Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 October 3

= October 3 =

The success of Harry Potter
I have never read a book of the series nor seen a movie and I'm curious. Why do you think Harry Potter has been so successful? --Taraborn 00:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read one of the books (with just a little skipping in places) and also watched a movie based on another. What struck me was that Rowling's work is surprisingly old-fashioned, reworking many of the most popular themes of our juvenile fantasy since the 1890s. There are the magical adventures of E. Nesbit, the wizardry of Ursula K. LeGuin, the boarding school thrills and spills of Enid Blyton, the whimsical seriousness and the capable animals of C. S. Lewis, and something of the mean streak of Roald Dahl. There are definitely reminders of the amiable eccentricity of T. H. White, here and there. Clearly, it all works very well for children, and we know they love fantasy, magic and escapism. And why shouldn't they? Xn4  01:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think (note disclaimer) that it is a combination of timing, style, good management and marketing. Timing, because there was a niche in the market that Rowling filled at the right time. Style, because the writing style, while not of a high literary quality is entirely appropriate to the target age group, as are the plot devices and themes. Good management, because the publisher and other managers picked up the beginnings of a cult (rather than occult) following of the first couple of books and made sure that they were exploited (although not necessarily in a bad way). Marketing, because the publicity and media following the release of the third book onward drummed up further media interest and thus public interest from that. You might also be able to say that the controversy over the role of magic and potential occult uses of the novels, especially in conservative Christian areas further encouraged people to become involved in the Harry Potter universe. Steewi 04:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As a writer, Rowling has some excellent skill when it comes to plot. Her storylines are simultaneously suspenseful and complex. Wrad 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends on who you ask. My friends are polarized between the best book in the world to the worst rubbish in the dustbin.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As a thirtysomething old guy, I'm far from the target audience but when my wife convinced me to read the first book, I was pretty well hooked. I tore through the rest of them.  I'd agree that the storylines are complex.  She draws on events and characters from different places within the universe that keeps the reader entertained.  There are many instances of a Chekhov's gun that aren't as blatant as those devices normally are.  Something that you've written off as just a bit of fluff will turn out to be crucial to the story much later on.  Plus in many places the writing is such that scenes don't drag on longer than they need to.  Dan Brown has been criticized for his use of very short chapters, some consisting of less than a page, to create suspense but Rowling's chapters are lengthy and she's still able to keep a suspenseful tale going.  Dismas |(talk) 04:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Also depends on which book you read, too. The first books are less complex and the language is simpler. This may turn people off. Wrad 04:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Having read none of the books and seen only the first of the films, and not being inspired to get further involved in Harry Potterism, I can't really answer. But it's interesting how the word "cult" (see Seewi's comments above) has taken on two opposing meanings (amongst the many others it has).  An obscure book or film that a quite small group of people are passionate about is said to have a "cult following".  But that expression is also applied to things like Harry Potter that have huge international followings among children and adults alike.  For some reason it's never applied to people like Shakespeare, Beethoven, the Beatles, U2, Picasso or van Gogh, whose popularity is as vast as Harry's.  --  JackofOz 05:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think "fad" is a better word than "cult" for the sudden mass-following. Children are especially prone to follow fads.  Hula hoops, Frisbees, yo-yos, and pet rocks have all inspired fads among children, meaning you are "cool" if you have the item in question, and not if you don't.  The only other group I know of so inspired to following fads is those who follow "high fashion", and just must have the "latest" designer clothes, purses, shoes, jewelry, etc. (with last year's "must-haves" consigned to the trash bin).  Why do some items inspire fads while others don't ?  If I knew that I could make millions.  I suspect there is a substantial random element involved.  StuRat 16:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)  StuRat 16:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In the marketing department, the playing up of the "single mother makes good" angle was very canny, and I think important in the early days. --Sean 13:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say the first few replies pretty much covered most of the ground, although I'd also add that the popularity was partly maintained and built on by the books 'growing up' with the main character (and the original target audience). So people (mostly children) who were suckered in by the first few, more childish, books found that there were more complex thoughts and views in the later books, keeping them interested. Plus, by the end, I was desperate to know what was going to happen to the characters I'd grown up with... Also, the books have that 'something for all the family' quality, as found in many successful films. They have various plots, themes, characters and details which have meanings and resonances for different people. So, they are all quite readable for an average 11 year old (although I wouldn't recommend they read the last few books, they could), but have many elements that will engage older readers. For example, the 'Protect and Survive'-type things in the 6th book, which additionally resonanted with the more recent British government booklets released around the same time as the book. But these things will only have added to and maintained a popularity that probably first built up for reasons given above by others. And Jack, I wouldn't judge the books by the films. I personally hate the films :) Skittle 00:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The more recent booklets I was thinking of were Preparing for Emergencies. Skittle 00:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably because it's target audience can identify with Harry Potter. He is a kid, bullied at school, mistreated by his family. Suddenly his wishes come true, and he enters a fantasy land. While it is exciting at first, he realizes the great responsibility that comes with freedom. This can be compared with entering adulthood. In fact, I consider the whole series to be a sort of "guide" for transition into adulthood, especially when you consider the fantasy tone of the first one versus the cold magick of the last one. Loss of imagination is a common theme in the transition to adulthood (consider the also successful cartoon series The Fairly Odd Parents which contains the same theme.) And of course since pretty much everyone either has made or will make or is making the transition to adulthood, its appeal is very broad.--Mostargue 01:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Homosexual Unions
i just want to know if you can list any other sort of common ground over the debate of homosexual unions/marriages other than love, better for economy, fundamental right of being an american....

