Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 September 10

= September 10 =

Stalin and the system
Thinking of his ascent to power in the 1920s was Stalin an inevitable consequence of the Soviet system? In other words, did he create the system or did the system create him? Zinoviev4 05:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Both, of course. A great flaw of the USSR system was that it put too much power in the hands of too few people, specifically one. And power corrupts, which then changes the person, who in turn can change the system. Of course, another factor is WWII, which had a huge impact on the USSR and must have influenced Stalin too. Additional question: did Stalin's rule change much after WWII and did he usurp even more power, as wartime leaders often do? DirkvdM 06:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think by the time of WWII Stalin had already established himself as the ultimate power in the USSR. Remember that the Terror, purges, etc., were all taking place by the 1930s. --24.147.86.187 07:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Inevitable" is perhaps too strong a word here. "Likely," "probable," and certainly "possible" are all better alternatives. "Inevitable" implies, quite literally, that no other result could have happened, which is almost never the case in history, and is in any case certainly not knowable. --24.147.86.187 07:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My word, Zinoviev, we should be asking you this question! Xn4 22:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed! Clio the Muse 00:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to say that the traditional image of Stalin as the malevolent and unimaginative 'outsider', conveyed to us in the past by the likes of Trotsky and Isaac Deutscher, no longer holds any real credence, largely thanks to the efforts of historians like Simon Sebag Montefiore. Though less personable than the flamboyant-and vain-Trotsky, Stalin was just as intelligent, as able and as well read; he was also a far more skilful political tactician. As far as most of the Bolshevik Party was concerned Trotsky was a late comer, a parvenu they never fully trusted. He certainly did much to create the conditions for a post-Lenin dictatorship, but with a tiny base of support, made up mostly of the Bolshevik 'intelligentsia', he was unable to exploit the situation to his own personal advantage.

Stalin, in contrast, was known and trusted; a long time party worker, who, unlike so many of the other senior Bolsheviks, had not spent years outside of Russia. Stalin, moreover, was the one man, as Lenin understood, who was willing to take on the day-to-day tasks, the basic organisational work, so despised by Trotsky and the grandees. Full of shrewd judgement and native common sense, he appealed to the ordinary party workers in the way that 'outsiders' like Trotsky and, please forgive me for saying so, Zinoviev4, Grigory Zinoviev never could! If he was a monster he was their monster.

The other thing that contributed to Stalin's ascent in the 1920s was that he always managed to appear as a conciliator and, yes, a moderate. While associated with Zinoviev and Kamenev in the Triumverate that emerged after Lenin's death he always kept to the middle ground, just as he did in his later partnership with Nikolai Bukharin. Moreover, Trotsky's attack on the bureacracy was a direct challenge to a new Party elite, who thus lined up behind the General-Secretary. For them Socialism in One Country was an infinitely more appealing doctrine than the political adventurism of Permanent Revolution. So, stage by stage, move by move, Stalin had climbed to the top of the 'greasy pole' by 1929, looking down on all others who had underestimated his skill, his experience and his ability. 'Genghis Khan with a telephone', he may have been, but the instrument had been placed in his hands. Clio the Muse 00:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare and the Third Reich
Was Shakespeare important for the Nazis? If so, why?Zinoviev4 05:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in the tradition to which the Nazis' supremacist beliefs belong, Shakespeare has been considered an outstanding example of Germanic genius, of the capacity of Germanic peoples to produce truly significant works of art. I think Hitler mentions him in this light in Mein Kampf. His works, obviously, would then have qualified as true, as opposed to degenerate, art. Other than that, I don't know if Shakespeare had any particular significance to the Nazis.--Rallette 06:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I can not recall one single time a Nazi official refered to good old William. The Nazis at the beginning were fond of Schiller but later dropped him because of the defiance towards authorities portrayed in his books and in his life.--Tresckow 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Rodney Symington, Professor of Germanic and Russian Studies at the University of Victoria, Canada, deals with this question in The Nazi Appropriation of Shakespeare: Cultural Politics in the Third Reich (Edwin Mellen Press, 2005) reviewed by Susannah Heschel of Dartmouth College in Journal of Interdisciplinary History Volume 38, Number 2, Autumn 2007, pp. 290-291. Symington says that Goebbels announced in 1939 that Hitler himself had decided to allow Shakespeare's plays to be performed and reports that the Nazis then reinterpreted the plays for their own purposes, for instance reconceiving Hamlet not as a man with a conscience but as a proto-German warrior. There are some quotations from other reviews at the publisher's site here. Professor James M. Skidmore is quoted as saying: "Dr Rodney Symington... is able to illustrate with accurate and insightful precision the lengths to which Nazi cultural functionaries went to incorporate Shakespeare into the Germanic canon." Xn4 22:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Schiller's Wilhelm Tell was taken of the school curriculum in 1941, Treschkow, but let me assure you that more than one senior Nazi had a positive word to say about dear old Will! In 1934 the French government banned, in permanence, performances of Coriolanus because of its perceived negative qualities.  In the international protests that followed came one from Germany, from none other than Joseph Goebbels.  Although productions of Shakespeare's plays in Germany itself were subject to 'streamlining', he continued to be favoured as a great classical dramatist, especially so as almost every new German play since the late 1890s onwards was the work of left-wingers, of Jews or of 'degenerates' of one kind or another.  Politically acceptable writers had simply been unable to fill the gap, or had only been able to do so with the worst kinds of agitprop.  In 1935 Goebbels was to say "We can build autobhans, revive the economy, create a new army, but we...cannot manufacture new dramatists."


