Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 October 28

= October 28 =

"Greetings"
Hi, does anyone know the exact drum notation to Phil Collin's Both Sides of the Story? --Writer Cartoonist 00:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The costume of a French physician in 1650
Was there anything about the appearance of a physic in 1650ish France that would have marked him as such?

Thanks very much, Adambrowne666 00:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You might try looking at the Sumptuary law article. It says there that in 1629 and 1633, Louis XIII of France decreed some new laws about what one could or couldn't wear. Try googling the two. In England, if that's of any use, during the same period, Doctors wore scarlet gowns (see Andrew Gurr, The Shakespearean Stage, p.198). DionysosProteus 01:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not all "doctors" were doctors of medicine, and robes were strictly ceremonial. Rembrandt's "Dr Tulp's Anatomy Lesson" shows a Dutch doctor of 1632. Some further illustrations are here. Mid-century men of the learned professions wore black and showed a good deal of clean starched linen, soberer than the aristocrats illustrating 1600-1650 in fashion. --Wetman 07:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. The sumptuary laws, yeah: I think we need reverse sumptuary laws now, to stop rich middle class kids dressing up like poor people from the ghettoes. Adambrowne666 23:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the fallacy in this proof?
QED? Maybe I’m just being stupid. It’s too late where I am. --S.dedalus 07:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) A point is defined as having no volume, area or length.
 * 2) We can observe that we exist in a single point in time (the present).
 * 3) Since a point cannot by definition have length at least one of the following must be true: time does not exist, change does not exist (no kinetic energy), or the universe exists at more than one point in time simultaneously (possibly at infinite points in time simultaneously).


 * Well, first, you define a point in terms of extent in space, and then shift to talking about extent in time. But that's only a technicality and can be corrected by defining a point in time as having no duration.


 * The fallacy is simply that you have not introduced any logical basis for assuming that if a point in time has no duration, then the conclusions stated in the final step must fullow. See also Zeno's paradox.


 * --Anonymous, posting at a point in time called 07:25 UTC, October 28, 2007.


 * The practice of using terms of space (length, etc) when describing time is a metaphor. We speak of "timelines", "a long time", etc... but this is just a pattern of analogy in our language. Does time really have length? The metaphor is so deeply ingrained in English it seems obvious that time is a dimension with geometric features. The metaphor may be useful in thinking about time and space in abstract ways, but is this is the way time really works? Is the past lined up in measurable units? Is the future? We impose the metaphor of spatial units on time past and time future, and for practical purposes it works well enough. But is time really like this? Personally, I don't think anyone really understands time. We make due with a metaphorical hack. Pfly 08:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case, even if you extend the geometric metaphor it doesn't work. It is akin to saying that a point being on any (geometrical) line means that the line does not exist. Even if you really take the geometric timeline metaphor seriously (e.g. with a Minkowskii spacetime diagram or something like that) it doesn't work—a given point on a timeline does not mean that time (the progression of points along the timeline, which is the metaphor proper) does not exist. And I have no idea why the universe would exist at multiple points in time—that doesn't at all follow from that logic. In other words, #2 mixes metaphors, #3 then draws very strange conclusions from the mixed metaphors which are not by any means self-evident. --24.147.86.187 15:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) A point has no volume, area, or length.
 * (2) When an infinite number of points are joined together, they form what we call a line.
 * (3) A point in time has no duration.
 * (4) When an infinite number of these points are joined together, they form what we call the flow of time.


 * You can see that by extension, time has no more reason to exist than lines do if the original metaphor is followed. --Bowlhover 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but isn’t this just hypotheses, since it is impossible to prove the existence of any point other than the present, and if time is a line, than those other point must simultaneously exist in some form.? --S.dedalus 18:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, are you asking if the metaphor of "time is a line" is literal or not? Because nobody here is arguing that. You can't use metaphors and expect them to render terribly rigorous logical deductions. And depending on what your definition of "proof" is, I think it is pretty generally accepted that there is plenty of "proof" that the non-present has occurred in the past at the very least. If you don't buy that, then you probably don't have a rigorous definition of "the present" to begin with, so why even bother. --24.147.86.187 03:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nazi war criminal
I was wondering by what process an ordinary, decent individual turns into a war criminal? I have Nazi Germany in mind but will accept all and every answer. Thanks. Stockmann 06:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * People feel helpless when being threatened with the loss of life, liberty, family and employment, so they go along with whatever is asked of them by their leaders. Or they are genuinely persuaded to believe that what they are doing is for the good of their country, their religion or their cause. Many of the worst possible acts prey on the best of intentions.-Jayne Ravensburg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.237.114.10 (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Power. Enough power will corrupt anyone. If there is no-one to check on you and you can do with others as you please, it takes an incredibly strong will to resist all the temptations you will come up with over time. Also, it goes one step at a time. You start with doing little bad things, get used to them, take it one step further, get used to that, etc. Years ago I saw a rather good film about this, in which a nazi criminal (a doctor, I believe - Mengele type) visits a couple of his old victims (or were they offspring?) in an attempt to make them understand how he got to the point where he did the horrible things he did. Can't for the life of me remember the name of the film, though. DirkvdM 11:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Some articles you might be interested in reading: Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (and Little Eichmanns), Milgram experiment, Stanford prison experiment, and Asch conformity experiments. ---Sluzzelin talk  11:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And while you're at it, you might look at Christopher Browning's book Ordinary Men, a classic study of how a bunch of "ordinary Germans" became the instruments of the Holocaust in Poland (and yes, I know that Goldhagen says it is crap, but I think Goldhagen's thesis is more than a bit silly. Obviously local political and cultural context matters—Browning would not dispute that—but claiming some sort of diabolical exceptionalism is a bit much). Personally I have also found the end of Dave Grossman's On Killing useful in this respect; war crimes give short-term power to those who commit them, they give solidarity, and then give a feeling of no-turning-back (since to lose will mean execution). In the long-run, though, they demoralize and if made public ensure that the enemy will no longer peacefully surrender (which is one of the main reasons that the US military never supported anything like torture—until very recently, unfortunately), which are obviously detriments to military effectiveness. --24.147.86.187 18:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in a recently published account of the career of Karl Brandt-Karl Brandt: The Nazi Doctor Medicine and Power in the Third Reich by Professor Ulf Schmidt. Schmidt has 'reconstructed' the life of Brandt from bottom to top, reaching some surprising and disturbing conclusions in the process. His chief conclusion is that Brandt's actions were formed and conditioned by events, rather than by any deeply held beliefs.

