Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 12

= May 12 =

Roman Republican government
Hi there, I have a question that deals with the types of government bodies in Ancient Rome.

These are type of government bodies: Senate, Comitia Centuriata, Comitia Tributa, Concilium Plebis, Consuls, Praetors, Aediles, Quaestors, Tribunes, and Dictator.

and I wanted to know what are their areas of responsiblity, Function, positive and negative assessment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.137.23 (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC).


 * We have articles for all of those: Senate, Comitia Centuriata, Comitia Tributa, Concilium Plebis, Consuls, Praetors, Aediles, Quaestors, Tribunes, and Dictator. Adam Bishop 00:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But to summarise: the citizen assemblies were electoral colleges which elected magistrates and passed laws. The Senate had no power to pass laws, but it was customary not to propose a law in the assemblies without first putting it to the vote in the Senate. It was also responsible for foreign affairs.


 * In the Comitia Centuriata, which elected the Consuls, Praetors and Censors, citizens were enrolled in "centuries" based on their family's wealth, in which your vote counted for more the richer you were. In the Comitia Tributa, which elected the Curule Aediles, Quaestors and Military Tribunes, citizens were enrolled in regional "tribes". The Consilium Plebis, in which only plebeians could vote, elected the Tribunes of the Plebs and the Plebeian Aediles.


 * The magistrates had various political, military and religious duties, and the power to propose laws in the assembles. The two Consuls were effectively joint head of state, with overall command of Rome's armies and various political and religious duties. Next down were the Praetors, who could command a legion, then the Aediles, then the Quaestors. The Tribunes of the Plebs existed outside this system and could veto any law proposed by another magistrate. The Military Tribunes were junior army officers, and only 24 of them were elected. The elected ones served for a year and used it as a stepping stone for a political career. Each legion had six tribunes, the majority of them unelected career soldiers. The Censors were elected from time to time to conduct the census, which decided what century you belonged to and membership of the Senate.


 * All magistrates, except the Censors, were elected annually and were immune from prosecution during their year in office. Only in exceptional circumstances could anyone be a magistrate two years running, so corrupt magistrates could be prosecuted swiftly. In the later Republic, it became customary for Praetors and Consuls to be appointed by the Senate as Propraetors and Proconsuls and sent to govern provinces immediately following their year in office, extending their immunity from prosecution initially for a year, then longer. This eventually led to civil war when Julius Caesar, whose consulship had been irregular to say the least, extended his proconsulship in Gaul to eight years and tried to stand for election as consul again without ever laying down his office and leaving himself open to prosecution.


 * The Senate was made up of representatives of the richest families, as decided by the censors. Once you had held a certain level of magistracy, you had a permanent seat in the Senate, although what level of magistracy changed over time. The Senate was officially an advisory body with no power to pass laws, but it was customary not to propose a law in the assemblies without first putting it to the vote in the Senate. The Senate was responsible for foreign affairs, ratified treaties, and appointed Proconsuls and Propraetors. The Senate could also pass the senatus consultum ultimum, a declaration of a state of emergency which gave the consuls the authority to do whatever necessary to restore order, including appointing a dictator. In normal circumstances the constitution insisted that no-one have absolute power, so there were always two consuls, elected for a year, but a dictator was in sole charge. This was normally a temporary measure with a fixed time limit of six months, but two later dictators, Sulla and Caesar, were appointed dictator indefinitely. --Nicknack009 11:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Criminal Law: Duress
I was just wondering what are the fundamental requirements which must be established in order to rely on the defence of duress? And if there was a relevant case law.....I'm so confused! T.I.A 137.166.4.130 02:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)S.M


 * see also Model Penal Code Diagram 2.09 (for an overview). Cases include: State v. Toscano 74 N.J. 421, 378 A.2d 755; United States v. Fleming, 739 F.2d 945; People v. Romero, 10 Cal. App. 4th 1150, 13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1992). Is this homework by chance? Do you have other similar questions? dr.ef.tymac 04:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I would think anyone who was Under Duras would sign anything put in front of them. StuRat 04:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it is, and thanks for the help with the duress question. However i cant seem to find anything on the relatioship between common purpose and complicity? Any help would be greatly appreciated! 137.166.4.130 05:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)S.M


 * Ok, as a side note, some might not consider it Kosher to ask a long series of homework questions on here, at least let people know. Also, answers to these kinds of questions depend on the jurisdiction, and whatever course materials your instructor wanted you to use. This is not like mathematics or geography where the same answer is correct no matter where you are from.
 * Anyway, the terms "common purpose" and "complicity" can be resolved if you go back to your materials covering criminal liability for accessories, and contrast that to liability for accomplices and conspirators. Also, did you see and ? Google did. dr.ef.tymac 05:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: I'm betting you probably also want to consider if Duress is an Affirmative defense. If Larry and Moe kidnapped Curly's daughter, and demanded that he help them in the bank heist, your instructor may want you to discuss: 1) the proofs necessary to hold Curly liable; 2) the different levels of involvement possible for Curly (e.g., accomplice? accessory? principal?); and 3) what Curly will claim as a defense, even if he acted as an accomplice, which is where Duress might come in. Just some hints. dr.ef.tymac 05:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The editors of this page are very generous with homework answers. The answers depend on such factors as what country, state, the level of the course and whether you have done any prior assigned work. The ability to do basic research is probably more important than the answer to criminal duress questions. When I graduated law school and passed the bar, I made a point of throwing away any course material I might want to sneak a look at late at night in the days before Internet access. The law changes constantly. Perhaps it annoys me because I always did my homework without help but the skills are far more important than an answer. Do you realize how much you would have to pay someone to obtain the answers listed above?75Janice 21:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)75Janice75Janice 21:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi 75Janice, None of the answers provided on the WP Reference Desk should be used as a substitute for personal research and due dilligence. Additionally, to suggest that any answers here are (or should be, or somehow related to those that are) worthy of payment is entirely inconsistent with the nature of this forum, its roots in anonymous volunteer participation, several prominently displayed Disclaimers, and the most ordinary and proper dictates of professional responsibility and competence. I'm sure you didn't intend to foster any misperceptions, but this is offered simply to clarify for others.
 * As I am sure you remember, even many Bar Exam questions and answers entail a certain degree of "imprecision" (and necessarily so, unless you are in a jurisdiction that does not require answers strictly from memory and without the benefit of a research library). Clearly, such answers would not be acceptable if rendered on behalf of paying clients. What then do you expect of the content here ... all of which is safely presumed to be coming from any random bloke off the street with internet access?
 * As a practical matter, just take a quick superficial glance at some of the questions under consideration here. I would be absolutely astonished if they were coming from law students or anyone expected to know the first thing about the type of research you mention. I'd speculate many of them just need hints on what to read next in order to get their homework done so they can go to bed; not hints on how to How to Shepardize. Even if this perception is incorrect, you get what you pay for. dr.ef.tymac 04:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A dystopian question
This is not a homework question (however much it may sound like one).

Of the four big dystopian novels (in my mind), Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brave New World, A Clockwork Orange, and Fahrenheit 451, which of these books comes closest to reality as we know it today? S.dedalus 06:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * None are particularly close. Perhaps 1984 is closest in that Newspeak is with us today (meaning a vocabulary carefully chosen by politicians to deceive the electorate).  The censorship of Fahrenheit 451 is with us, as well, but has taken an online form, as when China gets Google to drop all mention of the brutally suppressed democracy protests at Tianemen Square.  There are some aversion therapy methods employed as in A Clockwork Orange, but they are almost all voluntary, such as to stop smoking.  There's no sign of the selective breeding of A Brave New World, however.  I might toss in a dystopian film, Gattaca, which I fear could become reality once the genetic engineering and testing infrastructure are firmly in place.  StuRat 06:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Some predictions of BNW are surprisingly accurate; at one point, it is explained that instead of people simply buying one thing for play (a deck of cards or a ball), and playing lots of different games with it (poker, rummy, go fish etc.), in order to improve the economy, everything is now more expensive, technologically advanced games have been designed, each of which can only be used in one way, requiring people buy lots of them, which I've always thought of as a perfect description of video games, and pill-based contraceptives (Malthusians as Huxley called them) have been developed since the writing of the book. In some ways, the closest anyone has ever come to an accurate distopia is Year of the Sex Olympics, which foresaw the invention of sexualised/violent reality TV as a major source of entertainment. Laïka  10:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I wrote an essay on Brave New World (got perfect marks) arguing that it was actually describing a Utopian World compared to the place that we now find ourselves. But also not that different. 86.20.193.11286.20.193.112


