Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 11

= May 11 =

virgin mary
Where can I find information on the original revelation of the Virgin Mary? Where and when did the virginal birth first come to light? Was it during the time of Jesus? Or was the story of a virgin birth as we know it today, contrived more recently? For example- the catholic church. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.10.34 (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC).


 * The earliest recorded reference to the virgin birth is in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, both of which were written between A.D. 70 and 100. Both are believed to have used the Gospel of Mark as a source, and Mark was written around A.D. 70.  Mark, however, does not include any account of Jesus' birth.  Both Matthew and Luke are believed to have drawn on sayings and stories as sources in addition to the Gospel of Mark.  Some have hypothesized that there was a document containing such stories on which both Matthew and Luke drew, and if this is true, it is possible that the story of the virgin birth came from this document.  If such a document existed, we know nothing about its origins.  The recorded sources date to at least 40 years after the death (or ascension, according to scripture) of Jesus.  They were probably not eyewitness accounts, and almost certainly not eyewitness accounts of Jesus' birth, which preceded both gospels by more than 70 years.  (According to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, which sees itself as the true descendant of the original church of Jesus' followers, the Catholic Church already existed by A.D. 70  However, in historical terms, the Roman Catholic Church as we know it, as a hierarchical structure headed by the pope and distinct from the Eastern Orthodox Church, did not exist until well after this date.  The Roman Catholic Church gradually grew apart from the eastern churches during the early middle ages, and formally broke with the eastern churches in the East-West Schism of 1054. So the story of the virgin birth cannot be seen as a creation of the Roman Catholic Church as such.)


 * In their controversial book The Jesus Mysteries, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy argue that Jesus was not a historical personage but rather a mythological figure based on deities such as Osiris, Dionysus, and Mithras, who shared a number of features with each other and with the figure of Jesus. Mithras, in particular, was believed to have been born of a virgin on December 25.  Freke's and Gandy's theory is seen as plausible by some scholars but rejected by others.


 * Marco polo 02:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A more detailed answer to your question, which traces the subject from the points of view of Catholicism, both Roman and Eastern Orthodox, the Anglican church and Islam can be found in the article, Mary (mother of Jesus). It also covers her Immaculate Conception and Assumption, later doctrines that lack scriptural sources.-- killing sparrows  (chirp!) 02:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the questioner was asking about "the revelation" of Mary. The problem is, as usual, that's not answerable.  There have been many revelations in visions of the BVM.  Perhaps this is a reference to Fatima?  Perhaps to Our Lady of Guadalupe?  Perhaps this is simply a question about the Annunciation?  Utgard Loki 12:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely the questioner did not think, as this interpretation would require, that the apparitions at Fátima might have occurred during Jesus' lifetime. --Lambiam Talk  13:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is still so much that is odd and inexplicable about the events at Fatima, particularly the Miracle of the Sun, that time dilation would certainly not be out of the question as a potential explanation. However, my sense of the first question is a focus on how and when the circumstances of Jesus's birth to a mother who allegedly remained a virgin were first revealed to the public at large; and when that public first granted Mary the dignity of The Blessed Virgin Mary.  --  JackofOz 09:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Presumably Joseph would have had his suspicions, even before Jesus was born.Cyta 08:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hanging Judge Hyde
Was there such a person? - Kittybrewster  (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A Google of "Judge Hyde" came up with this bit about a 1664 trial. Is it likely this is he? Bielle 04:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Lord Chief Justice Hyde in the above link is Sir Robert Hyde(1595–1665), nephew of Nicholas below, but can't find that he ever added the 'Hanging' moniker.&mdash;eric 06:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

...Or see Nicholas Hyde. It depends on the context. --Wetman 05:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

