Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 19

= July 19 =

Indo-Caribbeans
I have read the article of Indo-Caribbeans living in the region, but is there any Indians living in Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Dominica, Antigua and Barbuda and St Kitts and Nevis? After all, the term "Indo-Caribbean" means the whole region, right? and is it true that there Indo-Caribbeans living in Cuba? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.207 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 19 July 2007


 * The following quote from Cuba certainly describes a very mixed population, which is reflective of what I have seen there: "Its people, culture and customs draw from several sources including the aboriginal Taíno and Ciboney peoples, the period of Spanish colonialism, the introduction of African slaves, and its proximity to the United States." I don't know that there is a large number of descendents of peoples from India in the country, but there may well be some. Once Indians were in the area, having been brought over originally as indentured servants, and later as professionals and traders, moving from one island to another was often a very informal process.  The name Indo-Caribbean just refers to a mix of Indian and Caribbean bloodlines; there don't have to be populations of such peoples on every Caribbean Island for the term to be a valid description. Bielle 04:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that prior to about 1720 fairly large numbers of Native Americans from the colonies that became the USA (especially South Carolina) were enslaved and shipped to the Caribbean Islands. Although the numbers are dwarfed by the African slave imports, estimates of about 50,000 Native American Indian slaves were exported from Charleston, South Carolina, to the Caribbean, between 1670 and 1720 or so. Thus even on islands where the native populations were essentially wiped out, Native Americans from elsewhere were brought in. For a while, back in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, Indian slaves were common in the Caribbean and in the English mainland colonies as well. The South Carolinians were able to compete, for a while, with the import of African slaves for various reasons, such as the shorter sea voyage, the small ship semi-smuggling, "under the radar" aspect of the trade, the avoidance of taxes on slave imports from Africa, the sometimes cheaper price of Indian slaves over Africans, and the old trade network existing between South Carolina and Barbados, among other islands (South Carolina was founded by Barbados colonists). So although imports of African always outnumbered Indians, and although the enslavement of Native Americans in the mainland ceased in the 18th century, there are probably people living in the Caribbean today with some ancestry from the mainland, such as Creek, Choctaw, Apalachee, Tuscarora, etc, etc. Finally, while African slaves brought from Africa tended to be male, if I understand right, Native American slaves were more often woman and children. The possibility of interbreeding seems likely. Pfly 08:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization question
Is it "Boston Mayor Tom Menino" or "Boston mayor Tom Menino"? I should know this, but am drawing a blank. BenB4 05:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Answering my own question: the former. Pretty easy to google this answer, duh!


 * Why not "Tom Menino, Mayor of Boston" ? 68.39.174.238 10:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree that mayor should be capitalized unless it is being used as a title before a name, regardless of how many such mistakes Google finds. In each of the instances above, the word mayor is being used descriptively. The word is used in apposition to Menino's name, not as his title. His title is not Boston Mayor.  It is Mayor.  The only case in which Mayor should be capitalized, in my opinion, is when it immediately precedes his name and is not used appositively.  For example, Boston mayor Tom Menino or Tom Menino, mayor of Boston but Boston's Mayor Tom Menino or Mayor Tom Menino of Boston.  (Oddly enough, Menino is my mayor, as I live and work in Boston.)  Marco polo 15:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Same rules apply for pope or bishop, though you'd scarcely know it from reading Wikipedia. --Wetman 06:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Heart of Atlanta Motel
Does the Heart of Atlanta Motel of Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States still exist? What happened to it? In any case, this should be mentioned in the Heart of Atlanta Motel article)Neutralitytalk 07:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it appears to now be a Hilton Hotel. See [ [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]talk 07:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

