Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 September 4

= September 4 =

Royalties from book publishers
Are publishers audited to make sure that their tally of book sales are correct? 69.201.141.45 01:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In the UK, all registered companies have to be independently audited. I imagine it's the same in most civilized countries. (It might be worth mentioning that if you have employed a "vanity press" to publish your book, you are unlikely to see any royalties.)--Shantavira|feed me 08:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The case indeed involves what was previously called a "vanity press," but what is now referred to a POD (print on demand) publisher. I monitored sales as best I could using the internet. Amazon.com twice re-stocked. I saw some sites through ABEbooks.com display a quantity over 20, yet the publisher says that only 23 hardcovers and 4 paperbacks were sold. I've asked that they check the records of their printer (who I think is owned by the same company).69.201.141.45 18:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good luck. Despite the audits, at the end of the day you will have to take the publisher at their word. If you have hard evidence, they should be able to explain any discrepancies, but you won't receive royalties until the books are sold to the end user, and even then you will probably have to wait three months or more. Books are easily damaged in transit and some are likely to be written off as damaged stock. Please note that a vanity press, which is a type of publisher, is definitely not the same thing as print on demand, which is a printing service, though it does get a bit complicated if they are owned by the same company. (You will find more information in those articles.) Having a publisher, printer, and distributor under one roof means taking quite a lot on trust.--Shantavira|feed me 09:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Thanks for the info and the links. It's a treacherous world out there.69.201.141.45 13:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Linnaeus (A Yankee Engineer Abroad)The publisher's reply: "Your Quarterly report is accurate reporting of your book sales for the second quarter. The self-publishing service that we offer is print on demand, which means that copies of your book are printed as they are ordered.  Therefore, Online booksellers to not actually have copies of your book 'in stock', but will report fictitious numbers of books in order to lure in potential buyers.  They may also show varying numbers of your book to show that your book appears to be 'moving' for consumers that might check back several times.  However, the copies of your book are only printed as they are ordered."LShecut2nd 16:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Paintings by Mary Shecut Sease
My great aunt, Mary Shecut Sease, gave my family two paintings that I know of. One was of a carousel, so my mother tells me, and was stored in a closet. The other I remember as it was hung in my father's waiting room (he was a general practitioner). That painting was an impressionistic scene of a stream in autumn with children wading into the stream. Since my father was a philistine, the paintings were not handed down to any of the children. Their fate is unknown to me. Is there a catalogue raisoné of her work? The only info that I found was http://digital.library.okstate.edu/chronicles/v017/v017p087.html 69.201.141.45 01:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Generation Y
Is someone born in 1992 considered a 90's child or a Millenium child? Is someone born in 1995 still part of Generation Y? What year do you have to be born in to lose the right to call yourself a 90's child? 99? 98? 97? --124.254.77.148 07:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Generation Y, it's approximately 1978-2000 for the generation. These type of classifications are known to be imprecise; unlike the Baby boomer generation, there's nothing that really makes them any different from other generations, so it's usually whatever people make it up to be. As for the term millenium child, I am unfamiliar with it, and a google search shows it's not really a term with much use yet, and as such is probably undefined. The Evil Spartan 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] I would think that anyone born before 11:59:59 on December 31, 1999, could be called a 90's child. As for Generation Y, there is no commonly accepted end point for the birth years of this generation.  Most sources seem to agree that members of Generation Y were born before 2000, while some put its end point several years earlier.  So, it is not a clearly defined category.  These categories, incidentally, are created and used mainly by marketers to refer to trends in consumption among different generational cohorts.  Trends in consumption are often not clear for a generation until it has entered the wage-earning labor force around age 20, so the definition of Generation Y may be clearer 10 or 15 years from now, if marketers still find the concept useful.  Incidentally, marketers define these cohorts in broad brush strokes that clearly are not accurate for all members of that cohort.  The meaningfulness of these categories outside of the world of marketing is limited. Marco polo 16:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (Also, anyone born before 11:59:59 on December 31, 2000, could be called a 20th century child.) We get similar questions about TV shows that started late in one decade but ran mainly in the following decade.  Take a show that was first broadcast in 1979 and ran till 1988.  "An 80s show" or "a 70s show" may both be accurate labels, but truthful statements do not necessarily give the whole truth.  Labels have their place, but they also have their limitations.  Many things really require multiple labels, but that's generally too hard for pop culture, so one has to suffice.  --  JackofOz 00:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

literature - notability - serious question
1. I've got to ask - but aren't most of the articles at WikiProject Middle-earth such as Gondor, Brandir, Ossiriand, Nogrod and literally hundreds others ridiculous fan cruft?, or excessive.

2. Doesn't having effectively ALL Tolkiens legendarium (stopping short of copying the books directly into the wiki), that is every single fact extracted from it, actually represent a real breach of a variety of intellectual property or copyright rules etc.

