User talk:Clio the Muse/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

The Great Depression

I had thought that you were uninterested in economic history until I read your excellent synopsis in response to that sweeping question on the reference desk. You never cease to amaze me, Clio! I am currently reading up on the Great Depression (right now I am on Kindleberger's book). Your brief survey pulled the threads together and really aided my own understanding. Thank you once more for shedding so much light! Marco polo 14:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And thank you, Marco, for being you. It's not that I'm uninterested in economic history-I've also answered questions recently on Soviet economic planning and Mao's Great Leap Forward-it's just that I am more interested in political and social history. However I will always respond where I feel I am competent to do so, and where this will add the general discussion. I value your good opinion, though please be assured that when it comes to shedding light I hold you in equal esteem (I particularly enjoy your responses on ethnographic and archaeological matters). Anyway, I am delighted that I was of some help to you. Clio the Muse 22:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To Marx from Engels

Thank you, Anastasia, for your very kind words and amusing comparison. I'm also pleased to work with you. By the way, do you know that the most popular hypocoristic form of your name in Russian is Nastya? I imagine it is not used in English because it sounds a lot like "nasty". That's too bad, because this is a very fine name, and quite rare these days. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been called 'nasty', Andrey, but never Nastya! It sounds lovely, though. Some of my friends call me Tasie (sounding a bit like daisy), which drives my mother absolutely mad! Clio the Muse 22:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Cock-eyed?

Too, too funny. Why weren't you teaching history when I had to listen to lectures? (Perhaps the fact that I am the better part of 35 years older than you are might be a contributing factor.) Thanks for the lovely laugh! Bielle 02:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to spread a little pleasure along the way! Clio the Muse 03:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

St George and England

Thanks for your great answer, little Miss Clio! Tower Raven 10:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And little Miss Clio thanks you. Clio the Muse 21:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Tower Raven, now I understand your usage of 'little Miss.' You were clearly angry, understandably so. But just remember that it is always best to treat stupidity and petty-mindedness with condescension and contempt. All the very best from 'Little Miss History' herself, a label she is pleased to carry! Clio the Muse 23:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Little Miss History

Sits on her mystery

Her words a-typing away

Along comes a gander

Honking his slander

In vain, Miss Hissy will stay

:P Sluzzelin talk 14:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now appointed you as Poet Laureate to the court of the Muse, Sluzzelin! Clio the Muse 22:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, I've always wanted to wear my own cap'n bells, not to mention those fancy red poulaines with turned up toes! Awfully long shoes to fill, I do hope one nonsense verse a year will meet the job requirements, else you will soon find your talk page in need of protection from my flarf poetry! let's see "anaerobic farce" rhymes with ... hmm, never mind me, I'm enjoying my Narrenfreiheit now. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Poet and jester-what more could a girl ask for? Clio the Muse 00:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

King Ed

Hey Clio Muse (you see i'm beginning to get the hang of this). I'm on the school computer at the moment just to check on answers to my Edward question. Your answer is so, so COOL-its even more than i need; i'm going to knock them out, yea, yea I will!!!! The answers you gave me last term were so good and i got incedible marks--my teacher was really blown away (he told my mum and dad at the end of the summer term that my work was so much better, thoughtful and insightful (dweeb!-LOL) so thanks again, again and again. Can I come here and chat with you sometimes That would be so cool. I would like to ask you a lot more history things if you dont mind, maybe english too. I would really like to speak to you as another girl. Plaese say yes. Yours sincerely, KathyKathy Burns 12:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Drop by any time, Kathy. Clio the Muse 22:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Hey Clio

Thanks for remembering the quotes and things. I really appreciate it, especially given the extended period you remembered over! Thanks! You say that it's in O'Connor, is this a translation of a book? ΦΙΛ Κ 23:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I never forget anything; both a blessing and a curse! We only have fragments of Epicurus' writings. The passage in question is from one of his letters, that to Menoeceus. Clio the Muse 00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, well thanks Clio. ΦΙΛ Κ 17:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Rape of Belgium

Sometime perhaps you could cast your learned eye on the above article. Some months ago I checked back through the online archives of the New York Times (which was at the time the only archive I had online access to look for citations) to show (on the talk page) that the term was a well known one during and after World War 1, not just some POV screed of an editor, and that Invasion of Belgium would not be an appropriate replacement title. The familiar Rape of Nanking similarly has been redirected to Nanking Massacre, but Belgium Massacre would be far from the mark to describe the extended harsh occupation and collective punishment to which Belgium was subjected. As is, the main page of the article still has only one reference and 2 external links, one of which is broken. I cited 8 uses from the World War 1 period, in the New York Times, of the "Rape of Belgium" in the talk page, but it looks strange to document events in a long ago war in the main page with ancient citations from only one source. I found one modern book, Zuckerman (2004)cited on the talk page. To be encyclopedic, such an article would benefit from modern scholarship, and I know no better modern scholar of history than you. In wartime, it is pretty common for each side to characterize the enemy as baby-eating barbarians, but was there special brutality in the treatment of Belgians by the invading Germans, did it violate the then-accepted rules of war, and if so why? What, if anything, had the Belgians ever done to irritate the Germans (such as invading Germany sometime previously and behaving badly, similar to the German behavior in Russia causing a lust for vengeance among the Russians? Did the Germans see the Belgians as being somehow an "inferior race" as was used to justift WW2 atrocities? Is it now regarded as a greater evil for the Germans to have shot Edith Cavell than for the allies to have shot Mata Hari? Did the Germans behave similarly toward people in other territory they invaded in WW1 and other conflicts of the late 19th early 20th century? Did other WW1 combatants treat civiilians better in occupied territory (There is the U.S. actions in the Phillipines, or Sherman in the U.S. Civil War, the British actions in the Boer War, perhaps Belgian actions toward inhabitants of the Congo, French actions toward??? See also Collective punishment. No rush on this- just something for the back burner. If you prefer, I could post it in the Ref Desk to broaden the readership and base of scholarship, but I am basically seeking referenced NPOV article improvement rather than information to satisfy my own curiosity or a soapboxy debate on Ref Desk. Regards. Edison 04:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Edison, and welcome! I answered a question on this very subject posted on the Humanities Desk on 9 July, a copy of which I am about to add below. The short answer to your question is that the Germans expected an easy passage through Belgium; but the Belgian army fought a superb and tenacious defensive campaign, using both fortifications and every natural advantage it could. German soldiers began to worry that they were surrounded by civilian Francs-tireurs, and in their panic started to react badly. The book you should really refer to on this whole area is German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial by John Horne and Alan Kramer. Incidentally, the 'Rape of Belgium' is indeed the correct title, a term widely understood both then and since. The horribly bland 'Invasion of Belgium' is imprecise and incorrect. What would you like me to do exactly? Feed some additional information into this page? I will, if you like, but only if I receive your assurance that I am not walking into a Wikipedia minefield! I simply hate those! Anyway, here is my earlier answer. Clio the Muse 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly true that, throughout history, war and atrocity have walked hand in hand, though the Great War is possibly the first occasion in which the question of misbehaviour by one of the combatants became a significant political issue, an issue deeply tied up with the emergence of propaganda as a weapon, more effective, in its own way, than guns and bombs. Indeed, the British might have been said to have been carried into the war on a wave of propaganda, centering on the rape of 'Gallant little Belgium.' As practitioners of the new art the they were far more adept than the Germans, and the weapons was to be used time and again to explain Prussian barbarism, from the execution of Edith Cavell and the sinking of the Lusitania. Whereas the early campaign had been for the consumption of a domestic audience, later activities were aimed at influencing public opinion in the United States. Many of the main accusations against the 'Huns' were summarised in The Bryce Report of 1915. As a political tactic the whole thing was quite masterly, later earning the respect of Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf.

