure how that becomes constricting in the least. As for Derrida, I have to say that I find him to often border on meaninglessness, and as such can be infinitely employable though not very useful. I suppose to be more useful I would want to know what you were trying to do here — is it a philosophical topic? Is it a historical one? is it something else? Where do you plan on going with this? And do you really need to grab on to one bit of French philosophy or another to make your point? Personally I find these things to be tools, and to select the right tool you have to know what the problem is, though I'm aware I take a more pragmatic view of these things than most philosophers (continental or otherwise). --140.247.248.59 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Derrida is not on the 'border of meaninglessness', 140.247; he has gone through immigration and has taken up residence in the country! I suppose I should make my own position clear: as a historian I find Sartre just as useless as Foucault, though, as a thinker, he possesses a transcendent quality which seems to me to be missing in the latter. For me Foucault is, and will never be more than, 'philosophy a la mode'. A personal opinion, I stress, on a matter that will only every be judged in the court of time. We must have this exchange again, some twenty years from now. Clio the Muse 23:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Silence can also be seen as a detrimental effect of public opinion. Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann's theory of the spiral of silence doesn't approach silence from a soothing Zen perspective. Instead, she desribes the public as a tribunal which judges and sanctions individuals according to their behavior. This perceived public tribunal can generate an enormous pressure to conformity and a fear of being socially ostracized and isolated. As a result, people may choose silence over discourse in their social interactions. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Plutarch has some interesting comments on the subject in his essay "On Talkativeness" (often referred to by its Latin title De garrulitate), online in English here. Plutarch's comments on Heraclitus' silent, gestural teachings are somewhat wackily developed by A. M. Battegazzore, Gestualità e Oracolarità in Eraclito (Genoa 1979). Wareh 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

March 21

habeas corpus

In the U.S. Constitution there is a provision in Article I Section 9 that the "privledge of habeus corupus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Why was that right presented here? It seems that this was one of the rights which many of the state constitions had in their Bill of Rights, but several framers of the Constitution were opposed to the inclusion of a Bill of Rights (like Hamilton in his Federalist No. 84) If the enumeration of rights in the Constitution was not desired by the framers, then why was this one included?

A second, and unrelated question: was the war-time exception of habeus corpus common in Europe at the time? Sjmcfarland 05:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sjmcfarland, the first part of your question is not entirely clear to me, so I address myself only to the second section. Habeas Corpus is specific to English Common Law-confirmed in statute by the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679-and did not exist in the legal systems of Continental Europe. And, yes, the privilege has been suspended by the British government, and not just in wartime. William Pitt suspended it in 1793, shortly after the outbreak of war with France; but it was suspended again in 1817 by Lord Liverpool, when the country was at peace, as part of a programme of action against political radicals. The 1914 Defence of the Realm Act allowed the government to arrest and intern all suspect persons, regardless of habeas corpus. It was used in 1940 in the detention of Oswald Mosley, the English Fascist leader, who was kept in custody for three years without trial. Most recently it was used in 1971 in the wholesale internment IRA suspects in Northern Ireland. Clio the Muse 06:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The correct spelling is habeas corpus. --Mathew5000 06:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Matthew! My own misspelling of the term has now been corrected. Clio the Muse 06:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

An attempt at rephrasing the questioners first question. (Establishing the context:) The original text of the United States Constitution contained no bill of rights. The current United States Bill of Rights was only later added to the Constitution in the form of ten amendments. However, one right that you would expect in a bill of rights did find its way into the originally adopted text: the Suspension Clause. (Now the question:) Why, of the many possible clauses protecting important rights against infringement, was this clause singled out and exceptionally allowed to enter the Constitution?  --Lambiam 11:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

To answer the first question, the Suspension Clause was included in the Constitution not to establish the right of habeas corpus, as the framers intended that the Constitution rest on a foundation of common law, including all of the rights guaranteed by common law, such as habeas corpus. (This is why the original constitution did not include a bill of rights.) Rather, this clause was included to specify the circumstances under which this otherwise guaranteed right could be suspended. Thus the intent of this clause is very different from that of the Bill of Rights. Marco polo 12:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In Federalist 84, Hamilton says there was no need for a Bill of Rights because, in his view, the Constitution provided only very limited powers to Congress. For instance, there was no need to insist on a clause guaranteeing freedom of the press because Congress had no power to regulate the press at all. From that perspective, the limits on congressional power set in Article I, Section 9 were only those that spoke to the powers granted Congress in Article I, Section 8. (Although it would be the president, not Congress, that suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War.) Ironically, Hamilton would later make a name for himself as the advocate of a strong central government. -- Mwalcoff 23:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies about for the misspelling and the lack of context on that first question. Those answers clarify things significantly. Sjmcfarland 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Bible books