3. Further to 2, isn't it morally off, to build a entire section of wikipedia, around one persons, life work - what I see there is effectively a rip-off of tolkien's work. What do you think?87.102.21.232 07:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

4. Also in general these articles do not cite sources, contain much speculation, do not cite the books the information was taken from. For example Battle of Fornost and in general the entire WikiProject Middle-earth 87.102.21.232 07:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

5. Unforunately the WikiProject Middle-earth could be describe as a derivative work of Tolkien's work and as such is an infringment of copyright. see Derivative_work - your comments?87.102.21.232 08:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

6. In general I would welcome any feedback on what is and is not derivative. Also any help with getting the entire middle earth project properly cited would be good - in general (at risk of repeating myself) It seems that all articles except those which have been labeled 'A Class' lack or are lacking citations.87.102.21.232 09:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, my. "Isn't it true that you are a dirty rat and that your mother did not like you and that your first girlfriend accused you of body odor" sort of non-question question, isn't it?  First, no.  A good many are not "ridiculous cruft."  A good many are.  Trying to measure the whole of something that evolved over time by a single pronouncement is unwise and unproductive.  Second, absolutely not.  There is no "breach" whatsoever, and that's a pretty weak argument, to tell the truth, because it would mean that, for example, every Cliff Notes or Spark Notes ever made was a horrible crime.  Further, it's contradicted by your first question.  If it's cruft, then it won't replace the reading experience but rather merely reiterate it, and if it replaces the reading experience, it's not cruft.  Third, no.  We would have an article on every Shakespeare play, because each has an independent effect on the wider culture, and we would have an article on all the major protagonists for the same reason.  The same argument cannot be made for all the items of "Middle Earth," and so I have always thought that many/most of the Tolkeinia needed merging, at best, but there is nothing immoral.  As for your fourth point, that's a particular argument.  Fifth is your answer to your own non-question question.  Sixth, there is a Middle Earth project that is trying to merge, redirect, cite, and manage the proliferation.  If they are not working hard enough or severely enough, take your concerns to WP:AN, not here.  Geogre 10:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What the fuck was that all about ?87.102.21.232 11:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC) What did I do?87.102.21.232 11:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Why did you answer to say 'fuck off' to me in a long winded way?87.102.21.232 11:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: But the essence of "fuck off!" is that it is short-winded, irrational and discourteous. Geogre's answers to your questions, on the other hand, are clearly no more 'long-winded' than the questions and strike me as rational and polite, if also forthright. Abusiveness on this page should be reverted. Xn4 11:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the first sentence doesn't look 'rational or polite' to me. I must have done something..god knows what..87.102.21.232 12:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't my intention to belittle the project - I've reasked below in a different way with some additions to try to make it clearer what I was saying and avoid flames!.87.102.21.232 11:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There wasn't a flame. It looks to me like it was an explanation of the question that isn't a question.  I would say that with a link, myself: Fallacy of many questions or Begging the question.  In other words, he was saying that your questions weren't questions, that they were accusations, just like the hypothetical, "Isn't it true that you stink" questions one hears on the playground are.  I.e. you were not asking a question that sought an answer, because you supplied the answer yourself.  It's not a flame as much as it is an objection to what looks like a prejudiced discussion.  You believe that the project is all cruft and immoral, and you crafted questions designed to allow that answer.  There are other venues for complaint.  Utgard Loki 13:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