 * With Schiller suspect for his radicalism, Lessing for his humanism and even the great Goethe for his lack of patriotism, the 'Aryan' Shakespeare it had to be. Of Hamlet one critic wrote "If the courtier Laertes is drawn to Paris and the humanist Horatio seems more Roman than Danish, it is surely no accident that Hamlet's alma mater should be Wittenberg." A leading magazine declared that the crime which deprived Hamlet of his inheritance was a foreshadow of the Treaty of Versailles, and that the conduct of Gertrude was reminiscent of the spineless Weimar politicians!  Weeks after Hitler took power in 1933 an official party publication appeared entitled Shakespeare-a Germanic Writer, a counter to those who wanted to ban all foreign influences.  At the Propaganda Ministry, Rainer Schlosser, given charge of German theatre by Goebbels, mused that Shakespeare was more German than English.


 * After the outbreak of the war the performance of Shakespeare was banned, though it was quickly lifted by Hitler in person, a favour extended to no other. Not only did the regime expropriate the Bard but it also expropriated Elizabethan England itself; a young, vigorous nation, much like the Third Reich itself, quite unlike the decadent British Empire of the present day.  And why did Germany not produce its own Shakespeare?  Why, the answer to that was easy: England, unlike Germany, had been free of Jews for three hundred years prior to his birth!


 * Clearly there were some exceptions to the official approval of Shakespeare, and the great patriotic plays, most notably Henry V were shelfed. But interestingly the reception of the The Merchant of Venice was at best lukewarm (Marlowe's The Jew of Malta was suggested as a possible alternative) because it was too ambigious and not nearly anti-semitic enough for Nazi taste.  So Hamlet it was, along with Macbeth and Richard III.


 * Mention of that particular play allows me to finish on a note of humour; for you see the leading Nazis were not beyond scoring points against each other. In 1937 the Prussian State Theatre, under the control of Herman Göring, put on a performance of Richard.  To the visible astonishment of the audience the King was depicted in Fascist style uniform with a club foot!  As he shambled about the stage, malevolent, poisonous, murderous, it was all too clear to all who this was meant to be.  Göring beamed!  Clio the Muse 01:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is interesting. You should´ve thought the Nazi propaganda could´ve made more out of the Merchant. Nazi propaganda backfired from time to time. If I remember correctly they withdraw their own movie Schiller because of Schillers fervent speech against tyranny. Same with the anti-british movie Titanic (1943 film) which never was allowed into german theaters because of defeatism.--Tresckow 04:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fascinating, Clio, thank you! 66.112.241.248 20:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

