Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 December 10

= December 10 =

Masque of Anarchy
What does the poet Shelly mean by the lines "I met Murder on the way-he had a mask like Castlereagh." Cryinggame (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Masque of Anarchy is a political poem, written in 1819 after the Peterloo Massacre. Shelly was very critical of the reactionary British government of the day, placing particular blame for its oppressive policies on Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh, the Foreign Secretary, giving Murder his face.  Clio the Muse (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, man, that was quick!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryinggame (talk • contribs) 03:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Muses generally are! Viscount Sidmouth and the Earl of Eldon are also 'named and shamed' Lord Foppington (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Throne speeches
One of the more peculiar aspects of Commonwealth political traditions to me is the throne speech, in which the monarch or governor general reads the government's major policy speech at the opening of Parliament.

The person speaking reads someone else's speech. Queen Elizabeth is speaking, but it's the words of Gordon Brown and his cabinet. In the case of a governor general who might be a retired politician, he may wind up reading a speech he completely disagrees with, although of course as a neutral figure, he can't object to it in public.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the prime minister to read his or her own opening speech rather than have the queen or governor general do it? Why not have the queen open Parliament with a neutral, ribbon-cutting-event type speech, then have the policy speech read by an actual politician? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Government is carried out in the Queen's name, not that of some fly-by-night, here today & gone tomorrow politician. DuncanHill (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd hardly call Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair fly-by-night politicians! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The limited role of the monarch in UK politics is to 'Counsel, warn, advise and assist'. By being advised and included in the framing of the speech (even if the monarch dissagrees with the content), the Queen is able to discuss the content and make such comments as are appropriate. Yes, even Thatcher was a here today, gone tomorrow politician! The Queen has met most of the worlds national leaders and in many cases has a greater understanding of their underlying personality. She provides a degree of continuity and political memory that would not be available between changes of government. History has has shown that in some cases a quiet 'personal' phone call from the monarch can be more valuable than months of political negotiations with foreign nation states. Remember what she actually says when eading the speech is 'my government will introduce a bill to ....' A bit like saying in many cases - "these bufoons are planning to screw things up again, but unfortunately I have to read this rubbish and can only look on in bemusement". 85.187.230.2 (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not limited to the UK and the Commonwealth. The same occurs in the Netherlands (see Prinsjesdag) and Belgium. A  ecis Brievenbus 09:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not occur in Belgium, to my knowledge. The PM has a kind of 'State of the Union' thing, yes, and the King has his annual speech around Christmas, but those are his own words, not those of the government. Random Nonsense (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It gives the whole event a far greater dignity if the programme is read from the throne, a reminder of the original source of authority in the constitution; and compared with the monarchy all politicians, even politicians as formidable as Margaret Thatcher, are such stuff as dreams are made on. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand how the involvement of the monarch or governor general in the opening of Parliament adds dignity to the proceedings, but I still think it would make more sense for her to read a typical "queen" speech of her own words rather than for her to read the government's program. I can imagine Canada's governor general, for instance, reading Stephen Harper's throne speech and thinking, "Gosh, these are some really stupid ideas." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing is that if the queen says anything in public in her own words - no matter whether laudatory, condemnatory or indifferent - about what the government is about to embark on, she'll be seen as being associated with political processes. Her concern is about government, not politics, and she cannot be seen to be politicising herself or the crown in even the slightest way.  Impartiality must not only be the hallmark of royalty, it must be seen to be so (if I can paraphrase Lord Hewart).  Nevertheless, government is conducted in her name, and her assent is required for every act of parliament to come into effect, so it's appropriate that she be involved in every new chapter of government and parliament.  The only way she can do this in a public setting while remaining strictly impartial is for her to read a speech that the government has written, and much more importantly, to be seen to be doing so.  Even if she committed to memory the speech that Gordon Brown wrote for her, and recited it without the use of notes, that would still give the appearance of the words being her own.  That would be an unacceptable perception.   --  JackofOz (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Alamo
Guys, last night I watched The Alamo (2004 film), which was shown for the first time on British TV. It's not the best movie I've ever seen, though I thought it a lot better, in historical terms, than the old John Wayne movie of 1960. My question is this: why was it so badly received when first released in the States? Was it because it challenged accepted historical myths? Clio the Muse (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unreferenced OR: I thought it was an excessively boring movie, except perhaps Billy Bob Thornton, but we've seen him do better too. I lived in the U.S. at the time it came out, and I remember a lot of people and reviews sharing that opinion. ---Sluzzelin talk  04:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A tangent - what was the American reaction to Julian Rathbone's Birth of a Nation, which deals, amongst other things, with the Alamo affair? What, indeed, was Clio's reaction too? DuncanHill (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I cannot comment on Birth of a Nation, Duncan, because I have not read it; but I hugely admire Birth of a Nation (not very politically correct, I know!) Clio the Muse (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A survey of reviews seems to indicate that most reviewers just thought it was a dull movie. If I were to guess, and reading a little bit more into the reviews, the challenging of myths wasn't so much of the contention as that things which take pains to be historically accurate are often less interesting than the myths they have spawned. Historical accuracy by itself counts for pretty much nothing in the eyes of American moviegoers; it is secondary to good entertainment. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, saying some of the same things as anon.)

