Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 27

= April 27 =

Schooling in America
Does education in the US proceed with first reading, writing and arithmetic (elementary schools) followed by introduction to significant topics with each year going a bit deeper into the topic (grade school) followed by even greater depth, basic expansion and introduction to preparation for a trade or for higher learning (junior high) followed by even greater depth and expansion of trades or preparation for higher learning (high school) followed by even greater depth and specialization of a trade or higher learning (Junior college or tech school) followed by higher learning (college) followed by graduate and post-graduate studies (University) or is there some other basis for year to year progress through the educational system? 71.100.11.39 (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't necessarily call that the most accurate description. If all you're wondering is whether you have the names right, you generally do (though most schools I know don't differentiate between "elementary" and "grade" school. The notion of progression is there--it could hardly fail to be in any schooling system...I cannot conceive of a real life school system that taught students advanced subjects first and gradually worked down to basic skills like literacy and addition.  But your chain of events seems to suggest that one is gradually prepared for a specific trade, and that kind of vocational focus is rare in schools below high school in the U.S.  Honestly, even in high school, vocational classes (depending on the school) are at best a small portion of the degree--most of us still hold to the "comprehensive school" model that believes all students should be given a background in a wide spread of subject areas, so as not to limit student career choices post-high school.  It is fair to say that junior colleges are more focused on vocational instruction, and that college and beyond continues that instruction, but the system is not quite as carefully constructed and linear as you envision.