See WikiProject Middle-earth for the best work (and note that A-class here is just an internal WikiProject standard). Most of those articles are cited to varying levels. As for the wider relevance articles, see categories like Category:Tolkien studies, and articles like Tolkien Studies and Tolkien's Legendarium. For the works, see Category:Works of J. R. R. Tolkien. This is all standard encyclopedic content. The in-universe stuff does need to be merged and rewritten according to WP:WAF, but please discuss this at the WikiProject talk page. Carcharoth 12:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * First, it should be noted that the repeated association above of 'lots of Tolkien related articles' with WikiProject Middle-earth is incorrect. I started that Wikiproject with an eye towards having a group to clean up and organize the large number of Tolkien pages which already existed (pretty much since the start of Wikipedia). Obviously a work in progress, but I think we can all agree that pages like List of Middle-earth weapons are superior to a couple dozen short unreferenced articles on the same information.
 * Second, the claim that "every single fact" from Tolkien's work has been reproduced is clearly false hyperbole. Many of the things named in the texts are described, but various details about them and the vast majority of the story are not. There are literally millions of details not here incorporated. Nor is the story retold in more than summary form... and therein lies the flaw in your claims of 'derivative works'. Because Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, is not creating another work of fiction incorporating elements from or copying the original. We have commentary and analysis about the original. Which is true of every article on every fictional topic in every encyclopedia. This is no more 'immoral' or a 'copyright violation' than The Complete Guide to Middle-earth or The Encyclopedia of Arda... or Britannica for that matter. It's what Wikipedia exists to do. The extent of the Tolkien related coverage is greater than some topics in Wikipedia, but less than others. You'll find the same proliferation of articles around Harry Potter, Star Wars, Star Trek, Pokemon, and dozens of other popular topics. As stated on the 'five pillars' page, Wikipedia incorporates the kind of information generally found only in specialized encyclopedias. Thus, whereas Britannica might have an article on Bats we've got hundreds of them... and hundreds more yet to be written. More referencing and organization is certainly needed, on this and every other topic, but less so now than a year ago and hopefully continuing in that trend. --CBD 12:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got to say I couldn't find any facts that weren't in this encyclopaedia! You can take that as a compliment if you want. And some facts I found here that I couldn't find elsewhere! For instance I didn't know that Elendil was 241 cm tall! Good luck with referencing all this.87.102.21.232 13:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Accurate, but overly precise. My recollection is that Tolkien stated that Elendil was about two and a half rangar tall... it's in the Unfinished Tales section on Numenorean lengths and measures. There the 'rangar' is also defined as being about 3'2"... so 2.5 rangar would be roughly 7'11". Converting that to the equivalent 241 centimeters for the imperial-measurement challenged is undoubtedly kindly meant, but gives a degree of precision lacking in the original. As to the info itself, surely how tall someone was is a relevant bit of information... particularly in reference to the character said to be the tallest human ever. --CBD 13:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ok found it (p369-70 do these vary?) "more than man high by nearly half a ranga", man high =6'4" 6'4"+1'7" ok.. I accept that for an article about elendil his height is relevant - but worry about the additional "original research" (note the quotations - using the term approximately) - because the approximate original description does not really convert to a hard and fast figure even in imperial measurements..It's this sort of thing that bothers me in the newer articles (many of which have been created without any references) - it's not that easy to find this stuff. I just looked at a few of the unnacessed articles and found them needing numerous tags. Also "two ranga was taken to be man high" = 6'4" but (from the same page) this was a comment from a later time when men where shorter - so maybe he was taller? Anyway it was just an illustrative example of actually referencing facts and figures that have been infered from the text..I believe a similar problem exists for sizes of armies in some examples...87.102.88.218 14:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that better references and specificity are needed... though I note that this "newer" article was created in 2002 and the height has been in there for over two years. It isn't at all 'original research' though, just inexact wording. Add the reference and the word 'approximately' and the problem goes away. Try it. :]
 * On the army sizes, I agree that some of them do drift into original research. One article in particular I've had on my 'to do' list for a while as I think it goes too far in drawing disparate facts together into conclusions not stated elsewhere. That's an issue with all topics, but not, I think, particularly prevalent on Tolkien related articles. You thought Elendil's height an invention... but it actually is in the text. I think you'll find similarly that most of this info can be supported. There is just a tremendous amount of work yet to do in citing it all. --CBD 14:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK done, while I've got your ear do you know were the second height quote comes from by any chance the "another note as 7 feet"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.88.218 (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can be found in 'The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion' by Hammond and Scull, The Council of Elrond - reference to page 242 (page 229 of the Companion itself). "...Elendil and his son Isildur, both of whom had been seven feet tall..." --CBD 22:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, 90% of Wikipedia is ridiculous fan cruft. Gzuckier 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say not. I think most of Wikipedia is actually articles about people. There are approaching 400,000 biographical articles on Wikipedia. That number includes articles about music groups, but still, the sheer number of historical and contemporary people makes it logical that it is people (like you and me, just a bit more famous) that make up an exceedingly large proportion of Wikipedia articles. Other large chunks will be taken up by articles about places (from roads to small towns, to schools). I'd guess that fictional topics (books, TV programs, films) only take up about 10% of Wikipedia. That's a guess though. It should be possible to get an estimate for the number book/TV/film articles. My conclusions? Wikipedia is peoplecruft! I mean, what is more logical than for the monkeys to type about themselves? :-) Carcharoth 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, "fancruft" is just fan cruft, not necessarily fictional fancruft. If the purpose is to say, as Chris Farley's character used to, "Hey, uh, 'member when he said, uh, Hosta la vista, baby?  That was so cool," then it's fancruft.  If it's there to be the ultimate collector and fan's revivium, then it's cruft.  If it's there because, "Burke's Reflections refers to the History of the Great Rebellion, so we need to help people reading that widely read and important work know who Clarendon was and what this book was," then it's not cruft.  A good many of the people articles are fancruft, too, in other words.  "Stark Mark is the singer for the neo-goth-dark-numetal industrial dance Viking folk band Düfus" is just more fancruft.  Utgard Loki 17:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