First gay knight
Who was the first openly gay man to be knighted in Great Britain? --Jacobstry 07:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ian McKellen was the first openly gay actor to be knighted. I'm not sure if he was the first openly gay man to be knighted.  152.16.188.107 08:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The question is impossible to answer. Knighthood goes back over 1000 years and homosexuality a lot longer. AFAIK being "open" about it was not an issue until fairly recently.--Shantavira|feed me 14:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They weren't Knights and it wan't great Britian, but you might be interested in looking at the article on the Sacred_Band_of_Thebes. They were the elite fighing unit of the Theban Army and consisted of 150 pairs of gay lovers, under the theory that 1. A man wouldn't want to be cowardly in battle in front of his lover, and 2. The lovers would perform heroically to protect each other. - Czmtzc 18:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. So the gay bomb would never have worked.--Shantavira|feed me 18:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in Greeks and Gaveston, thank you. I'm curious about modern Britain. I think may be it was Benjamin Britten or John Gielgud or maybe Noel Coward. They did not say they were gay, but everybody knew it. --Jacobstry 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that your definition of "openly gay"? --Dweller 20:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Gielgud's cottaging conviction was a bit of a giveaway... DuncanHill 23:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If so, then perhaps Edward II of England? Adam Bishop 21:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ooooh, I was going to say Edward II, but then I wondered if the Garter was operative at the time, and if every monarch was automatically installed, and...lots of things. James I would definitely have been knighted, but how openly gay he was is a bit of a question.  In fact, whether "gay" means anything in regard to James I is up in the air.  Edward II is unusual in fact because he seems to be solely same-sex oriented.  Geogre 01:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The order of the Garter was started by Edward II's son Edward III, and Edward II's sexuality is disputed I believe. His enemies may have called him a sodomite, and he was close to Gaveston and the younger Hugh Despenser, but is that a sure sign he was gay? I'll admit it's certainly a strong hint. I have even read a suggestion that he was having an incestuous affair with his cousin and Despenser's wife Eleanor de Clare! Cyta 08:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that Jacobstry made it clear above that he's not interested in Gaveston. If you think that Edward II may be described as "the first openly gay man to be knighted in Great Britain", you may look even further back in history and examine the case of the Lionheart who seems to have had to interest in women, including his wife, but is known to have shared the bed with Philippe Auguste. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

And back on topic, Benjamin Britten wasn't knighted, he was a life peer (Baron). Cyta 08:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Lionheart
What is the story behind the monicker of Richard the Lionheart? --Jacobstry 07:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This question has been asked before, though I'm not certain (and this is no false modesty) that it was answered brilliantly. I also note that the article's not been updated; perhaps because of the uncertainty. See here Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_January_15 --Dweller 08:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The best story is that he fought a lion and ripped its heart out through its mouth. (And by "best" I mean "coolest" not "most accurate"!) Adam Bishop 21:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * These appellations have a tendency to be awarded after death, often under no very precise circumstances, and recall some characteristic that is felt to be worthy of note, in this case Richard's courage. The other one that springs to mind is that of Edward I, known as Malleus Scotorum-Hammer of the Scots-which only appeared on his tomb at Westminster Abbey in the Tudor period.  Clio the Muse 01:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I must be more tired than I had thought, as when I read Edwad's Tudor-era appellation in you post above, it appeared to me as Malleus Scrotum - most unfortunate! Carom 16:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha! Ha! Ha! If no-one else wants to go down in history as The Ball Breaker (loosely translated) I will happily assume the title!  Clio the Muse 22:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla and Mexican Independence
Your page on Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla and his role in the Mexican War of Independence is a little too brief, considering his importance. I would be grateful for some more detail on his army, the campaign of 1810 and any other information that can be given on the political background to his rising. Thanks in advance. General joffe 11:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Any particular reason you do not want to read a few books and expand it? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In the meantime I can offer you one or two additional items of information to help you on your way, General joffe.


 * We do not know exactly when Hidalgo turned his thoughts towards rebellion against the colonial power, but the break is thought to have come sometime after Joseph Bonaparte replaced Ferdinand VII on the throne of Spain. This was one of the decisive moments in Mexican history, breaking a political link that had united the country with Spain for three hundred years.  Literary clubs began to emerge, expressing a whole range of radical views, united by a general discontent against the new political realities in the Spanish Empire.  Hidalgo, a priest of unconventional views, attended one such provincial group in Guanajunto.


 * Growing up in a hacienda, where his father, a Creole, was employed as a superintendant, Hidalgo developed an early sympathy for the unskilled Indian workers. Though he trained as a priest, he retained an interest in political and social questions, which he carried with him to his first parish in the town of Dolores.  By 1809 his sense of discontent was turning openly to revolutionary politics, and the possibility of a rising against the vice-regal government of what was then New Spain.  He was joined by Ignacio Allende, a young officer from the nearby town of San Miguel, also a Creole, frustrated by the inherent racism in colonial administration, which preferred to advance immigrant Spaniards, rather than people born in Mexico, no matter how 'pure' their blood.  The fall of Ferdinand created a vacuum which Allende, and other ambitious Creoles were determined to fill.


