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

=July 10=

Unions and Villages in Bangladesh
What is an 'union' and how many there in Bangladesh? How many villages are there in Bangladesh?
 * Dunno the first, but the answer to the second is 68038. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Corvus cornix 16:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The 68038 number looks like a mis-typing of the number of villages reported by the 1991 census, which was 86038. The updated number of villages according to the 2001 census is 87362. Clearly it is a matter of definition what should be counted as a village, so for this number to be of any use one would have to find out what definition of "village" the census used. As for what unions are, see Trade union. USAID claims there are about 4400 unions in Bangladesh . --mglg(talk) 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the definition of ?
Can someone please tell me what is the definition or explanation of Commercial Burglary. As in someone was charged with Commercail Burglary by the police? justin7773 Thank you!


 * It would help if you told us what legal jurisdiction? It sounds like something legal to me. And of course note our legal disclaimer. Splintercellguy 06:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The burglary of someone's place of business ("commercial") as opposed to someone's home ("residential"). And, in case your question is also asking, "burglary" means that an intruder breaks into the business with the purpose / plan of committing a crime once he enters the business (for example, typically, stealing).  (JosephASpadaro 07:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Association of social and economical beliefs
I hope you understand what I mean. I would really like to learn how deregulation of the economy and capitalism and the like became so associated with so-called "social conservatism". How come communists are pro-gay rights and capitalists are against it (not that they are like that in the real world, but this seems to be a strong stereotype). In the US, for instance, why is the Democratic Party so socially libertarian (or liberal, whatever), but tend to be more socialist than the Republican Party? A.Z. 02:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, for a long time, since at least the 1920's, the Republican Party has been the party of Lasse_faire economics. In general through out US history, relgious groups have been fairly non partisan, or even liberal.  This changed in the 1970's after the Roe_v_Wade Supreme_court decision.  This made abortion legal in all US states.  Religious groups were, (and still are) extremely opposed to legalized abortion.  Reagan made part of his presidential platform that he would work to over turn Roe v Wade.  And thus an alliance was born, that stands today.  Of course once the religious got a taste of power, they didn't stop at just opposing abortion, but started lobbying against  gays, for teaching creationism as science,  and the rest of their socially conservative  agenda.  Since they are now an important part of the Republican coalition, Republican polititians are pretty much obligated to at least give lip service to social conservatism.  One of the interesting things about the upcoming presidential campaign is that at least two of the republican front runners, Rudy_Guliani, and Mitt_Romney have a history of social liberalism.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out... -Czmtzc 13:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a strange flip that happened within the US Democratic and Republican parties. At the time of the US Civil War, the Republican Party was the party of the North, and was opposed to slavery (or at least the spread of slavery), while the Democratic Party was the party of the South, and thus pro-slavery. This made the Republicans the party protecting minority rights and the Democrats the ones opposed. This stayed for quite some time and the phrase "the solid South" was used to show that they would consistently vote Democratic. However, the Republicans, being the party of the North, also represented the business interests there, so were economically conservative. The Democrats, on the other hand, represented Southerners, many of whom were poor as a result of the Civil War and the loss of slave labor, on which their economy had depended. This led the Democratic Party to favor more socialist economic policies. At some point, possibly when Kennedy enforced the racial integration of Southern schools, the Democrats came to represent minority rights, with the Republicans taking up the opposition. Minorities also include women, homosexuals, etc., so the Democrats represent their issues, too, such as "a woman's right to choose" (AKA abortion). Therefore, apparently there isn't a link between conservative economic policies and social policies, as it wasn't always that way, even in the US. StuRat 05:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Republican Party began as the party of porkbarrels, rapidly raising taxes for infrastructure projects. FDR was elected in 1932 on a small-government platform (implying, contrary to mythology, that Hoover left something to reduce government from!) but reversed himself once in office, to beat the Republicans at the vote-buying game; that made the Republicans the party of free-market rhetoric. &mdash;Tamfang 22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Stalin and Hitler
How do they compare as military leaders? BadDog4 05:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the fact that Stalin obviously defeated Hitler is relevant. Hitler made several strategic and tactical decisions that are now wideley seen as errors. For example; not destroying Britains radar network when he could have easily/not appreciating the significance of radar soon enough. Making the descision During the battle of britain to stop attacking fighter bases and switch to bombing london when the RAF were on their knees. Refusing his commanders request to withdraw after loosing at Stalingrad, leading to the capture of hundreds of thousands of troops. Refusing to supply his troops in Russia with proper winter equipment and clothing. There must be a section on the hitler page regarding his success/failure as a military leader. In a nutshell he repeatedly overuled his commanders, who knew what they were doing more than him. And the fact he was pretty bonkers meant he constantly overestimated the german armed forces capabilities, and underestimated his oponents.