It was only after the war that the doubts began to set in; and, as the attitude towards Germany began to change in the inter-war period, many of the accusations were considered to be outright fabrications, including arguably the most infamous of all, the alleged crucifixion of a Canadian soldier by the name of Harry Band. In Britain a strong pacifist mood took shape in the 1920s, which argued that 'atrocity propaganda', as it was called, had been used to manipulate people into supporting the mass slaughter on the Western Front. A classic example of this is Falsehood in Warfare by Arthur Ponsonby, published in 1928. In Germany, a commission set up by the Reichstag to examine the issue, published a report in 1927, denying that any atrocities had ever taken place. And so the matter passed into popular consciousness, making it difficult to get people in the Allied nations to accept the truth of the stories that filtered through from occupied Europe during the Second World War.

So, was it all just fabrication, propaganda and lies? No, it was not, as the Germans tacitly admitted themselves in the White Book of 1915, which justified actions in Belgium against what was described as Francs-tireurs, alleged irregular forces. The simple fact is that Belgian resistance was tougher, and more prolonged, that the Germans had expected. The invading army became ever more anxious as it advanced, often attributing enemy fire to civilian irregulars. Because of this they began to take pre-emptive measures against an imaginary enemy. Civilians were shot on suspicion alone. The Kaiser himself justified the actions of his troops in a note to President Wilson of September 1914, "My generals were finally compelled to take the most drastic measures in order to punish the guilty and to frighten the blood-thirsty population from continuing their work of vile murder and horror." Over 6000 Belgian civilians were shot, sometimes in large groups by machine gun, in a brief ten-day period during the second half of August 1914. Whole villages were destroyed. In Louvain alone 248 people were killed by nervous German soldiers, convinced that they faced a civilian uprising. On the basis of these very real incidents it became possible to weave stories of mass rape and mutliation; of murdered nuns and disfigured children. Allied propaganda, in other words, may have exaggerated, but it was not without substance; it was not a complete lie. Harry Band? Well, in 2002 Channel Four in England screened a documentary claiming that this story, long considered to be pure invention, was indeed based on a real incident. Clio the Muse 02:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool

Hi Clio. I take it you and Johnny will not be dating anytime soon? Seriously though, I missed the "a place for rats and loonies" first time around. Subtle as it may be, I'm sure the implication there is not lost on the individuals in question, making it a bit too close to WP:NPA. Just a friendly notice... Rockpocket 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Merely a general expression of discontent with the 'quality' of Wikiversity, and the level of 'debate' it engenders, of which Ten served to remind me; I feel confident they could do so much better with the right attitude and motivation. I had, of course, no particular individual, or individuals, in mind in using those terms. I feel quite sure that they are not labels that anyone would wish to adopt for themselves; surely not? I have, however, said all I intend to on this matter. Clio the Muse 02:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket is correct, Clio. Attacks, even when oh-so-thinly veiled, aren't welcome here. Let them have their sledgehammer-subtle digs; we expect better from you. Playing dumb just isn't a credible position for you to take. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we are seeing implications that just are not there, then. But if we are seeing them its likely others in the community are too - and so the end result is the same even if the intent was not. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, which is of course a perfectly acceptable end to civil discourse. Its also perfectly acceptable for you to remove these comments if you wish. Rockpocket 03:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies, as they apply to the body of the encyclopedia itself, are one thing, but I can't help wondering why Wikipedia discussion pages need to impose moral constraints which English and international law do not. There have been some fascinating cases in the European Court of Human Rights on the true meaning of Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998). Article 10 is about the right to freedom of expression, subject to limits 'in accordance with law' and 'necessary in a democratic society'. The recent cases have strengthened freedom of expression. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says much the same ("Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers"), and I'm all for it. Xn4 06:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Xn4, I'm also against imposing moral constraints, but not necessarily against behavioral constraints. Don't you think it's inherent in any organized, even spontaneous collaboration to have certain rules, whether explicit or implicit? Freedom of speech doesn't completely and unconditionally apply at a workplace, in volunteer organizations, sports teams, or anywhere where people combine efforts working toward a shared goal. In some cases I think the enforcement of policies goes too far here (I've seen ridiculous calls for extreme sanctions because of "incivility" in reaction to pestering), while others perhaps don't go far enough (Pestering again, for example. I believe unnecessary and off-topic negative interference (speaking of which), following, and baiting productive but sensitive editors can be bad for the encyclopedia, but it isn't always stopped.) Freedom of expression has less spectacular limits here as well: talk pages of articles and projects, for example, are here to discuss ways of improving the articles or projects (reference desk, e.g.). They're not for debating philosophical questions, other projects on or off en.wikipedia, or policies outlined elsewhere. This doesn't always need to be strictly enforced, but it should be kept in mind. On a complete sidenote, I was actually more worried that Clio's comment would not be interpreted allegorically - and indeed, Johnny thought she was characterizing Wikiversity and its users in general, and reacted accordingly. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I have no intention of removing anything here. I do have some additional remarks, which I address chiefly to you Sluzzelin, because you are the one individual most familiar, I think, with the background here.

First of all, a few words on the medical debate, the setting in which my verbal hand grenade went off. I have very little direct interest in these matters, and would never, under any circumstances, offer casual advice on issues over which I had no expertise. More than that, even if I were a doctor-especially if I were a doctor-I would make no judgement of any kind without seeing the patient; from my point of view this would be a little like writing history without examining the sources. But to be honest with you I take quite a cynical view of these matters: those who come here looking for medical advice and those who offer it deserve one another, quite frankly.