 * Early on the morning of Sunday September 16 1810 Hidalgo and Allende received a warning that the authorities had intelligence of the planned rising. Hidalgo's parishioners had been coming in from the surrounding countryside, expecting to hear mass; instead the heard a call to arms.  As well as invoking the name of King Ferdinand and the Virgin of Guadalupe, he denounced the Gauchupines, a derogatory term for the Spanish-born overlords, specifically designed to appeal to an Indian audience.


 * From Dolores, the rebel force moved on San Miguel, gathering support along the way like a rolling avalanche. In the process the movement began to be openly anti-Spanish rather than pro-Ferdinand, and Hidalgo dropped his own pretence to loyalism in favour of outright support for Mexican independence.  So, what began as a conservative reaction turned into a popular, largely Indian, anti-colonial revolution.  The army then moved on Guanajunto, the provincial capital, where Antonio Riano, the governor, attempted to organise a defense.  But he was only able to assemble some 500 men, Creole and Spanish, against an Indian force now estimated at 20,000 strong.  The town fell to onslaught on 28 September, during which many of the defenders were massacred.  The rebel army then moved south-east towards Mexico City, close to which General Felix Calleja had placed some 3000 cavalry and 600 infantry at the pass of Las Cruces.


 * In the ensuing Battle of Las Cruces the tiny defending force faced 80,000 rebels. The Royalists managed to hold off the advance in two days of hard fighting, assisted by the fact that Hidalgo's men had scarcely any firearms.  But in the end they were defeated by sheer weight of numbers, and 200 survivors of the battle fell back on Mexico City, now virtually defenceless.  Hidalgo now stood like Alaric the Goth before Rome, but unlike Alaric he did not press his advantage, and the rebels moved away from the capital, to the north-east in the dirtection of Valladolid, present-day Morelia, and from thence on to Guadalajara.  Calleja, with a enhanced Royal army, followed in close pursuit, finally forcing Hidalgo and Allende to make a stand on the banks of the Calderon River, where a battle was fought on the morning of January 16 1811.


 * Although numerically weaker, Calleja's force was far better armed. Hidalgo, moreover, had organised his own forces badly, ignoring the advice of the more experienced Allende.  Under sustained attack by cavalry, infantry and artillery, the rebel army collapsed in panic when one of Royalist shells struck an ammunition wagon.  Calleja's victory was complete.


 * Allende, who had grown increasingly frustrated with Hidalgo during the campaign, a mood that was compounded by the murderous indiscipline of the Indian army, promptly relieved his chief of command, and carried him northwards with his tiny remaining force, towards the American border, where he hoped to gain the help and support of President James Madison. However, on March 21, he was intercepted by Royalist forces, and the two leaders taken prisoner.  Both men were subsequently executed by firing squad.  Prior to his death Hidalgo expressed regret for the bloodshed unleashed by the revolt, though he remained firm in his conviction that Mexico had to be free.  Clio the Muse 01:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I used the details provided by Clio to expand Miguel Hidalgo, which now looks more or less complete. Unfortunately, it is unreferenced, as is Mexican War of Independence. Both articles note that Hidalgo was decapitated rather than executed by firing squad. It would have been great if somebody with a command of Spanish translated es:Batalla del Monte de las Cruces and several other pages on the key battles of the campaign. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ghirla, the sources I referred to are The Birth of Modern Mexico, 1780-1824 by C. I. Archer, The Hidalgo Revolt by H. M. Hamill, and a Concise History of Mexico by B. R. Hamnett. And Hidalgo was definitely executed by firing squad!  Clio the Muse 22:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I infer that Hidalgo was shot dead and then decapitated.  --Ghirla-трёп- 23:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

French National assembly
a. What current member of the French National Assembly has served the long? b. When was he first elected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.162.123 (talk • contribs)


 * Unfortunately, while www.assemblee-nationale.fr has various lists of members, they don't seem to have one based on this criterion. I looked at the list of members by age and checked the individual pages for all of those 65 and older, and the longest-serving one that I found was Didier Julia, who was first elected in 1967 when he was 33, and is now 73. It would be hard for anyone under 65 to have   served longer, but of course not impossible. --Anonymous, July 19, edited 21:53 (UTC).

