Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 November 30

= November 30 =

Why hasn't Bennelong declared yet?
It's 5+ days since the Australian general election, yet Division of Bennelong appears still not to have formally declared a winner. It's apparently the size of a Westminster constituency, and appears to be largely urban. A comparable Westminster constituency would have declared in the early hours of the morning - even one with a razor thin majority would have declared (after two or three recounts) the following day. Why has it taken so long? Some kind of henging ched? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You can see breakdown of the seat on the AEC Website here. Not all postal votes have yet been counted, though McKew is sitting on 2-party preferred vote of 51.34% so one would imagine she has beaten John Howard. hope that helps somewhat.Jpeob 01:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps one reason that McKew has been reluctant to call the result is that the postal vote result shows howard leading with a vote of 55.02%. I still think McKew will win. Jpeob 01:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As I understand it the Australian system is quite different from the UK system. While in the UK all the votes, including postal votes, have to be in by close of poll and are put into the count with the ballot boxes from polling stations, in the Australian :system the count on the night of the election is only of the polling station boxes and the postal votes are added later.

Lynton Crosby was on the Sky News Australia election night programme pointing out that the Coalition had processed many more postal votes than the ALP had, and therefore that some seats which appeared to be lost may still be recaptured. Certainly the ALP has fallen behind in Swan where it was in front on the election night, and John Howard has pulled ahead of Maxine McKew on first preference votes where he was previously behind. Another thing to note is that no seat has yet formally declared so Bennelong is not out of line. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that explains it perfectly. This (and an earlier question about how the PM was finally declared) leads me to remark that our Australian electoral system seems, to me, to be rather deficient in regard to the conduct of the election. Do elections take place on a specific day of the week (Britain habitually votes on a Thursday, some democracies by statute vote over the weekend)?  Are other elections (local and regional) and measures voted on at the same time (a particular US favourite)?   Are voters entitled to paid time off to vote?  Where is polling conducted (schools? government offices?) and over what hours are the polling places open?  Do voters receive a polling card in the mail?  Are they required to provide identification when voting?  Do voters receive a "voter's guide" (a al US)?

How does a voter physically vote (X in box, colour in square, punch hole, electronic, throw tinny can at chosen candidate...). Who is eligible for postal vote? How is the returning officer selected, and what are her duties? When, where, and how are votes counted? How, where, and when are declarations made, and what is the final process whereby a PM is selected and a new parliament installed? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Finlay, you had me puzzled for a bit there! I thought you were saying you were Australian and you thought your electoral system was deficient!  Then I realized that by "our" you meant "Wikipedia's article".  --Anonymous, 23:14 UTC, December 1, 2007.


 * Let's see how much I remember from POLS1000;

Do elections take place on a specific day of the week (Britain habitually votes on a Thursday, some democracies by statute vote over the weekend)?
 * Federal elections are held on a Saturday, and usually not when something else major is happening that day (sport grand final, etc).

Are other elections (local and regional) and measures voted on at the same time (a particular US favourite)?
 * No. State elections are called by the state premier in a similar way to the way federal elections are called by the prime minister.  Council elections (in Queensland, I don't know about other states) all happen on the same day across the state, under state law.  "Measures" (called Referendums in Australia) are often voted on on the same day as a state or federal election, but they don't happen very often (Queensland has had 7 referendums in 147 years).

Are voters entitled to paid time off to vote?
 * No, but in Australia you can be fined if you're enrolled but don't vote. This is one reason why elections are held on Saturday, and also why there are a lot of pre, postal and absentee votes.

Where is polling conducted (schools? government offices?) and over what hours are the polling places open?
 * Churches and schools, mostly. 6am to 6pm.
 * Actually, 8am to 6pm. It used to be 8am to 8pm, but that was considered overgenerous, so they cut it back to 10 hours.  --  JackofOz 08:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Do voters receive a polling card in the mail?
 * They may recieve advertising material from the candidates. If you mean actual ballot papers, then no, you only get one of those after you turn up and get your name marked off.
 * I think he's talking about a card that says "There is a federal election on February 31. Your polling station is at Gryffindor House, 100 Hogwarts Avenue, 9&frac34;th floor. Please bring this card with you." (And other details like voting hours, ID requirements, and advance polls.) In Canada we get something like that in the mail before every election, if we're on the voters' list already.  --Anonymous, 23:21 UTC, December 1.

