{{Unby HagermanBot]] Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg

May 14

Which game was it when he scored 4 goals,I remember it was his last season for Spurs,but I cant seem to remember which game was it?? Thank you very much

According to some fansite, it was a league game against Wimbledon. Algebraist 09:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase some singer or other, it was the football club formerly known as Wimbledon. --Dweller 09:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was Wimbledon 2-6 Tottenham on 2 May 1998. Incidentally, the rarely-seen Moussa Saib (ooh, there's no article for him yet), who cost £2.3m but made only 13 appearances, scored the sixth goal. Here's an in-depth match review, and here are some musings on Saib. Hassocks5489 21:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1910 census, my grandmother's occupation was listed as "crocher." I do not find this term in the unabridged dictionary, nor did I find a match in on-line search.

I do know that she was an accomplished seamstress and later in her life did alterations for a high-grade retail store.

What does this term mean? Thanks.65.54.97.192 03:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)glebou[reply]

Since she was a seamstress, maybe it's an alternative or corruption of "crocheter"? --TotoBaggins 03:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a possibility if you are reading this from an old document with uncertain legibility, is the word 'crofter'. The date is a little late for this unless she is from say, Scotland, but see the article, Croft.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 23:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional view is that the English revolution of 1688 was bloodless. Is this view correct? 84.201.163.98 05:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The very first paragraph of the Glorious Revolution article has your answer. Dismas|^(talk) 06:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an area of British history that still manages to be draped in a large measure of intellectual confusion. Indeed, the use of the word 'bloodless' to describe the events of 1688, and more important, their political aftermath, has rightly been described as the last vestige of 'Whig smuggery'. Much depends, moreover, just where one happened to be in the British Isles to see just how 'bloodless' or 'bloody' the whole affair really was. In England it succeeded with ease. In Scotland it also succeeded, but was quickly followed by the beginnings of an armed counter-revolution, which was to reach long into the future. In Ireland it hardly succeeded at all, and the government of James II remained in place, until dislodged by the landing of William III.

In England the only serious encounter was the Battle of Reading, a tiny affair that hardly justifies this inflated title. But soon after this a rumour started to spread that James' disbanded Irish soldiers were intent on the massacre of Protestants. This story, to be known as the Irish Fright, spread rapidly across the country, leading to widspread rioting. In Scotland, most of the nobility, and all of the Lowlands, embraced the Revolution, and only Edinburgh Castle held out for King James, until the governor, the Duke of Gordon, capitulated in the summer of 1689. However, by this time John Graham of Claverhouse had raised the Highlands on behalf of the ancien regime, going on to win a stunning victory at the Battle of Killiecrankie. His death at this encounter, and the subsequent defeat of the Highland army at the Battle of Dunkeld robbed the rising of much of its momentum, though it tends to be forgotten that large parts of the Highlands remained in rebellion until the Massacre of Glencoe in February 1692. In Ireland the victory of the Revolution was even more costly, with major engagements at the Boyne in 1690, and Aughrim in 1691, one of the bloodiest battles ever fought in the British Isles. Resistence on the island was effectively crushed by the subsequent Penal Laws, and the breach of the Treaty of Limerick, which carried the consequences of the Revolution deep into the future. The Bloodless Revolution? No, not by any measure. Clio the Muse 08:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was astonished to discover in browsing through your encyclopedia that an Englishwoman, Gertrude Bell, was in part responsible for the creation of the modern state of Iraq. The page on her has a little information on this. Are there any more details? Secret seven 07:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Bell is a particular heroine of mine: the first woman down from Oxford with a First in Modern History; an independent scholar, an archaeologist, and expert in several Middle Eastern languages, a writer, a political specialist, a traveller; a friend of sheiks and kings-the female Lawrence of Arabia! In 1900 she dressed herself as a Bedouin man, riding alone into the dangerous Hauran Plain, still under the control of the Ottomans, in search of the Druze, a militant Muslim sect, which had been fighting the Turks for two hundred years. She made contact with Yahya Beg, king of the Druze, and conversed with him in his own language. Some weeks after he was to ask another visitor to his domain 'Have you seen a queen travelling?'

Bell's knowledge of the Arab peoples was later to be used by the British authorities after the outbeak of the First World War. When the British Army captured Baghdad in March 1917, she took up a position in the city as Oriental Secretary. There she remained in Iraq, or Mesopotamia, as it was known at the time, until after the conclusion of the war. Like her friend, Lawrence of Arabia, she became keen advocate of an independent Arab state. In 1919 she complied a report on the subject, in which she wrote;

An Arab State in Mesopotamia...within a short period of years is a possibility, and...the recognition or creation of a logical scheme on those lines, in supercession of those on which we are now working on Mesopotamia, would be practical and popular.

Her advice was effectively ignored, and the tribes of the Euphrates, angered that one form of imperialism gave every appearance of being replaced by another, rose in revolt, an event that cost the lives of 10,000 Arabs and several hundred Britons. Bell wrote:

We have made an immense failure here. The system must have been far more at fault than anyone suspected...I suppose we have underestimated the fact that this country is really an inchoate mass of tribes which can't as yet be reduced to any system. The Turks didn't govern and we have tried to govern...and failed.

For Bell the one way out was to give the people a distinct political identity, which she believed could be focused in a monarchy, in the particular person of Faisal bin Hussein, recently deposed by the French as King of Syria. At the Cairo Conference of 1921, she and T. E. Lawrence worked assiduously for the creation of Iraq and Transjordan, and Bell persuaded Winston Churchill, as Colonial Secretary, to endorse Fisal as King of Iraq. Bell was also in favour of Sunni dominance in the new nation: "Otherwise", as she put it, "you will have a... theocratic state, which is the very devil." With her help and guidance Fisal came to his new kingdom, and was crowned king in August 1921. For Arab and Briton alike Bell was the uncrowned 'Queen of the Sands.' With the King's approval she went on to found Iraq's great Archaeological Museum, whose unparalleled collection was so sadly looted in 2003. This leads me on to some final words from 'Queen Gertrude', which may serve to sum up the present position of the Western powers in the region;

If Mesopotamia goes, Persia [Iran] goes inevitably...And the place which we leave empty will be occupied by seven devils a good deal worse than any which existed before we came.

I've always believed that an understanding of history should be an essential basis for the formation of policy. But historians will always be cast in the role of Cassandra. Even so, Gertrude Bell's book, The Desert and the Sown, is still worth reading, all these years later. Clio the Muse 10:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Druze, for a description of their beliefs. StuRat 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a delightful typo from Clio: snow in the desert. The book's title is The Desert and the Sown, referring to the difference in many Arab lands between the cultivated lands of the fellaheen and the wild lands of the bedouin. 217.155.195.19 17:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Ha! Ha! Thank you for that, 217! I have amended accordingly, but will remember always The Desert and the Snow. Who knows? Perhaps it may even become a title yet to be born! Clio the Muse 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some years ago there was a show on PBS which depicted famous works of classical music mixed with weirdly impressionistic and surreal settings. For instance, one of the scenes showed a cornfield, which on closer inspection turned out to be a large number of expressionless men, who danced up and down. Another scene showed a dance at a ball.

Does anyone know the name of this work, or the pieces that were played to accompany it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MelancholyDanish (talk • contribs) 08:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi MelancholyDanish, it looks like no one has a direct answer to your question yet. In the meantime, you may want to try:

• contact the PBS station for your area and send an e-mail or phone call to the programming director;
• PBS stations accept financial contributions from listeners and viewers, phone in a pledge and request the information from the volunteer who accepts your contribution, they will probably be happy to help you, and thankful for your contribution;
• Post your question to Talk:Public Broadcasting Service (controversial, some would consider this inappropriate use of an article talk page YMMV);
• Post your question somewhere else at Curlie or somewhere else at Curlie;

Note: you may have better results if you ask for the name of the show or series instead of the name of a specific work included in the show. Also, if you find the answer, feel free to come back here and post it so others will benefit from your findings. Regards.

dr.ef.tymac 15:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember being told at school that Tolkein did not like the Welsh, and that in building his mythology of England he deliberately cast the Dwarves ("who thought of nothing but themselves") like the South Welsh mining community who are generally short in stature. I cannot find this documented and the maps might indicate otherwise. Was it just a fanciful English teacher or is there any truth in it? --BozMo talk 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard such a claim before, and the evidence given is highly tenuous: I see nothing to link the Welsh to dwarves (who are more obviously connected to the dwarves of various northern european mythologies), nor for that matter is Tolkien particularly opposed to dwarves in any case. What I can add is that Tolkien loved the Welsh language, using it as a basis for one of his own. It's possible his talk English and Welsh would help here, but I don't have a copy to hand. Algebraist 11:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dwarf#Possible origins, it has been suggested that the dwarf-myths of northern Europe relate to the northern migration of tin-miners in the bronze age, which is at least in the same ballpark as your teacher's suggestion. Algebraist 12:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on cellar door quotes him as saying:

"Most English-speaking people...will admit that cellar door is 'beautiful', especially if dissociated from its sense (and from its spelling). More beautiful than, say, sky, and far more beautiful than beautiful. Well then, in Welsh for me cellar doors are extraordinarily frequent, and moving to the higher dimension, the words in which there is pleasure in the contemplation of the association of form and sense are abundant."

, which doesn't sound like dislike to me. --TotoBaggins 01:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dwarves have various points of analogy with Jews. Their creation story resembles that of Abraham and Isaac, and their language resembles Semitic at least as closely as Sindarin resembles Welsh. —Tamfang 07:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Terry Pratchett makes his dwarves Welsh mostly from the mining context.On the other hand he appears to be very fond of them.hotclaws 08:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidentally Tolkien thought quite well of the Welsh: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tolkien#.22English_and_Welsh.22_.281955.29 Vranak

A friend and I have studied investing for quite some time, and now we feel as though it would be a good idea to start a partnership or hedge fund, where we aquire clients & invest their money--similar to how Buffett started his partnership. We have beaten the S&P for 3 years, and realistically feel we can produce returns in excess of 35% annually. What steps do we need to take to start our own fund?? And also are we unable to get non-accredited investors to invest with us? Regulation D confuses me on this issue. XM 12:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regulations for Investment Funds of any sort vary by country, by state, by province. Where you are is key to any response we might provide, but generally, you need legal advice, which you won't get here, and a lot of your own money. Bielle 21:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, while Eurovision might be more of an Entertainment type thing, this is really about the politics, which humanities people will probably know more about...