Dont know as much re Stalin. But he did order the murder of thousands of his officers before the war, which wouldnt have exactly helped. Having said that the modernisation and effectiveness of soviet troops and equipment during the war was pretty remarkable. Willy turner 12:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Very difficult to analyse, because the Hitler of 1939 vintage was a rather different beast than the 1945 one. Also, be aware that being on the offensive always makes a military leader look good, but there's more to it than that. So the all-conquering Wehrmacht in the early part of the war makes Hitler look good, but how did he cope with stagnation and then retreat? Compare how the media perceived GW Bush during the successful invasion of Iraq... with how his military leadership is perceived now after some years of military occupation. --Dweller 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The speed and easy with which Hitler's forces defeated the large and well equipped Belgian, British and French forces in 1940 per Timeline of World War II makes him look like a military wizard. The later idiocies make him look like a military bozo. Stalin did idiotic things too, like shooting many of his generals right before the Nazi attack on Russia, due to a deception by the Germans to make him think his generals were conspiring against him. Then he stayed incommunicado for an extended time after the German attack began, doing nothing to provide leadership. He also had the advantage of vast amounts of equipment shipped to Russia from the US, which Hitler certainly did not have. Edison 14:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Edison, that view on Stalin and the military purges of 1938 has long been discarded. The 'Heydrich Plot' was a political fiction.  Clio the Muse 00:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned in an earlier thread, if Hitler had not been such a rabid anti-semite, the Hans Bethes of the world would likely have been working for him instead of Uncle Sam. It's questionable whether Germany could have mounted a Manhattan Project during the war, but chasing most of the best physicists out of Europe definitively foreclosed any possibility.  Bad military move, especially when he could have used a Hail Mary at the end of the war.--TotoBaggins 14:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Hitler did invest heavily in "wonder weapons" of many sorts, so you can't really fault him for not investing in one particular one (which his best scientists told him was unpromising, and which most scientists worldwide thought was a long-shot in any case, even in the US effort). --24.147.86.187 22:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, but if the likes of Leó Szilárd and Albert Einstein had still been in Europe, then the letter in the photo at right might have been addressed "Dear Mein Fuhrer ...". --TotoBaggins 13:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference between Stalin and Hitler as military leaders? Well, that's simple enough: Hitler thought he was a genius and acted like a genius, with disastrous consequences for the whole German war effort. Stalin thought he was a genius and acted like a politician, giving the initiative to the people who had the talent and skill to realise his strategic vision. Stalin learned from his mistakes; Hitler did not learn from Stalin's mistakes. Possibly the worst order that any leader can give to his generals is 'hold on at all costs and do not retreat.' All this means is that the enemy finds a weak point, advances and then destroys the defending forces in battles of envelopment, precisely what happened in western Russia in the summer and autumn of 1941. But by 1942 Stalin had learned the advantages of trading territory for military advantage. The Second Battle of Kharkov was to be the last truly serious Russian defeat in the war. Thereafter, with minimal interference from Stalin, soldiers like Georgy Zhukov and Ivan Koniev were allowed sufficient inititive to bring their formidable talents to bear. Hitler, in contrast, began to interfere with military operations, down to the most basic levels of command, robbing the German army of the flexibility and initiative which had long been the chief mark of its battle-field effectiveness. The German Sixth Army could have withdrawn from Stalingrad even after it was surrounded in November 1942; but Hitler insisted that it remain. A new pattern of fight and defend at all costs was established, leading to the destruction of one German force after the other as the Russians pushed westwards in 1943-44.

There are other factors to consider in the respective war-time roles of Stalin and Hitler. As a leader Stalin was an inspiration, and his decision to remain in Moscow, and be seen in public, as the Germans advanced towards the city, had an incalculable effect on Russian morale. W. Averell Harriman, the U.S. ambassador to Moscow from 1943-45, was to say of him "I'd like to emphasize my great admiration for Stalin the national leader in an emergency, one of those historical occasions when one man made such a difference." Contrast that with Hitler who, as the German emergency deepened, sunk further and further into the background, leaving Goebbels to fill the gap in national leadership. For all his faults Stalin was an asset for the Russian war effort; for all his talents Hitler was a disaster for the German. Clio the Muse 00:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hitler was a completely incompetent military leader. His skill was in public speaking.  (BTW, anyone who thinks GWB is the next Hitler should try to listen to Bush as he tries to talk :-). StuRat 04:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Waiting lines for NHS
I have watch the movie Sicko. My only concern with a universal health care system is the waiting lines. How bad could they become? I don't know anyone from the UK. Can someone from UK enlighten me? I looked at the wiki page on NHS and it did say


 * The length of waiting lists for consultations and surgical procedures.

How bad would it be, for example if I have a heart attack?

