Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 5

=July 5=

most prolific classical composer
Which classical composer composed the most compositions? Asmeurer ( talk   ♬  contribs ) 05:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably Georg Philipp Telemann--at any rate he's the most famous. Many  composers of his time wrote a lot of music which is now lost, as is much of Telemann's, but his overall activity is well-documented; he probably wrote thousands of compositions--among them, 1700 cantatas (and people think Bach wrote a lot).  In more modern times Alan Hovhaness was renowned for his spectacularly long works list.  Antandrus  (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd probably agree with Telemann for sheer numbers of works. However, he did live to 86, an extraordinary life span for his times.  Franz Schubert wrote close to 1,000 compositions, and he died at age 31, so he probably outdoes Telemann in terms of output/time.  It is very hard to come up with a rational answer to this because a single work could be as short as a 2-minute harpsichord piece or as long as a 4-hour opera involving a huge orchestra and cast.  It would be interesting to find out which composer wrote the most notes over his entire career.  Surely Wikipedia is up to this task.  --  JackofOz 23:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Number of notes is an interesting way to approach this question. Philip Glass is prolific and writes a lot of notes! Not really classical though.--Shantavira|feed me 07:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Depending on how you define these things, modern classical film composers are remarkably prolific. Ennio Morricone, for example, has written upwards of 400 film and TV scores. If each is, say, on average one hour long, that is a huge amount of music. Batmanand | Talk 10:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not classical, although few composers can claim to have composed a piece lasting many times their own lifetime: John Cage. As Slow as Possible is currently being performed, so far having completed six years of 639. . Though perhaps that is the longest piece and not the most prolific composer.martianlostinspace 17:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Music and soldiers
Have there been any studies on the effects of music on front-line soldiers during combat? Specifically:


 * Were soldiers allowed to listen to music on headphones while fighting, would the increased morale and filtering of unwanted distracting noise compensate for the diminished sensitivity to important sounds?
 * Would loudspeaker music that was very popular with one side's soldiers and widely detested by the enemy soldiers be useful as a psychological weapon?

Neon Merlin  02:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are some interesting hits for googling combat+music+psychological. I would think that listening to headphones while fighting would seriously distract the soldiers, making it more difficult to hear shouted commands and/or the many other sounds one needs to be aware of during combat.  Listening to appropriate music immediately prior to combat would, I believe, have a beneficial effect.  It would get the blood pumping, psych the soldiers up and get them mentally prepared.  The positive, let's-go-kick-some-butt attitude would help overcome some of the pre-combat jitters, build confidence and make the soldiers more willing to advance under fire.  I was a paratrooper and would have loved to have heard some good, heart-pumping combat music from "20 minutes" to "10 minutes".  As for the second question, I can only see that working if the two sides are of vastly different cultures.  Similar cultures will have similar tastes in music.  152.16.188.111 03:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * From Musical mode,

''Plato felt that playing music in a particular mode would incline one towards specific behavior associated with that mode, and suggested that soldiers should listen to music in Dorian or Phrygian modes to help make them stronger, but avoid music in Lydian, Mixed Lydian or Ionian modes, for fear of being softened. ''


 * Also, I have heard of the army being able to get people that have locked themselves inside their houses to come out by playing music on loud speakers.  Asmeurer  ( talk   ♬  contribs ) 05:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Anything by Oasis would do that for me. AndyJones 16:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Psychological warfare lists as one of the techniques: "Projecting repetitive and annoying sounds and music for long periods at high volume towards groups under siege." 152.16.188.111 08:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not directly relevant, but see Manuel Noriega, who hid out in the Vatican Embassy in Panama. The US tried to get him out with music, but it troubled the Vatican officials more than the man they wanted. The Mad Echidna 15:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The FBI also tried it on the Branch Davidians. &mdash;Tamfang 05:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not directly in war, but it's also used in torture (or enhanced interogation or whatever you want to call it). Particularly convient in that it leaves no visible marks. Some radio station here (NZ) also ran a competition where a parent and kid had to survive 36 hours or something of Crazy Frog. BTW, when it comes to detesting the music bear in mind it has to be a real 'can't stand it' sort of detesting. For example, your enemies may hate your national anthem, but playing continously it may just get them riled up more. Indeed I would suspect when it comes to active combat there is probably always going to be the rsik that instead of negatively affecting the other side, it may just annoy in such a way that they perform better Nil Einne 00:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