Why the hell did Malta give the UK 12 points this year? I can kind of understand Malta having a tendency to award points to the UK over other countries, but the song was really awful and they awarded the maximum 12 points! And since this was by televoting (I think all countries do it that way now?), the people of Malta must have chosen to vote for the weirdly imperialistic, innuendo laden, Fly the Flag. I could almost understand if it was by jury, but this was the population phoning in! Also, why does Malta (and Ireland too) give us points in such a preferential manner? It's not like we reciprocate, at least not with Malta. Do they think we'll retaliate if they don't? O_o

So, basically hoping someone has some insight. Thanks! Skittle 15:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the numbers to confirm this, but I suspect the British expat community mentioned at demographics of Malta may have something to do with it. Algebraist 16:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While Ireland boasts more than a hundred thousand UK nationals [1]. That's quite a block vote. Algebraist 16:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malta is after all a former British colony, and it only ceded in 1964; that's within living memory of quite a few people. And in fact, the UK does often give Malta very high votes: 10 points in 2005, 12 in 2002, 6 in 1999, 12 in 1998, and before this, voting was done by jury, with Malta still regularly receiving around 6-8 points from UK and vice-versa. Of course, it doesn't always work out this way; both sides awarded each other nul points in 2003. This pact is sometimes called the "George Cross pact", after the George Cross medal awarded to the island during WWII. Ireland doesn't receive quite the same level of block voting (7 in 2004, 5 in 2001 etc), but there is still some. Laïka 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Ireland gave the UK a good few points, They didn't give any to us though, :(, Its all got to do with immigrant populations, the large Latvian and Lithuanian population of Ireland, meant that although they got very few points of other countries they got plenty of votes from Ireland. Serbia with large minorities in many states was always going to have an advantage. there are a few countries, that once they have a half decent song they are going to win because of minorities in other countries. Ken 20:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thanks. Immigrant populations. That's all very interesting. But, given Malta doesn't always give us 12 points, and in fact doesn't always give us points at all, why did they give us 12 points this year? It can't have been the song, unless 'Fly the flag' means something else to the Maltese. Skittle 23:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Migrant populations are the key elements to many western European votes. France always gives maximum points to Armenia, Turkey always gets a lot of votes from The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany and Austria, etcetera. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article from the BBC may explain why Malta cast its votes in favor of the UK - apparently it was some sort of protest against what the Maltese contingent deemed unethical voting practices by other naitons. Carom 00:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that makes a lot more sense. Thanks! I was beginning to worry about the Maltese.... Skittle 16:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add to the article Mars bar that the recent addition of animal rennet to Mars bars made in the UK[2], as well as making them not suitable for vegetarians, also makes them non-kosher. However after a bit of research I've discovered that things with only a small amounts of rennet or similar products are sometimes considered kosher if the rennet is not a crucial part in the manufacturing of the food. What is the rule on this? Are they now non-kosher? Were Mars bars even kosher to start with, before the addition of animal rennet? --Krsont 15:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this story. The London Beth Din are due to make an announcement on the subject imminently. I'll post here if/when I have anything. --Dweller 15:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your last question, yes, Mars bars (and many other affected products) have been approved by the London Beth Din for some years. --Dweller 15:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The KLBD site ([3]) is carrying this announcement:

"ALERT - MARS PRODUCTS Articles have recently appeared in the national press concerning the use of whey derived from animal rennet in Masterfoods confectionery. We have been aware for many years that whey can be a by product of cheese-making and that, even today, animal rennet can be used in cheese manufacture. Since whey derived from this source contains only trace amounts of rennet, it is permitted according to halacha. There is therefore no problem with any of the Masterfoods products that are currently on the London Beth Din approved list."

Hope that clears things up. --Dweller 15:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, thanks. --Krsont 15:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that this is really 'cleared up'. There isn't one world body approving food items for compliance with kashrut; in fact, there are foods labelled kosher by many certifying bodies that are avoided by observant Jews of certain denominations. When my Orthodox friend came to visit, she had a list of about a half dozen kosher symbols her sect recognised; everything else wasn't allowed. Anchoress 15:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard and fast rules don't easily work when it comes to Jews and Judaism, but basically, anyone who keeps the rules of kashrut but is content to consume non supervised milk will happily go with the KLBD supervision. The UK doesn't have the same proliferation of supervisory bodies as in other countries (although there's still several such authorities). --Dweller 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my post above, there's a fuller explanation of the Beth Din's ruling available in pdf format here --Dweller 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of information about the really rich people during the middle ages , and about the really poor, but was there a medieval middle-class? Were there people who had access to enough good-quality food that they never went hungry, or lived in reasonably well built houses (brick and stone maybe), and perhaps even had some access to education? Monks may have come close, but even they were either quite poor or quite rich (I enjoy the story of the monks who protested to a King James (can't remember which) because they had their meals cut from 10 courses to 7!). Other than that, I can't think of any group who would have counted until the Renaissance, when merchants and guild-members would probably have had access to these resources. Laïka 19:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to generalise, because conditions around the world varied so much. I assume you're referring to Europe. One of the interesting elements of European history is the rise of the middle classes and the urban population too. In many countries, this was fomented by the dearth of manpower following the Black Death. In English history, for example, commoners' voices are increasingly heard, even if only as a mob and the London mob plays an important part in several key incidents. I guess if you want a detailed answer, specify a country. Personally, I wouldn't consider the clergy to be a "middle class", rather a class unto themselves, but others may disagree. Of course, the highest clergy were effectively (and sometimes officially) noble. --Dweller 21:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The techonlogical innovations that made a middle class possible weren't existant back then. For example, crops did not grow as plentiful and were harded to harvest, so a large amount of labor went into farming. The making of metal goods, tailoring, etc. usually needed practice and were also time-consuming/labor-intensive/etc. Most of the money and land was owned by lords, who essentially hosed the serfs out of their fair pay because the serfs lived on the lord's land (if you live in my house, you'll live by my rules dammit) and had to accept whatever pay was given them, which was presumably beans (due to the lord's greed). And there were was no BBB or labor unions, so the serfs couldn't negotiate (or arbitrate) their rights. - 2-16 14:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an agricultural society most wealth comes from ownership of land, and most land was owned by nobles in the middle ages. There was a small amount of wealth to be made from trading and skilled labor, but holding onto that wealth wasn't so easy, as all the laws favored the nobles. Many people lost their possessions as part of the Spanish Inquisition, for example. As noted above, things started to change a bit as a result of the Black Plague. StuRat 22:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The patterns of wealth and poverty in the Middle-Ages were actually quite complex, Laika, in some ways just as complex as they are today. Most people did indeed earn their living on the land, but there was also a large and prosperous urban 'middle-class' made up all all sorts of people, from merchants to guildsmen. In England in the late Medieval period this 'third estate of the realm' had even attained a voice in Parliament. Dweller is quite right about the effects of the Black Death: it introduced a far higher degree of labour mobility, as families were prepared to move if wage rates were not attractive enough. If one examines in detail the social composition of the rebel army in the so-called Peasants Revolt of 1381, moreover, it can be seen that large numbers of those involved were anything but the 'rustici' described by hostile chroniclers. Many of the rebels were indeed ploughmen, labourers and the like, but still more were artisans, craftsmen and small-traders. Most surprising of all, quite a number were wealthy Londoners, including one Paul Salisbury. You will get an excellent insight into the patters of medieval life from a reading of The Canterbury Tales by Geoffery Chaucer. Incidentally, on a point of information, and just to ensure that there is no confusion in the matter, it is quite wrong to suggest that all land in the Middle-Ages was 'only owned by the nobles', as you will discover if you read the page on the Yeomen. I would also suggest looking in to the The Paston Letters, which demonstrates that social-mobility is not entirely a modern concept. Clio the Muse 00:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in primary school, I seem to remember do a whole project on the rise of the middle classes in Victorian England. It was strongly implied, and possibly said, that the very concept of 'middle class' was invented by the Victorians, and that they had not existed before Victorian times. Of course, while my teacher did actually know an enormous amount about history, I expect a certain amount of exaggeration, simplification and dressing up happened in the telling. Also, that the meaning of 'middle class' being used is very important. Just a thought, trying to tease extra information out of others... Skittle 00:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Middle class" as a concept is really just a matter of classification. It's quite possible that what we now call the middle class existed long before it was given a name. One earlier name was the bourgeoisie (boozh-wa-zee), but that also sometimes included the rich. StuRat 05:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There were thriving "middle class"es of free artisans etc in many ancient societies, notably Greek and Roman. The Romans, in particular, knew the power of the "plebs" - the games were a useful device for keeping the urban masses happy. --Dweller 09:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in London recently I saw a statue of Oliver Cromwell outside the Houses of Parliament. I always thought he was one of the great baddies of English history. Who put it there and why? Martinben 20:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While waiting for a fantastic answer by far more resourceful editors than myself, you can read some information under Oliver_Cromwell#Posthumous_reputation which addresses the statue as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page says "It is by Hamo Thornycroft, and was presented to the Palace by Lord Rosebery in 1899." Further down that page the author indicates that "Cromwell was honoured for his democratic principles and in fact, this period is the only experience England has ever had of a republican government - hence his manifestation in the form of a statue outside Parliament today." --LarryMac | Talk 20:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we expect a Guy Fawkes statue soon ? :-) StuRat 22:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For an indication of current opinion on Cromwell, he finished 10th in the BBC's poll of the 100 Greatest Britons. Miremare 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the poll result shows, in England Cromwell is often remembered as a hero (when he is remembered). If you want him as a baddie, you should turn to Ireland, where he was long hated (and I think still is) for his conquest thereof. I think Irish influence is the reason Cromwell is often badly thought of in the US, but that's very much original research. StuRat: while I would applaud a statue of old Guido, not all would share my opinion. A Cromwell statue, however, is not at all controversial in England (though approximately half of Northern Ireland are presumably somewhat opposed to it, and I've no idea about Wales and Scotland). Algebraist 23:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every age has a tendency to refashion the past in its own image, and the story of Cromwell's statue at Westminster provides no better illustration of this general principle. In fact, this statue, if 'read' in its own particular historical context, tells us far more about the shifts and changes in Victorian opinion than it does about the infamous Lord Protector.

The saga begins soon after the old Palace of Westminster burned down in 1834. To enhance the new gothic structure designed by Sir Charles Barry and Augustus Welby Pugin, the recently established Fine Arts Commission, arranged for a series of paintings, statues and stained glass, all intended to celebrate the nation's history. This, of course, included depictions of the various monarchs. Only Oliver Cromwell was omitted, passed over in silence as a regicide and a tyrant, a view that had been in place ever since the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660. But the decision of the hapless Commmissioners was greeted by protests from across the country. Radicals and Nonconformists of all sorts demanded that he should have his rightful place in the national panorama. The reason for this is not too hard to detect. England was undergoing some rapid social and political changes; the old aristocratic dominance, the dominance of the Cavaliers, if you like, was under challenge by the 'Roundheads' on a whole variety of fronts. The Reform Act of 1832 had extended the basis of the franchise to large sections of the new middle-classes. The landed interest was under sustained challenge from the Anti-Corn Law League. Right at the heart of this desire for change were to be found the religious Nonconformists, once confined to the political margins, now moving steadily towards the centre. For all of these people Cromwell was a symbol. On this occasion the agitation failed; but it would not go away. Admiration for Cromwell grew still further when Thomas Carlyle, the historian, published Cromwell's Letters and Speeches in 1845. No longer perceived as the tyrant who dismissed more Parliaments than any other man in history, Cromwell re-emerged as an earnest middle-class Victorian moralist, an advocate of the twin ideals of empire and religious toleration.

In the years that followed he appeared in provincial town halls and Nonconformist chapels up and down England, in statue, bust or in stained glass, wherever the radical tradition was strongest. Another attempt to install him at Westminster was made in 1871, supported by over 100 MPs, but once again was defeated as Whigs and Tories fought out the old battles of the English Civil War. Thereafter the issue died away somewhat, especially after William Ewart Gladstone took over the leadership of the Liberal Party. For the Nonconformists and the radicals the 'Grand Old Man' became something of a living embodiment of Cromwell, full of the same moral earnestness and sense of purpose. What need of statues when one had the real thing? The project revived for the oddest of reasons: in 1894 the 'Roundhead' Gladstone was suceeded both as leader of the Liberal Party and as Prime Minister, by the 'Cavalier' Lord Rosebery. Rich, elegant, urbane, Rosebery, a member of the Jockey Club, is said to have had two ambitions: to become Prime Minister and to win the Derby. What he needed to do immediately was to uphold the uncertain coalition of interests that made up the Liberal Party, which almost came apart in the latter stages of Gladstone's ministry over the question of Irish Home Rule. To secure his position he needed the support of the Nonconformists; and to secure the Nonconformists he proposed to give them Cromwell. But he was surprised from an unexpected direction, as yet another old battle was refought, the bitterest of them all.