I think the lukewarm reaction to the Alamo is a reflection of Hollywood's difficulty in reconciling exciting old tales with modern sensibilities. The traditional Alamo story is that of the heroic last stand, but political correctness (for lack of a better term) has made that version of the story problematic. A modern version of the Alamo could have anti-heroes dying in a pointless bloodbath, Wild Bunch-style, but Sam Peckinpah is dead and Hollywood no longer makes big-budget nihilism. (Lucas and Spielberg killed it, though Kubrick kept it on life support.) Or you screw political correctness and give the audience a band of heroes standing up against a horde of mouth-breathing villains, 300-style. But what you can't do—and what the filmmakers ended up doing—it try to have it both ways. Popular audiences who go to big action movies don't want moral ambiguity—they want the bad guys blowed up real good. Alas, myth works better than history as popular entertainment.

I don't think American audiences were offended because the film challenged historical myths—I don't think the general public even knows those myths that well anymore. (A joke among Daniel Boone biographers is that people think he fought at the Alamo.) Popular moviegoers just want an exciting story with good guys to root for. The Alamo is no longer a story that can deliver that sort of thrill without offending modern sensibilities. Now, if the Texans were fighting an army of orcs....

The one really successful part of the film was Billy Bob's characterization of Davy Crockett, which managed to slyly criticize the traditional stereotype of the American frontiersman while at the same time giving the audience an entertaining screen hero. With Crockett, the filmmakers almost solved the riddle of how to make the Alamo into modern entertainment, but the rest of the film, while more historically accurate than previous tales, falls rather flat for a big action flick. —Kevin Myers 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Texans against orcs? I thought Texans were orcs...sorry, sorry; I'm only kidding; honestly I am!  Yes, Kevin, Mr Thornton's depiction of Davy, sorry, I mean David Crockett, was indeed one of the best parts of the movie; a thoughtful interpretation of a vulnerable, somewhat self-effacing but entirely memorable human being.


 * Thanks for all of your responses. Alas, another illusion gone!  I had assumed that the American education system was partly about the creation and the preservation of abiding historical myths; of truths, half-truths and inventions about cherished historical figures.  Anyway, I still think the defence of the Alamo is a thrilling story; and I prefer my entertainment minus myth, and my heroes, in the ancient Greek style, to be flawed, rather than perfect!  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember a film that came out in the 1960s, I believe, that was a comedy about the Alamo. It takes place in modern (well, 1960s) times, and the hero was a Mexican who was a descendant of Santa Ana (the General of the Mexican Army at the Battle of the Alamo), who got together a handful of his friends to invade Texas and retake the Alamo. I've looked for this movie, but can't seem to find it. Does anyone remember this movie? Saukkomies 14:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I watched it a few weeks ago. It starred Peter Ustinov as the Mexican general. DuncanHill (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We have an article - Viva Max!. DuncanHill (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks DuncanHill! That's it! Heh! What a politically incorrect movie that was! Saukkomies 14:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

George Brown College General Science and Arts Schedule Arts
I don't know if this is the right place to ask but my question is there any place where I can see how a George Brown College timetable sample, for students taking General Science and Arts One-Year Certificate program, look like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.215 (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're more likely to get a reply if you write an e-mail to that college's administration and ask them. Sandstein (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And you can start here, the General Science and Arts One-Year Certificate webpage. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Reconstruction and its results on former slaves
I have been working on these essay questions for my AP Untited States history class. I have one more question left and I need help. Any help that you give me will be greatly appreciated!!