 * Neil Postman in Amusing Ourselves to Death spoke at the Frankfurt Book Fair in 1984 on the subject of 1984, and he argued, at least partially successfully, that Brave New World had proven the more accurate prophecy, as our rights had not been taken by the boot stomping on the human face forever (n.b. in the West), but, rather, we had voluntarily given up all our rights for comfort and diversion. We had, in fact, gotten our Soma pills.  The answer, such as there might be one, is probably that there is a combination.  "Goldstein" is right about the strategy of the state in power (as Noam Chomsky shows), but perhaps wrong about the tactics of the state in its achievement of these goals.  Manufacturing Consent persuades me, but I think that all of this emerges "naturally" through capitalism rather than consciously through state juntas.  Geogre 12:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as dystopias go, The Space Merchants predicts unbridled consumerism, the ubiquity of aggressive advertising, and the vast power of transnationals. I haven't read Brave New World, and could never finish Fahrenheit 451 due to its manifest absurdity, but would put Pohl and Kornbluth ahead of Orwell or Burgess in terms of prediction. Algebraist 13:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * @ S.dedalus: You left out We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin, in which the main character is known simply as "D-503". If you consider the now-pervasive meme identity theft, (a misnomer, it's fraud, not theft) you can see the vestiges of a society that reduces individual identity to an easily-replicated serial number derived from simplistic mathematical algorithms. "Reality as we know it today"? dr.ef.tymac 14:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * @ Algebraist: If you'd like, you can find a copy of BNW online here. It'd be interesting to hear your take you up on it, in light of your comment on Bradbury. dr.ef.tymac 14:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but my life is kind of full right now (I've just finished an afternoon of doing past functional analysis exam questions). From my limited knowledge of the work, I suspect I'd like it. The problem with Bradbury was suspending disbelief at the setting of an advanced society with a highly developed bureaucracy which has (if I recall, this was years ago) more or less banned writing. Algebraist 17:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While I think that's a problem in the film, I think it made sense in the books, eventually. I forget though. How BNW and 451 seemed most true to me, compared to 1984, is that nobody exactly forced people into the situations. In 451, the censorship all comes about because the people themselves don't want 'offensive' content available. The book is much better on this than the film, although the film isn't bad. In BNW, it is market forces and the desire to increase total happiness that leads to the weirdly utopian hell. So in that way, I'd say they describe the reality of now better than 1984. Of course, 1984 gets some superficial details, like newspeak and surveilance, but the underlying forces seem much closer to the others. Clockwork Orange seemed to be more about young men than society, to me. Skittle 01:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nineteen-Eighty Four is the only one of those books that rings true to my ears. Whenever I hear a woman singing a mindless song, I'm reminded of Orwell. Vranak


 * I haven't read the novel, but the movie version of A Clockwork Orange didn't seem that different from real life to me, except for the pornographic stuff everywhere. (Which actually isn't all that different from what you see today in parts of Continental Europe.) The "instant rehabilitation" of prisoners may not be all that different from something the prison abolition movement might come up with. -- Mwalcoff 03:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In thinking about Brave New World, it's important to remember that is was written a few years before WWII, and that at that time the debate on eugenics was popular in intellectual circles before it became all but taboo following the war and in particular the horrific experiments of Josef Mengele. Also, the influence of Huxley's grandfather Thomas is highly relevant to seeing Brave New World in context. Thomas Huxley was a friend and supporter of Charles Darwin, involved with Darwin before the publication of Origins, and a vigorous promoter of the theory of evolution. Aldous Huxley grew up in an intellectual world deeply embroiled in the debate over the nature of man, and the emerging view of man as an animal and a product of evolution and of his environment. An intellectual world in which, also, Marxist philosophy is new and very much debated. It's also worth noting, in respect of examining Huxley's soma, that after moving to the USA in later life, Huxley became highly involved in the LSD sub-culture; not the action of a man who was warning against recreational drugs. My personal belief is that Huxley's book was not so much intended as a warning in the way the nineteen-eighty-four was, but that Huxley was suggesting that the society he painted in Brave New World could actually be better. Later, Huxley was outspoken against that sort of interpretation, but I believe he changed his position, as did many intellectuals, in the light of the atrocities of WWII. Consider the fate of Bernard Marx: He experiences a sort of 'awakening conscience,' the gradual realisation that something is amiss in society; however, unlike Winston Smith in nineteen-eighty-four he does not end up in Room 101, he is sent to an island of alpha-plusses who "know the truth," and do not need to have their lives controlled by the state. But the fate of John the Savage, who cannot accept that society, is suicide. For the first half of the book, we are shown characters (e.g. Lenina) who 'appear' to be happy. Bernard is not happy, and Huxley leads us to suppose that Lenina et al. are happy only in the ignorance of their being controlled. However, the twist in the tale is that in the final analysis, Lenina actually was happy, and Bernard becomes happy. The only unhappy man is John the Savage who cannot accept the intellectual management of society. The question it forces us to ask of our own western society, is do we agree with Huxley? As was pointed out above, we have 'soma' in the form of TV, cannabis, playstation etc. We have a generally more promiscuous attitude towards sex. Self-gratification is constantly promoted to us in advertising. Being genetically programmed to love our job would guarantee that we love our job. Nineteen-eighty-four is a more dire warning than Brave New World, and indeed, much has come to pass, CCTV everywhere (Big Brother), political correctness (thought police), and newspeak (as above). Brave New World is more subtle, and raises questions more than it gives overt warnings. Certainly much of it has come to pass. Oliver Low 17:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Breasticles
I've heard many times that there are, or were, cultures where men aren't/weren't turned on by breasts. I've never heard anything more specific than that, though. Can anyone here come up with a verifiable example? Black Carrot 06:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be pretty much any culture where toplessness is the rule. They also tend to sag and look rather unattractive in such societies, making them "just another body part".  In a reverse example, women's ankles were hidden in Victorian society, making them seem somehow sexual. StuRat 06:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In comparison a relative male disinterest in breasts is seen in other cultures where nudity is the norm, specifically this was documented among the indigenous peoples of Hawai'i, The Caribbean and North America in the diaries of Cook, Columbus and Hennepin, respectively.
 * It is certainly well accepted that where covering ones breasts is the cultural norm, the sexual attractiveness is enhanced. Reena Glazer writes: ""Women's breasts are sexually stimulating to (heterosexual) men, at least in part because they are publicly inaccessible; society further eroticizes the female breast by tagging it shameful to expose...This element of the forbidden merely perpetuates the intense male reaction female exposure allegedly inspires." (Duke Law Journal, (1993))"
 * That said, female breasts are secondary sexual characteristics and thus are widely considered to have an inherent attractive role among all humans. The precise nature of what is considered attractive differs: in the west a younger looking firm breast is considered erotic, while other cultures find larger, pendulous breasts more attractive (Whitehead & Whitehead, 1999). So while other cultures do not have the same breast obsession as we do in the West, most nevertheless consider it a feature in choosing a mate. (John G. H. Cant, The American Naturalist, 1981). Some of the evidence/reasons cited for an inherent male attraction to breasts include:


 * The overlarge, stylistic breasts found in the Venus figurines of the Paleolithic period. (Cant, ibid)
 * That they are a signal for nutritional status, and therefore suckling fitness (Trivers 1972)
 * They mimic the role of buttocks as a sexual signal in face-to-face bipeds (Morris 1967)
 * The attraction is artifactual to increased infantile dependancy in humans (Short 1976)
 * Therefore there appears to be two different aspects of attraction to breasts in human societies, firstly there is the cultural factor, which are variable, but beneath that there is a biologic attraction to breasts which makes them more than "just another body part" in all societies. Rockpock  e  t  07:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The "social" factor is largely summed up as "taboo creates fetish." If any part of the body, any bodily function, or any bodily habit is forbidden, it gains some erotic charge.  If women are bare chested all the time, they may still have men interested in their breasts, but if women must, must, must, must hide their breasts, then the men may be obsessed with those breasts.  After all, a woman's face is not hidden, in non-fundamentalist Muslim nations, and yet men are quite interested in facial beauty, but, where women do hide their faces, those exposures of face become massively important.  Therefore, the dozens of societies where women are bare chested are not societies where men aren't "turned on" by breasts, but those dozens of societies where breasts are carefully controlled may be ones where men get perverse about them.  ("Oh, no, not the nipple!  Janet, how could you?!")  Geogre 12:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting how no one mentioned "personal preference" and "habituation" ... taboo or not, it's easy to dissipate an "erotic charge" if you've repeatedly seen the detectable signs of Mammoplasty, or if you are a clinical oncologist. dr.ef.tymac 14:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. Of the many presented, I'd like to expand a particular point. In America at this time, tight, lowrise jeans are relatively common. How does the "taboo creates fetish" theory view sites like, and videos like and ? These are, by the sense of the word intended in the theory, expressions of personal and cultural fetish, but not because the object of desire is in any way difficult to find on a daily basis. Where might an urge like this come from? Or, why hasn't it disappeared? Black Carrot 05:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A quick and cursory glance at Operant_conditioning will provide some insight. Also note, "taboo" does not necessarily imply "scarcity". dr.ef.tymac 05:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, fashion usually follows fetish rather than creates it. Its job, in youth marketing (since we're talking about the developed west, it seems), is to present the fetish object in a highly regulated way.  (The amount of buttock displayed is pretty well informally controlled by peer coercion.  No one knows of an exact rule (3" Ok, 4" bad), and yet each acts according to a precise rule of how much display and how much obscuring is allowed.)  It gains its selling power by offering the fetishized part and yet cannot offer it entirely.  It can only respond to a desire for the most-desired and most-forbidden.  The parts retain their fundamental eroticism, and I would say that even a gynecologist retains a fundamental erotic desire for "down there" bits in context of love but may lose it in the context of display.  In other words, biology is biology, and men and women are going to go on functioning, sexually, and that includes any overt sexually dimorphic features and genitals, but the rest is about control of the visual social space and, in coded form, control of access.  Geogre 11:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

James I's Daemonologie
I've just been reading your article on King James I of England and VI of Scotland. It mentions a book he wrote in 1597 called Daemonologie. When I clicked to blue link it only led to a general article on demonology, and says nothing about the book itself. There is a little bit about it further on in the James article, but not much. Does anyone known anything of the exact circumstances in which this book came about? Was it only to do with his belief in witchcraft? Secret seven 07:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you really want to know the contents of Daemonologie, Secret seven, you will find it here . As for the circumstances in which the book came about you should read the North Berwick witch trials, as well as the individual pages on Agnes Sampson and Francis Stewart, 1st Earl of Bothwell.  There seems little doubt that James believed in witchcraft; there seems equally little doubt that he used this belief with clear political intent.  There were two things uppermost in James' mind in the early 1590s: to protect his Scottish inheritance against his cousin, the dangerously unstable and ambitious Francis Stewart, and to groom himself as the most likely successor to the throne of his other cousin, Elizabeth I of England.  The suggestion that Bothwell was responsible for attempting to drown the king and his new bride Anne on their voyage from Denmark to Scotland, with the aid of the North Berwick witches, suited his purpose very well.  At a stroke he could remove Bothwell from the scene, and convince the wider English-speaking world that he enjoyed divine grace and sanction.  In 1592 a pamphlet called Newes from Scotland, detailing the outcome of the trials, was published in England.  In her book Enemies of God: The Witch-Hunt in Scotland, Christina Larner argues that this pamphlet had one certain purpose, and was produced specifically with an English audience in mind.  It was published, in other words, to convince the reader that God favoured James, and that he was the ordained heir to the throne of England.  James was interested in these trials less out of superstition, and more to discover why such a determined attempt had failed.  Answer to this was conveniently supplied by Agnes Sampson.  When it was discovered that even the Devil could not kill the king, the women, so the story goes, rounded on him, and demanded an explanation.  The Devil excused himself by saying "Il est un homme de Dieu-certainly he is a man of God."   It was from these nefarious experiences that Daemonologie took shape, providing additional illustration, if any such were needed, that James had insight into all demonic practices, and defence against them.  It may not be of any great surprise that once the Scottish bottom was safely seated on the English throne, a new mood of royal scepticism set in, with James telling his own judges not to be too gullible in such matters!  Clio the Muse 09:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yyyyyesss, well, maybe. James I and his fear of witches is not entirely easy to sum up.  The question of cause and effect in James and the witch trials is open at least somewhat.  Did he feign interest/fear of witches to gain the public, or did the public go on a witch hunting frenzy to gain favor with the monarch?  Did he get skeptical because it was out of control or because he knew better all along?  Was it Lancelot Andrews and other counsellors of the Established Church that woke him from that superstition, or was it there all along?  I, at least, don't know, but I'm no fan of his (bigger fan of Andrews).  Geogre 12:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely the "wisest fool in Christendom" didn't believe in witches! :-) I wouldn't say I'm a fan of James, but the story of his life (and that of his wife, Anne of Denmark) is fascinating. He also wrote Basilikon Doron and there is yet more discussion of James (and his male favorites) going on here, if anyone is interested (though that discussion should be dragged over here, rather than taking place on a talk page which should be for improving the article). Aren't we fortunate there are no BLP issues over James! :-) Carcharoth 13:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Very. But should we have different standards for dead people than for living ones? In other words, should we try to out someone who would certainly object if he was alive now?


 * I would add two details to Clio's interesting summary. When Anne of Denmark's ship was forced back to Norway by storms, it seems that the captain of the fleet, Peter Munk, put the trouble down to witchcraft (well, so he would: given the mishaps on that voyage, he must go down as one of the great incompetents of nautical history), particularly as he had apparently "cuffed" a witch's husband in Copenhagen. The intriguing thing is that this witchcraft theory arose independently of the North Berwick witch trials, where the issue of spells on royal ships came up a bit later. We must therefore consider a Danish influence on James's interest in witchcraft: Denmark was a Lutheran-reformed country and therefore had taken on board that tradition's concern with witches, regularly conducting witch trials. James had plenty of opportunity to become acquainted with Danish practice because not only was his wife Danish but he spent six months in the kingdom of Denmark-Norway in 1589–90.


 * The other point I would add is that Daemonologie was written in the form of a tract to refute Reginald Scott and Johann Weyer, among others, who had written books opposing the existence of witches. James enjoyed this sort of writing: he later wrote a tract against a Dutch theologian called Konrad Vorstius and would have regarded witchcraft as a theological issue. qp10qp 15:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Pasminco Corporate Governance.
What were the internal corporate governance control mechnisims in place employed by the company Pasminco at the time of the company collapse? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.53.199.72 (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Credentials
Hi,

In regards to the people giving responses to questions, what qualifications do they have? Most of the answers I read contain generalisaions and false information. Also, some information in the encyclopedia section is also misleading and false - such as sections on religion.