greeting
You know how Muslims have their own greeting and hindus too. I was wondering if the buddhists have their own greeting? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.54.113 (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Buddhists often greet each other by placing their palms together in front of the chest and bowing the head slightly. However, this sort of greeting is common throughout Asia and is really more of a cultural thing than a religious thing. Because Buddhism developed within the cultural context of the caste system, and with a celibate order, touching each other was not permitted. But these days many Buddhists are westerized and on informal occasions will happily shake hands or hug, depending on how well they know each other.--Shantavira 07:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Buddhist greeting gesture is based on the Hindu Namaste, and is known as Gassho; this is the polite bow often associated with Japanese culture. Laïka  10:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Scots-Irish
I am looking for detailed information on the exact circumstances behind the migrations from Ulster in North America in the eighteenth century. Are there any books on this subject that anyone can recommend? Judithspencer 07:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you mean the 1800s instead of the 18th century (which was the 1700s), you might want to read up on the Irish potato famine. StuRat 09:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The page you need to refer to, Judith, is that on the Scots-Irish American, which has some background detail on the reasons behind the eighteenth century migrations from Ulster. The Protestant community in the north of Ireland, largely Presbyterian in composition, had, by the early years of the eighteenth century, been in existence for almost a hundred years, despite hostility from the native population of the island, and despite prelonged periods of war, rebellon and civil war. However, in 1704 the government of Queen Anne, which took a strictly High Anglican view of religious affairs, passed an act requiring all office holders to take communion in the Established Church of Ireland. This had the effect of undermining virtually the whole civil administration in Ulster. It was even suggested that that Presbyterian ministers could be brought before the Anglican church courts, charged with fornication with their own wives! The worst aspects of the new appraoch were moderated with the introduction of the Toleration Act of 1719, but by then some serious damage had already been done to the morale and self-esteem of the community.

Beyond forms of official persecution, other factors were also at work. In 1710 a great many of the farm leases in the north, those previously granted in the 1690s, expired, and renewal was only granted on condition that the tenant farmers pay greatly increased rents. This was the spur that finally provoked migration, with whole communities, lead by their ministers, taking to the ships bound for the Colonies. Archbishop William King wrote a contemporary account of these migrations, pinpointing the specific cause:

''Some would insinuate that this in some measure is due to the uneasiness dissenters have in the matter of religion, but this is plainly a mistake; for dissenters were more easy as to that matter than they had been since the Revolution [of 1688] and are at present; and yet never thought of leaving the kingdom, till oppressed by the excessive rents and other temporal hardships: nor do any dissenters leave us, but proportionally of all sorts, except Papists. The truth is this: after the Revolution, most of the kingdom was, and abandoned of people destroyed in the war: the landlords were therefore glad to get tenants at any rate, and let their lands at very easy rents: they invited abundence of people to come over here, especially from Scotland, and they lived here very happily ever since; but now their leases are expired, and they are obliged not only to give what they paid before the Revolution, but in most places double and in many places treble, so that it is impossible for people to live or subsist on their farms.''

In the period up to 1750 thousands left Ulster for the Americas, to begin a life mostly on the frontier, where land was plentiful, cheap to occupy and dangerous to hold. The pace of migration slowed in the 1760s only to pick up again in the 1770s, following a fresh series of rent hikes. If you are looking for a good and accessible account of the Scots-Irish then Rory Fitzpatrick's God's Frontiersmen: The Scots-Irish Epic is still worth reading. Clio the Muse 09:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Muslim persecutions in the middle ages
I read an article recently which said that the Medieval Islamic societies, unlike Christain Europe, was free of persecutions and pogroms. Is this true? 86.154.188.174 07:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course not, where did you read that? The example that immediately springs to mind is Caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah. Adam Bishop 08:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed,though if you read the page that Adam has linked you will see that Caliph Hakim was, to say the least, a highly eccentric individual, sometimes referred to as the Mad Caliph. Amongst other things, he prohibited the eating of grapes and the playing of chess, and ordered the people of Cairo to work at night and sleep during the day!  His persecutions were real enough, though like many of his other arbitrary measures, they tottered between the gratuitously vindictive and the outright ridiculous.  Christians were made to wear huge crosses and Jews a golden calf around their necks.  His persecutions, moreover, also extended to Sunni Muslims.


