Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 September 3

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.

September 3

To know me is to be me.

What is the oldest secret society?69.201.141.45 00:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

We could tell you, but then.... DuncanHill 00:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

See Secret society. Freemasonry has many mysteries and secrets, but could we call it a secret society? It claims to date from the time of King Solomon's Temple, but evidence of that is lacking. Xn4 01:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean still extant? If not, the Sicarii were around at the turn of the first millennium, but they're not still fighting the Romans. Probably. --Dweller 08:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This question is unanswerable because by definition a secret society is a group which is not known to exist by the general public. If the group is known to the public then it is no longer a secret society. So your question has no meaning. 202.168.50.40 06:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

But I like the heading "To know me is to be me". I agree with that, actually. Only one question - what did it have to do with secret societies? -- JackofOz 06:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Defeat of the Confederacy

Was the defeat of the Confederacy, as Lee suggested, all down to the superior resorces of the North? Hungry Hank 01:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What else? —Tamfang 02:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Skill of the soldiers, and the fact that Great Britain stopped secretely supporting the Confederacy after the North gained an international abolitionist image? --99.245.177.110 03:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In the first three years of the war the South seemed to more often have skillful generals in critical command positions. There's an interesting little book Why the North Won the Civil War which briefly examines several aspects of the question for a general audience. The most general conclusion is that if the South didn't strike a military knockout blow relatively early in the war, and wasn't able to wear down Northern morale or attract European intervention, then it was bound to lose, since in a long war of attition the North's numerical superiority in economy and population would become decisive. Of course, if Jefferson Davis had allowed the brightest minds under him (most notably Judah P. Benjamin on the civilian side and Robert E. Lee on the military side) full scope to exercise their talents -- instead of fussily trying to micromanage things, as he so often did -- then probably the Confederate cause would have been more successful over a longer period... AnonMoos 04:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think they'd have had to take Washington DC in a surprise attack, at the outset of the war, then negotiate for peace from there. The other alternative by which the Confederacy could endure would be to avoid the war entirely. StuRat 06:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there an early opportunity to take Washington, which the Southern commander declined? As for avoiding the war, the battle of Fort Sumter happened after Lincoln threatened to invade if tribute (his new tariff) wasn't paid. —Tamfang 09:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The book "Reveille in Washington" described one day when Confederate General Jubal Early (iirc) was in a position to readily take Washington D.C., due to bad timing which led to a lack of adequate troops to defend the city. The defenders turned out clerks from the War department, uniformed militia and volunteers to show a presence in the ramparts and give the appearance of a better defense than they really had. Good spying (which the Cinfederacy usually had) would have told the Rebel general the true situation and the capitol could have been taken, with much of the government. But the bravado caused hesitation and eventually regular troops arrived sufficient to properly defend the city. Edison 19:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

.110, saying the Confederacy failed because it lost British support strikes me as kinda like saying it failed because it never had Chinese support. The loss of foreign support merely unmasked the difference in strength (if it ever was masked). —Tamfang 09:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Resources" is one way to put it. The North had won the seas thanks to northern steel. Once it had that, it could make iron clads like there was no tomorrow, while the South needed the few forges and sources for cannon, etc. The control of the seas meant steaming up rivers with invulnerable ships, and that made Vicksburg vital. On land, the North had one resource in vast superiority: numbers of humans. The South won all the way to the end of the war, in land battles with Lee, but it lost in the West with some inferior generals and with lack of control of the rivers, although the confederates did some amazing things to try to even the odds. However, in the east, in the Virginia campaigns, Lee won but lost, because Grant had tens of thousands more to lose at a given battle, where Lee had no reinforcements coming. The Battle of Cold Harbor is the most grim thing imaginable. Grant lost soldiers at a terrific pace. He would lose 10,000 to Lee's 1,000 and yet be able to replace those soldiers, while every loss to Lee was a loss for good. The British "secret support" was very small, as the blockade (see Navy: none in the South) choked it almost instantly. In the West: rivers, some bad Confederate leadership, some great Union leadership. In the East: darned-near human wave tactics. In the South, though, a yet different problem for the Confederates. Because the Confederacy was built on the idea of supreme state's rights, the states did not cooperate well with one another, and the Georgia governor Joseph E. Brown was really cute. He decided that none of his troops should be sent off to be commanded by Virginians, and so he cut off all support to Lee and kept all his troops at home in a "state militia" that had no leadership at all. The army that fought Sherman in Georgia was the Western army. Once Sherman gave them the slip, he only had to face a bunch of unequipped, poorly led rabble of Joe Brown's devising. The other component of the Southern campaign was Florida and Charleston, and the South defended these very, very well to the end. So, what was it? Resources, yes, both in terms of the farms of Indiana that weren't being turned into battlegrounds (if the south wanted food, it had to send its soldiers home to farm, and if it wanted soldiers, it had to depopulate its farms), the steel and industry that was never much imperiled, stable currency from a federal power, iron, saltpeter, and federated military commands. The defensive strategy the South adopted (not attacking Washington, except for one very brief cavalry raid) was hardly a mistake, as it allowed for many of the brilliant early victories, but it meant that the South had to win quickly or not at all. Geogre 10:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I.e. William Tecumseh Sherman was a very good general, Robert E. Lee was a great general, and Ulysses S. Grant was a butcher. That's more or less the verdict of Shelby Foote, but he seems to admire Grant as a man who did what had to be done, and what had to be done was to win at any cost in lives. It's also one of those myths of the war that Gettysburg was when the Union won. In fact, Gettysburg was more or less a Confederate victory, but it is when the war turned and when the South's lack of supplies meant that it was already losing the war of attrition. (Foote also admires Bedford Forrest despite his own cruelty (and what he would do after the war, of course).) Some of those Confederate ship designs (rams, submarines, naval mines) were horrible and inventive. Utgard Loki 14:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

