Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 2

=July 2=

The exact middle of the year
Does the middle of the year have any meaning to any culture, religion, country or anything, or no-one really cares? A.Z. 03:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Christian church celebrates the birth of John the Baptist around the middle of the year, June 24, 6 months before they celebrate the birth of Jesus. Edison 03:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See Midsummer. --mglg(talk) 03:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Or, ahem, for a non Northernhemispheric POV, Winter solstice . Mhicaoidh 04:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Time to celebrate Matariki and dig the hole for a big feed. Mhicaoidh 04:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And fa’amolemole, Samoan wikipedians, we need an article on umu .Fa’afetai tele .Mhicaoidh 05:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the exact middle of the year would fall on July 1, at noon in common years and during the first second round midnight in leap years I looked up July_1, there are several, including Canada Day, July Morning in Bulgaria, and the "breaking of chains" celebration (abolition of slavery) in Surinam. No references to the exact middle of the year though. Your last supposition seems likely, and no-one really cares. 212.71.114.134 08:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we are in the middle of the Matariki celebrations right now, little troll, but iz just uz brown folks, so yuz prubly right boss, no one really cares Mhicaoidh 04:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The middle of the year is actually on July 2 at noon in common years and on July 2 at zero o'clock in leap years. A.Z. 23:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In Australia the financial year ends on 30 June, lots of people run around doing their banking.Polypipe Wrangler 12:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

about Jesus Christ
Every time it was said that 'Jesus Christ was the Son of God' & God has sent Him to rescue the people from the sins. Now my doubt is when they know the God directly why worshipping His Son? Why don't they access the Supreme One before praying for His Son? Temuzion 05:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That question might have a complicated answer, depending on how deeply you're considering the matter. According to Christian beliefs, a part of the reason for the coming of the Son was because the religious societies of that day did not know God directly. They knew of Him, but they did not know His character or spirit. Jesus is recorded as saying, "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also, and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. " (John 14:7)  In other words, He came to reveal aspects of God (the Father) that humans had neglected to retain in their knowledge (as is said several times in other passages of the New Testament).  In essence, Jesus was revealing the Father to humanity so that the would worship Him (the Father) by means of this new revelation.  If you're interested in the Biblical perspective on this, a few verses that come to mind include: John 14:9, Luke 4:8, Philippians 3:3.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  06:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Plus, in many versions of Christianity, Jesus is God. See Trinity. Therefore, worshipping Jesus is the same thing as worshipping God, but easier to picture :-) Skittle 16:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well, "easier to picture" is a bit disappointing. In trinitarianism, God is one, of one essence, but of three persons.  The formula used in most old line churches that makes the relationship most comprehensible is "through the unity of the Holy Spirit one God."  The down side of such things is that people have tried to make the persons more distinct, or in priority.  They've worked by analogy to say that Father = Head, Spirit = Spirit, Son = Body and the like.  All such hierarchies are unorthodox, so far as I know.  However, this is the central stumbling block in Christian theology, the trinity, and it has resulted in more heresies than any other doctrine.  (E.g. deny the incarnation into flesh, and you've got Gnosticism.  Deny the existence of the Holy Spirit, and you've got any one of the heresies of dualism.)  Geogre 01:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Zahakiel has hit the Trinity point, but some Christian sects, such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually do worship God the Father. The Jade Knight 01:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Mormons aren't Christians, silly. Laleenatalk to me contributions to Wikipedia 15:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This WP article Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints specifically says that Laleena is not correct. Bielle 21:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems a strange thing to call a "Church of Jesus Christ" non-Christian. The Jade Knight 01:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are some who would restrict the title "Christian" specifically to denominations which accept the trinity. Since Mormons do not accept the trinity (nor do Jehovah's Witnesses), by that definition, they are not Christian. Donald Hosek 04:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not entirely accurate. Some Mormon denominations actually do accept the trinity (such as the Community of Christ).  The Jade Knight 02:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I consider it disingenuous to assert that Mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) are not Christians. Those that say that are using an EXTREMELY narrow definition of Christianity.  Most, apparently would consider any church that follows Jesus Christ as "Christian."  For more depth on this discussion, go here. Kingsfold (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Plekhanov and Lenin
Georgi Plekhanov has the reputation of being the 'father' of Russian Marxism. My present research is on the forms of his ideology, particularly in the latter part of his career. How, for instance, did he react to Lenin's politics? Thanks in advance to all you knowledgeable people. Fred said right 11:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Clio, please correct me if I'm wrong. Fred, see Plekhanov. At the 2nd party congress 1903, it seems that he did not react well. The Bolsheviks were rather more centralised Marxists, containing control in the hands of the few in the party, and focusing on professional revolutionaries. The Mensheviks (lead by Plek) were not - and like most Russians, were more concerned with the defeat of Germany 1918 than international revolution - even though he seems to have been the Think Tank of Russian Marxists, for all the contributions he made towards theory.martianlostinspace 11:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not wrong, martian, it's just that the page on Plekhanov is in need of a lot of improvement. For example, Plekhanov initially supported Lenin at the second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1903, which saw the emergence of the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions.  It was only afterwards that he came to believe that he had been present at the birth of a form of Russian Jacobinism, which for him presented the greatest danger to the progressive and Marxist path.