Sarah58.172.241.207 09:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you don't need any qualifications to edit wikipedia. Anyone can do so: feel free to join in yourself. Similarly, there aren't any qualifications required to answer the questions here. As for your criticisms, I think you'll need to be more specific before any of us can comment. Almost every sentence ever written contains a generalisation. (That one does, for a start.) As for religion, it is difficult to imagine anything you could write which someone (a true believer, say, or an atheist) WOULDN'T consider misleading and false. AndyJones 10:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As Andy wrote, anyone can edit Wikipedia, even anonymously, and likewise anyone can respond to Reference desk questions. If every editor always kept to Wikipedia's core policies—and for the Reference desk the guidelines—then that is not a problem. Unfortunately, some editors don't. If you spot an error in an article, you can draw attention to it on the article's talk page, but you can also correct it yourself, while of course respecting Wikipedia's policies. See also Introduction. 88.234.100.144 10:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and so anyone can contribute a response to a question on the Reference Desks - no qualifications are required. You have to judge the quality of each response for yourself. One rule of thumb is to give more credence to an answer that provides links to relevant Wikipedia articles or external sources than one that does not. Some regular responders have built up a lot of personal credibility over time, but you have to be a frequent reader of the Reference Desks to know who they are. There are some guidelines on how to respond to questions on the Reference Desks, but not everyone who uses the Reference Desks will have read them or will agree with them. At the end of the day, it is better to intelligently consider all response and make your own mind up, rather than blindly accepting someone else's views, no matter what their qualifications may be. Gandalf61 11:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We hope that people only answer questions where they feel that they have an answer. The answers differ in quality from the bad to the excellent, just like the questions do.  This is why people really should answer with links to articles.  The articles have errors some of the time, most of the time, or all of the time, depending.  So it goes.  The idea behind it is that the multitude averages its knowledge and intelligence and that this average is always superior to any one on one.  (Some of us have credentials, and some of us don't.  Some in the things we work on, here, and some not.  It's worth what you paid for it and then some.)  Geogre 12:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, generally speaking, you will do well to assume that the participants in this forum do not have any credentials at all, even (or perhaps especially) if they claim that they do. Such an assumption will: The mere request for credentials in an anonymous forum (such as this) might be cause for some serious re-consideration and self-reflection. dr.ef.tymac 15:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) help remind you that WP content is a useful starting point for your own research, but not a substitute;
 * 2) deflate the potential risks and unfavorable consequences of incorrect information that is later discovered through your own due dilligence or otherwise;
 * 3) address the inherent ambiguity for some answers, the accuracy of which may depend on contingencies beyond the scope of this forum or the awareness of its participants;
 * 4) enhance your critical thinking skills by defusing the common tendency to be "impressed" by credentials alone, which are neither necessary nor sufficient guarantors of accuracy and credibility (even experts make mistakes, and some even make a good living by pointing them out); and
 * 5) enhance your personal security against the kinds of fraud, negligence, misrepresentation and social engineering facilitated by any situation where you do not have the personal contact information (and preferably eye-contact) of the person upon whom you are relying for information.


 * Hi Sarah. You might also be interested in the Citizendium project, which differs from Wikipedia mainly in that it does give credentialed editors an elevated status (or so I gather, I've not used it much).  --TotoBaggins 21:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

FINANCE
SHARES.

What are free trading shares? And why can some be traded and others not able to be traded?Themanse 10:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Themanse


 * Obviously shares that are bought & sold on a stock market are freely tradeable, but this is all shares in public companies. There are also various kinds of privately held companies, where various people may have shares in those companies, but when they made the purchase, they also had to sign some agreement limiting who they could sell their shares to, so long as the company remains private.  By example, consider a family business.  Members of the family have shares, can pass on to descendents, other family members, but might be restricted from selling them to non-family members.  Another example is a start-up company that does not have much capital, and gets away with low wages to employees by letting them have some stock in the fledgling corporation.  If it becomes successful, then goes public, those early employees have made a lot more money that had they been paid a decent wage.  User:AlMac|(talk) 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything AlMac said is correct. However it all depends on what you mean by "free trading" shares. If you mean it as being shares that carry with them legal restrictions as to their exchange, AlMac's answer is all you need. However, I suspect there may be a possibility that by using the term "free trading", you may not be referring to a legal restriction at all, but rather that the shares are "freely tradable" in the market, meaning that the shares have sufficiently wide demand that they can be considered rather "liquid" in nature. Lewis 13:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hiya Themanse, note that (in the USA anyway) a company may (under certain conditions) issue different classes of securities, or issue/convert shares that have certain pre-conditions, attachments, or restrictions, mainly to take advantage of special laws (some might say loopholes) promulgated by the SEC. For example, some regulations allow certain securities to be exempt from registration requirements, which may make it easier for a company to secure financing, sweeten a prospective transaction, or setup some complex arrangement for M&A purposes. In this context, "free trading" shares would mean shares that are (or have become) unencumbered by such pre-conditions. (See also, Warrant (finance), Convertible bond, Short selling, and Stock dilution). dr.ef.tymac 22:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Scotland and the Union
I asked a question not so long ago about Scotland and the union with England, and thank those who responded, especially Clio the Muse and Rockpocket. I have another. We know from Daniel Defoe of the depths of popular feeling in Scotland against the union. Who was in favour? SeanScotland 10:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * John Arbuthnot was a very important voice for Union. He was himself a Scotsman and was in Anne's household.  The Tories did a very effective job of advertising it, and you should no more believe Defoe than Arbuthnot, though, as this was a political struggle.  Geogre 12:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is, in many ways, a debate that only takes shape well after the event, dividing contemporaries into one of two factions: selfless patriots, anxious to defend Scotland's freedom, on the one hand, or a narrow self-interested clique, who effectively 'sold' Scotland for their own personal gain, on the other. Those who take this view tend to make the same declaration as Robert Burns-We are bought and sold for English gold/Such a parcel of rouges in a nation. However, this way of looking at things is so narrowly focused that it is almost completely devoid of a proper understanding of the political motives of those involved. The bribary thesis, for example, can be traced to the 1714 memoirs of George Lockhart of Carnwarth; but those who use this source have a tendency to overlook the corollory: that Lockhart was a Jacobite, who hated the pro-Union party because of their support for the Revolution of 1688. And in a sense, this was what the whole debate was really about, not Scotland's 'ancient liberties'. We also have to remember, moreover, that Lockhart was effectively a spy at a time when Britain was involved in a great European conflict with France.

In 2002 Dundee University commissioned research into the motives of the pro-Union MPs, which produced some interesting results. (The Union of 1707 by Christopher Whatley, BBC History Magazine, December, 2006 pp. 34-37) A large proportion of the MPs who supported Union were committed Presbyterians, who had been exiled by the later Stuarts in peril of their lives, and had only returned to Britain with William of Orange in 1688. These included John Dalrymple, 1st Earl of Stair; Patrick Hume, 1st Earl of Marchmont, a leading member of the pro-Union party known as the Squadrone volante; and David Melville, 3rd Earl of Leven, governor of the Bank of Scotland since 1697 and by 1707 commander-in-chief of the army. Supporters of the Revolution Settlement also included James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry, and John Campbell, 2nd Duke of Argyll. Besides their religious commitments these men had every reason to be suspicious of the previous forms of Stuart absolutism. Argyll's grandfather, for instance, Archibald Campbell, 9th Earl of Argyll, had been executed in 1685 for his opposition to James VII and II. For them Jacobitism was not the romantic affectation of, dare I say, Burns and later generations of Scots, but a real and ever-present political danger to the security, integrity and constitutional freedom of the country, enshrined in the Claim of Right of 1689. The best way of securing this was Union with England, especially as the whole Jacobite cause was supported by Louis XIV, representing, it might be said, absolutism in its purist form.

It may, in passing, be worth mentioning just how empty Scotland's 'ancient liberties' had been ever since the Union of the Crowns in 1603. When James VI went south to London, he left Scotland's Parliament intact, but he took with him the country's foreign policy, which, of course, was a prerogative of the Crown. This meant that Scotland could be dragged into wars contrary to the nation's interests, and without any type of consultation, or the forms of Parliamentary review available to MPs in England. Charles II, for example, went to war on two occasions with Holland, Scotland's chief trading partner. More recently, the whole Darien Scheme had crashed to disaster, bringing Scotland to the threshold of ruin, because it had, in part, clashed with the foreign policy aims of King William.