 * There are other examples of Muslim persecution, the most notorious of which is probably the wholesale massacre of the Jews of Granada in southern Spain in 1066, following a particularly vicious hate campaign. Also in Spain, the fundamentalist Almoravids forcibly transported many Christians to Morocco in the twelfth century.  However, it remains true, in spite of these exceptions, that there is little of the wholesale massacre, persecution, forced conversion and expulsion of minorities that was to be a recurrent theme in the history of Christian Europe.  Clio the Muse 09:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I just read this article yesterday on Maronite christians who lived in Syria / Lebanon, and several times of persecution are mentioned. In fact the main reason this christian community seems to have survived was that their communities were in a mountainous stronghold.  I think perhaps that like in Europe, persecutions were fads that came and went from time to time and area to area.  I would say that the statement that medieval Islamic society was free of pogroms/persecutions is false.Czmtzc 14:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There were persecutions of Shi'i Muslims by Sunnis in the Middle Ages too. Sunni-Shia relations might be a good place to start for that. And persecutions of Christians by Muslims, real or imagined (including al-Hakim's eccentricities), were a cause of the crusades. Adam Bishop 01:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Adam, poor old Hakim died in 1021, almost eighty years before the Crusader army arrived at the gates of Jerusalem! His successor, Ali az-Zahir, rebuilt the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, previously destroyed by his father, to improve relations with both the Byzantine Empire and his own Christian subjects.  As far as I am aware the First Crusade came about under a very specific set of circumstances, that had little to do with Muslim persecution of Christians as such, and considerably more to do with the expansion of the power of the Seljuk Turks into Anatolia, after the defeat of the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071.  The whole of Asia Minor became a dangerous frontier for everyone, not just for wealthy Christian pilgrims.  Anyway, to fight back the Turks, the Emperor Alexius I appealed to western Christendom for soldiers, because he was no longer able to recruit in the old heartlands of the Empire.  The appeal was made directly to Pope Urban II.  At the Council of Clermont, Urban decided on something Alexius never even conceived of; and soon unruly, and semi-barbarous armies from Catholic Europe were on their way east, a danger, as it turned out, to Orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims in equal, and undiscriminating degree.  Clio the Muse 08:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While Hakim's actions may not have been a cause, they were certianly a useful propoganda tool. Cyta 08:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Criminal law question
What proofs are required to establish that an accused is an accessory to the commission of crime by aiding and abetting another person? 137.166.4.130 09:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Anne.S


 * Do you mean: what behaviour is considered to raise to the level of, and constitute, aiding and abetting? This will, in general, depend on the jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions the mere fact of being a (passive) passenger in a car whose driver is intoxicated, is consider aiding and abetting. The case law on this is not necessarily exhaustive and particularly consistent. Another question is what the standard of proof is. That, again, depends on the jurisdiction and the law system; for a jury, it is the famous standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. There are no separate specific standards of proof for aiding and abetting. If being a passenger counts as aiding and abetting, and is the basis of the accusation, then (assuming the driver has been proved to have been drunk) all the prosecution needs to show is that the defendant was a passenger. This is typically not hard: the testimony of an officer will suffice. --Lambiam Talk  11:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, Anne.S, here is a very simplified outline, to clarify content from the previous answer, and to provide you with additional resources for your research:

Necessary proofs:


 * 1) Facts: prosecution must prove its version of the underlying facts and circumstances (e.g., the defendant was at a certain place at a certain time, and is lying when he claimed he was in a different country, or in the hospital, or whatever);
 * 2) Elements: having proved 1), prosecution must prove that those underlying facts meet the statutory definition of a crime (e.g., defendant did A + B + C, and these are the statutory elements in violation of whatever penal code statute);
 * 3) Mens rea: having proved 2), prosecution must show the defendant had the "mental state" necessary for criminal culpability (e.g., he "intended" to do A + B + C, or he intended A, and that's enough, even if B + C were by accident or negligence).

(Note: these "proofs" are a general outline that apply to criminal offenders of all kinds, not just accessories, but they will be applied to both D1 and D2, which is explained below).

Accessory:

This is where things get interesting, and all sorts of tricky questions arise. First, note that we have to distinguish between Defendant1 (D1, the principal) and Defendant2 (D2, the accessory). Generally, D2 will be prosecuted under a specific statute that defines criminal culpability for accessories or accomplices. Things get tricky here, because (among other things) prosecuting D2 requires us to include facts and elements that we used to prosecute D1, but we also have to prove D2's mens rea separately. Examples of tricky questions:


 * What if D1 did not actually commit a crime, but D2 intended and believed she was helping D1 commit a crime?
 * What if D2 actually hindered D1 in committing the crime, but D2 intended to help, is there criminal liability for "attempted accessories"?
 * What if D2 is ignorant that D1 is criminally culpable, but would have known if D2 had taken reasonable steps to investigate, can D2 be held criminally liable for being merely gullible or negligent?
 * What if D2 has a change of heart, and wishes to abandon her assistance of D1? What level of conduct will excuse her of prior acts of assistance?
 * Does D1 actually have to be successfully prosecuted for D2 to be criminally liable?