 * To understand Plekhanov's thought we have to go right back to his early political activities, all the way to Narodnik populism, a movement of intellectuals who believed that socialism would come to Russia on the backs of the peasants. The Narodniks came to the Russian countryside with the aim of educating the peasantry into a consciousness of both their power and their historical mission.  Originally peaceful and didactic in purpose, the movement split in 1879 into two wings: the propagandists or Chorny Peredel (Black Reparation), and the terrorists or Narodnaya Volya (People's Will).  The leaders of Narodnaya Volya, impatient with the slow rate of progress being made among the peasants, decided that it was necessary 'to give history a push.'  Reacting against this, and against self-defeating terrorism, Plekhanov turned towards Marxism, as an explanation and a solution.


 * Marxism led Plekhanov away from peasant populism, to a belief that the development of new forms of capitalist production in Russia offered the only way forward, through bourgeoise liberalism to working-class socialism. History, in other words, had to move through distinct stages, and in accordance with a given set of economic laws.  It could not be circumvented; it could not be 'pushed.'  After 1903, with Lenin taking on something of the old Narodnaya Volya mantel, Plekhanov saw in him the making of a Russian Robespierre.  He was also alarmed by the intransigence and intolerance of Leninist politics, going so far as to say that if Marx and Engels attended a Bolshevik meeting they would be attacked for their moderation.  Leninism was based not on a broad-based movement of the working-class, but on a narrow and conspiratorial elite.  Plekhanov attacked Lenin in the Socialist press, calling him an 'autocrat' who aimed at 'buraucratic centralism.'  He further argued that Lenin's belief in a revolutuionary coup d'etat was a destructive fantasy, one that was essentially anti-Marxist.


 * After 1909 Plekhanov began to give shape to his ideas in his History of Russian Social Thought, unfinished at the time of his death in 1918. In essence, this was a warning to all Russian Marxists what would happen if any attempt was made to circumvent 'the iron law of history.'  In Russia feudalism had developed along quite different lines from western Europe, and the dominant agency was always the state.  Classes, even the aristocracy, stood in a relationship of dependence to a centralising autocracy.  Bit by bit economic transformation, including the introduction of industrial capitalism, was changing the nature of Russian society; but the state remained very strong, poised between a 'western' and progressive future and a reactionary and 'oriental' past.  The only way to break the power of Russian absolutism was to allow the development of a new European-style bourgeoisie.  Capitalism, in other words, had to come before socialism.