 * If you're wondering how someone "progresses" year to year, generally it's due to age--one year older equals one grade higher. Yes, generally you work on more advanced stuff as each year goes by, but a student can easily take French one year, skip that class for a year or two and then return to the language.  Prerequisites (in high school and above) are designed to make sure students take courses that prepare them for more advanced classes before they can enroll in those advanced classes, but in practice it is not at all strange for a student to intentionally, say, take a "tough" junior year followed by an "easy" senior year, merely by adjusting the classes they wish to choose.  I'm sure others will have their own perspectives, but that's the way it looks in a reasonably wealthy school district in the Pacific Northwest, according to a high school teacher of history and literature. :-)  Yours truly, User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.231.197.110 (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The main reason I'm asking is that when statistical results of a study were recently presented to me that at first I was lost owing to the good number of years since I was deep into the subject but now that I have revisited the subject my comprehension seems to be ten fold what it was since I last cracked a book. I know a lot has to do with the new tools the Internet provides along with software like MathCad but it is still like the time in between has allowed me to subconsciously digest the material such that my comprehension can be so much better now. I'm wondering if getting all of the basics down in the 5th grade might not be better for full comprehension in the 10th versus one piece one year and another piece the next year resulting in still incomplete comprehension by the 12th. In other words is there a fixed curriculum for each grade everywhere that builds on the previous year or just haphazard pieces presented in a haphazard fashion just to fill the years. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In most school systems, mathematics is taught in a cumulative way, for convenience. It certainly is easier to teach someone advanced statistics if they already know lots about arithmetic and algebra. In theory is is possible to completely change the order of topics so that topics that are usually considered difficult come first and those usually considered easy come afterwards. But it would require a lot of ingenuity on the part of teachers and for most students it would not give any advantages. I think you found your comprehension much better when you came returned to statistics after some years for a combination of reasons. Many adults returning to study find the topics much easier the second time round and wonder why they found them so difficult the first time. As an adult learner you are not under any pressure to compare yourself with others in the class, so you are not pre-programmed to fail. You are more used to reading texts and so you can understand the phrases in the textbook more easily. When it comes to calculations, you can see that they are done for a purpose and not just as an abstract exercise. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Truth
Does the truth have to be honest? For example if someone passed by me while I had my eyes closed. And then someone else came and asked, "did you see anyone pass here?" And I said, no. Is that the truth or honest? 99.226.39.245 (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I cannot follow your logic. If you did not see you did not see!  Your truth is relative...and honest.  Clio the Muse (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There's the literal question and the implied question. You decided to answer the literal one which, as Clio says, is true for you. You might like our article Casuistry. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's say for instance that the person asking the question is a detective. Most likely he would ask "Did anyone pass?" with further questioning if he sensed any deception. In the case of criminal pursuit an answer perceived to be deceptive might result in your being held as an accessory. So, yes, under some circumstances you may not have been completely truthful even though you were quite honest about the facts. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd argue that this is why the courts (in the U.S. at least) demand that witnesses swear not only to tell "the truth" but "the whole truth". Your answer of "no" is the truth, but not the whole truth--saying "no, I had my eyes closed" would meet that standard, I think.  User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.231.197.110 (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This would amount to lying by omission, especially if you knew someone did pass. --Sgt. Salt (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But it might be the whole truth if 99 had no sensory awareness that anyone had passed by. The above answers seem to assume that even though 99's eyes were closed, he/she was still aware that someone had passed by, maybe because he/she heard them, felt a slight breeze, or smelled something different - or was later told that someone had passed by.  None of things may be the case.  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 99 would probably not be asking the question if 99 were completely unaware that someone had passed when 99's eyes were closed. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The answer is "Yes" or "No"; "I believe so", "I don't think so", or "I don't know" for uncertainties. Vranak (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are two types of truth. We'll call them absolute and relative. An absolute truth is something which is true regardless of whether people know it or not. For example, it is true that someone walked by you, whether you saw them or not. By this definition, your saying no one passed you is a lie. A relative truth is whatever you think the truth is. Since you didn't see anyone walk by, you can honestly think no one did and honestly say they didn't. It all depends on what your definition is. Wrad (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You may find the concept of Sophism worth researching. Although you may find the Wikipedia article insufficient, it contains references to some more works you may find more useful. -- llywrch (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Alas, there would seem to be far too many lawyers, or would be lawyers, here and not nearly enough philosophers! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, my philosophy is that there are absolute truths that you can know about. I know that many philosophies think otherwise, but other people can explain those! Wrad (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Methinks that too many follow the word but not the spirit. FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Therefore I will try a philosophic evaluation of all answers. I don't know how to defend an "I don't know" response—you don't know if you saw someone? Of course you know if you saw someone or not. Was it a hallucination maybe? If your eyes were closed, the truthful answer is "no". You did not see anyone because you saw nothing. If you say "yes", you are lying. Imagine a follow-up question: were they wearing a red shirt? You can only say "I don't know" because you lied and you didn't actually see the person. H YENASTE 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are we all assuming that "Yes", "No", or "I don't know" are all that someone can say? "I wouldn't know for sure: my eyes were closed." is a perfectly reasonable answer.  If this is a philosophical dilemma in which yes and no are the only responses, then maybe we have to play games with words, but given access to the wider range of reasonable responses, I see no reason why this poses us a challenge. 71.231.197.110 (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Tried that, closed my eyes, fell over, and some passer by tripped over me.--Artjo (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I may just risk a final statement here. I read the question as a philosophical paradox on the nature of truth itself; of truth in its relative and in its absolute form. There are certain truths that can only ever be relative, given the limits of perception. If you did not see you did not see; that's it; that is the only possible answer. What can be seen from the eye of God, or in the eye of another, is quite immaterial. Everything beyond 'I did not see' is verbiage; or in philosophical terms, it is nonsense. Let me make 99.226's question more specific, and then perhaps the lawyers among you will understand. 'Did you see Hannibal ride past on an elephant?' Now, do you still think 'I wouldn't know for sure: my eyes were closed' was a perfectly reasonable answer?! Ah, well, I suppose some of you may very well, but I would simply ask the others to remember always the admonition of Ludwig Wittgenstein-Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. (Or was their really a hippopotamus in Russell's rooms at Cambridge?!) Clio the Muse (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Seems you've departed from your initial answer, Clio.  I read it as saying that if 99.226.39.245 said "no", that would be an honest response.  Now, you're saying that any response other than "I did not see" would be inappropriate.  May I take it that your most recent post is the operative one?  --  JackofOz (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really; the position remains the same: if you did not see you did not see. What happens beyond the field of your perception is irrelevant.  It matters not if you were passed by Hannibal Barca...or Hannibal Lecter!  In this particular context 'I did not see' and 'no' are effectively the same; as responses both are true, just as both are honest.  Clio the Muse (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