Are they required to provide identification when voting?
 * You can be. Usually they just ask you your address.

Do voters receive a "voter's guide" (a al US)?
 * Newly enrolled voters may recieve various information from the AEC shortly before an election.
 * Individual parties issue "how-to-vote" cards, which are handed outside polling booths to those who want them. They suggest how people might wish to mark their ballot papers if they want to support a particular party.  Some people take every how-to-vote card they're proffered and make their decision inside the polling booth; others just take the one from the party they intend to vote for; others (such as me) always refuse them all on principle.  --  JackofOz 08:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How does a voter physically vote (X in box, colour in square, punch hole, electronic, throw tinny can at chosen candidate...).
 * Number every box for the Lower House, Number one box above the line or all boxes below the line for the Senate.

Who is eligible for postal vote?
 * Anyone who's interstate, overseas, working, or has a religious or health reason.

How is the returning officer selected, and what are her duties?
 * Returning officers are employees of the AEC, which has a Divisional Office in each electorate.

How, where, and when are declarations made, and what is the final process whereby a PM is selected and a new parliament installed?
 * The Declaration of Poll is made by the AEC when all votes have been counted. This can be no sooner than 13 days after the election, as that is how long they must wait for postal votes to come in.  The PM and other ministers are appointed by the Governor-General (the Constitution only requires ministers to become MPs within 3 months of appointment, which is how Rudd and his ministers can be appointed despite the fact that the election results aren't official yet.  Parliament won't sit until next year, long after the delarations). FiggyBee 06:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You can do a postal vote if you will be more than 8km from a polling station (in your electorate) on polling day, or if you will be unavoidably detained (i.e. in surgery), according to the AEC brochure we got before the election. Some editing would be good; if I had time, I'd dig out the brochure if I still have it). Steewi 01:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Fehrbellin
The section on historic significance is rather poor and just gives the obvious information. Does somebody have deeper insight?--85.180.34.149 (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, 85.180, I'm not sure that there is an awful lot more that can be said about the significance of Fehrbellin, other than it began the advance of Brandenburg/Prussia into Pomerania. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite its military successes in the war, like Fehrbellin, Brandenburg has to leave all Hither Pomeranian conquests and return them to Sweden (Peace of Saint Germain-en-Laye). France succeeded to protect its ally Sweden in the negotiations and Brandenburg only gains a small strip of Land east of the Oder. The Great Elector was deeply disappointed by the lack of support by the Kaiser and Habsburg-Austria and re-orients his policy towards France.By the way, I somewhat doubt this claim: June 28th was a holiday that would be celebrated in Germany up until 1914, when on the same day, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, beginning World War I. --Tresckow 16:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dual Swords?
Was there any army in ancient times that had soldiers who fought with two swords? 67.42.180.114 (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by ancient times, exactly? Very early on, swords were very rare and not very reliable. Only a few soldiers would have had them, and to have two would be unthinkable. Wrad (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really ancient as such, but the most famous wielders of two swords were the samurai. Algebraist 03:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The martial art of dual wielding Japanese swords is known as Hyōhō Niten Ichi-ryū ("two heavens as one strategy"). Laïka  13:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Anakin Skywalker used two lightsabers long ago in a galaxy far far away. :) Wrad (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ...By ancient times I meant any time before firearms that had a 95+% chance of not blowing up in your face. Thank you for the samurai info, this may be what I was thinking of... 67.42.180.114 (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. You might want to look into Arab culture as well. They were making good swords long before Europe. Wrad (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe not the intent of the question, but the Romans had many different kinds of swords. Did they carry more than one at a time or are they just from different time periods? I'm not sure. But swords were usually heavy and expensive, so they weren't likely to own two of them, and even if they did, they would still have to hold a shield in their other hand. Some medieval swords were even heavier and more expensive and both hands could be occupied carrying a single sword. (The little I know about medieval martial arts requires the use of just one sword.) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Some people in the middle ages carried a Parrying dagger along with a rapier to use in fencing combat. Laïka  13:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you mean one sword in each hand. I've never heard of an army that used that method. On the face of it, it does seem unlikely. You need a lot of room around you for that, room you wouldn't have in a line or a close melee. Melee fighters carried shields in the old days for many good reasons, not the least of which was defense against ranged weapons. --Milkbreath 14:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont think any military unit used dual-wielding. True, some Samurai used two swords, but they were few and far between. Most samurai had two swords, but used only one at a time. Without shields. In the west, when people wanted more OOMPH with their weapons they tended to selected bigger weapons rather than twin weapons. &mdash; Shinhan  &lt;&thinsp; talk &thinsp;&gt; 14:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a plug for a great sport, if you're ever interested in learning to dual-wield swords you should look into kendo, in which there are many practitioners (some of the best, even) who compete with two blades. The most famous dual-sword samurai, and perhaps the most famous samurai overall, by the way, was Miyamoto Musashi. And in medieval fencing manuals, I have never seen a dual-weapon guide, incidentally, though it is true that later thrusting weapons were often accompanied by a parry dagger. SamuelRiv 00:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Florentine is great for display but poor for combat. I once knew a rapier instructor who could put on a nice demonstration, but if hard pressed by an opponent he would drop the sword from his off-hand and use that arm/hand for parrying and disarming.  Yes, he preferred to use a bare arm for parrying rather than a second full-length sword.  Sword fighting is not only physically demanding, but it is also a strong mental workout.  Trying to consciously direct two full-sized swords in an effective manner in combat (as opposed to an uncontested display) is more difficult, tiring and distracting than one-sword, sword-and-parrying-dagger or sword-and-shield styles.  It looks good in the movies but if your life depended on winning a sword fight you wouldn't want to fight Florentine style.  A member of the SCA seems to be of the opinion that Florentine was never an actual style used in medieval combat.  152.16.16.75 01:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Chinese martial arts has a style using two shorter swords, simply called '双剑 shuangjian' - double sword. I don't know how old the technique is. Maggie Cheung uses double sword for a while in combat with Zhang Ziyi in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which is not based on history, but the technique has some basis in martial arts theory. Steewi 01:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Kung Fu and other material arts have a number of forms that include two swords. However, even with a two swords form, the practitioner always keeps in mind the second sword could be anything such as a shield, knife, club, or even bare hand.  The second sword is not used much for attacking.  As stated before, many warriors practiced two sword forms but more for the art, excerise, balance, and macho effort.  I've never heard of an army, or style of warrior that actually used two swords during real battle.Lord Challen (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