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.89.209.193 (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have the right to be an American. - Kittybrewster &#9742; 09:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Without formal union between same-sex partners, many benefits-- such as inheritance, 'widow' pensions, healthcare -- are unavailable. It better serves the community to have such benefits available, in the same way as for heterosexual partners. Rhinoracer —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The strongest legal argument, IMHO, is that homosexuals are denied "equal protection under the law", in that they are not allowed to marry the person of their choice and thus gain the same social and economic benefits, such as a lower tax rate. I would also think this could be argued by those who choose to remain single.  Both cases seem similar to the school desegregation argument.  Once "separate but equal" was proven unworkable because the facilities were not equal, that policy was struck down.  Government could possibly do an end-run around this argument for gay marriage by eliminating all preferential benefits for married couples, but that would mean even more major changes to society than gay marriages would.  Another option is to allow gay marriages, for all pratical purposes, but just call them "civil unions". StuRat 15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by common ground? Do you mean common ground between proponents and opponents of such unions?  I think the main common ground is that they agree on many arguments for the value of marriage as an institution.  For example, marriage allows people to support each other materially and emotionally, it allows people to meet sexual needs in a way that offers a minimum threat to public health and social harmony, it allows people to grow emotionally and to support each other's growth, and it provides a stable and supportive environment for childrearing.  Both opponents and proponents of gay marriage agree on these things.  Where they disagree is that opponents feel that gay marriage would somehow threaten the institution of marriage, whereas proponents of gay marriage do not see such a threat.  Marco polo 14:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I can't agree that opponents agree on many of those points, based on the bizarre rhetoric used by the organization that campaigned against same-sex marriage here in Virginia last year. Much of their time was spent crying "think of the children!" when, in fact, nobody is asking for children to get married.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  14:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I, personally, am part of a long-term homosexual union that my government refuses to recognize. I agree with LarryMac that arguments against gay marriage are illogical. However, I was trying to answer the questioner's ambiguous question about "common ground" in a neutral tone. Marco polo 17:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to maintain the neutral tone, "opponents" say to think about the children because they believe that children should be raised with both a mother and a father figure. --JDitto 22:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Although given the practicalities that is more of a question of gay adoption than gay marriage. There are also of course religious arguments against it. Marriage was originally a religious institution, albeit now with legal recognition, and most religions are against homosexuality. But then I guess atheists like me can get married in registry offices or whatever. But if we say 'one man, one woman' is not the only acceptable form of marriage, where next? 'One man, two women' (sounds good, eh?). 'One Man and His Dog'? Maybe these will be the next equal rights movements, we already have some crazy ones! Cyta 07:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * what is this about "mother and father figure". why not father and mother figure. Or mother and father. All very strsange. - Kittybrewster  &#9742;  02:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan
Was Pakistan created to be a secular state? Is it now secular? - Kittybrewster &#9742; 09:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you read Pakistan and History of Pakistan? It seems clear from those articles (and I have no reason to doubt them) that, although the division between largely-Muslim Pakistan and largely-Hindu-and-Sikh India was drawn on religious grounds, both states were originally founded on a secular ideal. However, Pakistan became an Islamic republic in 1956, and the central place of Islam in constitutional terms was further entrenched by Zia-ul-Haq - see Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization.