So, in short, Union was born less out of bribery and far more out of a desire to safeguard the country's constitutional and religious settlement, guaranteed by the Revolution of 1688, and to ensure that it had some direct contribution to all matters which affected its political and commercial well-being. Is there any better motive than that? Clio the Muse 18:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There is also stuff in the James VI and I article. The familial connections between the monarchs is also of interest when considering how it all came about (see Margaret Tudor for details). Elizabeth I (who had no children) came to see James as her natural heir, and the feeling in England was of relief that the succession took place so smoothly, mainly due to extensive politics and preparations behind the scenes, aided by the fact that it was clear in her last years that Elizabeth was dying. A similar case of familial connections where newly declassified correspondence has been studied is that between George V of the United Kingdom, William II, German Emperor and Nicholas II of Russia (Georgie, Bill and Nicky). An amazing story of cousins (all grandchildren of Queen Victoria) ruling different European empires that clashed in World War I, and Georgie bottling it when having to decide whether to grant his cousin Nicky asylum in Britain. There were even plans for a British spy mission to rescue the Russian royal family, but the fortifications at Ekaterinburg were too strong and the mission never went ahead. Carcharoth 13:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I really do not know what to say other than your brilliance stuns me, Clio the Muse. SeanScotland 13:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The Black Prince
How chivalrous was the Black Prince? Janesimon 11:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * His article, Edward, the Black Prince, gives a mixed opinion. Have you read it? Anchoress 11:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the real question to consider is how 'chivalrous' was anyone of his class and background? More than that, did chivalry ever really exist as anything other than a courtly and literary ideal? How chivalrous was the Black Prince? Chivalrous enough to serve King John II, whom he had captured at the Battle of Poitiers, by his own hand, because he was 'not yet worthy of the honour of sitting at the table of so great a prince', according to the Chronicler Jean Froissart. Not chivalrous enough, though, to spare the people of Limoges in 1370, some 3000 of whom were massacred after the city was captured. Chivalry, in essence, was a concept that had always been shot through with contradictions. For instance, the Order of the Garter, which might be said to be the acme of Medieval English chivalry, and of which Edward was a founder knight, was created after the Battle of Crecy in 1346, which ushered in an entirely new style of warfare. The order was based in the knightly ideal of King Arthur's Round Table; but the new style of war with longbows and destructive chevauchées was brutal, unrelenting and quite modern in concept. In practice, chivarly was only ever a 'class code', and even then was highly uneven in application, as Edward himself was to discover in his later dealings with Pedro the Cruel, king of Castile. The weak, the vulnerable, and even the religious, had ever reason to fear when they were approached by a Medieval army, no matter how chivalrous the knight in command. Clio the Muse 19:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The chivalrous knight, I find, is almost as incorrectly stereotyped as the modern-day pirate or ninja.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As Clio points out, "chivalry" is a post facto literary development. It began in Romances of "the old days," when knights were knightly ("not like now," the authors imply), and the period of chivalry keeps moving back, the farther you go in records (e.g. Geoffrey of Monmouth's Arthur is a bit hard, and Wace's is more courtly, but, of course, those are "the old days" for Wace, writing in the 12th c.; for Mallory, Arthur was the old days; for Spenser, they are the old (really, really) days, etc.).  The only time it seems to have existed in body and life was when early Renaissance society began trying to recreate this vanished order.  The various Mirror for _____ conduct books, you'll find, are early Renaissance.  Geogre 11:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do think there was a conscious attempt by some to act chivalrously in the mid-fourteenth century. It's hard to believe Froissart's account of the death of John of Bohemia, which I once added to that article. But when you check John's life out, he does seem to have been in thrall to the cult. qp10qp 19:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Pomponia Graecina and Asinia Pollionis filia
I've noticed in the article on Pomponia Graecina the following statement: "Pomponia Graecina was a daughter of suffect consul Gaius Pomponius Graecinus and Asinia Pollionis filia.[citation needed]." This assumption seems to be added by Anriz (who appears to be a sock puppet of Panairjdde). Although it would explain the connection between Pomponia Graecina and Iulia Drusi Caesaris (as deduced from Tac., Ann. XIII 32.3: Longa huic Pomponiae aetas et continua tristitia fuit. Nam post Iuliam Drusi filiam dolo Messalinae interfectam per quadraginta annos non cultu nisi lugubri, non animo nisi maesto egit; idque illi imperitante Claudio impune, mox ad gloriam vertit.), I don't recall it being mentioned in current research (M.-Th. Raepsaet-Charlier (F.O.S. nr. 640) mentions her mother as unknown). My question is if how to contact the user who wrotes this, to ask for references. Evil berry 15:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Visit the user's talk page User talk:Anriz, click on the tab marked +, and start typing. --Lambiam Talk  16:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He, she, or it, may not deign to respond though. This editor has a curious penchant for blanking talk pages with requests for sources, like Talk:Pomponia Graecina, and their own talk page. --Lambiam Talk  16:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Which affects potential to get into college more? GPA or SAT score?
Which affects potential to get into college more? GPA or SAT score?--69.150.56.244 15:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I imagine you are talking about the U.S.? If so, I doubt there is a simple answer to your question, since each university generally sets its own admissions standards. Tugbug 18:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In the United States, a combination of GPA and SAT are used to determine admission in addition to personal interview, recommendations and a record of work, civic involvement and personal passion. The SATs are supposed to be a brake on grade inflation. I was fortunate enough to graduate from rather elite schools. The admissions committee will say that they read every application and individual circumstances are important to admission. My experience is that if you are not a member of a minority group, the SAT score72.78.180.5 22:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC) is crucial but it must be accompanied with a high GPA from a fairly decent school. GPAs from schools of less than the first rank are weighed less. If the school is worth attending, you need both. I was touched, however, by the respect given to students who supported families or achieved despite not having a cushy involved middle class family. Also, geographical region is crucial. The East Coast schools want to be viewed as national and international in scope. Hence, an applicant from Montona, Idaho, etc. will be admitted before a similar student in Connecticut. Never discount playing an obscure musical instrument or demonstrated interested in a subject that would bring diversity to the student body.72.78.180.5 22:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)75Janice
 * For most US colleges, I'd say GPA and the difficulty of the courses you take are more important than SATs. -LtNOWIS 18:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * School by school, folks. Some schools emphasize the GPA more, some the SAT, some the ACT, some social service, some "leadership," some....  Most schools will also, consciously or unconsciously, weight the secondary school's fame and rigor.  If your GPA is 3.0 at Choate, you may have a better chance than the kid with a 4.0 from Plan B County Reformed High.  Anyway, many "guides" will help demystify the particular schools you're interested in.  For those not in the US, TOEFL matters enormously.  Geogre 11:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (Choate Rosemary Hall) although Pat Choate is a pleasant enough fellow and Plan B County Reformed High surely has some nice points of its own as well. dr.ef.tymac 14:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No doubt it needs its own article, filled with such vital information as its athletic mascot, school fight song, current principal and the name of the teacher in whose class the author is sitting. (Old battles, old scars, continuing grudge.) Geogre 14:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Many excellent colleges have made submission of SAT scores optional, so that applicants' academic credentials are judged by how they've succeeded in challenging high school coursework, the evidence of the essay and references, etc. You can wade through a pretty complete list of colleges and universities that are happy to consider you sans SAT at http://www.fairtest.org/optinit.htm.  USA Today has helpfully collected the names of the top-50 liberal arts colleges that appear the list.  Wareh 14:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Italy
Which parts of Italy speak German and which part speak French? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.136.157 (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC).


 * The article on Italy has a brief part (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy#Languages) with Bolzano as German-speaking and Aosta Valley having french-speaking populations. hope this helps. ny156uk 20:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That is the province Bolzano (and not the city to which the above response links), also known as South Tyrol, one of the two provinces making up the autonomous region of Trentino-Alto Adige. --Lambiam Talk  21:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See also Gallo-Romance languages, which says that several languages of northern Italy, including Venetian, are more closely related to French than to Standard Italian. &mdash;Tamfang 18:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Churchill and Black People
Thabo Mbeki has said that Winston Churchill's attitude towards black people was racist. What is the evidence for this? Captainhardy 19:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I personally don't know of any - but, if you think about what class he was from, and when he lived, pretty much everyone was at least a little racist. --Haemo 23:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This issue is a little more complex than Mbeki would allow. Churchill was a liberal imperialist and a man of his time, full of Victorian attitudes and preconceptions that did that did not travel well with the great changes that overcame the world in the course of the twentieth century. But his attitude was paternalistic rather than racist, and he did not view black people as inherently inferior. Some of the language he uses in his books does indeed sound offensive to modern ears, though it is possible to find many of the same expressions in, for example, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State by Friedrich Engels, a man as far removed politically from Churchill as it is possible to get. In The River War, Churchill's book on the Sudan Campaign of 1898, he describes the native people as 'simple-minded savages', but he takes an ironic view of the contention that the advance of western power was necessarily a 'good thing': Wild people, ignorant of their barbarism, callous of suffering, careless of life but tenacious of liberty, are seen to resist with fury the philanthropic invaders, and to perish in thousands before they are convinced of their mistake. When later imprisoned by the Boers in South Africa, he recognised that the attitudes Afrikaners had towards black people had, in significant measure, contributed to their defeat.