220.239.108.118 09:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Speaking as a citizen of a country with a universal health care system (Belgium), I can answer that it needn't be bad. When I had appendicitis, I was examined and in the operating room within a few hours (can't be more precise as I don't remember much beyond, y'know, stabbing pain). People from the UK and the Netherlands actually come here to get operations done, as well. There are many ways of implementing a universal health care system, so don't compare only to the UK's. :) Random Nonsense 11:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In Canada, it's horrible. I personally know one woman who was afraid she had breast cancer.  They forced her to wait months for an appointment with a specialist.  The Jade Knight 12:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A Canadian friend of mine has shingles. She had to wait eight hours in the ER before being put into an isolation ward.  During the eight hours, my supposedly contagious friend was sitting amongst all of the other patients, visiting the cafeteria, shopping at the gift shop.  Corvus cornix 16:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Shingles cannot be passed from one person to another. However, the virus that causes shingles, VZV, can be spread from a person with active shingles to a person who has never had chickenpox through direct contact with the rash. The person exposed would then develop chickenpox, not shingles. The virus is not spread through sneezing, coughing or casual contact. A person with shingles can spread the disease when the rash is in the blister-phase. Once the rash has developed crusts, the person is no longer contagious. A person is not infectious before blisters appear or with post-herpetic neuralgia (pain after the rash is gone).' shingles.
 * Meanwhile, as described below, I have a "good" plan and live in a state with "excellent" healthcare. Last time I took a friend who was passing out for no apparent reason to the ER, it was five hours before getting seen, and then it was immediate hospitalization and IV and 'good thing you came in'. We were literally just getting up to leave and see if it would "get better over night". Last time I went to the ER myself, I had to sit with a bleeding head wound for 2 hours before getting seen. The punchline is, I was the only one in the waiting room. Given that it was 6 pm, I can only assume the staff were having dinner. Which I don't begrudge them; I certainly wasn't going to die, but if you think the main goal in any ER, anywhere, is to make the patient happy and comfortable ASAP, forget it. They see people coming in with a knife sticking out of their eyeball, they're not going to feel the same urgency about your skin rash as you do. Gzuckier 17:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, if you had a heart attack you would be treated immediatley. Willy turner 12:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't really a Humanities question, you know, so I'll just urge you to stick to Dame Logic. If someone "knows someone who," don't take that as evidence.  If you find studies, look at the sources.  Remember that any governmental agency requires funding, and if the funding is cut by enemies of the program, the program will not work very well.  As for the UK, look at the last time the rumor of cutting the NHS spread, with John Major, and his government nearly fell from the mere rumor.  The citizenry grumble, but the system appears to be overwhelmingly popular.  Geogre 13:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In the US, with "good" insurance, it took ten months for me to get ear surgery to correct a hearing problem. I was required to see no fewer than FIVE doctors before I was able to see the surgeon who scheduled the surgery a month later (it would have been sooner, but he was going on vacation). Despite living in a major metropolitan area, my "good" insurance also claimed that there was only one doctor in the metropolitan area, with his office 20 miles away, who could do the surgery. I remember being told back in 93 that we didn't want universal healthcare because we didn't want the government picking our doctors. Apparently we want accountants doing that. Donald Hosek 14:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Amen. I had "good" insurance and live in a state with "excellent" healthcare. I got mysterious cramps in my leg, so bad I had to stop and rest just to get from my desk to my car at work. Took 6 months to see a specialist, who sent me for a cat scan. Got billed for the cat scan because the MD failed to preauthorize it, despite the insurance contract saying I would not be billed for anything a 'participating' MD recommended, no matter what. The insurance company, MD, and cat scan place pointed fingers at each other, but I just refused to pay and finally they went away. The icing on the cake is that the MD and the cat scan place are parts of the same big practice and are down the hall from each other. And, of course, the leg pain finally went away by itself without the doctor ever getting around to doing anything.
 * Part two: I had occasion to see a neurologist and a GI specialist. Had to wait two months to get to see each. In each case, it was just an initial visit, before starting the real work. Before I could get a second visit with either, the insurance company notified me as a 'courtesy' when they did the next year's contracts, that neither of these doctors were 'participating' any more, i.e. if I wanted to go on with the diagnosis, never mind the treatment, I would have to cover half. I had noted that the bill for the single neurologist visit, which the insurer had paid as 'usual and customary charges', was $750. I didn't bother starting up all over again with new doctors; the GI thing went away, the neurological thing is still there.
 * Part three: My insurance company gave cash incentives for healthy living, like getting a physical every year. So, I got a physical (after only a four month wait) and got $20. I also got a bill from the doctor for $250, because the insurance company only pays for one physical every two years and I had one the year before.
 * The thing is, that I'm pretty healthy, and like I said, this is a "good" insurance plan and these are "good" doctors, and none of this is particularly unusual. Everybody I know who is about the same age has similar stories often with worse endings, for themselves or their family or parents. I have family in Canada, and their healthcare isn't perfect either, by any means. But their stories are certainly no worse than the stories of American healthcare; they're indistinguishable, except that they are never left staring at a huge doctor's bill, let alone having to pay it. And what they pay for their healthcare indirectly through taxes is about half of what we're paying indirectly through our employers plus our cash "contributions".
 * Meanwhile, the waits in emergency rooms are huge. You could easily die of a heart attack in the ER waiting for treatment if you walk in instead of taking the ambulance ride. And I can say from family experience, if you need immediate treatment in Canada (I don't have any experience with the UK) you do get it immediately; if you have a heart condition you can get admitted into the hospital directly from the doctor's office. Gzuckier 15:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One thing to note is that the US currently spends much more per-patient than the NHS does, so any lines would be correspondingly shorter. --TotoBaggins 14:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * TotoBaggins, are you talking about Federal dollars, Fed and state combined dollars, or total dollars spent per patient without regard to source? Does the per paitent spending exclude the overhead costs of an employer (or a private individual) contracting with an insurance company that operates or contracts with a PPO or HMO which then employs or contracts with actual care providers? Also, most (if not all) US gov't spending for healthcare goes to Medicare, Medicaid. and WIC. So if you are not old, poor, or pregnant; you see roughly none of that money. 161.222.160.8 21:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the general boogie man trotted out for governmental insurance (other than "In the UK, they hate it," when they don't, and "In Canada, they cross the border to get life saving surgery," when they don't) is "waste." "Government waste" is the reason to avoid rationalized health care and state health care.  Ok.  Supposing that all government agencies have an 18% waste rate (much higher than the US federal government does have at the Veteran's Administration, but never mind that).  Suppose that private insurance has 11% waste.  That leaves 7% greater waste with the government.  Now, free market corporations exist to make a profit.  Is that profit margin over 7%?  Can the patient do anything about the profits?  Publically traded corporations are required to maximize profits, by law.  They must deny every claim they can and pay as little as possible.  In a democracy, people can change their governments, but they can't change their corporate insurer's profit margins or force them to behave in their interests, when they are compelled not to.  Additionally, the high capitalization required to set up a health insurance company means that there is not easy and open competition between providers.  This, however, is just logic.  Reality may not obey it.  Geogre 15:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's pretty much a truism in the healthcare industry that at this point, all the slack has been squeezed out, and the main way to increase profitability is to squeeze out the sick people. This of course leads to the unavoidable spiral; in order to attract people who don't actually need healthcare you have to lower your rates, which doesn't allow you to cover people who do need healthcare, so you squeeze them out more, which means that you are now looking for a population who need even less healthcare, so you need to lower your rates more, etc.
 * Note that the US Medicare program, which is socialized medicine, is not only the most cost effective medical care provided in the US, but also has the highest level of patient satisfaction; and furthermore, the only part of healthcare where the US is competitive or even excels vs. other countries in quality, is healthcare for those above 70 years of age. Who, of course, are all receiving it via Medicare. Gzuckier 15:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am another person with "good" insurance in a U.S. state with top-notch medical care, and I have had to wait months for attention to severe back pain. After I waited 6 months, during which the pain subsided, my turn finally came up for the MRI.  Turns out that I had a herniated disk, which had probably gotten worse while I was waiting for attention.  Only after he had received the MRI report would my physician approve me for physical therapy.  The insurance paid the bill, but not before they paid accountants and other examiners to try to find reasons not to pay the bill, and not before they had distributed dividends to shareholders and hundred-million-dollar bonuses to executives.  In civilized countries, they get you treatment as quickly as they can, and the government pays the bill, without the overhead.  Marco polo 21:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You could look at the statistics here, but they only go up to 2003 and they have been improving for the last few years. This article from 2002 gives some idea of how things have been changing in the last few years. Compare it with this article from this year. Pay attention to the 'months' in one, and the 'weeks' in the other! In short, waiting lists can get very long if those in charge of funding don't put enough money in, and don't organise it properly; waiting lists can also get a lot shorter, if the will is there. Ah, if only it weren't for the slaughter, Tony Blair would surely be remembered as a great Prime Minister... Skittle 20:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be able to get more up to date stats from here http://www.performance.doh.gov.uk/waitingtimes/index.htm It looks like they are up to about January 2007. I had two moles removed a year or two ago, and was satisfied with the service. One of the moles turned out to be pre-malignant, so if I was in the US I may not have had health insurance, it would not have been spotted, and it probably would have killed me in several years time. You typically have to wait twenty-minutes or longer before seeing a doctor when you have an appointment, but you probably get that anywhere. The service in France is said to be the most de-luxe in europe, but they use a higher proportion of GDP for it. The big thing is, that here in the UK you do not have to worry about healthcare: even the poorest person gets even advanced surgery such as heart-lung transplants free of charge. It is right that it is constantly criticised in the press because only with criticism and zealous scrutiny are things going to keep getting better. See this search on the BBC website for example http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=hospital+waiting+list&scope=all&edition=d&tab=all&recipe=all&x=48&y=9