British Monarch missing presumed dead
Clio's answer to the Edward Aetheling question above has raised a question in my mind. Take this fanciful scenario: Queen Elizabeth goes swimming on a secluded Scottish beach, gets caught in a rip and is swept out to sea (à la Harold Holt). After massive fruitless searching, she is declared legally dead. Prince Charles is proclaimed king. Some weeks later, Elizabeth returns - she'd been captured by aliens but was found unworthy of further study and released unharmed (or insert your own explanation for her disappearance). What happens? Is Charles now disenthroned and Elizabeth restored? Can parliament, in such circumstances, alter the law to make the heir's accession to the throne conditional on the original monarch not being later found alive? And would that make Charles a somewhat "lame duck" monarch, at least until such time as Elizabeth might have been expected to die naturally? Or, if he accedes fully and unconditionally, would a further law be required to retrospectively deem him not to have acceded? Or deem him to have now abdicated? I realise there are no modern precedents to go on, and we're not supposed to speculate here, but any thoughts would be welcome. -- JackofOz 04:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm...it's an interesting conjecture, Jack, and I'm really not quite sure how such a situation would be handled in real political and constitutional terms. However, I assume that the same legal principles would apply here as with any other person in such circumstances, in that the Queen would not be proclaimed legally dead until a specific period of time had elapsed after she went missing.  In the interval Charles would presumably rule as Regent, and we do know from real examples that Regents can quite comfortably be set aside as the situation demands.

There are two concrete examples from English history which, though they do not quite fit the situation you describe, show that monarchs can 'come and go', so to speak. The first is the Readeption of Henry VI, temporarily brought out from his prison in the Tower to replace Edward IV, only to be deposed yet again. The other is that of Charles II, whose reign in the strictest legal sense began with the death of his father in 1649, though the Commonwealth and Protectorate intruded, and he did not ascend the throne until 1660 (he was, incidentally, crowned in Scotland in 1651!) Also, Mary Queen of Scots intended to depose and replace her own son James VI, if she had ever been in a position to do so. Clio the Muse 05:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As with many issues of the 'British Constitution' this would probably have to be decided practically, rather than according to the letter of the law. Succession_to_the_British_Throne gives details of the various acts. Succession occurs instantly on the death of the previous monarch, no proclomation or act of parliament is needed to confirm this. (The King is dead, long live the King). However if death can't be established, I assume it succession would happen when the Queen was legally declared dead (7 years I think is a standard waiting period).

I'd like to think Charles, (King George VII?) would abdicate then return if he outlived his mother, or maybe they'd both abdicate in favour of William, which would be a popular solution among the public I think. Also, just a point of information, but this is a slightly different situation to Edward, as there was no right of primogeniture in Anglo-Saxon times, hence how the Witan could choose Harold over Edgar Ætheling, I suppose if it was in the will of the assumed dead monarch that might produce the same situation. Cyta 09:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Speaking of other times, they had an interesting situation in France when King Louis X died in 1316. He had a daughter, but women weren't allowed to inherit the throne.  But his wife was pregnant, and an unborn child was allowed to inherit -- if it turned out to be male.  So they had a regency for 5 months until the child was born.  As it turned out, it was male, but only lived 5 days, and the throne then passed to Louis's brother.  --Anonymous, July 5, 2007, 16:55 (UTC).