emperor maro
Hi folks, Titus Flavius Vespasianus became emperor Vespasian of the Flavian dynasty, meanwhile (actually a bit earlier), Publius Vergilius Maro just became Virgil. Does that mean if Virgil had been an emperor instead he would have been emperor Maro of the Vergilian dynasty? t.i.a. 203.221.126.232 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, three emperors were named "Titus Flavius"; one was Titus Flavius Domitianus (Domitian), and two were Titus Flavius Vespasianus (Vespasian and Titus). We distinguish them so it is less confusing but I don't think contemporaries called them by different names. Virgil was always known as Virgil (well...sometimes he was called Maro, although maybe that is just a medieval thing). Adam Bishop (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a trait of the Eighteenth Century too:


 * 'Twas such as these the Rural Maro sung
 * To the full Roman Court, in all it's height
 * Of Elegance and Taste. The sacred Plow
 * Employ'd the Kings and Fathers of Mankind,
 * In antient Times.
 * James Thomson, 'Spring' (1728) ll.55-57.
 * Lord Foppington (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Prison violence
There doesn't seem to be any summary of violence in prisons in Wikipedia... There's an article on prison rape, but nothing on other forms of violence, e.g. murder, and not even a mention in the main article on prisons. I myself do not know anything about the subject, so what's the best way to help? --Sgt. Salt (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The best way, Sgt. Salt, would to do some basic research, if you are so minded, and then either add the information you manage to uncover to the existing prisons article, or perhaps write an independent piece, if you feel this is warranted. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When I discovered that the coverage of topics about Ethiopia was unsatisfactory, my solution was to ... research the subject. It's been a long process, & I'm still not finished learning enough to write satisfactory articles (although I'm at the point now where I can seriously think about bringing some of them to FA status like the Battle of Adwa), but it's a useful side-effect of writing for Wikipedia: you learn something, even if they are things you cannot use in a Wikipedia article. (BTW, it appears that no one has written an article about the history of prisons, another subject worth writing about.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I endorse the comments above, Sgt Salt, and add my own encouragement. My major contributions to WP have been to subjects I have looked for and not found, rather than those in which I have an existing expertise or knowledge.  It is extremely rewarding and satisfying to produce a well-researched article and, as Llywrch says, you learn all sorts of things along the way. How to go about it? If you feel there is enough information to warrant a separate page, then start with the basic outline, and  plug in more information as you come across it.  You might prefer to start the article in your own userspace first; then you can tinker away at your own speed, without feeling that the eyes of the world are on you.   (See User pages.)  It can be moved or copied to mainspace when you are ready. Of course, you can also start directly in mainspace. The main thing is to find good sources. Google searches are quite good, but the majority of stuff on the internet fails WP:Reliable sources, so hunt out journal articles, reference sites and so forth rather than forums and general sites.  Visit your library: some of the best and most reliable resources are only available in hardcopy (academics and researchers tend to publish their studies; it's how they make their living).  Check out WP:CITE: it is good practice to provide inline citations as you go; good articles require citations, and anything uncited can be challenged or removed later, and it is much harder to go back and prove something you knew you read somewhere... Above all, enjoy it!  Forgive me if I've repeated basics you already know.  If you need further advice or help, then most regular editors here are happy to help (you can certainly contact me on my talk page).  You can also check out related WikiProjects, which offer support, resources, peer reviews, assessment and so forth.  WikiProject Criminal justice seems to be inactive, but WikiProject Law should be a good starting point.  