Humanities desk
< May 15	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 16

Why can't we view the page. "The purple cow" as it was before important paragraphs were removed ?

Why is there no article for JER Investors Trust

NYSE Listed public company. 24.60.163.16 07:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter, John Newbery Medal

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

-Because dogs don't lay eggs.

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]

Thanks, Shimgray. Corvus cornix 02:21, 17 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 would certainly have said The Hobbit is a children's book. I certainly read it as such. --194.176.105.39 09:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably hard to define what is meant by "a children's book". Shakespeare, Jane Austen, Tolkien, Dickens et al are (or at least when I was in school, were) required reading for secondary school children. But would anyone really describe them as "children's literature"? Who comprised the bulk of the audiences at the films LOTR I, II and III? - not children. Marketing-speak is often times a foreign language. JackofOz 10:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hobbit and LotR are very different things. —Tamfang 02:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mucha's rendition of Sappho?

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]

Womenfolk

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]

Thanks for the help. --Mayfare 19:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation theologists?

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. - Banyan Tree 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]

If I knew more about the specific issues, would I be less inclined to think the phrase "those of us who have sympathies with the poor" is grossly patronizing and needlessly inflammatory? As a member of a widely misunderstood minority political movement, I'm sensitized to the fallacy "If you disagree with my approach to the problem, you don't recognize that a problem exists." —Tamfang 02:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler on lebensraum

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]

"Direct Descendant"???

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]

Yeah, but!! Whereas most of us know who our mother is, how many of us know who our ACTUAL father is? This patrilineal convention is very shaky indeed. Trust me, son.

Autonomy in the UK

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.--Mnem eson 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]

Was there such a thing as a state "educational system" in 1707? —Tamfang 01:49, 20 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]

Henry Tudor was Welsh. We conquered England. AndyJones 12:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And it was very big of the Welsh to allow the new entity not only to include the word "England" but to give it priority. Just imagine what would have happened otherwise. The UK would have comprised Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Thank God the Welsh are a peace-loving and musical people. :) JackofOz 12:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all the information. The answers from MarcoPolo and Martianlostinspace were of particular interest to me, in that you both directly address the question and also say that US states do indeed have a higher degree of autonomy from central government than do UK regions such as Wales or Scotland. Do you two, or anyone else, know whether the same can be said of Canada and Germany (for example, the autonomous powers of National Assembly of Quebec or the Bavarian Landtag in comparison to the National Assembly for Wales/Scottish Parliament). I very much appreciate any empirical information on this, thank you again to everyone for taking the time to help me out.--AlexSuricata 12:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, U.S. states have a higher degree of autonomy than Canadian provinces do because of the Tenth Amendment. The American constitution limits federal power; the Canadian constitution limits provincial power. In practice, provinces have more power than states do in many areas. For example, Canadian provinces have their own labor-relations boards, securities commissions and health plans for the elderly (and everyone else), all stuff done federally in the U.S. Quebec even has its own immigration laws and old-age pension plan. -- Mwalcoff 22:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mwalcoff does an excellent job of comparing Canadian provinces with U.S. states. In any case, I think that it is fair to say that Canadian provinces have more autonomy than Scotland. As for German states, or Länder, my knowledge is a bit sketchy, but they do have certain constitutionally protected competences, unlike Scotland. I think that the German constitution limits the states' powers rather than the federal powers, so the German states are in that sense like Canadian provinces. Unlike Canada, however, German institutions tend to be uniform throughout Germany, so I don't think that German states have the practical autonomy of Canadian provinces. On the other hand, a German state such as Bavaria has ancient traditions comparable to those of Scotland. Most German states, however, are fairly new, sometimes culturally disparate political entities formed by combining territories that were small independent states or provinces of Prussia before German unification. Marco polo 01:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan State of Union: "The states created the federal government, the federal government did not create the states." Works the other way round in the UK. The governments of Scotland etc. as we know them now were created centrally by Westminster. But NY, NJ etc. all had their own governments long before the US federal government was created. Hence it is bottom up.martianlostinspace 09:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except Reagan is only half-right here. The original 13 states predate the federal government. Vermont, Texas and to some extent Utah and California can claim that they do not owe their existance to Washington. All of the other states were basically created by or under the auspices of the federal government. That's why, IMO, it doesn't make sense to see American federalism in the same light as it was seen in the 18th century, when they had to convince 13 semi-independent states to join a new government. -- Mwalcoff 02:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CALOTROPIS GIGANTIA

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]

How much do the richest 1% make?