In 1905, after he became Under-Secretary for the Colonies in the new Liberal administration he declared that he would denounce exploitation of black people for 'the sordid profit of the white man.' In My African Journey, a book which describes his visit to East Africa in 1907 he deliberately mocks the racist attitudes of some of the white planters. Still later in his career, he was one of the first to denounce Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia in 1935, which in The Second World War he describes as unsuited to the ethics of the twentieth century, belonging to 'those dark ages when white men felt themselves entitled to conquer yellow, brown, black or red men'. We have to set against this his remark to President Eisenhower after the war, when the latter suggested that he should conclude his career with a speech on decolonialisation, ''In this I must admit I am a laggard. I am a bit sceptical about universal suffrage for the Hottentots even if refined by proportional representation. The British and American Democracies were slowly and painfully forged and even they are not perfect yet''. The language is offensive and out-moded, yes, but it demonstrates an assumption of superiority, rather than outright racism. He was not arguing against democracy for black people, merely the contention that it should come all at once. And this was still a time, it must be remembered, when even American democracy had not fully matured. Paternalist?, yes. Old-fashioned?, yes. Racist?, no, not in any deep sense, and not in the terms we understand the expression today. Clio the Muse 00:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Albigensian Crusade
I can't find any reference to the military orders (Templars, Hospitallers, Teutonic Order) regarding the Albigensian Crusade. I know the Templars were somewhat sympathethetic to the Cathars, and all the orders were probably pretty busy in the east anyway, but a crusade is a crusade... So why didn't they take part, and/or what were the official reasons given? I can only think that either they were simply not needed, or as "holy" warriors, fighting fellow Christians was a step too far..? Miremare 20:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All Crusades are equal, but some are more equal than others! As far as I am aware the military orders were not involved in the struggle against the Muslim's in southern Spain either, though that, too, had the status of a crusade. The crusading orders were formed with a particular purpose in mind: the defence of the Holy Land, though about the time of the Albigensian Crusade the Teutonic Knights were on the threshold of their own particular offensive in the Baltic region.  The others, the Templars and the Hospitallers were still holding on to their diminishing assets in the east, and I doubt had the capacity to mount a fresh offensive on a different front altogether.  Finally, Miremare, what evidence do you have, and by this I mean credible evidence, that the Templars had any sympathy for the Cathars?   Please, no Da Vinci Code, pseudo-history web sites!  Clio the Muse 00:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * After searching fruitlessly through various books and becoming resigned to the fact that it was going to turn out to be some crackpot theory by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, I found this in Sean Martin's The Knights Templar p.135: "...there were elements within the Order who would have certainly been sympathetic to Catharism. Bertrand de Blancfort, the sixth Grand Master of the Temple was from a Cathar family and the Order welcomed Cathars into its ranks once the Albigensian Crusade was under way. So great was the number of Cathar Templars in the Languedoc that, in many preceptories, Cathars outnumbered Catholics." It's not a particularly heavyweight book, but I'm sure I've read it elsewhere too. Also I'm pretty sure that the Templars took part in the reconquista at some point, which is why I though it strange that they were apparently not called upon for the Albigensian Crusade, especially with it being rather closer to home.  Mi re ma r e  02:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that useful information, Miremare. I do not want to push you on this, and I appreciate your careful search for reputable information, but does Martin give any source for this statement?  Is he saying that the Templers became a refuge for former Cathars, or that they themselves were becoming Cathars?  If so, did thay fight against the Catholic armies?  I'm sorry, it just seems such an odd contention, that could conceivably have led to the destruction of the order a century before Philip the Fair became interested in their wealth.  Clio the Muse 03:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately Sean Martin doesn't give a source. However I've since found another reference that may indicate why in Jack Driver's The Templars: Holy Warrior Monks of the Ancient Lands. He says "it is highly probable that there were many Cathars within the Order itself. Joining the Templars and risking one's life to protect pilgrims on their way to the Holy Land was deemed so noble by the Church as to absolve any sin", which I guess is true; crusading was rather pushed as a ticket to heaven, and the Templars themselves were known to recruit excommunicates into their ranks anyway...  Mi re ma r e  04:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Clio: it seems really suspect to claim that the Templars were, in any way, prone to Bogomil heresies in general or the particularly fuzzy theology of the Albigensians in particular. They were not geographically near the Albigensians, not involved in the actions against them, and, really, just not prone to it.  On the other hand, the rumors and libel spread about the Templars would have them deny the divinity of Christ, would have them worshipping an idol, etc., and I suspect that this is just another of the rumors that got turned, somehow, to connect them with the Cathars.  I think you should demand a seriously documented bit of evidence.  Geogre 12:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well as far as being prone to heresy, I don't believe they were. That they admitted excommunicates into the Order is a fact though, enshrined in the French Rule (the articles by which the Order operated at the time). Apparently this was due to the scarcity of recruits in the East. But really, geographically, the Albigensian Crusade was practically on the Templar's doorstep, with their "empire" being based in France - it was just out of the way of their main fighting forces. But this doesn't explain their complete absense, or that of any of the other orders (to get back to the original question :))  Mi re ma r e  13:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure it does. The Templars and Hospitalers were charged with protecting pilgrims and the Holy Land.  Although the Teutonic Knights would go off the reservation, so to speak, the others maintained their purview exactly: they operated only in the Holy Land.  Any European crusade would not be their business.  I also don't regard their empire as being French, or even Frankish.  As for the Albigensian crusade itself, you should already be aware that it was about Louis and his ambitions and an ecclesiastical reform coinciding and not anything having to do with the traditional crusades.  If you have any doubts about that, ask yourself where the Albigensians were and where the crusade went.  They were in northern Italy as well as southern France, and yet the "crusade" stopped at the political borders of other royal holdings.  The combatting of Albigensianism outside of Louis's lands took place by pastoral reform.  Brooks (Christopher Brooks?...can't recall) argued that Francis of Assisi, who was contemporary with this crusade and just across the border from it, was part of the reform that would persuade away the Albigensians.  Geogre 14:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What makes you say that the Templars and Hospitallers fought only in the Holy Land? As far as I am aware both orders fought in the reconquista, and in the Templars' case as early as 1131. And while the Templars were certainly founded to protect pilgrims, they soon found other more important matters to attend to, and (to the best of my knowledge) there is scant evidence of them ever protecting pilgrims... rather it seems to have been a founding ideal that got mislaid along the way, as founding ideals often do. Also, I'd be interested to know why you consider the Templars not to have been a primarily French/Frankish empire? Too much territory elsewhere?  Mi re ma r e  15:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying there's anything in Miremare's line of thought, but there were certainly connections between those who defended the Cathars and those who defended the Holy Land, in the form of the counts of Tripoli and Toulouse. qp10qp 18:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine, as the Bogomil heresies came over from the East in general, but that doesn't necessarily tie the Templars into group, especially not as an organization. Generally, people who went east could return with various heretical ideas...or not.  What I can't see, though, is the Templars being at all involved in support of the Cathars: they did not get involved in European politics and European reformations.  (Again, the "crusade" is far too neatly confined to Louis's lands to be anything other than a good, old fashioned political refashioning and suppression of the Occidan.)  Geogre 18:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hold on there, there's a big difference between sympathy and active support. I'm not at all saying the Templars were engaged in fighting on the Cathars' side or something like that. I'm not saying that sympathy was a requirement or that all Templars were sympathetic. What I'm suggesting is that, with the large Templar holdings in the Languedoc and the dominance there of Catharism, I don't believe it takes a great leap of faith or logic to give credit to, for example, the statement by Driver quoted above. I am certainly not in the business of making up or promoting alternative history, and view such people as do with the suspicion they deserve, especially in the case of the Templars whose waters are quite muddy enough already. I merely wish to resolve a question.  Mi re ma r e  20:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you will resolve it. I admit it doesn't take a leap of imagination to see that Templar properties might have been defended against predatory "crusading" forces unable or unwilling to distinguish between different properties within the lands they were attacking, or even that local Templar employees might naturally side with their communities during the mayhem. But that possibility may not be very significant: the reason why caution is essential is that this field has been swamped by pseudo-historical mystique, mystification, and mis-mythologising. There are those who would have us believe that Philip IV's move against the Templars was partly predicated on the earlier Albigensian conflict, and I'd say that line of thought is more than misleading, to the point of being gobbledegook. qp10qp 21:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, I agree with you there on all points, though the question I meant was the original one - but that seems equally unlikely to be resolved!  Mi re ma r e  21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Tennessee Monkey Trial
Was the Dayton 'Monkey Trial' of 1925 simply a clash between bigotry and enlightenment? 81.153.245.180 20:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It was certainly a clash. Describing the points of view with loaded terms like "bigotry" and "enlightenment" is perhaps not the best way to understanding, and declaring it to be "simply" that to boot carries the risk of unwarranted simplification. Please understand that the Reference desk is an information service, and not a discussion platform for the exchange of opinions on such issues, however interesting. Thank you for your understanding. --Lambiam Talk  21:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with the general principle outlined by Lambiam, there are issues here that I believe might be worthy of some consideration. For instance, most people are probably familiar with the Scopes Trial from the old Spencer Tracy movie Inherit the Wind. But the play on which it was based, written by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee (not that Robert E. Lee) was not even about creationism, but the dangers of McCarthyism. Also, the movie seriously misrepresents the truth surrounding the whole affair. Dayton itself is depicted as sterotypical sothern town, full of red-necked reactionaries, when it was anything but. There were many people for whom the great fear was not the challenge to the literal truth of the Bible, but the advance of a particularly invidious form of Social Darwinism. The Tennessee law against the teaching of evolution theories in public schools was signed by Governor Austin Peay, who needed the support of the Christian vote for his re-election, but never thought the measure would be enforced. But there were various individuals and interest groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, who wanted to push the matter in a test case, and John T. Scopes agreed to be cast in the role of the martyred teacher, in a highly contrived breach of the law. The text he used was A Civic Biology by one G. W. Hunter, which, amongst other things, puts forward the contention that the Caucasian race was 'the highest type of all.'