Gwinva (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. I'm sure researching something I know next to nothing about would be interesting, but due to limited free time I have to restrict myself to researching points of detail. In fact the dilemma I was facing was that I checked WP to have a quick overview of violence in prisons, but didn't have time to delve into such a broad subject. So I wondered if there was a place to report that kind of blatant omission so that people knowledgeable on the subject or who simply happen to be interested in that topic could know it was missing. It's not so much about this article specifically (since I'm sure I'll find the time to create a stub in the next few weeks anyway) as it is about the other times I felt this way about an article but didn't know exactly where to report it. Of course, I'm aware reporting a problem does not fix it and someone has to do the fixing, but there are certainly benefits to having a list of most glaring defects in WP: prioritizing to fix the most obvious ones first, and having more contributions written by experts who already have a good overview of the subject and already know where to find the right sources. Actually, if there is such a list of "obvious fixes for people who know the subject" I'd be more than willing to help, and I'm certainly not the only one. --Sgt. Salt (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone??? --Sgt. Salt (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The West Wing
Not directly relevant, but I'm fairly assured in my belief that this is the place where West Wing fans are most likely to surface. For the life of me I can't recognize who http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/4261/vlcsnap3438612jd1.png is. He had the camera trained on him in Tomorrow (The West Wing), so I'm assuming he's important enough for me not to forget - moreover, he looks familar, but just sounds like Babish in my head. AlmostCrimes (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the great Aaron Sorkin himself, the creator of the series. Gantpupo (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard II, royal power and divine right
I consulted your Richard II of England page for some information on the exact reasons for his fall in 1399, but I'm not much wiser. Not only is the page breathless and ill-organized but my question was not fully answered. It also says that Richard adhered to the 'old' notion of the divine right of kings. Now I'm really confused. I always thought this was something assocaited with the development of absolutism rather than medieval monarchy? Am I wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogeeee (talk • contribs) 11:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Richard seems to have got on well enough with his uncle John of Gaunt, and John’s son Henry Bolingbroke was his cousin and playmate, but Richard’s attempts to take charge of his kingdom were messy. Henry and his uncle Thomas of Woodstock were both members of the Lords Appellant, who forced the execution of several of Richard’s friends, including his beloved tutor Burley, and as Churchill says, “We must suppose that this treatment produced a marked impression on his mind.”  Certainly in 1397, now secure in his authority, he finally began to take  revenge on those who had bullied and domineered over him before he reached adulthood, particularly the Lords Appellant. Arundel was beheaded, Warwick was exiled and Gloucester was murdered by Royal agents while under arrest, and Richard used Parliament to rubber-stamp these acts.  It all smacked of tyranny.


 * Thomas Mowbray had been a Lord Appellant too, so when Henry accused Mowbray of treason, Richard may have seen a certain irony in the accusation and its source. He refused to allow a duel of honour between the two and banished them both, apparently with the permission of John of Gaunt.  Henry is said to have been outraged by his ten-year banishment, so perhaps he was genuinely loyal to Richard and trying to protect his interests.  He certainly wasn’t after a year’s exile and then the loss of his father's estates, confiscated by Richard on John's death, of which Christopher Lee says “And then, it seems, Richard lost his reason.”  Going off to Ireland was another dreadful miscalculation – Henry was popular, had powerful support in the North, and was viewed by some as a doubly wronged man.  He only had to turn up in Richard's absence, as he promptly did, to become a symbol of resistance against injustice and tyranny.  Richard’s overthrow is an example of the power of PR, the fickleness of mobs, and the danger of taking your eye off the ball. --  Ka renjc 20:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right to be confused by the reference to Richard’s alleged adherence to the 'old ideal' of the Divine Right of Kings because-how can I put this without seeming unkind?-it's complete and utter tosh! Sadly, this is one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia, when seemingly plausible information is incorporated into articles without challenge. The Divine Right of Kings was a feature of the forms of royal absolutism that began to develop in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and is associated in England with the House of Stuart, particularly James I, who might be said to have given the notion intellectual substance in his The Trew Law of Free Monarchies.