By the end of the war, the north could ship soldiers and equipment to the front by newly laid train tracks, while the Rebels had little food or ammunition and no shoes. Shelby Foote said the north fought with one hand tied behind its back, and if the south started to win, the north could start using the other hand. The north had four times the white population of the south at the start of the war. The South was sending young and old into battle, while the north could spare college students from the draft. More early Confederate victories might have induced Europe to break the Union blockade and trade weapons for cotton and tobacco. But crop failures in Europe and availability of cotton from Egypt made norther grain more critical than southern cotton, and the Emancipation Proclamation made supporting the south morally less appealing than merely helping part of the U.S. to separate from the rest of the U.S. There were good, mediocre and lousy generals on both sides, and good and bad luck on both sides. Ruthless Union generals (like Grant was at the end) early in the war could have ended things a lot sooner. Good politicians on both sides could have prevented over 600,000 soldiers being killed. Per American Civil War, "Based on 1860 census figures, 8% of all white males aged 13 to 43 died in the war, including 6% in the North and an extraordinary 18% in the South." Edison 19:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Foote was being very seasonable with his suggestion that the North fought with one hand. That, I think, came in the Ken Burns documentary. In his three volume The Civil War: A Narrative, he covered the reasons why the North's hands were both pretty severely tied better. The population of the North did not like the war. There was a substantial copperhead population, and there were absolutely staggering riots in New York City when the Emancipation Proclamation was made. New York was not the only site of draft riots, either, and high and low society alike was at least ambivalent about letting the South go. As it was, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and faced extreme resistance from his cabinet, his generals, and the public at large. If we look simply at materiel, then the North could never have lost a defensive war, but the rule of warfare is that the attacker must win, or he loses, while a defender need only not lose to win. The military manuals of the day, as Foote relates, suggested that any attacker facing fixed works needed nearly a 3:1 superiority in numbers to prevail. Had the North felt that it was a war of it's survival, it could have brought both fists forward and would have from the start of the war. Field leadership was very clearly superior in the South for three years of the war, and it's only in the fourth year that the North had weeded out some of its peace time promotions and Mexican War old timers to get military leaders with flexibility. The South, starting from a disadvantage and having to assemble its army, had some big, big mistakes in leadership (the beloved "fighting bishop" of Leonidas Polk), but it generally had them overruled by more able generals. Yes, resources, but no, it wasn't as if they were playing while their youth lay dead on the battlefield. That simply makes no sense. Geogre 02:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Utgard Loki, I'm not a little bemused by your suggestion that Gettysburg was 'more or less' a Confederate victory. Do you mean it was a 'victory' because Lee was able to get what was left of his army, including the remnants of George Pickett's Virginian division, safely out of Pennsylvania, much as he had withdrawn from Maryland after his defeat at the Battle of Antietam? Otherwise it can only be considered as the kind of 'victory' that that King Pyrrus himself might have understood! Clio the Muse 01:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely pyrrhic, of course, and when Pyrrhus said "a few more such victories, and I shall be ruined," this is one where the victory was the beginning of the ruin of the Southern army. It was a win, in that the South not only managed a pretty amazing retreat, but also because the South generally inflicted more casualties on the North than vice versa. As a percentage of soldiers present, even the South did not lose. However, it was the first significant time that the North didn't lose to Lee. I don't think they won at all, but they did not end up with stolen supplies (commonly before, they did), flanked, or driven back. Also, both the Gettysburg Address and other documents from the time suggest that Lincoln didn't see it as a victory, quite. In the West, the Union was routinely winning or losing in the lower case. Gettysburg allowed quite a few Union commanders to rise, as well, and show themselves as the sorts of ruthless men Lincoln needed (even though that didn't really work out). Utgard Loki 13:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the numbers? In casualties and dead, the South came out ahead, but in field objectives it was a loss. A defender who doesn't lose, wins, and that was the time when the North was on defense. Therefore the South lost, although they won the numerical game. Pickett's charge was horrible, but there had been Northern Picketts before, too. I think one reason that battle gets talked about (aside from its being a singular occasion when the Union forces don't look like bullies) is that it was an absolutely monumental failure on Lee's part. His normally excellent communications failed, and he pushed troops into untenable positions without knowing the lay of the field. (I had an ancestor at the battle who survived to the end of the war, minus a limb or two. He saved his amputated leg and insisted on being buried with it decades later, or such was family lore.) Geogre 02:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to the original question, I would say that the Civil War has always seemed to me as if there were two styles of conflict being fought side by side: the great material battle that the Confederacy was bound to lose, and the search for the 'knock out blow', which it might conceivably have won. The first kind of conflict was to emerge in a fully developed form in the Great War, a struggle between nations; between strength of will and depth of productive capacity; the kind of 'struggle in depth' rarely effected by the outcome of a single battle, no matter how large. In the Civil War one can detect evidence of this in Grant's final campaign from the Wilderness to Petersburg, particularly at Petersburg. The other kind of conflict based on the single 'knock out battle', the kind of thing that had been such a feature of earlier wars, including the campaigns of Napoleon, was what Lee looked for time and again, and why the Confederacy pursued such a high risk 'offensive-defensive' strategy. That this kind of thing was not confined to the past was to be fully demonstrated not long after the conclusion of the Civil War by the Prussians, who defeated the Austrians in such a manner, and the French not long after. Lee never found his Waterloo. Clio the Muse 01:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Catholic split: English and Scottish lines?

The Protestant Act of 1701 enabled Sophia of Hanover, a descendent of the Winter Queen of Bohemia and object of the English Gunpowder Plot, to succeed whereas the Scottish legitimists in the form of the Jacobites were left in the dust. What happened? How did an English Catholic plot result in a Protestant succession? How did a Scottish Catholic line of exiles descend from the Protestant Charles I? It doesn't make sense! Did the English and Scottish Catholics have no community and they were more politically united with their respective Protestant countrymen? Lord Loxley 02:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What "happened" is that many influential Englishmen feared that having an openly Catholic monarch would result in some form of heresy trials or inquisition against Protestants within England, and the subordination of England to its main enemy France in international affairs -- and the actions of James II did absolutely nothing to allay these fears. AnonMoos 03:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You are underestimating the breadth of the opposition to a Hanoverian succession in Queen Anne's final years. Henry St John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke wasn't a Catholic. The relevance of Guy Fawkes's cunning plan to events in 1712–1715 isn't blindingly obvious. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't an English-vs-Scots thing. Though the Stuart dynasty originated in Scotland, by 1701 no monarch had set foot there for fifty years (and that's only if we count Charles II as succeeding immediately on his father's beheading rather than at the Restoration). The only royal consort after 1603 with Scottish roots was the Late Queen Mum (daughter of an Earl of Strathmore). — James II was a Catholic convert, and (iirc) the first Catholic monarch since Bloody Mary Tudor (in England) and Mary Stuart (in Scotland); neither was a favorable precedent, and James himself had unpopular notions of his own authority. The move to depose him was triggered by the birth of a son to his second (Catholic) wife; until then, his opponents were willing to wait for one of his Protestant daughters (Mary II and Anne) to succeed him. — That the Jacobite revolt happened in Scotland may be simply because Scotland was a remote and neglected province. —Tamfang 09:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Lord Loxely. I hope you do not mind me being so direct, but you appear a little confused over some of the issues here. Before proceeding to tackle your question it might help if I clarified things, for the benefit of other readers, as much as yourself.