 * Yes, I knew about Jean I, probably the shortest reigning king in history - despite what the Guinness Book of Records says about Portugal's "Luis I" who, Guinness claims, succeeded his father Carlos I when both were the subject of an assassination. Carlos died immediately, and Luis is said to have succeeded him for 20 minutes before also dying of his wounds.  But apparently, the succession in Portugal was not instantaneous as it is in Britain, but had to be confirmed by Parliament, or something, so Luis was never king.   Back to Britain, if the scenario I outlined above happened, I'm getting that the subsequent events would be : (a) Elizabeth is declared missing, presumed dead, or some other form of words indicating her incapacity to reign; (b) Charles is made Regent in the interim until the situation becomes clearer; (c) If Elizabeth turns up while Charles is Regent, she would simply continue as Queen (assuming she was able to), and Charles' regency would cease; (d) If she did not turn up for at least 7 years, she would eventually be declared legally dead, and Charles the Regent would become Charles the King (or perhaps George the King).  But what if she turned up after Charles became King (assuming it was conclusively established that she really was Elizabeth and not some Anastasia-like imposter? (sorry, Clio, that was not a reference to you.)  --  JackofOz 04:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then, if neither were prepared to abdicate, I suppose a joint monarchy would be possible, along the lines of William and Mary, or Mary and Philip II. There is even a parent and child precedent for such a thing in English history in the twelfth century, when Henry the Young King was crowned during the lifetime of his father, Henry II.  Anyway, this is the educated opinion of the Grand Duchess Anastasia, who flits among the people disguised as Clio the Muse 05:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We could always have a civil war. I'm with Elizabeth! Cyta 07:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I also am with the Cavaliers. Charles is  far too much of a grumpy, Victor Meldrew style Roundhead!  Clio the Muse 07:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They'd be pretty stupid to consider the idea. They're more like to find most Brits will just decide it's time to end the monarchy and become a republic rather then join either of them in a civil war. Besides that Elizabeth II is getting on in her years. If she's held by aliens for 7 years, it might not be that hard for Charles to arrange her death if he so desires when she reappears... Nil Einne 08:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Another short-term monarch was Dipendra of Nepal who reigned for three days in a coma. &mdash;Tamfang 05:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The law is definite that the senior surviving descendant of Sophia is the monarch; a consequence of this is that, as Cyta said above, the crown passes instantly upon death. If Elizabeth turns up after she has been declared dead, then the kingship of Charles (it seems to me) is an error of fact, and he never was king.  No abdication necessary.  On the other hand, he remained regent until Elizabeth reclaimed her station, so his acts as "king" are valid as acts of a regent.  Parliament would likely make a special Act to confirm this.  &mdash;Tamfang 05:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, senior surviving non-Papist descendant. If the missing Queen converted (or, being hypothetically widowed, married one of Them) during her absence, I guess Junior became King at that moment.  &mdash;Tamfang 23:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, when the Queen definitely dies, does Charles get another coronation? He has already (in this hypothetical scenario!) taken the coronation oath. &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cyta, one remembers reading that Charles Philip Arthur George has indicated that "Charles III" is good enough for him. &mdash;Tamfang 05:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It just occured to me that there's something we've all missed. There is probably some sort of legal precedent for this already. Not of monarchs obviously but of normal people declared dead who reappear. What happens with inheritance etc? It appears from a quick Google that Tamfang is probably right (indeed thinking of it it sounds right). At least in inheritance, you can reclaim your inheritance from your heirs (not a simple matter obviously) &  (also Death in absentia although doesn't say much). You were not dead therefore anything that happened because you were dead would have been invalid/should not have occured. If Elizabeth was never dead then her being declared dead was an error and if she didn't die and didn't abdicate, then she would still be queen. Now obviously if she came back 7 years later after being held by aliens, they would probably want her to prove she was Elizabeth even if she looked right. In this day and age, a simple DNA test would be sufficient. It perhaps could get a little more complicated if she hadn't been abducted but instead had grown bored of her reign and decided to join a commune for 7 years. In this case, it may be determinated that by running away for 7 years she had effectively abdicated the throne. As with what Tamfang mentioned, I would guess a special act of parliament would be needed to confirm this. See also Succession to the British Throne (specifically James II of England) Nil Einne 00:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Act of Settlement 1701 forbade the monarch to leave the British Isles without permission of Parliament; according to the article, "This provision was repealed in 1716 at the request of King George I" who also had duties in the Holy Roman Empire; so it would seem there's no statutory ground for construing absence without leave as abdication. &mdash;Tamfang 23:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's probably correct, Tamfang. When the Queen vists foreign countries, she presumably does so with the concurrence, or even at the request, of the Prime Minister these days.  I know members of the Royal Family sometimes make "private visits" overseas; does the Queen ever do this, or is she always subject to the will of the PM?  I know she does have some rights in her own personal capacity, without needing anyone's permission, such as awarding honours in the Royal Victorian Order and the orders of the Garter and the Thistle.  --  JackofOz 02:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * When Edward VII went to resorts on the Continent such as Biarritz, he used the pseudonym "Duke of Lancaster" to signal that it was not a state visit. I don't know if any of his successors has used a similar device.  &mdash;Tamfang 01:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A second thing occured to me. If she came back telling people she had been abducted by aliens (unless the aliens came with her) it's unlikely anyone would believe her. Since no one would want an insane monarch, it's rather likely she would be force to abducate or otherwise removed... Or perhaps more likely, Charles would remain regent until she really died (I guess this is what happens if the monarch is incapacitated or insane but remains alive). Indeed, even if the aliens came with her, I'm not sure whether anyone would trust someone who had been held by aliens for 7 years. Of course, this is somewhat against the point Nil Einne 00:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm always surprised when people who claim to have been abducted by aliens are considered insane. It sounds perfectly plausible to me.  Why, my uncle was ... no, maybe I'd better leave that story for another time.  Anyhow, maybe the real point is that we've come up with a wonderful new word, "abducate": v.i. (of a monarch) to abdicate after release from abduction by aliens.  :)  JackofOz 02:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Facial hair
What is record of earl facial hair and late facial hair? --Vess 07:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your question. Have you read facial hair and Earl "Facial Hair" Derby?--Shantavira|feed me 08:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they meant early facial hair. WAFFLESOAP 09:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant early and late facial hair. --Vess 10:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Pituitary adenomas can cause the growth of ancillary and facial hair at virtually any age. These are hormonal variations, and therefore there wouldn't really be a "record."  Instead, there would be various disease states, and those with either the lack of facial hair despite functional male gonads or the presence of facial hair despite the lack of mature male sex hormonal organs would suffer from other symptoms and would be distinctly suffering.  Geogre 11:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A condition of very early precocious puberty in boys causing early growth of facial hair – possibly as early as from age 1 – is testotoxicosis. Delayed puberty, possibly indefinitely delayed, can be caused by a variety of conditions, including Klinefelter's syndrome and androgen insensitivity syndrome. By the way, a more appropriate spot for this question is the science section of our reference desk. --Lambiam Talk  12:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect the original poster may have meant early and late in a historical sense - that is to say, changes in styles of facial hair through history. DuncanHill 12:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My guess would be that the OP is concerned about the normal spread in ages for the appearance of facial hair. Check out Puberty, sections 3.2 and 3.4. The answer depends upon a host of factors, including ethnicity. Bielle 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Professor Albert Brackmann
I previously asked a question here about Martin Heidegger and German university life in the 1930s and got a very helpful answer, with a guide to further research. I am now looking for some detail on the career of Professor Albert Brackmann, another German academic who worked in the same period. There is a page on the German Wikipedia, but nothing in English. Can anyone help? My thanks in anticipation. E. G. A.. Husserl 09:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've requested a translation for you. --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 14:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