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]

Just what I needed. Thanks! --Halcatalyst 00:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio American Legion

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]

Military acronym WTF

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]

Not only do I doubt that WTF was a common slang term in 1945, I also doubt it was common in 1970. It would have to be slang, and most army acronym slang from the Second World War (SNAFU, FUBAR, and my favourite, JANFU) are easy-to-say acronyms. WTF looks as if it was created as written slang, not spoken slang, and as such it'd likely have arisen at a time when written communication was popular but obscenities weren't considered terribly vulgar - ie. the late 90s, and probably on BBSs, Usenet, or the early Web. (Not to say that people didn't use the term "what the fuck" back then, but they probably wouldn't have thought to abbreviate it.) --Charlene 03:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. --Tugbug 18:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chumik Shenko

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]

There seems to be a little confusion over this. The date of the battle was 31 March, and does indeed correspond to the 'Battle of Guru' referred to in the Wikipedia page on the Tibet expedition, though this is the first time I have come across this particular title. Although the mission to Lhasa, the Tibetan capital, was under the leadership of Francis Younghusband of the Indian Political Service, the military escort was in fact under the command of Brigadier General James Macdonald. To oppose the advance the Tibetans made a stand at Chumik Shenko-the 'Waters of the Crystal Eye'-a hot spring issuing from the foot of a spur, taking up position behind a stone wall, some five feet high and a hundred yards long. Younghusband made efforts to persude the Tibetans to allow the advance to continue, giving them fifteen minutes to make up their minds. When the time expired Macdonald gave the order to resume the advance. The order was not to fire unless fired upon, as Younghusband explains in his own account;

I wished still to give them just one last chance, in the hope that at the eleventh hour, and in the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour, they might change their minds. I therefore asked General Macdonald to order his men not to fire upon the Tibetans until the Tibetans first fired on them. (F. Younghusband, India and Tibet, 1910)

It seems certain that Younghusband expected the Tibetans to crack; but they did not, neither did they open fire with their ancient matchlocks, allowing the heavily armed British to come within the shortest possible range, until the 32nd Sikh Pioneers stood with their rifles resting on the wall. Outflanked both on the right and left, and with their only line of retreat covered by Maxim machine guns, the Tibetan camp on the far side of the wall gave every sign of collapsing in confusion. Younghusband conferred with Macdonald, and it was agreed that "the only thing to do was to disarm the Tibetans and let them go." This, at least, is the official version of events, though the evidence suggests that an attempt was made to provoke the badly-armed enemy into opening fire. Younghusband's own letters to his father indicate that the British did not advance in steady formation, but in the form of a dummy attack, running with bayonets fixed. It was only when the Sikhs moved in to disarm the Tibetans that scuffles began to break out. The Tibetan commander, Depon Lhading, fired his pistol which, in the confusion, seems to have been taken as a signal for a general attack. Within a matter of seconds the British returned fire from three sides, with the Tibetans crowded in the open behind the wall. The Maxims, in particular, operated with devastating effectivness. The only Tibetan account of the whole 'battle' was later compiled by an officer named Tseten Wangchuk;

A hail of bullets came down on us from the surrounding hills. We had no time in which to draw our swords. I lay down beside a dead body and pretended I had been killed. The sound of firing continued for the time it would take for six successive cups of tea to cool. When the firing ceased, the British troops came into the camp to examine the dead and wounded. They prodded me with a bayonet, but I remained quiet and held my breath...Though afraid I lay in the company of the dead until it grew dark, and then, at night, I ran to Guru. ( The Myth of Chumik Shenko, in History Today, 2004, p. 15)

Some 500 Tibetans were killed. There were no British losses. It was a massacre, not a battle. At the time only The Spectator made comment on this, taking offence at the notion of a British force "crushing half-armed and very brave men with the irresistable weapons of science." Younghusband was never to accept responsibility for the incident, later casting blame on everyone but himself. Clio the Muse 03:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US debt to China

How much money does the US currently owe to China? -- noosph e re 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]

Nazi-Soviet Pact

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.