 * Treatment for heart attack or other emergency would be instant: an ambulance is supposed to get to you within eight minutes, see for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5382044.stm . In the UK you can also have private health insurance as well if you wish, but very few people choose to have it. Although I envy the big open spaces in the USA, as it is very expensive to buy a house in the country not close to other houses, its the lack of an NHS that stops me having any thoughts of wanting to emigrate. 80.0.106.3 15:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhaw ang Tigang na Lupa
Please help me get a copy of the story entitled "Uhaw ang Tigang na Lupa" by Liwayway Arceo of the Philippines.Cpamplona 12:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Crime in Victorian England
How was crime viewed in Victorian England? Gordon Nash 12:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It depends what sort of crimes you mean; Victorian England (and indeed the rest of the UK) tended to be very tough on crimes; especially that we would today consider petty crime; stealing a dress could result in being sent to prison for two months while teenager Isabella Reilly, who stole £10, got 7 years. Of course not all crimes were treated so seriously - employment laws were almost non-existent: by comparison Thomas Clark, manager of a chimney sweep company, only got 6 months for forcing a child into a 30 cm (1 ft) wide chimney and suffocating him. Prison was a nasty place as well; while some people, like Elizabeth Fry, encouraged prison reforms, most Victorian moralists believed that prisons should be as close to hell on Earth as possible; Sydney Smith, a very progressive man for the age, said that "[prison] work should be as dull as possible - pushing and pulling instead of reading and writing" and that food "should be no better than water, gruel, and flour pudding". Prisoners frequently had to build and then disassemble pyramids of cannon balls; Birmingham Prison even had something called the crank which prisoners had to spin; a huge wheel whose sole purpose was to count 10,000 revolutions and did no useful work, and was used until 1898; decades after Fry's prison reform. Laïka  16:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the treadmill. Skittle 18:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not put the prisoners to some useful work, like manning a quarry, perhaps ? StuRat 16:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * According to this £10 in 1865 (around the middle of Queen Victoria's reign) would be worth around £615 in 2006 or over $1200. -Czmtzc 16:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, that would make more sense; my source claimed it was "a purse containing £10", so I assumed it would be worth a bit less than that (you don't normally carry 600 quid with you; I'm guessing that the book hadn't already converted it to modern money, in which case £10 pounds today would be worth 3 shillings and sixpence in 1875 (the year of the arrest))! Whistling in the street got Peter McKenna a fine of £2 in 1873; looking at that site, that would be worth £121 in todays money! Laïka  17:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Laika, where are you getting these punishments? Sounds like an interesting site... -Czmtzc 18:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a book; the Villainous Victorians, by Terry Deary. Laïka  18:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a huge literature on this fascinating subject, from an analysis of statistical trends to the examination of individula cases, too much to detail here; but please let me know if you need a reading list, Gordon, and I will do my best to oblige. What I will say is that crime, as we understand it today, might even be said to be the creation of the Victorian age. Literacy had created the demand for a popular press; and the press fed on the public's taste for crime, particularly in its more lurid forms. Let's take one one case where Victorian perceptions shaped, and continue to shape, how one particular case has been projected and understood: namely the Whitechapel Murders of 1888. Here we are in the realm of Jack the Ripper. He was a 'gentleman', was he not, one who may even have come all the way down to the slums from the palaces of royalty? Well, in fact, we know virtually nothing about the Ripper, because he was never caught. But the journalists of the day were quite happy to fulfill the popular prejudice, no doubt stimulated by the publication two years previously of Robert Louis Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, that the Ripper was a 'toff', who got his 'pleasures' slumming in London's seedy east end.