How many total books are there in the normal bible used by the Baptist faith? --Doug 12:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Our article on Books of the Bible (which really should be incorporated into the one on the Biblical canon, no?) suggests 39 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament, for a total of 66. (Many opt for the King James translation). - Nunh-huh 13:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My copy of the King James version has 66. My Catholic version has 73. Dismas| 15:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding has been in the past of 66 books. What is different on the Catholic version? Do the following also have 66 books total or are some different: Methodist, Lutheran, LDS, Jehovah's Witness, Christian Science.--Doug 15:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Our article on deuterocanonical books explains why a Catholic Bible has additional books not found in most Protestant Bibles. Gandalf61 16:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the Catholic Church was around a long time before the Protestant churches, I think it's more accurate to say the Protestant Bibles have fewer books than the Catholic one. The Protestants removed some books from the existing bible - it wasn't a case of the Catholics adding anything.  :) JackofOz 22:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's about time you showed some Catholic pride, Jack! Good on you!Loomis 23:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Great information. Even under that article of the Section "New Testament" it seems to show an agreement that most of these Christian faiths agree that it has 27 books. The Hebrew Bible (sometimes referred to as the Old Testament) apparently then has 39 books, for a total of 66 books for the entire bible. --Doug 16:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I just mentioned it recently, but I suppose I should repeat it. The Old Testament is a Christian concept, and though it's almost identical to the Hebrew Bible, the two aren't comprised of precisely the same books, nor are they in the same order. Loomis 23:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate on the above point: The Hebrew Canon has 24 books, not 39. The 12 minor prophets were considered as one book; 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel together would have been considered as one book (same with Kings and Chronicles). The order of books is different in some areas as well. If you want to see a comparative list of the canons check out

Jimmy Carter

How many tree's did President Jimmy Carter and Rosalynn Carter plant at the White House while he was President? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoeWeaver (talk • contribs) 12:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

What I don't understand about this picture and others like it

]