However, this is all incidental to the main point, which concerns the advocacy of Wikiversity on the RD talk page. It was that which made me angry. I make no secret of this: I despise Wikiversity for what it has become; a forum for hate-speech and character assassination. It is for me a version of Der Stürmer, full of venom and spite, where, as I feel sure you are aware Sluzzelin, I have been accused of all sorts of crimes and malpractices: I am a witch, a Jew hater, a Nazi, a fraud; all this and more. I know it is difficult to believe that any rational human being in the modern age could suggest of another person that she wanted "to kill Jewish people inside a gas chamber and she would do magic to curse them". Yes, that is Wikiversity; that is the form of 'learning' that it spawns. What kind of 'intelligence' could embrace that? I expect if this were the Middle Ages I would have been consigned to the 'cleansing fires' long since. Wikiversity is, indeed, a refuge for the 'stupid, the second-rate, the vicious and the petty-minded'. Of that I withdraw not one word. Clio the Muse 23:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware. No, no one can blame you. Mail crossed your post. Will give it more thought. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Clio. But remember Wikipedia was, and still is, the home of many such individuals also. It is unfair to judge a worthy project on the basis of a small number of contributors, just as it would be to select some of the answers provided at our reference desk and tar us all with the same brush. However, partly in response to this, I have asked the Wikiversity custodians to consider whether they are content to permit such behaviour on their site (though I'm loath to lose my recent Shakespearean casting!). I hold judgement on the merits of their project until they respond to my request. Rockpocket 02:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, Rockpocket; but I can only judge by what I see. I really did not want to make too much of this, and I have found the attacks on me amusing in their sheer incoherence, more than anything else. I do, however, find it difficult to stomach the advocacy here on Wikipedia of a place that permits such irrational and hateful practices. Clio the Muse 02:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(reset tabs for sanity) I must be getting old... my ears didn't burn even one bit! I think one thing you should keep in mind is that the majority of Wikiversitans coume out of the "Wikipedia is Doomed" school of thought, and as such are loathe to start making and enforcing behavioral control policies. I'm more of a Wikibookian and Commonist, where we don't really have those sorts of policies either, but this doesn't necessarily keep us from dopeslapping people who need a good dopeslap. OTOH, keep in mind that if someone was doing that on their WP talk page, someone (possibly you) would have brought it up on WP:AN (or one of the various subpages). No-one did so on WV, so it didn't really come to my attention (I don't do RC patrol on user talk pages unless I see related vandalism or spamming in one of the content namespaces, and I'm more involved in content-generation rather than being a "professional admin").

Wikiversity is small, mostly because it's young and we haven't figured out precisely what the project is for just yet, except for the vague goal of seeking new applications for the wiki technology. I personally (and somewhat embarrassingly) account for about 3% of the total edits on WV, mostly working on a Bloom Clock which takes advantage of WV's unique position of allowing certain kinds of original research, which is what drew me to the project in the first place. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 11:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it can't be all bad if it has people like you. But what comes in my dreams is an ugly chant: When shall we three met again/In thunder, lightning, or in rain? Clio the Muse 00:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Growth of English acceptability of (Middle) English

I saw a question on the language desk that I bet you'd have a good answer to. Here it is (not posted by me, but go to the language desk and answer!):

Who was the first King of England to have used English as his first (or most usual) language?

I have heard that it was Richard II, Henry IV or Henry V but cannot find a reference in my earlier reading. Now I can't find it in wikipedia.

--Cody.Pope 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Cody. Middle English had made steady progress in the course of the fourteenth century and it is likely that Richard II, and possibly even Edward III, had a working knowledge of the language; but the first king to use English publicly was Henry IV in his coronation address of October 1399. Thereafter the use of English became standard practice. Clio the Muse 22:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Killer Tomatoes

Hi, Clio. Thanks for your words of kind praise for my tomatoes. And of course I don't mind you asking. The answer's No, on the face of it my rap was modern languages. Xn4 21:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It was the best kind of answer, Xn4; the kind that leaves Clio with nothing to say; and that is really saying something! It is also nice to note that you are fluent in areas outwith your academic background. Clio the Muse 23:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hair colour in Germany

Remember this question? If you are still interesed heres the map:de:Bild:Haarfarbe.jpg--Tresckow 21:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, as I wrote above, I never forget anything, Tresckow! Thanks so much for that fascinating map; I am indeed still interested. It's fascinating to see that the blondest areas are located to the north-west, the areas once occupied by ancient Saxony, from whence my distant ancestors came to England centuries before ( and I am bright blonde!) Clio the Muse 23:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh :)

Right back atcha. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 10:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Pax Vobiscum. Clio the Muse 00:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting map from Tresckow! And C. S. Lewis was an admirer of those ancestors of Clio's -

For the end of man is to partake of the gods' defeat and die

His second, final death in good company. The stupid, strong

Unteachable monsters are certain to be victorious at last,

And every man of decent blood is on the losing side.

Take as your model the tall women with yellow hair in plaits

Who walked back into burning houses to die with men,

Or him who as the death spear entered into his vitals

Made critical comments on its workmanship and aim.

Xn4 13:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that lovely poem. Ah, but you see, Xn4, this is one Brynhildr who advances, sword in hand, to combat the stupid and unteachable monsters! Clio the Muse 23:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Clio

I really like your stuff on the reference desk. You always manage to be informative and original. Irishbard 18:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Erin Go Bragh! Clio the Muse 23:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Politics of death

I saw your answer at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Mussolini's corpse, and I was wondering what you know about the history of the burial of English and British monarchs, and in particular their hearts, shall we say, going wandering? I added a bit there, but was wondering if you could add any more? Carcharoth 01:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Carcharoth. I suspect you probably know more about this subject than I do; but I'll 'dig around' a bit, and if I manage to come up with anything I shall certainly add the information, as you have requested. All the best. Clio the Muse 01:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We few, we happy few

In the immortal words of Flanders & Swan -

The rottenest bits of these islands of ours

We've left in the hands of three unfriendly powers.

Examine the Irishman, Welshman or Scot,

You'll find he's a stinker as likely as not.

The English, the English, the English are best -

I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest!

And crossing the channel one cannot say much

For the French or the Spanish, the Danish or Dutch,

The Germans are German, the Russians are red,

And the Greeks and Italians eat garlic in bed.

The English are noble, the English are nice

And worth any other at double the price!

And all the world over each nation's the same,

They've simply no notion of playing the game;

They argue with umpires, they cheer when they've won,

And they practice before-hand which spoils all the fun

The English are moral, the English are good,

And clever and modest and misunderstood.

Xn4 01:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL! We do not blow our trumpet nearly loud enough. We are far too-how shall I put it?-English. Clio the Muse 02:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We do not blow our trumpet nearly loud enough? *cough* 1966 *cough* ;) Rockpocket 02:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Two World Wars and one World Cup! There is English, Rockpocket, and there is English! Clio the Muse 02:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

On 1966, could anyone but us have invented such a whimsical mascot as World Cup Willie, complete with his flame-red tail and Beatles hair-cut? I'm afraid I wouldn't give tuppence for any of the later imitations. Xn4 04:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't World Cup Willie so cute! If he appeared now he would, I suppose, be wearing the St. George Cross. The Scots and the Welsh must have been annoyed at the expropriation of the Union Flag...or perhaps not? Clio the Muse 22:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello

How's your library? --Dweller 13:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean my library, my father's library (better), or the University library (best of all)? They are all still there, I think. Is there something you need? Clio the Muse 22:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Could be!! --Dweller 05:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Anytime! Clio the Muse 22:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

For you, Brunhilda

You really are special.

		The Special Barnstar
		From me for being the person you are. You have given me so much simple pleasure. Fred said right 14:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere over the rainbow-how lovely. Thanks ever so, Fred. Clio the Muse 22:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Now Zenobia the Great!