Perhaps the worst aspect of the movie is the misrepresentation of William Jennings Bryant-the 'Great Commoner'-who appeared for the prosecution. In truth, it was he who was the true progressive, not his opponent, Clarence Darrow, who appeared for Scopes. Amongst other things, Bryant, a three-time candidate for the Presidency of the United States, had supported votes for women, improved factory conditions, a minimum wage, the eight hour working day and a variety of other radical measures. His support for the Creationist cause was not as straightforward as imagined. Amongst other things, he believed that Social Darwinism was being used to justify poor working conditions. Darrow, in contrast, an enthusiast for Nietzsche, as well as Darwin, had the full backing of H L Mencken, a leading journalist, and also an advocate for Nietzsche and Darwin-The strong must grow stronger and that they may do so, they must waste no strength in the vain task of trying to lift up the weak. Given these views, he hated both Bryant and his 'social conscience' style of politics. For him the whole trial an opportunity to humiliate Bryant and ridicule the South, telling Darrow that 'Nobody gives a damn about that yap schoolteacher.' Against such a background the actual outcome of the trial, which was a foregone conclusion, was irrelevant. It was, in the words of Garry Wills "...a nontrail over a nonlaw, with a nondefendant backed by nonsupporters. Its most famous moment involved nontestimony by a nonexpert which was followed by a nondefeat." (Under God: Religion and American Politics, 1990) Clio the Muse 02:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I think it's a fundamental misreading to suggest that the trial had more to do with Social Darwinism than with the use of government to enforce religious doctrine. - Nunh-huh 02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As you wish! Clio the Muse 02:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is the real Scopes trial was basically a publicity stunt to boost Dayton's economy -- and one that worked remarkably well. -- Mwalcoff 03:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's no fair! Why is Nunh-huh allowed to do disagree but not me? :--) Lewis 13:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nunh-huh disagreed, but went on to state, briefly, what his/her alternative opinion was. JackofOz 22:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But where are the sources! We need sources don't we? Otherwise the objection is simply one of an anonymous contributor, and therefore, as many have told me, irrelevant. (Of course I'm being fecitious here, I fully support Nunh-huh's right to disagree without any sources. I think I'll just shut up now. :-) Lewis 22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The state law required Scopes to teach from the approved textbook, which was Hunter's Civic Biology, which contained racist diatribes about the highest race being caucasian. It tied closely to notions of White supremacy esp[oused by segregationists in the southern U.S. in the 1950's and 1960's. Scopes said he understood little of it. Bryant opposed the social darwinism about superior and inferior races, which tied in to the eugenics movement and ultimately the holocaust and segregation. Things in this case get more topsy-turvy the closer you look at them. Edison 23:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hostile Takeover?
When a company say lists 20% of it stock in the stock exchange, the shareholders of this 20% are asked in the hostile takeover to tender their shares. But how can the take over be completed, considering the founders still own 80% of the unlisted stock? --Goingempty 17:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In this scenario, assuming that the "founders" are united in opposing the takeover, I don't see how it could happen. It could only happen if more than 3/8 of the private shareholders can be induced to sell.  Marco polo 18:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your question is a rather confusing one. What exactly do you mean when you say "when a company lists 20% of its stock"? Is this a new issue or is it previously owned stock? If it's previously owned, who are the previous owners? I may be wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that a company can own its own stock. That's...well...impossible. I'm further confused about what this has anything to do with a hostile takeover. Also, corporations can either be public or private, but not both. You seem to be implying that somehow the corporation is 80% public and 20% private. In a takeover bid, hostile or friendly, all shareholders are given the same offer. There seems to be a very interesting question in there, but I can't for the life of me quite figure out what it is! If you'd try to rephrase it, or describe what your speaking of in a step-by-step fashion, I'd be more than glad to do my best to answer it! Lewis 23:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression, that many companies which are listed on the stock exchanges, are public compnies, but many are controlled by the founding families, and their stock is not listed as outstanding shares in the stock exchange? --Goingempty 23:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was definitely under the impression that a company can be partially owned publicly and partially privately. For example, Ford Motor Corporation is mostly publicly owned stock, but the Ford family does still retain a substantial portion of the stock.  I suppose the difference between public and private stock is largely a matter of opinion, however, as the Ford family members can sell their stock at any time, just like any other stock.  They are subject to additional concerns about stock manipulation, however. StuRat 01:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ford is a completely public company, and by no means a private company. The terms "private" and "public" are legal designations. With regard to stock manipulation, anyone capable of stock manipulation is subject to laws restricting it. The reason the Ford family is subject to these laws is because they have sufficient control to abuse their power, not because their last name is Ford. Lewis 01:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All companies listed on stock exchanges are public companies. Yet just because a company's stock is publicly traded and is therefore a public company, it can still be controlled by its founders. For example, Berkshire Hathaway is a publicly traded company completely controlled by Warren Buffet (though technically speaking, he didn't actually "found" the company). Likewise, Microsoft is a publicly traded company controlled by its founder, Bill Gates.


 * Also, I don't think you quite understand what is meant by the term "outstanding shares". A company's "outstanding shares" are basically all the shares that have been issued by the company. For example, say Mr. Smith founds a company called Smithco, and as sole shareholder and director he causes the company to issue 1,000,000 shares at a par value of 1¢ each, and then buys them all for a total of $10,000. The number of outstanding shares is now 10,000, and assuming the company hasn't done anything yet, it's a private company with "contributed capital" of $10,000. Now say that after 10 years of hard work, because everyone knows that hard work is the key to success and luck plays no part, right? :) Mr. Smith builds the company into a phenomenal success. The market is just dying to invest in his company, so he causes the company to issue an additional 9,000,000 shares and offer it to the market in an IPO. As a result, 9,000,000 very eager investors each buy one share each for $100 a piece (I realize how overly simplistic and unrealistic I'm making this, but bear with me!) Now the company is a public company with 10,000,000 outstanding shares, and with its shares trading at $100, its market cap is now $1,000,000,000. Mr. Smith, with his mere 10% stake still by all accounts controls the company. And that, simply put, is pretty much all you have to know to become obscenely rich. It's quite simple actually. :-) Lewis 01:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But then again, as Sexta-feira once said, I really don't ever contribute anything of value, so might as well ignore the above nonsense. :-) Lewis 01:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I quote from Yahoo News "The board of directors for Dow Jones & Co. announced late Wednesday that it will take no action on the surprise five-billion-dollar bid launched by Rupert Mudoch's News Corp.