The reasons for Richard's downfall are simple enough: he failed to understand the nation and its institutions; he failed to understand the significance of Parliament, and he failed to understand just how exactly an English monarch fitted within the general system of government. He was also lacking in any kind of political skill, making enemies of the most powerful men in the land at a time when he needed real friends, not passing favourites. If I can put it this way, Dogeee, an English Monarch of the high Middle Ages was a little like an early Roman Emperor. He was, in other words, Primus inter pares-first among equals-, at the top of a feudal hierarchy, yes, but dependent, and crucially dependent, on the senior aristocracy and the lower gentry below that. With Richard, arbitrary and unpredictable, the pyramid simply collapsed. It was not that he was unfit for office, rather he simply lacked the suppleness of mind to detect the changing mood of the nation as expressed in Parliament, an institution which had grown in strength over the preceding century, especially during the reign of Edward III, Richard's grandfather. Above all what he completely failed to realise was that Parliament expected to be considered as am essential partner in the nation's business, not just a forum for granting royal taxation.

The immediate cause of Richard’s fall, of course, was that the confiscation Bolingbroke's inheritance had alarmed all of the senior nobility, who could see their own rights threatened by such arbitrary action. Richard was in every way the architect of his own downfall: a politically inept king and a bad manager of men. It had nothing to do with fickleness, with PR...or with mobs! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Instruments and instrument players going extinct
Is there any serious study on the lack of musicians working on the manufacture and playing of certain instruments? One can imagine how instruments cease to be played or created every now and then due to lack of interest on the art. Do you guys know anything about this? Any instruments that are nearly extinct you can name? &mdash; Kieff | Talk 11:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The dinosaur bone flute is rarely made nowadays,sadlyhotclaws 12:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an instrument called the Zither that's always on the verge of dying out and then you get a revival. Various specific types of flutes have become extinct or are on the verge. A saw isn't really an instrument but there are very few people who can really play it well. Harpsichord and Mellotron are not that common, but probably have enough people to keep them going. The nice thing is that unless all knowledge gets lost, instruments can be revived. Look at the Lute that lay dormant for almost a century and then came back into use. --Lisa4edit (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on reading the lyre article, many types of lyre are distinct and are played only by small groups. The article also says that we cannot know exactly what the lyre of the classical heroic age was. I infer that many types of lyre have gone extinct and that others are currently on the edge of extinction. -Arch dude (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My favorite obsolete-but-subject-to-revival instruments are the crumhorn, rackett, and sackbut. Pfly (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Praetorius knew about playing the comb? ! Julia Rossi (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gosh am I getting that old. Playing comb (wind instrument) used to be as essential a part of growing up as playing spoons (percussion). Well, the slide rule and computers I used are already in the museum.  I guess I should not be surprised. --Lisa4edit (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Three life expectancy questions