1066 and all that
Just how much history do you have to know to appreciate the wit of Sellar and Yeatman? Is it beyond the understanding of most Americans? Is it beyond the understanding of most Brits.? Kaiser Will (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, for example I had a standard UK grammar school education in the late 50s/early sixties and I can appreciate its humour very easily, I think its a funny book, but not very funny. But then maybe I am missing some of the better jokes - if there are any. Richard Avery (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a satire on the view of history held by the educated middle classes as the British Empire went into decline. Unfortunately it is beyond the understanding of most of the UK population these days, because to appreciate the satire you have to have some appreciation of the original. Frances Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man seems to espouse the view or wish that "America became Top Nation, and history came to a .", so I presume he isn't familiar with it either. William Avery (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Unlike Richard I think it's a very funny book, full of good things, bad things and genuine dates. It's a wonderful foretaste of Horrible Histories-my favourite childhood reading-with lots of lovely 'facts', like "Hengist was thus the first English King, and his wife (or horse) Horsa, the first English Queen (or horse)". My friends and I had a whale of a time at school writing an updated version, that is to say with all the bits after America became top nation and history came to a .  Of course it did not, which is to say that our history has to be a lot better than that of the silly Francis Fukayama!  Clio the Muse 02:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Clio for the endorsement of Horrible Histories. I came across it by accident in a second hand bookstore (specifically the Elizabethans) and was curious to know what our resident historians would think. Do you trust the series as reasonably accurate? Hoping for a brief reply, thanks if you can, 203.221.126.121 15:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, so far as I remember, 203.221, they are reasonably trustworthy. The real value, though, from my own perspective, is that they stimulated me to look more deeply into the various subject areas covered.  And that's as brief as Clio gets!  Clio the Muse 00:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll recommend them to the students I tutor. They're certainly fun. :) 203.221.127.208 13:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Follow up question: Is there an American equivalent? Steewi 01:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there is America's Horrible Histories! There seems to be some controversy over the series title, though.  Perhaps Americans lack the self-depreciating English sense of humour?  Clio the Muse 02:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Da Vinci Code
What's the evidence for the Da Vinci Code? Kaiser Will (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the Louvre really exists. Aside from that, there isn't any? Adam Bishop (talk) 07:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is discussed in The Da Vinci Code, but most of it is against the theories presented in the novel. None of the material was really new, just syncretized into a work of fiction in a new manner.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  15:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Seven-day week universal
How long has the day of the week been universally agreed across Europe/Middle East? Can religious celebrations on a specfic day of the week be confident that they are following an exact multiple of seven days from their predecessors or could a "jump" have occurred at any point in the past? [I am interested from a context of astronomical dating] TheMathemagician (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * During the Roman Republic, there was traditionally an eight-day market cycle ("nundinum", see Roman_calendar). The seven-day week spread through the general Mediterranean area ca. the 1st century A.D., but oddly it spread from Egypt as an astrological-based cycle (with each of the seven days assigned to one of the seven classical "planets", including the sun and moon), rather than because of direct Jewish or Christian influence at that time.