--M @ r ē ino 17:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

romanians
how many romanian born nationality peoples lived in american old west? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.137.119.189 (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How would you expect anyone to know (even if "american old west" was a specific unambiguous term, which it isnt)? --Dweller 12:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The question is imprecise, but the answer must surely be "not many". I'll use 1850 as a prototypical "Old West" year.  According to the United States Census, 1850 only 27,019 of 2,244,602 foreigners (1.2%) lived in the West of the US.  That same year, there weren't enough Romanians in *all* of the US to bother counting, and 50 years later there were still only 15,032.  If we generously assume that there were as many Romanians as Russians in the US in 1850 (1,414), and that they like most Europeans stayed away from the West, we arrive at around 17 Romanian cowboys.  You can't reliably do this kind of back-of-the-envelope calculation on numbers this low, so again: "not many".  --Sean 15:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As best I can tell from Historical Statistics of the United States, published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census in 1976, the United States did not distinguish Romanian-born residents from residents born in other smaller eastern European countries before 1900. Also, as of 1900, some foreign-born residents of Romanian nationality would have been listed by country of birth as Hungarian, since Transylvania was then a part of Hungary.  According to this source, as of 1900, there were 15,032 U.S. residents born in Romania (not including Transylvania).  Incidentally, the foreign-born population from other parts of southern and eastern Europe jumped sharply between 1890 and 1900.  (For example, the Greek-born population in 1890 was less than one fourth of the Greek-born population in 1900.)  If we (reasonably) assume a similar jump in the Romanian-born population during that decade, then there might have been 4,000 Romanian-born people in the United States in 1890, even including Transylvanians. Since the 1890 Census announced the closing of the American frontier, 1890 might be seen as an end date for the vague concept "American Old West", since the "old west" might connote the existence of a frontier.  If 1890 was an end point for the "Old West", it would have marked the high point of the Romanian-born population, since immigration from southern and eastern Europe was accelerating rapidly in 1890.  So, how many of the possible 4,000 native Romanians in the United States in 1890 would have lived in the "West"?  This would of course depend on how you define the West.  Certainly the "old West" would have included the Great Plains, and possibly Texas, but the region defined by the Census as the West excludes Texas and the Great Plains states.  If we use the Census definition, then there were about 673,000 foreign-born whites in the West in 1890.  This was about 7.4% of the total foreign-born population in the United States at that time.  Applying this percentage to a supposed total of 4,000 native Romanians in the United States (assuming that Romanians were distributed regionally in the same proportion as other foreign-born whites), there would be about 300 native Romanians in the Census West as of 1890.  If we included the Great Plains states and Texas (and assumed that their share of the foreign-born population in their regions was similar to their share of the total population), then this number could double to 600.  However, it is unlikely that the native Romanian population was distributed regionally in the same proportion as foreign-born whites, because migrants from southern and eastern Europe had a strong urban bias in the late 19th century, and the West (particularly the "Old West") had few large cities other than San Francisco.  So, most likely the number of native Romanians in the West (however you define it) in 1890 was below 300.  At earlier points in the history of the West, the number would have been lower still.  Since the U.S. government did not collect numbers of native Romanians before 1900, however, it is impossible to find an exact number for the "Old West", however you define it.  Marco polo 16:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

literature - notability - serious question (re ask)
Re: WikiProject Middle-earth See post two above. (reasking in another way to avoid flames)

Taking Macbeth as a guide it looks like the project middle earth has gone way too far (since there are no articles for minor characters, the 'walking wood') etc. (By the way I found this http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Earth which personally I think represents an approximate example of articles that would be notable..)

The current contractions of articles to lists doesn't seem right either.

What I was trying to ask was "should the project be this extensive?, or not?"

as well as "doesn't the extraction of every last iota of information from the text become dubious in various ways.."

Main point: What I forgot to mention was to say that maybe the project should be migrated to a 'middle earth' specific wiki such as http://www.thetolkienwiki.org/wiki.cgi?FrontPage or http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Main_Page