 * 1. Why does Bhutan have a higher male expectancy than a female one? And how did it manage to remain with one ever since the country's initial existence?
 * 2. If Andorra has the highest life expectancy, why aren't there/haven't there been many 100-year olds and 110-year olds there?
 * 3. Does Georgia (the country) really have one of the highest rates for 100-year olds? It says so in a fact book that I have. 124.176.209.38 (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding 2): life expectancy is measured as an average, therefore 100 year olds are not required for a high life expectancy as long as you have a lot of 70-90 year olds. Regarding 3): this says that the top three for centenarians are the US, Japan, and Canada. Wrad (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1 This https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bt.html#People gives 65.5 for males and 66.4 for females. It states that the first modern census took place on 2005, so an erroneous estimate may have been published elsewhere.
 * 2 Average life expectancy and maximum life span are, whilst related, not identical. They certainly differ when the mean is calculated at birth as the mortality rate of infants (inter alia) reduces the average expectancy.  If the infant mortality rate is low and few people die prior to their average expectancy this results in there being no or just a few centenarians.  Of course, Andorra is quite tiny and the size of an average suburb.
 * 3 Georgia has a life expectancy at birth of 77 and an infant mortality rate of 17. The equivalents for Andorra are 84 and 4 (these demographics are superior to the stats from the UK / USA).  As far as the Ukraine is concerned, I found some stuff published by the Institute of Gerontology of the Kiev Acadamy.  As I can´t read it, I have no idea about the frequency of centenarians.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. At birth, there are generally more boys than girls, and more boys than girls die very close to birth (neonatal mortality). If they are counted as born dead, then they are not included in the statistics for calculating life expectancy. In developing countries the rate of death of mothers at or after the birth (peripartum mortality) is higher than in developed countries, which could also reduce the life expectancy for females. SaundersW (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You should also consider whether the culture you are looking at favors male (or female?) children. There are some areas around the world where children are not counted as "alive" until several days, or weeks after birth.  Infanticide would then not be counted/reported. Another thing to consider in agricultural societies is whether the farming in that country is a predominantly male or female occupation, or evenly divided amongst the sexes. There are cultures that send women straight back to work in the fields after giving birth.  In addition to women dying in childbirth such things can skew statistics.  71.236.23.111 (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Message left on WT:Reliable sources
Copying this here from WT:Reliable sources.

looking for information on tom browning of brownington mo who the town was named after and who left the ground for the brownington baptist church to be build on he was my great grandfather thank youBarbara1st (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Itsmejudith (talk)

If you live in the area and have some time you might try their microfilms http://tacnet.missouri.org/hcl/papers1.html You gave very little information to search for anyone by. E.g. key years might have helped. Have you tried contacting the church? jperkins@mobaptist.org ? There is a Brownington Baptist Church that was established in 1882. That it? Was Tom his full name or a shortened form? There are archives for Civil War information, but you are going to need more details to find anything there. Lisa4edit (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Chicago
This question is politically themed so please leave it here. Who was Nash refering to with:
 * "Don't ask Jack to help you 'cause he'll turn the other ear. . ."?

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * According to http://www.4waysite.com/faq/faqsongs.htm, Graham Nash: "The 'Jack' in my song Chicago is Jack Kennedy. Jack is a term used by many English people as a kind of generic word. Although Kennedy had been dead for years, his spirit lives on." In the context of the song, "Jack" could refer to those people for whom the Chicago issue is not "their problem"; the song infers, of course, that no matter how far removed from a problem "Jack" might think he/she is, it is always one's responsibility to stand up, be counted and do one's level best to resolve the issue : hence the refrain "We can change the world" ?  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Birds In Reference To Eyeglasses
What Bird, whether by name or type of species, relate to eyeglasses in any way?––ROS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.28.208 (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The quite unspectacular zosterops, aka the spectacle bird. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe too obvious and neither a name nor type of species, but some owls look as though they're wearing a pair of glasses. :-) I had a bit more luck with a quick search in German where there are lots of animals that have a prefix "Brillen-" (spectacle)  -ente (duck), -pinguin (penguin), -taube (dove), -pelikan (pelican). It's likely there are more. Non of those has anything to do with glasses in English.  They also have a bear, a snake, a sheep and a sort of reptile, to name just some I've heard of. I guess "spectacle" just doesn't flow well and "eyeglasses" is too long as a compound and could lead to misunderstandings. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Penguin has a monocle...--Shantavira|feed me 08:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Spectacled Warbler (Sylvia conspicillata) and Spectacled Owl (Pulsatrix perspicillata). There's a Spectacled Tern too, but I think it's officially a Grey-Backed Tern these days.  --  Ka renjc 15:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And how about the Spectacled Eider ?--Eriastrum (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Examples of non-Russian high profile people in Soviet Union
Hello,