 * There is no evidence that the every-seven-day Jewish observance of Sabbaths has ever been interrupted. AnonMoos (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Seven Day Week began in ancient Mesopotamia. It was developed in part due to the fact that human settlements take on a hexagonal pattern when there are no geological or other disruptions.

On the great plain of the Tigris/Euphrates Rivers this settlement pattern was allowed to develop with minimal disruption during this time period when towns and villages first began to appear. To visualize this, think in terms of how far a farmer would be willing to travel to sell his produce or grain in a market, and in turn to buy needed supplies while there, and then to return to his home. The farmer would want to travel to the nearest market where he could sell his produce at a reasonable price. Anywhere that there would be a marketplace set up would begin to draw people from an extended radius, thus creating a circle of economic influence around it, which in turn would create optimal conditions for a town to develop. Due to pure geometrical mathematics, the resulting settlement pattern across a large fertile flat plain would begin to have these towns that were set up on a hexagonal grid system, due to their radiating economic footprints. One may see this pattern in a number of places around the earth, including the North American Midwest, and the Steppes of Russia/Ukraine.

Additionally, there is another factor involved with these settlement patterns, in that settlements of different sizes are set up along roughly hexagonal patterns as well. This means that large towns would be distributed over a larger geographic hexagonal grid than small towns are. And the same may be applied to cities as well. This is difficult to explain, but think of how one travels across flat cultivated country. One must go through many smaller towns before coming to a larger town. And then more smaller towns again. Likewise, one would travel through many larger towns before coming to a city. All of the smaller towns would be inclined to naturally develop along hexagonal grids (as described above). Same with the larger towns and cities. The larger the settlement, the larger its economic footprint is. So someone who wishes to go to a location where there would be a much larger marketplace than what would be encountered in the local small village would be willing to travel further to get there. This is why larger towns and cities are spread out in equal distances from one another.

In the ancient Fertile Crescent what would take place was that there would be traveling merchants who would make a circuit of the surrounding smaller towns' marketplaces, but would then return to the large town or city to take advantage of the bigger marketplace. To coordinate this, each of the surrounding smaller towns would have its own designated market day. And then the central city or large town would have its turn, too. Because of the hexagonal settlements, a large town or city would have six smaller towns around it. Thus each of the smaller towns would take turns holding their market day - providing a six day recurring cycle. On the seventh day the central large town or city would have its much larger market day, which would also be accompanied by a religious observance such as performing sacrifices at the temple, etc. The seventh day was the high market day - and also the most significant religious day - of this repeating cycle.

The fact that there are roughly four seven-day periods in a lunar month also made the seven day week attractive, since there would be a week for the waxing, full, waning, and new moon phases to accompany each week of the month. This is problematic, though, because it is not very accurate - the lunar month is longer than 28 days. There is also an explanation that says that the seven days of the week came about because each day was named for one of the known planets in the Ancient World (the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn). However, the problem with this is that this theory places the horse before the cart. The seven day week was already in existence before the days were named after planets or gods.