Analyze the extent in which the failure of Reconstruction (1865-1877) affected the economic, social, and political opportunities of former slaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.131.187 (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You can find some material in our articles Jim Crow laws, Lynching in the United States, and Disfranchisement after the Civil War. --Lambiam 13:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You might also examine the reasons behind why Reconstruction failed. Those reasons are key to understanding what happened to Southern African Americans after Reconstruction. It is almost certain that had Lincoln lived Reconstruction would have taken on a much different form than it did under the hands of the Radical Republicans in Congress, who seemed to want to punish the Southerners for the war. Instead of trying to work through existing social structures in the South, Reconstruction sought to completely change Southern society, which resulted in effectively creating an enormous backlash against the African Americans it sought to help in the first place. The result was that it may be argued that due to Reconstruction, that Civil Rights for African Americans took longer to realize than had things gone differently after the war's end with the more organic approach to change that Lincoln was proposing. Saukkomies 14:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Interfaith sex in medieval Europe
I am reading a book on Jewish life in the Middle Ages. Here's a passage that leaves me with questions: "The Siete Partidas reiterates the requirement that Jews wear distinguishing marks as a safeguard against inadvertent sexual mingling."

I assume medieval society was very conservative, so how could these liaisons be so casual that they don't know each others religion? Confined to prostitution?

lots of issues | leave me a message 05:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a famous requirement, probably stemming from the Fourth Lateran Council, where the last Canon, 68 or whatever number it is, deals with special clothing for Jews (and Muslims), although it appears earlier, at the Council of Nablus for example. Yes, it could be confined to prostitution, or perhaps it could have happened in places where Christian/Jewish/Muslim contact was so frequent that people didn't really stop to think that someone was a different religion if there were no immediate outward signs of it, like in some parts of Spain. But even that Canon from Fourth Lateran remarks that they were all wearing different clothes already, before it was codified in law, and they would speak different languages, and at some point during the day they would have to pray or eat or do something else obviously differently. So the liaisons would not be that casual. I think restrictions like this were more for other people, to make it easier to catch them as they happen. If you notice a Jewish man coming out of a Christian woman's house, because he is wearing distinguishing clothing, then it is easier to report this to the appropriate authorities than if you are observing two random people who may or may not both be Christians at first glance. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely accidental "mingling" is more likely in places where Christian/Jewish/Muslim contact was infrequent? You're more likely to make assumptions if you live in a more homogenous society. FiggyBee (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Only if you assume they had prohibitions against each individual group. In that case it is possible to introduce a new group where people will "inadvertently mingle" with them before the society takes an explicit stance on their presence. Whereas if the group had a prohibition against "inadvertent mingling" of any outsiders, then new groups would still be covered.--droptone (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I should stop answering questions at 3:30 am! I'll see if I can find a better answer unless Clio or someone beats me to it. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think "medieval society was very conservative" is indeed a questionable oversimplification. Despite the fact that the reading and writing classes were filled with clerics, Medieval literature gives us plenty of evidence for loose and liberal conduct between the sexes. Even allowing for the likelihood that literature is more chock full of interesting and titillating transgressions than boring ordinary life, it would be wrong to assume&mdash;and we have plenty of positive historical evidence against&mdash;the idea that all people in the Middle Ages stuck to Church-prescribed mores. Your assumption, that Medieval people were dutiful theocratic subjects, is very widespread, but, frankly, it baffles me. The literature of the Middle Ages, from Chaucer to Abelard to the Carmina Burana, gives a much fuller picture of life with all its messy & forbidden liaisons, than the literature of some subsequent periods. Wareh (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled by this, Lots of issues. Does the author of your text mention a specific passage in the Partidas to support his contention, or is this merely conjecture?  The demarcations introduced by the Fourth Lateran Council were really intended as a way of distinguishing and shaming those who belonged to separate communities of faith, not to prevent sexual intermingling.  How could they, when outer garments could always be discarded?  There would always be ways around restrictions of this kind, especially in the larger urban communities; for, as Wareh says, Medieval society was not nearly as conservative in these matters as you may suppose, as a reading of the jucier parts of The Canterbury Tales and the Decameron will show.