Is this right or wrong, and IF right where is the right place to suggest it...87.102.21.232 11:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not really the right place to ask this question. The WikiProject itself is a good start, followed by other venues. The question of whether to move content to other wikis, for this and other fictional WikiProjects, is as old as Wikipedia, and not likely to be resolved any time soon. I'll say more back at the WikiProject talk page. Carcharoth 12:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Reference desk/Humanities above. Carcharoth 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's really not right to try to make an announcement on something that contains so many individual articles. Arguing from the general is a sure way to make a mistake.  Let's suppose, though, that we were only looking for qualities that this particular fiction had that made it like or similar to others.  We could compare it to Star Wars or Star Trek, if we were so inclined (although the former was influenced by it significantly), where similar variety has been presented in the articles.  Ok, massive consolidation occurred in those areas, but deletion did not, and there were no questions of morality (despite MemoryAlpha and a dozen Star Wars projects existing).  Or we can compare these works to Shakespeare.  For qualitative purposes, I'd say that the Tolkein stuff has already exercised a much, much longer influence than TV-show-related stuff or most science fiction novel stuff.  It has shown a deeper and longer influence than Foundation, and its world (adapted, as it is, from already archetypically approved tales told by the Germanic tribes) has inspired repopulation more than any other framework of tale since the Greek myths.  Any particular is debatable or junk, but the whole looks like it ranks above America's Next Top Pop Tart Model contestants and Big Brother 25 Dutch edition participants.  If overly granulated coverage is your top concern, we have much to choose from.  Utgard Loki 14:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the depth of coverage that bothers me - and wondered if in the future such articles would be deleted as non-notable - Tolkien certainly has affect more than one generation of readers - so I'd expect some coverage, but this much? take a look at Administrators'_noticeboard for some links especially "Category:Unassessed_Tolkien_articles" - I've asked there for unbiased input..87.102.88.218 14:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a question. If you don't like them, why do you read them?  Why not just ignore them?  Corvus cornix 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * theft - that's why - sorry I haven't got a real answer to that - I'd be able to like them if they cited their sources, as it stands they make me unhappy - ok?87.102.81.184 17:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A lot of the older articles employed sources but did not "cite" them. Some of these were, in fact, far more expert than the "cited" articles coming along now.  (An article built from book study usually impresses me more than one with a dozen footnotes to websites.)  Wanting citation is laudable, but I'll bet what results is nothing like the original works being cited, but rather just corroboration.  Utgard Loki 19:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would hope that people realise that the original text is the only real choice for citation, unfortunately there do seem to be a few examples of mirrors of wikipedia (same content) being used as a reference..
 * This article has a proper go List of Middle-earth weapons, unfortunately the page numbers are meaningless! but that's another problem. So it's not all bad.87.102.20.77 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.20.77 (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I always thought the Tolkien mess on wikipedia was just aspiring to WikiProject Harry Potter quagmiritude. Pfly 06:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Apart from the multitude of articles lacking references the primary problem here is lack of secondary sources, excluding fan-created tolkien wikis/encyclopedias etc. So in other words, yes, though I'd say that 'harry potter' has caught the disease known as tolkienitis.87.102.5.137 12:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A Man's a Man for A' That
I'd like to find a list of recorded versions of the song A Man's a Man for A' That by Robert Burns. I've heard a version of it before and it's bugging me because I can't remember who the artist was. Wikipedia's article doesn't have a list of versions; anyone know where I might find one? (Or can you name any of the most famous recorded versions?) Thank you in advance. --60.241.217.147 12:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a guess, but I'd be surprised if Harry Lauder didn't record it. --  JackofOz 13:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's one. A 3-CD collection called Scotland Sings! 60 Scottish Favourites has A Man's a Man for A' That on CD2 wi' Jamie Nicol & the Scots Fiddle Orchestra. Xn4 17:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ambassadors' Plot
What are the particulars of the Ambassadors' Plot in which Sidney Reilly and Bruce Lockhart were implicated in 1918? --Ghirla-трёп- 15:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I used to know part of the answer to this, but it's all astonishingly complicated, like everything to do with Reilly. The books to get hold of are Ace of Spies: the incredible story of Sidney Reilly (later called Reilly, Ace of Spies, to match the name of the TV serial based on it) by Robin Bruce Lockhart (1967) and the same writer's later Reilly: the First Man (1987); The Adventures of Sidney Reilly: Britain's Master Spy: a Narrative Written by Himself, Edited and Completed by His Wife (1931); Gordon Brook-Shepherd's Iron Maze: the Western Intelligence Services and the Bolsheviks (1998); Memoirs of a British Agent by R. H. Bruce Lockhart and his later The Diaries of Sir Robert Bruce Lockhart (ed. K. Young, 2 vols. St Martin's Press, London, 1973 & 1980); Andrew Cook's Ace of Spies: The True Story of Sidney Reilly (2004). Some of these contradict each other - you have to work out why their versions are different. Xn4 18:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this the plot discussed at Sidney_Reilly, or another plot? -- !! ?? 17:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's also called the Lockhart Plot. Essentially, it was a planned counter-revolutionary coup against Lenin. In some versions, Reilly intended to become the new head of government himself. I've looked at that section of the Sidney Reilly article, and it seems to me to give a good start to the thing for Ghirlandajo, although it lacks references. Xn4 18:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ireland and the English
In his campaign in Ireland Cromwell behave much more savagly than he did elswhere in the British Isles. His conduct was said to be based, amongst other things, on derogatory attitudes that had developed since early contacts between the two nations. What is the background here?Irishbard 16:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. StuRat 19:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Negative English attitudes date as far back as the reign of Henry II. You might begin, Irishbard, by looking at some of the things written by the chronicler Gerald of Wales, who visited the island in the company of Prince John. As a result of this he wrote Topographia Hibernia (Topography of Ireland) and Expugnatio Hibernia (Conquest of Ireland), both of which remaind in circulation for centuries afterwards. Ireland, in his view, was rich; but the Irish were backwards and lazy;

''They use their fields mostly for pasture. Little is cultivated and even less is sown. The problem here is not the quality of the soil but rather the lack of industry on the part of those who should cultivate it. This laziness means that the different types of minerals with which hidden veins of the earth are full are neither mined nor exploited in any way. They do not devote themselves to the manufacture of flax or wool, nor to the practice of any mechanical or mercantile act. Dedicated only to liesure and laziness, this is a truly barbarous people. They depend on their livelihhod for animals and they live like animals.''

Gerald was not atypical; for you will find similar views in the writings of William of Malmesbury and William of Newburgh.

When it comes to Irish marital and sexual customs Gerald is even more biting, "This is a filthy people, wallowing in vice. They indulge in incest, for example in marrying-or rather debauching-the wives of their dead brothers." Even earlier than this Archbishop Anselm accused the Irish of 'wife swapping', "...exchanging their wives as freely as other men exchange their horses." You will find these views echoed centuries later in the words of Sir Henry Sidney, twice Lord Deputy during the reign of Elizabeth I, and in those of Edmund Tremayne, his secretary. In Tremayne's view the Irish "commit whoredom, hold no wedlock, ravish, steal and commit all abomination without scruple of conscience." In A View of the Present State of Ireland, published in 1596, Edmund Spencer wrote "They are all papists by profession but in the same so blindingly and brutishly informed that you would rather think them atheists or infidels."