While you are waiting for a translation I can help you to travel slightly further along your road with the following information.

Brackmann was one of the leading historians in Ostforschung, a multi-disciplined organisation set up to co-ordinate German research on eastern Europe. In 1913, at the age of twenty-seven, he was appointed professor of history at the University of Königsberg in East Prussia. Originally a specialist in relations between the Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy, he turned towards the history of the Germans in eastern Europe as a result of his experiences of the First World War. Politically conservative, he was a member of the DNVP during the Weimar Republic, and was joint editor of the prestigious and influential Historische Zeitschrift from 1928 to 1935.

Favoured by leading Nazis, including Hitler himself, he steadily turned the Ostforschung away from detached academic work towards projects that fed directly into the wider foreign policy and expansionist aims being pursued by the Nazi government. In September 1939, he congratulated himself on heading an organisation that had become the central agency "for scholarly advice for the Foreign, Interior and Propaganda ministries; the army high command and a number of SS departments." He was also an author for the Ahnenerbe, a research body set up under the auspices of Heinrich Himmler, writing papers that questioned the historical validity of Poland as a nation.

After the outbreak of the war, his work also extended to issues of 'Germanisation', and the removal of undesired ethnic elements from German domains. In this particular context he did much to promote the work of Otto Reche, professor of racial studies at the University of Leipzig, and a noted anti-Semite. Responding to Reche's appeal that Germany needed Raum (room), and not 'Polish lice in the fur', Brackmann brought his argument for a strict definition of ethnicity to the attention of a number of different ministries. In essence, Reche argued that the Poles should be pushed eastwards further into the Ukraine, whose population, in turn, would be pushed even further east.

Defeat in the war produced only a temporary halt in Brackmann's academic work. In 1946 he was actively involved in the reconstruction of Ostforschung, and many of his pupils went on to occupy important academic positions in the German Federal Republic, with anti-communism replacing the former fashion for expansionism. Brackmann died in 1952, but the Zeitschrift for Ostforschung went on, amongst other things, to re-publish some of the work of the notoriously anti-Polish Dr Kurt Lück, who served as an SS Sonderführer, before he was killed by Soviet partisans in 1942. The most accessible treatment in English on this whole subject is Germany Turns Eastwards: A Study of Ostforschung in the Third Reich by Micheal Burleigh. Clio the Muse 00:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for this most useful information, Miss Clio. E. G. A.. Husserl 14:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to be interested in translating the German article (which is not very detailed anyway), I copied the text of Clio's reply to Albert Brackmann, so that we could have some article on the subject. I also tweaked Ostforschung accordingly. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about the UNSC
Can permanent, veto-holding members of the UNSC veto resolutions aimed at themselves? So could the UK, say, veto a resolution calling for sanctions against the UK? Could they even vote in such an occurence?