Follow up on the credit card question above.
I didn't want to steal that thread so i'll start a new one. I've noticed that many young Americans put a huge amount of importance on building their credit history. Is this really necessary? I'm the same age in the UK and i've never felt any pressure to get a credit card (except that they are ubiquitous). Should I? Am I missing out on preparing for the future by not having a credit card? Capuchin 08:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how things are in the UK, but in the U.S. life revolves around credit. Most people make their large purchases on credit.  In the past, people would save for something they wanted and then purchase it when they had enough money.  That is almost unheard of now.  It is so ridiculous that it is common to pay for meals with a credit card.  Take out a loan and pay interest on it, to pay for a meal - that has to be one of the silliest uses of credit imaginable, but so many people do it that it is almost expected.  Easy access to credit has increased vanity levels, also.  Young people are not content to deal with hand-me-down clothes, furniture, dishes, etc. when starting out.  They want brand new items, purchased with their credit.  It seems that the Amercain Dream is to get in debt and stay there.  152.16.16.75 10:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As a UK resident I am also rather baffled by the RD questions from US contributors about the importance of credit cards and credit history. I can think of 4 different reasons for using a credit card:
 * As a means of payment - a credit card is simpler than writing a cheque and gives more security to the merchant - but since the advent of Chip and PIN in the UK, a debit card is just as good a means of payment as a credit card.
 * As a means of borrowing money - but a credit card is an expensive borrowing option. For short term cash flow situations, an authorised overdraft at your bank is probably cheaper; for large purchases (cars, furniture etc.) merchants often offer cheaper financing schemes; UK students have cheap student loans.
 * As a means of withdrawing cash from ATMs - again, an expensive option as the cash withdrawal starts to accrue interest immediately. The integrated ATM networks and availability of "cash back" facilities means that a debit card can almost always be used to withdraw cash wherever you are in the UK (although having a credit card may be useful when travelling abroad).
 * For consumer protection - a credit card company may offer you a quick refund in the case of non-delivery or delivery of faulty goods on large purchases - but UK banks are increasingly offering similar facilities on "premium" bank accounts.
 * In short, in the UK in almost all situations there are cheaper alternatives to using a credit card. Gandalf61 10:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How about building credit history, is this important in the UK? Capuchin 10:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I should think you ought to consider the sort of credit history you will build before you consider whether you need to build one or not. --bodnotbod 13:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ... Capuchin 13:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the main reasons people in the United States want to build a credit history is so that they can qualify for a mortgage. Also, increasingly, landlords obtain a credit rating before allowing a tenant to rent an apartment (flat).  So, building a good credit history is necessary for access to housing in the United States.  Marco polo 16:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A good credit history is also necessary for a mortgage in the United Kingdom (mortgages are available for those with lees-than-ideal histories, but they tend to attract a higher rate of interest and require a higher deposit). An increasing number of UK landlords will now obtain a credit reference for prospective tenants, so again, those with a good history will be able to access better housing than those with a poor history. Banks will routinely carry out credit checks on prospective employees. In my experience of credit-checking applicants for housing, a credit-card or the lack of it does not, in itself, make a huge difference. What matters is that the applicant has a substantial history of paying on time (whether on credit cards, bank loans, utility bills, car loans, etc.), avoiding unauthorised overdraughts, as well as having a "reasonable" overall debt to earnings ratio. I suspect that many (particularly younger or working class) British people are unaware of both the importance of maintaining a good credit history, and how to manage debt responsibly. DuncanHill 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The part that I don't understand (and I think I might speak for Capuchin here as well) is how owning a credit card can have a positive effect on your credit history. Of course, it can have a negative effect if you run up debt and don't meet your monthly payments. But surely someone who has never owned a credit card is at least as good (and maybe a better) credit risk than someone who uses one or several credit cards. Yet several recent US questioners have formed the impression that you can somehow mysteriously improve your credit history by applying for a credit card. I am beginning to think that this is a myth perpetuated by credit card companies. It's like believing that carrying a handgun makes you less likely to be shot - that would be ridiculous, wouldn't it ? Gandalf61 16:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Having a credit card and maintaining the account responsibly - that is, always making your payments on time and never exceeding your dredit limit - will generally improve your credit rating - because the banks etc see this as evidence that you are able to manage your debt responsibly. Having lots of credit cards may have a negative effect - as the banks will see this as evidence that you are exposing yourself to excessive debt. Applying for lots of cards will have a negative effect, as each application is recorded on the credit records. Banks like people who have some debts, and pay them all on time. They are wary of people who have lots of debt relative to income, or who appear to be "fishing" for credit. They are also wary of people who have (or appear to have) no history of debt, as then they have no evidence that the person will pay on time. DuncanHill 16:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is possible to make any assumptions about the credit-worthiness of someone who has never owned a credit card. That's the whole point, right?  A credit history and credit score reflect how well a person has handled the credit he has been given.  It's not the owning of the card that has an effect, but the record of usage and payments that count.  I would hope that the person who recently asked if opening a lot of credit accounts would improve his or her score was soundly disabused of that notion, but we can only type the responses, we can't make people believe and/or understand.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  16:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a friend who carefully avoided debt of any kind, paying cash for everthing. Then he wanted to get store credit (major department store) to purchase an engagement ring.  No credit history meant no credit to purchase the ring.  They wanted him to put it on layaway, so he decided to take his business elsewhere. Crypticfirefly 00:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * When I was in Thailand, and my wallet flipped open to display a gold Amex card (in the days before platinum on up), the sales person said she would show me no more silver because I could obviously afford gold. When I explained that I was a long way from home and wasn’t using the card for except for emergencies, she just shook her head, closed the case of silver rings and walked away. On a cruise ship recently, I met a Canadian and his American wife.  They had only been married for 2 years.  He said that the hardest thing for him to accept was that, for her, a credit card that wasn’t “maxxed out” was a poorly used resource, and that, as long as the monthly minimum was within her budget range, then she wasn’t spending too much.  He (and I) had several fully paid credit cards, and thought that paying only the minimum was an astonishing waste of money. I still operate that way.  However, in Canada, if you go to apply for a mortgage loan or other funds from a financial institution, your debt load will be determined as if your credit cards were “maxxed out”. That is because, in principle, you could go out the day after getting a loan approved, and spend up to the pre-approved limit on your card(s). Some would argue that is reason enough to carry all possible debt on your cards; others would say that you should lower your limit, at least until after the loan is approved. Bielle 00:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Capodociens ?
Frenche presedent Sarkozy said about the turkish peoples that they are capodociens. What is the meaning of this term and what is president had want to say. I will very happy if some one will enligte me Thank you. Cenap Turgut —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.42.111.131 (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the relevant word in English is Cappadocians. For more information see our article on Cappadocia. Gandalf61 11:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Assuming you understand Turkish, it means Kapadokyalı (plural). If Sarkozy actually said that (do you have a reference?), it is really silly. It is like saying that the French are Provençaux, which, if claimed as a general truth, is grossly inaccurate: the large majority of French come from somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) 11:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be nice to know the context, though I rather suspect Monsieur Sarkozy is being dismissive of attempts by the 'Asiatic' Turks to join the European club. Clio the Muse 23:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the Cappadocians had the stock reputation of "hicks from the sticks" in Hellenistic-Roman culture, though our article makes no such mention. --Wetman 05:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This article gives some leads; it's a review for a recent book in French about Cappadocia and mentions some older ones. "Cappadocians are widely dismissed as backwoods hicks, people without "culture."" Maybe Sarkozy read her book! Adam Bishop 01:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions about sinicization and Han expansion within China
Hello, I have been reading a bit about the sinicization within China and the expansion of the Han Chinese, but there are a few questions :