The image to the right of the screen is to me, quite confusing. They are Jewish people in Nazi-occupied Austria, who are being forced to scrub the streets. What I don't understand is, in events such as these where Jews were humiliated, how were they selected, why did the Nazis force them to do it, was it a case of "emigrate or you'll be doing this forever" or something like, "you think your better than us but this is all your fit for", I don't understand why people were made to do this and how did the Nazi officials know that the people were Jewish? Where the people dragged from their homes, or picked up off the streets. Also, I'm very interested in how the Nazi's humiliated their victims, and the psychology behind it. If anybody can recommend any suggested reading or links to things such as these, it would be much obliged. Ahadland 12:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In Germany, they knew which were Jewish in part because they had a very accurate census of the population (for practically the first time in Germany); Edwin Black's otherwise somewhat unreliable IBM and the Holocaust is very good on this part. They knew who was Jewish (in an unambiguous sense; later they would start finely hashing over geneologies to get people who were only 1/4 Jewish and the like) and they knew where they lived. If they had not known that they would have had a much harder time with these sorts of things. In Austria, I'm not sure; it is of course highly probable that they went to a "Jewish" part of town (in the same way that major cities today have "Chinese" parts of towns and the like), and picked people who were dressed in orthodox Jewish garb (orthodox Jews are very easy to spot in a crowd); I doubt that these humiliation bits were as comprehensive and thorough as their later anti-Jewish work (they would, one would assume, also want people who "looked" Jewish to be the humiliated ones; you would lose the effect if you were humiliating people who non-Jews could easily identify with). As for the psychology behind atrocity, Grossman's On Killing has a section devoted to that which is quite good. --24.147.86.187 13:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely though if they went to a Jewish part of the town there wouldn't be any onlookers. Do you know of any further examples of humiliation? I imagine it would be quite widespread as the Holocaust's early elements laste for nine years before extermination took root. Ahadland 13:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As for why they did such things, I don't see the point in overintellectualizing it. It would appear to be a case of mere sadism in the extreme. As for how they were able to identify those who were Jews, and those who weren't, that's puzzled me as well. Perhaps in Germany it was easy enough, due to their accurate census records as mentioned above. Yet how they figured out who exactly was Jewish, in say, Poland, has always been a mystery to me. Not all Jews of the day dressed in obviously "Jewish garb". Many were completely secular, as was the protagonist in the film The Pianist. Yet the Nazi's seemed to have clearly determined him to be Jewish. In another film, Europa Europa, a young naive Jewish boy tries to escape his fate by actually...how can I put it...trying to "un-circumsize" himself by tying some sort of string or something around his penis. Of course it's impossible to "un-circumsize" one's self, and it only led to some sort of infection (pardon the details!) but being a kid he didn't know any better. Apparently, unlike today, circumcision amongst gentiles was rare or perhaps even non-existant in Europe. Of course that wouldn't account for how they identified the female Jews...Sorry for the non-answer! I just hope that at the very least I provided you with some information that hopefully will get you closer to getting the answer you're looking for. Loomis 14:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision is still relatively rare in Europe, although I can't offer a citation in support of that claim. That's my impression at any rate - that even today, circumcision would constitute circumstantial evidence of a Jewish identity of some description. --Diderot 17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This was also pointed out by Wakuran (below). The word "still" is a bit curious here. I'd say that circumcision is "still" relatively common in the US.  --Lambiam 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually just checked out the article on Europa Europa that I linked to above. Though I generally don't rely all too heavily on the links I provide, and try my best to answer the question in the body of my post, only adding links as optional secondary sources, the article on Europa Europa actually stands out as a great source for examining the whole question of how the Nazis were able to identify Jews from Gentiles. I strongly suggest that you check it out as it's rather short, yet explores this very issue in striking detail. Loomis 14:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ahadland, sorry for my bad english. One thing to seperate jewish people from other was the "Ahnenpass" - it was a proof of ancestry, which must show your ancestors till the third generation before you (great-grandparents) - that was at the beginning of 1933/34. Other ways to identify jewish people were done by their names, denunciation etc. -- Jlorenz1 14:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely though people could have misidentified themselves as Christian because the Jews in the picture are middle aged and elderly. So they would have filled out the Ahnenpass when anti-Semitism was still an accepted part of society. So maybe Jews didnt want to identify themselves as such. Also if these documents weren't compulsory, then the Germans may have accidentally selected Gentiles for humiliation. Just hypothesizing, the whole topic, if somebody answers a question it provides a whole new set of questions. The Holocaust is a very perplexing, and interesting and heartbreaking topic. Ahadland 15:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, there was no chance. If you haven't had a "Ahnenpass" with correct entries, you was automatically jewish - some example are known, that jewosh people tried to falsify these and other documents, but most of them were "brave citizen" and filled their documents thinking naive that it wouldn't become worther (I hope, I' ve found the correct words about this difficult theme) -- Jlorenz1 15:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (Johannes from Germany)

My goodness, where do I begin? First of all, I cannot say exactly how the people in that particular photograph were selected; it seems likely that they were simply picked off the street; and as Austria had a high concentration of Jewish people at the time, selection would have been easy. The people shown are actually being made to scrub the streets with toothbrushes; so this is an exercise in pure humiliation; humiliation, in other words, for the sake of humiliation. Since 1933 the Jews of Germany had experienced a steady escalation of anti-semitic measures: in Austria they came all at once, a combination of official policy and an outburst of years of built-up resentment and hatred by the local Nazi movement. Historians tend to view the Kristallnacht as the beginning of the new radicalism in Nazi policy, but I have always believed that this began with the Anschluss. The purpose of the wholesale terror was to increase Jewish emigration; and the scenes depicted in the photograph had the intended effect. By May 1939, some fourteen months after the Nazi occupation, almost half of Austria's pre-Anschluss Jewish population had left the country; all those, in essence, who had the means and the opportunity. There is a huge body of literature that you could refer to on the Nazi persecution of the Jews, but I will confine myself to recommending two books, the first a novel and the second a history. The novel is The Last of the Just by Andre Schwartz-Bart and the history is The Holocaust by Martin Gilbert. Both will show you in what manner humiliation and degradation became essential preambles to destruction; but The Last of the Just will break your heart. Clio the Muse 14:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• If they picked them off the street how did they know they'd picked entirely Jews? Surely they must have checked that they weren't persecuting gentiles? Also how did the Nazis justify what they were making these poor souls do? Ahadland 15:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

