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

= March 5 =

What religion(s) believe that life gives us desires, which make the afterlife enjoyable?
It's difficult to research a particular religious belief without knowing the religion(s) to which it is associated. There is a belief that the life's challanges and limitations are what gives a person desires and passions, which is what allows the eternal afterlife to be enjoyable. Is there a specific name for this belief? What religion(s) associate with this belief?

Thanks Steohawk 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Steohawk


 * I'm sorry, Steohawak, but I'm finding it a little difficult to make sense of your question. Do you mean a religion that promises the fulfilment of desires unrealised on Earth, or a paradise free from the emptiness of worldly passions?  Clio the Muse 02:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Steohawk is looking for religious concepts that emphasize the conscious human life's yearning for an existence void of strife, suffering etc. A yearning which, in turn, may be conditional for enjoying afterlife's promises. Dualistic world-views, come to mind, but I cannot answer the question competently, sorry. ---Sluzzelin talk  02:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Sluzzelin. I assume you are hinting at Manicheanism, the belief in the struggle between the realm of dark to the realm of light?  Anyway, there is obviously no point in speculating on this without further clarification.  Clio the Muse 02:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As already stated (and implied) by Clio and Sluzzelin, your question needs clarification. Nevertheless, if you are looking for concise, glib comparisons, you might want to start with beliefnet, which may be adequate for your research needs. Additionally, a beliefnet-site-specific google search using words in the previous answers (e.g., "dualism", "strife", "eternal") may help. Caveat: any serious endeavor in comparative religious studies requires at least basic familiarity with the primary sources (i.e., scripture, upanishad, koan) upon which that religion is based. Anything less will certainly render interpretations that are biased by a particular sect, denomination, adherent or detractor of that particular religion. dr.ef.tymac 04:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought briefly about buddhism, but in that case it's basically the desires and passions that make this life hard, the afterlife was originally not explicitly stated (because our personal conscience was only temporary for this life, or something...). 惑乱 分からん 11:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry about the confusion. I'm mainly referring to the opposite belief that the ultimate goal of human beings is to be stripped of all desire. Most religions believe that the afterlife will allow for the fulfillment of desires, but they often view that as a reward, as opposed to just the "way it is". Even though you couldn't answer my question, I appreciate the help. Thanks.


 * If that's what you refer to, (the ultimate goal of human beings is to be stripped of all desire) it definitely sounds like buddhism. I just got confused because of your comments on the afterlife, which, as far as I have understood, isn't of any basic importance for the religion. 惑乱 分からん 00:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Pierce Butler
How did pierce butler of 1744 feel about the Articles of Confederation?What is his position on representation in congress?


 * Have you read the page on Pierce Butler? He seems, on the one hand to have been in favour of a strong central union, especially for the sake of national defence, while on the other being an early champion of state rights.  Politically his shifts were quite bewildering, allowing him to move from Federalism, through the Democtratic-Republicans, finally becoming an Independent.  It seems to me that he did his best to bring together two things which are not always compatible: strong central government and the liberty and rights of the citizen. Clio the Muse 01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Benj Disraeli on being Jewish (quotation/insult)
I remember hearing a quote by a high school teacher in the 50s of Benj Disraeli in Parliament, after an Antisemitic member accused him of being Jewish.

Disraeli's response was essentially this: "It is true that I am a Jew, but I would remind the Right Honorable member that my ancestors were obeying the Laws of Solomon when his anscestors were running about the isle of Britain naked, painted blue, and workshiping trees."

I assume it was recorded in Hansard, but cannot find Hansard onlne for that far back (and I don't know the date).

Any pointers will be appreciated. It is such a marvelous reply (considering the venue) that it must be recorded online somewhere.