Brandt's road from a follower of Albert Schweitzer's 'reverence for life' school to a mass killer was caused, in Schmidt's analysis, by a succession of key life events.

First of all, while he was working as a young doctor in the mining town of Bochum he had to deal with patients horrendously injured in accidents, many of whom pleaded for death. There was nothing he could do, for mercy killing was illegal under the Weimar Republic. When the restriction was set aside during the Third Reich, he was already predisposed towards the euthanasia programme, which he took part in from 1939 to 1941.

Second, horrified by his experience at Stalingrad, where he saw many of the soldiers die as a result of diseases exacerbated by malnutrition, he conceived a plan to develop high calorie, low volume artificial foods. These were to be tested on concentration camp inmates.

The third facror was his experience of the Allied fire-bombing bombing of Hamburg in 1943, which left many people terribly burned. Disturbed that many of these people were denied hospital treatment because of bed shortages, Brandt reacted by secretly relaunching the euthanasia programme, abandoned in 1941 under public pressure.

The final stage was his mustard gas experiments in concentration camps, a response to rumours that the allies were planning to use this form of attack on German cities, and intended to find a cure for inhalation.

From beginning to end there were acute forms of moral abdication; but Brandt's personal road to hell was one paved with a perverted sense of good intentions. Clio the Muse 02:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In the words of Max Lerner, "When evil acts in the world, it always manages to find instruments who believe that what they do is not evil but honorable." Xn4  18:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Black loyalists in the Bahamas
After the American War of Independence a number of Black Loyalists took refuge in the Bahamas, where Lord Dunsmore was governor. Can anyone tell me what became of them? 81.156.7.159 08:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope someone finds a good answer to this! I did a bit of web research and didn't find much after Dunsmore's departure (when some of his own slaves fled.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The situation, 81.156, is not entirely clear. Many of the black émigrés who had fought with the British Army were issued with certificates of freedom as a result of Lord Dunmore's proclamation. But there were still others who had no such protection, just as there were white loyalists, former slave owners, who had also taken refuge in the Bahamas, and were anxious to recover their human capital. In all some 1600 white Loyalists came to the Bahamas, together with about 5,700 Africans. The Loyalists at once tried to set up the same slave-based economy on the islands that bhey were used to in the former American colonies. But in a great many cases they had only the sketchiest proofs of ownership, and many of the blacks claimed immunity under Dunmore's proclamation, whether they were entitled or not. In the upheaval of the wars these people had obtained a kind of liberty, which they were not prepared to surrender without resistance.

There is evidence that at many of the black people were subject to extensive re-enslavement by legal trickery. In 1784 John Maxwell, then governor wrote, "...the poor slave obtained his freedom by doing an Act, which all nations respect which is, most of these wretches deserted from their Masters in the field...the Masters deceive them and pretend a Bill of sale for them on Landing." In response many of the slaves ran away, singly or in groups, a practice known as petit-marronage. In the course of the 1780s the practice was so widespread that it was becoming a serious problem for the colonial administration, especially as petit-marronage began to turn into grand-marronage, with the formation of permanent communities of runaways. Even Nassau, the capital, had quarters dominated and controlled by the independent blacks. The situation was critical by the time that Dunmore arrived to take over the governorship in October 1787.

The white colonists looked for Dunmore's support in their campaign or re-enslavement; but his sympathies were with the black runaways, and he assured London that "I shall do everything in my powers to give these people redress." In November 1787 he declared an amnesty for runaways, offering hearings to all blacks claiming their freedom in a special court set up for the purpose. Although most who appeared before the 'freedom court' were, in fact, returned to slavery, the white planters were outraged by the principle that had been established, which shifted the burden of proof on to the slave-owners, in the process undermining the whole basis of colonial slave law. Black people were now able to act as subjects, rather than objects of the law. This came at a time, moreover, when the institution of slavery was under attack across the Atlantic world, with William Wilberforce introducing his first Bill to abolish the slave trade in 1788, while slavery itself was being abolished in the northern United States. Slavery would continue in the Bahamas as elsewhere in the British Empire, though it was now very much on the defensive. Clio the Muse 02:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What is meant by the 1848 revolution of the liberals
it's a question specified in my history class