Furthermore, there has been much talk about removing the veto from the permanent members of the UNSC. If such a move found sufficient worldwide support, how would it be done? Would it require an amendment to the UN Charter or some other document? If so, how is that done? The General Assembly? And again, would anyone have a veto over it? Batmanand | Talk 10:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See United Nations Security Council veto power and Reform of the United Nations Security Council. I haven't read the latter, but the former makes clear that a country is required to abstain during voting on disputes in which it is involved. Of course, this doesn't stop the propping up of allies, most notably Israel. Algebraist 11:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The United States invasion of Panama article says that a security council motion condemning the invasion was vetoed by the USA, Britain and France, though there's no adequate citation. --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 14:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * These sources confirm that the US did veto it., .  --TotoBaggins 20:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure there is no way any reform can take place without the support (or at least abstention) of all veto-wielding members since a UNSC vote would have to take place. Technically of course, if everyone but the veto-wielding members supported the reform, they could potentially do something drastic like leave the current UN and reform their own UN with a new charter etc. Of course, this is incredibly unlikely Nil Einne 22:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

search not plugged and new entry
For the existing entry Gabriel and Maxim Shamir, "Shamir" for it does not show up by using "search."

For the new entry Jeremy Langford, the "L" of his family is lowercase in the main title.

Can these be fixed by Wikepedia staff person?

Thanks,

Mel Byars
 * I fixed the second one. The first one is a little bit more complicated because you don't want someone to be taken straight to the Gabriel and Maxim Shamir page if they type 'shamir' into the search box, since there are quite a few pages about things and people called Shamir.  So I added a line to the disambiguation page to point to the graphic designers.   While I was about it, I added redirect pages so that anyone who types in the name of either brother will now go to the page about them.  By the way, this query would have been better asked at the Wikipedia help desk. --Richardrj talkemail 14:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A People's History of the United States
Is A People's History of the United States worth reading? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends on what kind of reading you're looking for, since there are many history books to choose from. If you're looking for a general U.S. history from a quasi-Marxist perspective (i.e. everything revolves around the elites manipulating the middle class to exploit the underclass and all that), then Zinn's book might be your thing. If you've already done some "serious" reading about these issues then Zinn's book may seem too simplistic for you. If you're simply looking for a history book to read primarily for writing style, i.e. history as literature, then there are numerous better choices. —Kevin Myers 16:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What would be some other choices for history as literature on the topic of American history? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are an American, I highly recommend reading Zinn's history of the U.S. Yes, it is written from a socialist point of view. No, it may not be the most accurate history. However, I remember very vividly reading it for the first time many years ago as a teenager just starting college. As a product of a conventional public school education in the United States during the Cold War, my view of American history was incredibly narrow and slanted--but I didn't know it. After the shock and excitment of reading Zinn's book, I never looked at history the same way again. I think it is always a good idea to approach a subject from several different directions and points of view--even from those that you might ultimately reject as false.--Eriastrum 16:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your perspective. I don't take what I read for granted when it comes to these major topics (currently reading Guns, Germs, and Steel and checking for counterpoints as I go along).  I've heard both positive and negative things about A People's History, so I was weighing the value of reading it due to its more prominent presence, in a sort of baby step to reading alternate works on the same topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I rather liked it. The question of "Is it worth reading" is easily answered "yes."  "Is it the last history I'll need" is not what you've asked.  One of the things about Zinn's book is that it has set a whole generation of revisionists in motion, and so reading it is at least useful for understanding a current of contemporary history.  Additionally, he's a good prose stylist with good pacing, and his polemical edge is a good corrective and tends to inoculate readers against future credulity. Geogre 17:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because I am myself something of a socialist, I admire Zinn's perspective on American history. However, his book is so poorly written, and in some cases so obviously simplistic, that I could not get through it.  It is very tough going if you care about literary style or the complexity of the real world.  That said, I know of no well-written single-volume survey of American history that reflects anything like the current state of historiographic scholarship, much less a well-written survey from a socialist perspective.  Personally, however, I think that it is better to hone your own political or theoretical perspective so that you can read critically works written from other perspectives than to look for works written from a perspective similar to your own.  You might want to consider the works written for the Oxford History of the United States.  The contributing authors are some of the best historians and some of the best historical writers working in the United States today. In many cases, their works cover topics championed by Zinn and ignored by earlier generations of historians, but they present those topics in their broader contexts.  Marco polo 17:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How about the American portions of A History of the English-Speaking Peoples? Corvus cornix 18:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They are as good as the portions that deal with English history, Corvus cornix. Churchill writes superbly, though his prose tends to be a little overblown for modern taste.  Moreover, he was not an academic historian by training, so some of his judgements and conclusions do not really stand up to rigorous intellectual scrutiny.  Do not let that put you off, though; it's still inspiring and entertaining stuff, as, indeed, is Andrew Robert's continuation.  Clio the Muse 01:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A "People's History of the U.S." sounds like it might have been a counterbalance to jingoistic history books of the early 20th century, in which the student learned that God sent Columbus and later the Pilgrims to America to enlighten the heathen, that God favored the US with victory in wars and that it was our manifest destiny to rule from sea to shining sea, that the US was a beacon of liberty on a hill (never mind slavery) where everything worthwhile in the 19th and 20th century was invented. At the same time it is almost inevitable for a writer seeking to provide balance to be one sided himself. I wonder how his coverage and balance (or lack thereof) and spin compared to that of history coverage of the US in books published by the Soviet Union before the demise of that system? I know that history books in the US public schools talked of heroic victories over the Spanish in the Spanish Ameerican War, but were silent about massacres of Phillipino civilians by the US in the subsequent insurrection. Edison 20:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Apart from Jefferson the Cruel Slave-Owner, the only thing I remember from the Soviet school history course about US history is Polk's villaneous aggression against Mexico which resulted in one third of that peaceful country being occupied by the jingoistic Americans. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you ever read Lies My Teacher Told Me? I also remember being shocked to hear a Candian friend tell me that the War of 1812 was fought to prevent American aggression against Canada.  Corvus cornix 02:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