This is an area of Criminal law where all sorts of "trick questions" arise. Best wishes in your studies. (See also, Attempt, Conspiracy (crime), Accomplice, Inchoate offense, Model Penal Code §2.06). dr.ef.tymac 14:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Royal Americans
Does anyone have any informtion on the Royal Americans at the time of the Seven Years War (French and Indian War)? Martinben 11:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The info can be found under their later name of King's Royal Rifle Corps. Although there's a lot more to be found at . It's amazing what appears Googling "royal americans"!Cyta 12:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have one or two extra details which might help to 'flesh out' the information provided in the site linked by Cyta. The origins of the regiment dates to the strategic crisis of 1755, when French expansion into North America was becoming a serious threat to the British position. The Royal American Regiment was conceived of as a new type of formation of light infantry, suitable to local conditions. It had a far higher degree of flexibility than than standard British Army regiment of the day, which comprised one battalion made up of ten companies, each 100 strong. The Royal Regiment, or the 62nd, as it was known at the outset, was made up, in contrast, of four separate battalions, with the intention of allowing each to operate apart from one another at wide distances. They were to function best as skirmishers, ready to respond to rapid Indian attacks, where and when these emerged. More than this, they were intended to keep open lines of communication, perhaps the most important task of all in the deeply forested American hinterland. The new regiment also recruited officers with sufficient imagination to understand that the conventional tactics employed by European armies of the day were of limited value in North America. Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Bouquet was a particularly talented soldier, changing the design of uniforms to allow his soldiers far greater freedom of movement, and using blue and green cloth, offering far better camouflage than the standard British Army red coat. The soldiers were also trained to deploy from column to line in under two minutes, particularly important when under sudden attack by Indians.

The regiment's first success came in 1758, when the 1st battalion took part in the advance on Fort Duquesne, thus securing the western frontier of Pennsylvania. At the same time, the 2nd and 3rd Battalions spearheaded the landing on Cape Breton Island, which led to the subsequent fall of Louisbourg. The 4th was deployed in the failed assault on Fort Carillon in New York in July 1758, but had greater success in August with the capture of Fort Frontenac. The following year the 2nd and 3rd took part in the Wolfe's successful assault on the fortress of Quebec. The skills the unit learned in the French and Indian War were also to be of great use in Pontiac's War, which followed hard upon. Clio the Muse 16:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, Clio the Muse, better than any website! Green dressed, skirmishing rifle men should be familiar to any fan of Sharpe (TV series) like me. Cyta 09:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Russian dolls
What is the Russian name for the Russian dolls that all fit inside eachother? 82.198.250.76 12:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Матрёшка Skarioffszky 12:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Entering Russian doll in the search box takes you there too.--Shantavira 13:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

UK Government Debt
Whilst reading through the 2007 budget I noticed that £30 billion is being spent this year on debt interest : see here more than both Transport @ £20B and Personal Social Services £28B

It it also more than the £28 billion raised in Council Tax

1)Who are we paying this interest too and at what rate?

2)If we abandon defence spending completely, currently £32B, and become militarially neutral could we use this money to repay some of our debt or are we tied in longterm? How long would it take? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scraggy4 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Per this government source, the total debt of the UK government in 2006 was £571.8 billion. The government is obligated to pay off this debt, unless it chooses to default, though that would be likely to wreck the British economy and financial system. However, it can pay the debt off virtually at any rate it chooses.  If the interest payment this year is £30 billion, that implies an interest rate of roughly 5.25%.  Assuming that this interest rate holds steady, and assuming that the government chose to spend £32 billion per year (rather than £30 billion) on debt payment, without issuing any new debt, the debt would be paid off in the year 2061. If the government added the savings from military spending to the £30 billion already being spent on debt interest and paid down the debt at a rate of £62 billion, the debt would be paid off in 2019.  Marco polo 15:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I realized that I neglected your question about who receives the interest on the debt. Holders of UK government bonds and other debt instruments receive the debt payments.  Those holders include pension and retirement funds for masses of people and foreign and domestic financial institutions and investment funds.  Marco polo 15:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Marco polo, given that this shows us as having $21696000000 in net assets (why does UK declare it's assets in US$, just to make it look more I guess) and the government is running a £35 billion budget deficit, I suggest that we declare ourselves bankrupt. We can bring in the receivers sell the country to someone else and share any thing left at the end amongst the population.  The new owners can then kick us all out and we can all migrate to eastern europe.