Rosebery mangaged to push the issue of the statue through Cabinet; but when the Commons was asked to fund the project in June 1895 John Redmond, the leader of the block of Irish Nationalist MPs, on whose votes the ministry also depended, rose in protest, reminding the House of the horrors of the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. The motion had to be withdrawn, a move which was greeted, as one Cabinet member noted, "with anger and disgust from English Liberals, with thick-witted jibes from Unionists...and with wild cries of aboriginal joy from our Irish friends." In the end Rosebery decided to pay for it out of his own pocket, but the erection was resisted all along the way, by an odd combination of Tory and Irish opinion. it was only finally unveiled on 14 November 1899 at 7.30 in the morning, an unusually early hour, intended to avoid any adverse demonstration. Cromwell had won his last battle. Clio the Muse 23:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"... and with wild cries of aboriginal joy from our Irish friends" - what a delicious phrase! So this unnamed Cabinet member acknowledged that the Irish had indeed been the owners of Ireland since antiquity, and the English never had any business there, despite Pope Adrian IV's permission. Or maybe they used the "terra nullius" excuse that was the spurious basis, in respect of the indigenous population, of the British colonisation of Australia. JackofOz 00:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cabinet member in question, Jack, was John Morley. Clio the Muse 01:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Clio. JackofOz 02:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Cromwell appears on both the BBC's 100 Greatest Britons poll. Neutrality^talk 02:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Clio the Muse for that amazingly detailed answer to my question. I have another bellow, and would be grateful for your help. Martinben 11:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell would u delete the site????????????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.70.1.89 (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Why would "who" delete the site? Bielle 21:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore my question. The site is there. I just accessed it through "CafePress". Bielle 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed the anon was irritated by an article deletion about said website. --Dweller 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted on March 21, 2007 through the regular process: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred the Monkey, as was an earlier version on November 20, 2006: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred the Monkey.com.  --Lambiam^Talk 00:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What were the options for jewish people trying to leave Germany before WWII? Captainhardy 20:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How soon before WWII? --Dweller 21:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the timing, but I understand that, at one point, Jews were allowed to leave so long as they could get visas allowing them to travel thru or to another country. The problem was that those were granted by other countries on a quota basis, so there weren't anything near the millions needed to evacuate the entire Jewish population. Exceptions were made for particularly notable, talented, or wealthy Jews, who found it easier to travel. Einstein, for example, went to the US. One odd situation is that quite a few Jews were able to travel safely to Japan, due to a Japanese ambassador who was aware of the threat and granted many travel visas. Thus, even though Japan was a genocidal aggressor in WW2, it actually served to save many Jews. StuRat 22:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there were a few such cases. One of the most notable being Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg, who saved tens of thousands of Hungarian Jews by providing them with Swedish passports. Lewis 02:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a small but highly interesting dimension to this whole story that deserves to be far better known, the details of which are given in Frank Shapiro's book Haven in Africa, published by the Gefen Publishing House in 2002.

Before the outbreak of the Second World war, and indeed right up to Octber 1941, when all Jewish migration from German occupied Europe was halted, the real tension was between the Nazi desire to rid themselves of their Jewish population and the unwillingness of the international community to rise to the humanitarian challenge this presented. The problem was made considerably worse from the time of the Kristallnacht onwards, when a new radicalism entered German policy. Even so, most countries simply tightened existing laws against immigration, which included the British Aliens Act of 1905, and the Immigration Act of 1924 in the United States. Still others enacted new laws. Concessions could be made, and were made, in individual cases, but not at a level anywhere near adequate. The Evian Conference of July 1938, intended to resolve the problem, got absolutely nowhere. Palestine, the only possible destination for large-scale Jewish migration, was effectively closed off by the 1939 White Paper on Palestine. This was a time when Britain was pursuing a double policy of Appeasement: towards the Germans in Europe, and towards the Arabs in the Middle-East. However, one country did remain open to large-scale Jewish migration; and it was Malcolm MacDonald, the British Colonial Secretary, and architect of the White Paper, who suggested it as a possible refuge within the confines of the British Empire. This country was Zambia in southern Africa, then known as Northern Rhodesia.

Although both South Africa and Southern Rhodesia-now Zimbabwe-introduced their own restrictions on Jewish immigration in 1937, in Northern Rhodesia the ruling Legislative Council voted in March 1939 to continue with an 'open door' policy, virtually the only place in the world where such a liberal arrangement was in place. No Jewish refugee was ever turned away, and in the end approximately a hundred families were able to make a home there, some two-hundred and fifty people in all. The reason the number was so tiny was because the policy was never officially publicised. Those who came did so because they were told by relatives already living in southern Africa. But the vast majority never found out that a visa could be obtained for Northern Rhodesia simply by asking for one. Clio the Muse 02:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that the window for Jewish immigration from Germany to Northern Rhodesia was open fairly briefly, or, it would seem, even by word of mouth more than a few hundred families would have found out about it. I believe one argument the Nazis made was that "since Jews destroy any country they enter, we should ship as many as possible to our enemies". Of course, once many of the Jewish scientists they let move away worked to develop nuclear weapons and otherwise worked for the defeat of Nazi Germany, they might have had second thoughts about this policy. StuRat 04:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A much more significant "open" place was refugees was found in Shanghai. See also Category:Jewish emigration from Nazi Germany.--Pharos 21:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted that Russia isn't at ease with the idea of USA having a system of defence against incoming missiles. My question is, what are the reasons to object to someone defending themselves? If it was about launching attacks I'd understand it, of course. My only speculation is that such a defence system would ruin the mutually assured destruction, i.e., USA could attack Russia without suffering from the counterattack. Is that the reason? —Bromskloss 21:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be related to issues surrounding NATO expansion, a bloc of military allies harking back to the days of the Cold War. Whilst the Soviet bloc (the Warsaw Pact) has since all but disintegrated, NATO is going strong and a number of ex-Soviet states are either looking or being approached to join. The development of the missile defence proposed by the USA may well be linked to and involve NATO members. Wherever countries take bilateral actions in a multilateral political climate, there are bound to be those who are less than enthusiastic: in this case Russia which stands to be excluded.Coldmachine 21:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that part of Russia's position can indeed be explained from its declining power in eastern Europe. The Warsaw Pact has disintegrated, many countries have joined the EU and NATO, pro-Moscow governments have been overthrown in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine and have been fiercely protested in Belarus, Estonia has removed the Bronze Soldier, etcetera. This also explains Russia's gas wars with Ukraine, Georgia and Bulgaria. I think Putin fears that with the defense shield in place, those countries will have even less reason to listen. He fears that their orientation towards Moscow will be replaced by an orientation towards Washington. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the ironies of war is that defensive measures sometimes bring about war and offensive weapons sometimes bring about peace. For example, nuclear weapons prevented World War 3 between the Warsaw Pact and NATO. However, if the Russians had a way to defend against nuclear weapons, they would have been able to attack Western Europe. StuRat 22:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A pro-Moscow governments has been overthrown in Kyrgyzstan? Really? As for Ukraine, do you know who Viktor Yanukovych is and who actually appoints the government in that country? What "gas wars with Bulgaria" do you speak about? Could you provide a reference to the news? --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if the US had had/had a way to defend against nukes, they could have/will be able to nuke Russia without reprisal. Perhaps more importantly, they could have/could use the implicit threat of the possibility to do whatever the hell they liked. Algebraist 23:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the US might have run amok, doing nasty things like liberating Eastern Europe from Soviet control. StuRat 02:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought the countries liberated themself in the course of velvet revolutions, while Gorbachev's Russia basically stood aside and applauded, never attempting to interfere. Can't see what the US did to "liberate" them that Russia didn't. Now we have old Europe and new Europe who while getting generous cash handouts from EU tax-payers, takes its commands from America. So far so good, both for US and for Russia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying they might have been liberated in the 1950s, if the US had overwhelming military superiority then. StuRat 02:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that part of the reason is that it would upset the balance that obtained through the various treaties to limit nuclear arsenals. If the US and (old) Soviet Union had reached a point of roughly balanced missle forces and the US were then to develop a workable missle defense the balance would be lost. If the US could shoot down some significant percentage of incoming missles it would in effect have an edge without having to build more missles. Another effect would be to force the Soviets to spend vast amounts of money to develop its own missle defense system. I seem to recall that at one time there was talk of offering the technology to the Soviets (but not, of course the hardware), which would somewhat reduce the cost but would still require them to spend billions. Talk of the need for such a system was revived after the North Korean launch of a missle that was theorized to have the ability to carry a nuclear warhead and a range sufficient to reach the US West coast.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 23:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the political aspect of deterrence: if the US is no longer afraid of Russian warheads, will it push Russian on points in a way harder than before? Nobody really knows — the exact way in which nuclear weapons themselves translate into political clout is variable, and so any system like this would be variable as well. Better in their eyes to have stability in these sorts of affairs. --24.147.86.187 00:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russia, and the USSR before it, fear the American development of a "first strike" capability. That would mean being able to nuke Russia without getting nuked back. The Cold War nuclear stalemate was based on mutually assured destruction. -- Mwalcoff 01:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that's all just a bit silly, as there is no way any defensive shield could stop the thousands of nuclear weapons Russia could launch. They might, however, have a chance at stopping one or two nukes from North Korea, Pakistan, or Iran. StuRat 02:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... which countries simply do not have missiles capable of reaching Europe, and would not in any foreseable future. If US were really interested in defending themselves from Iran, they should have put their anti-missile defense much closer to its border, for instance, in Iraq. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iran actually touches Turkey, which is partially in Europe, so they shouldn't have much trouble reaching a European nation. North Korea is working on missiles which can cross the Pacific Ocean; just point them the other way and they should be able to reach Europe. StuRat 02:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason is that the US is proposing an interceptor site based in Eastern Europe. The plan, as far as I know, is for interceptors in Poland and a radar post in the Czech Republic ([4], [5]), which could reasonably be seen by Russia as additional American militarization in their sphere of influence, and as a possible counter to their missile systems. You have to admit, the US wouldn't be very happy if, say Russia decided to build a missile site near their borders. --ByeByeBaby

That's the diff between a missile site and an antimissile missile site. StuRat 05:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why did the Spanish legionnares call themselves the bridegrooms of death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.201.163.98 (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You should read the pages on the Spanish Legion and, in particular, that on José Millán Astray, the founder of the Tercio de Extranjeros. The ethos of the new formation was taken from the example supplied by Millán Astray, a flamboyant, violent and somewhat extreme individual, who popularised the slogans Viva la Muerte! (Long live death) and A mi, la Legión (To me, the Legion). As a result the Legionnaires referred to themselves as the Novios de la Muerte (The Bridegrooms of Death). They were to prove their courage-and their brutality-during the Spanish Civil War, when they fought on the Nationalist side under the command of Juan Yagüe. The Spanish philosopher Miguel de Unamuno once had the courage to challenge Millán Astray and his thuggish supporters at a meeting in Salamanca University, attended by Francisco Franco and his wife Donna Carmen, shortly after the outbreak of the Revolt of 1936. Although Unamuno supported the rising, the shouts of Viva la Muerte! in the confines of the ancient university were simply too much-"You might as well say death to life", he responded. He had to be taken from the hall under the protection of Donna Carmen, and was held under house arrest until his death in December 1936. Clio the Muse 00:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That way if I got rejected I could threaten to sue for discrimination because I am a Muslim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.149.191.209 (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I seriously doubt that any colleges use participants' religions as an criteria for minority enrollment. Also, if your application was rejected, it is very unlikely that a judge would rule in your favor if you sued. Testimony for the college would most likely have no trouble showing the specific reasons your application was rejected, and there is practically no chance that "religion" would be enumerated there. As I said, I have never heard of any college, not even one operated by another religion such as the Catholic Church, that would reject a student because the applicant's religion was Islam. If you are SURE your application will be rejected, why do you bother applying?___J.delanoy 22:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to less Rush Limbaugh. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you were joking when you wrote this question. The joke failed badly. If it wasn't a joke, your strategy is the worst example I've ever seen of preparedness to litigate in bad faith. Please don't ever again ask us to give you advice - even in jest - on how to manipulate the system in an unethical and unconscionable way. JackofOz 00:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every rule offers unethic escapes. Less rules, less lawyers! A lack of rules is not better : more rules, more ways to be heard.