1. We don't really seem to have an article Han expansion. It's a bit of a shame, because it's an interesting evolution. As I understand it, Han Chinese have reached an absolute majority in all chinese provinces, except Xinjiang and Tibet. I'd like to know when they reached that absolute majority in each of those provinces (like when was it in Guizhou, Guangdong, Guangxi,...) Is there a url of something for that?

2. It seems that the Qing rulers never really did care much about promoting the Manchu language. According to that article, even the Qing rulers themselves weren't really fluent in Manchu anymore?

3. I read somewhere on Wikipedia that the Qing rulers did try to protect their own Manchu homeland from massive immigration and didn't allow Han Chinese to settle north of the Great Wall. But when they ceded a big part of Manchuria to Russia, they did allow them too. Why? What would have been the purpose?

4. Did the Mongol rulers also forbid Han Chinese to settle in what is now Outer (or Inner?) Mongolia?

5. This last question deals with the diversity within the Han Chinese. I checked on Wikipedia; apparently there are many many different forms of Mandarin Chinese, often not mutually intelligible. What are the consequences of this? Do people in Shanghai watch the same television broadcasts as in Beijing and Guangzhou? Do kids read schoolbooks in standard Mandarin or not? Are there many high profile politicians in China who don't speak standard Mandarin Chinese as their native language?

Thank you, Evilbu 13:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That is quite a lot of questions! I will take a quick stab at 1 and 5.  The Han Chinese expanded from the lower Huang He and Chang Jiang (Yangtze) basins across most of eastern China (apart from some southern highlands and Manchuria) during the Han Dynasty.  I think that their numerical preponderance in most of South (i.e. Southeast) China, except probably Yunnan and Guangxi, dates from that time.  Han predominance in the latter two regions probably came later, likely during the Song Dynasty, when China experienced a great demographic expansion.  As for the rest of China (Xinjiang, Tibet, Qinghai, and Manchuria), Han expansion into these regions (apart from an ancient enclave in southern Liaoning province), is a largely a modern phenomenon, dating only to the Qing Dynasty.