There was no 'Protestant Act' in 1701. There was, rather, the Act of Settlement, by which succession to the throne of England was settled on Sophia of Hanover and her descendants. The aim, of course, was to secure succession in the Protestant line, thus excluding the Catholic James Francis Edward Stuart, the son of the deposed James II. Jacobite, from Jacobus, the Latin for James, was a term coined to describe the followers of the senior Stuart line; it is not therefore technically correct to describe them thus, as you have in the above. Nor should they really be described as 'Scottish'. The line certainly originated in Scotland, though by the time of James Francis Edward it had more French and Italian blood than anything else. Only the Catholic Stuarts, moreover, were 'left in the dust', to use your expression. Queen Anne, herself a Protestant and the younger daughter of James II, was, after all, the last of the Stuarts to occupy the throne of England. Indeed, it was the death of her son Prince William, Duke of Gloucester in 1700, and the likely extinction of the Protestant Stuarts, that precipitated the Act of Settlement.

In find it really hard to make sense of your connection between the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 and the Act of Settlement. There is absolutely no causal relationship here. Nor do I understand what you mean when you say that Elizabeth of Bohemia was an 'object' of the Gunpowder Plot. It was the intention of the plotters to place her on the throne, that much is true, as a Catholic queen. But the Catholic descent from Charles I came with the conversion of his son James, while still Duke of York, in the early 1670s. In political terms this was certainly serious because of the suspicion of Catholicism and its links with Continental absolutism, though it would probably have passed without consequence if James had been remote from the succession. It became explosive because he was the only legitimate heir of Charles II, his elder brother. In the late 1670s the outbreak of the so-called Popish Plot saw serious attempts by the emerging Whig movement to have James removed altogether from the line of succession. But Exclusionism failed, and James succeeded peacefully enough in 1685, his Catholicism notwithstanding. Attempts to remove him in England by James, Duke of Monmouth, and in Scotland by Archibald Campbell, 9th Earl of Argyll were a complete failure.

There matters might have stood but for James increasing arrogance and tendency to resort to extra-parliamentary action. In particular the trial of the Seven Bishops for seditious libel led to fears that the Church of England itself was under threat. Even so, James would, in all probability, have continued to occupy the throne so long as his heir was his Protestant daughter Mary, wife of William of Orange. However, the birth of James Francis Edward in June 1688, and the prospect of a permanent Catholic line, precipitated the Glorious Revolution and all that followed, as Tamfang has described in the above.

Finally, it should be made clear that the Jacobite rising of 1689 in Scotland did not come about because the country was, as Tamfang puts it, a 'remote and neglected province'. The Jacobite movement at that time was largely confined to the west Highlands, to those clans suspicious of the return of Campbell power, yet another feature of the Glorious Revolution.

Anyway, I hope this is all clear. But please ask if you need any further information. Clio the Muse 23:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

One more small point of confusion can be cleared up - Elizabeth Stewart (later the 'Winter Queen of Bohemia') was not a Catholic. Her father, James I and VI, was brought up in the Kirk, and her mother, Anne of Denmark, as a Lutheran. This Queen Anne of Scotland, later of England, was sometimes suspected of Catholicism and managed to confuse people on the issue. She had sworn an oath at her Scottish coronation "...to withstand and despise all papistical superstitions", but also would not conform to the Kirk, nor later the Church of England. Many people (including Queen Elizabeth I in her last years) believed Anne had converted to Catholicism or else might do so. Elizabeth Stewart was only nine at the time of the Gunpowder Plot and so was seen by the Catholics as potentially malleable, especially given her mother's equivocations. However, when Elizabeth later married, her husband, Frederick V of the Electorate of the Palatinate, was a Protestant prince, and they brought up their many children as Lutherans, including Sophia of Hanover. Xn4 03:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Quibble: It became explosive because he was the only legitimate heir of Charles II, his elder brother. Do you mean in the male line? —Tamfang 16:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I should have made that clearer. Clio the Muse 23:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I made a list of Stuart descendants alive between 1688 and 1714. —Tamfang 19:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole point was: The Catholic Gunpowder Plot's motives to place Elizabeth of Bohemia on the throne, led to the Protestant succession of Sophia's son. This was an English movement, through and through. Guy Fawkes was even a soldier of the Spanish Habsburgs, like other English Jesuits and opposed to the line of Margaret Tudor. King Henry VIII barred the Scots and the English Parliament apparently respected this, after seeing that King James VI of Scots (like his son Charles) was not going to follow English customs. There was no love of the Scottish side, which preferred a Stuart-Bourbon Auld Alliance renewal and totally different way of things. The Scottish preference (how many English Jacobites?) descended from the hated Charles I, beheaded by the English for his apparent Auld Alliance which was prejudicial against England but favourable to the Scots as allies of the French--think of Queen Henrietta Maria. The political ambitions of English and Scottish were diametrically opposed and regardless of religious differences between conationals, it appears that Catholics and Protestants in each country shared more than with their coreligionists across borders. I just realised this yesterday, which made me think differently on the events and as of English descent, I feel less "guilty" or whatever for the "woes" of the Scots. It rolls off my back. The Scots wanted things one way and my ancestors wanted another. Animosity only dissipated when latent frustrations were released onto the Irish, so it really took the Pope to realise how the Protestant (Sophia of Hanover) and Catholic (Mary of Modena) branches of the Hanoverian line were what united the British. It was the introduction of foreign dynasties which lulled internal violence throughout the Britain, exported to Ireland. It just leaves one thing: why didn't the English resort to an heir of Lady Jane Grey (descent from Mary Tudor), instead of use James's daughter's line against the Scots? Is it because Elizabeth had two lines from Henry VII, plus the two Stuart lines of Mary and Lord Darnley, so they could control Scotland as well? I think the English Jesuits already tried to recruit the heirs of Mary Tudor during the plots (Babington, Throgmorton etc.) of the time when Elizabeth Tudor was queen of England, but were rebuffed/exposed and which is why they chose Elizabeth Stuart. Lord Loxley 06:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Lord Loxley, are you pulling all our legs? The Gunpowder Plot's motives didn't lead to the succession of the Hanoverians... I could go on, but it's enough to say that this looks like a castle built on sand. Xn4 23:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Lord Loxely, have you read or, more important, have you absorbed any of the responses to your original question? It would appear not, because you seem to be holding to the same errors. Your confusion over events even seems to be deepening. Please forgive me; I mean no offense; it's just that I have a Gradgrindish enthusiasm for facts. Anyway, addressing myself solely to empirical matters, and ignoring the 'manifesto' you seem to be offering here, I would, for the benefit of the community at large, as well as you, offer the following corrections.