i need to know what is exactly meant by the 1848 revolution of the liberals (Europe), what were the political and economical ideas supported by the liberals —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord thinker (talk • contribs) 09:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You can start by looking at Revolutions of 1848. AndyJones 11:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

thx i got what i neede :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord thinker (talk • contribs) 11:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Spanish Galleon" by Brittni
I am seeking information on an artist by the name of Brittni or specific information on a work titled "Spanish Galleon." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.237.114.10 (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether this is what you're looking for, but there's a painting titled Sail Away (reminiscent of a Spanish galleon) by artist Brittni Wood. ---Sluzzelin talk  12:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sir Richard and Catholic Emancipation
Why was Sir Richard Vyvan, eighth baronet, such a determined opponent of Catholic emancipation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishbard (talk • contribs) 13:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Opposition to Catholic emancipation was widespread in England, and until almost the last minute was the policy of the leading Tories, who included Wellington and Peel. But following a by-election win by Daniel O'Connell (who was disabled from taking his seat in the House of Commons) they feared a revolution in Ireland, and Peel said later "Though emancipation was a great danger, civil strife was a greater danger". Vyvyan was a leading representative of the more reactionary (or Church of England) wing of the Tory Party, which took the view that Catholic emancipation would fundamentally undermine the political stability of the UK, at worst leading ultimately (and in the event they proved right) to mounting pressure for Irish independence, and in any event significantly changing the balance of the House of Commons. They became known as the Ultra-Tories, and some of them left the party after the Catholic Relief Act 1829. Vyvyan has an online article in the Dictionary of National Biography, which quotes the obituary in the Annual Register for 1879, p. 212: "Although unswerving in his attachment to the principles of toryism, he was far from being a subservient supporter of his party". The DNB goes on to say "He disapproved of the concession of Roman Catholic emancipation, and early in 1830 announced his intention of weakening the Wellington administration as much as possible... Although Vyvyan recognized the need for change in the electoral system he strongly opposed the Reform Bill. On its second reading on 21 March 1831 he was put forward by the tories as their spokesman to move that it should be postponed for six months. When the boom of cannon announced the approach of William IV to dissolve parliament on 22 April 1831, Vyvyan was engaged in moving the rejection of the Reform Bill so vehemently that it was only 'by pulling him down by the skirts of his coat' [Annual Register 1879, p. 212 again] that he was compelled to take a seat."   Xn4  22:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Vyvyan was probably one of the last of the old guard to stand by the Constitition as settled by the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Catholics had to be prevented from holding public office, in his view, because they were loyal to a foreign power and hostile to the established churches in England and Ireland.  After Wellington granted Catholic Emancipation Vyvyan accused him of surrendering to a 'great conspiracy, orchestrated by the Pope and the Jesuits, to destroy the civil and religious liberty of nations.'  Now the leader of the reactionary Tory Ultras, he even went so far as to plot with the Duke of Cumberland, brother of George IV, to have the Prime Minister removed from office.  Already eccentric to begin with, Vyvyan began to develop political obsessions bordering on outright paranoia.  Wellington, he believed, was in league not just with the Pope but also with the Tsar and other despots to enslave the peoples of Europe.  He even saw Robert Peel's new Metropolitan Police Force as the nucleus of a standing army!  Vyvyan and the Ultras were, in the end, to be instrumental in the downfall of Wellington's ministry, when they voted against the government in a division on the civil list, tiping the balance in favour of the opposition.  Clio the Muse 03:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Strasser and Goebbels
In his memoir Otto Strasser says that in the mid-1920s, when Josef Goebbels was still connected to the left wing faction of the Nazi Party in the north of Germany, he openly demanded the expulsion of the 'petty-bourgeois' Adolf Hitler from the movement. Is there any other evidence for this? If it is true why was no action ever taken against Goebbels? 217.44.78.131 13:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume you are referring to Hitler and I, 217.44? In any case I urge you to treat anything Otto Strasser says with extreme caution.  The only source for the alleged remark-clearly intended to cause trouble for Goebbels-is the account given by Strasser.  If you would like a true insight into Goebbels' attitude towards Hitler at this time, the true measure of his boyish devotion, you could do no better than to read his diaries for 1925 and 1926, which conclude just before he was appointed Gauleiter of Berlin in November of that year.  These are all the more revealing because, unlike the later diaries, they were never intended for publication.  Clio the Muse 01:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
In what way is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People not a race based organization? 71.100.9.205 14:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Because its membership isn't restricted to a single race? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 15:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That takes care of membership. Now, how about purpose?  Clem   16:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Define "race based organization", then. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A "race based organization" is an organization who's purpose is based on race. Now please define "Advancement" for me. 71.100.9.205