 * As for the "Chinese language", as you note, it is really a group of closely related, but mutually unintelligible languages sometimes known as dialects. However, all dialects share a common writing system, based on meaningful syllables whose pronunciation varies from one Chinese language to another.  So, while there are a few differences in vocabulary and grammar, it is possible for a speaker of a Chinese language other than Mandarin to read Mandarin Chinese.   That person would simply pronounce the text very differently from a Mandarin speaker.  Also, Mandarin Chinese is taught universally in Chinese schools, so that nearly all Chinese today have at least passive comprehension of Mandarin.  I don't know about television programming within China.  I would guess that most is in Mandarin.  As for polticians, I do not think that a successful political career would be possible in the People's Republic of China without proficiency in Mandarin.  That said, I'm sure that there are successful Communist functionaries whose native "dialect" is not Mandarin.  In Taiwan, where dialects of Min are commonly spoken, and where Taiwanese separatism has become more popular in recent years, many successful politicians are native speakers of Min.  Marco polo 17:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you:) Anyone who can answer any of the five questions is of course still very welcome.  (You know I like to keep my questions organised:) ).  In the mean time, I found this article : which seems to suggest that the presence of Han Chinese in Inner Mongolia is also mainly a consequence of the Qing administration, who were the first to divide Mongolia into Inner and Outer Mongolia, and for some reason Han Chinese only settled in the Inner Mongolia (?).Evilbu 19:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Judaism in the Greco-Roman world.
Hi. I wonder if anyone can help me? I was watching Schindler's List on DVD recently and there is a scene in a restraunt early on in the movie where some SS officers are talking about actions against the Jewish people. One says to the other "They will weather the storm, that is what they have always done for thousands of years." The other replies "But this storm is not the Romans; this storm is the SS." This got me thinking, what was the attitude of the Greeks and the Romans towards the Jewish communities under their control? Did anti-Semitism exist in the sense we understand it today? Now, I know about the suppression of the Jewish Revolt in the first century of the CE and the suppression of the later Bar Kokhba revolt in the second century; but the Romans never treated rebels well, and I do not think their actions necessarily demonstrate anti-Semitism as such. I am looking for a more general set of beliefs that may have governed day-to-day attitudes. Sorry to be so wordy! Philo Alexander 11:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Greco-Roman world, but there was much persecution of the Jews mainly for their religious beliefs. Because the Jews are monotheists this often put them in conflict with not only other religions but with the political system that required them to worship their rulers. You can read a good overview of societies relationship with Jews during that period in the Encyclopedia Britannica article on anti-semitism: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9007807/anti-Semitism
 * Hi Philo Alexander, anti-semitism as we know it in the modern world did not exist in the
 * Hope this helps. Kate Librarians--Ask Us, We Answer! Find your local Library at http://lists.webjunction.org/libweb/Public_main.html Ktg2 13:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktg2 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, something very like anti-Semitism existed among the inhabitants of late Hellenistic and early Roman Alexandria, where several large-scale riots occurred between Greeks and Jews living in the city, and there were authors such as Apion. See also the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes as detailed in the Books of Maccabees. AnonMoos 14:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, Philo, you might care to consult Philo! I am thinking specifically here of The Embassy to Gaius and Against Flaccus, in which he details the suffering of the Jews of Alexandria at the hands of the local Greek population, supported by the Roman Prefect, Flaccus. Yet, still, we have to be careful here, because the 'anti-semitism' detailed by Philo is quite different from the anti-semitism of the modern world. It lacked systematic application; it was more based on inter-communal rivalry, on the issue of citizenship and exemption from taxation, more than anything else. There was no transcendent racial element. In the end it all seems to come down to one basic thing-incomprehension. Flaccus did not have approval for his lack of even-handedness in dealing with the problem; and although Caligula failed to act on Jewish complaints, Claudius did. Even the actions of Antiochus must be viewed from its particular dimension: his attack was on Judaism, not on Jews. The Maccabean Revolt was a political and cultural reaction against Antiochus' heavy-handed Hellenism.

At root it was the strict Jewish adherance to monotheism that so perplexed-and angered-first the Greeks and then the Romans. It was even suggested, rather absurdly, that the Jews were 'god-haters' and 'atheists' because of their single-minded rejection of the wider aspects of the Greek and Roman civic cult. It is important to remember that this was a time when loyalty was measured by the extent to which one acknowledged civic or imperial deities; it wasn't so much a question of strict belief; it was one of nominal acceptance. In refusing even to pay lip-service to the accepted practice the Jews were political, not just religious dissidents.