People trying their chances are the best testers for badly constructed rules - if and only if rulers (Congress, Assemblée, Parliament) take time to look at them and improve them. So thank you 64.149 (or is it 191.209 ?), we'll look at that. -- DLL ^{.. T} 16:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that should be 'fewer rules, fewer lawyers'. 86.133.247.13 09:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably noticed from my question title, people who live in the United States commonly refer to people who live in Great Britain as "British", or "English". Do people in Britain call us "Americans"? Or is there another term that is used? Thanks.___J.delanoy 22:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Yanks", when I was a lad... --Wetman 22:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term I hear most on BBC is "fat bastards" ;) Aecis^Brievenbus 22:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The serious answer is yes, they call us "Americans." -- Mwalcoff 23:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We tend to use "Americans", "Yanks", or I have heard among a very small minority of determined pedants, "United Statian". The other side of that pedantry is occasionally calling Canadians "American" for the fun of the reaction, as they are, after all, from North America. --Mnemeson 23:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Statian makes as much sense as UKoGBaNIan. Corvus cornix 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost always "Americans", sometimes "Yanks", less commonly "Yankees". My grandfather used to call them "bloody colonials" in an affectionate kind of way, but I think that was just him. ;) Miremare 23:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Merkin? Is that used often? Aecis^Brievenbus 23:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not often, at least in my experience. I use Damnyankee sometimes, but that's pretty rare too. Algebraist 23:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you call an American with an obvious Southern accent a Yank too? Better watch out...that's pretty much like asking a Scot whether he believes in Leprechauns. Lewis 01:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To an Iranian, "yanks" includes even Southerners, and they might even toss in Canucks for good measure. StuRat 02:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one should even put true Yankees on that level. - AMP'd 01:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Or even pretend Yankees![reply]

Come to think of it, that would be even more insulting to an Irish person! But you get my point. :-) Lewis 02:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's the other one that always understandably riles the Scots (and probably the Welsh and the Irish, too) - referring to them as "English". Just on the "United Statian" thing, I would never call that pedantry. It's more like inverse pedantry. It's a very recent neologism that imo will never catch on; nor should it. Citizens of the USA have been correctly referred to as "Americans" since 1776, and despite everything I've read at Use of the word American and elsewhere, I can't see that ever changing. JackofOz 02:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that happens elsewhere. Does someone from Swaziland complain when someone from South Africa calls themself a South African "Hey, I'm from southern Africa, too !". StuRat 02:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a European example, see Macedonia naming dispute. -- Mwalcoff 23:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the obvious difference is that between "South African" and "southern African". People from South Africa are both, but people from Swaziland are only the latter. JackofOz 02:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could do the same thing and use "North American" for a resident of the continent and "American" for a US citizen. StuRat 04:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.

To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.

To Northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner.

To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander.

To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.

And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast.

E.B. White

Neutrality^talk 03:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my numerous American colleagues in Canada were discussing whether or not someone from a particular border state was really a southerner. I said I had a solution: they are all Yankees. They didn't like that, haha. Adam Bishop 06:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We tend to call leprechauns the 'little people' and we do believe in them, who else catches the wild haggis for the american tourists? ;) Perry-mankster 09:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The left wing in Britain (which really is left wing) often calls Americans "imperialists", which is beautifully ironic if you consider how the country came to exist in the first place. --Dweller 11:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The yanks are often accused of cultural imperialism but I have to say I've never heard "imperialist" used as a noun to describe them. Miremare 15:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going astray into the Teutonosphere, I always liked the German language's most common nickname for Americans: Der Ami (m, singular) or die Amis (plural) is used by the left, right, and apolitical alike. I'm fond of it because it's cute and also means friends in French. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Merkin is a wig worn in the pubic area by a female. A Murcan is someone who believes in the Murcan Way [6]. He grows murcan violets [7]. If he moves to Yurp, he takes murcan measuring cups and spoons along [8]. In the 1940's at the beginning of the nukular era, even before the war on terra, similar lazymouth prononciation was termed "slurvian" [9]. Edison 15:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee go home.--Kirby♥time 01:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, Seppo (dating from WWII) is still quite common. I don't know how much penetration that word has in the UK though. FiggyBee 02:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, Figgy Bee. I see you're a Queenslander. I lived in Queensland (Gold Coast; Brisbane) for 11 years; also in NSW, the ACT and now Victoria, and I don't think I've ever heard that word in my life. JackofOz 03:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I guess it depends on the circles you move in (and whether those circles include Americans). I'm a student at UQ and we have a fairly large American student body. Brisbane (and the University) also had a lot more contact with the Americans during the war than most of the rest of Australia, so I guess some of that lives on in the culture of the city. FiggyBee 05:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 15

Regarding the idea of "regenerationism" in Spain after the loss of Cuba in 1898, I know of Joaquin Costa's idea of the need for an 'iron surgeon' for Spain, but were there other philsophers/intellectuals who took part in regenerationist thought? How popular were they? BVonZeppelin 03:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page you may be looking for, Lieber Graf von Zeppelin, is that on the Generation of 1898. You will find most of the prominent figures of the time mentioned there, some with links to their own separate pages. There is still no article, though, on Costa. They certainly established a dominant position in Spanish intellectual life at the turn of the century, if that is considered an adequate measure of popularity? If I were to pick out those whom I consider to have had lasting influence I would choose Miguel de Unamuno and José Ortega y Gasset, one of the great prophets of the modern age. Clio the Muse 07:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that :) BVonZeppelin 09:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the title of Christopher Hitchens's new book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything a reference to the takbir? Neutrality^talk 04:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously.--Tresckow 06:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Hitchens lumps all religion together as sharing the same troublesome qualities. I actually agree with much of Hitchens' opinions regarding American foreign policy, I'm just not sure if his use of the word "God" rather than "Allah" was done out of ignorance or just to be politically correct.

Hitchens rejects certain characteristics of religion that are mostly characteristic of Islam, and to a much lesser degree, Christianity. He's irritated by proselytization, a practiced frowned upon if not forbidden to Jews, killing in the name of God, which, at least in post-Biblical times is forbidden to Jews and most Christians, the destruction of the holy shrines of other faiths, which is obviously a practice not shared by Jews (witness the prominence of the Dome of the Rock in Israeli controlled Jerusalem, a site which would have been bulldozed decades ago had Jews not shared the view that such an act to be utterly disrespectful to Muslims) etc. With the exception of proselytization, still practiced by many Christian denominations, and in a sense the bedrock upon which Christianity was formed, all the above apply equally to modern Christianity. Lewis 09:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an English text you can encounter an Arabic word like keffiyeh for the simple reason that there is no good English equivalent term for this. But it is affected and somewhat silly to write something like "ripe mishmish is delicious", using an Arabic word, when a perfect English counterpart exists: "ripe apricot is delicious". Allah is simply the word for God in the Arabic language. When French Christians profess their creed, would you say it is "We believe in one Dieu, the Père Almighty". I hope not; the reason for not leaving the word Dieu untranslated has nothing to do with political correctness, but is part of the general rule that, ideally, you do not leave words untranslated. It is equally silly to think that Arab Christians have a strange creed in which they believe in "one Allah, the Ab Almighty". Translating the word Allah is neither a matter of ignorance nor of (religio-)political correctness; leaving it untranslated is.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that it is often people with an anti-Muslim disposition who object to translating "Allah" as "God", which I assume is to avoid being on the same team. Does anyone know if there is a similar reluctance among Islamic partisans to translate "God" as "Allah"? I see that the Arabic wikipedia has a separate article on each ("Allah", "God"), as we do, but those pages seem to be full of backwards squiggles I can't read. :) --TotoBaggins 18:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those backwards squiggles read 'Allah', except the former reads 'Allah (Islam)'. So apparently Allah is the generic term in the Arabic language. Ninebucks 20:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately (in my opinion), many "Islamic partisans" are reluctant not to translate the (Islamic) "God" as "Allah," though I'm not sure this is what you meant. In other words, the most anti-Muslim and the Islamically hypercorrect seem to agree on ghettoizing the God of Abraham, when he is Islam's God, as "Allah." (For example, Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation of the Qur'an used "God," but the revised version, which is virtually the only one you now see, as it's widely distributed throughout the world by the Saudis, has changed "God" to "Allah.") Wareh 13:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I meant was I wonder if there are pro-Islamic partisans (Osama bin Laden, say) who deliberately do the same obfuscation that some anti-Islamic partisans (Ann Coulter, say) do, and leave the word untranslated when referring to the other side's deity. To put it more succinctly, are there any vendors in Saudi Arabia selling t-shirts affirming that, "[www.cafepress.com/buy/allah/god/-/pv_design_details/pg_2/id_10833638/opt_/fpt_/c_360/ My Allah can whup your God]"? --TotoBaggins 17:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I figured that's what you meant, rather than what I answered. I certainly doubt it, since whereas English-speaking Muslims have used "Allah" enough to introduce it into our speech, Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews simply say "Allah," so that there's never any basis for "that strange foreign word by which they refer to their non-Islamic God." Wareh 18:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

بسم الاب والابن والروح الق.--Kirby♥time 01:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any English resistence to the Norman invasion after the battle of hastings? Janesimon 05:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly was, by Hereward the Wake for example. There was also resistance from the Danish population in the north-east, who never really recognized the authority of the English king and didn't bother recognizing the conquest either. William didn't like that, which led to the Harrowing of the North. Adam Bishop 06:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is some information on post-Hastings English resistance in the page on the Norman Conquest. As Adam points out, the most determined opposition in southern England came from Hereward in the Fens, and only ended in 1071, when he disappeared from the light of history into the mists of legend. There were, however, lesser known figures, no less determined, who included the wonderfully named Eadric the Wild, who launched an attack on Hereford in 1067, serious enough to bring the Conqueror back over from the Continent. In the summer of 1068 King Harold's son, Godwine, landed in the south-west with the support of an Irish fleet, only to be defeated by the local levies at near Avonmouth in Somerset. In the north the arrogance of Robert Comine, whom William had created earl of Northumbria, provoked a rising in Durham in December 1068, in which he and his knights were massacred. This was the beginning of a widespread revolt in the north, spreading south to York. From his refuge in Scotland Edgar Atheling, a grandson of Edmund Ironside of the Saxon royal house, came to England, and was enthusiastically acclaimed as the rightful king. Once again William reacted with his usual ruthless determination, routing the rebel army just outside York. No sooner was this accomplished than Godwine Harroldson was back in the south-west, only to be defeated, yet again. But Edric the Wild and the men of Chester, with the assistance of Bleddyn of Gwynedd, a Welsh prince, managed to seize and destroy Shrewsbury.