By appearance and by dress. Few, if any, Austrian gentiles wore beards in 1938. But I stress, yet again, I do not know how these particular individuals were selected, nor does it seem to me to be the essential point. They were picked, that is all that matters. The Nazis did not need to justify their actions, as you will discover when you read a little more deeply. Clio the Muse 15:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That is like saying all Jews had beards, or can be grouped by their appearance. However some of the Jews in the photograph have no beard. Was the "Jewish nose" a determining factor in who was chosen to scrub the streets? All of the jews in the photograph look rather ordinarily dressed to me as well. Ahadland 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have made my point: there is nothing more I wish to add, Clio the Muse 16:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please carry on, I'm interested in hearing your opinions. Im not questioning your viewpoint as a whole, I agree with most of what your saying but surely you agree that when you answer one question on this controversial topic, that question is replaced by several others. I am completely against the Nazi treatment of Jews, as I am a Jew myself, but it must have taken a great deal of planning and organisation to orchestrate an event on such a mass-scale Ahadland 17:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Jews were required to mark Jewish ethnicity in their passport/identity papers. Once it was realized, identification would have been easy.

Surely though they never carried their identifacation with them at all times. My point is if they were chosen from the streets, for example the person on the left without the beard, how could they prove he was Jewish? Ahadland 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This contention is untrue for Austrian Jews in 1938. Please do not make claims like this unless you are absolutely sure of the facts. Clio the Muse 15:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to me, Ahadland or both? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 15:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• To the person who first mentioned identity papers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

• Since someone mentioned circumcision, it's still rare in Europe outside Jewish/Muslim populations. I believe it's only performed routinely for non-religious reasons in USA and South Korea. (Don't know all the facts...) 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 15:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Though I'm dedicated to holding true to my word, I must make occasional exceptions. Hopefully I'll never have to do this again. I'd just like to say that I take extreme offence at even the mere suggestion that Nazism and the ensuing Holocaust can in any way, shape or form, be rationalized, even to the slightest degree, as being the result of some sort of "outburst of years of built-up resentment". The admittedly harsh treatment of the German people meted out by the Treaty of Versailles is in no possible shape or form an excuse for Nazism. Hyperinflation, exhorbitant war reparations, economic chaos and the disdain of the rest of the world may all indeed be a real bitch, yet still are utterly unacceptable rationales, unworthy of mention, in examining the rise of the Third Reich. Many other peoples have undergone far worse treatment, yet never sunk to such levels of unprecedented inhumanity. Loomis 17:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Forgive me, Loomis, I didn't mean to say that the Holocaust could be rationalised because to me, it is beneath contempt. I was merely stating that the Nazi's may have, in some way, attempted to rationalise their hatred? If so how did they do this? Ahadland 17:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

And if you're replying to Cleo's use of the phrase "outburst of years of built-up resentment", I don't think she was using it in the context, or with the meaning, that you seem to have read into it. I believe she was saying that, in Austria, the feelings of resentment/anger/etc had been built up over time by propaganda, marches, etc, and had then 'burst out' all at once when the Nazis came in, but that in Germany there had been a gradual change in the accepted behaviour. She wasn't making any sort of excuse for Nazism, merely contrasting the speed of change in Austria with the speed of change in Germany. Oh, and if I've misunderstood or am putting words in people's mouths, feel free to strike the appropriate places and make a small note. Skittle 17:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I think you're reading a suggestion of rationalization in the words that is not there. Fact: the Austrian Nazis, and before them other extreme nationalist parties, had waged a campaign of many decennia against "Semites", portraying them as the source of all kinds of societal evil, and in doing so managed to built up a hard-to-imagine resentment and hatred against Jews. Being virulently antisemitic was a completely accepted thing in early 20th-century Austrian society, perhaps even more so than in Germany. The fact that this resentment was the result of an orchestrated campaign, and not justified by anything with a basis in the facts, does not make it less real.  --Lambiam 17:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I most definitely, yet respectfully disagree with your assumptions, Skittle and Lambiam. To me, the statement cannot be interpreted in any other way, no matter how you mangle its syntax. Nonetheless, for the sake of peace at the RefDesk, I'll provide no further comment. However, should you wish to discuss the matter further, my talk page is, as always, open to all. Loomis 18:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm...didn't they have to wear the Star of David on their shoulder?...Found it!! See Yellow badge. FruitMart07 17:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite probably not yet in Austria at the time the photograph was taken, just after the Anschluss.  --Lambiam 17:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The compulsory wearing of the Star of David was first introduced in the Occupied Poland in October 1939. Clio the Muse 17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