Ah, no, that other Muse must have been dark, not fair! Xn4 01:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In the light and in the dark! I simply could not resist that lovely and poignant painting, Xn4. It serves to deepen the mystery (and pander to my vanity)! Clio the Muse 02:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

*Yawn*

Good morning, Clio. Would you mind having a look and letting me know whatever it is that comes to mind? Feel free to use email or irc if you'd prefer (#wikiversity-en will find you surrounded by "custodians"). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 15:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it may be best if I pay you a visit over at Wikiversity, Johnny, just to put matters in perspective. I'll see you soon! Clio the Muse 22:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have read the long thread on Wikiversity linked above. When someone writes a rant, especially an ugly rant focussed on another person, the rant actually says almost nothing about its subject, but a great deal about its writer. Nothing of what it says about the writer, in this specific case, is anything but nasty. By eliminating the rant (and not just, perhaps, tucking it out of sight), the person who is protected from his own actions, it seems to me, is the writer of the garbage, not the subject of it. Editing out the so-called "worst" of the comments is even more disturbing, in my view; it attempts to make poison palatable. However, the name being bandied about is yours, and it should be your call, as --SB_Johnny | ^PA! has suggested. Just a thought . . . Bielle 17:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely, Bielle, and my general reaction is that the the worst forms of hate speech against me should be allowed to remain for the very reason you have given: it provides a perfect window into the character and personalities of the people involved. However, I think it best, as I have said to Johnny, if I try to clarify matters, solely for the benefit of the wider Wikiversity community, who know nothing of me or the background to this whole shabby business. Clio the Muse 22:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well yawned, lion

I've looked at some but not all of this nonsense, and (for what it's worth) I'd say - ‘Cast a cold eye on life, on death, horseman pass by’. Xn4 23:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look at Wikiversity's User:Loomis (talk) -and I am sorry that I don't know how to make a direct link for you- and specifically the note under the last section ("Eureka") where the text has been deleted, and then the last line of the immediately preceding section, you will see what can happen when spot editing is undertaken. I will assume WP:AGF, all appearances to the contrary. Bielle 23:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

His comments on the Lewis and StuRat pages are far, far worse, Bielle. Xn4 is quite right, though I have now lodged a definitive statement at Wikiversity. Clio the Muse 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nature red in tooth and claw! Clio the Muse 01:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'ts ME

Hello, wonderful Clio. It's me, Kathy. Almost finished my work on Edward I thanks to your brilliant answer to my question. Can I ask you another? You dont like Braveheart. is that because the history is bad. I don't like it much myself but I did not know too much about what really went on. My dad says its tosh though he cant really tell me why he says that. So Kathy turns to you, as always. You know I really LOVE your user page. The pictures and stuff are really great. I'd love to put that poster of the red headed (godess?) (MY hair is red-LOL) on my page but i don't know how. Can you do it for me? Lots of love from Kathy. Ooops, nearly forgot the silly squiggles!!!Kathy Burns 12:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Kathy; how nice to hear from you. I'm so glad things are going well. Braveheart; what can I possibly say about Braveheart? Is it good drama? Yes, possibly. Is it good history? No, it is a terrible distortion of the past, which, at one and the same time, manages to caricature both the Scots and the English. It is wrong, I think, to expect good history from Hollywood, though some depictions of the past are much better than others; Rob Roy, for example, is a reasonable portrayal of political conditions in the eighteenth century Scottish Highlands. But Braveheart should be read on the same level as Brigadoon-the creation of a synthetic past; the creation of a synthetic country. What really surprises me is the enthusiasm the Scots have for this rubbish; their country has been broken down, reprocessed and presented back to them as bad myth; all kilts, mountains and clans; history made into a hamburger (or a haggis, truer to say)! It is tosh; your dad is right, and now you know why!

Anyway enough of that. Brynhildr, Kathy, is a Valkyrie, a servant of Odin or Woden, whose task it was to to bring the souls of those who died heroically in battle to Valhalla. She is now flying to take up a stand on your user page! All the best Clio the Muse 22:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for info regarding Wikiversity

Clio, thank you for your prompt response to my request for information. Whereas Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and Wiktionary are all aimed at converging to high quality reference information in standard book or text formats Wikiversity is aimed at using the wiki and other internet technologies to establish learning communities and activities. The classrooms, student unions, dorm or faculty lounges, labs, exercise sets, study groups, etc. that brick and mortar schools of all levels find so useful and beneficial for the advancement of learners and faculty. A place to hang out with friends, peers, and mentors while learning. Perhaps after we develop some workable forum formats or grow some focus groups of interest to yourself you will find Wikiversity a more atttractive place to excercise your intellect, at the moment it is very sparse and hard to find subject matter, activities, and people well matched to specific individual tastes or requirements. This statement from your personal page: "I cannot tell you just how many simple errors I have discovered, and the quality of 'collective writing' is in many cases quite atrocious. Hence the reference desk, where no-one can butcher what I write, and where I act as a guide and a mentor. Long may it continue." ... leads me to believe that once Wikiversity has learning communities established in areas of personal interest to you; and has developed good methods of using the wiki and other technologies for groups or teams to interact effectively around given subjects and materials; that you may find our virtual environment of interest and benefit. I hope you will wander by every six months or so and run a quick search on areas or topics of interest or drill down from the main menu to see if we have hit critical mass in areas of personal interest. Thanks again for your candid feedback. mirwin @ wikiversity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.62.190 (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that useful information, Mirwin. I will certainly drop in from time to time, just to see how things are going. Keep in touch. Clio the Muse 22:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Those sketchy (but internally linked) remarks apropos the Final Solution...

...faute de mieux at the time, were my interim attempt at "servicing" the usual RDs (L&H), all the while thinking, "Gee, I hope Clio will come along..." At present I'm barely two months along in convalescence, having sustained some injuries in one of Israel's all-too-common, senseless road accidents. I'm on crutches, doing lots of physiotherapy while learning to live with a fractured femur fixed to a titanium nail, while regretfully restricted from lengthy sessions at the computer that are mainly devoted to income-producing translation efforts on behalf of my small but faithful coterie of regular clients. So as I sneak a Wikipeek now and then, surfacing on your User talk page is certainly in order! I greet you warmly at the New Year (Jewish and academic, though you're past the point of enrolling - but are you teaching, perhaps?!), with best wishes for health, happiness, and intellectual fulfillment! -- Cheers, Deborahjay 11:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Shalom aleichem, Deborah; it's so nice to hear from you. I'm truly sorry to learn of your accident, though it is good to know that you are on the road to recovery! I remember thinking on the highway from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem a couple of years ago that some of the driving was, to say the least, a little on the hair-raising side! Still, there are worse places to be on four wheels. Have you ever been to Budapest? The drivers are worse than the Italians; and that really is saying something!

Thank you for your kind New Year greeting. Yes, I have a lot ahead, including some undergraduate tutorials and seminars. I intend also to prepare a course of lectures in the near future on my particular subject, the politics of Restoration England. Beyond that I have two (yes, two!) journal articles in preparation, and will be putting the finishing touches to my first book in the course of the coming year. My boyfriend has proposed (yet again) and I can't really put off giving a decision on that little matter much longer, poor dear! So, a busy, busy girl! I may have to stop, or severly restrict, my late-night Wiki-ing quite soon, which has become something more than I originally intended. Anyway, please keep in touch. Above all, keep well. All the very best from Anastasia and her immortal counter-part Clio the Muse 23:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a whisper of a notion of a hint of advice: if the answer to your boyfriend's question is not immediately obvious to you, then don't. :-)Bielle 01:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I'm just not sure; I love him to bits, but I'm ambitious and not wholly convinced that I am ready for marriage just yet. I need to think, think, think. Clio the Muse 02:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Gloria Steinem: Someone once asked me why women don't gamble as much as men do, and I gave the commonsensical reply that we don't have as much money. That was a true but incomplete answer. In fact, women's total instinct for gambling is satisfied by marriage.