 * His great fear was the Bolshevism, by ignoring the weakness of class development in Russia, would, in a premature seizure of power, merely inherit ancient and coercive forms of state authority. This was not a road to the future, but a retreat to the past; to new forms of oriental despotism; to a new and more terrible style of Tsarism.  Clio the Muse 03:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Artist J.V. Beke
I'm looking for any information on an artist named J.V. Beke. Thanks


 * a quick google found this Perry-mankster 14:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Waiters Minimum Wage
Do waiters and waitresses in all restaurants make minimum wage? I've heard that some do, but then I've also heard of some making only $2-$3/hour because the restaurant they work at expects them to make the rest of their money in tips. Does anyone know anything for sure?

-Wonderer
 * In many parts of the U.S., minimum wage is set lower for waiters/waitresses. It is because some of their income is supposed to come from tips.  See minimum wage for more.  Things may differ in your part of the world.  You didn't specify if you're in the States or not.  Dismas |(talk) 15:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Quoted from here:
 * Many beginning or inexperienced workers start earning the Federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. However, a few States set minimum wages higher than the Federal minimum. Also, various minimum wage exceptions apply under specific circumstances to disabled workers, full-time students, youth under age 20 in their first 90 days of employment, tipped employees, and student-learners. Tipped employees are those who customarily and regularly receive more than $30 a month in tips. The employer may consider tips as part of wages, but the employer must pay at least $2.13 an hour in direct wages. Employers also are permitted to deduct from wages the cost, or fair value, of any meals or lodging provided. Many employers, however, provide free meals and furnish uniforms. Food and beverage service workers who work full time often receive typical benefits, while part-time workers usually do not.
 * Dismas |(talk) 15:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou and I am In the states.


 * Cocktail waitresses/bartenders in some establishments make many times minimum wage on tips. If the place is not busy, or there are too many servers, or it is a downscale place, then they might make the poor wages you mention. If you get a dollar tip for pouring/serving a beer, and you serve 15 an hour, you do ok. Edison 22:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In many establishments, the waitstaff pool their tips, so as to minimize the inequality of tipping during slack periods. Corvus cornix 02:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do American employees accept such low wages and no healthcare? If conditions were like that here in the UK, there would be a revolution! The minimum wage here is equivalent to $10.70 an hour plus free healthcare and other benefits. 80.0.96.50 18:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because we tip a lot better than you guys do, no offense. Americans generally tip around 20% for good service, and it's quite easy for a table of four to spend $100 on dinner. Multiply that by several tables, and you can see how a waiter or waitress can make a lot more than $10.50 an hour. -- Mwalcoff 22:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And to add to that, tipping below the standard minimum (I think around 12%) is considered exceptionally rude by many people in America. Some regard it as very similar to just walking out without paying. I know all about it from watching Dr. Phil:). The Mad Echidna 07:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The bare-bones low tip in the U.S. is 15%. Unless, of course, the waiter provided terrible service or something. Waiters and waitresses in the U.S. generally provide pretty good service, for obvious reasons. -- Mwalcoff 22:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was always told that the standard tip is 15%. People I know (in Florida) usually tip 16%-18%&mdash;20% for exceptional service and 10%-12% for poor service. Neutralitytalk 05:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I usually tip 15%, but that's inclusive of tax, whereas some people measure the tip exclusive of tax. I discovered much to my chagrin the one time that I actually used the tip amounts at a restaurant that printed them on the check that they calculated exclusive of tax and the tip that I'd put on my credit card that I'd intended to be high was actually less than my standard tip. I threw an extra couple of bucks in with the credit card receipt to make up for it. Donald Hosek 21:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

