Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 December 8

= December 8 =

Ghost story
Can anyone help me with the name and author of a ghost story? It's set in England in the twentieth century (I think) about a man searching for a buried crown watched over by a ghostly guardian. I saw a version on DVD a year or two ago. It's really good. Zan Zee (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The movie is "A Warning to the Curious" (1972), and it is based on M. R. James story A Warning to the Curious and Other Ghost Stories (1925) -Yamanbaiia (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you enjoyed A Warning to the Curious try Oh, Whistle, and I'll Come to You, My Lad or Count Magnus-really scary stuff! James, as far as I am concerned, is the best writer of supernatural fiction in the English language. Clio the Muse (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Church's position on the undead?
I'm somewhat aware that the RCC believes that humans can be and occasionally are possessed by demons and occasionally authorizes its priests to carry out exorcisms (after running rigorous checks to rule out mental illness, physical causes etc.). Just as a matter of interest - where does the Church officially stand on the walking undead, i.e. a human who has (apparently) physically died and his/her corpse has (apparently) risen as a zombie, vampire, revenant or similar?

Apologies if this is a silly question - no offence is intended to anyone. I have recently been watching the (most excellent) Hellsing anime series, which features a Catholic priest who specializes in 'laying the undead to rest' (against their will most of the time, as it goes) by way of solid silver bayonets bathed in holy water. Just wondering as to the reality of the situation. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a silly question at all - in the Roman Catholic Church, exorcism is governed by canon law. See especially Exorcism/Roman Catholicism. Possession by demons has biblical authority, but I'm not aware that any mainstream Church believes in the existence of the undead, in the voodoo sense that you mean. Xn4  01:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, mainstream Churches (and Roman Catholicism is not hardly the exception) have had a rich and interesting tradition of writings on the undead. Check out the Montague Summers article here for a starting-point.  And yes, the entry does call him "eccentric," but a) he was and is pretty widely read, and b) I'm not sure to what extent a 19th century English author and clergyman wouldn't be considered eccentric in this day and age :) If you're really interested in this topic I can give you some more data, but see what you can find by following the links on that page.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  05:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can certainly think of one case in which Catholics believe in someone physically dying and coming back from the dead. Cyta (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And another. DuncanHill (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They weren't the brain-hungry, bloodthirsty beings that "undead" in the modern sense connotes, though.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to say that the Catholic Church itself (as opposed to particular Catholics) has issued no writings encouraging belief in what modern movie-goers would call "the undead" (i.e., vampires or zombies); in fact, the church had every reason to discourage belief in the latter as a rival religion. - Nunh-huh 04:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If by "the Catholic Church itself" you mean with the express approval of a sitting pope, you're probably right. There have been, however, ordained members of its clergy that have believed and written of these things.  I'm also not sure that the Catholic church would see belief in such things as a rival religion; Catholicism (as many forms of organized religion) has generally been able to coexist with such beliefs without any loss of paritioners.  In fact, it's easy enough to envision that at certain times in history these beliefs actually encourated a little bit of attendance at services :)  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  13:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Romanticism:music
I know it may sound like homework, but it is not. What were the major works of Beethoven, Schubert, Berlioz, Verdi, Liszt, Brahms, Chopin and Wagner? Please, answer with one or more major works of each composer. No argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.245 (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, obviously Beethoven's Symphonies would be near the top. Wrad (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I know this sounds like a snarky response, but it is not. Why not just look at the articles we have for those gentlemen? Each one discusses the artist's music.  Surely that would be faster and a more complete answer than asking here?  Matt Deres (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but all those letters!--Tresckow (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If just one "major work" is to be mentioned, Beethoven's Ninth Symphony has got to be it. I'm not that familiar with Berlioz, but Symphonie fantastique is the piece that comes to mind first. Verdi wrote a huge number of operas still famous today. So I don't know, how about La traviata? I know less about Liszt and couldn't name much of his music beyond the Transcendental Etudes. Does solo piano music count as a "major work"? I mean, "major" in terms of scale and instrumentation/production, or major in terms of influence and fame? For Brahms, I don't know if there is a definitive major work, but I'm a fan of Ein deutsches Requiem. Chopin? Again with solo piano pieces, but his Études are quite famous at least. Wagner? Come on! How could it not be Der Ring des Nibelungen? Pfly (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The “major works” of a composer would depend on how you define major. Do you mean the largest pieces? The most popular pieces? The most historically influential pieces? I agree with Pfly mostly. The most popular piece by Liszt is probably Totentanz. Although Der Ring des Nibelungen is probably the largest work (okay, cycle) by Richard Wagner Tristan und Isolde is more historically important. For Verdi I would go with Aida or Falstaff, but La traviata is quit important as well. Schubert is almost impossible to pin down to a single piece. I would say it’s probably a tie between his Unfinished symphony and his two great song cycles: Die schöne Müllerin and Winterreise.