The most serious challenge to Norman rule came in the summer of 1069, when a Viking fleet, under the command of Asbjorn, son of King Swein of Denmark, sailed up the Humber. Advancing to York, Asbjorn made contact with Waltheof, a former earl of Northumbria. Together they asked Edgar to return to England. In York the Norman garrison was massacred. William reacted with savage fury, returning north in person, while his half-brother, Robert, attacked the Danish fleet. The 'Harrying of the North' that followed was so severe that its effects were still noted when the Domesday Book was compiled sixteen years later. In a great purge of all established institutions, William removed virtually all of the Saxon clerics from their positions, and replaced all native landowners with his Norman and Breton vassals. The Conquest was now complete. Clio the Muse 08:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Norman conquest article skips over this slightly, maybe it needs expanding or even it's own article. Edgar Ætheling is relegated to a footnote. I don't think there's much to add to what Clio said, with the English army heavily defeated at Hastings and after Stamford Bridge as well, little remained to provide an effective resistance. Potential candidates for the throne had to seek help from Scots, Vikings or whoever, who all had their own ambitions for England, so I don't know how much they count as English resistance. Hereward is probably the most like the popular resistance we might imagine from World War II France for example. Any opposition was ruthlessly crushed and, as Clio has said, Normans given all the positions of power. England's exisiting bureaucracy and system of government allowed an easy transition to power, simply by replacing the people at the top. I have somewhere heard this described as 'cultural genocide'. Cyta 11:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One should probably refer to "Saxon" resistance rather than "English." Saxon resistance was scattered. In some areas, even Danelaw areas, assimilation was remarkably fast, and in other areas resistance lasted a long time. Aside from the formal resistance by political units mentioned above, there were varying degrees of cultural and popular resistance. One way we can assess the degree to which a region's population resisted is by looking at the emergence of early Middle English and the language forms. Utgard Loki 17:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used English in the sense of trying to include Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, all the inhabitants of the Kingdom of England prior to the Norman invasion. I see your point though as many in the former Danelaw area would have considered themselves Danish, as opposed to Anglo-Saxon. Do you have any information on the language changes you mention it would be very interesting to read more about? Cyta 09:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eME is pretty darned interesting. I was thinking more like Cursor Mundi, Peterborough Chronicle, and Ormulum as the classic "really early eME" texts that show very, very different degrees of Frankish influence. I think Ormulum would be the critical text for Danelaw incorporation, though, as "Ormin" is a Danish name ("Dragon man"). Utgard Loki 16:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot one (at least): Ancrene Wisse. That one shows probably the other side of the coin, as it shows a highly, highly educated (probably noble) author writing for highly educated (noble, no doubt) ladies early on. It's written in eME, but I would suspect that its French influence might not be wholly typical. Utgard Loki 16:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some information on the the republican movement in Victorian Britain. Clio the Muse, anyone? Thanks. Martinben 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Martinben. This question actually links quite nicely to the previous one about Cromwell's statue in Westminster. It tends to be forgotten now that Britain towards the end of the 1830s looked to be on the threshold of sloughing off its own particular version of the ancien regime, much as France had in 1789. That is not to say that the country was on the verge of revolution, well at least not on the French model. Rather, for the emerging middle-classes, the ancient institutions, including the monarchy, appeared less and less relevant, representing the arcane, the out-moded and the wasteful. The two monarchs who preceeded Victoria, her uncles, George IV and William IV, were representative of an institution that was out of touch with the times, one that gave every appearance of terminal historical decay. Indeed, William IV's funeral cortege in 1837 had even been pelted with excrement. Victoria came at just the right time: young, personable and, above all, the very model of a modern middle-class wife. Her marriage to Prince Albert, the steady growth of her family, her sobriety and sense of duty, all corresponded to contemporary notions of what was acceptable and proper. But in 1861 the whole happy facade collapsed. Albert died, and Victoria took on forms of mourning almost gothic in their intensity. Virtually overnight the vivacious young women became the dowdy dowger, disappearing almost completely from the public eye. By amazing coincidence, the year of Albert's death also saw the publication of Charles Dicken's novel, Great Expectations. Once again reality mirrored fiction, as Victoria grew into her own version of Miss Havesham, sitting among the ruins of the royal spectacle. To make matters even worse, as Victoria withdrew from view, the vacant spot was occupied by her eldest son, the disreputable Bertie

Victoria's abdication from public duty and sober middle-class values revived earlier unfavourable notions of the monarchy, thus breathing fresh life into the republican movement. Soon, men like Charles Bradlaugh, the first declared athieist to take a seat in Parliament, and Sir Charles Dilke were attracting a public following for their anti-monarchist views. In 1871, Bradlaugh wrote The Impeachment of the House of Brunswick, one of the most influential of the nineteenth century republican tracts. In it he reminded readers of Victoria's relatives in Hanover, who "in their own land...vegetate and wither unnoticed; here we pay them highly to marry and perpetuate a pauper prince race." In Prince George he brought back to the public mind the misdemeanours of the past royals to discredit the present still further. These criticisms, moreover, came at a time when the old aristocratic England was giving way to the growing economic power of the new middle-classes, expressed in the success of the Anti-Corn Law League and the Second Reform Act, which greatly extended the Parliamentary franchise. Sir Charles Dilke recognised that a republc would only come in England if it was desired by the middle-classes. English republicanism was free of the great flights of principle and ideology that marked its Continental counterparts; but it was no less potent for all that. For many the monarchy was 'no longer value for money', arguably the most killing accusation in all of English politics, which found full expression in Dilke's pamphlet, Cost of the Crown. The radical campaigner, Annie Besant, even argued, after Victoria became Empress of India in 1877, that as Parliament could now confer titles on the monarch, Parliament was also in a position to create a republic if it so wished.

In the end Victoria did manage to re-engage with the people, and the republican impetus failed. But, even so, it gave birth to the very modern notion that the monarchy was an institution like any other, not sacred and not apart, but subject to public and Parliamentary scrutiny. Adulation of the monarchy is now no longer unconditional, but subject, as Dilke once recognised, to the vagaries of public taste. Clio the Muse 23:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just knew you would not let me down, lovely lady. Thanks. Martinben 09:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing a poem. Could anyone please suggest a few lines for me? 195.194.74.154 11:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wandered lonely as a cloud,

Adrift through rooms and crowded halls

When all at once I blew one loud;

A mighty wind that shook the walls -

Its pungent scent made all the greater,

Standing in this elevator

Think outside the box 12:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah di'nae smoke tae be cool

Ah di'nae smoke tae play thi fool

Ah di'nae smoke tae escape, thi dreaded, boring landscape

Ah di'nae smoke cause em shy

Ah jist smoke tae git high

Perry-mankster 12:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw a purple cow;

I never hope to see one;

but I can tell you anyhow;

I'd rather see than be one!

See also Rhyming recipe for another sublime poem.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here I sit, all lonely hearted...Edison 14:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off-topic, I know, but here's my favourite limerick of all time (apart from one that's way too rude to post):

There was a young lady from Ryde

Who ate a sour apple and died

The apple fermented

Inside the lamented

And made cider inside her insides

217.155.195.19 15:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A shrimp who sought his lady shrimp

Could catch no glimpse

Not even a glimp.

At times, translucence

Is rather a nuisance.

-- Ogden Nash (not TotoBaggins 18:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

There once was a man from Nantucket? Ninebucks 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one who kept all his cash in a bucket or the other one? jnestorius^(talk) 22:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• honest,officer

had I known my health stood in jeprody, I would never have lit one 12:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Adam

Had 'em

Ogden Nash --Charlene 00:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just curious as to people's opinions on the topic of: Does Australia have an "identity crisis" regarding Asia? It was something which was brought up at dinner tonight I was left pondering. 137.166.4.130 11:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Susie[reply]

I'm afraid that the function of the Ref Desks is not for us to offer our opinions, however, it'd be great if some of our contributors could point you at articles and websites that might help inform you. --Dweller 12:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. The OP may indeed be asking a question regarding an issue that goes beyond his/her individual ponderings, but an issue of interest among Australians themselves. I'm not Australian so I'm not sure for sure, but if it's the latter, I definitely think it's worthy of a response. Indeed I'm rather curious as to what the OP means when s/he speaks of Australia having such an identity crisis. Lewis 12:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller did not say that the question is not worthy of a response, but only that such responses should not be just the respondents' personal opinions, but instead refer to sources that discuss the issue. I concur.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not 100% related, but a Google search for Australia and Asia together gave me this, which serves as a bit of a starting point to how I understand it: Australia is a country in a bit of an odd position, because its culture is strongly "Western" (ie. linked to Britain and the US), but its geography puts it close to Asia, and far from both the Americas and Europe. As a result, we have strong economic and political ties to many Asian countries, particularly those in South-East Asia. In terms of an "identity crisis", I wouldn't go so far as to call it that, but certainly in the 1990s Australia was probably even more closely connected with Asia than it is now, to the extent that in some contexts it was described as being part of Asia (or at least some economic division such as APEC). Frankly we were lucky to not be too heavily affected by the 1997 East Asian financial crisis, and I think that as a result we took some steps to be less closely associated (in terms of how other countries see us) with Asia since then.

As a massive, huge disclaimer, I will point out that my information comes more from, for example, The Games and a scene where people were calling to ask whether the Sydney Olympics were cancelled due to the Asian crisis than from any economics knowledge or references. Confusing Manifestation 01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am tring to discover the the root causes of the Iranian revolution of 1979. What I need to know is how deep these were in Iranian history? Gordon Nash 14:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Iranian Revolution? Skarioffszky 16:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have, thank you. What I was wondering was were the Revolution's roots, political and religious, even deeper than those described there? Gordon Nash 18:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discontent with the pro-Western regime of the Shah, frustration at the state of the economy, and, more generally, a population pyramid that was scewed towards adolescents. Societies with a plurality of adolescents and young adults are prone to revolution; compare with France and modern-day Africa. Ninebucks 20:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What percentage of gun crimes are committed by people living under the poverty line? Is there some study that has been done on this?

--Shadarian 14:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly dated, but Short, "Poverty, Ethnicity, and Violent Crime," 1997, Westview Press was quite good (ISBN 0813320143) Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Less dated is the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. See http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/ageracesex.htm - it shows that statistically black men between the age of 18-24 dominate homicide rates. You can poke around the various statistics and find a lot of interesting things. Did you know that violent crime has been going down quickly the last few years? --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The truly sad thing is that the in the charts on Kainaw's referance the tables for blacks ate scaled almost 10 times greater than whites, so the problem is far greater that the pictures show if you don't read the scales. --Czmtzc 15:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course "homicides" are not necessarily indicative of "gun crimes." Those will refer simply to successful murder attempts, where gun crimes would include armed robbery, suicide, attempted murder, and armed assault. Poverty, though, is one of the gravest risk factors for crime, but as perpetrator and victim. Utgard Loki 17:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide isn't criminalized in most juridictions any more, and those statistics, while useful, don't actually address poverty as much as they do race. I'd like to see some statistics on poverty alone irrespective of race. --Charlene 00:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A brother-in-law is, according to this wikipedia:

• sister's husband
• spouse's brother
• spouse's sister's husband

My English-German dictionary confirms only the upper two, mentioning there is no special term for the third (instead: "husband of one's sister-in-law").

If, however, the definition given here is correct, what about:

• sibling's spouse's brother? --KnightMove 17:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a native English speaker and I would call him my sister-in-law's brother. As for the "spouse's sister's husband", I would refer to him as my husband's brother-in-law. Bielle 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia seems correct on this one. Bielle's suggestion seems to imply that a brother and sister are married to each other. Lewis 04:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand that, Lewis. My sibling is, say, George. His wife is Mary. Mary's brother is Fred. Mary is my sister-in-law, and Fred is my sister-in-law's brother. I can't see that Mary and Fred seem married to each other by referring to him as such. I would never refer to Fred as my brother-in-law, and I tend to agree with Bielle on this. JackofOz 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone is interested, and judging by KnightMove's reference to an English-German dictionary, this question might have come up because the German language actually does have a word for this secondary affinity. Der Schwippschwager can be the brother of your sibling's spouse, or the husband of your spouse's sister. Likewise, die Schwippschwägerin can be the sister of your sibling's spouse, or the wife of your spouse's brother. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, it seems the article is wrong and "spouse's sister`s husband" needs to be removed?! But in this case, some "brothers in law" are to be corrected, for example Eric von Rosen and Hermann Göring. --KnightMove 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, a spouse's sister`s husband is indeed a "brother-in-law". I do not think there is any special term for the sibling's spouse's brother.--Pharos 21:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How significant was King John's loss of Normandy in 1204? Janesimon 18:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was significant enough for it to become a common homework essay question when covering King John. --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Wikipedia page on John hardly touches on his Continental affairs, and not at all on the implications of the loss of Normandy in 1204 for both the English crown and the evolving concept of English nationhood.