• I repeat: there is no direct causal relationship between the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 and the accession of George I to the British throne in 1714. The latter event can be traced, in the first place, to the Glorious Revolution in 1688, and in the second, to the death of Prince William of Gloucester in 1700.

• Guy Fawkes was not a Jesuit. Where on earth did that bizarre suggestion come from!? The Jesuits as an order were not opposed to the line of Margaret Tudor. Why would they be? They may have disliked a Protestant succession; but that is a different matter altogether.

• Under the Succession Act of 1543 Henry excluded his sister Margaret and her Scottish descendants from the English succession, though this provision was later ignored, because by the closing years of the reign of Elizabeth I James Stuart emerged as the only generally acceptable heir. There was no opposition to James and Charles in Parliament because, as you put it, they did not 'follow English customs', whatever that is supposed to mean!

• The Scots effectively abandoned the Auld Alliance in the sixteenth century during the Reformation. Charles I was most assuredly not executed for his preference for the antique links between Scotland and France, but for his perceived treachery in bringing about the Second English Civil War in 1648, and because his political obduracy had created a constitutional impasse. Indeed, earlier in his career he had tried to invoke the spectre of the Auld Alliance in his appeal to the Short Parliament for funds against the Covenanter rebels in the north. The fact that he had a French wife is quite irrelevant.

• Mary of Modena had nothing to do with the Hanoverian line. Clio the Muse 23:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Tordesillas

A couple of weeks ago our Clio wrote:

English sailors first caught sight of the Falklands in the late sixteenth century. In the following century the government was to make a half-hearted claim, though under the Treaty of Tordesillas they fell within the Spanish orbit. . . .

My question: why would England give a damn for the Treaty of Tordesillas? —Tamfang 02:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The official English position was Uti possidetis... AnonMoos 03:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And that article confirms my guess, that the English state did not consider itself bound by a treaty between two Catholic powers. —Tamfang 09:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

James I said he recognized Spanish sovereignty over the lands actually in Spain's possession, but not the Spanish claims to all parts of the New World beyond the line set by the Treaty of Tordesillas. This treaty was to some degree superseded by the Treaty of Madrid of 1750. Xn4 13:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

England may not have given 'a damn', as you put it Tamfang, about the Treaty of Tordesillas itself. What it would and did 'give a damn' about was the possible consequences of intruding in the Spanish sphere of influence. The intitial seventeenth century claim was not pursued because of the political implications. In an attempt to clarify matters the question of sovereignty was raised with the Spanish in 1748, who made it clear that they would take a hostile view of any English presence. After the Seven Years War England was immeasurably stronger; so while the affair of 1770 brought Spain close to war, the country was not prepared to act without French support; hence the fudge of 1771, which left the whole question of sovereignty entirely open

On the general question of Anglo-Spanish relations, there were times when London proceeded with considerable care. For instance, the failure of the Scottish Darien scheme, an attempt to establish a trading post on the Isthmus of Panama in the days before the Parliamentary union of 1707, was in part due to the fact that William III would offer no support, not wanting to alienate the Spanish. Though the region fell within the Spanish 'sphere of influence' they had no presence in the immediate area. There was, therefore, no Uti possidetis, though that made little practical difference to the outcome. Clio the Muse 00:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be overlooking the fact that all the English settlements in North America were in defiance of the Treaty of Tordesillas. Also, Uti Possidetis was a stated English policy, while the Darien scheme was a Scottish venture, at a time when England and Scotland were two separate kingdoms which happened to have the same king. And the Spanish did in fact make use of the Isthmus of Panama as an important seasonal Atlantic-Pacific trade link. AnonMoos 03:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

North America, if you mean by this the Atlantic seaboard, was not within the Spanish sphere of influence-outwith Florida, that is-; the Falklands were. William was king of Scotland and could have extended help to the colonists, if he had been so minded. He was also, I have to stress, master of a British foreign policy, even if that was largely determined by English (or Dutch) interests. There was no Spanish presence in Darien in the late seventeenth century. As a final point I would ask you to note that there is a universe of difference bewtween observing tbe terms of a contentious treaty and understanding how specific spheres of influence operate. Anyway, I think I have pealed enough onion skins here. Clio the Muse 00:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever -- North America equally fell under the terms of the Treaty of Tordesillas, to the same degree as all of the Western Hemisphere, Oceania, and the Indian Ocean, so that all English settlements in North America were in defiance of the Treaty of Tordesillas. James the Ist enunciating Uti Possidetis in letters which he sent to Philip III in connection with the Treaty of London (1604) was stating the grounds why England would continue to send ships to areas of the new world outside of Spain's effective control. And the Spaniards didn't have much of a year-round presence in Panama, but Portobello was a seasonally-used Atlantic-Pacific trade link of great economic significance within the Spanish empire (it was how the silver of Peru got to the Caribbean). I'm really not sure what the point of your remarks was supposed to be. AnonMoos 08:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Weathercock on churchtowers