 * It would help if we know why you are asking. Do you want to know where to start listening to these composers for instance? Hope this helps. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not too sure about Totentanz. Ask 100 people their favourite Liszt piece, and I'd bet most answers would include the Hungarian Rhapsodies (particularly No. 2), Liebestraum No 2, Consolation No 3, La Campanella, Funérailles, the Sonata in B minor, Mephisto Waltz No. 1, and some of the Transcendental Etudes, before Totentanz ever cracked a mention.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. . . yes, you’re probably right. I was thanking of larger pieces since the question was phrased as “major work.” A Google search places them ruffle equal though. Totentanz 67,000 hits barely beats "Hungarian Rhapsodies" with 65,000. I think it depends on what audience you ask. Connoisseur will be more inclined to choose the Rhapsodies, whereas Totentanz appeals to casual listeners more. There’s even a crossover/rock version of the darn piece. :-0 --S.dedalus (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the USA equivalent of the UK Companies House
217.168.3.246 (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Business registration is a function of the individual states, see for example California Secretary of State business search and Florida Department of State Division of Corporations. -- Arwel (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

English Inn Signs
During a recent trip to London I noticed huge range of signs with the names of bars and a picture with it. Does anyone know the origins of this practice and explain the meaning of some? Thank you very much. K Limura (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * See Pub names; the idea dates back to the middle ages, when only a few people could read. As a result, most pubs were named after heraldic symbols or well known objects and people. For example, the pub name "Red Lion" (one of the most common in Britain) is taken from the red lion of the Scottish coat of arms, "The Plough" was often used in rural areas because even the illiterate farmers would be able to recognise a painting of a plough, while "The King's Head" is common because almost everyone could recognise a picture of the king. Some pub names are chosen as a kind of rebus - a riddle where pictures are used instead of words. For example, a pub with the odd-sounding name "Goat and Compasses" was acutally chosen because it sounded like "God encompasseth us", while Elephant and Castle is believed to have come from "la Infanta del Castile" (the child of Castile). Nowadays the idea is kept largely for tradition; there are pubs that are little more than dank concrete boxes, built in the 1970s, but with the signage of an 18th Century rural tavern! Laïka  11:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In context Infanta means "princess"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Red Lion was also, if memory serves, the badge of some Plantagenet prince, as well as the principal charge of many coats of arms other than that of Scotland. &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It was by a statute passed in 1393 during the reign of Richard II that it was made compulsory for every inn in England to display a sign. Some of the earliest were associated with pilgrimages, like the Tabard in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales and the Tryppe to Jerusalem in Nottingham, which took its name in 1189 and is still in business, though I imagine few among its clientele have higher destinations in mind! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