And in the unified German Reich wearing the Star (on the left breast, not the shoulder) was only obligatory from 19 September 1941 onwards.  --Lambiam 17:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As to how people knew? In these days, if you lived in Austria and your neighbours were Jews, then you knew. People would warn each other: "So-and-so, do you know he's a Jew?". Your parents would know (from their parents) that the Grün family who ran the stationery store on the corner were Jews, and they would tell you, so you knew that the Grün kids, Eva and Bruno, were also Jews, and you would tell your children not to play with them, because, after all, they're Jews. Perhaps a few secular Jews could have managed to escape being identified as Jews by breaking all ties with friends and family and moving to another town, but apart from pride and the pain and risks of living a lie, who could have believed then things would get as bad as they did?  --Lambiam 18:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Lambiam, what more can one say, other than that people who in February 1938 were Austrians had become Jews, and nothing but Jews, a month later. Clio the Muse 18:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This was probably not a case of soldiers from Germany coming in and finding Jews. I'd bet the perpetrators here were local Nazis. Austria had long had an active Nazi movement. Presumably the local Nazi thugs knew who was Jewish in their neighborhoods. -- Mwalcoff 23:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well now i guess I should ask my next question. This is probably going to be really controversial, but in the point of view of the perpetrators and spectators, what had the Jewish people done wrong? Sorry if im asking too many questions its just a lot of my family were, well murdered, during it and its fascinated me. Ive always wondered if they died for a reason or merely to satisfy paranoid, archaeic fears. Ive always suspected it was the latter Ahadland 00:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

They had done nothing 'wrong', other than exist. For centuries the Jewish people had been outsiders and scapegoats. For the Nazis they were a convenient excuse for all of Germany's problems, and were blamed, with no sese of irony, for Communism, on the one hand, and Plutocracy on the other. You are welcome to ask as many questions as you wish, but it might help if you digested the pages on Anti-Semitism, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Nazism to help deepen your understanding. In addition to the texts I have indicated above (and I can point you in the direction of a lot more, if you wish) you should also read Mein Kampf. The prose is leaden, but it provides the perfect insight into the mind of a poorly educated anti-semite. Also, if you can, try to locate a copy, any copy, of the semi-pornographic Der Sturmer, edited by the ghastly Julius Streicher. A few pages will give you a far deeper insight into the pathology of anti-semitism than I can ever hope to do. Clio the Muse 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Medieval King fathering a child... while a child

I dimly remember that a medieval European King fathered a child at a spectacularly young age, 10 or 12 from memory. Can you help?

I had thought it was Louis the Pious, but our article shows he was married at 16, 17 or 19 (depending...!) and his successor and eldest son Lothair I seems to have been born when Louis was in his mid-teens.

Did a very young Louis have a child out of wedlock who didn't inherit? Am I thinking of a different King? Am I just imagining the whole shebang? --Dweller 14:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

His two bastard children, Arnulf of Sens and Alpais, seem to have been born about 794, making Louis about 16 at the time of their births. But a lot of the dates seem fairly nebulous. - Nunh-huh 23:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why there are 2 third parliaments under Charles II. (England)?

Hallo, sorry for my bad English. In the articleList_of_Parliaments_of_England#Parliaments_of_Charles_II are two third parliaments mentioned? Why? Was the first election not valid? Please answer not too complicated and please declare your sources. Thanks in advance -- Jlorenz1 14:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Worse than that, the latter of those 'third Parliaments', the Oxford Parliament (1681) has its own article here, which describes it as the fifth Parliament of Charles' reign! Is the numbering at the list article is just out of synch and is one missing, compounding the error? --Dweller 15:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Jlorenz1; I think we have met before, and not too long ago? It's very difficult to simplify this issue, but I will do my best. In 1678 a great political crisis overtook England, referred to as the Popish Plot. An individual by the name of Titus Oates managed to persuade some very influential people, and the nation at large, that English Catholics, a persecuted minority, intended to assassinate the king Charles II and replace him with his brother and heir James, Duke of York, who had converted to Catholicism some years before, despite the political difficulties involved. James' enemies, headed by Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, took the opportunity presented by the Oates' revelations to try to have James excluded from the succession, thus beginning what was called the Exclusion Crisis. Shaftesbury and his associates were united in a political movement known by their enemies as the Whigs, becoming the first ever political party in English politics. In the Parliaments you have highlighted the House of Commons was dominated by the Whigs, and the king, who refused to accept the 'revelations' of the Popish Plot, dissolved them in the hope of securing a more moderate-and conservative-Commons. But Whig representation simply increased each time. Even in the final Parliament of his reign, that which gathered at Oxford, the Commons was dominated by the Whigs. In the end Charles was forced to dissolve Parliament and rule by royal decree alone. The Misplaced Pages information incidentally is wrong: there were actually five Parliaments during the reign of Charles II: the Convention Parliament, the Cavalier Parliament, the Habeas Corpus Parliament, the Exclusion Parliament and the Oxford Parliament. I've tried to make this information as basic as I can; but please let me know if there is anything here you do not understand. I would recommend that you look at Charles the Second by Ronald Hutton, The Popish Plot by J. P Kenyon and The First Earl of Shaftesbury by K. H. D. Haley. Clio the Muse 15:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi @Dweller a fifth parliaments is definetly wrong, because I'm writing an article about Algernon Sidney