So social geographers and historians mostly go with the economic explanation for how the seven day week was set up. Of course, it is still conjecture, but there is some evidence to support this. Some references to look for more information on this subject would be in any good Human Geography textbook, or here are some others:

1. Human geography; an introduction to man and his world. by Emrys Jones. 1966, ©1965 [Rev. ed.] New York, F. A. Praeger 2. Introduction to human geography, by Samuel Newton Dicken. 1963 [1st ed.] New York, Blaisdell Pub. Co.

The seven day week is just one of many influences we have in our modern world from the ancient Fertile Crescent. It's a fascinating subject, and one that always is fun to research. --Saukkomies 20:20, 2 December, 2007 (UTC)

Edward and the Nazis
Was the duke of Windsor, formerly Edward VIII, a Fascist sympithiser? 81.156.6.209 (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Very Probably. The Duke and Duchess seemed to have sympathised with fascism before and during the Second World War. Don't, however, be tricked into thinking they were Nazi sympathisers. Most of this is covered here Edward VIII and World War II. Lord Foppington (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I can give you some basic facts, 81.156, and leave it to you to make up your own mind. Edward maintained a correspondence with Oswald Mosley, the English Fascist leader, both during and after the Abdication Crisis. Afterwards Mosley was to write, "The King already had a strong aversion to war with Germany. We would have told Hitler that he could do what he liked in the East.  If he wanted the Ukraine, he could have it as far as we were concerned, but we would have told him not to touach the west." In October 1937 the Windsors meat Hitler in Berlin 'to express their gratitude for the moral support Germany had shown during the abdication crisis'. At the sime time they dined with Rudolf Hess, discussing the idea of a new world order. The following November Robert Bruce Lockhart, diplomat and spy, informed the Foreign Office in London that the Nazis were convinced that Edward would come back as 'a social-equalizing King' to inaugurate an 'English form of Fascism in alliance with Germany.'  Wishful thinking? Perhaps. But there is little doubt that Edward was bitter over the circumstances of the abdication, and the subsequent direction of British foreign policy. In May 1939 he met in Paris José de Lequerica, Franco's ambassador to France, who sent a report to Madrid of a lengthy conversation they had at a dinner party at the Argentinian embassy; "...the Duke...has political opinions which run contrary to the country he once governed. He believes war to be a complete catastrophe, and the triumph of Moscow...he attributes the policy of war and of alliance with Russia to the influence of the Jews, who are extremly powerful in his country." He went on, according to de Lequerica, to attribute his loss of the throne to the same influence. Clio the Muse 02:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone want to read a law school personal statement and DESTROY IT?
I'm a poor writer. I need help! I have a first draft of a law school statement. Would anyone be kind enough to destroy it? Leave an email please.

lots of issues | leave me a message 11:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What, exactly, is this doing here? Clio the Muse 01:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why, it's waiting for someone to respond, and now someone has! ---Sluzzelin talk  01:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you think I was sufficiently 'destructive', Sluzzelin?! More dismissive, I think!  Clio the Muse 02:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Lucky me! Far too thick to detect any dismissiveness (if it were there, that is), and I hope somone comes along and explains what needs to be destroyed and why. ---Sluzzelin talk  02:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is this here? Because there are plenty of ppl here used to taking requests.  lots of issues  | leave me a message 06:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are a poor writer, don't you think law school is a bad choice? (How did you even get this far?) Adam Bishop 14:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a little harsh. Soliciting feedback is something that even great writers do; it is not a sign of weakness. And personal statements require much more careful writing than most academic papers do, believe it or not—once you are in the door you are given a benefit of the doubt that you are not when you are still outside the door. In any case, I don't have the time to read other people's personal statements—I recommend to the OP to force it upon people who have some stronger investment in you than random strangers, or else pay someone to take a look at it. :-) --24.147.86.187 18:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not so much the request for the aid of an editorial eye that perplexed me, which is reasonable enough in itself, more the desire for demolition. Is there some humour here that I am missing?  But I agree, 24.147, that, on a matter as important as this, Lotsofissues is better advised to call elsewhere for assistance.  Clio the Muse 00:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * not really humor, but a wry way of asking for frank and unsparing criticism. - Nunh-huh 00:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly Nunh! Adam, virtually everyone is a poor writer. The gift of narrative is a rarely found talent.  I ask the humanities desk for help because there are excellent writers, and my peers are just as deficient in writing.  I will pay anybody here with professional experience (broadly interpret) $45 by paypal to copyedit and advise two times.  132.239.90.83 01:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Who is 132.239.90.83 and why is s/he offering to pay someone to edit lots of issues | leave me a message's personal statement? If I was confused by the opening remarks, I am even more confused now. Bielle 06:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I forgot to sign in while posting from a school computer. lots of issues  | leave me a message 12:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotsofissues (talk • contribs)