Failure to understand the nature of Jewish exclusivness gave rise to all sorts of absurd stories, including one by Apion that they practiced cannibalism-"They would kidnap a foreigner, fatten him up for a year, and then convey him to a wood, where they slew him, sacrificed his body with their customary ritual, partook of the flesh, and whileimmolating the Greek swore an oath of hostility to the Greeks.". The ignorance of Jewish life and ritual was so entrenched that it is even suggested by one source that the scriptures were composed by a "Hebrew woman named Moso". Josephus, the Jewish historian, took pains to challenge some of the more absurd stories in circulation. Of all of the 'barbarians' the Jews were the most resistant to the dominant tradition in the Greco-Roman world, and from this all else was to spring. For, as T. B. Macaulay put it, "The Greeks admired only themselves and the Romans admired only themselves and the Greeks." Clio the Muse 03:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

St George and English nationalism
I noticed in answering an earlier question on St George and England Clio the Muse said she and her friends celebrate St. George's day. Is this now widespread among English people? J P Marat 13:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In my experience no, it is not widespread, indeed I strongly suspect that most English people do not even know when St George's Day is. St George's Day, unlike St Patrick's Day, St David's Day and St Andrew's Day has no official recognition in the form of a Bank or Public Holiday. Many Scout Groups will hold some form of celebration, however this is because of St George's status as the patron saint of Scouting. DuncanHill 13:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a campaign to have St George's Day made a bank holiday in England, but the government has indicated that it has no plans so to do. My personal preference would be for Oak Apple Day to be restored as a public holiday. DuncanHill 13:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In my experience most English people neither know, nor care about the date of St. George's day. As always though all English people are happy at any excuse for a few beers. This year, on my patriotic prompting me and friends, including Scots and Welsh, went for curry. However the recognition is growing with devolution and Europe both seeming to negatively impact on England, and why not have national pride in the world's greatest country. Cry 'God for Harry, England and St. George's day'. Cyta 15:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And isn't our Harry a dream?! Yes, it is the greatest country in the world; but I would say that, wouldn't I?


 * We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;


 * For he to-day that sheds his blood with me


 * Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,


 * This day shall gentle his condition:


 * And gentlemen in England now a-bed


 * Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,


 * And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks


 * That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day. Clio the Muse 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have any trouble over St George's Day, myself, as I remember it as the same day as William Shakespeare's traditional birthday, 23 April. Duncan may be right that most English people don't know the date, but there are also a lot (especially church-goers) who do. The Church of England flies the Flag of St George from all its flag-poles on 23 April, and as its churches are prominent in many places, especially in rural areas, that reminds most of the people who see the flags what day it is. Xn4 20:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the CofE fly St George's Cross more often than that - it's something of a sore point in Cornwall. DuncanHill 21:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. It's decided by each PCC. Strictly speaking, the only flag authorized to be flown by the C of E during the rest of the year (it's in a 1938 warrant of the Earl Marshal) is a St George's Cross differenced by the arms of the local diocese. Many PCCs do break the rule, perhaps I was blinded to this by the dutiful obedience of the churches here in darkest Borsetshire. Xn4 01:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I celebrate St. George's Day-and Englishness in general-as a patriot rather than a nationalist, J P Marat, on the reading that a patriot is a person who loves her or his country, and a nationalist is a person who hates everyone else's country! Clio the Muse 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "My country right or wrong: when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right". DuncanHill 23:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * By Carl Schurz a variation on a theme by Stephen Decatur. Do I get the prize, Duncan?  Clio the Muse 23:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well done, the prize is a warm glow of satisfaction. DuncanHill 23:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Even better than Commodore Decatur's toast is this by G. K. Chesterton: "'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober'." Xn4 23:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But your mother, drunk or sober, is still your mother, is that not the point? Is there another synonym for patriot or nationalist? I am a nationalist in being a believer in the nation state, but it has bad connotations, at least for the English (Scottish or Welsh nationalism seems acceptable). And patriot sounds so American, especially after the patriot act. I tend to go with proud Englishman, but maybe there is a better word. On the subject of Chesterton, I might quote his 'The Secret People'.
 * "Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget,
 * For we are the people of England, that has never spoken yet." Cyta 07:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I never miss a chance to browse through second-hand paperback shops on those far too rare occasions I get to visit England. Last time, I picked up The English - A Portrait of a People by Jeremy Paxman (Penguin Books, 1999, (ISBN 0-14-026723-9)). A very enjoyable read for this "funny foreigner". In the fifth chapter, "We Happy Few", he discusses St George, quoting George Formby's answer to what Englishness was: "Englishness is very deep. It's a spirit of St George. The idea of St George is a fight against evil." The author then brushes the slightly mysterious origins and concludes that St George is a "convenient sort of patron saint", allowing the English to present their most important battles in history, from the 16th century to the 1940s, from "We few, we happy few ..." to "Never was so much owed by so many to so few" as fights between David and Goliath. More recently, Paxman detects the myth in This England, one journal that celebrates St. George, where the Dragons " 'doing their damnedest to destroy a way of life it took the English a thousand years to perfect' " are seen as "an unholy alliance of metric measurements, town planners, unelected bureaucrats, squatters, vandals, abortionists, adulterers, offensive advertising, political correctness, modern telephone boxes, the 'unholy trinity of newspapers, radio and television', multiculturalism, and most of all, the feeble-minded, traitorous politicians who were prepared to surrender the country to the European Union. " One chapter earlier, " 'True Born Englishmen' and Other Lies", Paxman quotes Ogden Nash:
 * ''Let us pause to consider the English,
 * Who when they pause to consider themselves they get all reticently thrilled and tinglish,
 * Anyway, I like them. ---Sluzzelin talk  18:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I like them. ---Sluzzelin talk  18:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have just conferred honorary citizenship upon you, Sluzzelin!