Hi @Clio the Muse, yes it's right and it was unpolish from me not to answer you the last time, but I'm in hurry to write my article, which grows and grows. I know the background, but it is difficult for me to understand all the intrigues from the court and Earl of Shaftesbury. I've read Jonathan Scott e-book (but you must have a google-account for this - it is free) please read the page 181, 182. Algernon Sidney was candidate for the second(for Guildford/Surrey) and third parliament (Amersham and Bramber). He won and lost the seat in the second parliament by intrigue from the court. The first (third parliament election)he won Amersham and lost Bramber(where his brother Henry was the candidate). But e few months later there was second third parliament and there he lost his parliament seat in Amersham. But why there are two third parliaments and no fourth? P.S. Jonathan Scott had sent me a short message in cause of my first question one week ago P.S. The Convention Parliament is for me not in the era of Charles II., it is still the era of commonwealth-- Jlorenz1 15:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I admire your courage and audacity, Jlorenz1, to be writing about the complexities of a political system that is not your own. I would be pleased to assist you in any way I can. Now, although the Convention Parliament met without royal authorisation, it continued to sit until December 1660, and thus must be considered as one of the Parliaments of Charles II. The Commonwealth ended at the Restoration in May 1660. Clio the Muse 16:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Clio the Muse, thanks for your offer. But ...

• what was the official reason to dissolve the Exclusion Parliament (inofficial it was certain the Exclusion Bill)
• and what means in detail a "double return" like in this Link and others? Was it to candidate in two communities at the same time or was it to candidate in two following parliaments or does have it another meaning?
• And what is the meaning if two men candidate together see "He is reported on the 10th of August 1679 as being elected for Amersham with Sir Roger Hill" Was Sir Roger Hill the substitute of Sidney or do they rotate in their work or do they work together having equals rights?

I was on your user page and saw, that you are a history PhD in this era. Fine.

By the way my grandfather Alexander Rüstow and especially his first wife were be friends of Käthe Kollwitz. They are mentioned also in the diary of Käthe Kollwitz. This is very exciting for me, because she was telling in 1918/1919 how my grandfather was standing between two women - his first and his second wife - my grandmother Anna Rüstow born Bresser

Thanks for your help -- Jlorenz1 22:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm always pleased to be of assistance, Jlorenz, and I welcome a fellow enthusiast for seventeenth century English political history, which, as you have clearly discovered, is my particular speciality. On your questions, the answer to the first is that the king did not need to give a reason for dissolving Parliament, which was summoned and dispersed by royal prerogative. Charles obviously could not in any way agree with the agenda of the Exclusion Parliament, which was to interfere with the the succession. In the end he was forced to rule for the last four years of his reign in the abscence of Parliament, because of the constitutional impasse caused by the Exclusion Crisis. On your second point, since the early Middle Ages most English constituencies were represented by two members, elected, or selected, at the same time, a practice which continued right up to the reforms of the nineteenth century. Once in Parliament members were more or less free agents, not obliged to follow a party agenda, though they would always be mindful of the interests of their sponsors, those who made it possible for them to attend Parliament in the first place, often a few wealthy individuals. Nevertheless, double member constituencies could, and often were, represented by men with quite different views, under no obligation to agree with one another. Finally, I thank you for that fascinating piece of information about Käthe Kollwitz, one of my very favourite artists, and your grandparents. I shall make a point of looking up that reference in her diaries! Clio the Muse 23:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Koreas and United Nations

