Humanities desk
< January 25	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 27 >

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.

January 26

Theoretical stance of Australian Labour and Liberal parties

Could someone advise me as to what is the theoretical stance of the Australian Liberal and Labour parties? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.172.126.65 (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stance on what issue specifically? Wikipedia has articles titled Australian Labor Party and Liberal Party of Australia which discusses the parties political philosophies in some detail. Is that what you are looking for? --Jayron32 05:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Revolution reasons

What were major reasons for the Russian Revolution (and later the Russian Civil War)? Was World War I was a reason? Is it likely that if WWI was reduced to the July Crisis that the revolution would happen at all? Thanks! 64.229.180.189 (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a homework question? It sounds like one. I'm guessing from your reference to the July Days that you mean the October Revolution; that article should provide some useful pointers. Note that "if not for X, would the revolution have happened at all?" questions are never going to be definitively settled. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The reasons for the Russian Revolution are multitudinous and not easily explained in a few sentances. Which is why I am going to try to do just that. Several issues:

Backwardness of Russia towards its lower classes, especially compared to other contemporary societies. Socially, Russia had been at least a century "behind the times" compared to other societies. Russia ended serfdom only 50 years before this, see Emancipation reform of 1861. Most Western societies, with whom the Russian monarchy had long tried to align itself, had ended such state long before then. Russia was still an agrarian society even in the early 20th century, the "Industrial Revolution" had completely skipped Russia. When people are in a backwards state, and are aware that they are in such a state, because the rest of the world is "passing them by", this is a recipe for disaster. This created a lot of tension within Russian society, a tension capitalized on by the Bolsheviks et al.
Russia had been "revolting" for some decades before the "Big one". The importance of things like the Revolution of 1905, the February Revolution followed by the ineffectiveness of the Alexander Kerensky-led Russian Provisional Government, etc. cannot be underestimated. In large part, the most famous phase of the revolutions, the October Revolution that swept the Communists into power, was largely a result of said Communists taking advantage of a situation rather than causing it directly themselves. Russia had been weakened by others for some time, and the Communists shrewdly waited until they could capitalize on it.
Russia's failures in WWI cannot be discounted at all; many Russians felt that the War was going badly. Initially, there was widespread support for the War, but it became perceived that the Russian leadership was screwing it up badly. Sadly, the Karensky government continued to fight the war, but had little more success (see Kerensky Offensive). Indeed, it is likely that the decision to continue in the war, more than anything else, is what brought down Karensky's government and led to the October revolution, as Lenin's group espoused withdrawal from the war almost from the first.

All of these ideas probably fed the stew that was necessary to create the conditions for the October revolution. Had Russia more agressively modernized, socially, or had Russia been more effective in fighting the war, or had the Karensky government withdrawn from the war and concentrated on securing the homefront rather than fighting a foreign war, etc. etc. then the Bolsheviks may not have ever been able to gain power. The Bolsheviks never represented anything like the majority will of the Russian people, what they had was shrewed timing, good strategy, and a willingess to be brutal. That will carry a well-organized group a LONG way in bringing themselves into power. --Jayron32 17:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bolsheviks also had some help from the Germans [1], because they (correctly) thought it would hasten Russia's exit from the war. They didn't foresee the consequences. Alansplodge (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that the book you've linked to in defense of that is a little bit nutty — grand conspiracy theories about Wall Street and the Bolsheviks mixed with the idea that FDR and Hitler are more or less the same (see Antony C. Sutton). He doesn't go down the standard anti-Semitic path, but I wouldn't call it reliable. It doesn't detract from your point (which is true nonetheless) other than looking like a semi-arbitrarily chosen source... --Mr.98 (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, how embarrassing. It really was "a semi-arbitrarily chosen source". Is this better? Alansplodge (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the causes in a nutshell. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That source mentions Rasputin, which I also planned to mention. He was very unpopular, and his association with the royal family made them very unpopular, too. Other Russian aristocrats, not wanting the whole system to be dragged down by him, killed him off, but apparently too late. StuRat (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rasputin's role in causing the revolution tends to get WAY overblown because he's a wacky character, and wacky characters make a good narrative. But ultimately, Rasputin is a product of the Great Man theory way of thinking about history; that individuals with powerful personalities can move history. If you really get down do it, Rasputin's role was to alienate the royal family from the rest of the Russian nobility, but I'm not sure that had much to do with the social and economic factors that led to the widespread unrest during the first decades of the 20th century. It would be like claiming that Monica Lewinsky caused the Dot-com bubble at the end of the 1990s. Just because Rasputin was "in the news" and was damaging to the credibility of the royal family doesn't mean he had much to do with the Revolution. Being around at the same time doesn't make one a cause of the events. --Jayron32 05:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A relatively minor thing can be a trigger, even if it's not a deep, underlying cause. StuRat (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cartilage, Curtilage

So I read this: "the farmhouse where [person A] and his family lived, which is within the cartilage of the farm". I've never heard of "cartilage" as an architectural term, so I looked it up in the OED, which listed no meaning that made sense in this context. But there is the similar word "curtilage" (a small court, yard, garth, or piece of ground attached to a dwelling-house, and forming one enclosure with it, etc), which does make sense in this context.