WHAT?
what did thomas crapper not invent. i dont understand.
 * Have you read the Wikipedia article at Thomas Crapper? Corvus cornix 18:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He did not invent the roller skate, Tesla coil, sextant, defibrillator, or M1 Garand rifle, among other things. --TotoBaggins 20:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

yes so why my teache3r says something he didnt invent. he must have not invented lots of things.

He is widely (and wrongly) believed to have invented the water closet. DuncanHill 23:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

thankyou


 * ... which you could have read in the second sentence of our Thomas Crapper article. Many people did not invent the flushing toilet, but Mr. Crapper is the only person who is famous for not inventing it. --Lambiam Talk  00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds to me like a homework or perhaps quiz question Nil Einne 08:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * NO, it sounds like a thought provoking class discussion, that worked, as the student made an extra effort to find out what his teacher meant. - Czmtzc 13:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What extra effort? He/she didn't even Google or read the wikipedia article... This is an incredibly easy to answer question which I would presume the teacher hoped his/her students would try to find the answer to on their own. Also it seems unlikely to me that any discussion would have taken place since there is nothing to discuss without giving away the answer. Let me put it a different way, if the teacher had simply wanted the question asker to ask, wouldn't he/she have told said person him/herself? There's no point in keeping it a mystery if all people are going to do is to ask on the wikipedia reference desk. The whole point of such an exercise, be it homework, quiz question or whatever is to get people thinking and researching themselves, not for them to just ask someone else. Obviously with more complicated questions the teacher may very well expect the student to seek help from a reference desk or librarian or whoever to direct their study (or perhaps from a parent or friend to get discussion going about something). But not for the student to simply ask and get the answer for a question like this without thinking or looking. The student might as well ask the teacher Nil Einne 22:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ulysses-help!!!
I've just started to read Ulysses by James Joyce and, to put it mildly, I am making slow progress against the current! I can make no sense of this passage from the first section;

"Glorious, pious and immortal memory. The lodge of Diamond in Armagh the splendid behung with corpses of papishes.  Hoarse, masked and armed, the planters covenant.  The black north and true blue bible.  Croppies lie down."