We were unsure of the UN status of North Korea. Looking it up, we discovered that both South and North Korea were admitted to the UN on the same date, in 1991. This was suprising, as we thought South Korea would have been a member long before that (hosting the summer Olympics in 1988)...and also that w/ the unresolved conflict, its surprising then (perhaps) that both were admitted on the same date. There must be an interesting historical story behind this...but seems there is no mention in the Misplaced Pages article on either country, about their admittance in the UN. We would like to be pointed towards an internet reference where the story can be learned, and maybe someone wants to update the Misplaced Pages articles about these countries with relevant information? Thanks if you can help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.84.41.211 (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

In the early 1970's president Park of South Korea proposed that both Koreas simultaneously become members of the United Nations. This was presented as a gesture of goodwill, but could also be interpreted as a manoeuvre to avoid a potential stumbling block to eventual reunification. Whatever the case, Kim Il Sung, the then president of North Korea, was dead-set against this proposal. North Korea was, also by its own choice, politically almost completely isolated. The Soviet Union and China, following the lead of North Korea which they both tried to keep as an ally, also opposed the plan. Then, in 1990, in what some people see as a masterstroke of diplomacy, South Korea announced to the world that it was to pursue its own membership, regardless of what North Korea chose to do or not to do. In the changed international scene South Korea had managed to gain the support of the Soviet Union and China. As a reaction, the outmanoeuvred North chose to also seek admission.  --Lambiam 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the Communist Bloc would have prevented South Korea from joining on its own before the fall of communism. North Korea would have preferred not to do anything that implied recognition of the Seoul government. After 1989, it was clear South Korea could have been admitted by itself, so North Korea had no choice but to accept two Koreas in the UN. Although it has been talking to South Korea on and off over the past 20 years or so, North Korea still claims to be the only legitimate government of the entire Korean peninsula. In fact, it doesn't even like being called "North Korea," preferring the (completely false) name "Democratic People's Republic of Korea." -- Mwalcoff 22:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sparta

From article Helots: "In the 4th century BCE, citizens also used chattel-slaves for domestic purposes". What author writed this information? I don't beliefe that in Sparta there was slavery (I don't retain Helots slaves). Vess 16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here is the edit whereby the claim (without the chronological limitation) first entered the (French) Misplaced Pages. One could ask the editor for a citation. In general, this featured French Misplaced Pages article is well researched on the basis of standard scholarly accounts. If you read Garlan, Cartledge, etc., I think you'll find the basis of this. Wareh 15:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by this. The helots were serfs rather than slaves as such; but the margin between the two was so fine that it makes little sense to draw a strict line of demarcation. The point is that their labour was forced and unfree. Clio the Muse 17:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm the author of this particular edit which, I reckon, should be rewritten in a more careful way--for that matter, the whole article should be rewritten.

There are mentions of people freed by Spartans, which is supposedly forbidden for Helots (Alcman, according to Suidas and Herakleides; a Cytherean man reputedly enslaved with all his fellow citizens, according to Suidas), or sold outside of Lakonia (a Spartan cook bought by Dionysius the Elder or by a king of Pontus, both versions being mentioned by Plutarch; Spartan nurses, Plutarch again). Pseudo-Plato in Alcibiades I mentions "the ownership of slaves, and notably Helots" and Plutarch (in Comp. Lyc. et Num.) writes about "slaves and Helots", which tends to indicate that both are not the same thing. Finally, according to Thucydides, the agreement which ends the 464 BC revolt of Helots states that any Messenian rebel who might hereafter be found within the Peloponnese "is to be the slave of his captor".

Concerning scholars, Lévy (Sparte, 2003) thinks that the existence of chattel-slaves in Sparte is likely, if infrequent--at least for citizens: if we admit that Perioikoi could not own Helots, they must have had slaves. For Ducat (Les Hilotes, 1990) and Oliva (Sparta, 1971), the presence of bought slaves is plausible after 404 BC, but only in the upper classes. Lotze, (Metaxy, 1959) denies their existence because of the absence of real currency. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Were helots owned collectively by the state or by individuals? Never mind - found it in the article (state owned). Clarityfiend 19:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom Sawyer

What was daily life like in the United States during Tom Sawyer's time?