God
I would like to pose a philosophical question about God, and I am not sure which Help Desk to use. Is this (Humanities) the best place? None of the other categories seem to "fit" except, perhaps, the Miscellaneous Help Desk. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 16:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Questions about philosophy and theology can be posed here. Feel free to ask your question! C mon 16:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, so here goes. (I am referring to "God" as the term is used in Roman Catholicism, as I am not intimately familiar with other religions.)  The question is:  If God is such a kind, loving, compassionate, merciful, (etc. etc. etc.) God ... how is it that such evil / bad exists in the world?  How is it that He "lets" millions of people starve, people ravage from cancer, people get tortured and murdered, innocent babies get raped, etc.?  In other words, how is it that he "lets" all these bad things in the world exist?  Yes, I understand this is an age-old question.  And, yes, I understand the typical "pat" answer ... "God created all humans with free will and, as such, we are free to do as we wish, including either good or bad."  So, perhaps the question can be re-worded as such.  When God created the world, and gave man this thing called free will, He certainly knew (ahead of time) that the results would include ______ (fill in the blank with murders, rapes, starvation, cancer, etc.).  If He "knew" those results ahead of time, why did He "allow" / "let" that happen?  It's almost like giving a 2-year-old matches and going through the mechanical "formality" of telling him not to play with the matches.  Lo and behold ... and then feigning surprise when the 2-year-old starts a fire, burns down the house, and gets killed.  Not 100% the same, of course, but you get the idea.  Thanks.  (JosephASpadaro 18:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC))


 * See theodicy Algebraist 18:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Specifically, the questions you are asking are the problem of evil and general questions about whether God can give free will while being omniscient. Sometimes it is asked in the form of whether God can be all knowing, all powerful, and all loving at the same time in a world with evil (can one who knows that something bad is going to happen, and has the ability to stop it, but choose not to, be considered all loving?). In my opinion (as a non-believing agnostic), I don't put a lot of weight on questions like this, as they often hinge on nebulous attribution of certain properties to God (what does it mean to be "all loving", exactly?), and can often be gotten around by attributing foresight or a "greater plan" to God (sometimes you let people you love get hurt because you know that it will benefit them in the long run — for a medical analogy, it is better to be exposed to diseases and bacteria when young, even though it is unpleasant and you get sick, because it helps you build up immunity in the long run). But that's just my take on it. --24.147.86.187 20:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the above poster has pointed out some important factors in the discussion. It isn't just a matter of "free will," about which the questioner is correct - it's often offered as a "pat" answer.  We also have to account for our own limited ability to decide what is "good" and what is "bad" from our own experiences and/or lack thereof.  Algebraist's link about theodicy has a section that discusses this a little bit: against theodicy.  Of course, some things might seem "obviously wrong," like innocents being victimized; in these cases the free will issue appears to have some relevance, because human beings were (depending on which concept of "God" you're talking about) given genuine responsibility over the earth and their environment.  If God stepped in and prevented violations of His desired will for humanity, the responsibility they had been supposedly given would simply be an illusion. Also, for the matches issue, I suppose you could look at it this way: if you find parents who had a disobedient two-year-old that played with matches and got killed, you might ask them if they would prefer to have never had the child at all.  That's just considering it from our human perspective that is, admittedly, limited in how well it applies to God; but those of us who believe we were created in His "image" find an analog, however imperfect, in the experiences of human parents.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  20:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a debating topic, not a Ref Desk question as I understand the term. As there is/are no God/god/gods, there can be no meaningful answer. (And before anyone shrieks, POV at me, please read the foregoing multiple POVs first.) Bielle 20:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Religion questions may be asked here according to the "Humanities" constraints. I'm not going to shriek POV at you, but if you'll read the question, the asker is assuming the existence of God and is speaking from that context.  If we are going to be answering questions here, and not trying to sway opinions, we need to remain within the context of the question as much as possible rather than saying, "Your question is invalid because my beliefs are X."  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  20:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Questions about religion and philosophy and myth are all perfectly appropriate for the Ref Desk, I agree. The form of the question, however, is of great significance.  A question of the form, "What do Catholics believe about the nature of God given all the misery in the world?" has a factual answer. The OP even presents the "pat answer", but he does not like it, which is something he might want to take up with the Catholic authorities. The OP then changes the question to something entirely unanswerable (not "invalid", you will note) except by personal opinion. "If He "knew" those results ahead of time, why did He "allow" / "let" that happen?" calls for no fact, no verifiable authority. No matter how strictly we stay within the confines of the question, there is no authoritative answer. What we have now is a religious debate, not a Ref Desk question.  With the debate in mind, I am not constrained by the formulations of the OP's "offer to engage". I presented my view, which merely posits that, if the initial premise (that there is a God) weren't flawed, you wouldn't have to attempt to explain the otherwise inexplicable. Bielle 22:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Bielle ... if it is indeed the form of the question that is upsetting you so (which I highly doubt) ... you can take my entire original question and simply (perfunctorily) insert the following words in front of the original question: "What do Catholics believe about this? and How do Catholics reconcile this?" OK?  Will that conform to your "proper form"?  Please do tell.  Furthermore, what good / use / purpose is denying a questioner information being sought ... particularly on such feeble grounds as "the form of the question"?  Simply unreal.  And further, furthermore ... you will note that my very first question indeed inquired as to the appropriateness of a philosophical question about God on this Help Desk.  You might take a look at the response I received to that question.  (JosephASpadaro 22:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC))