 * More recently, Pervez Musharraf is reported as having said that Pakistan was meant to be an Islamic republic and is certainly not a secular state.


 * It may be interesting to contrast other explicitly secular but largely Islamic states, such as Turkey. -- !! ?? 10:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Even before the partition there was a general hope/fear that Pakistan would not be secular. Secularism was, and remains, a central tenet of the Indian National Congress, and pre-partition they continually argued that there was no reason for the Muslim League to even exist, because Congress represented Muslims, too.  Even those people who didn't fear that Pakistan would implement sharia did fear that non-Muslims would face legalized discrimination.  The main reason for the Sikhistan revolts, in fact, was the fear that Sikhs would become second-class citizens twice over after any religion-based Partition that only divided India into 2 parts.  --M @ r ē ino 22:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nazi social policy
I am looking for some material on socail policy in Nazi Germany. I do not mean racial policy, or policies for the mentally impared, but how the state dealt with wider problems of crime and social order, how it dealt with problem groups, the so called asocials like alcoholics and other supposed deviants. I know a lot of these people eventually went to concentration camps. Was no alternative method ever tried?81.151.4.111 12:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring allowed for the sterilization of alcoholics as well as the mentally impaired. --24.147.86.187 13:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In Nazi Germany, being labeled insane, an addict, criminal, etc., had more to do with your ethnicity, religion, and political views than whether you really were any of those things. High Nazi party officials with such problem, like Göring (see Hermann_Göring), had them covered up, while "undesirables" were often falsely labeled with such problems, in the early stages, to justify imprisonment, sterilization, and "euthanasia". StuRat 15:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was a policy specifically directed at a various 'deviant' categories, anything from one-parent families, to the 'work-shy', to homosexuals, to prostitites and many other considered to be socially undesirable. Nazi policy in this area was not entirely novel, as there had been calls during the Weimar Reublic for a more rational approach to the whole question of eugenics, caused by fears over the decline in the 'quality' of the German peopulation, as well as the decline in its quantity. In 1932 a draft sterilisation law was even put forward by the Prussian Health Council, allowing for the voluntary sterilisation of the 'hereditary-ill', though nothing came of this.

When the Nazis came to power they introduced, in addition to the law on the hereditary diseased, the Law Against Dangerous Habitual Criminals, aimed specifically at the asocial, who could be kept in permanent detention if they had two or more convictions. This was supplemented by active campaigns against tramps (hobos), vagrants and beggars. In a seven-day period in September 1933, known as 'Beggars Week', some 10,000 people were taken into custody, though most were soon released because of lack of prison space. Measures became progressively more harsh. The homeless were obliged to carry Vagrants' Registration Books, which recorded their movements. If they did not have such a book they could be imprisoned as 'disorderly wanderers.'

One of the more ambitious schemes to deal with problem families was set up in Bremen in October 1936, a project know as Hashude, effectively a closed colony of undesirables. The aim was to turn them into valuable members of the community by a mixture of education and surveillance. This entailed work and surveillance for the men; observation and control for the women; and training and supervision for the children. In essence it was a kind of half-way stage between a municipal housing project and a concentration camp, a modern version of the English workhouse of the nineteenth century. It was also a kind of laboratory, intended to see if people could be engineered, away from the bad and towards the good. Those who showed improvement would be released back into the general community; those who did not would be sent on to concentration camps.