Can anyone interpret this for me? More than this, is there a 'correct' way to read this book? I think I may be doing things all wrong. Thanks, oh brilliant ones! Irishbard 18:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all and most importantly, don't get bogged down. Be on the watch for constant puns and nonce words, historical allusions, etc. The snippet you posted refers unambiguously to Northern Ireland, to the Battle of the Diamond and the lodge of the Orange Order, which was founded in County Armagh. The phrase "behung with corpses of papishes" suggests a long, proudly advertised history of anti-Catholicism. "The black north", a clear reference again to NI and to its reputation for violence, and "the true blue bible" is surely the King James Bible. The "planters covenant" refers, I suppose, to the fact that Anglo-Irish settlers were mostly planters. Croppies Lie Down is an Irish Protestant folk song associated with the Orange Order. If something in the text gives you pause, just keep reading. The beauty of Joyce is having to reread, having to constantly interpret and solve little puzzles, and constantly being surprised. Bhumiya (said/done) 19:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "True blue Bible" is a double: Hudibras was the trew blew knight and it is "true blue" Presbyterianism/Puritanism. Geogre 02:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course... never underestimate Joyce's commitment to quadrivia. Bhumiya (said/done) 10:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Bhumiya's advice is good. It's OK to bypass parts that just don't make sense at first; no one understands everything in that book: indeed the first time I read it I probably missed three-quarters of the puns and allusions but still managed to follow the story and love every page.  Sometimes you just have to appreciate the beauty of the language, because Joyce has an incredible ear for the music in language itself.  I recommend picking up a copy of Stuart Gilbert's James Joyce's Ulysses:  A Study (hoping it's not too terribly out of print) since that's a fine and handy light-weight guide to keep alongside as you're reading.  You will also find some parts of the book much easier to follow than others--for example, I couldn't make head or tail out of the Oxen of the Sun section on my first trip through the book (but on my first read, I tried it without any guide or preparation at all).  It is a fun read, though:  enjoy!  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also recommend Harry Blamires's The Bloomsday Book. That was the standard when I were a lad. Geogre 02:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Bhumiya's advice is sound, but if you're looking for more concrete help than "enjoy it in the moment, and reread later for more depth", why not try one of the many annotated editions of the book? It's a famously difficult work, with plenty of allusions to things you might be ignorant of (the Battle of the Diamond, say), so it's better to get through it with a guide than to follow the well-worn path of going it alone and giving up in bewilderment and despair.  --TotoBaggins 19:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Planters covenant" - see Plantation of Ulster and Ulster Covenant DuncanHill 21:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Glorious, pious and immortal memory" is part of a toast used by the Orange Order. It refers to William III DuncanHill 21:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC) I would also recommend "Here Comes Everybody" by Anthony Burgess as an introduction to Joyce for anyone feeling baffled. DuncanHill 21:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Irishbard, the passage in question has now largely been 'deconstructed' and interpreted for you. All I really need to do is add one or two minor points of clarification. The toast to William of Orange continues "...who saved us from popery, slavery, arbitrary power, brass money, and wooden shoes." (Yes, it does!) The 'Planter's covenant' is a reference to the oath of loyalty to the British crown in return for land grants in Ulster. 'True blue' is an allusion to Presbyterian Rebels in Scotland-the Covenanters-who during the Bishops' Wars adopted the blue cockade as their badge. Many of the Planters in Ulster were, of course, Scots.

Ulysses is a marvellous book, Joyce's 'encyclopedia', as he described it, full of rich references to all aspects of Irish culture and history. There are so many ways of reading it, but I, too, would urge you not to get bogged down. However, it looks as if you might need a mentor or a guide through the labyrinth. The version I read based on the original 1922 text, edited and fully annotated by Jeri Johnson, and published by Oxford University Press, is, I believe, among the best available. Clio the Muse 23:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I should also mention, just as a rifle shot in passing, my favorite pun in the book. Stephen is hearing the school master talk about how he, like any good Englishman, can boast the he paid his own way!  Stephen immediately thinks of all the money he owes to various people, including George William Russell and says, "A E I O U."  Geogre 02:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I love that! --  JackofOz 03:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * GOD that's good. By the by, not meaning to name drop or anything but Jeri Johnson is my tutor at Oxford. . . and she's just AMAZING when it comes to Ulysses. So buy her book. I mean his book. Now.

Wow, good for you for reading Ulysses!!! It’s is one of my favorite books in the world! In fact my user name comes from one of the main character in the book. S.dedalus 03:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Which? (JosephASpadaro 01:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Stephen Dedalus, I presume? Antandrus  (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ya think? (JosephASpadaro 06:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

New York Blue Sox
Bill Pinkney's article claims that he pitched in Negro League baseball for a team called the New York Blue Sox. None of Wikipedia's articles on Negro League baseball mentions this team. I can find nothing in Google about any such team except for repetitions of the claim in Pinkney obituaries. Can anybody verify that there was such a team? Corvus cornix 18:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There was a woman's team called the New York Blue Stockings, but I doubt that is much help in the circumstances. and then there is also the team that Cal Ripken Sr. purchased in the early 2000s . Are we getting any closer? Bielle 02:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Asian child militants
hey there everyone, there has been a reoccurring picture in my mind that was popular in newspapers a number of years back (back when i only grazed the newspapers). it was of two decidedly east asian-looking children (possibly vietnamese?), i think they were only about 12, they were brothers i believe, and they were leaders of some military effort. i remember seeing many pictures of them wielding guns and smoking cigarettes but i don't remember who they were or what they were doing. if someone can put together the vague details i've provided it'd be sweet. thanks --74.97.142.249 19:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are remembering Johnny and Luther Htoo, who led the God's Army rebel group in Thailand and Myanmar when they were only around 10 years old. --TotoBaggins 19:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