 * Is there more context to your question? I'm not sure that I understand what kind of answer you're looking for. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It just strikes me as funny that colored people are always complaining about discrimination on the basis of race, yet seem incapable of being beyond reproach themselves. 71.100.9.205 17:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the teletubies are part of it. Their the only colored people I know of. Ow ... they mean a different shade of brown? Keria 18:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read the article you will find that at the time the organization was created use of the phrase "people of color" or "colored people" was commonly used to distinguish between Caucasians and what are referred to today as Blacks. 71.100.9.205 18:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why it is "funny" to you, but indeed, minority groups who complain about discrimination often form organizations to support their fight against discrimination. If you are saying that that is the same thing as discrimination itself, then you need to think it through a little bit more. The NAACP does not advocate discrimination of any sort. The "advancement" is meant to be in respect to previous and present lack-of-advancement due to discrimination. In any case, the category of "colored people" here is one defined mostly by the discrimination, and while I guess in some sense it might at first seem "ironic" that groups tend to, in effect, embrace the categories of discrimination, but this is, of course, to be expected in such a situation, where there is no real possibility of undoing socially imposed categories by the imposed-upon group by simply ignoring them. In any case, if you can't tell the difference between, say, the NAACP and the KKK, then you really aren't thinking hard enough. --24.147.86.187 18:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The OP's question in fact does address arguments I've heard, including yours, that reverse discrimination and racism or a race based purpose as represented by the NAACP can be defended if the NAACP does not burn crosses or use violence or otherwise adopt the methods or operate in a similar manner as the KKK. If this difference in operation is sufficient to justify its practice and purpose of racism, or discrimination based on race, then what purpose is there for the NAACP to exist? Certainly not that racism or race based discrimination is bad.  Clem   04:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have always believed that the organization would be more appropriately named if it simply dropped the "C" from its initialism. — Michael J  02:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not unless its purpose of racism or race based discrimination changed as well.  Clem   04:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's a valid criticism. If there was a National Association for the Advancement of White People, which was exactly the same as the NAACP, except that they provided scholarships, etc., for whites, this would be seen as a horrible racist organization.  I agree that we should have something more like the National Association for the Equality of All People, which should fight discrimination against blacks and whites (racially based quotas, for example) and everyone else.  You don't end discrimination with more discrimination. StuRat 05:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't that what the American Civil Liberties Union does, in its efforts "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States"? Rockpock  e  t  07:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Does that argument apply to organizations that provide support and advocacy exclusively for deaf people, or blind people, or people who've suffered cancer, or people who've experienced domestic violence, or people who suffer from depression, ... ad infinitum? There are lots of people who are born or become members of minority groups, and many such people are unfairly and unjustly discriminated against and victimised in all sorts of ways.  Why shouldn't they be able to join an organization that actually helps them, without the organization being branded as discriminatory, in the very worse worst sense of the word?  Why is the NAACP different in essence from the Left-Handed Gay Depressive Jewish League of America?  Such organisations do indeed practise discrimination, because they generally deny membership to people who don't satisfy their criteria (deaf, ...) - but surely it's discrimination in the very best sense of the word.  --  JackofOz 07:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (Isn't it very worst  ?) Those groups have a "valid need" for different treatment: deaf people, for example, need hearing aides, cochlear implants, sign language, etc., so a group working for those things isn't a bad idea. Blacks don't need anything different from what everyone else needs: an end to discrimination against everyone.  An exception might be cultural organizations.  An org to preserve the culture, dress, and language of Zulus wouldn't be objectionable, any more than an org to preserve Scottish heritage is. StuRat 12:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (Oops, typo. Tks)  Well, I think it's very big of you, StuRat, to magnanimously decide which minority groups are validly deserving of different treatment and which ones aren't.  Thank God we have you to make these decisions for us.  Correct me if I'm wrong but I've always assumed you were a Caucasian male.  If you were a member of an ethnic minority group that has received very, very unequal treatment in the past from the majority, I think you might just be a little jaded and sceptical about that majority's capacity or willingness to suddenly see things in the wonderful new utopian light you're advocating, and to act accordingly.  It's fine to say, let's all treat each other as human beings without regard to any external differences.  That's a very worthy goal, one that I've always aspired to.  But Rome wasn't built in a day, and in the meantime, allowing people free association is one of the cornerstones of your nation's Constitution, is it not?  People don't just associate randomly; they do so because they have something in common.  In this case, it's the fact that their ethnicity is a huge barrier in ways that people of non-African background never even have to consider.  And now you're saying that African-Americans shouldn't be able to come together for mutual support and an effort to level out the playing field a bit.  No offence, but I can't help thinking of apartheid - remember the days when non-white South Africans couldn't congregate in groups of more than 3 people?  It wasn't very long ago.  --  JackofOz 14:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * StuRat, any minority living in a country which has a recent history of systematic and institutionalized racism is going to be in a different category than the majority who perpetuated that system. If you don't see why that might be, you might want to get out of your house a little bit, visit the "bad" parts of town, see what life is like there, talk with the people, try putting yourselves in their shoes. Or at least do a little more than play armchair sociologist, happily declaring all people equal, 'cause, gosh darn it, that's how it ought to be. Shucks, says StuRat, wouldn't it be great if racial discrimination had never existed? Shucks, why pretend it ever did, if we are trying to make it go away? Let's just pretend everything is starting over from scratch, and that nothing of the past ever mattered... --24.147.86.187 04:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I recommend that everyone here take a good look at the Before asking a question section at the top of the page. Rule #4 is Do not start debates or post diatribes.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  --M @ r ē ino 13:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can terrorism be legally justified?
I'm interested in whether any countries or international bodies have laws which could be used to justify terrorist action.

In the term 'terrorist action', I include acts of violence against the state, such as assasination of political leaders or resistence to the military, as well as terrorism against civillians.