In the end the scheme only ran for four years, until the summer of 1940, by which time it was concluded that it had been too expensive. Besides, those who believed in the possibility of reform went against the prevailing trend in Nazi eugenics, which insisted that asocial characteristics were hereditary and irreversable. Even before Hashude closed Himmler was advancing more radical solutions to the whole anti-social problem. In December 1937 he ordered various catagories of asocials to be rounded up, including beggars, alcoholics and prostitutes, most of whom were sent to Flossenburg and later to Mauthausen. A further wave of arrests followed in June 1938 with the 'Reich Campaign Against the Work-Shy', which netted some 11,000 people, again sent to concentration camps. Most of them died. Clio the Muse 02:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Campaign against the Work Shy? That's one way to cut unemployment I guess. And more effective than ASBOs. Cyta 07:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Check out Richard Grunberger's A Social History of the Third Reich. It's just been republished. A very interesting book. Jooler 07:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Due diligence phase of a takeover?
So I was reading the "due diligence" section of the takeover article. What, if any, safeguards are in place to prevent a company from proceeding through the due diligence phase, and then backing out of the merger and using that newly gained information to eliminate that company as a competitor? I think this might have been a subject of a Dilbert cartoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.209.45.88 (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

King of sex
What impact, if any, did Charles II's various sexual liasons have on reputation and standing the Stuart monarchy? MindyE 16:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (This is a holding reply, pending the arrival of our resident Muse.) It's easy to forget that it was completely normal for kings to have mistresses, not just in the seventeenth century but at all times before and since then. Indeed, it's been said of King George VI (20th century) that he was the first English king (other than those who died in childhood) not to have mistresses. However, Charles II ('the Merry Monarch') chose some unusual girl-friends and was more generous than most English kings with money and honours for his illegitimate offspring, so British tax-payers (a minority of the population, but everyone of any consequence) didn't like the idea that the high cost of Charles's many mistresses and their children fell on them. There were at least thirteen such children, by Lucy Walter, Elizabeth Killigrew, Catherine Pegge, Barbara Villiers, Nell Gwynne, Louise de Kéroualle and Moll Davis, so many English families descend from Charles II. Significantly, Charles had no legitimate children, and Parliament and the country at large became worried about the lack of a protestant heir to the throne. After his death, his eldest acknowledged bastard son the Duke of Monmouth made an unsuccessful challenge for the throne, claiming that his parents had been secretly married, and for a time the failure of the Monmouth rebellion strengthened the position of Charles's Catholic successor, James II. For what it's worth, I'd say the reputation and standing of the Stuart kings suffered from so many real political problems that Charles's bed-hopping was far from being the greatest of them. Perhaps its most significant impact came in the context of the succession to the throne, which mattered because the throne had enormous real power and patronage in the 17th century. People well remembered the terrible upheavals of the Civil War and its aftermath. Xn4  22:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A superb reply, holding or not!


 * I can tell you this much, Mindy; Charles carnal appetites impacted on popular consciousness at the time, with far greater consequence than any caused by past royal misconduct. In the course of research I carried out on this period I came across some truly hilarious-and unpublished-satires, one in which the king is depicted running around the streets of London-'Mercy, help!' the king cried, 'What is wrong, your Majesty; have the Dutch invaded?'  'No; for the love of God, fetch me a midwife.'


 * Politically speaking, though, the impact of Charles' affairs was far from amusing, because of the circumstances of the time and the nature of the reign. Charles had no legitimate offspring, but many bastards.  Normally this would not have been any great problem, as no illegitimate son would have expected to succeed.  It became a problem when Charles' designated heir, his brother James, Duke of York converted to Catholicism, and those opposed to him awakened the ambitions of the vain and mercurial James, Duke of Monmouth, the bastard-in-chief.


 * Beyond this Charles' affairs did indeed have consequences for the well-being of his dynasty, for the simple reason that he quite often allowed sexual attraction to translate directly into political power. Barbara Villiers was to be the first and greatest example of the 'political mistress' and the 'mistress of politics', far more powerful in every way than Charles own queen, Catherine of Braganza.  Her influence was such that she created her own political circle at court, interfered constantly in matters of state; so powerful that she was even courted by foreign ambassadors.  Charles was frightened of her, frightened of her temper.  In one of his diary enties Samuel Pepys noted "...the king doth mind nothing but pleasures and hates the very sight or thought of business...my Lady Castlemaine [Villiers] rules him...She hath all the tricks..."  This liaison was in many ways to set the tone for Restoration politics, secret and manipulative, one that inevitably produced an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust.  Villiers, in the style of Salome, even managed to engineer the downfall of one of Charles' ablest and longest-serving advisors, Edward Hyde, 1st earl of Clarendon, whose head was effectively presented to her on a plate.