 * Or even better we can move everyone from Iraq over here and we'll all go to Iraq. The reconstrustion will go much quicker without all the fighting and it would be much easier for us to ruin Afghanistan from there. Scraggy4


 * Er. That figure is simply the "surplus" (ie, after discounting any outstanding liabilities) amount of foreign capital held by the Treasury. The country does have substantial assets which aren't simply foreign cash... it's a bit like declaring my net assets are £34.17, because that's all the money I have in my coat pockets.
 * In raw numbers - some £500bn - the national debt is the highest it has ever been - but then, inflation running at 3% a year would mean you expect that unless you're doing really enthusiastic repayment. Looking at a more useful measure, it's not in the least alarming - it's currently around 40-45% of GDP, which it's been oscillating around since 1975 (down to 35% around 1991, pushing over 50% in 96/7). Before 1975, it steadily increased the further you went back - a hundred percent of GDP in 1963, 150% in 1953, peaking at 252% of GDP in 1936. You have to go back to the golden age before the First World War to find it routinely below 40%, and even then only after the turn of the century - it was higher in the Victorian period. Shimgray | talk | 17:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Many Thanks, I did actually know that the link didn't show all assets. I was getting rather annoyed at the difficulty of finding all of the relevant Government Revenue and Spending figures. It would be really Nice if the Government would issue an spreadsheet clearly showing all info instead of lumping loads of Other amounts into their figures and spreading data across numerous locations. 86.20.193.112 10:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Seattle Geography
The first shot of the movie 10 Things I Hate About You (Heath Ledger, Julia Stiles) is Seattle skyline. Looks like its from a park. Last night ABC News had Charlie Gibson standing there. An episode of Grey's Anatomy had a scene shot here too. Anyone know where in Seattle this is? 66.213.99.62 16:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't post the same question to multiple reference desks. This was also asked on the Entertainment desk, which I think is more appropriate since it relates to specific shows, so I suggest people answer there if they know. --Anonymous, May 11, 2007, 17:34 (UTC).

Maya Civilization
In what ways did the Maya control their physical environment? Also, did environmental factors contribute in any way to their demise? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.79.85.86 (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Type Maya in the search box and click "Go". --Kainaw (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Our articles on the subject are a bit fragmented and incomplete, so here is some more information. The Maya built irrigation and drainage canals, raised fields in wetland areas, and farmable terraces in the highlands. See Maya civilization for more information.  Probably there were several reasons for the decline of their civilization, but the most important was that a prolonged and severe drought in the 9th century probably led to famine, disease, a breakdown of social and political authority, and movements of refugees to the north, where later forms of Maya civilization persisted until the arrival of the Spanish.  Note that it isn't really right to refer to a Maya "demise", since Maya peoples live to this day in Mexico, Belize, and Guatemala.  Marco polo 16:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The article to read is Classic Maya collapse. A book that goes into considerable detail about the collapse of the classic Maya civilization and other cultures, is Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. --Lambiam Talk  18:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Muslims and the Holocaust
Okay, this may touch a very sensitive note. Please do not take offense if you are either Jewish or a Muslim. Here goes... (swallows nervously) I read somewhere that Muslims do not believe that the Holocaust during the Second World War actually occured. Is this true?___J.delanoy 19:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Beware of giving any credence to such a huge generalisation. A small minority of Muslims may believe that the Holocaust did not occur. A small minority of Christians have the same misguided belief. Our article on Holocaust denial has a list of notable Holocaust deniers, a small number of whom are Muslims. The list also include Bobby Fischer - but this does not mean that all chess champions believe that the Holocaust did not happen. Gandalf61 19:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to be nervous about posing your question, because it is valid enough. We know that some Muslim governments give credence to this, including President Admadinejad of Iran, who has described the Holocaust as 'a myth', as has Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah. Some Muslim governments also promote such works of 'illumination' as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But it is, as Gandalf61 points out, a huge generalisation, to suggest that this view is shared by all Muslims, though I feel sure that some might. The Holocaust deniers would surely not have included Si Ali Sakkat, a former mayor of Tunis, who hid sixty Jewish workers who had fled from a Nazi labour camp, and Si Kaddour Benghabrit, the rector of a Paris mosque, who helped 100 Jews evade the Germans. Nor would it have included the Bey of Tunis, Tunisia's wartime ruler under the Germans, who is reported to have told a member of his government; ''The Jews...are under under our patronage and we are responsible for their lives. If I find out that an Arab informer caused even one hair of a Jew to fall, this Arab will pay with his own life''. Nor would it include Kahled Abdelwahhab, an Arab from Mahdia, who risked is own life to rescue a Jewish family. You will find the details of all of these stories and others in Among the Righteous: Lost Stories from the Holocaust's Long Reach into Arab Lands by Robert Satloff. Clio the Muse 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the help. J.delanoy 22:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There may also be Muslims who, although they personally believe that the Holocaust occurred, find it convenient to deny this fact as a propaganda tool. StuRat 22:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I would bet that 99% of those Muslims who deny the Holocaust do so, implicitly or explicitly, because of its role in the justification for the formation of Israel. Deny the justification (or make it a conspiracy), deny the legitimacy of the state, or something along those lines. --24.147.86.187 00:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are also a great deal of Muslims who do not believe the Holocaust happened not due to any devious antisemitism on their part, but rather innocently, as that was what they had been taught in schools funded by states and terrorist NGO's hostile to Israel. Lewis 13:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Oil statistic in "Soviet-German Cooperation"
In the article "Soviet-German Cooperation, we find the following assertion:

"Three-eighths of the oil used by Germany in 1940 came from the Soviet Union including high-octane spirit for the Luftwaffe to fight the Battle of Britain."

Although this section of the article is footnoted (unlike several other sections), no source is given for the statistic. I have been unable to locate this figure in any source except a couple of web pages that get it from the article in question. Can anyone provide a source reference?Stephen.r 19:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Dow Jones Industrial Average -- Linear versus Logarithmic graph
Can someone please clarify the difference and describe what each graph purports to show? I would be most grateful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Troldt (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC).


 * A linear graph would show the absolute movement of the average while a Logarithmic scale, at every point along the scale, would show only the relative change of the average - a logarithmic scale makes a 1% change the same "size," throughout while a linear scale makes a 1$ change the same "size" throughout. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In the short term, there isn't much diff, but a logarithmic graph would be much better over long terms. Otherwise, the early part of the graph would just read as "essentially zero", which doesn't show much info of value, like this graph:, which appears to show no change at all between 1934 and 1945 and seems to show that the 2001 stock market correction dwarfed the losses during the Great Depression, starting in 1929. StuRat 22:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Bloody Mary
How bloody was Bloody Mary? Janesimon 20:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? If you're referring to Mary I of England, the introduction to the article states that she had nearly 300 people killed.  If you're referring to someone else, could you identify which one since there more than one according to Bloody Mary (person).  Dismas |(talk) 21:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming this does, indeed, refer to Mary, as none of the other 'Bloody Marys' come anywhere near fitting the terms of this question. Besides, the use of this expression in England conjures up no other figure. How bloody was she? For many generations the answer to this question would have been automatically sought in the Acts and Monuments, a particularly lurid account of the Marian Persecutions by John Foxe, better known as Foxe's Book of Martyrs. However, in practice, probably no more people died under Mary for political and religious reasons, than did in the reign of her father, Henry VIII, and her half-sister, Elizabeth I. What distingushes Mary's reign is the intensity of the executions, concentrated, as they were, in the brief period between February 1555 and November 1558. During this time more people died at the stake in England than at the hands of the Spanish Inqusition, and the chambre ardente, the body established in France by Henry II to root out heresy. Yet, it should be noted, that of all the cases detailed by Foxe, nearly 200 were listed by name and occupation only, with no supporting documentation. We cannot be absolutely certain, therefore, if these excutions were for political or for religious reasons, or for a mixture of both. Foxe's book, moreover, was conceived as an anti-Catholic, rather than an anti-Marian polemic, and paradoxically he does not blame the benighted Queen for the persecutions, but the Roman Church, especially the bishops, who are said to have had her under their influence.