Normally I would just dismiss the original usage of "cartilage" as a typo, but where I saw it was a judgment of the High Court of England and Wales, and you'd expect judges (or their associates) to know technical legal terms (which OED suggests "curtilage" to be); plus a brief google search turns up a few mentions of "cartilages" in relation to farm houses. So does anyone know if there is a possible meaning of "cartilage" that would make sense here, or is it really a typo? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Curtilage" seems to be a term in common use with UK planning authorities: "The term "curtilage"... refers to the land in the ownership of the householder, thus including any buildings, driveways and gardens within your property boundary."[2] See also [3]. I strongly suspect that this is a spellcheck error; a "Did you mean cartilage?" sort of thing. Alansplodge (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably an autocorrect error. I work for a housing authority, and have to type the word "curtilage" from time to time. The spellchecker doesn't recognise it, and if autocorrect is on it'll always change it to "cartilage". --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the US: Curtilage.Sjö (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm surprised that Microsoft omit "curtilage" from their spelling dictionary (as do other electronic dictionary providers) because it is actually an older word than cartilage, going back to the thirteenth century, according to the OED. I've just added "curtilage" to two custom dictionaries. Does anyone know of a list of words that "ought" to be in spellcheck dictionaries but are often missing, then I could add them all at once. Wiktionary is too inclusive for my purposes because it includes many common mis-spellings and words of dubious authenticity. Dbfirs 12:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Girard, Philadelphy

Dear Sir, Madame,

I have been looking into Stephen Girard's Records: The City, The Co0llege, etc.

The Information I have from my father, as I was born after my Grand'Father died. is to the effect that the family history and there are recorded genealogy to this effect; Three Girard brother, from France were sailors, navigators, (a shipwreck is possible) have landed in the Quebec Province, (close to Quebec City, at La Malbaie or Baie St Paul).

I was told that One of them migrated in Lake St John area, another remained at Aux Éboulements, and the third migrated to the U.S.A. at the begining he would have been a trader, ammunitions as well as slaves, to later become a State Governor, and then interested in educationb,

Bsicly he would have landed, willfully or by accident in Charlevoix, Québec, with two brothers.

Yours truly,

P. S. I like Wikipedia and use it often, I would appreciate the possibility to contact by PostMail, even receive literature about Wikipedia.

Yours truly

l'ancien — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.152.115 (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A genealogist would ask: Was "Stephen Girard" the grandfather? What do you mean by "The City, The Co0llege, etc.." You searched the records of some identified city and college associated with your family history, or is there a city and college named for Girard? What were the names of the brothers? When did they land ? Which one migrated to the US? Any idea of their birth or death dates? Ancestry.com has lots of data files, such as Census files, and family histories. It would be a good starting point. Edison (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you might be offering new information about Stephen Girard rather than asking a question. If you would like to present the information for discussion, you should post it at Talk:Stephen Girard.--Cam (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Stephen Girard mentions that he had relative in France when he died, who contested his will, but does not mention brothers, nor any connection with Canada. A reference in the article , [4], says he "came to America by way of Philadelphia in 1776" having earlier visited New York. It says he was the oldest of 9 children. (The Wikipedia article on the college says 14 children. His parents would have been pretty busy if he had 13 siblings under the age of 11, his age when she died. I will change it to 9 per the ref from the bio article). He went to sea in 1764 around age 14. No shipwrecks are mentioned. You might read "Biography of Stephen Girard," (1832) written by Stephen Simpson, available online via Google Books. I could find nothing in that biography, or in Google Book Search connecting Girard to Charlevoix, Quebec. The biography on page 37 says his brother, Captain John Girard, arrived in the US, and they formed a business at "Cape Française " (likely Cap Française, Haiti, now named Cap-Haïtien) called Girard, Bernard and Lacrampe." There was a falling out and the firm was broken up in 1790, with John getting $60,000 and Stephen $30,000. Page 42 says John died and left a large estate. Stephen's famous will, reprinted at the end of the book, mentions (Section IX) his brother Etienne Girard, who was bequeathed land near Bordeaux, France, and his late sister Sophia Girard Capayron of France. Other nieces and nephews are mentioned, but I did not find brothers named other than John of North America and Etienne of France. On page 20 of the will (number 6) Stephen Girard says New York was the "first port on the continent of North America at which I arrived," thus refuting the idea that he first landed in Quebec. A more modern biography, not available to read online, but widely available in libraries, is "Lonely midas. The story of Stephen Girard" by Harry Emerson Wildes, 1944. The widely discussed litigation about the will seems to indicate that he had no other living siblings or children of siblings when he published the will in 1830. Edison (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]