'Mugging' was also the creation of the Victorian age, or at least the popular anxiety associated with the crime is. It began with the 'garotting panic' of 1862. Assailants would attack a victim from the back, half-throttle and then rob him. The technique itself had been learned from the practice in convict ships, where it was used in restraining prisoners. The panic began when an MP was attacked in this fashion after leaving a late sitting in the Commons. Soon the press was full of adverts for 'anti-garotte collars' for gentlemen!

The next big concern was over the nature of criminality itself. Most law-breakers, of course, were from the urban poor, the seedbed of the new 'criminal classes'. An explanation was required, beyond mere poverty of course, and was readily supplied by the likes of Edwin Chadwick, the Poor Law reformer, who believed criminality was the response of the idle and the feckless, tempted by easy returns as an alternative to honest labour. Temperance reformers placed the blame on alcohol, just as reformers in education blamed ignorance and lack of opportunity. For the evangelists, it was all due to the abandonment of the standards set by religion. With the growth of popular forms of Social Darwinsim heredity became a factor; and by the end of the century the notion of the habitual criminal, tainted by birth and background, was gaining ascendency over the notions of morality and idelness. From this management and control became the dominant elements of law-enforcement; and so it remains today. Clio the Muse 03:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that even despite this new moral panic, among the law abiding, the police were sometimes more unpopular than the criminals; the upper classes had to pay high taxes to fund the new Metropolitan Police, while the working class was cut off from the black market - after a police raid in the slums in November 1840 to break up a forgery ring, a crowd of locals gathered around the house to pelt the police with stones, while in the 1840s, George Waldegrave, 7th Earl Waldegrave hired a professional boxer to attack one Police Officer and tried to run down another one with his cart! Laïka  10:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed, Laika. Many working-class communities, quite apart from any criminal elements, resented the police because of their tendency to interfere with what were considered to be quite legitimate leisure pursuits.  They were often described as 'blue locusts' or 'blue drones', and attacks on the police continued in disproportionate numbers for the best part of the century.  It was only latterly that their 'social control' function achieved a widespread acceptance.  Clio the Muse 22:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You may like this site http://www.victorianlondon.org/ which after some clicking shows you the relevant text of transcripts of Vitorian books written at the time, including much about crime. Last time I saw it, it didnt have so much advertising. There is also www.victorianweb.org 80.0.106.3 17:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War
What would have been the likely political outcome of a Republican victory in the Spanish Civil War? Tower Raven 12:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A propaganda dream for the USSR for one thing, I guess (had "Socialism in one country" been somewhat tailed back by 1937, to allow for greater co-operation with capitalist states, and Stalin learned his lesson that fascism was a bigger threat than socialism?) and a propaganda nightmare for Hitler and Mussolini, both of whom would have been pleased to have an ideologically similar next door neighbour. Mussolini would have come off worse in prestige, though, because he was the one who sent the greater forces to Spain to help the right. To state the obvious, the left would clearly have stayed in power. I could see WW2 still going ahead though, because Hitler was never going to rely on having a fascist ally in the form of Spain.martianlostinspace 15:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that there has been any conflict in history more misread than the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939, and one that continues to be misread, if we take Ken Loach's Land and Freedom as an example. There was not one civil war but several, some with deep roots in Spanish history, most often concerned with the friction between central power and local autonomy.  For the government in Madrid the Anarchists, their allies, were as big a threat as the Fascists, their enemies.  It's likely, then, that the victorious Spain, though dominated by bourgeoise democrats, would have continued to rely on the military and political support of Stalin and the Communists.  For such support the Communists would clearly demand some kind of return, and in stages are likely to have acquired a dominant position in government, perhaps even fulfilling the prediction of Julian Besterio, the moderate socialist politician, that "if the war is won, Spain will be Communist.  For every other element of our democracy this would be calamitous."   Consider what was to happen a few years hence in Poland, for example, another Catholic and agrarian nation. The same pattern of alliance, co-option and control is likely to have emerged in Spain in 1939-40.