 * Villiers had been bad, but her eventual replacement, Louise de Keroualle was, if anything, even worse; for she was little better than a French agent, put in Charles' bed by his cousin, Louis XIV. Her rise coincides with the secret Treaty of Dover, by which Charles promised to convert to Catholicism in return for a French subsidy.  It was not long after this, with the steadying influence of Clarendon gone, that a new mood of parliamentary suspicion emerged; suspicion of the throne, suspicion of Catholicism, and suspicion of Keroualle, or 'dearest Fubs', as Charles liked to call her.  Fubs conspired against all those in the court opposed to the French connection, including Lord Halifax.  With the onset of the anti-Catholic crisis of the late 1670s, known as the Popish Plot, a document circulated specifically aimed at Fubs, with the title Articles of High Treason and other High Crimes.  Parliament began to investigate the matter but Charles promptly ordered a dissolution.


 * So, yes, Charles' extra-marital relationships did weaken the authority and the majesty of the crown. It was of no matter when his lovers were, like Nell Gwynn, women of little consequence or influence.  It most assuredly did matter when it came to intelligent and the strong-willed individuals, like Villiers and Keroualle.  It was all to be part of government by intrigue and cabal; government, in other words, without responsibility.  For many, moreover-setting the politics to one side-it made the monarchy look ridiculous, which allows me to finish with some verses drawn yet another anonymous satire;


 * As Nero once, with harp in hand survyed


 * His flaming Rome, and as that burned, he played,


 * So our great prince, when the Dutch fleet arrived,


 * Saw his ships burned and, as they burned, he swived.


 * So kind was he in our extremist need,


 * He would those flames extinguish with his seed. Clio the Muse 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Charles follows the dour Interregnum and its kingdom of "saints." Charles's licentiousness is somewhat overstated, and the liberties of his court were similarly high profile.  Why would Charles be so publicly lecherous?  Why would his courtiers be publishing their sexually frank verses?  While these were undoubted personal choices, one must remember that the king is not a private person.  Every part of him was a public officer, and the king's love of love was at least partly a public demonstration of how different he was from the Puritans.  Being bawdy was a way to say, very clearly, "I will have nothing to do with those men in black."
 * Therefore, we must read his sexuality partially as political theater. It's true that he had no legitimate heirs and that the Monmouth situation made life complex, but we can see in the events surrounding his death a swing of the political pendulum.  Charles was carefully unlaced and just as carefully not a dour, dark reader, as the "Jesuits" were supposed to be.  His sexuality was a clear statement that he was not a Puritan and not a Catholic, not a ranter and not a plotter.  This was a very wise (and no doubt pleasurable) statement to make.
 * Attacks on "immorality" were attacks on the anti-Puritan forces. Therefore, his licentiousness was an excuse for the Puritan forces to reassert themselves.  Was the Stuart monarchy tarred with the brush of sexual impiety?  Well, considering Charles's grandfather's homosexual alliance, Charles's father's possibly same-sex alliance, James II's apparent probity (only a mistress, after all), and the fact that Parliament stuck with the Stuarts when they went to Mary and William, and then Anne (none of whom can be accused of randiness), I should say not.  Utgard Loki 14:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * An interesting argument, Utgard Loki, though not one that would, I think stand up to that much scrutiny. There was certainly a reaction after the Restoration against the joylessness of the Protectorate, and the censorious rule of the Major-Generals, though whether Charles would have seen his sexual pastimes as a kind of deliberate public spectacle is, to say the least, a highly dubious contention.  Indeed, he had himself been brought up in a somewhat 'puritanical' manner, in the court of his conventional and straight-laced father; it was only after he was allowed his own separate establishment in the West Country during the latter part of the Civil War that the more licentious parts of his character were able to find free expression.  The idea that he developed his sexual activity as a kind of 'political theatre' is, quite frankly, absurd.  After the Restoration puritanism was a spent force politically and Charles would have no need to turn his life into a self-conscious and ludricous ideological riposte!