172.153.144.78 00:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)David J. Zook
 * Wikiquote has:
 * "Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon." (Reply to a taunt by Daniel O'Connell).
 * I didn't find a reference, but George Bernard Shaw picked up on it and integrated it in his play Caesar and Cleopatra. A similar (later) quote has been attributed to Judah P. Benjamin:
 * The gentleman will please remember that when his half-civilized ancestors were hunting the wild boar in the forests of Silesia, mine were the princes of the earth ---Sluzzelin talk  00:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the remark in question may have been made in an exchange with Daniel O'Connell during the Taunton by-election of 1835 (which Disraeli lost) rather than in Parliament. Disraeli did not enter Parliament until July 1837, as the member for Maidstone. To be fair, insult had been traded for insult, and Disraeli had previously referred to O'Connell as an 'incendiary and a traitor.' The two men even came close to fighting a duel. Disraeli, in point of fact, was not a practicing Jew, but a Christian. Jews, as such, were not allowed entry to Parliament until 1858. Clio the Muse 01:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Right folks, I've now managed to track this down, with some degree of difficulty, I have to say. It is a popular misconception that the remark was made in the Commons; it was not: it appeared in an open letter in The Times in 1835, addressed to Daniel O'Connell. During the Taunton by-election Disraeli, standing as a Tory, attacked the Whigs and their alliance with O'Connell, and the Irish radicals, in highly immoderate terms. He was particularly offensive in his remarks about the great Liberator. In response O'Connell, no less skilled in invective, denounced him as the 'worst possible type of Jew'-''He has just the qualities of that impertinent thief on the cross, and I verily believe, if Mr. Disraeli's family herald were to be examined and his genealogy traced, that same personage would be discovered to be the heir at law of the exalted individual to whom I allude. '' Disraeli responded by challenging O'Connell's son, Morgan, to a duel; and when this was refused his letter with the famous quote was published. O'Connell was not, in fact, denouncing Disraeli as a Jew as such, but as the descendent of a criminal. Disraeli took the occasion not just to celebrate a more elevated Jewish ancestory-the priests in the temple-, but to denounce the 'savage' Irish, in terms that would have appealed to all the prejudices of Victorian England. The whole matter, therefore, is not quite as simple as conventionally depicted. The details of the quarrel can be found in Disraeli by Sarah Bradford, published by Weidenfield and Nicholson in 1982 (and which I have just hooked out from our library). Clio the Muse 09:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's great research CtM! Downunda 21:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Downunda. Clio the Muse 22:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote seems to be apocryphal. In Disraeli by Sarah Bradford. The quarrel is described on p.81 of both the London edition and the 1983 New York edition published by Stein and Day but though O'Connell's words are mentioned (without any reference) she doesn't mention the quote and Disraeli's response is only referred to as appearing in a letter in The Times, no date mentioned. David Cesarani also describes the quarrel on pp.68-70 of Disraeli: The Novel Politician published by Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016 in their Jewish Lives series. He quotes both O'Connell and Disraeli, referring to the edition of Disraeli's letters edited by M. G. Wiebe et al. published by the University of Toronto Press, 1989. He also does not mention the quote. The Times Digital Archive has an exchange of letters between Disraeli and Daniel O'Connell and his son Wednesday, May 06, 1835 (the source is given as pg. 3; Issue 15783) but the quote does not appear. Mcljlm (talk) 13 March 2017. Sue Brewton in her July 16, 2016 at 8:56 pm reply to David L. after her "No, Benjamin Disraeli did not write that." post on https://suebrewton.com/2016/04/30/no-benjamin-disraeli-did-not-write-that/ describes the quote as "more legend than fact" and then quotes a “famous apocryphal story” Emmanuel Nathan and Anya Topolski "Is there a Judeo-Christian Tradition?" with its URL, as well as including URLs for The Yale Book of Quotations and Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. Mcljlm (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Holocaust aid
What countries aided Holocaust survivors after the war?
 * We do have an article on displaced person camps, and it lists some of the countries these were in, so that sort of answers your question -- VectorPotential Talk 00:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

seeking info on MICHAIL GOURAKIN BY lappo-danilelevskaya
forgive me, but i'm an old journalist (Fortune, Montreal Gazette, Washington Post) (no longer active in daily reporting as such but still writing) who can't quite figure out how to use your system to get more info.

i'm reading MICHAIL GOURAKIN THE HEART OF A RUSSIAN by lappo-danilelevskaya published 1917 new york mcbride. it's a good novel. can't find anything on book or author on google or wikipedia.

anything you can do would be appreciated.

i wouldn't mind my name and email addresss being put out there.