Please tell me the origin of the weathercock on churchtowers —Preceding unsigned comment added by LvdW (talk • contribs) 08:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They go back a long way – the earliest known use of a cockerel for the weather vane is from 820 A.D., on the San Faustino Maggiore in Brescia – and the origin is not really known. The German Wikipedia, in its article entitled Windrichtungsgeber, offers as a possible explanation that this is inspired by Matthew 26:74–75: "Then began he [i.e., Peter] to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly." The weathercock then supposedly admonishes us not to turn with the wind like Saint Peter did then.  --Lambiam 09:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm, the origin is kind of obvious, if you've ever lived on a farm with chickens (I suppose "free range" chickens). Roosters/cockerels/cocks absolutely love to go up high. Chickens can't fly, quite, but they can fly a bit. They can get up on the roof, and there is something quite masculine about a cock's desire to get up on top of everything to be king of all he surveys. The problem is that they're really hard to get back down, if they don't want to come down. Anyway, the roof is a common place for the rooster to go, although a bell tower is usually quite a bit beyond their range. Maybe it's more sophisticated than that, but they really do like to get up high. Geogre 10:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Where do you find a weathercock or weathervane on a church tower? Is this a lower peak than the top of the steeple? If you refer to the steeple, I usualy see them topped by a cross. "Cock" by the way is one of those words which does not travel well across the pond. Edison 19:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In the UK, many church steeples have weather cocks. It's just one of those things some of us assume are done everywhere :) There's even a song we used to sing at school: "The golden cockerel crows in the morning./Wake up children welcome the day." etc in which the cockerel comes alive. I'm sure I've read other children's stories that involved the cock on the spire coming alive, and not all of them were originally from the UK suggesting it can't just be a British practice. Skittle 22:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not all churches in the UK have a steeple (aka spire). Norman churches were built with a square tower and spires were a later (Gothic) fashion. SaundersW 21:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Apropos, I was reverted when I tried to add a link to cock throwing to our article on fox tossing. -- !! ?? 00:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In architecture, a spire isn't quite the same as a steeple. A spire is a conical or pyramidal structure tapering upwards to a point, while a steeple is any tower (though usually a church tower), with or without a spire. Thus, a steeplechase was a cross-country race towards a church tower - a spire might help but wasn't essential! Xn4 00:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In some European countries Catholic churches carry a crucifix on their steeple, while the rooster sits on top of evangelical or reformed churches. This WDR site interprets the rooster as more than one Christian symbol: 1) The bible passage quoted by Lambiam, where the rooster stands for vigilance and a reminder of Peter's renunciation of Jesus. 2) As the herald of the morning light, the rooster can also be seen as symbolizing Jesus himself. The revolvable weather vane function is a useful side effect of necessity - strong winds might bend a fixed and rigid metal silhouette, even damaging the steeple. Some churches in Northern Germany have a swan instead of a rooster. Apparently this is traced back to Jan Hus's words on the stake, where he called himself a poor goose ("hus"/"husa" in Czech), but predicted the arrival of a swan whom his adversaries wouldn't be able to roast. Luther later came to be seen as the swan in Hus's prophecy, and the swans on steeples symbolize Luther. For literary reference, there's also Hans Christian Andersen's The Farmyard Cock and the Weathercock. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(snicker) I couldn't resist the desire to excise these words from their context in Geogre's post above: "... there is something quite masculine about a cock's desire to get up ...".  :) -- JackofOz 13:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Down boy! Clio the Muse 00:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Social changes in the philippines during spanish colonizers?

I don't understand this topic and I need help about it. What are the social changes in the Philippines during spanish colonizers? Need answers right away because we will have a quiz about this topic in our Araling Panlipunan class(Social Studies)WikiPoTechizen 09:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the History of the Philippines particularly the section dealing with Spanish colonization, PoTechizen? I do have to say that I find your question so broadly based that I find it difficult to produce a tailored answer, or one that could possibly serve a quiz-like format. Perhaps the main thing for you to focus on is the spread of Roman Catholicism among the people of the northern islands, and the resistance to such expansion by the Muslims of Mindanao and the south. Also the Spanish seemed to have behaved with greater sensitivity to local feelings, at least in the north, and there seems to have been none of the brutal subjugation and forced conversions that marked their passage through the Americas. The co-option of local elites led to the creation of the Principalia, an abiding feature of Philippine society and politics. In this regard Philip II of Spain's decree of June 1594 is worth quoting at length;

It is not right that the Indian chiefs of Filipinas be in a worse condition after conversion; rather they should have such treatment that would gain their affection and keep them loyal, so that with the spiritual blessings that God has communicated to them by calling them to His true knowledge, the temporal blessings may be added, and they may live contentedly and comfortably. Therefore, we order the governors of those islands to show them good treatment and entrust them, in our name, with the government of the Indians, of whom they were formerly lords. In all else the governors shall see that the chiefs are benefited justly, and the Indians shall pay them something as a recognition, as they did during the period of their paganism, provided it be without prejudice to the tributes that are to be paid us, or prejudicial to that which pertains to their encomenderos.

As I have said, quite a difference from the Americas. Clio the Muse 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Egypt GDP

What is the forecasted GDP in Egypt for 2007,2008 and 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moatazy (talk • contribs) 14:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.economist.com/countries/Egypt/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Forecast They offer more information but it comes at a price. This publication is probably one of the most widely respected Economics publications around. Not quite what you are after but does predict growth so you could always use it to work out the GDP for the years in question. ny156uk 17:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Siena Duomo Mosaic Pavement

Please what are the 2008 dates for the complete viewing of the mosaic floor in the Siena Duomo? Katy Bedford 17:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

According to our Siena Duomo article, the uncovered floor be seen for a period of six to ten weeks each year, generally including the month of September. The 2008 dates may not have been announced yet. See also Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 13#The Siena Duomo's Pavement.  --Lambiam 14:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What if someone pays a no-limit credit card's monthly payments with the same credit card?

There are some cards out there without a spending limit, so the owner can theoretically spend as much as they'd like.

However, say the times get poor and the owner doesn't have a legitimate income. To keep living as he has been, he uses his limitless credit card.

Then to pay his minimum payments, he cashes it out from an ATM, deposits it into his bank account, and pays it from there. Or he does a "balance transfer" from his credit card to his debit card and back again. This routine could go on for the rest of his life, but would it? --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 18:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As our credit card article says : "Many credit cards can also be used in an ATM to withdraw money against the credit limit extended to the card but many card issuers charge interest on cash advances before they do so on purchases. The interest on cash advances is commonly charged from the date the withdrawal is made, rather than the monthly billing date. Many card issuers levy a commission for cash withdrawals, even if the ATM belongs to the same bank as the card issuer." - so, no, you can't avoid interest by paying off a credit card bill with the same card or even with another card. Gandalf61 18:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask about avoiding interest, I asked about whether paying the card's minimum every month with the same card would work. Also, what about balance transfers? Could the minimum payment be transferred to the bank account's debit card and back to the credit card to pay that off? Will anything happen when its owner keeps this up? --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 18:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In the process described, a cash advance was taken and used to pay the monthly minimum. The downside is there is usually a fee for the advance, and then a higher interest rate than for purchases may be applied from the date of the advance. Money is money to the card company. But each month this is done, the monthly minimum will increase. At any time, the company may decide the borrower is a poor credit risk and disallow further cash advances, or the card may reach its max limit, then the house of cards collapses. User:Donald Hosek on August 29 coined a term for this that I like :"autoponzification," as in the classic Ponzi scheme. Individuals and businesses have sometimes fallen into this practice, leading to economic failure, or perhaps just postponin the inevitable, when they start out with the intention to only do it one month. One can also use a cash advance from a new card to pay the minimum on an old card, but a credit report for the issuance of a new card might trigger a drop in credit rating and a higher interest rate on the old card. The issuer of the card may well be able to take back the "no limit" provision and refuse to allow any higher borrowing level: check the card agreement. Many issuers state that they can change the terms of the agreement when it suits them, and your only recourse would be to cancel it and continue making minimum payments. People sometimes get stuck with a string of payday loans or even juice loans from the mob, with the balance and the payments constantly increasing, without even any additional borrowing, and it rarely ends well. Even bankruptcy is no longer the kind and gentle solution to the problem that it once was in the U.S. The ironic thing is that the less able the borrower is to pay, the higher the interest climbs, to 30% and beyond. Edison 19:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Diary of a Farmer's Wife 1796-1797

