Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 February 20

= February 20 =

Francisco Hernández de Córdoba (conqueror of the Aztecs).
I would like to know the birthplace and birthdate of Francisco Hernández de Córdoba (conqueror of the Aztecs). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webwall (talk • contribs) 02:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you mean Hernan Cortes, then he was born in Extramadura in Castile in 1485. Otherwise I would refer you to Francisco Hernández de Córdoba (founder of Nicaragua) or Francisco Hernández de Córdoba (discoverer of Yucatán), neither of whom conquered the Aztecs.  Clio the Muse (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Darn, beat me to it. :) You do pull bricks out of thin air, Clio.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to be pedantic, but a better spelling would be Extremadura. Not to be confused with Estremadura, which article points out the names' origins and why they are so similar.  Okay, I've made my day - I've only been on WP for 5 minutes and I got to correct Clio.  Okay, being pedantic is the only way that's ever gonna happen.... -SandyJax (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I love it! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Judas and Thamar
Who was Judas and Thamar (bible)? --84.56.53.203 (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably Judah and Tamar. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (After edit conflict) Yep, see the articles on Judah (Bible) and Tamar (Bible). Tamar was twice Judah's daughter-in-law, and the mother of two of his children. In Vernet's painting, Tamar is veiled and selling her goods, unrecognized by her father-in-law and customer. ---Sluzzelin talk  08:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The story's not the easiest to follow. To understand it better, you'll need to get your head round Levirate marriage which is a very strange concept to a modern audience, but had advantages in protection of vulnerable widows. Henry VIII is possibly the most famous exponent of Levirate marriage, using it as the justification for his marriage to Catherine of Aragon (who had previously been married to Henry's brother, Arthur, who died young) --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical revisionism?
I recently attended a fascinating lecture on the participation by a group of theology students from Oxford and other universities in the aftermath of the 1929 Wailing Wall riots. I am not asking for any more information or comments on the events themselves, but rather on a phenomenon that the lecturer described. She said that as time has gone on, the number of voices that are heard in the accounts has diminished from a plurality (Palestinian Moslem and Christian, British administration, British and other Zionist) to a selected few (four British Zionists). (I simplify and precis, of course.) What, however, would be the name given to the phenomenon where the complexity of history is reduced to the account of a single privileged voice? Is it regarded as good practice in historical studies? SaundersW (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The name I would give would be Dumbing down. However, your account is far from clear. Are you suggesting that the contemporary sources have been altered (censored?) as time has gone by, or that more recent secondary sources have quoted fewer primary sources? If the latter, it's possibly a result of recentism, given that the 1929 events have been overtaken by more recent events. In any event, the violence by the Arab mob in Jerusalem at the Western Wall was rather overshadowed even contemporaneously, by the ensuing Hebron massacre which took place just a few days later, which resulted in the deaths of 67 Jews, but, from a historical perspective, more importantly, is seen as the catalyst for the development of the Haganah organisation, founded to defend the Jewish population, which c.20 years later became the Israeli army. --Dweller (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Hebron massacre was a part of the aftermath that was discussed. However it is the phenomenon of the loss of the alternative voices in subsequent accounts that that I was wondering about. Is it regarded as good historical practice to accept the account given by the current "winners"? SaundersW (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, and good historians will always attempt to buck the trend of the famous claim that "history is written by the winners". However, good historians are aware of the need to apply good technique to their trade - bias is almost inevitable and almost omnipresent, not just in obviously polarising topics such as the Israel-Arab conflict. I'd suspect that if what you say is true, it's a reflection of bad secondary sources, biased toward the Israeli side. If the students you refer to had good Arabic skills and access to a pro-Arab text, I suspect it would display the exact opposite effect from that which you refer to, if the event itself hasn't been airbrushed out of the narrative altogether. However, this is slightly by the by... the real issue with bias is to determine its effect on the reader and whether the distortion makes a significant difference. With this particular incident, horrifying as it no doubt was to the Jews who were the butt of it, its historical significance is more as a footnote to (arguably itself a catalyst of) the more serious Hebron incident, so perhaps any slant from the secondary sources is well within the compass of a scholar to deal with. --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A term close to what you're talking about is "master narrative", although the wikilink will take you to a postmodernism concept somewhat different from how some historians use the term. A master narrative is that simplified version of history that most people in a society have been taught. Traditionally, it's a story that enshrines if not celebrates the dominant view of a national history, excluding many alternate or minority or dissenting viewpoints and experiences. Once the master narrative is established in the public mind, it can usually