 * Paxman's book is a good read. When it first came out I remember him saying that it was 'deeply unfashionable' to be English.  I do not think this true any longer, and I detect in my own circle a growing awarness of all that is best about my country; of just exactly what we have contributed to the world, in art, in science, in literature, and in so much more.  Alas, I myself am filled with a deep sense of cultural pessimism, but I will ever wave my flag as I lie back and think of England!  And on that I leave you with John of Lancaster;


 * This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle,
 * This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
 * This other Eden, demi-paradise,
 * This fortress built by Nature for herself
 * Against infection and the hand of war,
 * This happy breed of men, this little world,
 * This precious stone set in the silver sea,
 * Which serves it in the office of a wall,
 * Or as a moat defensive to a house,
 * Against the envy of less happier lands,
 * This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
 * This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings,
 * Fear'd by their breed and famous by their birth Clio the Muse 23:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "...I will ever wave my flag as I lie back and think of England!" Ew! Did you need to bring your bedroom habits into it? Skittle 00:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Personally I'm concerned at the growing insecurity and pessimism that makes people feel the need for such flag-waving patriotism, compared to just knowing your country is a pretty good place to be like we used to.


 * Sad to see one's -admittedly limited-attempts at small waves of humour crash against the rock of the literal minded. Ah, well; ever onwards, 'like we used to'!  Clio the Muse 02:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, sad to see one's own attempts at humour viewed as a rock of literalism. Skittle 11:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Bedroom habits are not necessarily intrinsically gross, Skittle (not even Clio's).  Maybe we can get her a spot on Californication.  I'm sure she's a foxy lady.  :)  --  JackofOz 03:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely! Clio the Muse 03:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But not a foxey lady. Rockpock  e  t  06:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Aaargh! I hope not; well, nobody has started to avoid me, yet!  Clio the Muse 00:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Religious Beliefs of Albert Gallatin
I note from our article on Albert Gallatin that he was born in Geneva. Do we have any evidence that he was a Calvinist? Or was he perhaps a humanist or a Roman Catholic? 63.167.237.65 15:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Our article says he attended the Academy of Geneva, which was founded as a Calvinist institution, and retained its religious associations until the 19th century, which is suggestive of a Calvinist upbringing. DuncanHill 16:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Shiva
What was Shiva's form of transport? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.13.166 (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * According to our article Shiva, the bull Nandi served as Shiva's mount. DuncanHill 16:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