The book Diary of a Farmer's Wife 1796-1797 (edited?) by Anne Hughes and published in 1964(?) is of unknown provenence. A Google search comes up with some pages saying it is fiction and some saying it is edited non-fiction. Anyone know which is correct please. -- SGBailey 18:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It is in the "Biography" section of the libraries that I checked. Most pull that data from the Library of Congress, which tells me that the LoC has it in the Biography section. As such, it would be non-fiction. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean it is all true. Many biographies are packed full of fictional information. -- kainaw™ 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article List of diarists calls this book "spurious, published 1964". If that's correct, then such made-up diaries were doing well at the time. The Diary of a Young Lady of Fashion in the Year 1764-1765 by Magdalen King-Hall is another example from the 1960s. Xn4 21:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It is listed under "Fake diaries" in List of diarists. Do you think it should be moved? -- SGBailey 21:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'd say it needs a little more research. Xn4 21:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

...fake diaries designed to deceive historians into thinking them part of the archival record. One such example is The Diary of a Farmer's Wife 1796–1797 (1964) by 'Anne Hughes' (Jeanne Preston), which was televised by the BBC and screened as an educational programme to show British schoolchildren what everyday life used to be like in rural Georgian England. Ruthven, K.K. (2001) Faking Literature, p. 45.

—eric 21:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Folio Society later published it as Anne Hughes Her Boke by "Anne Hughes [Jeanne Preston]". It was edited by Mollie Preston with an introduction by Michael Croucher (London, 1981). So a good-quality fake! Xn4 21:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, based on the his genitive, I'd have to say that the title of the latter, at least, is suspect. Did some people still insert artificial his genitives in 1796? I suppose. One can never rule these things out. However, if it were 1696 it would make more sense to have "Hughes Her Boke." Heck, that spelling of "book" belongs to an even earlier era. Most odde, if trew. Geogre 01:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I gather Anne Hughes was said to be a Herefordshire farmer's wife without any formal education. You shouldn't underestimate the way Prayer Book spellings and turns of phrase hang on in rural areas, Geogre... Thou, thee, thy and their verbal forms can still be heard in everyday speech in some parts of England. Xn4 03:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

By no means am I being argumentative, but your answer begs an interesting question -- one I didn't seek when I was working on his genitive -- are there instances of his genitives in the King James Version? I don't think we can search electronically, without much labor, but I cannot recall any. I know the 1787 American BCP, because I got one some years ago, and the 1920 (of course...being a Rite II guy), but I could understand "boke" as an isolate better than "Hughes her." It could be a Middle English holdover, because there was a somewhat rare ME intensifier genitive. (Well, folks, someone has to be interested in things like whether "her book" occurs.) Geogre 10:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Geogre, I only meant it's more or less plausible as a fake, not that Anne Hughes her boke is a genuine survival. As I recall, the his genitive doesn't properly include a her genitive. No, I can't think of any his genitives in the King James Bible. If there are none, we can thank its translators again for being highly literate men: linguists, indeed. Xn4 11:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The his genitive article mentions briefly the OE and ME "her genitive," but I'll be honest and say that I never felt like we had good information. I was reading Baugh and others, and yet I just don't feel confident in the conclusions people reach. Even those old timers with their "A preface to the study of Old English personal pronouns in genitive and dative cases in West Midlands 900-980" seem shaky on this point. I didn't look at Krapp, but I don't have access to his books these days. Geogre 02:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Lighting on this discussion more than three years after it occurred, I am astonished that this fraud seems to have been accepted in all seriousness by Suzanne Beedell and others, rather than at the actual content of the "diary". No one who has read just a few diaries or commonplace books of the time can possibly be fooled by it. It is full of little errors and seems to be written in a phonetic rendering of turn-of-the-century English. I note that the editor (1964 edition, anyway) refers to the "typescript" and not to any original manuscript. I am sure that Mrs Jean Preston, who was presumably the author, derived enormous pleasure from seeing it serialised in the Farmer's Weekly Home Section, and I hope she survived long enough to see the hardback edition in print. Nick Michael (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Utopia fonts

Hi. I've just used a font of the Utopia family for a presentation and started wondering about this font family. Who designed it and when? How did it get on my computer? I somehow remember that it is an older font, pre-dating the digital era, maybe from mid of the 20th century. Does anybody know more? An article on it would be great. Simon A. 18:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

see Robert Slimbach. It says "His time at Adobe Systems in California has seen the production of, among others, the "Utopia" (1988). See also [1] for more info on the font. Edison 19:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Spanish word

Which Spanish word sounds exactly like the French "quoi"? --99.245.177.110 19:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

cua? SaundersW 21:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That answer is wrong. Cua is Catalan, and this is a translation of it. I'm crossing out the answer. In fact, the word "cua" does not exist in Spanish. The Evil Spartan 16:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There's also the word cuál. It doesn't sound exactly like quoi, but it's the closest I can get with my rusty Spanish. Xn4 02:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a riddle, but a very common word in Spanish; it means something like "who" or "what". --99.245.177.110 03:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you wanted the language ref desk. In any case, cuall is the closest word. I think you may be mistaken. The Evil Spartan 18:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What is this gaping tomb?

Consider the following written in 1856 when he was visiting a natural formation in Malta known as "The Devil's Punch-bowl." "I had to make a precipitate retreat from the Devil’s Punch-bowl, around which, as about the gaping tomb of Wizard Scott, beings not good to gaze upon were beginning to accumulate." The following footnote was added: "Possibly refers to Sir Walter Scott who was known as “The Wizard of the North” after publishing several novels anonymously." If the editor is correct in identifying the wizard as Sir Walter Scott, what does the "gaping tomb" refer to?69.201.141.45 20:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Linnaeus

Sorry, I don't know how to edit you into a new question...