F. Saunders
Do you know anything about F. Saunders (sorry, dont know her first name) a woman who I think served in the Greek military during the First World War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.190.54 (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Captain Flora Sandes of the 2nd Infantry Regiment, Serbian Army? She was a Red Cross nurse from Thornton Heath in Serbia who began fighting during the retreat to Albania. If this is who you are looking for see her autobiographies: Sandes, F. (1916). An English woman-sergeant in the Serbian army. London: Hodder and Stoughton. and Sandes, F. (1927). The autobiography of a woman soldier; a brief record of adventure with the Serbian army, 1916-1919. New York: F.A. Stokes company.  &mdash;eric 19:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You can read An English Woman Sergeant in the Serbian Army on line at internet archive here ]. By the way, Thornton Heath isn't in Serbia! DuncanHill (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My grammar is an embarrassment this time and not my geography! But maybe we should all feel a little bit of shame?&mdash;eric 19:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * yes - we should have an article on this woman. DuncanHill (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mazarin and Machiavelli
Thinking of the career of Cardinal Mazarin would it be right to view him as a disciple of Machiavelli, a statesman first and a churchman second? Indeed, did he have any obvious spiritual values? H W Waidson (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've always found Cardinal Mazarin and intriguing and complex figure in much the same fashion as England's Cardinal Wolsey, servants of the state first and of God second. Was Mazarin a disciple of Machiavelli?  He certainly gives all of the outward signs of being so, an exponent of the arts of political realism, not overtroubled, perhaps, by more general ethical considerations.  I'm not sure, though, what the alternative would have been to a policy that ensured the integrity of the French state at a point where it was threatened with political fragmentation.  He was, moreover, one of the best statesmen and diplomats France ever had, guiding the country through some difficult times.  As far as religion is concerned, well, Mazarin was always more secular than spiritual, a Cardinal who never became a priest.  He was no purist and no crusader, and was even prepared to do business with such noted anti-Catholics as Oliver Cromwell.  It was all part of his pragmatic character, in which doctrine, and the imperatives of orthodoxy, played very little part.  Yet on his death he left 600,000 livres to help finance a crusade against the Ottoman Turks.  An act of a bad conscience?  Perhaps; we will never know for certain.  What we do know is that he was revered by Louis XIV and died a well-respected figure, unlike his unfortunate English counterpart.  Of Mazarin it was said in 1661 "No one left his presence without being persuaded of his reasoning and struck by his graciousness.  His intentions were good; he could never say evil of anyone...and was unable to hate even his own enemies."  Not a bad epitaph.  Clio the Muse (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Miss, for such a useful answer. H W Waidson (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Two Tenors
I recently signed up for Sing Live, and one of the questions in the online form was whether I was a first tenor or a second tenor. Our tenor article mentions no such distinction. Googling "first tenor" and "second tenor" led me to this page, but that's not very informative either. How do I tell whether I'm a first or a second?--Shantavira|feed me 16:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While it is possible they are using some special distinction, it seems much more likely they have two tenor parts, one higher than the other, and want you to choose which you'll sing. These decisions are much easier if you've had a look at the parts and know their ranges, but if you generally find you can sing higher than the average tenor, you're a first tenor. If you generally find it hard to sing as high as the average tenor, you're a second tenor. If you're not sure, or think you have a fairly average range, you'll just have to pick. What's your range? Skittle (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, without straining it seems to be A3–F4, which according to the above is second tenor (i.e. between tenor and bass). Thanks.--Shantavira|feed me 22:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First tenor and second tenor really refer to choral parts rather than individual singers. Yes, generally, the first tenors are singing a note that's a bit higher than the second tenors (and 1sts get the melody more often, while 2nds are doing harmony), but tenors could be assigned to the parts arbitrarily and there'd be no difficulty, as the parts generally don't require an extraordinary range. - Nunh-huh 01:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, on the whole there probably won't be a large difference in the ranges for first and second tenor, but if there's an unusually high note or passage it will probably be the 1sts singing it. As I said, an easier decision to make if you've seen the music :) Good luck Shantavira! Skittle (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