U.S. military decorations
General Petraeus testifed before congress today, wearing at least 9 rows of decorations. Which of them are for valor in combat and which are for staff assignments in peacetime? I see several articles which show for various conflicts both little medal-like devices and colored stripes like bar codes, such as Petraeus was wearing. Is there a general article which explains these ribbon bars?. (edited to add: I found the article Ribbon bar which leaves several questions unanswered). Does each bar hold the equivalent of 3 awards? Do they go chronologically from top to bottom, or is there a precedence for higher awards at the top? Does each group of stripes correspond to a pinned-on medal, and in what context are the pinned-on medals versus the ribbon bars worn? Is there a record for which general or leader has had the most such awards, such as Brezhnev versus MacArthur ? Who (for the U.S.) decides what color combinations are to be used to show participation in each conflict, occupation, etc? Edison 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I shouldn't be commenting on this, as I don't know the answer for the US, but Commonwealth Realms orders and decorations gives a list in "order of wear", which is also the "order of precedence", and there are rather similar articles at Australian Honours Order of Precedence, New Zealand Honours Order of Precedence, and Canadian order of precedence. It would be surprising if the US didn't have a list of decorations on the same lines. No doubt someone will soon tell us! Xn4 20:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, if you're in the UK The Times today (tuesday) has an article on this very subject, including a picture with the medals labelled - if you can't do that I can tell you that most are 'for being a good boy' medals, there is a combat service award as well.83.100.251.220 09:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's online at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00206/PETRAEUS_206954a.gif - not everything is labelled, but there seem to be quite a few "got a medal for being in the army" type decorations. -- Arwel (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See General_Petraeus - For the record at least one seems to be a bravery award, (his Bronze Star Medal has a Valor Device), and he has a Combat Action Badge as well so they are not all 'good boy' badges, though we'd have to see his actual military record for the definitive answer. Exxolon 18:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * He seems not to have commanded small infantry groups in combat, and not to have gone to war until he was a general. I wonder what the circumstances of his gaining the Bronze star for valor would have been? Is there a data base accessiblt to the public, or are those confidential records? Thanks. Edison 23:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotation
Please where is this from;

"I think I hear a little bird, that sings the people by and by will be the stronger" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.188.39 (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Don Juan by Byron. It's in Canto the Eighth. DuncanHill 21:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotes by Romans on Christianity
For some aesthetic reasons in a piece of text I am writing, I would like to use a quote by a (well known) Roman on Christianity. Google and wikiquote are a huge mess on the topic, because the results are mostly Bible quotes. Suggestions for good sources would be appreciated, as well as quotes themselves. It would fit my argument perfectly if the quote was cynical on the importance of Christianity in the era in question. User:Krator (t c) 21:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The letters between Trajan and Pliny the elder quoted here might suit your purposes. SaundersW 21:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the earliest, and not very favourable, views on Christianity by a Roman writer comes from the Annals of the historian Tacitus, commenting on the aftermath of the Great Fire of Rome;


 * Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.


 * From Pliny's Letter to Trajan you can have the following;


 * I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. … Those who denied they were or had been Christians…offered prayer with incense and wine to your [Trajan's] image…and moreover cursed Christ. … These I thought should be discharged.


 * These are only two of many. Please let me know if you need any more.  Clio the Muse 22:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are looking for positive impressions of Christianity in Rome, you'll have to wait about 50 years until Marcus Minucius Felix publishes his Octavius. While not the earliest apology for Christianity, it is the earliest known written by a Roman. 65.203.61.131 22:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's Pliny the Younger, by the way. (just in case you were tempted to confuse him with The Elder Pliny.) --Dweller 13:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My mistake, sir. Thanks for spotting it! SaundersW 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Democratic party membership
In the United States, if a person is registered to vote in Democratic primaries in his or her state, can that person be considered a member of the Democratic Party? If not, how does one become an official "member?"--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the way. If you are registered as a Democrat, you are a Democrat, basically. --72.83.173.248 00:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In some states, you don't register as a member of a party. Some would say that all you have to do to be a "member" of the Democratic Party is say you are. -- Mwalcoff 01:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Can a person registers to vote in both the Democratic primaries and the Republican primaries? 202.168.50.40 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Rules vary by state, but as far as I know, no state allows people to vote in two parties' primaries at the same time. -- Mwalcoff 01:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In elections where Democrats have no real chance in the general election, a Democratic voter will sometimes register as a Republican in order to influence the more meaningful primary vote. Same deal the other way, sometimes.  --Sean 01:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See also open primary. Wareh 01:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In California, you can register as "Decline to state" (which is NOT the same thing as "Independent"). When you get to the polls you can ask for the primary ballot of whatever party you want to vote in.  If you register as "Independent", you are limited to the Independent ballot, which contains only non-partisan posts and the general propositions which are being voted on by everybody.  Corvus cornix 16:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Has the American Independent Party managed to lose ballot status in California? &mdash;Tamfang 22:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, American Independent is still a party, Independent means a member of no party. Corvus cornix 03:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not an option in California registration (distinct from Decline to State), is it? —Tamfang 05:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)