thanks, alf


 * alfred warkentin
 * montreal
 * 

216.95.60.252 04:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, Alfred. I'm sorry, there is not an awful lot to go on, but her full name was Nadezhda Aleksandrovna Lappo-Danilevskaia, and she was born in 1876 and died in 1951.  Apart from the novel you mention there are eight other works by her listed in the New York Library catalogue . Theodore Dreiser, incidentally, had a copy of Michail Gourakin in his own library, inscribed to him by 'Little Bo'!  Clio the Muse 06:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I got your message, Alfred. You will find it, and my response, on my talk page. Clio the Muse 15:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic conflicts inside of Russia
Ethnic conflict can be a problem for all political systems. And in 1991 the Russian government had to deal with a major ethnic conflict. But what i want to know, is what are some of the major ethnic problems, how were they solved, and how did the goverment respond to the ethnic problems and did they affect Russian political stability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.251.227.242 (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

To an extent, there is always conflict, and so the label of ethnic conflict might fall wherever there is an ethnic divide. The Soviet Union straddled two continents and had many minorities. Internal migration that occurred in the Soviet era meant ethnic diversity within modern Russia. So Chechnyan separatists could strike within Moscow. Not all racial conflict was Islam/other, however, as Ukraine separatists also had a powerful resolve. Sorry I haven't answered the question, but I hope I addressed it DDB 07:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a useful paper by Emil Payin on the Settlement of Ethnic conflicts in post-Soviet Society which you will find here . It is now a little dated, and does not take account of subsequent developments in Chechnya, though it does deal with the period in which you are specifically interested.  On the Chechnyan question I would recommend that you read Allah's Mountains: the Battle for Chechnya, by Sebastain Smith, published in 2005 by Tauris Parke Paperbacks.  It provides lots of interesting historical background. Clio the Muse 09:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Russia's problems with ethnic struggles go back to the rise of Muscovy. As one historian has said, Russia developed an empire without developing a nation — it was always more of a political entity than it was any sort of organic set of shared values, beliefs, or cultural heritage. --24.147.86.187 02:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Name of a religious belief?
What would the name of this belief be: the belief that there exists a supernatural being that created the universe, but that speculation into the nature of this being is pointless, the sort of thing you'd do over a pint of beer or when you've run out of serious things to discuss. --67.185.172.158 06:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Does it involve the worship of money? I'm reminded of the work of L Ron Hubbard, or Zoroaster, or even atheism (paganism?), but, more seriously, meta religious thinking is not religious thinking, and so, unless you find a tax deduction to support it, I don't think you'll find the religion as described. DDB 07:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fairly close to deism. - Nunh-huh 07:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Deism has a fairly heavy component of reasoning about the nature of God, though. --67.185.172.158 08:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Buddhism had a similar belief, the parable of the arrow. Buddha said something along the lines of "who cares about speculating about things unseen, it's like being shot with an arrow in the forest and before receiving medical help asking about the nature of the arrow, the wood, the arrow head, the bow, how far the hunter is away, etc.. and eventually dying." What matters is the suffering of the here-and-now. While that doesn't exactly fit your question, it's as close to it as I can think of. - Wo o  ty   Woot?   contribs  09:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agnosticism covers some of that ground, except that agnostics usually think that even speculation about the existence of a supernatural being is pointless. --Diderot 13:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * True but Agnostics don't believe in a creator. At the same time, they also believe in the non-existence in a creator.  Dismas |(talk) 16:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think, Dismas, that you may be confusing Agnostics with Atheists. Agnosticism, properly understood, simply says that we have no means of reaching the absolute by the normal structures of human understanding.  It lacks the religious certainty of atheism.  After all, whereof we cannnot speak, thereof we must be silent.  Clio the Muse 17:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but by default they don't actively believe, which functionally puts them in the same box as atheists as far as a lot of people are concerned. (There are also different flavors of atheism and agnosticism, as you probably know.) --24.147.86.187 02:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a general and inspecific form of apathy to me (in the common sense, not the theological one). --24.147.86.187 02:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you say me ....
Hello

Can you say me where's this place exactelly ?