German invasion of Russia
Would it be true to say that the failure of the Ribbentrop Molotov talks in November 1940 was instrumental in the German decision to go to war with Russia the following summer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.85.250 (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is abundent evidence that an offensive against Communist Russia was at the very centre of Hitler's strategic and political thinking, and that outline planning for Operation Barbarossa was underway almost as soon as the campaign in the west concluded in 1940. There were, of course, those in the Nazi hierarchy, and I am thinking specifically of Joseph Goebbels and Joachim von Ribbentrop, who were in favour of the continuation of the honeymoon of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, Ribbentrop in particular.  It is certain that he took the talks of November 1940 with Vyacheslav Molotov, the Soviet Foreign Minister, seriously, in which it was proposed that Russia join a four power pact with Germany, Italy and Japan.  Molotov's hard-nosed intransigence prevented any concrete settlement along these lines.  Although the Soviets intended to continue negotiations the whole thing was little more than a diplomatic smokescreen for Hitler, who gave his final orders for Barbarossa in December.  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would concur with Clio's assessment. Hitler had discussed the idea of German settlement of Eastern Europe (including Russia) clear back when he wrote Mein Kampf in prison in 1924. Indeed, the concept of Germans settling the East goes back to the days of the Teutonic Knights, whose Eastward expansionist plans came to a close when they were defeated in the overlooked but pivotal Battle of Grunwald that took place in Lithuania in 1410. Eastern Europe had remained a fairly uninhabited land up until the Industrial Revolution, and because of that the Germans - most especially the Prussians who lived furthest to the East - looked to the East as the only area in Europe where they could easily expand their influence. Some of Hitler's mentors included men who had definite and firm beliefs that it was Germany's destiny to invade and settle Eastern Europe (including Russia), and to turn any surviving indigenous people into serfs in order to support the German economy and pay for the costs of the expansion. Alfred Rosenberg, one of these mentors, was highly influential in developing much of the ideology behind the Nazi Party, and fully supported the idea of Lebensraum, which was a word coined by another early mentor of Nazism, Friedrich Ratzel, in 1897. Additionally, the Nazis considered Communism to be a vicious evil that was created by Jews and other unsavory (to them) characters, and it was their stated intention to destroy the Soviet Union and eradicate Communism from the earth. Given all this history, it is quite clear that Hitler had many reasons for pushing forward with Operation Barbarossa. By doing so he was fulfilling one of his primary visions. Saukkomies 02:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Danger! kidney beans!
Does a package of kidney beans have a warning regarding the potential toxicity? --Seans Potato Business 18:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While Wikipedia normally frowns on original research, in a case like this I think you'd be within your rights to make an exception, and go look at a packet of beans! AndyJones (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you could feed them to your pet monkey to see if it's true! Better safe than sorry! Wrad (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (Spoiler warning) Raw red kidney beans are quite toxic according to the most recent work of fiction by Dick Francis, confirmed by Googling and the Wikipedia article Poison. Don't know about the package warning if any. Edison (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I once worked in a wholefood shop (in the UK) where we packaged and sold raw red kidney beans, and to cover ourselves we had to put not so much a warning as cooking instructions, like "simmer for at least 40 minutes" (or whatever it was). That was 20 years ago so the regs might have changed by now.--Shantavira|feed me 19:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Business research in the US, starting with owner name.
If I want to know what companies a specific person has registered in the US and considering that there is no central registry of companies in the US - like pointed at my previous question, how should I proceed? Should I search every registry of every US state? Is there a chance that someone has registered a company and do not show up in these registries?217.168.1.86 (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In relation to your prior question, many corporations choose to incorporate in Delaware. —Nricardo (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And others in Nevada, for similar tax benefit reasons.  Corvus cornix  talk  05:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answers so far. I have found that the operators  and owners of a Delaware corporation are not required to be identified in the public records of the State. Considering that a significant number of companies in the US are Delaware corporations, I suppose that if I only have the owner's name possibly I will not be able to find what corporations he owns...217.168.3.246 (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lifestyle//Literary style of the 1800's...
What was the lifestyle and literary style of the 1800's? I am doing a french project on Alphonse Daudet, a french novelist, and i need to find information about the times he lived in... His family was bourgeoise, but i need to know a bit more than just that! what kind of clothes did they wear? what was the writing style common to authors in the 1800's? ANYTHING you think can help would be really helpful.... PLEASE answer! thank you SO MUCH.