 * The Franco dictatorship was centralist in nature; there is no reason to suppose that the victorious republic would have been any different. The Communist controlled Popular Army would thus have suppressed any attempts at Anarchist resistance, just as it would have moved against the seperatist movements in Catalonia and the Basque country.  Would there have been another Civil War?  This is possible.  There would certainly have been a lengthy period of political instability and counter-insurgency operations.  This leads on to the next stage of my analysis: Spain's position in the coming international crisis.


 * Republican Spain, dominated by the Communists, would, of course, have followed the Russian lead after the Nazi-Soviet Pact was concluded in August 1939, which meant rejecting the coming Second World War as an 'imperialist conflict'. A Soviet satellite standing astride the western gate to the Meditteranean may very well have provoked a response by Britain and France, if not outright intervention then perhaps some military assistance to the remnants of the Nationalist army, which had taken refuge in Portugal in 1939, a situation that would have destabilised the country even further.  Hitler, after his victory over France in 1940, would therefore have a weak and divided Spain, controlled by the Communists, on his southern flank.  The outbreak of war with the Soviet Union in 1941 is quite likely to have been followed at one and the same time by an invasion of Spain, or at least a dash for the vital base of Gibraltar; this was certainly within the capability of the German army left in France.  We know that Hitler had such a plan even with Franco in control.  With Spain governed by Dolores Ibárruri there is no reason to suppose that he would not have put these plans into effect.  In the end Franco, if he serves no other historical purpose, may very well have saved Spain from Hitler.  Clio the Muse 02:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree that Spain would have become a puppet government of the Soviet Union. One major difference versus Poland is that Spain was not oocupied by Soviet troops.  Another huge difference is that Spain does not share a common border with any Soviet-controlled nations, so was not subject to Soviet invasion, as was the case in the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan.  I would compare what would have happened in Spain to what did happen in Cuba.  While Cuba relied on the Soviets, Castro was never a puppet of them, and was able to do as he pleased. StuRat 16:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II's "Uncle Dickey"
I saw on a PBS show, that the Queen of the UK had a "Uncle Dickey", and he was assassinated, but WP couldn't confirm it when I looked it up. Is this true? - Presidentman 15:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is indeed true - Louis Mountbatten. Lanfear&#39;s Bane
 * Thanks, because he was called "Dickey" I looked up him by the possible name of Richard, etc. But when I couldn't find one I came here. - Presidentman


 * This from Philip Ziegler's biography of Mountbatten: "With a perversity characteristic of the British upper classes at the time, the child was never called by any of [his 5 given names]. A nickname was de rigeur, and the Queen [Victoria] suggested Nicky. This served for a while but caused confusion amid the plethora of Nickies at the Russian Court, and recourse was had to Dicky, or, more frequently, Dickie. Dickie he remained for the rest of his life." DuncanHill 21:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He was a man who knew the ins and outs of wearing a dickie. --  JackofOz 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrongway Corrigan's flight and Clifford MacGregor's North Pole Expedition
We're looking for information about the polar explorer and aviation pioneer Clifford MacGregor. A book was written about him and Douglas Corrigan in the 1940's. Thank you! Georgia Hunt


 * I can't turn much up about a Clifford MacGregor from a Google search, when paired with search terms like "north pole," "explorer," etc., and pairing the name with "Corrigan" gets zero hits. You may want to try and track down a bibliography of works on Douglas Corrigan (maybe starting with that article) and track back from there; I tried a few library searches and came up dry there as well, however. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) review? 16:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

MacGregor Arctic Expedition
I just posted an article on the MacGregor Arctic Expedition. bobhaybob68.56.95.143 Bobhaybob