The "Wizard Scott" is referred to by Walter Scott in the "Lay of the Last Minstrel, canto two, XIII

     ``In these far climes it was my lot
     To meet the wondrous Michael Scott,
         A wizard, of such dreaded fame, 
     Than when, in Salmanca's cave,
     Him listed his magic wand to wave,
         The bells would ring in Notre Dame! 
     Some of his skill he taught to me;
     And Warrior, I could say to thee
     The words that cleft Eildon hills in three,
         And bridled the Tweed with a curb of stone: 
     But to speak them were a deadly sin;
     And for having but thought them my heart within,
         A treble penance must be done.

He was a real person, living in the C13, and his burial place is disputed, maybe Home Coltrame, in Cumberland; maybe Melrose Abbey. However his books are supposed to be buried with him.SaundersW 21:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The relevant article is at Michael Scot, but Scott does seem to be the more common spelling. Tytler's Lives of Scottish Worthies has a chapter on Scott and can be read or downloaded through Google books. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Devil's Punch Bowl does not say - is the devil particularly partial to fruit cups? -- !! ?? 00:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sir John Gardner Wilkinson had remarked upon "The Devil's Punchbowl" in Malta some years earlier in his travels in Dalmatia: "The Yesaro, or lake, is a natural sinking of the rocky mountain surface, like that in Malta called "the Devil's punch-bowl' and others in similar limestone formations, where a border of precipitous cliffs surrounds a low piece of ground, which is either cultivable soil, or covered with water." (Wilkinson, Dalmatia and Montenegro: With a Journey to Mostar in Herzegovina... 1848: ch. viii:141) I suppose your footnote reveals the local name for the Maltese "Devil's Punchbowl", a familiar Anglophone designation for cirques and other features, but unlikely in lands where punch had been unknown before the quite recent arrival of the British.. --Wetman 00:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Company owners

Don't know if this question belongs here or on the science desk but here goes... I'm tying to find the names of the owners of a company based in Shanghai, PRC doing business in the United States and going by the name of Golden Motor or Golden Island Machinery. I need this information because I suspect the company is selling products that do not pass line inspection in the PRC and instead of being held at the end of the line for repair are sold to this company which in turn dumps them on buyers in the USA. How do I find the name of the owners so I can write them a letter and ask them if this is what is going on? Clem 20:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This page gives some details of a 'Golden Island Machinery Ltd', described as "a private company founded in 1996, located in Changzhou, Jiangsu province". On your last sentence, it seems a little naive to expect anything but a robust No to the question you are meaning to ask! Xn4 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Union of the Crowns

What was the political impact of the Union of the Crowns? SeanScotland 20:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In practical terms the Union introduced a dangerous imbalance in the politics of the 'whole Isle', so to speak. Scotland maintained its functional independence, including its own Parliament and Privy Council, though significant powers slipped away to the south, including control over matters of defence and foreign policy, which remained prerogatives of the crown. The Privy Council was left to micro-manage national affairs in the north, which worked well enough so long as there was no extraordinary developments. But the control and co-ordination of three separate kimgdoms, including that of Ireland, was difficult enough even for the British Solomon. The succession of Charles I brought to the throne a man whose wisdom was not of a highest order, to say the very least. His attempts to dictate religious policy to the reluctant Scots induced a crisis over which his northern Privy Council simply lost control. What happened next was to show the limitations of nations united solely by a personal union; independent yet centralised under an absolute monarchy. The Union of the Crowns was, in the long run, politically unsustainable. Clio the Muse 01:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I initially read the question as "What was the political impact of the Union of the Clowns? and was looking forward to reading Clio's no doubt erudite and witty response about clowns uniting to form a workers' representative body to advocate for better pay and working conditions and how that affected the government of the day. Sadly, it wasn't until the reference to Charles I that it began to dawn on me that it was something else entirely. --Roisterer 03:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Miller's Circus Amok

Also known as the Union of the Clowns! Clio the Muse 03:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Politics

What's the difference between the viewpoints of republicans and democrats? Thanks. --24.76.248.193 21:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Screams of homework but how about checking out Republican and Democrat for starters. Then look at areas such as conservatism and liberalism, socialism - also check out their respective websites and see how they fit into ideological systems such as these. The differences range throughout history form being striking to being barely noticeable. It all depends on the public/situation of the day. ny156uk 22:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither major political party has anything to do with Socialism. Corvus cornix 16:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I live in North America so right now it's NOT HOMEWORK. You can go ahead and give me article references but I'm looking for a simple comparison. Thanks again. --24.76.248.193 01:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

They slide around. On almost every issue, the two parties have swapped sides at least once over their histories. Specify historical period. Geogre 01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Really terrific work on this has been done by Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal[2] with their D-NOMINATE and DW-NOMINATE programs for multidimensional scaling, which find that Congressional roll-call votes over history can be mapped quite nicely onto two dimensions, and follow the individuals of each party along through time. If you can find the original animated gif of 1879-2000 online somewhere ([3] doesn't come up any more for me) it's a real hoot to "see the two great clusters circle each other, trying to capture the center".[4] "The first dimension can be interpreted in most periods as government intervention in the economy or liberal-conservative in the modern era. The 2nd dimension picks up the conflict between North and South on Slavery before the Civil War and from the late 1930s through the mid-1970s, civil rights for African-Americans. After 1980 there is considerable evidence that the South realigns and the 2nd dimension is no longer important... Finally, the past few Congresses are nearly unidimensional with correct classifications of 90 percent or better."[5] Gzuckier 16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that you haven't received a straightforward answer yet. I will give it: the Republicans are the conservatives of the United States. They generally support socially conservative measures: they are for the death penalty, and against legalized abortion or homosexual "rights" legislation. They are also economically conservative, meaning they tend to favor lower taxes and the well-being of companies over the individual, and oppose such measures as universal health care. The Democrats are liberals, meaning they favor legalized abortion and homosexual "rights", are ambivalent about the death penalty (but support it less than the Republicans), and tend to support greater government spending and favor the rights of the individual over that of the corporation. Liberals in general tend to be more pacifist (in whatever country they hail from), so Democrats are much less likely to support any armed conflict, particularly the Iraq war. The Evil Spartan 16:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