Amandathepanda (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)amanda


 * Well, for one thing, a lot of European authors were worried that the end of the world was coming. There was also a heavy focus on nature and Gothic literature was on the rise. Most of my knowledge is with English literature, though, for this period. Can you be more specific than 1800s, though? The beginning of the 1800s in France was very different from the end. Wrad (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Our Alphonse Daudet article won't help you much, Amandathepanda. Daudet lived through interesting and turbulent times - his first memories as a child were of the July Monarchy, which ended with the French Revolution of 1848, when he was seven. After that, the rest of his childhood and his youth fell under the Second Republic. This was followed by the Second Empire under Napoleon III, which lasted through Daudet's twenties and thirties, and under the Empire he produced perhaps his best-known book, Lettres de Mon Moulin. Then came the Franco-Prussian War, which led to the Third Republic. Towards the end of Daudet's life came the Belle Époque, together with Impressionism in art. See also 1850s in fashion, 1860s in fashion, 1870s in fashion, etc., Bohemianism and Avant-garde. Some of those articles will lead you on to others, or to some interesting references. I hope some of this will help you. Xn4  21:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You should read Balzac. --Anne97432 (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Study of Lighting
The best general article and reference about "Lighting" mainly tend to the psychological and aesthetics study? Flakture (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear about what you're asking here, Flakture. Please elaborate. Saukkomies 13:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Government regulation of the economy
Hello everyone. I'm having trouble finding out when governments first started attempting to regulate economies. I'm reading some books about early human history, and they talk about economies, but they don't flesh out government's role (beyond demanding tributes) very well. I don't really know what terms to search for in Google even. The field of study that analyzes the relationship between government and the economy must have a name--but I don't think I know it. Can someone give me some good search terms?--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In the earliest fully literate civilizations of the Sumerians in lower Mespotamia, temple and palace functionaries managed many economic aspects of life -- including the labor that went into digging the irrigation canals, without which no one could raise crops... AnonMoos (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And don't forget that governments were, and still are, responsible for minting coins (and lately printing money) which gives a huge control over economies. Cyta (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For "are responsible for" read "monopolize", and note that this wasn't always true. &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the roles of government is to exercise control over society, including the business sector. This usually is to the advantage of business. Take for instance an historic early town developing out of the wilderness. The primary reason that a town would spring up would usually be due to the fact that there was a market there where goods and services could be traded. However, if there was no protection from bandits and armed groups coming in and stealing everything, such a market could not fluorish, and there would be no town. So right from the start there is an inexorable connection between business and government. Government exists partly to provide a safe refuge for the market to fluorish, and business - through taxation - pays for the costs of upkeep for the government and its army.


 * There is a tradeoff, however. Because the government seeks to insure its own survival, it will try to insure that the business sector within its domain operates at a healthy level - thus insuring a large inflow of tax. The government may also step in to act as a non-interested party to insure that such things as weights and measures are standardized and regulated, to act as arbitrar between irate parties to settle disputes over business dealings, to provide a forum for the business sector to address grievances or to plead for new laws or regulations. In short, the government acts like the referee in a boxing ring in the business sector - insuring that there is a fair fight, and breaking the opponents apart if they get too tangled up. Business simply cannot exist for very long without the intervention of government to some degree.