British India’s political status.
Was British India in a personal union with the UK or was it merely a colony? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.162.123 (talk • contribs)


 * According to our article Personal union, such a union can exist only between sovereign states. British India, as such, was never a sovereign state; it was a British dependency. India was in a brief personal union with the United Kingdom from 1947, when it gained independence, until 1950, when it became a republic.  Marco polo 15:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Alien abduction.
a. How do believers in Alien abduction explain the ability for aliens to abduct their victims in urban and suburban areas without being observed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.162.123 (talk • contribs)
 * Generally, no explanation is given, or an untestable hypothesis used (the spacecraft had a cloaking device and stealth shielding for example - any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic). However, there are a few cases where some sort of UFO was seen at the time, and one famous case where several witnesses saw a woman who later claimed to have been abducted rising from her New York city apartment (can't find the link at the moment though). Laïka  15:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually studies of people who claim to have had alien encounters have been done, for example, "Toward an Explanation of the UFO Abduction Phenomenon: Hypnotic Elaboration, Extraterrestrial Sadomasochism, and Spurious Memories," by Roy F. Baumeister, Leonard S. Newman; Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 7, 1996. Baumeister wrote or co-wrote a number of articles on the topic in the mid-to-late 90s while he was on the faculty of Case Western Reserve University. I think, though, you'll need to go to a university library to find hard copy to read these. Donald Hosek 16:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's the government covering everything up, men in black and all that. Plus how to believers in alien abduction explain why aliens seem to prefer American's, abduct more after popular shows like the x-files are on and have a strange interest in probing areas that probably shouldn't be probed. Cyta 08:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And have never abducted notable humans. Bhumiya (said/done) 14:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fast Track Authority
Is Fast Track Authority a form of an Executive Agreement? Thanks. - MSTCrow 16:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely confident in my answer, but I believe fast track authority means that the President is completely in charge of negotiating the treaty, with Congress merely providing the yes or no vote on the treaty as a whole, rather than making their own changes and then voting on it. An executive agreement, on the other hand, is made only by the President, with Congress playing no role. Our article on Executive agreement is a redirect, but it does provide some useful information. GreatManTheory 17:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The average ethnicity/original nationality of the (white?) USA-er
Hello,

when I see a Caucasian USA-er, I think of "British". But how "British" or "English" are they really? They speak English alright, but the population of the USA is like five times that of the United Kingdom so....(as a mathie :) ).... I came up with this system : give each immigrant who left for the United States a certain "original nationality".  If he or she marries someone with nationality B, then their kids are 50% A and 50% B.  If he or she marries someone whose 50% C and 50% D, then their children are 25% A, 25% B, 25% C and 25% D, and so on.... So everyone in the USA has a set of percentages now.  Let's add all of it up and divide it by the total number of people in the USA. What would the result be like? What would it be for British (40%, 20%?) or for French, German, Italian, Russian? Maybe making the distinction between black, white, asian.. is important, but then again : who is 100% black or white...? And borders in Europe and other continents have changed (is someone from Alsace-Lorraine French or German?). Is an immigrant from Glasgow a Scot, or British?

Anyway, I'm not expecting someone here do calculate this for me :), but all related studies or articles or whatever about this are welcome :). Thank you,Evilbu 16:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * From personal experience I can tell you that many descendants of Scottish immigrants tend to be well-aware of their Scottishness, and almost never lump themselves in with English, perhaps because large-scale English immigration to the USA occurred earlier and as a result English-Americans tend to occupy different socio-geographical positions.


 * Religion is often a more important factor anyway. My paternal grandparents are German Catholics, and they certainly identify more with (for example) Irish-Americans than Protestant Germans. Yet they would never have identified with the Italians. There are a million different factors.