in the west, one often thinks of the Soviet Union as a Greater Russia, so it usually comes as a surprise that important people like Stalin and Beriawere no ethnic Russians. I was wondering : what other examples are there? (They don't have to be politicians, nation-wide known military commanders, scientists,... are welcome too) Thanks, Evilbu (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just now I'm able to give you Brezhnev and Kliment Voroshilov, who I happen to know were Ukranian. Some digging around in our soviet biography articles (the two linked ones give you some good categories) will find you more. User:Krator (t c) 20:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Khrushchev was ethnic Russian, but lived a lot of his early life in Ukraine, and was often identified as being Ukrainian, although he identified as Russian.  Corvus cornix  talk  21:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Leon Trotsky came from a Jewish family in the Ukraine, which makes it kind of ironic that under his watch, the Red Army dropped its internationalist pretenses and began to propagandize for the mighty Great Russian people to defend the Motherland. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any such development while Trotsky was Commissar for Defence, Mwalcoff, a position he lost, of course, in early 1925. It would hardly have been advisable considering that one of his best formations was made up of Latvians!  Clio the Muse (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * During the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-20, according to Orlando Figes, I believe. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here it is:
 * Trotsky at once saw the propaganda victory to be won by getting Brusilov to join the Reds. The next day he announced the general's appointment as the Chairman of a Special Conference in command of the Western Front. Printed in Pravda on 7 May [1920], the announcement was typical of the increasingly xenophobic tone of the Bolsheviks' rhetoric. It called on all patriots to join the army and 'defend the Fatherland' from the 'Polish invaders' who were 'trying to tear from us lands that have always belonged to the Russians'. Trotsky claimed that the Poles were driven by 'hatred of Russia and the Russians'. The Red Army journal, Voennoe delo, published a xenophobic article (for which it was later suspended) contrasting the 'innate Jesuitry of the Polacks' with the 'honourable and open spirit of the Great Russian race'. Radek characterized the whole of the civil war as a 'national struggle of liberation against foreign invasion'. The Reds, he said, were 'defending Mother Russia' against the efforts of the Whites and the Allies to 'make it a colony' of the West. 'Soviet Russia', he concluded on a note of warning to the newly independent states, aimed to 'reunite all the Russian lands and defend Russia from colonial exploitation.' It was back to the old imperialism. (A People's Tragedy, p. 699)
 * Incidentally, Karl Radek, like Trotsky, came from a Jewish Ukrainian family. The fiercest nationalists are always those with an adopted national identity. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Mwalcoff; I should have known it would have been in that war that the Old Russian Adam would have made his reappearance! However, I would dispute that the use of this kind of traditional imagery proved that either Radek or Trotsky had somehow become Russian chauvinists.  Both men were firmly international in outlook, as they were to demonstrate time and again.  But they were both talented propagandists; and such people always know how to make the best use of the things that move people most.  The war with Poland excited Russian national sentiment more than all the battles of the Civil War, fully demonstrated by the open support of Brusilov, a national hero, for the regime.  It would have made perfect sense to capitalise upon this general mood as part of a propaganda battle.  Clio the Muse (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, Evilbu, I could compile a list of dozens of names, but I think I would find the task altogether too tiresome. So, let me confine myself simply to the politicians. Taking a strict definition of ethnicity, as supposed to the location of an individual's birth, a great many of the early Bolshevik leadership were Jewish, from Trotsky to Sverdlov. I think you will find all of the names in the article on Jewish Bolshevism. Felix Dzerzhinsky, founder and first commander of the Cheka, the forerunner of all of the Soviet secret police forces, was Polish, and Anatoly Lunacharsky, the first Commissar for Education, was Ukrainian. Anastas Mikoyan, a senor member of Stalin's coterie, was Armenian, and Grigoriy Ordzhonikidze, another of his close associates, was a fellow Georgian. That's enough, I think, to give you a taste. But it goes on, Evilbu; it goes on! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers. I see Poles, Ukrainians, Armenians and Georgians...but what about the Central Asians?Evilbu (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Few, I imagine you will ever have heard of. People like Dinmukhamed Konayev, from Kazakhstan, tended to have a purely local significance.  Clio the Muse (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Master of Hestviken FAMILY TREE
Although Wikipedia has a list of characters for The Master of Hestviken by Sigrid Undset [], I'm trying to find a FAMILY TREE similar to the one for the Potter family of the Harry Potter books []. Is anyone aware of such a family tree or interested in adding one to Wikipedia? Ubaldofsubiaco (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Ubaldofsubiaco
 * You can't count on someone else wanting to do this work. You could compile it yourself but other editors may not think it is a useful addition to the encyclopedia. Suggest it on the talk page for The Master of Hestviken. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