only be changed or made more complex with great effort over a long period of time. So what you're talking about above is the construction of one particular master narrative. But Palestinians, for example, are probably taught a different version. —Kevin Myers 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not a historian, but I have done some local history research in a small way. In my experience the development over time of a "master narrative" is inevitable but certainly not desirable. Not only are a few primary sources enshrined as the "true" accounts, only certain parts of those sources and their interpretations are enshrined. It can be very enlightening to go back to the entire primary source (letter, journal entry, newspaper article, oral history, photograph, drawing, invoice, etc.) and examine it with an open mind to see what it actually said or showed, or to raise alternative interpretations. Primary sources are often informally written without care taken to make the meaning clear, and thus are open to alternative interpretations. All this is besides the question of going back to primary sources that have been forgotten or neglected for further illumination (or confusion--historical events are always much more complex that the conventional narratives). Of course, in doing historic research there is NOTHING AS EXCITING as finding primary sources that are brand new and shed new light on an event! The mere possibility of finding such new primary sources is the one great motivation in historic research--at least for me.--Eriastrum (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Always remember what Simon Schama said: The worst mistake you can make is to think of history as the property of historians. --  JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you chaps all (I think you all qualify as chaps?). The notion of the master narrative is a very powerful notion (The lecturer mentioned two such narratives in her talk: the heroic struggle of Israel to become a nation, and the evil oppression of the Palestinian people.), and Jack's reminder is most apposite. Thanks again! SaundersW (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Who issues the Qualified Chap certificates and what do chaps have to do to get them? I'm hoping for some sort of examination process. 130.88.140.5 (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Pop your clothes on the chair and someone will be along soon to examine you. --Dweller (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I happen to love master narratives because they mean that there will always be need for clever historians! The more comfortable people are with a master narrative, the less ambitious they get, and the more stuff they start to ignore simply because it doesn't fit into the narrative. Which of course would be horrible if there were not an industry of clever folk who like to periodically re-examine areas which have been thought of as "settled" and then "unsettle" them, pointing out where the master narrative has covered up all sorts of important things. I always encourage thesis students of mine to not be afraid of things that look "over-worked" because the odds are they have just been worked over in exactly the same way—once you see what that way is, you can start to think about what might have been missed... --98.217.18.109 (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah! (from a non-chap)--Eriastrum (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My most humble apologies, madame. SaundersW (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

UK living: Glasgow or Edinburgh
I want to spend a year in the UK and have to device between Glasgow or Edinburgh. What are the differences between these two cities?217.168.0.97 (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you read our articles on Glasgow and Edinburgh? Also look at what Wikitravel has to say about them. Both have good transport connections and are surrounded by great countryside. But if I had to choose whether to live in one or the other, Edinburgh would definitely be my choice. Much more scenic and tourist-friendly. And you get the annual Edinburgh Festival.--Shantavira|feed me 12:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I do have read the wiki articles on both cities, but I am searching for a more personal account of differences. Thanks for the wikitravel link. 217.168.0.97 (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never been to Glasgow, but I'd reiterate that Edinburgh is worth living in for the Fringe alone. Ninebucks (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To summarize:Glasgow is a post industrial city with a toxic sub-culture of welfare dependancy, recreational violence and grievance nurturing. Glaswegians are almost as good as Liverpuddlians at the self-mythologising bullshit, but lack the happy-go-lucky charm of the latter. Edinburgh's principal industry has always been drivel, i.e. politics, academia, the media, art. Consequently it is a pretentious, stuck-up, self-regarding place best observed through a picture postcard. Enjoy your stay. P.S. I am a Glaswegian and I live in Edinburgh. Twospoonfuls (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, this description is what I have heard from these places. I hope this is just a stereotype and that the reality is far from this. 217.168.0.97 (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * From that description Scotland doesn't sound that different from England. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Em ah fifer, n stey quite close(ish) tae edinburgh likesay, but ah hae femilly cennections tae the west coast eh?. Glesgae (or wedgieland) haes the best shoappin and well generally coolness like, n edinburgh is braw, fukin fu ah tourists thou. whit ye want fer yer stey? n hav ye kinsered dundee? braw place, plenty tae dae n see, has good links tae edinburgh, glasgae and further north like aberdeen n inverness n fertwilly excetrara and come tae fife ahno its thi only kingdim in scotland ye kin!Perry-mankster (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. I am english by birth and scottish/irish/welsh by geneology(?)