 * What is the book you are reading, if I may ask, and who is the author? Do you think her or his interpretation of Spanish history trustworthy?  I confess I am not fully conversant with the Partidas.  What I do know, though, is that restrictions on the Jewish community are not nearly as plain as your author seems to suggest.  Even after Pope Innocent III made wearing of the Jewish hat and the Jewish badge compulsory the measure was not universally applied.  Spain was still in the middle of the Reconquista, and Jewish bankers were providing much needed financial support for the Christian kingdoms.  Rather than be forced to wear the shaming badge the Jewish community threatened to migrate to the Muslim lands in the south.  Because of this the Spanish kingdoms dispensed with the papal provision ( Solomon Grayzel, A History of the Jews, Philidelphia, 1968, pp.312-3).  Now, I have no idea if the strategic and political situation had changed in the fifty years between the Lateran Council and the adoption of the Partidas to allow this dispensation to be abandoned, though I somehow doubt it; for it would still be open for dissatisfied Jews to migrate to Granada.  The real deterioration in the position of the Spanish Jews does not begin until the fourteenth century, the year 1391 and after, to be precise.  So, without further information, I would suggest that you treat your author's statement with considerable scepticism.  Clio the Muse (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Laws 8, 9 and 11 translated here could have that interpretation placed upon them. Law 11 refers to the difficulty of distinguishing between Jew and Christian, and law 9 to sexual relations between the two. SaundersW (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you. Then we have two possibilities: first, the position of the Spanish Jews had deteriorated since the Christian victory at the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa and the subsequent contraction of Muslim power in the south; or second, in the Partidas Castile simply incorporated, for the sake of form, the anti-Jewish legislation prevalent elsewhere in the the Christian world since the Fourth Lateran Council, though without enforcement.  The information I have on thirteenth century Spain does not enable me to say which it is with any authority.  Clio the Muse (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeopardy quiz show
Must contestants wait until the host reads the entire question to ring in? Are rings during the reading of the question accepted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.27.213 (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The buzzers are locked out until Alex has finished reading the question. The contestants can see a light that lights up when they are allowed to buzz - so, Jeopardy is not so much about knowing stuff, as it is about having fast reflexes. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In the original version of Jeopardy that ran in the '60s or '70s you could ring in whenever you wanted, though. -Elmer Clark (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Jeopardy, the "be patient or you're penalized" feature was introduced in the 1985–1986 season. ---Sluzzelin talk  12:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The old rule benefited players who could read and evaluate the question fast, and I always thought it was bad that they threw that away. However, it's also true that before the rule change very often players would be ringing in as soon as the question was exposed, without taking the time to read any of it: they just assumed that if it was a $30 question on Potent Potables then there was a good enough chance that they'd know the answer to make the preemptive ring-in a good bet.  Players ringing in and then drawing a blank doesn't make for great TV, and I've also always thought that that was probably the reason for the change.


 * I tried out for the show myself not long after the rule change, and when we were given the opportunity to ask questions, I asked if there was a light that came on when it was okay to buzz; Alex Trebek said "Yes, but if you wait for it, you'll be too late", and I believe this is still the standard advice.


 * The rule that players can't ring in until the question has been read means that there must be a staffer whose job is to press a button when Alex finishes reading the question. In his book Brainiac, Ken Jennings says that at the end of the 2003-04 season the person who had had this job during the first part of his championship streak was replaced, and he thought the new person's timing was more irregular... as if it had been done on purpose to make it harder for him to keep winning. (Jennings doesn't say it was done for that reason and neither do I; only "as if".)


 * Who is --Anonymous, 22:46 UTC, December 10, 2007?