 * Certain ethnicities are quite distinct, even today. Italians, for instance. If you're an American with Italian ancestry, you know it. If you have German ancestry, you may or may not know it, and probably don't care. Bhumiya (said/done) 15:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See Racial demographics of the United States. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but here "selfidentification" seems to be the criterion, which is quite different?Evilbu 17:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Many white Americans, especially those whose ancestors immigrated more than two generations ago, do not know their full ancestry, and there is really no easy way that that information could be recovered, except perhaps through genetic analysis. Based on immigration figures and fertility rates, though, you could come up with some rough estimates.  Marco polo 19:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Using your own ad hoc system is not going to be very useful. In the US most European immigrant groups assimilated completely within two generations or so and as a consequence referring to them by previous nationalities is not useful, unless you are trying to attach a biological component to nationality, which is an entirely different and more intractable problem.
 * In any case, what you would need to get the sort of answers you want is: 1. how many people from what countries in Europe immigrated to the US at what periods of time, 2. how many children they had. Different groups of immigrants had different levels of reproduction and different periods in US history. At different times in US history, different groups of immigrants arrived (and were sometimes forced to not arrive; see Immigration Restriction Act).
 * Though frankly the self-identified nationalities listed on the page linked look reasonably correct to me, and I doubt you'd come up with radically different answers. --24.147.86.187 23:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The long form of the US census allows people to list two ancestries. It's a fill-in-the-blank form, so people can put anything. (Except "Jewish," since the Census Bureau is legally prohibited from counting anything having to do with religion.) The top choice in 2000 was German, listed as the top ancestry by 30.2 million people and the second ancestry by 12.7 million. Behind German (in combined first-second ancestry listed) were Irish, Englsh, African American and simply "American." -- Mwalcoff 23:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * An admittedly limited data point -- my own ancestry -- traced back via the paternal surname line runs all the way to 1650 or so, when the first known family immigrant arrived in Virginia. He was from England. The surname being old in America, there is a relatively robust family genealogy research network. In looking into my own ancestry -- especially the often-overlooked or poorly-documented maternal lines -- I found that despite the original (and frequent) connection to England, there were also many lines that traced back to Germany, Scotland, North Ireland, Finland, and a variety of other non-England places, including a few Native American lines. Some African ancestry is not out of the question either. Despite (or because) of all this, I'd say I was "white" and "American" if asked for a simple ancestry. Whatever "Britishness" there was became "American" long ago. Pfly 08:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Self identification has some flaws in that you choose one group from many. I will now deal in stereotypes, I know, but they must originate somewhere. A lot of American's seem to want Irish blood, and with one Irish ancestor may consider themselves to have Irish roots, however many English or other ancestors they have. England is (sadly in my view) not so good on national pride, I can't imagine many people feeling a strong English American identity, whereas maybe Scottish is more likely. Germans formed, apparently, a huge immigrant group, which I didn't realise until recently, they seem to have been quieter than the Irish, Italian etc immigrants. Also two world wars against Germany will no doubt make an outright German identity seem unwanted, but surprisingly to me, it still comes out top. Also things like the one drop rule, that anyone with any black ancestry counts as black, although maybe not strictly used any more, will mean people being counted as black, even if of mixed race. I have a feeling, though no stats, that a lot of mixed race black/white people would identify as African-American for surveys and things. Anyway, the majority ethnic identity seems to be American, so I guess it's interesting but difficult to answer. Cyta 08:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The national origins of the US population in diferent eras has been a subject of study, and I recall seeing an exhibit at Ellis Island showing the overwhelming Northern European origin of the early inhabitants, particularly (if I recall correctly) Britain, Scotland, Ireland, and Germany. In the 1940's there were still many German-speaking communities in the US, in which German was spoken in the home, in school, in church, and in stores, with English taught in school as a second language, among people whose ancestors came to the US in the 1840's through 1860's. After Ellis Island opened, there was an influx of Asian, Russian, Polish, Italian persons and others. The US has asked nation origin in the once-per-decade census since 1850, and kept to some extent lists of passengers arriving from foreign countries since colonial days, so source analysis is possible. DNA analysis  makes it possible to determine the populations which are ancestral to a person, allowing somewhat objective characterization of immigration patterns. The completeness and accuracy of this should improve over time as more populations get characterized. Many a person has been surprised by what populations they found.  Edison 21:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Britain and Scotland? As Cyta said "England is ... not so good on national pride, I can't imagine many people feeling a strong English American identity". QED. Skittle 16:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Care to tell me what nationality/ethnicity I am? Besides a smattering of Cherokee here and there, I have Dutch, French/Flemish, Scottish, Irish, Welsh and English ancestors. I think that makes me of American ethnicity. Corvus cornix 21:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your ethnicity is Cherokee, Dutch, French/Flemish, Scottish, Irish, Welsh and English; your nationality is American. You really can't be "ethnically American," unless by "American" you mean Native American. Neutralitytalk 06:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "American", in this context, is generally how Scots-Irish self-identify. If you look at a map of ethnic identification, like this one, you'll see that "American" identification corresponds to Appalachia, an area dominated by Scots-Irish immigrants. It is also common among English-Americans outside of the northeast - if you look at the south, you'll see that just about every non-AfAm county is marked either "English" or "American". Later European immigrants, such as Italians, Germans, and Scandinavians, are more likely to identify with their country of origin, or at least acknowledge it. Bhumiya (said/done) 14:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Google earth blocked area
Why google earth want to blocked/censored the area in the image below? Based on what they blocked it? roscoe_x 17:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In what way is it blocked? The area works fine in my version of Google Earth; I can see Cairo, Cyprus, Athens and Beirut all in high definition. Perhaps a brief server fault blacked out that area for a while. Laïka  17:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