It seems unlikely that any state would actively support terrorism in its legal structure. But are there any laws which promote, for example, self-determination, or the right to bring down a tyrant? And could these laws be used by terroist groups to justify their actions?

xox Joshua.c.j 17:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Bringing down a tyrant is never a legal action, but that does not mean it is not a just action. That being said, there have been many instances of state-sponsored terrorism in the past and present, but they are never (almost) "legal" in a strict sense—that is, they may be legally authorized by one state against another, but they under the laws of the country in which the acts are perpetrated they are almost always against the law. The "almosts" here come from the fact that the line between "terrorism" and "legitimate military action" is often very blurred (bombing of civilians in Baghdad by Shiites = terrorism. Bombing of civilians in Baghdad by the US = collateral damage. Indiscriminate and purposeful killing of American civilians by Al Qaeda with the goal of scaring them into enacting a political/military action = terrorism. Indiscriminate and purposeful killing of Japanese and German civilians during WWII with the goal of scaring them into enacting a political/military action = costs of total war.) Here, mind you, the overriding "legal" question quickly becomes under whose authority the acts were carried out: if in the name and under the authority of the state, then they often become "legal" and are described in euphemistic terms; if under the authority of a non-state entity, they quickly become "terrorism". No non-state terrorist could hope to justify their actions in a court of law of the state they perpetuated them against. --24.147.86.187 18:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your "bombing of civilians in Baghdad" examples ignore that the terrorists kill civilians intentionally, while the US kills them accidentally (with a few exceptions which are treated as murder cases and sent to court). This is the diff between running down someone intentionally with your car (murder) or accidentally.  Your WW2 example is better.  All sides intentionally targeted civilians.  I suppose you can call this terrorism, but most people wouldn't apply that term to "total war".  Having the very survival of your nation depend on defeating an enemy which can only be forced to surrender in this way is a special case, not normally called terrorism. StuRat 05:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that's his point - it's not normally called terrorism, but basically it's the same. It's the intentional killing of civilians to convince the other side to give in. Most acts of what is normally called terrorism have to do with the survival of the nation of the attackers (in the form they desire, of course). DirkvdM 07:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's that "form they desire" part that makes all the diff. If the Western nations set up death camps and were exterminating the Arab population, then I'd say attacks against Western civilians would be justified.  However, murdering civilians to create a global caliphate of Sunni Muslims is not justified.  For one thing, any "end justifies the means" argument must actually have a good chance of succeeding, and al Queada's plan has no chance of success. StuRat 13:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * At the moment there are between 76,000 and 83,000 Iraqi civilian deaths from the US's decision to unseat Saddam Hussein. The motivations for the war are murky but I think any reasonable observer would question whether they can be in good faith ascribed to as "just" at this point. I think ascribing the deaths to being "accidental" pushes the definition quite a bit—you'd have to be a total dummy to think that tens of thousand of people weren't going to die from the sort of situation the US put in place, it's as good as marking down their death certificates.
 * In any case, I'm not sure how the fire or atomic bombing of Japan during WWII can be defended as being done because "the very survival" of the United States was in question. There was no chance then for Japan to destroy the American nation. Heck, it was pretty clear that even the Nazis weren't going to destroy the United States (and the firebombing of Dresden, as is well known now and was not totally unknown then, had no real military effect). The bombings did not accomplish any appreciable military goals—they were terrorism, plain and simple, the goal being to destroy the "will of the people" by killing "the people." They were cold blooded and calculated to kill as many people and destroy as much area of a civilian city as possible. They not only made no pretension to precision, they intentionally tried to figure out how to better magnify the effects to make them more "impressive". It is amazing how in the beginning of the war, when a Nazi bomb mistakenly hit a schoolhouse the British were up in arms about how barbaric it was, but destroying hundreds of schoolhouses would become entirely acceptable... --24.147.86.187 15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima had nothing to do with the survival of the US. Japan was ready to surrender. Negotiations were in an advanced stadium. It's just that they didn't want their emperor to be dethroned. Not surprising, since he was considered a god, so Japan was basically forced to give up its religion (or betray it, rather). Another thing is if it was necessary to bomb major cities.
 * Concerning the lack of precision, that even went so far that one US bombing hit the wrong country. The bombs were dropped on Nijmegen (see halfway down the history section). My mother was there at the time, though luckily not in the city centre. She was biking outside the city when she saw it happen and said it looked quite beautiful from a distance. But when afterwards she went back, she found the centre destroyed. She wanted to help in a hospital, but all she could do was hold the hands of dying people. Luckily she's got a very down-to-earth attitude, or that would have been quite traumatising. One detail she remembers is a guy who had lost both arms wanted to have his hair combed, so she did that for him. Silly, the things one does when dying and the details one remembers. DirkvdM 20:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So far as I know, the bringing down of a tyrant isn't promoted by any national laws anywhere. That doesn't mean that in all circumstances there's no "right to bring down a tyrant", and it also doesn't mean that such action is bound to be unlawful. However, one difficulty in dealing with your question is that the word "tyrant" isn't a word used in constitutional or international law, so it doesn't have a clear meaning. Frankly, the question of who is a tyrant is a subjective one, and it also doesn't have much to do with the lawfulness of action to bring down a government.


 * The principle of self-determination is recognized in international law, viz., that nations have the right to choose which states they belong to, where necessary in a free and fair vote. But what amounts to a "nation" and which groups of people have the right to sovereignty are contentious questions. Sometimes self-determination is stalemated by the principle of territorial integrity, which is part of the UN Charter (in Chapter 1, Article 2).