This vision of the barbarous Irish, largely born out of a form of imperialist condescension, made its way into Laudabiliter, one of the most infamous documents in all of Irish History, by which Adrian IV, the only English Pope, granted Ireland to Henry II, "...to the end that the foul customs of that country may be abolished and the barbarous nation, Christian in name only, may through your care assume the beauty of good morals."

All and every method was to be used in this 'civilizing mission' over time. In 1305 when Piers Bermingham cut off the heads of thirty members of the O'Connor clan and sent them to Dublin he was awarded with a financial bonus. His action was also celebrated in verse. In 1317 one Irish chronicler was of the view that it was just as easy for an Englishman to kill an Irishman as he would a dog. Later when the English control of Ireland shrunk back for a time to The Pale around Dublin, all beyond was considered as given over to savagery, hence the expression 'Beyond the Pale'.

What we see here is the same thing that appears time and again, throughout the whole world, and over all time: it begins when an entire community is condemned as barbarous; it ends with the justification of all and every method in the creation of 'civilization', no matter how barbarous. It is against this background that you must place the Cromwellian Conquest and all that followed, in both Hell and in Connaught. Clio the Muse 02:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, girl-why are you not Irish? Irishbard 16:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * All English; sorry! Clio the Muse 00:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

ALL CAPS legal disclaimers
You've seen it. For example in the GPL3.0, point 15, Disclaimer of Warranty, there's the usual "...PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO..." yadda yadda.

Just curious, is there a legal requirement that disclaimers have to be in all caps? Or is it just common practice of people trying to cover their behinds as thoroughly as possible, as in "SEE, I'M DUMBING THIS PART DOWN AS FAR AS I CAN FOR YOU SUCKERS: DON'T SUE ME."? 84.129.163.13 16:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Wikipedia's own disclaimer prevents me from giving legal advice, but I've never come across any state or nation where all-caps would be treated any differently under the law. Personally, I think they hope to give the impression of "THIS IS SERIOUS.  WE KNOW WE WROTE IT SO YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT, BUT IT'S SERIOUS."  --M @ r ē ino 18:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My suspicion is that "IT IS REALLY HARD TO READ LONG SENTENCES THAT ARE ALL IN CAPITALS THAT IS WHY WE DO IT SO YOU WILL GIVE UP TRYING TO READ IT BEFORE YOU REALISE THAT THE WARRANTY IS USELESS AND GIVES YOU NO EFFECTIVE RIGHTS WHATSOEVER". But I may be wrong. DuncanHill 18:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be surprised if there was a statutory legal requirement mandating the used of majuscules for a disclaimer. It may be a version of the red hand rule.  (No, not the Red Hand of Ulster - Lord Denning's "red hand" from Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking - "In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling." - and the earlier case of Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw.) -- !! ?? 19:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Russian women in the Second World War
I've just started to research this important topic and would be grateful for some pointers. Fred said right 16:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this information on Soviet snipers might help: . It says so in the fourth box (kills, country, name, fourth unnamed box ) when they are female. I suspect you could google a few of them, see what comes up (or their regiments). · AndonicO Talk 20:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Assuming you are not talking about military participants, Googling "Soviet Women World War II" comes up with a number of articles, references, etc. The basic story is that life was pretty darn hard for the Soviets during WWII, and as one might expect women felt a lot of that hardness directly. Wikipedia even has an article titled Soviet women in the Great Patriotic War (which is the Russian name for WWII), but it again is mostly focused on military participation. --24.147.86.187 02:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You should also consider the role of women on the domestic front. Already in 1940 they made up 41% of the Soviet labour force, a proportion that increased in the years that followed: they worked in munitions factories; enrolled as air-raid wardens; dug anti-tank ditches. There was even a 'Special Woman's Brigade' delegated to paint newly assembled artillery pieces as they were being transported on flat railway cars to the front. Some 800,000 women saw service on the battle fronts, not just as soldiers, partisans and pilots, but as cooks, laundresses, sappers, nurses and doctors. On the land Russian women kept Soviet agriculture alive, often harnessing themselves in teams to plow the land in the absence of machinery. The tractors that remained, starved of spare parts, were kept going by female mechanics, using every ingenious method at their disposal. The female pilots who flew over the German defences in the dark, so effective in unsettling the enemy that they were called 'Night Witches', had their planes armed and maintained by female ground crews. These women were able to rearm planes within minutes of landing, sometimes loading 400-kilo bombs by hand. Joseph Goebbels preached total war to German women; it was Russian women who learned to practice it. Clio the Muse 02:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure feminist studies have a lot to report about women in the Soviet Union, but I like this poster from before World War II. ''"8th of March is the day of the rebellion of the working women against the kitchen slavery. Say NO to the oppression and Babbittry of the household work!" ---Sluzzelin talk  13:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Babbittry? Corvus cornix 15:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Babbitry, from Babbit a conventional middle-class, esteeming success, and having no use for the arts or the intellect. DuncanHill 00:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * From Sinclair Lewis' novel of the same name, of course. Though why the term should have made its way into Soviet propaganda in just that particular form is not a little perplexing.  I simply love the 'Babbittry' of housework!  Clio the Muse 00:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Clio! I'm shocked! Wrong Sinclair (though there is a connexion). As to the Soviet's using the word, a possible clue in our article on the novel "In characterizing Babbitt's work, Lewis suggests a critique of capitalism. In the novel's opening chapter, we are told that Babbitt "made nothing in particular, neither butter nor shoes nor poetry, but he was nimble in the calling of selling houses for more than people could afford to pay." Likewise, when Babbitt reflects on his career while home sick in bed, he exclaims to himself that his work is "Mechanical business — a brisk selling of badly built houses."" DuncanHill 00:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yikes; too quick she types! Embarrassing error now corrected.  Thanks, Duncan.  Clio the Muse 01:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