roscoe_x 17:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be a fault with your Google Earth cache; selecting "Clear disk cache" (Tools>Options>Cache) may fix it; there's no logical reason to seemingly indiscriminately block out a massive chunk of the Med. Laïka  18:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I vote glitch, since Google Maps for me shows the portion of İskenderun below the blue line just as well (i.e., same poor low-resolution image). (The "blue line" image is of Iskenderun, Turkey, not of Beirut.  All of Beirut shows up in much higher resolution for me&mdash;individual cars and trees visible&mdash;on Google Maps.)  Wareh 14:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think its Google's servers error. It's already working by now. I thought it was blocked, cause I never seen this error before. Thanks for the responses. roscoe_x 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Forklift certification
Where can I learn how to drive a forklift and get certified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.95.29.154 (talk • contribs)


 * Just do a localized web search for "forklift training". You'll get plenty of suggestions.--Shantavira|feed me 18:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My "Yellow Pages" directory lists several training companies too.--Shantavira|feed me 07:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Good intro to British history?
Hi all,

I am looking for some suggestions to a good intro to British history book, something of the same general style as http://www.amazon.com/Penguin-History-Latin-America/dp/0140125590 for Latin American history (ie. brief but detailed when needs be). I'd be particularly pleased with something that starts in the paleolithic era, until the present (but it could end before the 20th century, if need be). Any good and recent books to recommend?