American Psycho .357 Magnum Question
In the book, when Patrick steals the Taxi and has the shootout with the police, he mentions that he has a .357 magnum. Later, he claims he reloads by "slipping the clip out". I was under the impression that a .357 was only a round for revolvers. Is this a mistake on Bret Ellis' part?

M0rphz 19:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It was invented as a revolver cartridge, and is way more common in wheelguns than autoloaders. There have been some autos in this cartridge, including at least a Desert Eagle.  I'd guess it's likely a mistake- most writers who deal with guns don't seem to know much about them.  Friday (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also note that some revolvers do use clips (and clip here is the technically correct term, unlike when it's frequently misused to mean "magazine"). Let's see if we have an article on perhaps a moon clip.. yep, there you go. Friday (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) There are also things called "clips" for revolvers, and if you'll forgive some subjective speculation, I think you do indeed "slip out" a speedloader-type clip, while you are more likely to "eject" an autoloader-type clip. --TotoBaggins 20:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well.. revolvers have an ejector rod that lets you remove empty cases (or in this case, clips). In my book I'd say "eject" could apply easily to either case.  Friday (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Defending Pierre Laval
What defence can be made, if any, of Pierre Laval's actions during in Second World War? Captainhardy 20:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In his own words: "In the event of a victory over Germany by Soviet Russia and England, Bolshevism in Europe would inevitably follow. Under these circumstances I would prefer to see Germany win the war. I feel that an understanding could be reached (with Germany) which would result in a lasting peace with Europe and believe that a German victory is preferable to a British and Soviet victory." Fear of Communism, then. Totnesmartin 21:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if we take Laval at his word, fear of Communism isn't an excuse for complicity in genocide. I don't know if a defense could be crafted for that. -- Mwalcoff 02:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * true, but I imagine his defence may have been along those lines. I'm not trying to defend him. Totnesmartin 12:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Poor Pierre Laval, most definitely the 'man you love to hate.' Even Marshal Petain, head of the Vichy state, said of him Ce Laval-quel fumier! (What horse shit). In a poll carried out Novelle Litterairies in 1980 on the fairness of his post-war trial, only 2% of the respondents said that he should have been acquitted. Indeed, Laval has become the ultimate scapegoat, the French Judas. There are still those who would excuse Petain, believing he acted for noble if misguided motives. Nobody defends or excuses Laval, who is held to represent the 'unacceptable face' of Vichy. Even his appearance was against him; he seems the very quintessence of the shifty and disreputable politician. He was the ultimate wheeler-dealer, reflected even in his nickname, the 'horse trader.'

What defence can be made? Very little, I suppose, but I will try my best. First and foremost, he set out to preserve his country, not to betray it. He was never in that sense a Quisling, and senior French fascists were kept out of the Vichy administration. His task, as he saw it, was to continue the work of Aristide Briand in ending the emnity between France and Germany. But whereas Briand had Gustav Streseman, Laval had Hitler. He was also mindful of the fate of Poland under the Nazis, and saw active collaboration as a way of preventing a similar fate befalling France, thus ensuring that the country would have a role to play in the post-war settlement. He did not 'believe' in a German victory; but he did expect it. His chief aim was to conclude a treaty that would end the occupation, bring French prisoners of war home, and secure France's overseas empire. His chief failure was that he never really understood that the Germans were not at all intrested in maintaining a 'reasonable relationship', only in securing Frech support in advancing their war aims. Even his scheme to bring the prisoners of war home in return for sending French workers to Germany produced little in the way of practical returns, France giving far more than it received. He did his best to save the French Jews from deportation, but only at the sacrifice of those not of French nationality, which had the effect of turning his horse-trading into the grossest forms of moral turpitude.

He may indeed have been right, that things would have been worse without him, a defence that he made at his 'trial' in 1945. To the very end he preserved the semblance of an independent French state, and kept his long-standing promise that he would never consent to a declaration of war. The problem was that he simply lost all sight of the big picture, and that the collaboration which he believed would save France forced him into ever decreasing circle of compromise and betrayal. A more prudent politician would have said much and given little. Laval said much and gave even more. Clio the Muse 02:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)