Before 1204 England had been part, and not even the most important part, of a Continental empire, stretching all the way from the Scottish borders to the Pyrenees. The Kings of England, moreover, from 1066 onwards, had considered themselves, first and foremost, as Dukes of Normandy. The status of England is illustrated by William the Conquerer's division of his lands before his death: his eldest son, Robert Curthose, received Normandy, England going to his second son, William Rufus. Although reunited by Henry I after the Battle of Tinchebrai in 1106, England continued as an appendage, a status confirmed by the emergence of the Angevin Empire. England's kings were French in language, culture and attitude, rarely remaining on the 'offshore island' for any lengthy period of time.

The loss of almost all of the French territories, including Normandy, to Philip Augustus in 1203-4 had an impact on several crucial fronts, domestic, political and legal. John became obsessed with the recovery of Normandy, raising funds for a campaign against Philip in a variety of highly dubious ways. As well as imposing heavy taxes, he placed a cash value on justice. Massive finacial 'contributions' were extorted from the nobility merely to secure the king's goodwill. This continued for some ten years until John began his war, only to loss all at the Battle of Bouvines in July 1214. The undercurrent of resentment over years of royal mismanagement was now openly and forcefully expressed by John's barons, who compelled him to sign Magna Carta, limiting royal demands for money, ending arbitrary imprisonment and the general prostitution of justice. Notions of fairness in justice, and the importance of the rule of law, thus became defining concepts in the English constitution. If it had not been for John's actions after the loss of Normandy it is quite possible that this document would never have been conceived.

The other important effect of Bouvines and the loss of Normandy was the end of the 'international aristocracy.' The nobility had to choose one side or the other: they could hold land in England, or they could hold land in Normandy; they could no longer hold land in both. Although it was slow to develop this had the effect of moving towards the creation of a distinctive English identity. Indeed, during the reign of John's son, Henry III, matters had gone so far that he was to find himself under attack for surrounding himself with non-English advisors. Some Continental lands were retained in Gascony, in thr far south-west of France, but these were far less important than England itself, and the monarchs were now to be resident rulers. The expansionist impulse, moreover, was to be turned inwards for some time to come, moving towards the creation of a new British Imperium, in both its good and its bad forms. Clio the Muse

We have a relevant article on Angevin Empire --Dweller 09:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could i possibly enquire to some facts which escaped the article about the Fall of Constantinople. i would like to know what was the composition of the Byzantine force cavalty/infantry wise. I would also like to know the same of the Ottoman force. also the equipment and specifics of troop types of the both armies. Thank You, Andrew Milne 15 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.215.40 (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Andrew. When the final assault on Constantinople began in May 1453 it is no longer meaningful to talk about the composition of the two armies in the terms you have, so great was the disparity between them. The forces of Constantine XI were only able to defend; so any cavalry units present were never to operate as such, and you will understand why in just a moment. The Sultan, Mehmet II, had mustered every regiment at his disposal, as well as recruiting large numbers of auxiliaries and mercenaries, exempting only those on frontier duty, and the garrisons of the larger towns. It is not possible to give exact numbers, though, according to the Greek sources, the Turkish army was 400,000 strong, almost certainly a gross overestimate. The Turkish sources give a much more plausible figure of 80,000 regular troops, and up to 20,000 irregulars, or bashi-bazooks, as they were known. The latter force included 12,000 men of the elite Janissary Corps (J. J. Norwich, Byzantium: the Decline and Fall, 1991 p. 418). Constantine had sent out appeals to the Christian powers of the west. In desperation, he also ordered that all able-bodied men in the city be mobilisied, including all of the monks and clerics. But in the end all he had to defend fourteen miles of wall was 4,983 Greeks and less than 2,000 foreigners-an army of under 7,000 men against 100,000 Turks. He told his secretary, the historian George Sphrantzes, that on no account must these figures be revealed, adding that only God could save the city now. (Norwich, p. 422) Constantinople fell on 'Black Tuesday', 29 May 1453. Clio the Muse 07:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bashi Bazook" (unsure of spelling) is a favoured faux-expletive of Captain Haddock in the English translations of the Tintin stories. I know that his "billions of blue blistering barnacles" is a translation of a similarly alliterative "milliards" French version. Does he use "Bashi Bazook" in the original French text? --Dweller 11:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Liste des insultes du capitaine Haddock he uses bachi-bouzouk in French. If I'm not mistaken the English version has bashi-bazouks, which is also how the English Wikipedia spells it. In the Turkish editions Kaptan Haddok says başıbozuk, which, as an insult, is about as funny as in English calling someone an "irregular soldier".  --Lambiam^Talk 23:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Fall of Constantinople. The image (painted 1499) which illustrates the article implies that the city was defended by two soldiers armed with rocks, while the attackers were 10 in nuumber, armed with spears. Contributing to the defeat may be the fact that the walls appear to be only about one meter tall. Perhaps the artist was perspective-challenged.Edison 17:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I start a company (in the UK or US), will my personal credit rating be reflected in the credit rating of the company? Is the personal credit rating of some director relevant for the credit rating of the company? 217.95.9.251 20:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the type of company. Are you considering a sole-ownership, where the owner is the company? Are you considering an LLC or SCORP where the business is merely a legal protection against lawsuits? Are you considering a full corporation with multiple investors? --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would definitely not be sole-ownership. I was thinking on a LLC, S-CORP or C-CORP. (I am still doing some research of what form is best suited). 217.95.9.251 22:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., both an LLC and an S-CORP are linked to the individual. I believe the maximum number of owners is five. So, a bad credit rating of any individual would correlate to a poor credit rating for the company. For a C-CORP, there can be many owners who have nothing to do with the company other than provide investment. I know, it is possible to have an S-CORP where all owners are hands-off investors, but it is rare that any investor will be dumb enough to do that with an S-CORP because the profits/losses of the company go straight into your taxes. In the end, if your credit rating is so bad that you cannot get a loan for anything, you will have extreme difficulty in getting a loan for a company you own. To put it another way, I helped two men put together an S-CORP when I was building a theater for them. One of them had tax issues in the past. Before the bank would loan them money to start their theater company, the back taxes had to be paid and a the bank required a letter from the IRS stating that there were no other problems. Had they started a C-CORP, that would not be an issue as the startup funding would have come from stock sales, not a business loan. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer 217.95.65.120 12:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ 217.95.65.120: The terms applied to Wikipedia "articles" apply equally to Reference Desk answers. (See e.g., Wikipedia:General_disclaimer, Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer, User:Dreftymac/Docs/RefDeskDisclaimer, etc.) dr.ef.tymac 15:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What day of the week did January 1st, 0 BCE land on? Jamesino 23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no 0 BCE. Corvus cornix 23:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you pretend year 0 was the year before 1AD, that would make 1st of January a Thursday. That's using the modern perpetual calendar, so really has no meaning to the time back then.Vespine 00:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Year zero for why there is no Year 0 in the Gregorian Calendar. JackofOz 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gregorian calendar is irrelevant; in the period in question the Julian Calendar was in use. However, it was still new, and they hadn't gotten the leap years right yet, and there is some uncertainty as to exactly when they did. If the 1999 interpretation given at that link is correct, then the year 1 AD (1 CE, or 754 AUC to the Romans) already conformed to the Julian calendar of later centuries, so January 1, 1 AD, was a Saturday, as you can confirm by a Julian perpetual calendar (I used the one in the World Almanac) or by the command "cal 1 1" on UNIX or Linux. But the preceding year, 1 BC (1 BCE or 753 AUC) was not a leap year, so January 1 that year was a Friday, not a Thursday. --Anonymous, May 16, 2007 AD (XVII. KAL. IVN. MMDCCLX A.V.C.), 05:01 (UTC).

Except of course that they used different names for the days of the week back then.

That's a little like saying that lundi (French) does not mean the same thing as Monday (English). JackofOz 23:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 16

Why didn't J.K Rowling win the John Newbery Medal?72.83.232.54 01:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's because she's British; the award is given to a book by an American author. Same reason Philip Pullman, A. A. Milne, C. S. Lewis and Tolkien don't have them. grendel|khan 01:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um? Why would Tolkien be awarded a medal for children's literature? Corvus cornix 02:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, The Hobbit is quite popular amongst young teenagers and pre-teens, and is, in fact, generally classified as a "children's story." Carom 03:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the article: Newbery Medal. You will find your answer there. --Eptypes 06:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I won't since Tolkien's works are not children's books. Corvus cornix 17:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, The Hobbit was marketed and sold as a children's novel when it came out. People in their teens reading the whole cycle read it now, and it reads well as an adult novel, but there are some marks in it of a young audience. Utgard Loki 17:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. Corvus cornix 17:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five years after publication, an edition (the fourth) was published by the Children's Book Club of London; the eighth edition (first paperback) was in the Puffin imprint of Penguin, which was (and still is) their children's publishing imprint; this will have been the standard edition through the early 1960s, when LotR exploded in popularity. I can't speak to the marketing of any other edition, but those two were explicitly aiming at the youth market. Shimgray | talk | 22:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re a children's book: In fact the original publisher even asked his young son to review The Hobbit for him before publication as he believed kids were the best judges of kids' books. The son, who was paid a shilling for his services, ended his review with: "This book, with the help of maps, does not need any illustrations. It is good and should appeal to all children between the ages of five and nine". This is from the very first of the many documentaries included on the Extended DVD editions of the Lord of the Rings, where the publisher's son himself recounts the story. Miremare 23:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read this comment: looking at the little Mucha print of Sappho tacked to the corkboard in my bedroom, and your link, it’s just plain laughable. Mucha’s Sappho is cool, calm, collected and intelligent. she’s depicted from the shoulders up, and either draped in or hiding behind (it’s hard to tell) a column of fabric that is sort of a romantic abstraction of a toga. She holds her pen aloft, towards the viewer. her stance says, “i will hide my physical form under the bushel of this swath of fabric, while i shove the power of my mind to the forefront, channeling it through the pen (which BTW is mightier than the sword)”. I can't find any indication that Mucha ever made a print of Sappho. Does anyone here know what the commenter was talking about? grendel|khan 01:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Family Affair written by Richard Hardwick, Tom Carlton calls his wife and daughter "womenfolk". If a present day husband called his wife a womenfolk, he would expect a divorce. Why? --Mayfare 02:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because he'd be using a plural word to refer to a single person - absolutely unforgiveable and deserving of instant divorce. :) But seriously, "womenfolk" would only ever be used of a group of people, such as the guy's wife, daughters, sisters and aunts. (I've never heard of anyone using the singular term "womanfolk".) More to the point, it would probably be considered un-PC these days even if used in this way, because it seems to lump all the females into a group of undifferentiated mortals, rather than treating them as individual human beings in their own right. -- JackofOz 02:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that it's merely archaic; I can't see how the grouping made by "womenfolk" is different from that made by "women" or "females". However, connotation can be just as important as denotation when it comes to word selection, and connotation can vary from person to person. While I would (and do) use "womenfolk" for humorous effect, others may indeed find it denigrating or offensive. — Lomn 13:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One would use "womenfolk" to denote females to whom one is related by genetics (family or marriage) or choice (religion or other defined community). The word is usually preceded by "my" or "our". One might say, for example: "Women come in all shapes and sizes, but my womenfolk are all tall." I don't know how one could be offended by such a use, except by the suggestion of ownership perhaps inherent in the first-person pronouns. Bielle 17:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Womenfolk" (and "menfolk", the associated word for men) is most commonly used in Westerns. It has that old-time-America feel to it. Not offensive, just a little strange-sounding in contemporary use. --Charlene 23:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A recent Newsweek article I was reading, entitled A Portrait of Faith, included a reference on the current Pope Benedict XVI helping former Pope John Paul II "crush the liberation theologists in Central America in the 1980's". So, I guess my question is who exactly were the the "liberation theologists" and what were their objectives? 66.181.116.59 03:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Liberation theology seems quite detailed. - BanyanTree 03:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "crushing" was of Oscar Romero. It's a fairly shameful incident to those of us who have sympathies with the poor. Utgard Loki 17:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some details of the sources on Hitler's thinking about lebensraum. And before anyone asks i have read the page. There is not that much detail Captainhardy 05:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Lebensraum. You will find your answer there. --Eptypes 06:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are quite right, Captainhardy, the Lebensraum page reveals very little about the precise nature and origin of Hitler's views on Lebensraum. To begin with you should read Chapter XIV in volume two of Mein Kampf, headed Germany's Policy in Eastern Europe. (Translated by James Murphy, 1939 pp. 522-43) It is here that you will find the key to Hitler's thinking on the subject; Therefore we National Socialists have purposely drawn a line through the line of conduct followed by pre-War Germany in foreign policy. We put an end to the perpetual Germanic march towards the South and the West of Europe and turn our eyes towards the lands of the East. We finally put a stop to the colonial and trade policy of pre-War times and pass over to the territorial policy of the future. When we speak of new territory in Europe today we must principally think of Russia and the border states subject to her. (Murphy, p. 533). It was his view that Germany was too vulnerable within its existing borders, the population was too large for the territory it inhabited, and new land in the east was necessary as a guarantee for national security, an outlet for Germany's surplus population, and a way of restoring the balance between industry and agriculture, which had tipped too far in favour of the former.