http://www2.unil.ch/gybn/ours/concours/i_concours.html

I'm sorry for my english

--83.228.189.223 10:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you asking other people to do your homework? ;) Sorry, I've no idea where this is. Possible clues you could follow up are the remarkably straight slope in the background, suggestive of a man-made structure. As the site is obviously ancient, you could try to think of ancient large man-made structures. The head in the foreground is wearing something I would associate with ancient middle eastern cultures.--A bit iffy 10:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I also thought of the Persian but it seems to to me that the character at the bottom must be Egyptian thus close to the pyramids mireilledp 83.228.189.223 10:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Persian look was my lead. I did a Google image search for: persian stone head, and this is one of the places that showed up (but it is in Turkey, not Persia). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oui, c'est Nemrut Dağı en Turquie. Bonne chance!
 * Yes, it is Nemrut Dagi in Turkey. Good luck!
 * Regarde aussi / See also:
 * − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, your English was OK, except it should be "Can you tell me..." and "exactly" was spelled incorrectly. StuRat 20:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Amps
Hey, i was wondering is there any possible way to plug a guitar amp into a tv somehow? I don't know whether there's such things as plug-ins big enough to support those chords required. But it'd be nice...Jk31213 16:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why exactly do you want to do this? -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  21:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You probably can. Most TVs these days seem to have RCA connector plugs and guitar amps tend to have 1/4 inch mono Jack plugs.  So you'd just need an RCA to 1/4 inch adaptor (or vice versa, depending on which way you want the sound to go), which are easy to find and cheap.  If you want the sound to go from the guitar amp to the TV, the amp probably have a jack called "line out" or something similar.  The TV might have a "line in" or "audio in".  If the TV is stereo there will probably be two input plugs.  A mono signal can go into either, though you'll only get sound through half of the TV.  If you are trying to go the other way, from the TV to the guitar amp, look for a "line out" or "audio out" on the TV and connect it (via an adaptor probably) to the guitar amp's input jack.  Again there may be a stereo/mono issue.  More info at Guitar amplifier and Line level. Pfly 02:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, ha! Now i get what ur talking about. Now, how do i no that the sound will be good or not? probably not since amps are built only for one sound.Jk31213 16:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The 'effect' you'd get would depend greatly on the amp you used and the signal input. A PA-style amplifier designed for a broad range of output would do better than, say, a bass amp that's designed primarily for the low end of the frequency range.Wintermut3 21:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

divorce
I'd like to find out if a spouse is entitled his property if she had signed a legal document stating he is sole owner of said property. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.36.253.148 (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC).


 * [Wikipedia does not offer legal advice], but we can help you think about what kind of information you might need to take to a divorce or property lawyer in order to get an accurate answer. Some questions to consider might include: Under which country's law?   What sort of document?   What sort of property?   And, depending on the culture, what kind of marriage?  Jfarber 18:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In the US, there are community property states and those which are not. Also, are we talking about a prenuptual agreement ? StuRat 20:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Mere ownership of property, within a marriage, does not necessarily preclude including the property as quanta for settlement purposes. I'm not a lawyer. DDB 08:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nationality
Hi all. I have been in a discussion with a fellow user on my talk page about nationalities. It stems from some articles (such as Dylan Thomas or Sean Connery where the subject is described as 'Welsh' or 'Scottish', rather than 'British' - the user I am talking with had started to change them all to 'British'.