Communication in Behavioural Science
Can you critically analyse the place of silence in communication. Mabel
 * Please do not post the same question on multiple Reference Desks. Edison 18:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Greatest Book of All Time
I would like some input. Thanks in advance. Surely, this is subjective and no one single book can definitively be deemed the greatest book written in all of time. However, what are some "good guesses" for books that would surely make the Top 10 (or Top 100 or whatever) list? If possible, please offer a title, as opposed to "Anything written by Shakespeare"-type of responses. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC))
 * See List of Great Books. &mdash; Lomn 21:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim by Rudyard Kipling. DuncanHill 21:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you go by sales, the Bible and Koran are up there. I'm not sure about the Bhagavad Gita, but in certain regions I'm certain it does well also.  The Little Red Book sold phenomenally, but that's because you had to have one under Mao's regime.  And, well... I also just ran across this: List of best-selling books.  Now if you mean "greatest" in terms of quality, do you mean content, style, number of pages...?  The best selling list might give you some indication, but the quality of content is certainly going to be judged by subjective factors.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  21:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The BBC's Big Read, although a rather populist poll, came up with the Lord of the Rings trilogy first, followed by Pride and Prejudice, His Dark Materials (again, technically a trilogy), The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire; some classics such as Nineteen Eighty-Four and To Kill a Mockingbird scored pretty highly as well though; I particularly like that Winnie-the-Pooh managed to make it into the Top 10! Laïka  21:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Some personal choices: The Name of the Rose (Umberto Eco), The Gospel According to Jesus Christ (Jose Saramago), The Untouchable and The Book of Evidence (John Banville), The Remains of the Day and An Artist of the Floating World (Kazuo Ishiguro) and Steppenwolf (Herman Hesse). Carom 21:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ulysses, by James Joyce, is a popular choice to top those top ten lists. Darn good novel, too, though very difficult to read. If we're talking about "all time," though, you can't forget The Iliad and The Odyssey, referenced throughout all of Western literature almost as often as the Bible is.  -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a silly question really: there cannot be a single greatest book (greatest by what criteria and for what purpose?). But The Origin of Species gets my vote. Gdr 01:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a silly question, really ... in fact, the premise of the question pre-emptively acknowledged and addressed your very point ... (JosephASpadaro 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Our article on the book Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy states that “According to a recent poll of 125 contemporary authors, published in a book entitled The Top Ten, Anna Karenina is the greatest novel ever written.” However in my personal opinion I would have to go with Ulysses, and The Iliad and The Odyssey as well. We should also not forget the Ramayana. --S.dedalus 01:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's worth asking whether we're judging the books on their literary merits, or their overall impact on our culture. If it's the latter, then it's a very different question, and we'd have to answer with books like The Bible, The Koran, Origin of Species, The Communist Manifesto, and Thin Thighs in Thirty Days. -FisherQueen (Talk) 03:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Complete Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Waterson. Definitively...it even has pictures. 38.112.225.84 04:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My Side of the Mountain - Jean George. the one book i would have to rescue from a burning house/take with me to a desert island/pass on to my children Perry-mankster 08:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Shame they only printed the one copy then, huh? :) ◄   Zahakiel   ►  17:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The book with the most universal appeal across all cultures must surely be ''Everybody Poops. --TotoBaggins 16:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Time Magazine offer their 100 greatest English language novels since 1923 (not sure what the significance of that date is) here. Hammer Raccoon 16:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The signficance of 1923 (in this context) is that Time Magazine was founded in that year. Carom 18:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My favorite book of all time is actually Le petit prince. It's quite a book—and in my mind, beats out the works of others I've read like Shakespeare, Plato, Steinbeck, Twain, etc. The Jade Knight 04:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In terms of the book read (at least in part) by the greatest number of people, then its probably the bible. 80.0.96.159 17:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, though you may have guessed that from my username. Absolutely no competition (to whoever gave that statistic about Anna Karenina: it's a terrible book, what kind of people were these authors?!). Anyway, if you're taking numbers of copies into account, there are probably a number of other factors you should consider. For a start, the language and place of origin of a book will have a massive impact on its sales, and how can you possibly compare, say, the Bible (which has had a long time for copies to be produced and has had very powerful champions) with modern works (which were published in a world with far more people, better communications and a ridiculous amount of advertising)? To finish as I started (with a biased, subjective, unsourced opinion), the Nibelungenlied is also very good. Bistromathic 15:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, I forgot Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which nobody else seems to have mentioned (though I am afraid to say I haven't read it). Bistromathic 15:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Many of the books listed so far aren't really books (The Iliad, The Odyssey and the Gita are epic poems) or are the "great books you wish you'd already read, but don't want to slog through now that you don't have to" like Ulysses, Origin, and the aforementioned Homerian poems. For a great novel you can actually read, try Great Expectations. A surprising readable and dangerously applicable political primer is The Prince, which has also been hugely influential. For scientific non-fiction I might nominate Guns, Germs, and Steel. Matt Deres 17:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember on the radio some American bloke saying that The Count of Monte Cristo was the best book, and that it was a real page turner. A book that few people get to the end of should not be regarded as the best book, although for historical reasons it may be the greatest book. 80.0.114.204 22:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

post ww2 spheres of influence
why did the USSR acquire such a huge sphere of influence(the Baltic,and,Balkan states,as well as everything behind the iron curtain)after WWII while all we got were some Nazi scientists and the responsibility of propping up former enemies with the Marshall plan?