Beyond Mein Kampf you will find much more detail on this whole subject in the manuscript of a second book he wrote specifically on foreign policy. Unpublished during his life-time, it subsequently appeared after World War Two as Hitler's Secret Book. In this he identifies four options: first of all, Germany could do nothing, in which case the initiative would pass to other nations with disastrous consequences; second, the country could strengthen itself through trade, but this would inevitably mean a clash with the British Empire; third, it could attempt to re-establish the borders of 1914, but this is dismissed as "...insufficient from a national standpoint, unsatisfactory from a military point of view, and impossible from a racial standpoint"; and lastly, Germany could go to war, with the aim of expanding towards the east, which is the favoured course. Hitler argues that Germany requires at least 500,000 square kilometres in the east, which would more than compensate for the 70,000 square kilometres lost by the Treaty of Versailles.

The third source is a book called Hitler Speaks, a memoir written by Hermann Rauschning, a former Nazi who turned against the movement. This is a text that has to be treated with a high degree of critical detachment, and is considered so suspect that it is dismissed altogether by some, including Ian Kershaw, the author one of the best recent biographies of Hitler. Even so, some of what Rauschning 'reveals' is fully in keeping with what we already know in general outline from Mein Kampf and the Secret Book. Germany would colonise Bohemia and Moravia, western Poland and the Baltic States. The unwanted Slav population, those not retained as serfs, would deported eastwards, towards Siberia.

This is as specific as it gets, though there are other sources for Hitler's expansionist mentality, including, surprisingly enough, the 'westerns' of Karl May, which he continued to admire all of his life, with their depictions of white settlers colonising vast open spaces and fighting off the redskins in the process. Political sources for Hitler's notions of the 'eastern' include the pre-War Pan-German League, which had argued for German expansion into the Ukraine and the Baltic provinces of the Russian Empire. This view was taken up by two Baltic Germans, Alfred Rosenberg and Ludwig Maximilian Erwin von Scheubner-Richter, both of whom became close associates of Hitler from the earliest days of the NSDAP. Other possible sources of inspiration include Erich Ludendorff, another early associate, who during the War had advocated German settlement in Poland, the Baltic States and the Ukraine. Through Rudolf Hess, Hitler also became aware of the new school of 'geopolitics', especially the work of Karl Haushofer, a professor of geography at Munich University. Haushofer believed that whoever controlled the Eurasian heartland could control the world. He was to draw maps in which Leningrad, Moscow, the Ukraine and the Volga valley all appear as 'German' territory.

Hitler's views on the matter, like his views on most things, were never to be reduced to a single blueprint, and to a large extent remained open-ended, without defined limits and specified ends. It was only after the outbreak of the War, especially after the commencment of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, that one can detect some more precise contours. Towards the end of 1941 the RSHA, the main Reich security office, drew up a plan for the whole of the occupied east, which focused on the Germanization of the Baltic States, the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, the Ukraine and White Russia. The long-term intention, extended far into the future, was to turn the whole of this area into a home for 600 million Germans. More immediately, some 45 million Slavs would be removed to make way for German settlers. It is almost certain that such a detailed set of proposals could only have emerged as yet another of the Führer's 'visions'. Clio the Muse 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job Clio! And was not some symmetry to be found at the same time in Russian' views ? -- DLL ^{.. T} 16:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DDL. I'm not quite sure what you mean, though, by 'Russian views'? Clio the Muse 23:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add- although Clio would probably be able to write a lot more about it- that some of those territories Hitler wanted to invade (and did invade eventually) were in fact already inhabited at that time by Germans/Germanspeaking people who had become minorities in other countries like Czechoslovakia. Of course, once he invaded them, the non-Germans living there were the ones to become a minority...Evilbu 22:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will find German-speaking minorities over most of eastern Europe at this time, Evilbu, some as far away as the River Volga. Clio the Muse 23:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the above question about Oliver Plunkett, and I realized I don't know what a 'direct descendant' is. I know what a descendant is, but based on any reasonable meaning of "direct", it would seem that all descendants are direct. Can someone enlighten me? And while we're on the topic, what is an "old family"? It would seem that that all families are the same age. --Tugbug 01:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, my g,g,g,grandfather was Stephen Jones who had a brother named Joseph. I am a direct descendant of Stephen but not of Joseph. If Joseph were someone famous, I would not be a direct descendant, If Stephen were famous, I would be. If Stephen and Joseph's father, say, Richard Jones were the famous one then both I and all of Stephen's descendants, and all of Joseph's descendants would be 'direct descendants'. The same could be said of the female line, although our culture's patrilineal prejudice probably gives preference to the male line. Direct descent also does not have to be of the same surname although again there may be some preference given to a direct male descendant who carries the surname.

An 'old family' is whatever you want it to be. If a family is wealthy and/or notable over several generations they can claim this distinction or others can give it to them, but as you point out it has no 'real' basis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC).Dang!--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 01:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are called collateral descendants. For example, the questioner might be a direct descendant of one of Plunkett's siblings, making him a collateral descendant of Plunkett. -- JackofOz 01:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tugbug: "descendant" by itself means "direct descendant". Think of the longer phrase as a form of emphasis; it tends to be used with people many generations removed, where people might want to emphasize the continuity. --Anon, May 16, 05:04 (UTC).

In casual use I suppose you are correct but people who study their genealogy do make a distinction. A 'direct descendant' is traced through a direct bloodline, generation to generation and a 'collateral descendant', as JackofOz points out, shows a parallel, but not a direct line, yet both are 'descendants' through, in my example above, 'Richard.' The cousin chart shows how this works out. Using my example above, 'Stephen's' g,g,g,grandson (me), and Joseph's g,g,g,granddaughter (Betty Lou), would be fifth cousins, the common link being 'Richard', our mutual g,g,g,g,grandfather. My daughter would be Betty Lou's fifth cousin once removed and Betty Lou's father would be my fourth cousin once removed or my daughter's...Arrgghhh...! An interesting page showing the relations between various US Presidents (direct in the case of father/son, grandfather/grandson and indirect or collateral in the case of many others) can be found here. Who would have thought that Herbert Hoover was the sixth cousin four times removed of Millard Fillmore?--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 06:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then all people are descendants of each other, although for most pairs in a very collateral (and untraceable) way.  --Lambiam^Talk 07:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! In tracing my own family I have found that my father's direct male line and my mother's maternal line have a possible connection 4 generations back! I haven't found a documented link but the families were living in the same general area and with 8+ children in each family it is at least possible that there is a connection, albeit a tenous one. I also ran into a young woman in a grocery store with an unusual last name that was the same as another ancestor of mine. After ten or fifteen minutes of talking and comparing notes we realized we were cousins several times removed through a common ancestor in Ontario, Canada!

Going back 20 generations, about 500 years, we each have over one million 'grandparents' but there obviously must be many duplicates and convergences along the way. We are all so much more connected than we imagine.

I participated in the National Geographic Genographic project which uses genetic markers to trace very early ancestry and found that my 'ancestors' left Africa around 60,000 years ago and I am a direct descendant of the man who first had this single, benign, genetic mutation, M168, and so I am related to all the millions who share it. Further down the line I am in haplogroup E3b, and although my near ancestors came from England and Ireland, only 5% of English men share this trait, compared to 30% in the Balkans and Greece, 25% of Jewish men and 75% of men in Northern Africa. We are all quite mongrelized!--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 08:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stuff. Thanks, everyone. --Tugbug 17:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say I start a small rental store in Canada. I buy the movies from amazon.ca. Are there any Regulations in Canada that forces rental stores to pay dividents to the Hollywood corporations? --Eptypes 21:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would be breaking Canadian copyright laws, as Canada is a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which protects the works of other parties to that treaty, of which the United States is one. --TotoBaggins 01:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have friends who own a convienence store and they rent movies. Granted, this is in the U.S., so your milage may vary. They pay a distributor a larger sum for a copy of a movie, something at least around US$30-50 per copy. There is some sort of law preventing them from just going to a store and buying a copy to rent out. I'm not sure of the details or laws that affect this. I'm fairly certain that it would be similar north of the border. Dismas|^(talk) 05:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your friends who own the convienence store, where do they contact the distributors in order to inform them they are going to rent it and to pay extra cash? --Eptypes 15:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're asking. They bought the business from a couple who were retiring. So when they took ownership, they just kept using the same distributor. I don't know how you'd go about finding a distributor. Their distributor comes once a week or so and has a list of movies that will be coming out the following week. They choose the movies that they are going to want and he comes back the next week with the movies as well as the list of movies that are coming out the following week and so on. It's a small town store, so they generally don't go for any of the more artsy films, they stick to the big name movies that more people will rent because if you buy a movie for $30 and only rent it out twice for $3 then you've just lost over $24. In this example, a movie has to be rented at least 10 times before the profit can start. Dismas|^(talk) 08:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works doesn't deal with Canada. Which Canadian Law/Regulation? --Eptypes 06:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean it "doesn't deal" with Canada? Canada is a signatory to the convention. FiggyBee 07:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not have enough information I mean. --Eptypes 08:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer, and the following is not legal advice. The very first DVD cover I looked at has the following text: "WARNING: The copyright proprietor has licensed this DVD for private home use only. Unless otherwise expressly licensed by the copyright proprietor, all other rights are reserved. Any unauthorised copying, editing, exhibition, renting, public performance diffusion and/or broadcast of this DVD, or any part thereof, is strictly prohibited." (Quite appropriately, this Warning was issued by the Warner Bros.) This is standard boilerplate, but my understanding is that this is backed up by law. Specifically, our article United States copyright law lists, among the five basic rights protected by copyright, the exclusive right to authorize others to distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. As far as I could discern, the Berne convention has no clauses that are specific to the situation, but it states that authors enjoy, in other signatory countries (like Canada), the rights which the laws of their own country (for movies more often than not the U.S.A.) grant to their nationals.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ Eptypes: The terms applied to Wikipedia "articles" apply equally to Reference Desk answers. (See e.g., Wikipedia:General_disclaimer, Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer, User:Dreftymac/Docs/RefDeskDisclaimer, etc.) dr.ef.tymac 14:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain to what extent, and if at all, areas of the UK such as Wales or Scotland enjoy more autonomy (eg: in legislation/justice, local government, commerce, education etc.) from central government than areas of other countries such as the USA, Canada or Germany (or other countries). I´m not sure why they deserve the grand title of "country" (ok, constituent countries to be precise) and separate football teams etc. if, at the end of the day, Scotland has no more autonomy from (nor cultural difference to) London, than California does from Washington, or Quebec from Ottawa, or Bavaria from Berlin. Thanks for info. --AlexSuricata 11:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're opening a can of worms. This is very complex and varies between Wales, Scotland and NI. --Dweller 11:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start with Welsh Assembly Government, Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly. --Dweller 12:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They "deserve the grand title of 'country'" because the member states of the United Kingdom are countries, who came together and formed a union, much in the same way as the members of the European Union. Each national assembly has different powers. Wales and Ireland are members through being conquered, Scotland joined by choice.