William Blake illustrations for "Paradise Lost"
I'm soon self-publishing a book about the nature of duelism in Western Theology. On your site, the photographic reproductions of Blake's illustrations for Milton's PARADISE LOST are said to be "in the Public Domain whose copyright has expired." I'm wondering if I'm able to use a couple of these illustrations lawfully in my book, without payment of royalty?

--Goranlut —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goranlut (talk • contribs) 21:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If something is in the public domain, that means that it can be freely used without payment of royalty, because it is public property. Since the author has been dead for about 180 years, its copyright has expired.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Do I have your trust? 04:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Though in some jurisdictions the photographs themselves may be copyrighted. That's not a risk in the United States, if that's where you're publishing. (This comment is not to be construed as legal advice) Algebraist 10:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reporter's Day
Other then China, which countries have an nationally designated Reporter's day? FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this a day on which they lock up reporters? [Judging by this http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715], countries with similar attitudes to China are Turkmenistan, Cuba, Burma and North Korea. -- Relata refero (disp.) 07:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, this is a day on which the reporting profession is celebrated, and according to xinhua, it's a holiday in China. And it's been official and national since 2000. FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well! The rank hypocrisy of public virtue in authoritarian regimes never ceases to amaze. -- Relata refero (disp.) 13:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Logic of Coalitions
Why is it that so many European countries have coalitions instead of single parties? If they were led all by one person, wouldn't it make more sense for them to be merged into one party, instead of having many confusing names? FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The answer to your first question lies in the use of various forms of proportional representation, which rarely, if ever, allow a single party to emerge dominant. Political Parties will come together over matters of mutual interest, though a considerable amount of horse trading is usually involved before a common programme agreed and a government formed.


 * As far as your second question is concerned, well, there are people, for example, who will define themselves as Liberals and people who will define themselves as Socialists, but there is no reason to suppose that, while they might be prepared to work together, they would readily agree to accept the full incorporation in one party or the other. Differences in ideology and organisation make this impossible, to say nothing of the electoral constituencies they each appeal to.  In Germany the liberal Free Democrats have been elastic enough to enter into government with the left-wing Social Democrats, at one point in their post-war career, and the right-wing Christian Democrats at another.  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think FromFoams referred to electoral coalitions instead of governing coalitions, such as the Coalition for Bulgaria, National Union Attack or United Democratic Forces. I think three things are important in understanding why these coalitions form: first, Eastern European party systems are still not fully developed and stablized (and it is not sure whether they ever will): splits often occur, new parties are formed, old parties die. Because of the dynamic nature of the party system allegiances often change. So while it may be logical for a party to team up with one party in one election, it may be logical for it to team up with another party in the next election, because of the instability. Second, the electoral system although proportional in nature often there are quite high thresholds, this forces parties to team up, in order to gain seats. Finally, it is important that what is rational or logical from a design perspective, is not necessarily what happens historically. Path dependency can be important factor in explaining why these coalitions exists. Eventhough parties may form a coalitions they may not want to give up their nominal independence, their own organization, ideology and identity.C mon (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the Italian Coalition that won government? FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)