 * :) Scottish/Irish/Welsh by genealogy, as long as you only go back a few generations. I'd be willing to bet good money there's at least one Norse, one Saxon and a person from the area of land currently France somewhere in your family tree! :P Am in a silly mood. Must sleep. Skittle (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is probably some truth to what Twospoonfuls has to say, but it is surely possible to be happy in either place. Glasgow is the larger of the two cities, with a larger nightlife scene, more shopping options, and more private-sector (corporate) jobs. It also has more run-down areas and probably more ethnic diversity.  Edinburgh's strengths are education, government, and high and avant-garde culture.  Its population is probably better educated and higher in social class on average than Glasgow's.  Its nightlife is more oriented to university students and academics than Glasgow's.  So it may be a question of which side of the UK interests you more: the grittier, real-life, popular-culture side (in which case you might choose Glasgow) or the more refined side (in which case you might choose Edinburgh).   Marco polo (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A tourist told me Edinburgh's pubs are full of Australians (working in them, I think he meant) – and they're pretty friendly. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ive lived in Glasgow for 26 years, and could tell you anything you want to know about it. You really need to tell us what you are looking for in a city. Be specific. i.e What type of employment would you be looking for? What are your favourate recreational activities? Edinburgh is richer, and has more 'high culture'. It is also more expensive, and smaller, and boring. If you are a stuck-up twat go to Edinburgh. If you like nightclubs and bars Glasgow is for you. We do have some of the highest levels of violent crime, herion addiction, and obesity, heart and lung disease in the Western world. Glasgow also has the most deprived council wards in the U.K. But what you must understand is, like any city, social 'problems' are highly, almost completely confined to certain geographic areas. The city centre is perfectly safe. Glasgow also has vast leafy middle class areas, loads of museums and parks, a world class university etc. If you have to come to Scotland, and you want to experience the 'essence' of Scotland, then Glasgow is for you. Edinburgh city centre is kind of like England with a (shit) Scottish accent. Its like a large Scottish themed Disney world. Glasweigans are funny, good people. Think of Glasgow as New York, and Edinburgh as a shitty, stuck up, pompous, non-Scottish shit-hole. If you can be any more specific as to what youre looking for I can answer any questions about Glasgow. Like most Glasweigans I never visit Edinburgh, as we have no need to. Despite what i and others have said, Glasgow is a million miles away from the rundown 'gritty' wasteland it is offensively portrayed as. Willy turner (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I want to improve my spoken English, have a 'normal' paying job as a white collar worker, meet new, different people. I almost decided for Glasgow. I always have the impression that Edinburgh is only a university city, where thousands of people only go to study. Nothing against it, but I have already completed college and I suppose I will fit better in a different environment. I also thought about Dublin or London, but they are rather much more expensive than Glasgow. At the beginning at least, I would have to pay every bill without a job - and that could become expensive in London. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Is Glasgow really like New York? I Only know Glasgow from Trainspotting (film) and Red Road (film). 217.168.3.246 (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In Scottish terms, yes. Meanwhile, I endorse Willy's balanced analysis. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 217.168, on a point of information Trainspotting is set largely in Edinburgh, not Glasgow, though it is an Edinburgh with which most tourists,-and seemingly some Scots- have little or no acquaintance. I know Edinburgh reasonably well and can confirm that it is a fine city, not just the preserve of academics.  And, my goodness, if you want to improve your spoken English do not take up residence in Glasgow.  The local argot is quite incomprehensible, at least it is to me!  Oh, and to pre-empt a possible bad-tempered reaction to my last point I can assure you I intended no offence to the Glaswegians among you, some of whom, I imagine, can speak very well indeed!  Clio the Muse (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as improving your English i imagine there would be little difference between the two. The Glasweigan dialect may be a little more difficult to understand, but im not sure that would matter. The U.K and Scottish economy is in generally good shape, so you shouldnt have any difficulty getting a job in either city, especially if you have a degree. Both cities have a large and growing service and financial sector.Like i said, if you want to meet 'different' people (and i dont know where youre from), Glasweigans are generally warm, outgoing folk. Its not so much that Edinburgh is a university city; its a tourist city. It lacks a certain 'realness' if im making any sense. I dont have any facts to quote, but i presume rents are higher in Edinburgh. You could check on this.What i meant by the NY reference is that Glasgow is the 'heart and soul' of Scotland. It is vibrant and exciting. And like New Yorkers are thought to have a certain... Hutzpah?...Charm?; I feel Glasweigans are similar. Ironically much of Trainspotting was filmed in Glasgow, although it was set in Edinburgh. The scene where Rentboy and Sickboy are in the park and shoot the dog with the air rifle is in Glasgow, and so is the nightclub scene. Regarding Red Row, ive not seen it; but understand British films are generally complete shite. It seems a Ken Loach'ish tale of urban