 * Is there no one nearby who can talk to you in person to edit your work? I think someone who knows you would be able to give you more advice on what to say and what you probably shouldn't mention. My suggestions would be a respected teacher (your English teacher, maybe) who can give you advice on writing clearly and precisely, or someone who you know has gotten into law school already, who knows what the readers will be looking for. Interesting thought, but I wouldn't expect a bite from here. Good luck with your application. Steewi 01:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Lotsofissues, I can't but echo Steewi here. You will get a more trustworthy and honest opinion, I feel sure, from someone you know, a friend or a professional contact, rather than from some casual responder over the internet.  There should be no need for money; but if you are determined to pay for such a service, I urge you not to do so online.  Please believe me when I say that I wish you nothing but the best.  Clio the Muse 02:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Andres Ortiz
Please Wikipedia do you have any page on Andres Ortiz a Spanish anarchist executed in the 1930s? I need to know his life and reasons for execution. Was it for political activities? Thank you for anything you can tell. TheLostPrince 14:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Presumably this was Andrés Aranda Ortiz, or for short Andrés Aranda (see Spanish naming customs), who was executed by garotte in Barcelona on December 21, 1934. To read the article linked to by the first link you need to register for a free 72-hour trial (and not forget to cancel before the 72 hours are over). --Lambiam 17:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Croatian air ace
Do you have anything on English Wikipedia about Mato Dukovic, the WWII Croatian air ace? 81.152.108.39 17:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. It seems not
 * 2. His name appears to have been Mato Dukovac
 * 3. Is this any help? or this(in French)  or this  SaundersW 20:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This forum seems to have some interesting information and/or discussion as well. SaundersW 23:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Mato Dukovac was born in October 1918 in Surcin. He enlisted in the Croation Air Force soon after the country was declared independent in 1941. After training he was posted to the Kuban front in Russia with the Croat Legion, flying his first mission on 29 October 1942. After scoring some early combat successes against the Soviet Air Force, his potential was recognised by Cvitan Galić, the leading Croatian ace at the time. Thereafter the two men partnered one another in a pair formation, known as a Rotte, together becoming the two most successful Croatian pilots. In February 1944 Dukovac flew his 250th mission, scoring his 37th confirmed kill, for which he was awarded the German Gold Cross by Field Marshal Wolfran von Richthofen in person. Later that year, during the Russian ofensive in the Crimea, his tally of kills rose to 40, making him the number one Croatian ace ahead of Galić. In August 1944 he was promoted to the rank of captain and sent with a contingent of the Croatian Legion to Eichwalde in East Prussia. While training in the use of the latest models of the ME-109 in September 1944 he deserted to the Soviets. He served as a time as a flying instructor with the Soviet Air Force before being sent with other Yugoslavs to Panoveco in Serbia, also as a flying instructor. In February 1945, under threat of arrest for his previous service with the Axis, he flew to Italy, where he surrendered to the Americans. He later served in the Syrian Air Force during the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, before moving to Canada, where he died in September 1990. Clio the Muse 01:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made the above into an article, Mato Dukovac. Thanks! Sandstein 20:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Frederick the writer
I recently discovered that Frederick the Great of Prussia, among his other talents, was a writer. One of his published works was a treatise on Machiavelli. I imagine he must have been in favour of his ideas, considering his own approach to statecraft and international relations, but I would be pleased for some enlightenment. Danke! Hugo McGoogle 18:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * " Frederick the Great of Prussia - "I have always considered Machiavelli's Prince as one of the most dangerous works ever to be disseminated in the world" - The Anti Machiavel (1740-41). Definitely sounds a though he was a disciple! SaundersW 20:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * However in his Polititcal Testament, he commented that he was wrong and Machiavelli was right. If you consider his pacifistic attitude when he was younger and his disrespect towards the military a rather remarkable change. Many of his problems with his father came from his "effeminate" and squeamish attitude. Just think of his reference towards the uniform as "dying smock".--Tresckow 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Anti-Machiavel is a dissertation on government; at once a work of idealist political philosophy and of hard-nosed realism. What Frederick found particularly distasteful in the pages of Machiavelli was the dishonesty and the cynicism, a cynicism based on the abandonment of conventional morality. As far as he was concerned, contrary to the precepts of Machiavelli, a ruler must in all things be just, which was the only way, in his estimation, to gain the assent of the governed.  He must also be tolerant of all shades of opinion, an enemy of bigotry and sectarianism of all kinds.  He was determined that Prussia should maintain the highest standards of rectitude.  It should be a state governed by law; a Rechstaat as well as a Kulturstaat.