HDI for N Ireland
hi

im looking for the HDI for Northern Ireland. anyone know?

thanks, --Plague of Death 17:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you mean Human Development Index, then it is calculated for states, not provinces, so Northern Ireland would be included in the figure for the United Kingdom. DuncanHill 17:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

i know that it is calculated for states but England, Scotland and Wales all have their own different ones so that brings me back to my orngional questin --Plague of Death 18:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Our articles for those countries do not appear to give sources for the quoted HDIs, but I notice that the .939 figure given for both Scotland and Wales is stated to be from 2003, and the .940 quoted for England is for 2006, and is the same as the 2006 figure for the UK as a whole. DuncanHill 18:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

When Were the Nuremberg Trials Televised?```Momynym
I cannot find information on when the Nuremberg trials were televised. From when to when? I remember the end of it being televised when I was a child in the 1950's--but what, exactly was televised? It seems the all of the trials were actually concluded by 1949. I am not talking about any movie. Thank you for any information you are able to provide.````Momynym —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momynym (talk • contribs) 19:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Televised? In which country?  And broadcast live, or broadcast from a recording?  I suspect that any television broadcast of the Nuremberg Trials in the 1950s would be based on a newsreel or similar film-based recording. -- !! ?? 19:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There certainly is some original film of the Nuremberg Trials. As you aren't thinking of any movie, it can't help that there are things about like Stanley Kramer's Judgment at Nuremberg. Presumably some of the original film material did find its way onto some television networks at the time? If you can fathom this, you may wish to add something to the Nuremberg Trials article, with a reference to your source. Xn4 20:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems probable that in 1949 more people in the U.S. stilll got their visual news from newsreels in movie theaters than from TV's at home. (That was the era when TV's sometimes had a permanently installed magnifying lens in front of a tiny screen!) Certainly there was no way to transmit video images across the Atlantic in real time until more than ten years later. AnonMoos 03:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw the trials in the U.S. Could the original footage have been rebroadcast in the 1950's as series--sort of pre-PBS? This would have been no later than 1956 or 1957, I think.````Momynym —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momynym (talk • contribs) 19:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Religious Studies vs Religious Education
I'm from the UK. Some people say Religious Education and some say Religious Studies. Are they different or the same thing? I think Religious Education may be for religious institutions (like a Roman Catholic school) but I'm not sure. -- Stacey talk  19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm from the US, and it may be different here, but in US terms, "religious education" would be indoctrination or training in the beliefs of a particular religion. "Religious studies" refers to the academic study of religion, typically from a basically anthropological perspective.  A person in a "religious education" class would typically be an adherent of the religion studying to attain a greater understanding of their religion or to attain a status within that religion through a process such as confirmation or ordination.  A person in a "religious studies" course would typically be a university student, not necessarily an adherent of any religion, seeking to understand a religion or to compare different religions from a critical, external viewpoint.  Marco polo 20:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh over here you can do "religious studies" from ages 11+ (maybe earlier but I can't say I've spoken to many under 11s about it personally, although I did "religious education" since...forever) as my friend did it at her school, and another did it for A Levels. -- Stacey talk  21:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In England and Wales (probably Scotland and Northern Ireland too, tho' they have separate educational systems), all children in state schools must take Religious Education/Religious Instruction/Religious Studies unless their parents specifically ask for them not to. Also, all state schools must have a daily act of collective worship which must be mainly christian in nature. Freedom of Religion is all very well, but on no account should children be exposed to it! DuncanHill 08:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a theoretical distinction, which I doubt always holds in practice. There are also a plethora of other names like "faith studies" etc. Johnbod 21:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What really gets me is when I ask a student what field they are studying, and I get the reply they are studying Divinity.--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam] 21:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your objection to that, Lambiam. You're far more steeped in our culture than most people, and Divinity is the hallowed English (and Scottish) name for Theology. There is a Divinity School at Oxford, a School of Divinity at Edinburgh, a Gresham Professor of Divinity at Gresham College, and so forth. We have had Doctors of Divinity and Bachelors of Divinity since the middle ages. I remember having classes in Divinity at school. I admit I find it a more authentic term than the more modern ones... please forgive me if I'm missing something? Xn4 01:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hallowed be that name. You either find it funny or not, but to me, notwithstanding its venerable tradition, the combination "studying Divinity" has a ring of New-Ageness. --Lambiam 07:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's okay to laugh at studying Divinity, which indeed is a mix of old and new. We'll also let you laugh when we say divvers. Xn4 16:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And certain Anglican prelates are referred to as divines. --  JackofOz 03:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of them may even be Divines ;p DuncanHill 16:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, Stacey. I'm not sure about the UK, but in the United States, a religious studies major would  study religion, while a religious education major would notionally be preparing to teach in a religious primary or secondary school.  