misery. Real life is more fun. P.S i didnt mention the Old Firm match, which is worth coming to Glasgow for alone. Has to be experienced to be believed. And Clio is exagerating about our incomprehensibility (is that even a word?) Willy turner (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can only endorse Clio the Muse's position. If you are coming to the UK to learn English, an area with a more neutral accent would suit your needs better. Depending on your level of spoken English, the difficulties of adapting to a completely new place are already high enough. And don't worry about London being more expensive. The salaries there are also higher. You could also try to find first a job in the UK and then decide where you want to settle. You could come only for job interviews first. From your IP I suppose you are in Spain, a place with plenty of cheap flights to the UK. Of course, Scotland is surely a nice place to spend some time.WikiWiking (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And, of course, there are plenty of cities outside of Glasgow, Edinburgh and London. If you're in the financial sector, Leeds is a good choice.  Gwinva (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Glasgow-Edinburgh rivalry, like English-Scottish antipathy, is the definitive example of the Narcissism of small differences. If you really can't decide between the two cities, why not choose both! It's an hour's commute between the two, so why not live in one and work in the other, many people do. Twospoonfuls (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I must say that I am really intrigued by this: I simply had no idea that some Scots hated other Scots with such intensity, assuming, of course, that it is not all just tongue-in-cheek! Speaking as a complete outsider, it seems to me that there is a kind of 'cringe factor' at work in the apparent Glaswegian antipathy towards Edinburgh, a sense of inferiority, based, perhaps, on some deep-rooted social resentment? Again I apologise if I am misreading the situation.  It just seems so parochial, and terribly silly.  For the benefit of the questioner I would just like to stress the essential difference between the two places, as I, an outsider, perceive it: Glasgow, for all its latent attractions, is an ugly, post-industrial city; Edinburgh, academics and tourists notwithstanding, is hopelessly romantic; the city of Hume, Boswell and, of course, Miss Jean Brodie!  Clio the Muse (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, of course. An architectural historian I know drools with pleasure at Glasgow.  In the interests of fairness, we must mention Glasgow had Charles Rennie Mackintosh, Alexander Thomson and the Glasgow School of Art. That said, I find Glasgow very claustrophobic: a heavy city which pins you to the ground.  In Edinburgh, of course, you're more likely to be blown away.  Do be prepared for rather bitter weather. Gwinva (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd bridle at the word ugly, clio. Its true Glasgow has done itself no favours in the last 50 years, and it certainly isn't a pretty place as Bruges is pretty. But if you if you'd care to check Gomme and Walker's Architecture of Glasgow you'd see there was something rather magnificent about the place in its Victorian prime. I'm just old enough to remember the City Chambers before it was ruined with stone cleaning; the smoke blackening gave the whole place a gloomy piranesian air - what could be more hopelessly romantic than that! Twospoonfuls (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You obviously know the city better than I do, Twospoonfulls, and I am happy to give way to your judgement. I'ts just that some places, I suspect, are easier to love than others.  Clio the Muse (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am English, and live in England. But if I had the choice, I would definately choose Edinburgh. Glasgow has social and economic problems, Edinburgh has cultural attractions and prestige. There are many other smaller cities which are pleasant and cheap. For a historic small city which is also very cheap to live in, try Lincoln. 80.2.203.186 (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not try Cardiff, in Wales? The accent isn't as strong as the scots accent, (except for people who come down from the Welsh valleys!), it's not too expensive, the people are friendly and there are plenty of jobs! It's also close to England, so you can travel there quite reasonably as well.195.27.12.230 (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But of the two cities, I'd choose Edinburgh, as I found the people there fine, and not stuck up at all!195.27.12.230 (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Gilgamesh adaptation
Here's hoping you can help me - I've recently come across the Epic of Gilgamesh, and it jogged a few memories of a book I read some time back - the only problem is that I can't remember the name of the book! It doesn't seem to be any of the ones listed in Adaptations of the epic of Gilgamesh. The story loosely covered Gilgamesh, except that he believed absolutely that he was a god, and was found in the rushes by a servant girl after being lost to his own smaller tribe (which is a reference to another story altogether, of course, but not the one I'm thinking of). I recall some reference to a golden ball or casket which gets closed up in a mountain, and that the main character is cursed with immortality after killing a god (who is also a serpent, or dragon) - in the end, time is winding down, and he alone is left alive to see it happen. Anyone got any ideas? Joes3029 13:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Town and Country Planning Act 1990