Russia at the end of WWI
I've been doing some background research on political conditions in Europe at the end of the First World War. What is not completely clear to me is how the German collapse in November 1918 affected the situation in the east, in the areas of Russia that had been placed under control of the Central Powers by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Can anyone help fill in the blanks? Phil S Stein (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Spoiled for choice: Category:Aftermath of World War I, Aftermath of World War I, Polish-Ukrainian War, West Ukrainian National Republic, Ukrainian People's Republic, Ukraine after the Russian Revolution, Józef Piłsudski, Międzymorze, Polish-Ukrainian War, Polish-Czechoslovak border conflicts, Romanian occupation of Pokuttya, Silesian Uprisings, Greater Poland Uprising (1918–1919), Rüdiger von der Goltz, Baltische Landeswehr, United Baltic Duchy, Latvian War of Independence, Estonian Liberation War... Rather a lot really. The short version is: the Germans surrendered on 11 November 1918 and all hell broke loose east of the nebulous German border. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ewan Mawdsley's The Russian Civil War is worthwhile here. I would also recommend John Wheeler-Bennett's The Kings Depart.  It's a little dated now but it has some useful information on the Freikorps in the Baltic.  Clio the Muse (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Polish-Soviet War, above all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Identifying a piece of music
Does anyone happen to know the name of the first piece of music that plays over the opening credits of Monty Python and the Holy Grail? I recently heard it somewhere else, I think on a documentary, and I haven't been able to find its composer or title. Lantzytalk 14:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "The Liberty Bell March" by John Philip Sousa. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The questioner asked about a movie, not the TV show.... Amazon sells the movie soundtrack, but it seems to be more comedic bits than music.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  17:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The credits say that Neil Innes wrote the songs and the additional music was from DeWolfe. We'll probably never know whether it was one particular composer in the DeWolfe stable, or bits and pieces by various people, living and dead.  It is very vaguely reminiscent of the opening bar of Brahms' Piano Concerto No 1, and even more vaguely reminiscent of the opening of Richard Strauss's Thus Spake Zarathustra, but is certainly not either of those. --  JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I took a look at the DeWolfe site, but wasn't able to find any information there. I'm surprised some Python fan hasn't identified the various pieces of "stock" music that appear throughout the film. Lantzytalk 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Art
How can the growth of peace be expressed in the form of a poster or painting?202.125.143.65 (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lots and lots of doves. Recury (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Other icons of peace include the olive branch and the concept of swords to plowshares. See generally Peace symbol. Sandstein (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Swords to ploughshares ? Pfly (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Googling peace images might give you some inspiration.  SaundersW (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No need for that: even the OED gives plowshares as an alternative spelling. Algebraist 16:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sunrises? Wrad (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I once read an interesting sermon about peace. Peace is often defined negatively as an absence of violent conflict, but how to define it positively? The writer of the sermon suggested some antitheses to violent conflict, such as play, cooperation, building, and nurturing.  Certainly, you can use symbolic icons such as doves and olive branches, but it might be more interesting to show images such as children happily at play or people smiling, holding hands, or talking.  Finally, if what you want to show is "the growth of peace", what better context than something like a vegetable or flower garden with growing plants?  Above this scene, you could still show a dove with an olive branch for an added symbolic note.  Marco polo (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You could show people voting. You could draw the world as flat. Or, draw a bunch of nukes, representing the hope that nuclear proliferation will lead to all nations one day having nukes, and that the spectre of Mutually Assured Destruction will force everyone to live happily ever after. It should ideally be what you feel best expresses the concept (artistic limitations may apply). Azi Like a Fox (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The anti-Pershing poster in my collection has a red and white striped lion-like creature perched atop a broken Pershing missile in a meadow. He is flashing the peace sign, has a big grin and a dandelion in his mouth.  There is a rainbow in the background, what appears to be a decommissioned nuclear plant and and a hedgehog poking his head out of the missile engine.  It also has a sticker on the bottom that says "Freedom for Rudolph Hess" in German.  It is topped with "Grün ist Leben." --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  10:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw a painting once, but don't recall the artist or title of the painting, that portrayed such a concept. It showed a girl of about 8 or 10 years old walking in the middle of a wheat field which was being blown by the wind from threatening stormy clouds overhead. She had outstretched arms and was making the wheat stalks calm down from being buffeted about by the wind. Behind her the wheat was still, and the sky had cleared up. I really liked this because it incorporated some very archetypal images - including the strength of a virgin girl over violent forces of nature, a common theme in a lot of art. Saukkomies 14:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saukkomies (talk • contribs)