This is a fascinating subject, worthy of article in its own right. The Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939 seemed to turn a whole world of belief and conviction upside down, literally overnight. A contest which might be said to have defined the politics of a good bit of the inter-war period, and had given shape to mutually opposing ways of looking at the world, underwent a rapid re-evaluation: the most bitter of enemies were now friends. There were some in Germany who greeted the news with considerable satisfaction, most notably Josef Goebbles, who always retained a lingering respect for Stalin and Bolshevism. His newspaper, Der Angriff, greeted the Pact as a renewal of an 'ancient' friendship between two peoples.

What the whole thing demonstrated was the capacity of certain people, particularly on the left, to embrace a radical intellectual shift, seemingly without any crisis of conscience. In Moscow, the veteran Bulgarian Communist, Georgi Dimitrov, noted in his diary after the outbreak of the Second World War, a corollary of the Pact, that it was 'natural' that Germany and Russia should be on the same side in an 'imperialist' war. His German colleague, Walter Ulbricht, was to broadcast from Moscow that 'Britain was now the most reactionary force in the world.' In London, J. B. S. Haldane, another Communist and brother of the writer Naomi Mitchison, wrote in the New Statesman, a well-respected socialist periodical, that the British Left should not think too badly of Hitler, for, after all, was not oppression 'worse' under the rule of the western Empires; I would rather be a Jew in Berlin than a Kaffir in Johannesburg or a Negro in French Equitorial Africa. If the Czechs are treated as an inferior race, do Indians or Annanamites enjoy complete equality? Hewlett Johnson, the 'Red Dean of Canterbury', and author of The Socialist Sixth of the World, announced in December 1939 that Stalin was justified in whatever he did. Similarly, G. D. H. Cole, a moderate socialist and a long-time member of the Fabian Society, wrote in the New Statesman that since all morality was 'class morality', then it was justifiable and necessary for the "proletariat to use any method, and to take any action, that would help towards victory over its class enemies." But the most deluded of all was surely H. N. Brailsford, a left-wing journalist, who in October 1939 published a piece in The New Republic, entitled National Bolshevism, in which the hope was expressed that Hitler might be 'Bolshevised.' Even Sean O'Casey, the dramatist, who sat on the board of the Communist Daily Worker in London, was to hope that Hitler would 'go left.'

Perhaps the greatest literary monument of the whole Nazi-Soviet honeymoon, though one no longer recognised for its original intention (even in the Wikipedia page!), is the play Mother Courage and Her Children by Bertolt Brecht. It was not meant to serve as a condemnation of war in general, though this is how it is now read. Rather, it was conceived, from a Communist perspective, as an attack on the 'imperialist war', that of the western allies against Germany, a message that was fully recognised when it was fist performed in Zurich early in 1941.

For George Orwell the whole period, and the seemingly infinite capacity on the left for self-deception, provided ample confirmation of some of his central political and intellectual concerns, later to find fullest expression in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. In Inside the Whale, an essay published in 1940, he writes Every time Stalin swaps partners, 'Marxism' has to be hammered into a new shape. This entails sudden and violent changes of 'line', purges, denunciations, systematic destruction of party literature etc. etc. Every Communist is in fact liable at any moment to have to change his most fundamental convictions or leave the party. The unquestionable dogma of Monday may become the damnable heresy of Tuesday, and so on. The world of Big Brother, Newspeak and the Thought Police were just over the horizon of history. Clio the Muse 00:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Prophet Disarmed