The easiest comparison with America might well be Vermont or Texas, both of which were independent Republics who made a choice to join the US.--Mnemeson 12:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::"...Scotland has no more... nor cultural difference to london..." Visit London, then say Glasgow, Edinburgh or Dundee, all the cultural differences will become apparent (even between the cities in Scotland!) och aye thi noo! Perry-mankster 12:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Alex, to understand this fully requires some fairly detailed knowledge of the history of the United Kingdom and its constituent parts. Scotland, for example, is a quite separate country from England, with its own history, culture and outlook, about as different from London as the sun is from the moon! For centuries the Scots resisted English attempts at conquest, although the two countries were united peacefully by a single head of state in 1603, when James VI of Scotland became James I of England, in right of his descent from Henry VII. Nevertheless, the two countries continued to exist as distinct political entities until the 1707 Act of Union united their individual national Parliaments in the unitary Parliament of Great Britain. Even so, the Act of Union guaranteed that Scotland would preserve its own religious, educational and legal system, quite different, in every conceivable way, from that of England. In other words, the United Kingdom was never a unitary state in the same fashion as Germany or the United States, the federal system notwithstanding. The position is a little different with regard to Wales, because it was conquered by England in the Middle Ages and, bit by bit, was fully incorporated into the English state. However, the Welsh always managed to preserve a unique cultural identity, helping to sustain their own sense of nationhood, quite distinct from that of England, Since 1999 Scotland, once again, has had its own Parliament, and the Welsh now have an Assembly, both of which deal with a range of matters on domestic policy, pertinent to each nation, though they remain part of of the United Kingdom, sending representatives to the national Parliament at Westminster. Clio the Muse 12:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also West Lothian question. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I will tell you that for the case of Northern Ireland:

That has, historically, been somewhat fluctuating, depending on direct rule/devolution. It's a rather unstable place politically (compared to, say Scotland), so what is the point in giving a government the power to tax if it only lasts two years? The most recent development has been the devolution of law and justice, thanks to the St Andrews Agreement. Well, not devolved yet, but apparently it is a matter of time. Power to tax may be on the horizon: the idea of an agreement between the extremes of the DUP/Sinn Fein suggests St Andrews will last longer than the Belfast Agreement did, which was suspended four times in about seven years.

Depends on majority support as well. Only half the welsh electorate even turned out to vote. Half of those who did voted against. It has been a lot slower in getting the power to tax, and has it's budget set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A Welshman told me recently that for him, London was still the main focus of politics.

Apparently Scotland can call its own referendums. If not, the SNP wouldn't be trying to have their own referendum on independence.

London generally wants to devolve as much power as it can, less work for them, and in the case of NI, better image. Tony Blair has left office claiming the wonderful feat of getting Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness (can't spell) into power. Unless it's a Labour Party government opposing English Assemblies, much, I suspect, may have something to do with the fact an English parliament would probably be a Tory parliament.

The big difference with, say, the USA or Cananda, is we're a unitary state, not a federation.martianlostinspace 14:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Scotland has no more autonomy from London, than California does from Washington DC, or Quebec from Ottawa, or Bavaria from Berlin."

That would be an understatment. The US Constitution 10th Amendment gives the states enormous powers where they can't be overruled by Washington. Lopez v. United States declared Congress couldn't pass a law restricting guns around schools. Why? That's for states, not Congress. Any UK devolved power can be over-ruled on any matter by Westminster. It doesn't, constitutionally, even need to explain itself. Though: nor does it bother over-ruling, normally. That defeats the point of devolution: gives Blair more work! Whereas Washington couldn't destroy California itself, Westminster could, in theory, destroy any devolved power. Parliamentary sovereignty. No federation, written constitution, or entrenched powers.martianlostinspace 14:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clio said that Scotland preserved its own religious, educational, and legal systems under the Act of Union, and of course devolution has created a Scottish government with reserved powers. Apart from a "religious system", which does not exist anywhere in the United States due to constitutional separation between church and state, however, U.S. states have all the powers that Scotland had or has, and more. The U.S. states have distinct educational and legal systems, radically so in the case of Louisiana, which preserves a heritage of Roman law (from French rule) very different from the Anglo-Saxon common law tradition that forms a foundation elsewhere. The U.S. states all have distinct systems of taxation, some states have different official languages (e.g. Spanish in New Mexico), minimum wages, and so on. As Martianlostinspace points out, states' powers are constitutionally protected, with a written constitution that is much more difficult to change than Britain's constitution of precedent, in ways that Scotland's rights are not. So, I don't see a way in which the constituent countries of the United Kingdom have the same autonomy as U.S. states, much less greater autonomy. The only way in which they have a stronger identity than U.S. states is in their separate histories and cultures dating to premodern times, before the creation of any U.S. state. Marco polo 18:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's perhaps worth noting (I don't think it's yet been mentioned above) that Scotland does have more influence, if not strictly autonomy, than England. While Scotland now has its own Parliament for Scottish matters, England has only the British Parliament which includes the non-English MPs even in English-only matters. I have no idea to what degree (if any) this is a practical distinction, but there you go. — Lomn 19:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to the West Lothian question that Richardrj referenced above. Marco polo 21:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster referred to "the grand term 'country'"; I would point out that the constituent parts of the US use the equally grand term "state". At the time the US was formed, under the Articles of Confederation, it was seen as a confederation of independent countries, sort of like the EU; and "United States" was viewed as a plural expression. (For example, in the Treaty of Paris (1783), the phrase "by the United States on their part" occurs, with "their" referring to "United States".) The word "state" has acquired another meaning over the years as the nature of the US has changed; in North America this has largely supplanted the original meaning, as anything else would be confusing in the presence of US states. But elsewhere the original meaning is alive and well, e.g. government-run schools in the UK may be called state schools.

So if you want to think of Scotland as being like a US state, then you can think of "country" as having shifted meaning in the UK just as "state" has shifted in the US. I make no comment on whether it is desirable to think of Scotland as being like a US state or not.

--Anonymous, May 16, 22:33 (UTC).

Re Clio's statement that "The position is a little different with regard to Wales, because it was conquered by England in the Middle Ages and, bit by bit, was fully incorporated into the English state." - there is still a legal entity called England and Wales. We don't hear much about this these days, but I suspect it was more like a merger of the two states rather than an incorporation of Wales into England. JackofOz 23:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the leves of CALOTROPIS GIGANTIA offered to Lord Hanuman (hindu diety) on saturdays? --thkng u202.71.137.235 12:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Raaaajukuuumar[reply]

Hello Raaaajukuuumar! I have some guesses here, hope it helps, you'll have to check.

Calotropis gigantia : gigantia seems to bear a hint about the height of that plant. And Wikipedia says about it that the flowers are fragrant. So you offer it to a god because it is a nice offer. Now, why the leaves, mebbe the Lord had rather (symbolically) eat them than flowers.

Saturdays : with colonization by the English, other days were used for work, and Sundays for Christian prayers and feasts. What do you think ? -- DLL ^{.. T} 16:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What income levels in the U.S. correspond to the richest 1%, the richest 10%, and so on? I'd like to know how much money (by household?) is required to be in the upper quartile, at the median, and to be at the 25th percentile. Finally, what is the income of those at the 10th percentile? I don't know where to look for this information. Thanks for your help --Halcatalyst 14:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start with Affluence in the United States and review the "external links" to the United States Census Bureau. dr.ef.tymac 15:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

17:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)68.23.85.105Do you have a list of prominent residents of Ofio who bekong to The American Legion?

Probably not, as American Legion membership is not itself likely to be considered a sufficient notability criterion. However, it might exist at least partially in some category form. We have Category:American Legion, which has a few names, but is certainly not a complete list. Alternately, consider contacting a Legion post in Ohio and asking if they can provide such information. — Lomn 19:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the movie Patton the letters WTF appear on the front bumper of an M-5 half-track. What do these initials stand for?Rschunk 17:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see WTF. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. . I'd be inclined to go for the first suggestion listed there.--Shantavira 17:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't. This is the movie Patton we're talking about here, not some recent website. Also it's apparently some official military abbreviation. Obviously, military types go in for profanity, but not in an official context. None of the possibilitiies currently listed on our WTF page look like the answer to me. A quick Google turned up this page, which includes "Weapons Task Force". That sounds likely, although I couldn't say for sure. --Tugbug 17:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Weapons Task Force" seems like a good possibility, but I wouldn't rule out the more common meaning of "WTF," as I don't know the origin of that phrase - the wiktionary article suggests that it is military jargon with the same meaning as its modern internet usage, but gives no source. Carom 17:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to find some information on the 1904 Battle of Chumik Shenko in Tibet, but there does not seem to be anything. Can anyone help me with this? Gordon Nash 18:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article for 1904 suggest that it occurred on 21 March, and that the commander was Francis Younghusband, although it incorrectly identifies him as a general (I believe he was a major at the time). This article briefly mentions the event as part of a British invasion of Tibet. On the other hand, this article suggests that only 500 were killed in this battle, and identifies it as having occurred on 31 March. If this information is correct, then you might look to our article on the British expedition to Tibet, which has information on a "Battle of Guru" that occurred on that date. You might also try browsing the results to this google search for more information. Carom 18:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some photographs from The Times correspondent Perceval Landon's account The Opening of Tibet, an Account of Lhasa and the Country and People of Central Tibet, etc.:

• AWAITING AN ATTACK BY THE TIBETANS
• JUST BEFORE THE FIGHT AT THE WALL The Gurkha scouts deployed on the hillside; the Sikhs beginning to disarm the Tibetans at the further end of the wall
• A FEW MINUTES LATER The British force still firing at the retreating Tibetans

—eric 19:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much money does the US currently owe to China? -- noosphere 18:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this List of foreign debt holders, 420 billion. - Czmtzc 18:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is some ambiguity on that chart. Does "China" mean "Government of China" or "Investors in China"? --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine due to the foot note references, that the number would refer to all government, institutional, and private investors in each particular region.-Czmtzc 20:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The debt should be all or nearly all owed to the government of China, since it is illegal for private Chinese individuals or entities to hold foreign investments, such U.S. debt instruments. Marco polo 21:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering how various intellectuals responded the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939? Secret seven 19:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also wondering how many people in the west actually knew that much about it. I mean, even now it's surprising how many people buy the "mean Estonians want to remove statue of brave liberating Soviet soldier". By that , I'm not choosing any sides here, but it is a (intentionally ignored?) fact that Soviets came to the Baltic states before the Germans did, and before the Soviets were at war with them.

Does the British monarch, and other members of the Royal family have to right to vote? And do they? -- KTC 20:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The easy part is: no, they don't vote. The harder part: do they have the right to vote? Well, theoretically, yes. But since they don't because of constitutional concerns, not really. This website says: "The Queen can vote, but in practice it is considered unconstitutional for the Monarch to vote in an election.". And this constitutional concern is extended to the heir apparent or presumptive. The other members of the family certainly could vote, but do not - since what's keeping the royals in business is that they don't meddle in governing. - Nunh-huh 20:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was the cause of the quarrel between Henry IV and Henry Percy? Judithspencer 20:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

are there any books that deal with experience of fighting in the trenches in the first world war

Very much so. Media of World War I contains a small selection. Algebraist 22:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would particularly recommend Storm of Steel by Ernst Jünger. Clio the Muse 22:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly one of the best. I would also recommend the various works of Siegfried Sassoon (particularly the diaries). Carom 23:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 17