Most English people of the day did not hate Mary for the restoration of Catholicism, and quite happily settled back to the old practices, free of the liturgical innovations introduced during the reign of her Protestant brother, Edward VI. However, they did not share the Queen's enthusiasm for mass persecution, they did not share her enthusiasm for the Papal hierarchy and, above all, they did not share her enthusiasm for the Spanish connection, expressed in her marriage to Philip II. All of this was to be used by Foxe and other Protestant propagandists to depict Catholicism as 'unpatriotic', as well as cruel. The burnings also left an abiding memory, rather than the persecution of religious dissidents as such. Under the Protestant ascendency that followed hanging, including drawing and quartering, was to be the preferred method, in opposition to 'Papist burnings'. Was Mary bloody? Yes, she was, though perhaps no more bloody than many of her fellow monarchs of the day. Clio the Muse 23:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Janesimon 11:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Barbarossa
Hello again. I am doing some work on the German war in Russia and would be interested to know how close the invasion of 1941 came to success? Fred said right 20:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hitler came within sight of Moscow, and the siege of Stalin/Volgograd was ended after several years by the Red Army. See Operation Barbarossa, which has great detail on the matter, or the answer from User:Clio the Muse which will no doubt follow this answer, and would probably be a far better answer than what you could get from  Commander Georgy Zhukov, Alan Bullock, Adolf Hitler or Stalin.martianlostinspace 21:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to say, really. It is certainly true that the Germans were very (agonizingly?) close to capturing Moscow, but it is by no means certain that the Soviet Union would have collapsed even if the capital had fallen. The Germans were also frustrated in the north (at Leningrad) and in the south (at Stalingrad) - and again, given the vastness of the Soviet Union (both geographically and in terms of available manpower), and the ability of the Soviets to continually move manufacturing centers further and further east, it is difficult to say that even victory in all three battles would have secured the surrender of the USSR. Carom 21:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha!, Ha!, Ha!-thank you for your faith, martianlostinspace, but do not underestimate yourself: Clio the Muse would have linked the very pages you have, though whether or not she is better than Alan Bullock (or Stalin!) is not for her to judge! I have one tiny correction, though, to your submission before proceeding to a general response: the siege you are referring to is, I think, that of Leningrad, which lasted from September 1941 to January 1944, rather than the Battle of Stalingrad, which was fought between August 1942 and February 1943.

How close did Operation Barbarossa come to success? Far, far closer than many people care to allow. The suggestion that the whole thing was a piece of political and strategic madness by Hitler, pushed most assiduously after the war by Franz Halder, the Wehrmacht Chief of Staff, among others, does not stand up to examination. His own wartime diaries reveal that he was as keen on the whole operation as anyone. As early as 3 July he wrote, It is thus probably no overstatement to say that the Russian campaign has been won in a space of two weeks. We now known, from documents released by the Russian archives since the collapse of the Soviet Union, that this was a view that even Stalin was close to accepting. At the end of that month one of the agents of Lavrenti Beria, head of the NKVD, made attempts through the Bulgarian ambassador to discover if Hitler would accept large territorial concessions in return for peace. The Russian historian, Dimitri Volkogonov, has also uncovered evidence to suggest that the Soviet Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav Molotov, was actively preparing for a second Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which had ended Russian involvement in the First World War. The thinking seems to have been that of Lenin in 1918: trade territory for political survival.

The real crisis came in October after the great enveloping battle at Vyazma and Briansk, the opening move of the final advance on Moscow, where the Germans took 660,000 prisoners, leaving a mere 90,000 men to face the whole of Army Group Centre. It is even rumoured that some Moscovites put out welcome posters for the Germans. Zhukov later reported that Stalin was more desperate than ever for peace. He was also on the point of leaving Moscow. Document No. 34 of the State Defence Committee, dated 15 October 1941, and now in the public domain, shows just how serious Stalin believed matters had become. It is resolved, the document proceeds, To evacuate the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet and the top levels of Government...(Comrade Stalin will leave tomorrow or later, depending on the situation)...In the event of enemy forces arriving in Moscow, the NKVD are ordered to blow up business premises, warehouses and institutions which cannot be evacuated, and all underground railway electrical equipment. The following night an armoured train made ready to carry Stalin east.