 * Your statement is strong on generality and weak on evidence. First, the idea that Puritanism was a spent force flies in the face of all primary evidence.  Have you even engaged with the primary sources Christopher Hill mangles?  Puritanism remained not only powerful, but grew in power during the Restoration.  It was ridiculed, of course, but the battle was ever on, and it was one that the high church definitively lost and one that the low church definitively won.
 * The king's body was always the nation, and kings had always had their dalliances and mistresses, but they were most emphatically not public. Imagine the sorts of celebratory witticisms made by Rochester.  In any other regime, they would have resulted in a beheading, but with Charles they won favor.  Why?  Why would the King's own propagandist, John Dryden, joke that, like David, he spread his "maker's" face about?  Why would this publicity of the king's affairs not only be tolerated, but encouraged?  Tell me that this is just because Charles didn't mind, please.  I dare you to suggest that Charles was so inept that this just escaped his notice.
 * Charles knew full well what he was doing, and what he was doing was opposing the Puritans. He had personal reasons for this, of course.  However, he was no Duke of Wharton.  He was an extremely shrewd balancer of the public's mood and the throne's needs.  He could simultaneously promote the "stock jobbers" because he needed their money and yet inform them that they would not be allowed to legislate their narrow morality on the people.  Utgard Loki 16:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Charles was not the greatest of royal libertines; that honour belongs to Henry I, his distant anscestor, who had some twenty-five illegitimate children. Also, while it is quite correct that most royal activities, even the most private, tended to come under some form of open scrutiny, the public arena traditionally was highly circumscribed, which was not the case in the late seventeenth century, with the explosive growth in printing and pamphleteering.  I can assure you that the kind of material in circulation during the later part of Charles' reign, some examples of which I have given in the above, was highly damaging, both for him personally and for the standing of the monarchy, not just among the 'men in black', whoever they are meant to be.  Anyway, this is slightly beside the point, for as I tried to argue, the real damage was not so much that Charles had mistresses, but that that love, in some important and damaging cases, had a tendency to translate into undue political power and influence.


 * That's rather odd. Henry I is ancient and absolutely not germane to any discussion of the early modern monarchy of England.  Charles II had to deal with Parliament in a way that none of his ancestors did.  He was dependent upon it and its Puritans. His love was rather unimportant.  Compared to Gaveston and Buckingham, Nellie and Portland were nothing.  No eyebrows were raised over them.  No one was deposed over them.  Monmouth was a significant problem, of course, but this had to do with the lack of ... of... love, perhaps, toward Catherine.  However, Charles loving women doesn't seem to have set anyone aback.  Utgard Loki 16:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are not, perhaps, that well acquainted with the life of James, Duke of York? He was as Catholic and licentious as Charles was Protestant and licentious!  James had not one but a string of mistresses.  You will note, if you care to read the Wikipedia page, that he was reputed to be the 'most unguarded ogler of his time.'  He was forever seducing the ladies-in-waiting of his first wife, Anne Hyde.  I do not know to which particular mistress you refer as 'the only one', though most likely you have either Catherine Sedley or Arabella Churchill in mind, the latter I suspect.  Was his life, too, a reaction a against the 'men in black', puritans and Jesuits?


 * Indeed, I'm quite well aware of James, but to say that he was Catholic is absolutely unsupportable. He was likely Catholic.  His mistress to wife was Catholic, and that was the end of him.  As for "ogling," that is absolutely unimportant.  So is the ruination of maids.  None of that was meaningful in terms of royal negotiations with dissenters.  On the other hand, Charles's failure to move definitively against Dissenters and inability to sway the nation away from Puritainism was the end for James.  Anti-Catholicism and Puritanism were near allies.  Utgard Loki 16:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Now for your remaing conjectures. All we know about James I is that he had male favourites.  Beyond that we cannot go, and no serious historian, who expected to remain a serious historian, would suggest that he was a practicing homosexual; that is the prerogative of Wikipedia!  I am not saying that he was not; I am saying there is absolutely no evidence of sexual impropriety, which, if monarchy is as public as you say, can hardly have escaped notice.  It is, in other words, unkown and unknowable; and whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent.  What is true of James is even truer of Charles I.