 * Finally, I dug through some online journal databases, and came up with the following possible recommendations for search queries regarding your topic: "Corporate governance", "Industrial laws and regulations", "(fill-in-the-blank-industry) laws and regulation", and "Government regulation of industry". Saukkomies 13:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Philip of England and Ireland, disowned unlike the Orangist William
How come Wikipedia reflects Protestant triumphalism and Whig history? The establishment's hardline propaganda has been endorsed by this website. Philip of Spain was as much a Lancastrian as William of Orange was a Stuart. In fact, England had some rather lengthy dealings with Spain and Portugal, long before cozying up to the Scots or Dutch... Is there any editor here with the info to correct this? For instance, the Marian plantation of Ireland is almost a footnote and similar treatment is given for the ascension as King of Ireland with full recognition to the English monarch by the Pope, for Philip himself. The reign of Mary is seen as a fluke, rather than continuance of English tradition. Who says that cooperation with the Scots is a hallmark of being English? The Scots were the errand boys of the French, with whom the English disputed on the rule of France (as well as disputing over who ruled over the Scots). Calvinism was imported by England's traditional enemies, when England already told Luther to leave well enough alone. There is almost no mention of the Anglo-Breton Habsburg alliance, at least there is no coordinated presentation of it, as the final, failing bulwark against the Franco-Scottish alliance that broke the independence of the Anglo-Breton peoples. Why should the English see the Scots, or the Bretons see the French, as natural allies? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Look on the bright side. At least there's an article on Herbert Butterfield. William Avery (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Philip of Spain was as much a Lancastrian as William of Orange was a Stuart"&mdash;How did you come to that conclusion? William was the grandson of Charles I of England; Philip did not, as far as I'm aware, have any ancestry from Britain.--Johnbull (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * He has at least a remote connection with both the Lancastrians and the Yorkists - Philip II's great-great-grandfather, Charles the Bold (1433-1477), was the grandson of Philippa of Lancaster (1360–1415). Charles the Bold married as his third wife Margaret of York, but Charles's only child, Mary the Rich, who was Philip II's great-grandmother, was the daughter of Charles's second wife, Isabella of Bourbon. Xn4  23:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a reasonably detailed knowledge of Tudor history, which I studied extensively as an undergraduate. I would be happy, 24.255, to tackle any specific questions you may have on the subject. I am not interested, though, in engaging with what reads to me as a rather ill-organised and muddle-headed 'manifesto', some of which, like the peace of God, seems to pass all understanding. Forgive me for being so blunt; I mean no personal disrespect. All I would ask you to do is slow down; think about it, then come back with a clearly worded question. On that basis-who knows?-we may be able to progress matters ever so slightly. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that, like so much of the history on Wikipedia, these articles have been copied from old encyclopedias, or were written by hobbyists with no conception of historiography aside from whatever random book they enjoyed at the library. So if they are biased one way or the other, it is not surprising, but not impossible to fix, if you think doing so is more constructive than complaining. Adam Bishop (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Are there any writings of history which depict Philip more as an ex-King of England and Ireland, who lost in the chaos of revolution, similar to James VII/James II? It seems like the Protestantization of England, accompanied by the Scottish and Dutch factions, was too soon to allow a reflection about Philip's own place in the times, as a continuation of Plantagenet matters that the Tudors inherited. England has had anti-Continentalism grafted onto her, by foreign parties like the Stuarts and Orangists, when it is clear that philo-Continentalism had been the prior attitude under the Plantagenets and Tudors. Even Henry VIII's attempt to embrace the Protestants was aborted, when Anne of Cleves was tossed aside as unfit and Cromwell was discarded. Maybe anti-Continentalism was accepted by the Tudors in self-defeat, but it is clear that it was not traditional. Why does the Williamite era seem so vital and important when it was new and rather untested, almost exactly opposite to the Philippine era? Whiggish authors contend that Mary's reign was the fluke. There was no predestination that England was to be annexed into a Scottish version of "Great Britain" and that Brittany was to suffer French annexation, to the ruin of the Habsburg name, whether Spanish Philip or Austrian Maximilian. Still, the same parties that saw this change as good, consider the German way to be a shining light, nonetheless bar the Habsburgs of Swabia from this equation. It is clear that triumphalism dominates this topic. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It gets worse. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