One or two small historical observations here. It was a a Liberal Prime Minister who took England into the First War and yet another Liberal who led the country to victory; just as it was a Democrat who took the United States down the same road. It was a Democrat also who presided over American involvement in the Second World War, and yet another Democrat who was responsible for a huge escalation in the war in Vietnam. In general I would say that while liberals may be opposed to war as an act of policy, they are not beyond fighting if they believe the cause to be just. Clio the Muse 00:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with almost none of that. Democrats are moderate and liberal. Republicans are generally conservative, with very few moderates left. There are many Democrats in office who oppose abortion, favor capital punishment, and/or oppose further gun regulation, but there are virtually no Republicans left with any variation. Democrats tend to be the party of social responsibility, and Republicans tend to be the party of business "rights" and laissez-faire, but they are also now the party against civil rights expansions in all forms. Other than that, little meaningful may be said. Listen to particular candidates on particular issues, and never trust anyone who says "Liberals want...." Utgard Loki 19:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a common theme that social-interest is ony pursued through social welfare. Both parties exist and are founded on systems that try and produce the best society - they merely have differing ways of helping. One party may believe legal abortion is the best route to a better society, another that it is not. I couldn't disagree more regarding moderate Republicans. This desire to paint one side as reasonable and another as unreasonable is foolish. According to the wikipedia article on republicans there are 55 million registered Republicans, it would be simplistic in the extreme to suggest that they all stand as one voice. The truth is that variety across the party (and its members) is huge, this is the same for the democrats and any other party out there. We the public struggle to comprehend this as it makes it difficult to generalise/make statements but be weary of tarring all people of one party with the same brush. In the Uk you have 'one nation tories', 'thatcherites', 'classic liberals', 'modernists', 'traditionalists' and many other factions all in one party! ny156uk 22:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the line was "few moderates left" (in office). Of course there are moderate persons who call themselves Republican, and on the local level there may be some like Michael Bloomberg who are in that party (no more, of course) and yet disagree with the planks of the national platform. However, in Congress, both House and Senate, there is extremely little variation among the Republicans and almost as little unity among the Democrats. Why this is is a matter for study. Most people attribute it to Newt Gingrich's use of funding, explicit threats, and the like when he was Minority whip that then got embraced as The Way. No one thinks abortion is the way to the social good, that I've ever met. They may think that it is the legal right of a mother to make the decision and that this level of freedom is necessary, but I don't know anyone, including NARAL who have ever said that abortion is good. Geogre 02:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick response...There is variance in voting habits of republicans (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_1.htm - look at few will show this). They think that legal abortion is better for society than it being banned (and vice-versa) - both believe that their choice creates a better society either because of increased freedom of choice for women, or increased moral standards for society. Again the republican party (and its representatives in power) has a wide variety of viewpoints, just as the democrat party does. ny156uk 16:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we could have this question asked. Not that it stoked any partisan feelings or venting or anything - e.g., "I do not support abortion (hint: I never said you did) and there are no Republican moderates left. Perhaps I know to no longer answer honestly any question about politics anymore. The Evil Spartan 18:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

GOP?

What does GOP stand for? It's often used in newspapers and such when talking about government- or politics- related issues, but I don't what it means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graciepoooo (talk • contribs) 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Republican Party (United States) nicknamed Grand Old Party.--Tresckow 21:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• That answer is 100% correct, but it's also worth knowing that the Grand Old Party is not the oldest party in the United States -- the Democratic Party (United States) is older. --M@rēino 17:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Also, the old Democratic party had ideals more similar to current Republicans than Democrats. · AndonicO ^Talk 20:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. It is just a shorthand to say "Republican Party." It's a little silly at this point; I don't think anyone worries about what it actual means, it just makes it easier to have headlines that say "GOP RILED BY GAY SEX SCANDAL" whenever the next self-righteous, homophobic politician is found to actually be a self-loathing closeted homosexual. ;-) --24.147.86.187 01:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graciepoooo (talk • contribs) 03:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Pont de diable - south france

How high is the pont du diable?

Caroline172.203.240.143 21:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't answer your question exactly, but it crosses a deep gorge of the River Hérault and is said to be the oldest mediaeval bridge in France. There's an image here. Xn4 22:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Devil's Bridge lists seven "Ponts du Diable" in France, including the above mentioned Pont du Diable, Hérault. -- !! ?? 00:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's good, User:!!! Caroline's question may not be about the one I knew of and might make more sense if it's about one of those others in the south of France, especially the one at Valentré. I still don't know the answer to the question, but just look at the Valentré bridge, it's tall. Xn4 02:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this input. It is the bridge crossing the River Herault to which I am referring. The reason for the interest is that my son decided to jump from the top! If anyone has any ideas, or estimates of likelies I would still be interested in a response - thanks Caroline217.38.125.254 16:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia's image shows people standing on the bridge, it's easy to make an estimate. Look at the man(?) near the center of the bridge in a dark shirt and white pants. From his belt to the top of his head is 12 pixels. He looks fairly tall, so let's estimate that height at 2.4 feet. Now look at the far end of the bridge where the base meets the water. It's just over 200 pixels from the waterline up to the parapet. Now we have to correct for these points being at different distances from the camera. Looking at the angles at the bases of the arch, I think the rock foundation comes higher on the center pier than on the far side abutment, so I estimate that the distance of 140 pixels from the near end of the far arch up to the parapet corresponds to maybe 105 pixels at the far end. So the height from water to parapet is about 2.4 x 200/12 x 140/105 = about 53 feet. Allowing for the inaccuracies in estimating, I would say it's pretty safe to say that the answer is between 40 and 65 feet (or between 12 and 20 meters). --Anonymous, 22:12 UTC, September 5, 2007.

IS the Little Red Book in Public Domain?

I'm attempting to start a Librivox project to record the Quotations of Mao Tse tung as an audiobook. However before the project can begin I need to be sure that it is in public domain. Now while I realize the book was published in 1966 as far as I know the English translation was done by a government agency of the PR of China "Foreign Language Press". Since the 1980s I'm not aware of any new printings from that body. I would think that it would be in public domain just from it being a government document and thats further strengthend by the government basically abandoning any claims for the last 30 years. In addition just about every English translation currently availible in the web makes clear that it is in the public domain. http://librivox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10188 --Jacobin1949 23:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It could very well be in the public domain, but the determination of whether it's in the public domain would have very little to do with most of the factors you mentioned... AnonMoos 03:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Does it count as a government document? It is a work of Mao Tse-tung; whether it is considered a work in his capacity as general secretary (and thus a work of the government) is a question I can't ask, but that's the sort of question that would be asked if it were something like a The Quotations of George W. Bush.

2. Whether it is published in the 1980s or not makes no difference. Since China is a party to the Berne convention technically the original publication could still be copyrighted.

3. Whether the translations are public domain depends on whether the source material is public domain. If it is not, then the translations are technically not public domain, as they are derivative works.

All that being said, I have no idea what its copyright status is. Without definitive proof to the contrary I would lean towards thinking it is protected. There was an extended discussion on Wikisource awhile back about this, and they concluded it was probably not public domain, but you might take a look at it. --24.147.86.187 01:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)