Ambrose Bierce: Love, n., a temporary insanity, curable by marriage or by removal of the patient from the influences under which he incurred the disorder.

Socrates: By all means, marry. If you find a good wife, you'll be happy. If not, you'll become a philosopher.

Victor Borge: Ah, Mozart! He was happily married, but his wife wasn't.

The Beatles: All you need is love.

Xn4 04:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

...and marriage, go together like a horse and carriage! Clio the Muse 22:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, wasn't that the theme tune for Married… with Children?! Xn4 01:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Clio the Muse 22:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note Wikipedia does not give marital advice, please see a licensed professional instead. That said, think, think, think then go with what your heart tells you, and you will make the right decision ;) Rockpocket 17:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Who needs Wikipedia-or Dr. Phil-when one can always turn to good people like you, Rockpocket, for sound advice! Where have you been? I was beginning to wonder if you had gone into hibernation! Clio the Muse 22:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been rather demotivated by Wikipedia recently, due to a rather energy sapping ArbCom case I am party to. There has been a point-of-view war on Wikipedia between a number of Irish and British editors over The Troubles for, literally, years now. Myself and a few other admins have tried to keep the peace, but it got out of hand recently with various threats of violence being made (including some against myself), so to ArbCom it went. When it is done and dusted, I'm sure I'll regain my Wiki-mojo! Rockpocket 23:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Threats of violence! With what? A virtual cosh! It always makes me laugh when people descend into foul language and verbal invective; it makes them look so inadequate. Please, please, do not let it get to you. If people like you abandon the field then the Goths really have won, and all Rome is lost. I have said this before but it stands repeating: far too many Wikipedia pages, especially those touching on aspects of modern history, are nothing more than political battlegrounds, embarrassingly so on occasions. It undermines the whole concept of the detached and the encyclopedic. But this touches on yet another weakness of the Wikipedia concept: along with the good comes the bad; and along with the bad comes the moronic. Clio the Muse 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The threats against me were rather comical ("you'll get what Billy Wright got"), though what sparked off the ArbCom was a much more credible threat. The same editor, who has a history of using paramilitary rhetoric to intimidate others on wiki, identified the home address of another which happens to be not too far away from his own, and left a coded "I know where you live" type message. Throw into the mix a bona fide stalker, who "loves" one (female) admin so much, that when she declined to respond to his telephone calls and emails, he came up with this gem. Yes, we have our fair share of morons, all right. But its not really those that bother me, its the altogether less moronic editors that see fit to use the morons to further their own egotistical agenda. The pedants, the wiki-lawyers, the rabble rousers and the meddlers; you know the type. However, once this is over and I return from a trip to San Francisco and Las Vegas, the Rockpocket of old shall be back! Rockpocket 00:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, Rockpocket, I know the type all too well! It is a cliché, but true nonetheless: that which does not kill me only makes me stronger. Do please enjoy your trip. Clio the Muse 00:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Japanese History

Please, I think you know about Japanese history. I have questions please I would like answer on Humanities. Thank you Clio.K Limura 01:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll do my best, K. Clio the Muse 22:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sloane Ranger?

Hey there, Clio. Are you, by any chance, a Sloane Ranger? You certainly give me that impression. Hope you don't mind the question. Bloody awful colonial cheek!Barnie X 16:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What a question, Barnie! Hmm...is Clio a Sloane? Well, when in London she is frequently seen scurrying about South Ken and Fulham; she has even been known to be tracked down, on occasions, to the Sloaney Poney in Parsons Green. She also attended a very good public school and subsequently went up to Cambridge. She is posh in the very nicest sense of the word, one of a seemingly declining number who holds to the Tory Party! So, by these standards, I suppose she must be. But wait just one moment. According to Wikipedia-and who could possibly doubt Wikipedia?-Sloanes do not like modern art and James Joyce. Therein lies a problem: for, you see, Barnie, Clio likes both; so she can't be a Sloanie after all, can she? Clio the Muse 22:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Clio, sweetie. Oh, your a Sloane alright, it shows a mile off. Just spot the oodles of class. Ya!Barnie X 06:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you say so, Barnie, I suppose I must be. Clio the Muse 23:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A copy of my message to Alison

Here below is copy of a statement I made on the talk page of Alison which I also wish to make public here. Clio the Muse 08:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My dear, dear Alison. You do not know me and only found out about you, and the troubles you have faced, in the course of a discussion with Rockpocket on my talk page. Anyway, my name, my real name, is Anastasia, though I sign here as Clio the Muse. I am English and in my early twenties, currently based at the University of Cambridge. I am a historian and recently completed my doctoral dissertation, which will be turned into a book-my first-in the course of this coming year. The work I do here on Wikipedia, for casual amusement in the main, is on the Humanities Desk, where I answer any history-related questions. I mention all this just by way of general introduction.

Shortly after I joined Wikipedia last October I, too, was the subject of bullying and harrassment by a user who became increasingly obsessive in his behaviour towards me. He is now banned, though he carried his campaign on for a time at Wikiversity with an almost complete, no, sorry, a complete lack of restraint. To begin with his 'attentions' upset me to the point where I considered giving up altogether, especially as one or two other little 'jackels' started to snap at my heels. But I am bloody-minded and I am stubborn. I decided that being here, not retreating, not giving way was the best victory I could ever have. I have no wish to go into details but I treated the person in question, whom I would rather not even name, with silent contempt, driving him even madder in the process. I did not, though, have the additional burden with which you have struggled so bravely. I do not think I have ever felt such depth of admiration for another woman that I feel for you at this point in time. I'm sorry if that sounds a bit gushing; but for once the cool, the icey Clio, Clio the intellectual and the dragon slayer, is giving way to her deepest feelings.

At first I wasn't sure if I should contact you at all simply because we have never come across one another, and I know nothing of the particular background. I only know now because of Rockpocket's involvement in the ArbCom ( I asked him why I hadn't seen him around for a while). Anyway, I struggled with this for several hours before deciding that I really had to write to you, and to make my statement public in this fashion. I hope you do not consider this presumptious of me. Your courage, your determination, your honesty and your spirit overwhelm me-and that is no exaggeration or figure of speech-to the point where, for the first time in my life, I truly want to call another woman sister. If I can ever assist you in any way please do let me know. With all the love and positive thoughts I can possibly muster. Much love from Anastasia ♥ Clio the Muse 08:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Women you admire.

Interesting selection there! Do you think Margaret Thatcher admires the Pankhursts? Christabel, according to my history textbook, was a bit of a nuisance. Though I suppose ultimately she got her way. What about Millicent Fawcett, do you admire her?