The prize asset of Dow Jones & Co. is The Wall Street Journal, which dates back to 1889 and is the most prominent daily business publication in the United States.

Michael Elefante, a board member who represents the Bancroft family -- which owns the shares that make up 52 percent of the company's outstanding voting power -- told the Dow Jones Board of Directors Wednesday that they oppose the bid.

The Bancrofts would "vote shares . . . against the proposal submitted by News Corporation to acquire Dow Jones," the statement read.

Approval of the merger according to Delaware law "requires approval of a majority of the outstanding voting power of the corporation.

"Accordingly, the Dow Jones Board of Directors has determined to take no action with respect to the proposal".

Widely spread out, the Bancroft family holds 24 percent of the capital but more than 62 percent of the vote in Dow Jones. So if only 52 percent were opposed to the Murdoch bid, that means the family is split on the offer.

Murdoch's bid led to the Down Jones stock spiking more than 60 percent by the time the markets closed on Monday, the day the bid was made public.

According to a source close to the transaction quoted on The Wall Street Journal website late Wednesday, the family appears to be split among generational lines, with the younger members seeking to sell and the older ones resisting.

Murdoch's offer of 60 dollars per share led to intense speculation on Wall Street, with Dow Jones shares finishing the day Wednesday at 56 dollars, a five-year high."

I quote from Vancouver Sun "Widely spread out, the Bancroft family holds 24 per cent of the capital but more than 62 per cent of the vote in Dow Jones." I suppose they have a different class of shares, which has a higher voting power, but is not listed on the stock exchange? --Goingempty 14:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The corporation is listed on the exchange. The family shares are not available for trading on the exchange.  Marco polo 16:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Elaborate please? So then what happens during an hostile takeover by another company? And aren't there laws to prevent the founding family from holding a different class of shares with higher voting power? --Goingempty 01:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a large part of the problem here is that you don't seem to understand that a corporation is, legally speaking, a person. It has absolutely no special legal relationship with its founders qua founders. I realize that calling a corporation a person just doesn't make any rational sense. Of course it doesn't, a corporation isn't a "person" in the ordinary sense of the term. Rather, defining it as such is a legal fiction. Notice the terminlogy of the noun "corporation" and the verb "to incorporate", both stemming from the latin corpus, or body. When one incorporates, one is, legally speaking again, creating a legal person.


 * So before answering your question, you must understand that your reference to the "founding family", qua "founding family" is legally meaningless. It's just as I said above with regard to Ford. In case your wondering, I keep using the term "qua" to emphasize the fact that founding families indeed very often do control companies. However the reason they control these companies has all to do with the fact that they haven't sold off enough of their share of them to others to effectively lose control, and absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they founded the corporation.


 * In fact, to illustrate my point even further, very often lawyers "incorporate" or "found" corporations for no other reason than to have them available for clients who wish to own them at some future date for whatever purpose. These lawyers basically keep the corporations in a sort of intangible inventory of theirs. They, in an intangible sense, are said to put these completely inactive corporations on a "shelf", until they're required for a client. Unsurprisingly, these corporations are termed shelf corporations. The reason why I'm bring all this up is because, for all we know, the Ford, or the Dow Jones corporation, may have indeed been "founded" long ago not by the Fords or the Bancrofts, but rather by some lawyer in Detroit or New York. The whole point of this is to once again make it as clear as possible that the status of the "founders" qua founders is legally meaninless.


 * Now that I got all that out of the way, the answer to your question is a rather short one. Corporations can issue whatever types of shares their directors' please. Common shares, preferred shares, voting shares, non voting shares, shares that carry, say, 100 times the voting power of other common shares, etc. This may seem unfair, but it really isn't. When buying a share, you know what you're getting. If, for example you want to invest some money in Ford for speculative purposes only, and with no intention of using them to vote with, then why would you care if your share happens to be a non-voting share?


 * I hope I've helped. Feel free to come back with a follow up if you're unclear on anything. Lewis 12:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Lewis, have you read the article Time Warner which is the world's largest media and entertainment conglomerate, and on February 7, 2006, a group led by "Corporate raider" Carl Icahn and Lazard Frères CEO Bruce Wasserstein unveiled a 343-page proposal calling for the breakup of Time Warner into four companies and stock buybacks totaling approximately $20 billion. On February 17, 2006, the Icahn-lead group agreed with Time Warner to not contest the re-election of TW's slate of board members at the 2006 shareholders meeting. In exchange for the Icahn group's cooperation, Time Warner will buy back up to $20 billion of stock, nominate more independent members to the board of directors, cut $1 billion of costs by 2007, and continue discussions with the Icahn group over their proposal, particularly on the future of Time Warner Cable.

Lewis in other words Carl Icahn is a shareholder activist, who's main attemt is to change the direction of the Directors (board of directors) way they are doing business, so it's more profitable.

Consider this, if Carl Icahn wanted to "corporate raid" Dow Jones, by his means, he would certainly not be successful because the Brancroft family has more voting power than 100% the common shareholders, because they have a different class of shares, with higher voting power; thus, allowing the Brancroft family to place whoever they want as the Board of Directors.

I read on the news also that the common shareholders can start a class action suit against the Board of Directors? But what would that lead to? I mean what can the judge do to remedy the situation? Can the judge force the Brancroft family to list all classes of shares on the stock exchange? --Goingempty 21:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all familiar with that particular situation, so all I can give you is an educated guess as to what's going on. Even without control, minority shareholders are still afforded various protections. The two that come to mind here are 1) they have the right to take an action in what's called "opression", in cases where the controling shareholders are abusing their control to the detriment of the minority, or 2) the Directors of the corporation owe a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the corporation, and not in the interests of certain shareholders (or indeed themselves) over others. If they breach that duty, they may be subject to a cause of action for breaching that fiduciary duty. The results can vary from various court ordered injunctions, ranging from an order for the directors to stop doing a certain thing that is in breach of their fiduciary duties, an order that they be removed as directors altogether for such inappropriate behaviour, or even an award of damages to be paid to those shareholders who've suffered pecuniary loss due to such behaviour.


 * Well, that's the best I can make of it. Again, not being familiar with the particular situation, the above is only my best educated guess as to what's going on. Lewis 12:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Goingempty, please do not keep copying your earlier questions with all the prior discussion to the bottom of the page. I've asked that before on your talk page. If more users start doing that, it will create a mess. If you have a specific new question, feel free to post it, but don't repost all that went before. You can always link to the prior discussion. --Lambiam Talk 22:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw a dead man win a fight, and I think that man was I
I remember the above fragment from a poem. Can anyone tell me who the dead man was and what was the fight? 84.201.163.98 22:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The verse proceeds thus:


 * For I have dreamed a dreary dream


 * Beyond the Isle of Skye;


 * I saw a dead man win a fight,


 * And I think that man was I.


 * It is one of the poems collected in The Border Minstrelsy by Sir Walter Scott, and provides an account of the Battle of Otterburn of August 1388, in which James Douglas, 2nd Earl of Douglas was killed in the course of a victorious fight against an English army led by Harry Hotspur, son of the Earl of Northumberland. You will find the full version here  Clio the Muse 22:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * From that poem, what does the line "I wat he was fu fain!" mean? zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Craziness, I'm finding definitions of "fu fain" ranging from Eager to Full of Affection to Moist!?!? BizarreGabenowicki 00:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fu fain means he was eager. Clio the Muse 01:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) I think it means "I know he was quite eager". Fain is in fact found in English dictionaries.. Several sources have fu' fain. This Glossary for Robert Burns lists I wat as "I know", and fu '  as "full". I wat is often used as an almost meaningless interjection. --Lambiam Talk  01:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It may be used as an interjection, but I'm pretty sure it derives from "wot" in ME, and you can find "wotting" all over Chaucer. It may have the functional meaning of "ya' know?" or "know what-I-mean" in contemporary speech, but "I know he was wholly eager" or "He was truly eager, ya' know?"  Geogre 14:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)