The consensus, over and over on all these articles, seems to be that 'Welsh', 'Scottish' etc is the best way to describe them, but what is the actual status of these countries? Is it technically wrong to describe someone's nationality as Scottish (English, Welsh, Northern Irish)? I would always describe them as Welsh / Scottish / English, as I have always understood that the UK is a union of nations, which still retian their status as nations (although not sovereign states). Is this correct? My passport says 'British', but I ticked 'Welsh' as my nationality in the census. I haven't been able to find a good article saying which is correct, or anything on the net in general. Neil  (not Proto ►)  21:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically there is only British nationality, not English, Scottish, Welsh, etc., as the home countries are not internationally-recognised sovereign states to have their own nationality. Nevertheless, like you, when registering at foreign hotels I list my nationality as "gallois", "velssky" etc. Where someone has traditionally used one of the sub-UK nationalities to describe themselves it seems impolite to gainsay them. -- Arwel (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not British, so perhaps I am not qualified to comment, but I think that it is right to distinguish among English, Welsh, and Scottish. England, Wales, and Scotland are separate countries, even if they are not sovereign nation-states. (Northern Ireland is something of a special case.) Just as, in the days of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, one would refer to an Austrian, Hungarian, or Czech writer (philosopher, scientist, etc.) rather than an Austro-Hungarian writer, it is reasonable to refer to British personages by their country of origin.  The exceptions, I think, would be British people who are not English, Scottish, or Welsh, and people from Northern Ireland.  For example, British people of non-British origin (for example, people of Caribbean or South Asian origin) may identify more as British than as English or Scottish.  As for Northern Ireland, identity there is fraught.  Some would no doubt want to be considered "Irish", others "Northern Irish", others perhaps "British".  Marco polo 22:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It can also be tricky because not everyone clearly fits into one of those categories, since there is quite a lot of movement over the borders :-) British is sometimes a safer category, unless the person has made a particular point of being English/Welsh/Scottish, or is notably one of them. Skittle 23:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are always qualified to comment, Marco! However, I'm not sure that the analogy with Austria-Hungary is a good one, insofar as it was never a nation as such, merely a collection of ancient Habsburg family estates, which somehow managed to creak into the twentieth century.  Did anyone ever describe themselves as Austro-Hungarian?  I suspect not, at least not in the way that people describe themselves as British.  On the fundamental point, Arwel is perfectly correct: there is only a singular British nationality, recognized by the international community, though it is often incorrectly described as English.  In terms of everyday use, though, British tends to be a gloss on older forms of national identity, and most people will describe themselves as English, Scottish or Welsh first and British second.  I normally tell people I am English, though I am equally happy to accept the British brand.  And Neil I do not believe anyone will ever challenge you if you describe yourself as Welsh, in the census, hotel registers or any other medium of the kind.  The situation in Northern Ireland is indeed unique, and if Britishness every vanishes elsewhere it will always find a home in the Unionist communities of Ulster.  Clio the Muse 23:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's very confusing, isn't it. Sometimes the UK is a single entity, sometimes it's not.  At the Olympic Games, the UK sends a single team, all members of which are presumably British citizens.  But England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all send separate teams to the Commonwealth Games.  They also compete against teams from Guernsey, Jersey, the Isle of Man and the British Overseas Territories.  In legal terms, Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK (even if geographically they are part of the British Isles).  I wonder if people from these 3 non-UK places ever get into the UK Olympic team on the basis of their (presumed) British nationality.  I just wish there would be a consistent approach about this.  JackofOz 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the Football World Cup. Otherwise, I think this might be a distinction between nationality and ethnicity. 惑乱 分からん 03:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Olympics is even more confusing than that - we entered Athens at least, I wasn't paying attention before that, as "Team GB", not UK - Northern Irish members made a personal choice about whether they wanted to compete for GB or Ireland. --Mnemeson 16:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Wakuran, the separate nations of the United Kingdom are historically rather than ethnically unique. The population as a whole is a mixture of a number of distinct elements, chiefly Anglo-Saxon and Celtic; sometimes more one, sometimes more the other, but a mixture notwithstanding.  Cultural differences, such as they are, are not highly pronounced; and the kind of divisions that exist in Spain, for example, between Castilians, Catalans and Basques are simply not present in Great Britain to any significant degree.  Clio the Muse 08:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to identity, and it is a matter that is not related to national importance, such as who may be President, then I feel the individual may define themselves. In fact, I think it wrong that Sean Connery may describe himself as Scottish, but some wrongheaded pedant changes his Wikipedia listing to read British because they don't hold the distinction. As my quintessentially British forebear, Robert the Bruce might have said "Och Aye!" DDB 08:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As a proud Englishman, I would always distinguish myself as English, British is just what it says on my passport. But more importantly, for Wikipedia, I would say that how someone self-identifies is relevant. Otherwise, English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish gives more information than British, as British is implied, and should therefore be prefered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.138.46.155 (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Thanks all for your help (y diolch yn fawr, Arwel - sut mae?) Neil   (not Proto ►)  11:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just one more thing. Queen Elizabeth II is queen of 16 national entities, such as Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, and 12 others.   But there is no such thing as the Queen of England, Queen of Scotland, Queen of Wales, or Queen of Northern Ireland.  England, as a distinct entity, has no monarch, and neither do Scotland, Wales or NI.  The UK does, though.  The point of that is that when Scots, English, Welsh or NI people talk about their Queen or sing "God Save the Queen", they are speaking/singing in their capacity as British people, not in their capacity as Scots, English or whatever.  So they're quite proud to be British when it suits them.  JackofOz 11:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Quick response to that one - there are very few Welsh or Scots (I am not sure about Northern Irish) who would sing God Save the Queen rather than Land of my Fathers or Flower of Scotland. Neil   (not Proto ►)  12:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. However there are occasions when they do sing God Save the Queen, and on those occasions they are at least temporarily, but certainly happily, British.  This issue is confused by the fact that GSTQ was originally the English national anthem but has since become the UK national anthem.  It probably would have better to choose a UK anthem that had never been particularly associated with one of its constituent countries, but that's history for you.  JackofOz 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On a point of information, Jack, God Save the King/Queen was never a specifically English anthem, though it achieved widespread use at the time of the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion, with the following verse added by performers at the Drury Lane Theatre:


 * God grant that Marshal Wade


 * With Thy mighty aid, victory bring.


 * May he sedition hush,


 * And like a torrent rush,


 * Rebellious Scots to crush,


 * God save the King. Great stuff!  Clio the Muse 10:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. God save Clio.  :)  JackofOz 02:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not about what it might say on the subject's passport. It's firstly about how they identify themselves, and secondly about how they are commonly perceived. To describe Dylan Thomas as a British poet, Alex Salmond as a British politician or Geoffrey Boycott as British cricketer may be technically correct, but in each case entirely misses the point. Gandalf61 12:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not entirely. Steven Redgrave, Seb Coe et al had no problem being identified as British Olympic champions.  And if cricket were an Olympic sport, Geoff Boycott would have happily played for the UK, as opposed to playing for England.  But I agree with your point in general terms.  JackofOz 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as what Wikipedia articles say, I believe the key point was made above: a term like Welsh or English "gives more information than British, as British is implied, and should therefore be prefered." I don't have any strong feelings about how the first sentence of the lead needs to have it, but, unless both the individual and the people among whom he or she lived would have been stumped when asked for the more specific designation (or if the information simply cannot be reliably verified), there would be no excuse for removing this information from the encyclopedia. Wareh 00:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Then there's that lovely chortleworthy farce No Sex Please, We're British. I wonder where they were from. :)  JackofOz 23:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Judge Dee novels by Robert van Gulik
Hi everyone. I am looking for a new mystery series to read, and these Judge Dee novels caught my eye. They look different from any other novels I've ever read. I want to purchase the first in the series, but this is where I become a little confused. It says that The Chinese Gold Murders is the first novel chronologically, but Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee was the first to be published. I am guessing that reading the series chronologically regarding setting of the book would be best, but I am not sure. Which order is the best to read the series in, and where would Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee fall into place, as it is not exactly in the series? Thanks!

MAP91 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Mike


 * As you point out, "Celebrated Cases" is not in the series proper, and does not really bear an relation to the series, other than featuring the same character. "Celebrated Cases" is a translation of a Chinese work, not an original novel by van Gulik. You may wish to start with this, as it was translating this work that inspired van Gulik to write the series, but it is not neccessary. "The Chinese Gold Murders" is the first work in the series proper, and if you are confining yourself to the original novels, you should start there. Carom 22:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Carom. I guess I'll read "Celebrated Cases" first, and then move on to "The Chinese Gold Murders".  The main reason for my confusion was due to Amazon.com.  They state that "The Chinese Gold Murders" is 3rd in the Judge Dee series, and that the first published would be the best to read first, but I guess they use date of publication instead of chronology.  Thanks again for the clarification.


 * MAP91 23:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Mike


 * No problem. In future, you might find this website of some use in determining the order of books in a series. Carom 23:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)