 * Southern Rhodesia was a self-governing colony of the United Kingdom which declared its own independence in 1965 (UDI) without the acceptance of the colonial power and also without fully democratic support. The colony's small electorate was almost entirely white and excluded most of the black majority. So in terms of international law, Southern Rhodesia's governments after 1965 lacked both lawful authority and international recognition and could be called unlawful. I wouldn't myself describe the leader of most of those governments, Ian Smith, as a tyrant, but it's at least arguable that he was one. In those circumstances, it would have been entirely lawful (both in UK law and in international law) for the UK to have used force to bring down this unlawful government and this possible 'tyrant'. In the event, there wasn't the political will to do that, and it was a long period of sanctions, together with local resistance which became a civil war (see Rhodesian Bush War), which brought down the rebel state. Some elements of that process (such as the indiscriminate killing of civilians by counter-rebels who were generally called 'terrorists') were clearly unlawful in UK law, as well as in Rhodesian law, and I don't know of anything in international law which overcomes that. However, in 1980, following the Lancaster House Agreement which brought Zimbabwe Rhodesia to a lawful independence, all participants on both sides of the civil war were granted an amnesty which is part of Zimbabwe's constitution. Clearly, the amnesty was intended to protect the ZANU and ZAPU 'terrorists' as well as the UDI rebels, and the ill-starred settlement of the civil war wouldn't have been possible without it.  Xn4  20:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. - Assassination of political leaders and terrorism against civilians are crimes. Resistance to military forces isn't always a crime, especially if the military forces are themselves acting unlawfully. Xn4  01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not exactly a national law but the United States Declaration of Independence argues forcefully that revolution against a tyrant is not just a fundamental human right but also a "duty." Also, the New Hampshire Constitution explicitly includes the "Right of Revolution" in article 10. Terrorism is a nebulous concept, but I wouldn't call all revolutions terrorism. In my mind, terrorism must include intentional attacks on civilians. Attacks on tyrants or uniformed military don't count. --D. Monack | talk 01:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It may be inconvenient to those doing the attacking, but as a matter of law tyrants and those in military uniforms have just the same right as civilians not to be attacked unlawfully. Xn4  01:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Thomas Jefferson and I disagree with you. Under natural law theory, a tyrant is by definition is acting illegally and thus violence may be necessary to depose him. Anyone defending a tyranny is to be treated similarly. So, no, tyrants don't have the same rights as civilians. I disagree with the premise of Joshua.c.j's original question as I don't see any of this as terrorism. --D. Monack | talk 02:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But that's not legal. It may be just, but it has nothing to do with any law on the books. And it might be worth noting that you are essentially arguing in favor of vigilantism as well. Natural law is a lousy recourse, since everybody sees themselves as freedom fighters, everybody finds their cause to be just. --24.147.86.187 15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I also disagree, Xn4. One of the most fundamental laws of war is that civilians are to receive better treatment than those in the military. StuRat 05:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, a difficulty here is how to define a tyrant. But another problem is that in a democracy, the people are supposed to have elected the leader and if that person turns out to be a tyrant (vis a vis another country) then aren't they also responsible? Of course that counts only for the ones who voted for that party/person, and targeting just them would be rather tricky. For another, related, twist, what about the plane that was flown into the Pentagon? That was a military target, so was it terrorism? DirkvdM 07:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think civilians should be killed just for choosing the wrong leader. And yes, I'd call the Pentagon a military target, but the civilians on the plane were also the target.  Then there is the issue of non-state organizations committing acts of violence.  This also is a criterion for terrorism.  The problem with this practice is that, unlike a nation that does so, non-state orgs can never be completely defeated, and rarely "win", so you end up with endless war. StuRat 13:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If they declared to be a country, how many other countries would have to recognise it for it to cease being terrorism? Were the bombings of cities by the nazis (or the allies for that matter) not terrorism because they were done by a regular army? That's a lousy definition of the word. It's about causing terror and the random killing of civilians is a good indicator. The civilians on the plane can probably be regarded as unintended victims because they were not the target - the Pentagon was. What else could the attackers have done? Let them get off the plane? DirkvdM 20:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know it is exactly what you are referring to, but Israel is unusual in that it openly admits to having a policy of carrying out extra-judicial killings (assassinations) in certain circumstances. Depending on your point of view, I guess this could be considered a "terrorist" action. Its also not entirely clear whether the policy is sanctioned by Israeli law. Rockpock  e  t  07:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That would apply only to the ruling minority, not to the people as a whole, but still, it fits the question to a degree. Now, are there more such examples? What about colonies? There, the minority is usually smaller still. So a right for self-defence by the invaders makes sense. What about the Wild West? Weren't the immigrants allowed to kill the natives, including their leaders? That seems to fit the question perfectly. But was this laid down in law? DirkvdM 08:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder if terrorism could bring down a leader (tyrant or not). That would mean giving up all power, and that would more likely require an uprising of a large part of the population. Which basically means large-scale terrorism. However, if the leader only has to give up part of his power, say territories, then it might be enough to persuade him. And that's what most terrorist actions are about.
 * However, your question seems to be about permitting terrorism in the country itself, so a constitution that says that if a tyrant (however defined) comes into power, the people have a right to revolt. I don't see the point in that. First, a tyrant could just change that law. Second, would it affect what the people do? If they are going to put their lives on the line, it is rather unlikely that they will care about whether the law allows it.
 * Also, people would have to have the means too. In Cuba, people are trained to fight guerrilla warfare, just in case the US breaks the Cuban crisis agreement and attacks. This could be used against the government if it were regarded as a tyranny. Giving people the means to revolt is much more effective than making it legal. And of course it could also be used against an invading force, which would reduce the need for military expenditure, which often constitutes a huge chunk of the GDP. DirkvdM 07:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Could terrorism bring down a leader? Sure, of course. It can certainly assassinate them. Governments have certainly weakened and folded under terrorism. Coups have succeeded in the wake of terrorism. Power has shifted because of terrorism. Etc. --24.147.86.187 15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But the question is if there is a nation that has laws that permit it. DirkvdM 20:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Napoleon's legacy
What legacy, if any, did Napoleonic rule leave in those states returned to their traditional rulers in 1815? 217.43.9.42 17:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Check out Napoleonic_Wars. --24.147.86.187 18:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Angkar-Kampuchea
For work on Angkar i need to know who theses people:

Rhous Hhim

Siet Chhe

Pang

Non Soun

Ney Sarann

Koy Thuon

Hu Nim

For you help thank you. Sreykor 18:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there's an article on Hu Nim. My guess is that you'll need to resort to non-internet research for this, though. --24.147.86.187 21:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there anything at the DC-Cam website? It certainly has some info on Koy Thuon and Chikreng Rebellion. There is a biographical database search/browse for the Yale Cambodian Genocide program here which may contain some of the people (could it be Non Suon rather than Non Soun, for example). Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I can give you some brief details, Sreykor, though if you are in Phnom Penn you will probably find more in the archives of Toul Sleng Genocide Museum.


 * Rhous Hhim. His real name was Moul Oun, also known as Moul Sambath, one time member of the Khmer Issarak.  He was a member of the CPK Central Committee from 1963 and secretary of the North-West Zone.  With Kong Sphal he instigated the Samlaut uprising in 1967.  He was purged and killed at Toul Sleng in 1978.


 * Siet Chhê. Also known as Tum, a former Buddhist monk who worked as a school teacher in Phnom Penn from 1954 to 1964.  He later joined the CPK and became a regional secretary in the Eastern Zone.  In 1975 he accompanied Pol Pot on a visit to Beijung to meet Mao.  He was purged and killed at Toul Sleng in 1977.


 * Pâng. His real name was Chhim Sam Aok.  He was recruited into the CPK by Son Sen while a seventeen-year-old schoolboy in Phnom Penh.  After 1970 he was Pol Pot's chief assistant in administrative matters, a post he continued to hold after the Khmer Rouge victory in 1975.  Purged and killed at Toul Sleng in 1978.


 * Non Soun. Also known as Sen or Chey Soun.  Another ex-Issarak member.  He may have been a member of the Central Committee of the CPK as early as 1960.  He was imprisoned in 1962, only to be released in 1970 after Lon Nol's coup.  He became a CPK regional secretary and Khmer Rouge Minister of Agriculture.  Purged as pro-Vietnamese and killed at Toul Sleng in 1977.


 * Ney Sarann. Also known as Achar Sieng, or Men San or Ya.  Also former Issarak and a teacher in Phnom Pehn in the 1950s.  A member of the CPK since 1964 and secretary of the North-Eastern Zone from 1971.  Also accompanied Pol Pot to Beijing in 1975.  Purged as pro-Vietnamese and killed at Toul Sleng in 1977.


 * Koy Thoun. Alias Khoun or Touch.  A former school teacher, he joined the communist movement in Phnom Penn in 1958.  Head of the Democratic Kampuchea Youth League before fleeing to the North-West Zone, where he became deputy to Ruos Nhim.  Hh was a key player in the Samlaut uprising in 1967.  Member of the Central Committee of the CPK from 1971 and promoted to the Standing Committee in 1978.  He was arrested immediately after this and killed at Toul Sleng.