It is by no means certain, as Carom quite rightly says, that the Soviet Union would have fallen even if Moscow had been taken; but it would have given the Germans crucial control over the whole Russian transport network. More than that, the collapse of Russia's ancient capital, and the flight of Stalin, is likely to have had the most devastating effect on both morale and fighting ability. If Stalin was a coward, it has rightly been written, then everyone could be a coward. There are two things surely that saved Russia at this most crucial point in its history; the decision of Stalin, for reasons yet unkown, to remain in Moscow, and crucial intelligence forwarded from Tokyo by Richard Sorge, a Communist secret agent, that the Japanese were not going to attack Russia, not at least until after Moscow had fallen. In a huge gamble the guard on Manchuria, occupied by the powerful Kwantung Army, was dropped, and the Siberian divisions moved west. If Sorge had been wrong it is difficult to know how the Soviet Union could have survived. But he was not wrong. Zhukov deployed his fresh units to the north and south of Moscow. For once it really is appropriate to say that the rest is history. Clio the Muse 01:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you one day write history books or at least make history fascinating for a generation of students. Edison 03:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Edison: I hope so, too. Clio the Muse 04:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Clio, this is really great, as have been your answers to all my other Russian questions. You must be a graduate in Russian history?  Fred said right 04:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And thank you, Fred. No, my degree is in another branch of history altogether.  I did, however, take some courses in modern Russian history as an undergraduate, and contine to keep abreast of developments in the subject.  I have a particular interest in the life and career of Josef Stalin, and wrote a review recently of Young Stalin, Simon Sebag Montefiore's new book Clio the Muse 05:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Told ya you'd answer. Perhaps I am confusing them, though it is Volgograd I meant. Perhaps WP should be paying Clio.martianlostinspace 15:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "You just fell for the oldest trick in the book! The first is never invade Russia with a large cavalry force in wintertime, but the other is never mess with a Sicilian when life is on the line!"  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I know this might call for too much speculation, but had Britain gone for some kind of peace deal with Hitler, allowing him to only fight a war on one front, might that have tipped the balance? Cyta 08:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not suppose it would have made things any easier for Stalin. But you have to remember that only five divisions of the whole German army were engaged with the British in the latter part of 1941; and while some extra forces would have been released from occupation duties in France and elsewhere in the west, probably not enough to make any real difference.  However, we will never know for certain.  Clio the Muse 17:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Finishing School
How old does one have to be to attend finishing school? How much does it cost to attend finishing school? Do upper middle-class families' children attend those types of schools? Why is it called finishing school? Finishing school sounds like Graduate school. Coffsneeze 23:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Most, if not all your questions will be answered in the following article: finishing school. Anchoress 23:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article mentioned that the price is "highly expensive", but how high is that? Coffsneeze 23:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, both the schools mentioned (and linked to) from the 'finishing school' article have fees pages: and  Anchoress 23:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In answer to the third of your questions, and looking at the matter from an English perspective, few upper-class families, in my experience, now send their daughters to finishing schools (if they have got any brains at all, that is!). To be perfectly honest, the whole concept of 'finishing' is quite old-fashioned. Clio the Muse 02:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What does User: Clio the Muse mean 'they'? Who is 'they' -- parents or daughters who lack brains? Coffsneeze 03:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps both! No, the reference was to the daughters.  My apologies for the ambiguity.  Clio the Muse 04:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you saying, Clio, that a significant proportion of English girls lack brains? And is that to be taken literally or figuratively? :)  Even if the latter, what leads you to this conclusion?  Cheers  --  JackofOz 09:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Those who attend finishing schools do tend to be lacking in that commodity (not my friends, of course!), though, as I say, the number diminishes by the year, and is by no means significant. I do stress, of course, that I am speaking of my own experience and within my own social milieu.  Clio the Muse 10:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any causal connection between the 2? That is, are girls within your milieu sent to finish scholl because they lack brains?  Is that intended to alleviate their condition, or just to put them amongst like-minded (*joke*) girls so that they don't feel so out of place?  Or, are you saying that only girls without brains would accept such a fate in the first place?  Is it the case that individual girls who've been to finishing school are generally regarded as brainless, whether they actually are or not?   How does this reflect on the status and reputation of finishing schools?  If poorly, does it then come down to a question of money?  That is, the schools stay afloat because they can charge large fees, and their clients tend to be wealthy enough to be easily able to afford it.  What does this tend to suggest about the mental capacities of girls from wealthy families?  Does the dollar (or whatever currency you choose) have the power to alter the genetics of children?  JackofOz 10:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Too many questions, Jack, too many; and I think I will, on this occasion, do as the Americans do and 'take a fifth'. I will say, though, as a very general observation, that money opens all sorts of doors, and I have known of some girls-good girls-not academically gifted, who, at least in my view, were sent to Switzerland to make them more 'marketable.'  I have probably said more than is wise on this subject, and will not proceed any further.  I feel sure you will understand.  Clio the Muse 10:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do understand. Sorry for the bombardment, Clio.  JackofOz 03:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a fifth - tee hee. Yeah, the Ref desk is enough to drive anybody to drink. When you get back (and don't drink and drive!), you can try pleading the fifth. Anchoress 18:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the finishing school alumni mentioned in our article, it seems it qualifies you perfectly for marriage to Prince Charles. If it would set you up to marry Prince William I'm sure you'd get a few more takers. Cyta 08:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * While on this subject and curious if any female minor royals might interest me. I came across the Queen's myspace page. Not entirely convinced it's genuine (Princess Di is one of her friends) it just seemed a strange thing for someone to set up so I thought I'd mention it. I think Prince Phil's might be more interesting, and Princess Eugenie looks the best bet. Cyta 08:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)