Genuine interest and absolutely no criticism whatsoever on my part. Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticise away, Bio; I assure you, Clio does not mind at all. Anyway, a warm welcome to my little kingdom. My selection of heroes is, as I am sure you have gathered, really quite eclectic; there are certainly some who would not care to be in the company of others. But they all have the one thing that I admire above all others: the ability to struggle, in their own way, and in their own settings, against the odds; they are survivors and they are fighters. I have a particular love of Margaret Thatcher, whom I met at a reception at Downing Street when I was six years old. It was really thrilling! Would she have admired Christabel? Well, politically and temperamentally Christabel was far closer to her than the other Pankhurst sister, Sylvia. She certainly would not have agreed with Christabel on the pre-war tactics favoured by the WSPU, though I think she would have admired her guts and her determination, qualities which she herself possessed in abundence. Millicent Fawcett? I will say she was in some ways and admirable woman, though not admirable enough to make it into my premier league. As I say, a selection at once eclectic and eccentric! Clio the Muse 23:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Prize-giving

That was a kind thought, thank you! Xn4 02:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You deserve it! Clio the Muse 05:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OED

I imagine you have access to a full version of the OED. What does it say about the origins of the term "press-up". I was surprised to see a referenced notation at Press up dating its origins to "1945-50" - it occurred to me that perhaps that's the earliest occurrence in American literature, but that's just me speculating. --Dweller 14:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

PS I have rudely formatted your Hero of Old England award for you... on its inaugural winner's page. Hope you like it. --Dweller 14:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Dweller, the OED gives a definition but says nothing about the origins of the term. I see nothing at all rude in your formating of the HOE; I'm quite hopeless with that kind of thing. So, thanks, love and kisses! Clio the Muse 23:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I was pleased, too. And as a hero, I'm now wearing the purple. Xn4 23:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ave, Imperator! Clio the Muse 23:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Salvete, Musa auriga! Xn4 23:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. No worries, thanks --Dweller 08:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

2nd biggest contributer on rd/h

Thought you'd like to see this Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Humanities. Clio is now the 2nd most prolific contributor!martianlostinspace ^{email me} 09:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, martian, for that information. Like Old Man River I just keep rolling along! Clio the Muse 23:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

George Bowling's lake

I feel rather deeply for George Bowling, as we share the lake. Mine has glow-worms in the long grass... Xn4 02:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds beautiful. Long may it glow, and long may you preserve your ideal! Did you like the above? I immediately thought of Will's bequest to Anne! Clio the Muse 02:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Impressed! And yes, I see that thought. Hmmm. We don't know everything the brilliant fellow had to endure, but we'd have thought better of him if he could have resisted that final flourish. Oh for

The land of Faerie,

Where nobody gets old and godly and grave,

Where nobody gets old and crafty and wise,

Where nobody gets old and bitter of tongue.

Xn4 03:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh! Clio the Muse 22:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes to a post

It seems that someone from Danville, California recently made changes to an old post by this user. A.Z. 02:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Clio the Sloane

Hey, Clio, girl, I hope you don't mind me calling you a Sloane?Barnie X 03:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, Barnie, dear! Clio the Muse 03:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What a relief. You are my heroine, girl.Barnie X 03:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad! Clio the Muse 03:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Clio and Longshanks!

Clio, cool Clio!!! I got an A+ for my essay on Edward I. Can you believe it, can you believe it???? LOL. You are wonderful-thanks, thanks, thanks. (also for the picture of the redhead-sorry to have taken so long to get back to you. ive been busy, busy). My class will be moving on to the English reformation soon. I will come to you for any help i need. You dont mind do you? Lots pf love. As ever, Kathy Burns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathy Burns (talk • contribs) 18:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Kathy! Clio the Muse 22:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Redl

Hello. Can you remember where the information here comes from? The Russian reports would be especially useful for fixing up the article. Many thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I can, Angus. You will find the quotation I gave, and more besides, in A Patriot for Whom? Colonel Redl and a question of identity by Alan Sked in History Today July 1986 pp. 9-14. Clio the Muse 23:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Dem bones

A pertickler fine bit you up'n added to Death in the Middle Ages, sez Br'er Four, sezee. Xn4 23:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, shucks! Thankee, kind sir. Clio the Muse 00:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Poker of quotations

Henry Fielding "Read in order to live." OK, OK; this is getting silly! Clio the Muse 02:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

La Rochefoucauld: "As we grow older, we get wiser and sillier." Xn4 03:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wise as a child; the more grown up I become the sillier I get! I enjoyed our one-upmanship with quotations, but I rather suspect we could have gone on leap-froging one another indefintely. Besides, no matter what side of the line, I rather suspect our views on this particular matter are broadly similar. Clio the Muse 21:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You might well think that, but I couldn't possibly comment. Xn4 23:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Touché! Clio the Muse 00:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

New nations

You didn't persuade me and you didn't not persuade me yet ;) I'm still thinking it through, to see where we might agree and where we might disagree. I'll leave you a message when I've finished thinking :) Aecis^Brievenbus 22:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I live in hope! Clio the Muse 22:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sig

I think my browser was the odd one out in making the sig look normal size. Here's what I see:

Thank you for pointing out its hugeness when rendered by other browsers. - Nunh-huh 00:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The first type face above looks big but elegant. What I was reading on the Humnities Desk was really 'sock it to me' in its brutality! Clio the Muse 00:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Templars

Oooh what a good answer. Why didn't I write that? lol Never mind Mourinho, the Humanities RD knows who "The Special One" is. --Dweller 09:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

♥ Clio the Muse 22:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Mao: one of history's biggest shits

Hi Clio. I saw that in your user page and I'd like to hear your opinion about this bloke, of course, if you have the time :) Thanks. --Taraborn 23:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My goodness, Taraborn, I really would not know where to begin! Sorry, that is not quite true. I would begin by urging you to read, assuming you have not already done so, Mao: the Unknown Story by Juang Chang and Jon Halliday. It's a revelation. If you do not have the time for that you could glance over the Wikipedia pages on the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. In the twentieth century's 'gallery of horrors' Mao deserves a pre-emient position; callous, cynical, manipulative, malevolent, brutal and, above all, murderous. A truly dreadful human being, so says one who is not naturally given to sweeping value judgements! Clio the Muse 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. I just started reading a biography written by Jonathan Spence, page 82 out of about 220. I haven't reached the part were Mao becomes the leader of communist China yet but, nevertheless, the author has given several hints about his evilness, hehe. Thanks for enlightening me once again :D! --Taraborn 12:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Always a pleasure, Taraborn. Clio the Muse 21:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is one of my favorite section titles... evah! Rockpocket 22:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Merde! Clio the Muse 22:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dissolution of the Monasteries

Here's an article begging from any attention you'd spare it. Even to add a couple of the best books on the subject for Further reading. --Wetman 21:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Wetman. I'll certainly have a look at it. Clio the Muse 23:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Heil Spode!