 * To a large extent Frederick was consistent in pursuit of these aims, though there was also a note of Machiavellian cynicism to his own character which got progressively stronger over time. His approach to war and diplomacy, for instance, were always tinged with Prince-like opportunism, even when his actions were draped in the garb of necessity.  In the end he was to agree with Machiavelli that in the game of international power politics that a state that remained disinterested was a state that was likely to perish-"I'm obliged to confess that Machiavelli was right."  Clio the Muse 01:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Jurors and special knowledge
(This is a question about the law, but I'm not looking for legal advice. It's purely hypothetical. I'm not a juror on a trial or anything like that.)

Say I'm a juror in a murder trial, in which it is alleged that Mrs. Jones killed her husband Mr. Jones by poisoning him. Testimony has established that Mr. Jones died of thiotimoline poisoning, that the substance was found in Mr. Jones' morning coffee, and that Mrs. Jones prepared the coffee. We the jury go for our deliberations, and it looks like an airtight case against Mrs. Jones.

But: it so happens that I'm a biochemist, and because of that, I happen to know that the LD50 of thiotimoline for oral dose is 500 g/kg in humans - far too much to be administered in a cup of coffee. This fact wasn't presented to the jury. I think therefore Mr. Jones was much more likely to have been killed by his lover, Ms. Smith, who's a nurse and could have injected him with the stuff, since that requires a much lower dose for toxicity.

Now, I've heard told that (at least in the UK), as a juror I would not be allowed to use that information in my deliberations - it's "special knowledge" that the average person wouldn't know, and I can only consider it if an expert witness presented that information. Is that actually true? If so, is it even possible to truly discard such a pertinent fact while thinking about the case? Would I have any option to make the fact known, like sending a message to the judge? --Bob Mellish 22:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As I juror, I think you have the right to ask questions. So you could say in court, "Just what is the lethal dose of xxxxx."  Once answered, it wouldn't be special knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.128.42 (talk • contribs)