History is not so neat and tidy, especially when trying to examine its dynamic undercurrents. I contend that Calvinistic ideas of Predestination and the Whiggish Progressivism are what undermines a fair assessement of King Philip in comparison to King William. Catholics likewise do not care too much for William, but they are the ones forced to accept the righteousness of the status quo and made to believe the history as written by the victors. That is the heart of the problem, but I guess I'm going to be accused of soapboxing, when all I want is neutrality. When damning Philip for abuses against Protestants, most sources are very willing to " go with the flow" and accept this "Black legend" as a matter of fact. Catholics have no voice in the affair, nor do they in the glorification of William. The Catholic underbelly of England is systemically overlooked and underestimated, even laughed at by some Wikipedians and other sources of information about the religious situation in England. Who says it was meant to be the way it is? Protestants and those secularists who believe that Catholics are worse than Protestants for their piety. So, shut the Catholics up and you'll have a very happy history, one you can fit in a box and no grey areas or dissensions from prejudice. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.11.149 (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A genius is not the first to spot his or her own genius... and has no need to call anyone a dunce. Xn4  02:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's ironic that the quote can be found on Clio's page. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with the quotation. Xn4  02:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a quotation from Jonathan Swift, as you doubtless know, Xn4. It appears on my user page, so I am obviously under scrutiny!  Here's another one: It is useless to try to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.  Reasonably appropriate, I think!  Clio the Muse (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of that about myself. Thanks for reading my mind! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Germans in England
I have been told that there was a large German community settled in England in 1914. How did they fair during the war and after? Alte Fritz (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There was indeed a substantial German community in the UK in 1914, when the Great War broke out, der Alte Fritz. It was largely destroyed by the intolerance which quickly gripped the country, thanks to black propaganda. Many were interned, which at least (in the circumstances) gave them some protection, although also a hard time. However, the Germans in the British Isles in the years before the war had had time to see it coming and many had returned to Germany or else moved on to the US and other destinations. There were even some who had quietly taken on English-sounding names and vanished into the crowd. See The Enemy in Our Midst: Germans in Britain During the First World War by Panikos Panayi (1991), or his much shorter article Germans in Britain During the First World War in Historical Research 64 (153), pp 63–76. Much the same thing happened in 1939, even though in 1939 it was recognized that many of the Germans then in the UK were refugees and opponents of the Nazi state. Xn4  22:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a rather famous newspaper cartoon of the time which shows a before-and-after scene showing a German-owned shop (I think a butcher); one panel was before the outbreak of war, the second after. The owner's name had been transformed to a soundalike English one, the typically german produce in the window changed to english, and the owner (a stereotypical cartoon-german) transformed overnight into John Bull.  It rather reminds me of the Afghan rug store in Palo Alto, California which, by September 13th 2001 was so festooned with American flags of all types that one got a migraine from looking at it. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that may have actually been an American cartoon (there was a fair amount of anti-German sentiment in the US too at the time, actually more than during WWII).--Pharos (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the information I have there were well over 50,000 Germans in Britain by 1914, 19,000 of whom were interned on the outbreak of war. In the wave of national anger that followed, amplified by specific events, like the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915, few among the minority were exempt, even the very highest. The First Sea Lord. Prince Louis of Battenberg, was forced to resign, even though he was a cousin of George V and had spent some fifty years in service to the Royal Navy. Joseph Jonas, a steel manufacturer and one-time Mayor of Sheffield, was accused of espionage, a malicious charge given sufficient substance to strip him of his knighthood.

Interestingly, a great many of the German community were of Jewish origin, whose reserve towards Russia, Britain's Jew-baiting ally was enough to arouse additional suspicions. Even The Times was prone, on occasions, to use the terms 'Jewish' and 'German' interchangeably. In some sections of the media the sinking of the Lusitania was said to have caused joy in Germany 'among the Jewish financial press.' England, it was alleged, 'was groaning under a German-Jewish yoke'.

In 1939, at the start of the Second World War, the German community was nearly three times as big as it had been in 1914, the majority of whom, refugees of one kind or another, had no sympathy whatsoever for their former homeland. But the British public had still to make the distinction in its mind between potential political allies and enemy aliens. There was no differentiation between Nazis and anti-Nazis, leading to the ridiculous situation in the internment camp on the Isle of Man, where the Hitler sympathisers ran their own 'Brown House' in a state of conflict with the other factions, including Jewish refugees. In the emergency of 1940 most of the Germans still at liberty were rounded up. A number of these people were drowned on their way to internment camps in Canada when the Andorra Star was sunk by a U-boat.

Some people, including H G Wells and Eleanor Rathbone, raised objections to the blanket policy of the government for failing to distinguish between friend and foe. As the invasion crisis abated many of the internees were released. A number of these people went on to try to make a clear distinction in the public mind between an anti-German and an anti-Nazi war, including one Heinrich Frankel, who wrote a book entitled Help us Germans beat the Nazis. Support for the anti-Nazi cause was given by the publisher Victor Gollancz, particularly in the publication of refutations of the racist anti-German ideology embraced most notably by Sir Robert Vansittart, a senior diplomat and government advisor. Despite some residual hostility, and in some cases latent anti-semitism, most of the refugees were naturalised after the war. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As a personal example of Clio's answer - my mother's family were German Jews who moved to Britain in 1914. Their family name 'Rozenburg' made them a little too conspicuous in their local community in the first World War - soon after they changed their name by Deed Poll to the much more English 'Rose'! I think another family did the same around the same time! Lord Foppington (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As did the Mountbattens. For further American idiocy, see Liberty cabbage.   Corvus cornix  talk  05:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Freedom fries anyone? Lord Foppington (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And a quick homophome call. It should have been "How did they fare". William Avery (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're nothing but a blatant homophonophobe. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)