I hadn't come across Baldwin's "a cad and a wrong 'un" before. If he said it after 1938, then he could also have been thinking of Spode. An actor called John Turner plays him brilliantly in Jeeves and Wooster. Not to be missed! Xn4 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that not so long ago on DVD. Wonderful stuff! I'm sorry; I can't remember the precise date of the Baldwin quote. I picked it up, I think, from Stephen Dorell's Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British Facism. I'll look out my copy tommorrow and let you know if I find it. At the moment my head is still spinning from answering a question on Hegel! Clio the Muse 00:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's worth your trouble, Clio, it's a good quotation without an exact date. I'm sorry to hear Hegel makes your head spin. The only man who ever taught me Hegel used to do it over glasses of Dubonnet, so he hasn't ever had that effect on me! ;) Xn4 01:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And thus are the wheels of intellect oiled! Clio the Muse 01:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Question on Boer Sympathizers

Clio the Muse,

Hello. I saw your answer to a question posted on September 25, 2007. It was question 1.5 Boer Sympathizers. Your response was posted the next day at 1:35. I am researching a similar topic for my senior thesis. I am looking at German involvement in the Anglo-Boer War. Do you happen to recall any of the books or essays you used to generate your answer? If you do recall any, could you please let me know. It would be helpful to my research. Thank you.

Victorian85 01:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Victorian85

Leave it with me, Victorian. If you check back here tommorrow I should be able to provide you with some more details. Clio the Muse 02:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here are the various texts that I suggest that might be of some use to you:

Peter Warwick (ed.), The South African War (London, 1980); Michael Davitt, The Boer Fight for Freedom (New York, 1902); Fransjohan Pretorius, The Anglo-Boer War 1899-1902 (Cape Town, 1998 edn); Donal Lowry , The South African War Reappraised (Manchester, 2000); Roy Macnab,The French Colonel: Villebois-Mareuil and the Boers, 1899-1900 (Cape Town, 1975); Preben Kaarsholm, `Pro-Boers’, in Raphael Samuel (ed), Patriotism: The Making and Unmaking of British National Identity, Vol.1 (London, 1989); Appolon Davidson and Irina Filatova, The Russians and the Anglo-Boer War (Cape Town, 1998); Donal McCracken, Forgotten Protest: Ireland and the Anglo-Boer War (Belfast, 2003); Keith Wilson (ed.), The International Impact of the Boer War (2001).

The best of luck. Clio the Muse 22:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Victorian85 02:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. Clio the Muse 22:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

de Becker's advice

Just dropped by to see what's been going on in your world and I noticed the heading "Yawn" and read the link at Wikiversity. I keep wondering in my rough colonial way why someone bothers to put so much effort into being such a no-life loser as that cretin who's been bothering you. This site isn't compulsory viewing and you don't really have to log on or give a damn about it if you don't want to. For those of us who appreciate it, it should be a matter of take or leave it with good grace. You've been very helpful to thousands of people, including me, and if I did disagree with something you wrote, I'd let it slide. After all, you're not being paid for it.

The pattern of initial sycophancy followed by hostility is classic stalker and I'd say your "silent treatment" response is the best. I recommend Gavin deBecker's books on this topic if you have time - he advises the approach you've taken, only more so. (See: The Gift of Fear). Retarius | Talk 05:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your very kind words, Retarius; they are highly appreciated. Some people, sadly, are nothing but cretins and losers, as you so aptly put it. The campaign against me, the degrees of obsession displayed, was marked by a combination of jealousy and stupidty, to quite an intense level. If I am honest I have to say that the whole thing was really quite hilarious at points. Anyway, Retarius, he picked on the wrong girl; he most definitely picked on the wrong girl! Forget about him; he is forever past. Thanks for that reference. I'm going to order it on Amazon. Please drop in whenever you feel like a chat. Much love, Anastasia. Clio the Muse 21:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Help with a book

Great Muse of History, I wonder if you can help me out. The KBR in Brussels doesn't have a copy of Francis Wormald's English Benedictine Kalendars after A.D.1100 (inevitably it has the no-use-to-me "to A.D. 1100" volume). Cambridge, on the other hand, does have a copy. The catalogue says it is hidining St John's College: First Floor, Classmark BV 170.H4.E51. I'm trying to find a plausible source for the feast date of St Hardulph of Breedon on the Hill (aka, according to David Rollason and others, King Eardwulf of Northumbria). I can find all sorts of tat on the internetsaying 21st August, but the only printed source that seems to contain this is Wormald's book. Apparently it's on or about page 95 (although one would hope that the book comes with an index). If you are passing anywhere near the place that this book is lurking, could you perhaps take a peek and see if St Hardulph's feast day really, truly is 21st August? I'd be eternally grateful. Thanks a million in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll be down that way next week, Angus; so I'll have a look and post the information on your talk page. Clio the Muse 22:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I can't possibly fail to get Eardwulf up to featured article standard when the Muse of History is helping me out! Angus McLellan (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for checking this trivia for me. Nothing unexpected, but I'd feel a terrible fraud if I relied on random web sites for references. I am your most humble and devoted servant, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. You are absolutely right not to place your faith in the google! Clio the Muse 23:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A hopefully useful award

Hi Clio, I just realized how much the humanities refdesk has improved since you frequent it and provide interesting, thoughtful and perfectly quotable answers to an incredible range of history questions. Therefore I grant you the attached tools to aid you in your future work. -- Ferkelparade π 01:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I hereby grant you the Scope of Accuracy for accurately answering lots of questions and the Spade of Tireless Research for always digging up the relevant sources. May they aid you in your further work on WP:RD/H -- Ferkelparade π 01:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Ferkelparade, thank you for kind appreciation. Your tools shall take their place among my stars! Clio the Muse 01:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Gulags

Hey, Clio, that's a hot shot bit of number work! Xn4 01:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Xn4, but I can't really take the credit for the mole-like industry in uncovering these figures. That belongs to Anne Appelbaum. Incidentally, I know Dirk the Dutchman means well, but-how shall I put it?-he is so awfully unfocused, poor dear! Clio the Muse 01:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I tread on eggshells because he got so worked up when I had the nerve to disagree with him over here on global warming. I think it's his real passion. You know, it's quite something how many of the big contributors on the Dutch Wikipedia (like Dirk) prefer to spend their time on the English one. And their English is so good. It portends the rebuilding of the Tower of Babel! Xn4 03:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Dirk's English may be good; his history is terrible! Clio the Muse 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, now, that's just plain mean. Please try not to insult other editors. What if one were to say that your history was "terrible"?

Since it appears to be perfectly acceptable to say it of Dirk, I can't possibly imagine it as being equally acceptable for me to comment that I consider your history to be far more terrible than his.

For example, you consider Irving to be a "superb" historian. I think I get your point, and perhaps our disagreement is merely one of semantics, but "superb historian"? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant to say that he's brilliant at distorting history in such a way that the ignorant may take his words seriously. But "suberb historian"? The fact that he deliberately distorts history, in my view, disqualifies him as being any legitimate historian whatsoever, be it a brilliant or mediocre one. Brilliant liars in no sense qualify as historians, despite their brilliance. Would you not agree that at the very least, to be qualified as a bona fide historian, even a mediocre one, one must at the very least provide reasonably verifiable evidence of what one purports to be "history"? David Irving may be clever, perhaps even brilliant, yet the fact that he deliberately distorts history in my mind disqualifies him entirely as being any sort of bona fide historian whatsoever. He's no more than an unfortunately gifted rabid anti-semite. Serinmort 21:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I care not for your opinion of me, Four Degrees....oh, so, so sorry; I meant to say Serinmort; I was clearly confusing you with someone else; how terribly silly of me! Anyway, I am not prepared to discuss David Irving or any other historical matter with you, either here on the reference desk itself. You can read my words and place such weight upon them as your wit and your intellect permit. I now urge you to step away or I will report you for harrassment. Oh, and there is no need to request me not to respond to any questions you may lodge in future on the Humanities Desk; I will take that as read. I trust I make myself absolutely clear? Clio the Muse 22:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspected 'Serinmort' was you, Four Degrees, as far back as August, when you asked me about Wikipedia in the media. You only had to open your mouth a little wider, as you did with your grandstanding in that silly Divorce thread, for a suspicion to turn into a certainty. I will always recognise you, no matter in what form you come, because you have not the talent nor the wit to disguise yourself to any effective degree. You will always bring clouds of irrationality and incomprehension trailing in your wake.