 * The form of the question is not merely a matter of syntax. You have, indeed, changed the question now to something that may well have an answer. None of the comments prior to this one deal with the issue, however. Now that you have clarified your request, making it specific to a set of beliefs that is known and accessible, there may be someone out there who is knowledgeable about the Catholic view and has an answer for you, beyond the one that you know and have dismissed. Good luck in your search Bielle 22:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it certainly seems that you missed the point. My original question posed this in light of Roman Catholicism.  The words that I have added, to meet your criteria for correct form were, as I stated, merely perfunctory.  They were, at worst, implied within the context of the original question.  Wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge.  Why, specifically, would you advocate denying a questioner some knowledge based merely on the form of his question ... particularly one as perfunctory as this?  That baffles me.  You were an educator.  If a student said to you "Can I go to the bathroom?", you would ignore the child's question because it was not in the proper form of "May I go to the bathroom?"  Wow.  Even worse ... if a student said "Can I get extra help on Chapter 5?" ... you would deny that student (who is trying to learn) because his question was not in the proper form of "May I get extra help on Chapter 5?" ...?  Do you not see the lunacy of that position?  The student wants to learn.  To deny him that on such weak and feeble grounds (as the form of the question in which he indicates that he wants to learn) borders on unethical and immoral.  In my opinion.  (JosephASpadaro 23:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC))


 * I highly recommend you take a look at two books by C.S. Lewis: The Problem of Pain (written from a theological and theoretical standpoint), and A Grief Observed (written when Lewis was much older, and felt some more of that suffering first-hand). If you really want to know how people can believe in God despite all the pain in the world, those two books are extremely helpful.  The Jade Knight 01:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The form of a question defines the form of its answer. That's the whole of my position. I am not sure where JosephASpadaro is going with his assumptions about who I taught what and when. There are not many 20-year-olds who ask permission to go to the bathroom in today's classrooms or who take any one person's answer as being the "word according to...".

Once again, I find myself apologising for continuing a thread that is not in an appropriate place. Enough from me; it is time I stopped rising to the bait, and had dinner instead. Bielle 00:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Very clever side-stepping of the issue. (1) The question is indeed posted in an appropriate place.  (2) I am making no assumptions about who you taught what and when.  I guess I would need to clarify for you: the child asking to use the bathroom is what we call an illustrative example.  I was not specifically assuming that you specifically taught a specific child who asked the specific question about using the (specific) bathroom in the specific manner described above (i.e., using that specific verbiage).  Once again, it's called an example -- it's for illustration.  It's hypothetical.  It proves a point.  (3)  While there are no 20-year-olds who ask for permission to use the bathroom, there are indeed 20-year-olds who will "ask for help on Chapter 5" (my second illustrative example).  Clearly.  No peep from you on that example, however?  (JosephASpadaro 03:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC))