Tom Sawyer is eternal, and thus has no time. But Tom Sawyer and, above all, Huckleberry Finn, give a reasonable insight into aspects of daily life in part of the old south before the Civil War. There are no Misplaced Pages pages that deal with this subject directly, but you might, for some background information, have a look at the History of the United States (1849-1865) and the Origins of the American Civil War. There is also a brief page on the Antebellum topic. Clio the Muse 16:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

And note that it depends on where you are. Daily life in the North, South, and West would have been very different at these times. --140.247.250.115 20:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Henry and Eleanor's children (Q moved from Miscellaneous Ref Desk)

I have been looking among the files on Henry the second and Eleanor of Aquitaine and there childrens pages for the infomation about who is the favrite of the parents.----- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.214.226.248 (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC). (Moved here by Dweller 16:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

Henry's favourite was Prince John, but I think Eleanor favoured Prince Richard. In any case it was he who inherited her great duchy of Aquitaine, the very heart of the Angevin Empire. Clio the Muse 16:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you've ever seen The Lion in Winter, you'll see poor Geoffrey moaning about being unloved by both his parents. However, prior to his death, I believe Henry the Young King was their father's favorite. Corvus cornix 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw the 1968 movie on DVD not so long ago; great performances by Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepburn as Henry and Eleanor (and a young Anthony Hopkins as Richard). On your main point, Corvus, all the evidence suggests that Henry favoured John and Eleanor Richard. I have never come across anything to suggest that either of them had any deep regard for the Young King, who was treated by Henry as little more than a political cipher. If you could point me towards anything that suggests the contrary, and indicates Henry's true attitude towards his eldest surviving son, I would be most grateful. Clio the Muse 00:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the Komandorski Islands

What were the names of cruisers and destroyers that assisted USS SALT LAKE CITY in this battle on March 26, 1943. My wife has an uncle who was in this battle and we are trying to find out info.

Thanks, Ssearan 16:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the first external link listed in Battle of the Komandorski Islands: the old light cruiser Richmond and the destroyers Coghlan, Bailey and Dale. It also says the battle actually took place on the 27th. Clarityfiend 16:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(2x ec) I've got a ref which also lists USS Monaghan, Lt. Cmdr. Peter Harry Horn.—eric 17:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake - it did say there were 4 destroyers. Clarityfiend 17:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Fawcett Club Inc.

My grandfather, M. C. Schill was the president of the Fawcett Club from 1916 to 1918. To my knowledge, it was located in Brooklyn, New York. What was the club and does it still exist? Sincerely, Elaine Schill Kurka —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.99.35 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Seppuku

How common was this in medieval Japan? Clarityfiend 19:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Very uncommon. The Samurai themselves were a tiny warrior-caste of the Japanese ppl. AFAIK only they praticed this ritual form of suicide. Flamarande 20:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant among the Samurai. And now that you bring it up, how much of the population did the Samurai comprise? Somebody tell me before my hari meets my kari. Clarityfiend 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Far from me to dissuade you from redemming your precious honor by a beautiful act of honorable suicide :). I remember that the History Channel said that the Samurai were about 5% of the total Japanese population but I will not vouch for this number. I believe that the number of warriors of a society normally increases in periods of war and then decreases during peace. I also read somewhere that nobles in Mediaval Europe where of the same percentage so I guess it can be somewhat accurate. But in studying the Samurai you must distinguish between the legendary Samurai, who have been heavily idealized by later accounts. The true Samurai would flee if their enemy was too strong, to fight again under more favourable conditions. Flamarande 22:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you found Seppuku. The practise was never widespread, even among warriors. In some ways it may be seen in similar terms as what was done in Athens so that Pericles' son (Battle of Arginusae)was executed: An honor killing. The Wiki article states it was preferable to torture. This puts the actions of some Japanese soldiers at the end of WW2 in perspective, in that they were suiciding in a manner preferable to the alternative. DDB 23:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Psychology

For my AS pyschology specification we have been given a question that is really puzzling me, I don't know where to begin. Could somebody please give me a few pointers; "to what extent is there a relationship between stress and illness". Im not asking for anybody to do my own homework, merely to provide pointers. 82.36.182.217 20:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly a connection between stress and illness. For example, generally if you are overstressed, you may become more suceptible to some diseases. (Not being a science major, I can't tell you why exactly.) It may have something to do with the fact that your body is overloaded.

Since it's for school, I'm assuming you want more than just opinion, you want data, right? So HERE is a general place to look, and HERE is a more specific, scholarly search result. Many studies focus on the effect of stress on the endocrine and immune systems, the pattern of stress→depression→self-neglect→illness, psycho-somatic illness, for a start. The endocrine and immune system angles are well-documented. Good luck! Also, the WP article isn't too helpful, but still worth reading. Stress (medicine). Anchoress 20:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Psychoneuroimmunology and psychosomatic may be informative -- Diletante 20:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

March 22

• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot
• Pages monitored by bots