Thanks! Richardmtl 17:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Richard, the one I would recommend would be The Oxford History of Britain by K. O. Morgan, though I think, perhaps, that The British Isles: A History of Four Nations by H. Kearney might be closer to what you are looking for. Slightly more demanding, though still very good, is The Isles: A History by N. Davis. Clio the Muse 01:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Clio is the expert listen to her, but as an aside I was wondering what Clio thought of Simon Schama's three volume history of Britain. It was a well known BBC tv show as well, I read the first volume but wasn't hugely impressed, and a historian friend (though only undergrad) scoffed at reading Simon Schama, but provided no better suggestions!. Cyta 09:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks to the both of you for your suggestions! Maybe now I'll finally learn how to turn Canada into a Republic! :) (kidding).  Richardmtl 13:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Schama is a excellent historian, Cyta, and I have a particular admiration for his work on the golden age of the Dutch Republic. I have to say, though, without a trace of condescension or snootiness, that the British History is not of a high scholarly standard: it is not even of a standard one expects in the best popular history.  I think that is a reflection of the medium it was created for.  It's 'telly history'; and telly history, by its very nature, is, well, glib, clever and superficial.  Big bucks, though; very big bucks!  And who can resist that?  Clio the Muse 22:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, as I said I wasn't highly impressed with the book of the series, and have enjoyed some better popular histories, even once as I mentioned to you, looking into a historical journey. I would be curious to read Churchill's History of the English speaking people, but mainly because of my admiration of Churchill as a war leader. Cyta 07:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi Civil war
Why do both proponents and opponents of the Iraq War claim that the US intervened in a Civil War between Shiites and Sunnis which has been going on for  "hundreds of years", when large scale fighting between Sunni and shiites only began a year AFTER US intervention? --Gary123 19:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What proponents and opponents? I (in England, main news sources BBC website and The Guardian) have never heard such a bald statement. Algebraist 19:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I follow this issue closely and also have never heard such a statement. It is true, according to various sources, that Sunnis have politically dominated Iraq, and its Shiite majority, for over 100 years, but that is not the same as a civil war being underway.  Marco polo 19:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So the Shias and Sunnis got along without fighting until just a few years ago? Even before the Saddam Hussein regime? Lots of sources say things like "Sunnis and Shiites ..have a history of violence dating back almost 1,400 years." describing relations throughout the Islamic world. .  describes violent conflict for over 1000 years in various countries. Sunni-Shia relations describes repression of Shia or Sunni minorities in Islamic countries where the other faction is the majority, and also describes repression and violence back to the 8th century. The article also mentions a Shia rebellion in Iraq in the 1920's.  Edison 19:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the dispute between Shias and Sunnis dates back to the first century of Islam, but there is not a continuous historical link to the present conflict. According to Yitzhak Nakash's scholarly acclaimed book The Shi'i of Iraq, Iraq's Shi'i majority dates back only to the 18th or 19th century, before which the region's Arabs were mostly more-or-less Sunni.  The Shi'i identity was not as strong as tribal identity until recent years, and some tribes included members of both major Islamic sects.  According to our article on the British Mandate of Mesopotamia, the 1920 rebellion involved Sunnis and Shias working together. While Iraq's Hashemite monarch was Sunni, I am not aware of any unrest between the sects during the monarchy. I think that the roots of the current conflict do not really go back further than the regime of Saddam Hussein, whose Baath party and government were dominated by Sunnis, particulary from Saddam's own tribe, and which repressed the Shias, whom they saw as potential subversives.  Still, repression is not civil war.  This repression ironically strengthened the group identity of the Shias.  Partly as a result of this repression, Shias in the south rebelled at the time of the Iraqi defeat in the First Gulf War in 1991.  This rebellion brought intensified repression by Saddam's regime and increased animosity by the majority Shias toward the Sunnis who were favored by Saddam's regime.  The U.S. invasion in 2003 gave the Shias the opportunity to turn the tables, whence the current conflict.  Marco polo 20:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, the article Sunni-Shia relations looks to me as if it is distorted by POV, even though some of the biased statements are sourced. Marco polo 20:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As Marco says, although there was no civil war before the invasion, this doesn't mean everyone was getting along swimmingly, there was just an oppressive regime preventing any oppostion. Cyta 09:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Similarly there was no open civil war in former Yugoslavia as long as Tito ruled with an iron fist under the job description President for life. Of course in a country like Iraq, with daily car bombings, mortar rounds flying and mass murders, any given leader may quite unknowingly be "President for Life." Edison 21:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Pirates
Could you recommend some books, fictions and non-fictions about pirates? I already have A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pirates by Charles Johnson and Pirate utopias by Peter Lamborn Wilson. Thank you. 83.182.152.239 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You could try "A General History of the Pyrates"; it's an old book (1724), but it covers a lot of the more infamous pirates of the time (which was just after the "great era" of piracy in the Caribbean). The problem with the book is that it blurs the line between fact and fiction; some tales are embellished and three of the pirates seem to be fake... Laïka  23:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry; I missed the extended version of the title in your question. For fiction, I'm sure you've read the most famous one (Treasure Island); see Category:Pirate books for more.  Laïka  23:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The shortest one I could come up with, yet highly recommendable: The Widow Ching, Pirate. ---Sluzzelin talk  00:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For a nice addition to your usual reading, go with She Captains: Hellions of the Sea by Joan Druett. She has a nice, populist overview of female pirates.  Geogre 01:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