 * For a while, our answers were all correct. We directed the questioner to theodicy, and we could have mentioned the origine du mal topic.  We can repeat in summary forms the answers others have offered.  We can even point the questioner at contemporary philosophers who have attempted the subject.  This is, in fact, exactly reference.  It is applicable, as the question of the origin and usefulness/toleration of evil has obsessed thinkers for thousands of years and obsesses them still.  No one answers, "What God really has in mind is...."  Thundering that there is no God and therefore is as silly as thundering that God says "WHATEVER IS, IS RIGHT" (when that was Mr. Pope).  By the way, my favorite recent meditation on the subject is by Odo Marquard, from the 1990 Farewell to Matters of Principle (Yale UP).  I cannot recommend enough "Burdened and Disemburthened Man and the Flight into Unindictability."  It's a wonderful essay that posits that sociology, psychology, and criminology all come about as a response to the Cartesian and Leibnitzian answers to theodicy.  If God did not create evil, then man did, and if man did, then man can fix it, and therefore the social sciences.  It's a gorgeous and funny essay.  Geogre 01:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Geogre. You clearly pointed out that this is indeed reference and, by extension, is appropriate for this reference help desk.  Exactly as you say:  no one answers the question in the form of "Well, I know exactly what God was thinking ... and what God was thinking is x, y, and z."  Rather, it is answered in other ways (as you described).  You hit the nail on the head.  Thank you.  (JosephASpadaro 03:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Unfortunately, the article theodicy is very deficient; it lacks sufficient coverage of the premodern period, when the topic was at least as well plumbed as afterwards (not to mention the many tags disputing the quality of the content that is there)! (The brief note on Augustine and apocatastasis at problem of evil is not much of a corrective.)  Wareh 16:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur, but it's the best that we have at present. I know only two small pieces of the puzzle, the "Enlightenment" and the contemporary, and what we need is one of our theologians to devote some significant time to the article.  It's low yield, though.  We have a number of pastors and priests who edit Wikipedia, but you can imagine their frustration if they do spend time filling out an article like that and then have to defend against countless people (from either side and some sides unimagined) throwing random things in.  It's also one of those topics where it might be best to write the article in a non-chronological manner.  Instead of "they thought this, then this," it might be wise to write, "Free will as origin of evil/ Satanic innovation/ Universalism and reconciliation/ Error and evil" and have each section discuss the history of this approach.  Perhaps that would have to be subsumed into "Christian theodicy" and "Theodicy in Judaism," "Theodicy in Islam," and "The nature of evil/suffering in other cosmologies."  It's a big project for a wise person with great patience, and so we may have to wait a while.  Geogre 17:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * God gives choices. Laleenatalk to me contributions to Wikipedia 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, ya - that's the premise. The question is why?  (JosephASpadaro 01:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Not an easy question to answer, but one response is that it is related to the divinity of man. I recommend you read more C.S. Lewis.  The Jade Knight 02:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Painting
Does anyone recognise this painting? Thanks. :) Random Nonsense 17:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't remember the artist or title - but the subject is General Gordon at Khartoum DuncanHill 17:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And here it is on Wikipedia General_Gordon DuncanHill 17:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, interesting. Thanks... Random Nonsense 18:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is (or was) a very famous painting in Britain, the sort of thing you would see copies of in Village Institutes, schools, books about how we won the empire, etc. DuncanHill 18:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Royal Navy rank and ink colour.
Is it true that within the British Royal Navy there is a hierarchy of entitlement according to rank which allows certain officer ranks to write in certain ink colours? Eg that only Admirals are allowed to write in red ink? 82.152.44.18 19:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Beth


 * You may be confusing this with colors associated with the seniority of British admirals, e.g. Horatio Nelson was Vice Admiral of the White. The other colors were red and blue. Clarityfiend 23:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I Like the thought of the admiral of the white fleet using white ink!hotclaws 00:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thinking of Mansfield Smith-Cumming? The green ink theory I believe carried over to M in the 007 films, but I am afraid I can't provide a reference for this either as I cannot remember where I read it. 194.168.231.2 11:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Wes