 * You may want to take a look at Aftermath of World War II as a starting point on that one - it's got links to lots of relevant articles that can help your research. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 22:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The United States also acquired a 'huge sphere of influence', as you put it, in both Europe and Asia. Marshall Aid was used to 'prop up' old friends as well as 'former enemies'. If it had not been it is likely that Stalin, rather than getting a slice of the cake, would have taken control of the bakery. Clio the Muse 22:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe Clio refers to the Marshall Plan. StuRat 15:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Soviets got control of Eastern Europe because it was their tanks that were on the ground there when the war ended. As hard as the war was on the Western Allies, the Soviets lost millions of people and suffered the near ruin of parts of the country. Control over Eastern Europe was the prize the Soviets received for their enormous efforts during the war, although I doubt it was of much consolation to the people who actually put forth those efforts in the USSR. -- Mwalcoff 23:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the prevalent idea in Russia is that the hyped up D-Day was a belated attempt to steal a well-deserved victory from the Soviets. The invasion of Normandy was undertaken when the outcome of the war was quite clear; and many would argue that its primary aim was to prevent the Soviets from overrunning the rest of Europe. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, Eisenhower held some of his troops back so that they would meet the Russians in Berlin. I've heard speculation that we may have been able to meet in Prague if we'd kept going at the same pace. There isn't really any way to know what "could" have happened though. Wrad 23:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Several documentaries aired in May, during the commemoration of the Dutch liberation, stated that the Americans could advance so rapidly because of the Allied strategy: the Americans made the push forward towards Berlin, while the armies of Canada and the UK secured the territory conquered by the US. A  ecis Brievenbus 23:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Aecis, I'm sorry, but this is wrong. British and American forces advanced within their designated areas of operation; the British to the north and the Americans to the south.  British and Canadian forces did not, as your documentaries seem to suggest, advance in the wake of the Americans in some form of rear consolidation.  In relation to Wrad's point, the British and Americans both advanced deep into what was to become the Soviet sphere of influence in Germany; the British into Mecklenburg,and the Americans into Saxony as far as Leipzig.  Both were handed to the Soviets in accordance with the demarcated zones of occupation agreed at Yalta, just as the Soviets handed over sections of Berlin to the western Allies.  American forces also advanced into western Czechoslovakia, but the Russians were still in a dominant position in the area, and would remain so.  What could have happened is what did happen: the Communists seized control of an independent country in the coup of 1948.  On the wider point, the Allies advanced rapidly into western Germany after crossing the Rhine in the spring of 1945 because by that time all the hardest resistance was in the east.  Clio the Muse 00:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mwalcoff that the Soviets ended up controlling Eastern Europe for the simple reason that they were occupying it. An alternative theory that the questioner may be interested in, however, is that Franklin D. Roosevelt "gave away" Eastern Europe at the Yalta Conference because elements of his administration and the U.S. State Department were "soft on communism" and he, personally, was too weak (he would die within a matter of months) to stand up to Joseph Stalin. This seems unconvincing because there is no real way the Western Allies could have stopped Soviet control (short of attacking the Red Army and pushing it out of the European territories that it had conquered). As it was, the Soviets promised at Yalta that the countries they were occupying would have the right to independence and self-determination (a promise that they would break, but never mind that). ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The spheres of influence were agreed at the Yalta Conference in February 1945. By this point, Soviet troops occupied the whole of Rumania and Bulgaria, much of Poland, Hungary and the Baltic states, and parts of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. So the occupation of eastern Europe was already a fait accompli (this map shows the front line in January 1945). The Western Allies acquiesced in this occupation in return for a promise of Soviet assistance in the war with Japan. This was criticized after the war as a piece of shameless realpolitik. But it's hard to see what else Roosevelt and Churchill could have done: the prospect of fighting the Soviets for eastern Europe was unthinkable; Stalin was not amenable to persuasion; and the Soviet argument that they had paid for their territorial gains with blood (more than 20 million dead) while the Western Allies had delayed opening the second front gave them a significant moral advantage in the negotiations.

Clio is absolutely right about the relative contributions of the Western Allies (and the French should not be forgotten; the French First Army fought hard for the Colmar Pocket and the Black Forest), and correct to point out that as the war came to an end, all of the Allies moved to take up the occupation zones agreed at Yalta. This meant the Western Allies stopping at some places where they could have advanced (e.g. at the Elbe), and giving up other gains, but it also meant the Soviets giving up some of their territory, including three quarters of Berlin and Vienna. There's no sense in which the U.S. could have occupied Prague; the Third United States Army could perhaps have captured it, but it would have led to political trouble with the Soviets, and they would have had to give it up again as it was in the Soviet zone. The situation was tragic for the Czech resistance however, because the zones were secret; see Prague Offensive and Prague uprising. Gdr 00:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * [T]he Third United States Army could perhaps have captured it, but it would have led to political trouble with the Soviets Given that 3rd Army was commanded by George Patton, definitely. What would have been Old Blood and Gutss reaction to the order to withdraw, one wonders. ObiterDicta' ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He would have obeyed the order, then complained about it ever afterwards. Gdr 01:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to correct one detail: the Soviets kept more than 1/4 of Berlin and of Germany. The French were not represented at the Yalta Conference, which agreed on three occupation zones. When the western Allies later agreed that the French should occupy a zone as well, the Soviets weren't ceding any area. So they got about 1/3 of Berlin and about 1/3 of Germany while the other allies got about 2/9 each. Actually, looking at the maps, it seems to me that the Soviets got a bit more than 1/3, not even counting East Prussia. --Anonymous, July 11, 01:08 (UTC).


 * I thought it was because the Western allies wanted to minimize casualties, particularly taking Berlin, while Stalin didn't mind how many men he lost if it extended his domain, and the Russians in general were after revenge. Clarityfiend 06:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the West had to accept Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe while the war raged on. However, after the defeat of Japan, the US could have threatened to strike the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons if they didn't withdraw immediately. This threat, of course, would only be good until the Soviet Union developed nuclear weapons themselves. Why didn't the US do it ? I imagine they were tired of war and didn't want to be viewed as warmongers using nuclear weapons. The result, a couple generations of people condemned to live under Soviet oppression. StuRat 15:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)