To your non-fictions I would add A General History of the Pyrates by Daniel Defoe and The Buccaners of America by Alexander Exquemein, two contemporary accounts from the 'golden age' of piracy. You might also try Under the Black Flag: The Romance and Reality of Life Among the Pirates by David Cordingly, The Mammoth Book of Pirates edited by John Lewis, Villains of all Nations:Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age by Marcus Rediker and The Pirate Wars: Pirates Versus the Legitimate Navies of the World by Peter Earle. For a pirate-related theme in fiction I suggest that in addition to Treasure Island, the greatest of them all, you might look at "The Gold-Bug", a short story by Edgar Allan Poe Clio the Muse 02:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd second Villains of all Nations:Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age by Marcus Rediker. For a book on pirates, most of which are sensationalized junk, I was surprised by its scholarly well-researched tone. Plus it was an enjoyable read. It also revealed many details about the so-called "golden age" pirates that I had been clueless about before -- sometimes portraying them as a kind of early labor force rebellion against capitalism, a social, almost communist uprising -- albeit not without a strong dose of violence and terror. Plus the book opens with a chapter on William Fly, an long lost many-times removed distant cousin of mine! Pfly 08:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that A General History of the Pyrates by Defoe is the same book you have already read. Clio refers to the theory that Johnson is a pseudonym of Daniel Defoe (now somewhat discredited, according to my edition). Algebraist 10:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Some interesting piractical fiction came from Frederick Marryat, especially "The Privateersman", which you may or may not like. It's on Wikisource. Also, have you turned up a copy of "Pyrates" online? I'm looking for it as it should be out of copyright and so freely availible. 68.39.174.238 14:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * General History of the Pyrates online here - - I posted it on the language desk a few days ago when someone was asking, but I don't think anyone noticed. DuncanHill 22:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Blast it, I asked that and yes, I noticed. I was wondering if anyone had found my long-lost ".edu" source of it, but I don't think it matters: Wikisource should take that as well. 68.39.174.238 15:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Google advanced search, with "only results from domain .edu" turns up many hits, including this one from Eastern North Carolina DuncanHill 18:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Francophobia?
I have also have a question concerning Richard the Lionheart. Your page on Francophobia says that that the antagonism between the English and French contributed to the rivalry between Richard and Philip of France over the leadership of the Third Crusade. Can this be right? It makes no sense to me, especially as the previous sentence says that England was divided since the Norman Conquest between a French-speaking aristocracy and an English speaking population. Onedollarbaby 22:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a little strange; their antagonism had nothing to do with being English and French. Indeed, Richard was not English at all. I suppose he may have had a lot of English troops in his army although he would have had a large number of French troops as well, as he ruled just as much French territory as he did English. No, the antagonism between Richard and Philip was that they were both after each other's land, and were constantly plotting against each other at home. The crusade was an attempt to stop their constant warfare and unite them in a single cause, but neither could stand to let the other take the lead while on crusade, and they even ended up allying with different Christian factions in the East when they got there. Philip eventually returned home, allied with Richard's brother John, and forced Richard to end the crusade in order to come home and deal with them (meanwhile, he also got on the wrong side of the Duke of Austria and the Holy Roman Emperor, and was imprisoned by them on the way back, much to the delight of Philip and John). Adam Bishop 00:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's absurd, like much of the information in these rag-bag X-phobia pages, among the very worst, in my estimation, in all of Wikipedia, a catch-all for this prejudice and than misconception. As Adam has indicated, Richard was far more French that English; he spoke French, not English and, when he was not crusading, preferred his Duchy of Aquitaine to England, a 'cold, wet country', in which he spent about six months of his entire ten year reign. His rivalry with Philip Augustus had everything to do with politics and nothing to do with English dislike of France, a truly ludicrous contention. Indeed, the whole course of Anglo-French relations is about politics and power, and not about xenophobia. During the Hundred Years War the English monarchs loved France so much that they wanted to grab and hold as much of it as they could manage. After all -No King of England, if not King of France! These phobia pages are little better than an excuse for a rant, on which note I will bring this rant to an end! Clio the Muse 02:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet the article on wikiphobia was deleted four times this year! ---Sluzzelin talk  03:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is hope: no need to write my Phobiaphobiapages page after all! Clio the Muse 05:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * One point folks need to bear in mind: it has become fashionable these days to take -phobia onto things when that is not what is intended. What people are here calling "francophobia" is really just good old anti-gallicism.  We've got boat loads of anti-gallicism among folks who feel not the slightest tinge of fear of Frenchmen.  Anti-Americanism is not "Americaphobia," after all.  (Although David Bowie did have "I'm Afraid of Americans" as a song about madness.)  Geogre 17:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the additional meanings have become a lasting trend. Phobias describing negative prejudice are accepted terms, homophobia being a very common amd established example. -phobia in science, hydrophobe for instance, "can express "predispositions ... against certain conditions", resulting in shying behavior, avoidance, maybe even conscious dislike, but not necessarily fear. ---Sluzzelin talk  19:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. You see, homophobia does mean fear, and the hostility is secondary to the fear.  At least as a psychological principle, it is supposed to be an irrational fear of homosexuals, and this fear sublimates and leads the victim to act out violently.  To extend that to anything else doesn't seem justified in usage, at least yet.  In molecular biology, "phobic" is analogous and does mean "repellent" ("hydrophobic compounds" repel water molecules, while "hydrophilic" compounds bind "avidly"), but scientists know -- I hope -- that these are all personifications.  After all, a molecule cannot truly be "avid" or "ardent" or "phobic" or "philic."  When we go from social behavior among humans to social behavior, there is a really serious danger of mistaking chauvinism for psychosis and thereby weakening the meaning of the psychological terminology and confusing what it is we're talking about.  Geogre 20:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This inflationary effect of carelessness is no cause for celebration, I agree. From a descriptivist point of view, journalists and other writers do use -phobia for aversions unequal to fear, though usually the intended connotations are not psychiatrical, but socio-political. ---Sluzzelin talk  20:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)