Legal or not legal? That is the question
Where would I start to find answers on the process of an undercover Schedual 1 and 2 drug sting? How it is set up, entraptment, leagalites in court, ask for one thing get another and a higher charge? you get the picture, not looking for any leagal advice just want to know where to even start the serch to do my own reserch and defend myself on (and i use the most famous words of all) something i didnt do. --Teotwawki02 (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)teotwawki02
 * You need to tell us what country you are in. In any case, if you are accused of having committed a drug-related offense, I strongly recommend you get a competent lawyer, or request the authorities to appoint you a lawyer if you cannot afford one. Most people who defend themselves against such serious charges are at a very severe disadvantage, no matter what jurisdiction they are in. Sandstein (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If they are talking about Schedule I and Schedule II drugs they're almost certainly in the USA. See Controlled Substances Act. But even then it depends whether the charges are local vs. federal, and if local, which state. Different states have very different drug laws and very different options for someone accused of violating them. Only an experienced lawyer would be very good at navigating them, though. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, no joke. If you can't spell "legal" or "schedule" or "entrapment" or "search" correctly then then you're not going to last five minutes in court against a real prosecutor. Recognize your limitations in this realm of things and just get a lawyer, even a public defender is better than trying to do it yourself (in fact, in many drug-related cases having a public defender is better than a private attorney, because the "file paperwork to stall everything until they offer you a deal" tactic costs a ton if you are billing by the hour). The topics you are asking about have books and books of case-law behind them that you'd have to know to have a snowball's chance in hell to get anywhere. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to contact your local legal aid society or public defender. If you're currently in prison, the prison is required to give you their contact information.  The rules vary from state to state, but if you don't have money and you haven't done anything to screw up your rights (like confessing without being pressured to do so), they will find you a lawyer.  I know a lot of people don't like lawyers, but remember, the government isn't afraid to use their lawyers, and you can't win a game you don't know how to play.  --M @ r ē ino 20:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Kierkegaard and third-best
I read in a book that I own called "Kierkegaard for Beginners" that Kierkegaard's father told him to get the third-best grade in school. Does anyone know of any sources that might confirm that? Caseyloeks (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Was it this book?--droptone (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the one. Sorry, I would have linked it, but I am still figuring out how to do all the code stuff. I'm not looking for link to the book.  I was just hoping someone else might know of any reputable websites that would confirm that this anecdote from Kierkegaard's childhood actually took place. Caseyloeks (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterloo and after
To what did Wellington attribute his victory over Napoleon? How did he treat the French in the follow up leading to the occupation of Paris? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.190.239 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You might fight an answer to your first question in a letter Wellington wrote to his brother, Richard, shortly after the battle;


 * It was the most desperate business I was ever in. I never took so much trouble about any battle, and was never so near being beat.  Our loss was immense, particularly in the best of all Instruments, British infantry.  I never saw the infantry behave so well.


 * As for the second, he took great care on his advance towards Paris to make it widely known that the war was against Napoleon, not against the French. There was no parade on entry into the French capital, which might have caused resentment.  When General Blücher, the Prussian commander, declared his intention to blow up the Pont de Jena, named after Napoleon's victory of 1806, Wellington had it placed under guard.  Amongst the Allies he urged a policy of moderation, saying that if Napoleon was to be executed then the sovereigns "should appoint an executioner which should not be me."  Clio the Muse (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Mass Suicide
Hello, I'm interested in learning about Mass Suicide. I visited the mass suicide page on here but it didn't have a key fact to what I'm looking for. I would like to know where did the first mass suicide take place? Thanks! - James A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.223.176 (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Any answer given will only be able to say the "first recorded mass suicide" - anything could've happened in prehistory. Exxolon (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So what was the first recorded mass suicide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.223.176 (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Masada? Somehow that seems too recent though. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Is 73AD recent? Over the long drifts of time I suppose it must be!  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the minimum number people required before you consider it a "Mass suicide"? Here is a report of a dozen men taking their own lives. Didn't Herodotus write of a mass suicide even earlier than the Cleomenes event? Some vague thought in the back of my mind is telling me it was somewhere in the first three "books" of The Histories. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't forget Asian culture either. Wrad (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't Masada better described as a mass killing followed by one suicide? Is it suicide if your head of family or group leader kills you? Edison (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe 152.16.59.190 is referring to the action of the Lycians of Xanthos ca. 540 BC. Read Herodotus' account (1.176) here.  Wareh (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)