Let me know if you need any more. Clio the Muse 00:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Norway at the end of WWII
It's not clear from the articles Norway, History of Norway, Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany and Vidkun Quisling what happened in Norway at the end of of World War II. Norway and History of Norway speak of liberation. But it appears that Quisling was arrested the day after the Germans capitulated and Norway wasn't "liberated" by allied forces. How many Germans were still Norway at this point? Were any allied forces in Norway at all? Did Quisling let himself be arrested? Jooler 19:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * After the 400,000 or so German soldiers, sailors, and airmen in Norway surrendered, Quisling's government was effectively powerless. They attempted to negotiate some sort of surrender themselves, but were refused and told to turn themselves in at a police station or be arrested by the police. There wasn't any organised Allied force in occupied Norway at the surrender although the Finnmark had been liberated in late 1944. There were resistance forces, and police too, while Milorg had tens of thousands of armed and trained volunteers in Sweden. The 1st Airborne Division and Norwegian forces in Britain weren't sent to Norway until some days after the surrender. Until that happened, the Germans looked after themselves. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That was rather sporting of them, wasn't it? - Eron Talk 23:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just one small caveat to Angus' contribution: Quisling's 'government' was always powerless. The real authority in Norway was vested in Josef Terboven, Reichskommissar, and effectively dictator of Norway, until his suicide in May 1945.  Clio the Muse 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Strengths of the UK Constitution
I've written most of an essay on this, but I'm searching for one quote that I saw earlier but haven't refound. It's something like "While Parliament is politically sovereign, X are legislatively/something else sovereign" i.e. that Parliament is ultimately responsible to the electorate. Thanks, RHB - Talk 20:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A. V. Dicey said that the electorate is politically sovereign, while Parliament is legally sovereign. Is that it? Xn4  20:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats the one, Thanks :) RHB - Talk 20:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Lost works of Liszt
Hi. What happened to Liszt's 3 Piano Sonatas (S.725/1-3) that he composed in his youth? They are lost and the only thing I know is that Lina Ramann (his biographer) believes that they are hidden in a chest somewhere. --Funper 22:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, If anyone know the history of Grand solo caractéristique à propos d'une chansonette de Panseron (S.153b, formerly S.754a), that would be great. --Funper 23:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As good as the Ref Desk is, we don't have the location of lost works, unfortunately. I think a good working definition of "lost" is "nobody knows where the thing is (assuming it hasn't been destroyed), or how it got to be wherever it is - or, if anyone knows, they're not telling".   Liszt is believed to have written a great deal of music that is currently lost, including a manual of piano technique, which would be most revelatory.  There are lots of examples of music, once thought lost, turning up in chests, cupboards, or buried in libraries amongst the works of other composers.  Schubert's Rosamunde was believed lost until Robert Schumann rediscovered it 10 years after Schubert's death.  George Grove and Arthur Sullivan (yes, he of Gilbert and Sullivan fame) rediscovered Schubert's Great C major Symphony (No. 9) almost 40 years after his death, in someone's cupboard along with various other bits of "worthless bric-a-brac" such as seven symphonies (!), Masses, operas, chamber works, and a vast quantity of miscellaneous pieces and songs.  So there's always hope.  I wonder what Lina Ramann's evidence for the Liszt sonatas is.  --  JackofOz 00:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have tracked down the book I read. Here are two excerpts mentioning the sonatas:
 * Liszt, in his youth particularly, has composed much, both for the piano and for orchestra, of which nothing has been printed. These compositions divide themselves into two classes those of which we know something, and those of which we know nothing. Among the former which alone, of course, afford a basis for our remarks are to be counted the tantum ergo of his Vienna apprenticeship ; then the sonata with which he mystified Rode, a fragment of which (the introduction) has fallen into my hands ; two other small sonatas, which, as the composer informed me, are written in the same style as the first - each in three parts - his operetta "Don Sancho," a concerto for the piano in A flat (see next chapter), and the above-named overture, all compositions which are preserved in name only by the mention of them in the musical history of that day. Their author, of whom I inquired concerning their fate, supposed that they had been lost owing to the want of a fixed domicile at that time ; but the solicitude which Adam Liszt showed for everything connected with his son's genius does not allow this assumption, according to my opinion, to be altogether adopted ; and I believe that, at some future time, all sorts of things may come forth from strong chests, unknown to himself, in which to this day much lies hid ...


 * Apparently, there were 3 sonatas, each with 3 movements, possibly influenced by Pierre Rode, and hidden in a chest by Adam Liszt.


 * I must not pass by in silence the Sonata fragment which I possess, and at which I have already glanced. It consists of the introduction to the sonata with which the boy played the well-known trick on Pierre Rode. If, indeed, the whole sonata were equal to this introduction, it is no great slur on Rode's knowledge of style for him to have mistaken it for one of Beethoven's youthful productions. It is written in F flat, flowing yet grave, and corresponds so exactly, in the foundation of the theme and the flow of harmony, with the style of the earlier Meister, that anyone might easily suppose it belonged to the classical epoch.


 * This is all that has come down to me. By the way, what does she mean when she says "fixed domicile at that time"? --Funper 14:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think she means a permanent and static location of home (as opposed to ever-changing addresses and relocations). ---Sluzzelin talk  16:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So what Liszt meant is that the sonatas are lost because of the family's constant relocation? --Funper 17:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Concise Oxford English Dictionary vs Oxford English Dictionary
Is the former simply a subset of the latter? Sancho 22:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but the current (2004) edition of the COED is an abbreviation of the second edition of the OED. In the first edition (called the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1911), only the letters A to R were derived from the OED, which had only got that far. The OED was a gigantic task. For instance, J. R. R. Tolkien worked as an assistant on it from 1919 to 1921, his first job after he recovered from the Great War. He spent the two years working on words of Anglo-Saxon and Germanic origins beginning with the letter W. Xn4  00:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Relationship of King Stephen to Elizabeth II
Elizabeth II -descent from William I seems to pass in a direct line through King Stephen who had no immediate heirs come to the throne, yet it is stated that Stephen was QEII's 20th great grandfather. Could you please show me that line of descent-probably through a surviving daughter of king Stephen? Thanks much for your help. RButtemiller68.226.102.103 23:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See Ancestry of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Descent of Elizabeth II from William I and Descent of Elizabeth II from Cerdic. Stephen is not a direct ancestor. The line passes through his uncle of the senior line, Henry I. Jooler 23:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh I see what you're saying now the section article Descent of Elizabeth II from William I incorrectly listed Stephen as 20th Great Grandfather instead of 20th Great Granduncle . 1st Cousin 22 times Removed. I have corrected it. Jooler 23:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I imagine she's descended from Marie of Boulogne, but I can't find the direct lineage. You should probably discuss it on the article's Talk page.  Corvus cornix 23:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * At Talk:Descent of Elizabeth II from William I, User:Charles has said that Elizabeth is indeed descended from Marie of Boulogne, through seven lineages. I've asked there for some documentation.  Charles has reverted your edit, too, Jooler.  Corvus cornix 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)