In the full knowledge that you will continue to scour this page with little eyes full of jealousy and malice I pass on this final message. Look at yourself; for the love of God, look at what you have become: a man approaching his forties in obsessive and ugly pursuit of a woman sixteen years his junior. Is this really how you want people to perceive you: a lonely, sad internet stalker? Is that really how you want to perceive yourself? Four Degrees, or Loomis51, or Lewis, or Serimort or whatever you choose to call yourself, you now occupy exactly the same existential plain as Barringa, the same hell of incomprehension, despite the differences in perspective. I know you will understand the reference. Is that not sad; is that not pathetically sad? More than that, it is shameful. Clio the Muse 00:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A note from the poor dear to Xn4. That thread was about global warming, so what else did you expect me to talk about? Also, you were the first to react and your arguments go against what most people, including the world's scientific community, agree upon, and you keep on bringing the same thing up, clinging on to one single anomaly (as you perceive it) to reason all the rest away. So who's being passionate?

Another thing you get totally wrong is that I'm one of the big contributors on the Dutch Wikipedia. I'm not. just check my contributions there. And then compare them with my contributions to the English language Wikipedia. I'm almost exclusively active here. As are many other Dutch editors. We can contribute to both, and the English one has a much further reach, so it makes more sense to work on that. After all, it's the English language Wikipedia, and that language is the world's lingua franca. The Wikipedias are not country-specific but language-specific. DirkvdM 11:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Dirk. I'm very sorry if you're offended that I've talked up your contribution to the Dutch Wikipedia, though you're clearly one of the main authors of some articles there, such as nl:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I admire your English, it's truly impressive. Otherwise, I find what you say above rather sweeping. Views different from yours are possible and allowed, and to be in a minority isn't always the same thing as to be wrong. Alas, I see far more anomalies in the field of global warming theory than one, but this probably isn't the place for me to launch into my analysis of the zealotry which has given us An Inconvenient Truth. Regards, Xn4 00:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, guys; no science, and definitely no global warming! Clio the Muse 00:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Clio, there's a Historical Angle. Not to mention some Vikings. Xn4 01:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Clio, I am fully aware that my knowledge of history is limited (but then so is anyone's because it's such a huge field). But what I do most of the time is ask (annoying) questions and make (possibly even more annoying) suggestions. I rarely make factual claims, and when I do I usually point out that I don't know for sure. I'm just trying to understand a period in history that you appear to be particularly interested in too. Can you point to occasions where I made a factual claim without reservations that turned out to be wrong? There will be some, but not many, I'm sure.

As for being unfocused, you're right. My mind wanders in all directions, but that's the most fun (and annoying ...) part of being me. And naturally that shows in my edits, but that has the advantage of putting new thoughts in people's minds - my life's goal, I dare say. DirkvdM 11:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope your not annoyed, Dirk; for my remarks carried no ill-intent; I would say the same of one of my students. I must confess that when I joined Wikipedia last October you did have the capacity to annoy me with what I originally thought was a relentless left-wing POV agenda. I no longer believe that to be the case; it's just that we have such different views of what the reference desk is about. You see, I believe that, in providing a service to people, we either speak with knowledge and authority, or we do not speak at all. You will never see me on the Science Desk because I know virtually nothing about science. Even on the Humanities Desk there are many threads in which I do not participate, because I have nothing meaningful to say (or because the subject bores me!). I am a historian; my intellectual training has been rigorous; I have a tendency to resent the half-baked and the amateurish. We are two completely different people. When answering question on Humanities you have a tendency-forgive me for putting it like this-to speculate without purpose, often throwing in some half-digested 'fact' in support. Inevitably this has the effect of deflecting me from the point of the original question, as we set off in what is often a quite fruitless dialectic, which does little to help the questioner.

I really have no desire to flag up all of your factual errors, which would really serve no purpose; but one excellent example was your recent contention that if the Gulags had been as bad as people allege then we would know more by now. The point is we do know more; and if there is a gap in your knowledge here it is up to you to fill it. I have given you numerous leads on how to go about this, both on that particular discussion and elsewhere. Look, you are not a historian: that's fine; I am not a scientist. If you would like to deepen your knowledge on any historical question, please ask me directly; I would be delighted to help; more than delighted. But if we can reduce speculation for the sake of speculation, and thus avoid possible confusion in the mind of the questioner, that is all to the good. On that basis I think that Clio the Englishwoman and Dirk the Dutchman might very well reach a modus vivendi!

Incidentally, that Serinmort person is a sockpuppet of one user Loomis51, permanently blocked some time since for persistent harassement and abuse. If you really wish to know the background-and I make no recommendation here-you will find all the tedious details on the latter's talk page. Take care now. Clio the Muse 23:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. A.Z. 23:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me make one thing absolutely clear, Socrates; you are not welcome here. Clio the Muse 00:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making that clear. A.Z. 00:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Given his conduct, permanently is indeed a correct interpretation in this case. Creating socks so he can resume the exact same behaviour that saw him banned in the first place does not bode well for his return. I don't know why, A.Z., you would feel the need to continue to advocate for him, but please tread carefully when you show up on the talk pages of the editors he harrassed and insulted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Irving

Thanks for your nice comment on the David Irving question. I am not an expert in the particularities of Irving's case and I felt a better about my feelings on it after you had weighed in as well. I try not to trot out my institutional identity too often on here (and since I don't even use a signed-in account anymore it feels exceptionally silly), but it sounds like we are in somewhat similar professional positions (though I am still finishing up my long American PhD), and edit on here for more or less the same reasons, but in any case, if you are ever over at your city's namesake across the Atlantic and interested in a cup of coffee with a chatty historian of science, please look up whatever IP I am editing with at the moment (usually of the 24.147 variety; my ISP is fairly stable in such things) and get in touch, if you please. --24.147.86.187 13:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, 24.147 (I really wish I didn't have to refer to you by a number!). How nice to hear from you. I have long been aware of your intellectual footprint on the Humanities RD and enjoy reading your informed contributions, clearly a historian and, even more important, clearly someone who knows what he/she(?) is talking about! Thanks ever so for your very kind invitation. I will certainly keep it in mind. I would simply love to hear all about the history of science-not my strongest subject-if you can bear to hear all about Restoration England! Is your work far from completion? Anyway, please come by any time you feel like a chat. Best wishes from Anastasia. Clio the Muse 22:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)