How long after illegal development has taken place does it become Statute Barred from enforceing action by a Planning Authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.146.52 (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on the location. See link at Town and Country Planning Act 1990,. --Wetman (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have a real problem, you should get advice from a planning consultant, but as a very broad-brush answer, in most cases the period in the UK (which you are clearly asking about) is four years. In other cases, the period can be as long as ten years. As you use the words "illegal development", I'll add that in the UK developments without planning permission aren't necessarily unlawful, but they can be subject to enforcement action to reverse them, with all the costs of that falling on the developer. After the necessary period has elapsed, without an enforcement action having been started, the owner or occupier of the property normally applies for what's called a 'certificate of lawful development' and needs to show not that the development complies with planning policy but that it was carried out at a certain time in the past: that's purely a matter of evidence. A few forms of unpermitted development (such as unconsented alterations to listed buildings) are criminal offences which can lead to prosecution. Some recent developments in the law make it easier for local planning authorities to enforce against alterations to listed buildings almost indefinitely, although of course on the criminal front the longer ago things happened, the harder it is to get the evidence needed for a successful prosecution. Xn4  16:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny you should mention the 'certificate of lawful development'. Only yesterday I received a letter from my local council that the developer who is converting an ex-small factory behind my house into a couple of flats has applied for one of those, on the grounds that someone was living in the upstairs office accommodation for 11 months back in 1996! -- Arwel (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect most people would rather have two flats behind their house than a small factory, but as a planning application this might be contrary to the employment and housing policies of your local plan and might also trigger financial contributions of various kinds from the developer and raise issues such as overlooking. However, with a certificate of lawful development, all that matters is the evidence supporting it: whether that shows a change of use which overcomes the need for a planning permission. On the face of it, it sounds unlikely to me that this one has legs, but you never know, someone must think it does. The first thing you need to do is to ask the LPA for copies of any evidence submitted to it. Probably that will be in the form of witness statements. If you want to challenge them, you can submit your own evidence. If you're very serious about this, you should also get legal advice about whether someone living in offices for eleven months in 1996 does the trick in the circumstances of this case (a cheaper alternative would be to look up the relevant cases in a legal library, they should be in the JPL Planning Law Case Reports). I think the developer's argument must be that the residential use is the "last known use of the land or buildings", and that's an issue on which you might wish to submit some evidence. Xn4  23:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

what is the most romantic song?
What is the most romantic song a man can sing, with guitar accompaniment - a serenade, but I'm thinking of recent (past few decades) love songs. I have a deep, soft voice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.3.32 (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would guess that the most romantic would be one you composed yourself for this particular serenade to this particular person. I'm afraid asking us to speculate on something as subjective as which song written by someone else is the most romantic is not what this Desk is for. However, I'll happily point you to Norwegian wood, You're so vain and especially Wonderful tonight as famous songs that were apparently written for a particular person, although the first two aren't especially romantic (infidelity/being tricked into marriage, depending on who you ask, and rather withering attack, respectively). --Dweller (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty much anything by John Martyn, Nick Drake or Bonny Prince Billy.--Tagishsimon (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are some Leonard Cohen songs that can vie for that title. 'Suzanne', perhaps? Random Nonsense (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep I would second Leonard Cohen, although my pick would be 'Take This Longing' - perfect for singing by someone with a deep, soft voice. --Richardrj talkemail 21:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Time in a Bottle by Jim Croce. --  JackofOz (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a million most romantic love songs. If you really want it to go over well you should think about your audience and your relationship with them and pick a song that reflects it. Maybe something that reminds you of her or something about how you want to be with her or how happy you are now that you're with her or whatever. Think of some words that might be in your most romantic song and google them along with the word 'lyrics' find some suitable ones and youtube them to see which one has the best melody. If the best one is by a woman that might work out well for a baritone, just change the words that should be changed and sing it an octave lower. -LambaJan (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Stoning in the Bible/Old Testament
There are harsh punishments listed in the Old Testament. For example, on stoning gays and adulterers, or breaking the Sabbath. The main explanation by present-day Christians is that those are the laws of old. Jesus' coming down in some sense abolished those laws. Ok, I accept that. I see such argument as trying to explain (or dare I say downplay) the past. But how would those Christians respond if the punishments happened today? For instance, if there a Christian nation was established and it used those punishments, how would "normal" Christians respond?