Clio, now's your chance to bite the bullet, expand your empire, and improve Mother Courage and Her Children, for the betterment of all humankind. With a good reference, of course. JackofOz 02:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, Jack, Clio is the Prophet Unarmed, ever calling in the wind! Clio the Muse 04:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you don't like editing Wikipedia article's we could start Cliopaedia, the online historical encyclopaedia that only people who know absolutely everything about an amazing range of subjects can edit. I know you'd have a lot of readers from the reference desk. I am unsurprised by the hypocracy of left-wing intellectuals (nothing changes does it!). I presume the right wing in the Allied countries were similarly supportive of whatever Hitler did? But what did Mussolini think, for example? Cyta 07:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An armless me, Cyta, I love it! Armless but never 'armless, if you take my meaning! Anyway, right-wing reactions on the Pact were far less burdened by the ideological baggage being carried by the left; there was no need, in other words, to interpret or justify Hitler's actions in terms of a 'universal' theory of progress and enlightenment. It was obvious to all that the Pact was a necessary political precondition for the invasion of Poland, which otherwise would have tangled Hitler in a war with Stalin. It did, however, have the effect of baffling some, including Sir Oswald Mosley, the leader of the British Union of Fascists, who called the consequences 'unclear'. In the 26 August edition of Action, the Party journal, he wrote that the most hopeful interpretation of the matter was that "Russia may last have rid itself of Jewish control, and may determine under Russian leadership to pursue the course of a national revolution which is primarily concerned with the Russian people." Mussolini, who was told about the Pact a few hours before it was officially announced, was shocked, as was Count Ciano, his Foreign Minister, though they both recognised that it was a political master blow. (Mussolini: a New Life, N. Farrell, 2003 p. 320) Clio the Muse 23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the picture wasn't provided by me! 137.138.46.155 12:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the last part of Jean-Paul Sartre's foreword to Paul Nizan's Aden Arabie (OCLC 374922) in which Sartre, an ardent supporter of Stalin and defender of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, analyzes his friend Nizan's decision to leave the French Communist Party after the signing.—eric 05:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Mussolini could turn from socialist to fascist at age 32, then perhaps people thought Hitler could make the revers change. Hitler's pronouncements (if not his actions) did sometimes argue for collectivism (the individual being just an organ of the state) rather than provate enterprise, and he denounced plutocrats who he said ran the U.S. Then there was the "Socialism" word in National Socialism. And of course the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "politics makes strange bedfellows."Edison 14:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Mussolini never 'turned' from Socialist to Fascist: rather he created Fascism, virtually single-handed, and imbued it with his own ideological vision. Fascism, in fact, would have been inconceivable without Marxist Socialism, and takes many of its most fundamental doctrines from precisely the same ideological womb, if it is possible to express the matter in such terms. Both were forms of collective action; both relied on mass mobilisation; and both stood in fundamental opposition to nineteenth century liberalism. For the impact of Marxism on Hitler's own thinking, especially his views on the importance of political propaganda, please have a look at Mein Kampf. Clio the Muse 23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British's monarch / royal family rights to vote?

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]

The two Harrys

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

Ambition, greed, jealousy or perhaps a mixture of all three. It can all be reduced to differing interpretations of the Revoltion of 1399, in which Richard II was deposed and replaced by his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke, Duke of Lancaster, later crowned King Henry IV. Bolingbroke's coup is unlikely to have succeeded but for the support he received from the Percys of Northumberland, including Henry Percy, 1st Earl of Northumberland and his son Henry Percy, immortalised by Shakespeare in the guise of Harry Hotspur. Bolingbroke, who had been exiled from England by Richard, returned with the declared aim of recovering his Lancastrian inheritance, and to correct the misgovernance of the realm. It was on the basis of this understanding that he is said to have obtained the support of the powerful marcher lords, vital to the success of the whole enterprise. Northumberland was later to claim that he was not in favour of the usurpation, though his precise motives at the time can no longer be determined.

What we do know is that friction was quick to emerge between the the new king and the Percys for a variety of reasons, connected, in part, with the politics and rewards of border warfare. In 1402 Hotspur had defeated the Scots at the Battle of Homildon Hill taking a number of important prisoners, who could expect to bring lucrative financial returns by way of ransom. But the king demanded that the most important be sent to him, causing a dispute touched on by Shakespeare in the opening scenes of Henry IV, Part 1. The anger caused by this was compounded when Henry refused to ransom Edmund Mortimer, Hotspur's brother-in-law, who had been captured by Welsh rebels, led by Owain Glyn Dwr. The outcome was the first serious rebellion of the new reign, when Percy raised his standard in the summer of 1403, having concluded an allaince with the Glyn Dwr and Archibald Douglas, 4th Earl of Douglas, the leading Scot taken at Homildon. Marching south through Chester by way of the Welsh border, Percy was intercepted and killed at the Shrewsbury in July, the largest battle of Englishman against Englishman since that fought at Evesham in 1265. Percy, thou art dust/And food... for worms.... Clio the Muse 02:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

war experiences

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]

And of course All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque. --mglg_(talk) 00:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Goodbye to All That by Robert Graves. Adam Bishop 07:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sassoon's fellow war poet Wilfred Owen is very well known. Pat Barker's excellent Regeneration Trilogy of novels draws on their relationship. Sebastian Faulks's novel Birdsong is also very good. Natalie West 00:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]