 * Finally, Parliament 'went with the Stuarts', in the persons of William, Mary and Anne, because they were Protestant, and because they could easily be fitted in to the legitimate and accepted succession. But at the same time it reacted against the 'traditional' Stuart political style; against caballing; against court intrigue; against the use and abuse of prerogative powers; against the disregard of Parliament; and against the emergence of policy solely through secret counsels.  After the Glorious Revolution no future English monarch would ever again rule in the same fashion as Charles and James.  Bedchamber politics was a thing of the past.  Clio the Muse 23:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes; now I think I understand. Let me wish you all the best....Utgard Loki.  Clio the Muse 22:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Christmas battle?
Does anyone have a clue what the Christmas battle was and where it was fought? All I know for certain is that it took place on the eastern front during the first world war. 217.43.14.251 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a Christmas truce of 1914, on the Western front. Our article mentions a similar truce on the Eastern front in 1916. Not sure if it relates in any way to the battle you mention. - Nunh-huh 18:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There were two battles in Latvia which were given this name, one at Christmas 1916 (Old Style) between the German Army and Latvian riflemen (who were then forces of the Russian Empire) and another during the Second World War. The first of these battles was a local operation, separate from other offensives, in which the Latvian Rifles had the official aim of gaining 'Machine-Gun Hill', a German base in sand dunes near the river Lielupe, with the ultimate aim of freeing Courland and Zemgallia of German occupation. This battle began on 23 December (according to the old Russian calendar) and lasted for three weeks. Although not very famous, it was later seen as significant as it led to recriminations on the Russian side which helped the Bolsheviks. A later battle in Latvia, the third Battle of Courland (23 to 31 December 1944) is also called the 'Christmas Battle'. I guess there must be other instances, as any fighting around Christmas would be likely to have the word 'Christmas' attached to it by somebody. The Xn4  21:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Christmas Battle does indeed refer to the minor Russian counter-offensive in Courland in the early weeks of 1917, one of the last prior to the February Revolution. The units involved were mostly of Latvian origin, part of the II and VI Siberian Corps.  Some 30,000 men were deployed, in an operation with the ambitious aim of freeing that part of Latvia occupied by the Germans.  Operations began on 5 January (New Style), with the two Latvian brigades now united in the VIth Siberian Corps.  Machine-Gun Hill was taken on the third day of the offensive, though with heavy casualties amongst the Latvians, not properly supported by the rest of the Siberian Corps.  On the Latvian right the 3rd Siberian Division failed to reach its objectives, while the division on the left simply refused to leave the trenches.  Because of the large number of dead the battle passed into Latvian foklore as the 'Blizzard of Souls.'  Latvian loyalty to the Imperial regime was badly shaken, especially when rumours began to circulate that the Grand Duke Nicholas had said 'I spit upon your Courland.'  Latvian units were later to be prominent in their support for the Bolsheviks.  Clio the Muse 00:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here in America, it's still being fought!! 38.112.225.84 14:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought of Washington's crossing of the Delaware on December 25, 1776. His subsequent victory renewed hope in the struggle for U.S. independence. But the crossing was not complete until 3 am on December 26, so I guess if anything it would be called a "Boxing Day Battle." The Battle of the Bulge started December 16, 1944, but was going strong in Bastogne on December 25, 1944. Edison 06:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The question relates to the First World War, Edison, so neither of these examples would apply. However, that is by the way.  I have a question for you.  You are, I think, American?  I was under the impression that Boxing Day was one of those English mysteries unknown to the Yanks!  Clio the Muse 23:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

LA Gear
What is the ticker symbol of ACl International? And, on LA Gear, is it ACL or ACI?§§§ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.101.109 (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ships vs. Submarines
Say what? According to the article Naval Ram, it says that battleships have only defeated submarines in one occasion (last paragraph). So I fixed it to say that this was the only battleship victory against a submarine in World War I. My request is for someone to verify this. Please? --JDitto 22:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Battleships are built for long range fighting (up to 26 miles (42 km) away); destroyers were designed for close combat against submarines. For instance, the destroyer, HMS Garry, rammed U-18 in World War I. Also the article is about ramming, it does not address submarines that battleships may have sunk using their guns. Rmhermen 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you changing something when you don't know if it's true or not? I haven't found any other instance (yet) of a battleship ramming a sub. Clarityfiend 19:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)