 * This link MI6 Website mentions Mansfield Cumming's use of green ink. DuncanHill 14:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Car Chase
On what day of the year is a car chase most likely to occur? 63.166.226.83 19:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an ill-defined question with no possible meaningful answer. Before anyone reminds me of "good faith", please take a look at User talk:63.166.226.83 Bielle 20:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You should never chase cars. It's very dangerous, and stop chasing cats, too.  Geogre 00:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Russian army in france 1914-1916
I read in Reed that Russian units fought in france during WW1 any info on that? Also what is the funeral march Reed refers to in 10 days? -- Gary123


 * Let me refer you to Russian Expeditionary Force in France. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted advertising in signature as inappropriate. Bielle 20:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I can not name the units in question, but I do know that some 4000 Russians were killed fighting on the Western Front alongside the French, which suggests that the number deployed may have been as high as one, or perhaps two divisions, in absolute numerical terms. You will find the graves of 1000 Russian officers and men at the Cimitière Militaire Russe de Saint-Hilaire le Grand at Mourmelon le Grand in the Marne Department of France. In 1937 a chapel was built here to commemorate all of the Russians who died on the Western Front. If I can-and if you wish-I will try to get some more detailed information. I do not recall the particular passage in Ten Days that Shook the World you mention, but I think the funeral march in question is most likely to be The Dead March from Saul by Georg Friedrich Handel. Clio the Muse 01:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, Gary, having dug deep into my library I can give you the following additional information.

In 1915 the French requested that Russian troops be sent to fight alongside their own army on the Western Front. Initially they asked for 300,000 men, an absurdly high figure, probably based on their assumptions about Russia's 'unlimited' reserves. General M. V. Alexeyev, the Imperial Chief of Staff, was opposed to sending any, though Nicholas finally agreed to send a unit of brigade strength. The First Russian Special Brigade finally landed at Marseilles in April 1916. A Second Special Brigade was also sent to serve alongside other Allied formations on the Salonika Front in northern Greece. In France, the First Brigade served with distinction until the outbreak of the 1917 Revolutions. With Brigade morale being sapped by political agitation, it was finally disbanded before the end of the year. However, some of the more determined formed the Legion Russe, and continued to preserve a Russian presence in the west and, indeed, in the Great War itself, right up until the Armistice in November, 1918.

You will get a little information on the First Russian Special Brigade in The Russian Army and the First World War by Nik Cornish, though otherwise I do not recommend this book. By far the best treatment on the subject of Russian Imperial forces is The Russian Army in the World War by General N. N. Golovin. You will have go to a research library for this, because it was published as long ago as 1931, and has been out of print for many years. Clio the Muse 08:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I read your reply with interest, Clio, and this has personal reasons too. My grandmother says that her uncle went to France in 1916, and nothing has been heard about him since then. She keeps his photograph in the uniform of the Semenovsky regiment. I would not be surprized if he survived the war and ended his days peacefully somewhere in France. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for linking the page on the Russian Expeditionary Force, Ghirla. I should really have checked myself to see if such an article existed!  Thank you also for that information about your family.  I hope your g-g-uncle did survive and settle in France (maybe you have French family?), but you might care to check if he is here .  As you see they can be contacted directly, and presumably have a list of the known dead.  You have supplied some personal information, so let me return the favour.  My grandmother's father served on the staff of General Edmund Ironside in north Russia in 1918-19, fighting the Bolsheviks from out of Archangel! Clio the Muse 23:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting! Before this reply anyone saying their relative fought with Edmund Ironside would have had me assuming he fought against Cnut! And also that they were very good at genealogy. Cyta 07:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, Cyta, I would simply love to be able to say that my ancestors fought with that Edmund Ironside (maybe they did!), but it is this one to which I was referring. Clio the Muse 07:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)