Of course, many of the religious education programs are junk and lack accreditation.  See, for example, "Dr." Kent Hovind's alma mater, Patriot Bible University.  ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 05:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a difference, at least in the UK. Religious Studies is learning about religions, but not attempting to convince you of their rightness. At my secondary school, for example, we studied Sikhism, Buddism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity (and it's various components) and a little bit on a few others. When we came to the GCSE, the teacher picked modules on Christianity because they thought we'd find them easiest, since we knew more bits and pieces about it than other religions. Religious Education is more concerned with teaching you about your religion, or the religion you are assumed to have. Hence it has more of an 'insider' aspect. Religious Instruction is the same, but more so. RI is an older term, rarely used nowadays (at least in state schools). This is further confused by people sometimes saying RE when they mean RS. Skittle 13:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Perception of Sociology
I was wondering if anyone knew what sort of perception Universities/businesses(?) had of Sociology. I'm taking a degree in it shortly (not that it'll affect my enjoyment of the subject or my studies, I'm just curious). I've heard from various places that it's considered an "easy" A Level (and degree) or a "Mickey Mouse" subject along with some others. -- Stacey talk  19:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Social science is such a broad subject, I suspect that universities would find an A-level in Sociology an excellent preparatory subject for degrees in things like social-science, international studies, politics, economics, etc. I don't think businesses consider it an 'easy' subejct. Much is made of reducing certain degrees to easy compared to others being hard. The degree you study is valued dependent on the job you wish to pursue. A degree in a highly specialised subject such as medicine will suit you brilliantly for medical-based careers but its appeal for, say, a marketing role would be less-so - particularly compared to someone with a marketing degree. Obviously this is a generalisation and some will value the 'tougher' (so called) degrees over the more relevant one because they think it shows more potential/capacity to learn. To that end this article by Boris Johnson is of interest and (as always) an enjoyable read (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/23/do2301.xml). ny156uk 22:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was interesting :) -- Stacey talk  00:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Stacey, my boyfriend has a degree in sociology. He is now a stockbroker; so anything, and everything, is possible! Get the most out of your studies. All else will follow. Clio the Muse 22:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good to know! It's also nice to know that there are male who take Sociology (unfortunately, I believe there was about 5 in my college and over 100 girls)! -- Stacey talk  00:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard of its being a crip class ("cripple class") or no account degree, but it's poorly defined in most minds. It's either viewed as so like Anthropology as to be almost the same or so close to Psychology as to be almost the same or so close to Economics as to be a poor version. I.e. its methods and foci are such that people can't quite be sure what's in it and what's outside of it. Most of the schools I attended saw Psychology and Criminology as the "easy A" degrees (among the classic University, that is; Education, Journalism, and Communications suffer a poor reputation as well). Sociology just seems to be difficult for anyone to get a bead on. Geogre 02:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not regarding the subject itself, but in the early 1970s when I was an undergraduate at UCLA and a student advisor for its College of Letters and Science, of the 45 classes required for graduation (180 units min. at 4 units/class), the Sociology major had the fewest required classes, at 15; at the high end of the scale were Astrophysics and Music (31 and 30 respectively). With freedom of choice a premium value of the zeitgeist, Soc. was accordingly popular - not the least as a suitable pre-law major (law studies being post-B.A.). Incidentally, at that time Psychology was changed from a Social Science to a Life Science (with the addition of Statistics courses), and edged out English Literature as most popular undergrad major. -- Deborahjay 06:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That, by the way, is why Psych. was the "easy major" at the U's I attended. It required the fewest hours in the major concentration, and so it became the catch-all for pre-meds who met their match in Organic Chemistry, pre-laws who managed to get dissuaded, and the various others.  This was in addition to a reputation as being wishy-washy in its classes.  One would suppose that the professional organizations of Sociology would work in concert to up the course loads, where I'm not sure that the APA would or has.  Utgard Loki 15:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Duke Of Wellington - what did he forbid his men to take into battle?
§This is a pub quiz question which is driving us mad!!! I have found out that it may have come from a Mastermind programme in 1976 when a specialist subject was the Duke of Wellington. we have tried rifles, muskets, their wives, love letters, the Bible all to no avail. Help someone!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misty26 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an answer to this question see humanities section" Duke of Wellington" Sept 10,2007 '''Need Information? Ask A Librarian! '''
 * See Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 6. --Lambiam 22:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that the suggested answer at that time was "rifles", which the questioner says is incorrect. --Dweller 10:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Speculating... perhaps he took inspiration from Gideon and forbade fear? --Dweller 11:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Beef which was not enclosed in a pastry shell. Gzuckier 14:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Obligation vs. Responsibility vs. Duty
What is the difference among obligation, responsibility, and duty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.176.4 (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * obligation, responsibility, duty − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)