 * I can't speak to the (barbaric heathen unwashed) English legal system, but I've been a juror in Scotland. The limit of voi dire was "do you know any of the people on this list" (the defendant and the witnesses). Less like L.A. Law you couldn't have got.  I can't (contempt of court) discuss the particular case, but certainly the Sheriff gave no guidance in court regarding prior general or professional knowledge jurors might have (what knowledge they did have is between me and those 14 other people).  And regarding 138.163.128.42's point: there were no obvious opportunities at which a juror could have interjected such a question - a brave juror could have spoken up, I imagine. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Members of the jury in Australia (and I presume in the UK) can't ask direct questions in court. They can, however, ask the jury usher to pass a note to the judge if they find some evidence puzzling. FiggyBee 03:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * From my own limited experience of Jury duty in England - I know that jurors can choose acquit or convict a defendant on any grounds they wish. Judges prefer deliberations to be done on the case but if you don't like the look of someone then there is nothing stopping you from lodging a vote to send them down (you'd have to browbeat the others though). 86.21.74.40 02:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S. it would be very rare for a jury to get to ask their own questions. The most we were allowed when I was on a jury was to ask for portions of the testimony to be reread by the court reporter after deliberations started. As for special knowledge, the jury is not required to check their brains and life experiences at the door. They might make their own judgements about the ability of a witness to see events on a moonless night, or to read a license plate from a block away, or for a small person to beat a big person to death. A great concern is, though, when a juror proclaims that he is an expert and has an undue influence on the jury, since he was never vetted in court as to his degree of expertise, and might be misinformed or lying. The voir dire gave the attorneys an opportunity to learn the profession of each juror. If one of them says he is a vacuum cleaner salesman and gets on the jury, then in deliberation in a case involving brain surgery he announces he used to be a neurosurgeon and the facts presented in court are wrong, or that he is a firearms expert and the killer could not possibly have hit the victim from the range claimed, it seems like a miscarriage of justice. Another juror can send a note to the judge when there is juror misbehavior like this, and sometimes the problem juror is removed and replaced by an alternate, and the deliberation resumes from the start. A mistrial is another possibility. Courts absolutely do not want jurors to visit the crime scene, or to Google the persons involved in the case, or to check out the scientific testimony in Wikipedia, or to ask their friend the doctor about the medical testimony. Edison 03:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In a real life case, if the pertinent facts about the dosage/toxicity of the substance did not come out during the trial, substantiated by "expert" witnesses, then somebody isn't doing their job. It's the judge's responsibility to ensure that every possible fact that could be pertinent to the accused getting a fair trial is made known to the court.  If this information could be of significant value to the defence, and the defence hasn't bothered to mention it, the judge would "discuss the matter" with the defence lawyers and ensure it was mentioned.  The system assumes this will happen, and that the jurors can go off and consider the evidence they've heard, in the knowledge that there's nothing they're missing, and they don't need - indeed, to answer your question, they are not permitted - to take any other factors into account.  --  JackofOz 08:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in the concept of jury nullification, although the legal status of it is much in dispute. -- 00:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.112.21 (talk)

why was there no Czech War in 1939?
After Hitler broke the Munich Pact and marched into Prague why did the Czech national army not defend the borders? (I'm not referring to the negotiated 1938 Sudetenland occupation) --Gosplan 23:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Czechoslovakia had lost all of its border fortifications as a result of the Munich Agreement. In March 1939 a separate Slovak state was created, led by Josef Tiso and under German patronage.  The rump Czech republic was surrounded by hostile territory on all sides with no allies.  It was not defensible.  Clio the Muse 23:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Czechs might have had a chance to slow down the Nazi advance if not defeat it entirely. I understand the country had a triple line of defense -- the first two were ceded to Germany after Munich, but the third was still there. But Hitler and Goering told Emil Hacha that if he refused to sign the papers turning over his country to the Nazis, the Luftwaffe would immediately start bombing Prague. Aware of what happened to Guernica, Hacha complied. Keep in mind that the Czechs had come to the conclusion in 1938 that it could not win a war against Germany without Allied support. That was when they still had the mountains. As for the Allies, Britain and France refused to declare war in March 1939 because they claimed no "unprovoked aggression" had taken place against the Czechs. Six years later, Nuremburg prosecutors would argue very differently. -- Mwalcoff 00:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is axiomatic that resistance, any level of resistance, would have slowed the German entry into Prague. But the rump Czech state, with its centres of industry and population minutes away from Luftwaffe bases in Germany and Austria, would have been destroyed by overwhelming force.  In simple strategic terms the Czech republic in March 1939 was like a 'pocket', cut off from all external sources of support, surrounded by hostile forces, facing a Cannae-like battle of annihilation.  I come back to my essential point: the country was not defensible.  Clio the Muse 02:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't doubting you, Clio, just adding more detail. As I said, if the Czechs felt they couldn't win without the Allies in '38, they certainly wouldn't have changed their mind in '39. The failure of Britain and France to honor their "guarantee" to the Czechs in '39 is just one more example of Western perfidy toward Central Europe, as in '38, '45, '56 and '61. -- Mwalcoff 16:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)