I feel like the argument of Christ changing the law would not make the stoning laws "morally wrong". In my view, saying that Jesus changed the law merely implies "oh, you all don't have to do those things anymore." And it doesn't imply "oh, you are forbidden to do those things now!" In short: Saying that stoning, or any law, is outdated doesn't mean that it is forbidden to do today. But I'm sure most present-day Christians wouldn't find stoning an okay thing to do.

I'd appreciaty any inputs on this, from Christians and non-Christians alike.128.163.196.164 (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't the place for soapboxing or for debates. It's a reference desk. Wrad (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I know this could turn into a debate, but it doesn't have to. My assumption of a Christian's response to stoning in the question could be wrong, and I don't mind corrections.  And there could be other Christian perspectives that are more valid, a reason I look for inputs.  I'm not here to debate, and I hope others wouldn't do that (thus, don't hesitate to respond if anyone has a perspective on the issue)128.163.66.221 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)(original questioner)


 * As for stoning, there's a very specific passage in the New Testament ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone") which has been rather widely understood as invalidating stoning as a legal punishment in Christianity. However, many historical Christian societies have had the death penalty, and I don't think that there has been any consensus in the traditional mainstream of Christian thought that the death-penalty is un-Christian. AnonMoos (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * True, only a small minority are against the death penalty for Christian reasons. Wrad (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem accurate. The Catholic Church's official stance nowadays is AFAIK opposed to the death penalty (definitely John Paul II was opposed) and I believe a significant proportion of Catholics support this view and Catholics are by no means a small minority of Christians Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There do exist countries where people are stoned for moral infractions (Iraq, e.g.). I think it's fair to say that most Westerners, Christian and otherwise, are against that sort of thing, but that has a lot more to do with culture than religion per se.  --Sean 17:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is certainly no official governmental judicial penalty of death by stoning in modern Iraq! AnonMoos (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Pakistan or Sudan would be better examples. And I'd say it has a lot to do with religion. I've never heard of stoning occuring in a largely Christian country. Ever. They use other methods. Never stoning. Wrad (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think where your confusion lies is where you say: "Jesus' coming down in some sense abolished those laws. The "sense" in this case is everything if you really want to understand Christianity. Before Christ came, Jews followed the Law of Moses, which was essentially a "tooth for a tooth, eye for an eye" kind of law." If someone killed your brother, you could kill him. That was the law. Every transgression was followed by balancing punishment. Christ ended these laws by pointing out what many see as a fundamental truth about humanity—retaliation easily gets out of hand. He encouraged people to forgive their enemies, arguing that a person who only loves his friends is no better than his worst enemy (He used Publicans as a metaphor here). He also pointed out that we often are so quick to see faults in others and so willing to punish them, that we don't see our own faults. Basically, Jesus challenged the Mosaic Law by encouraging inward reflection. It seems less just to stone someone when you think about the faults you have. It makes you realizes your humanity, and the humanity of the person being punished.

To answer your question, then, Jesus Christ didn't just remove the outward laws, he fundamentally changed the way people thought about the laws. Thus, it isn't as simple as him just saying "oh, you all don't have to do those things anymore." It isn't even as simple as saying "oh, you are forbidden to do those things now!" It's deeper than that. It's more like after Jesus introduced these new ways of looking at ourselves, it wasn't so easy to punish people in cruel ways. It introduces a philosophy that challenges such acts. So, while Christ never specifically said "Don't stone people!", he changed the way his converts viewed the people around them. That's why nowadays stoning and other cruel punishments are considered morally reprehensible. Wrad (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good analysis, Wrad, but I would like to expand on a few points. First, to the OP, the Old Testament does not require, condone or in any way encourage stoning for "gays and adulterers and sabbath breakers".  Stoning to death was pretty much reserved for those who cursed God (blasphemy) or who indulged in what we would call "satanic practices".  The Deuteronomic law cited by the Pharisees in John 8 (the "woman caught in adultery") can be found in Deut 22:23-4 and relates specifically to a husband discovering that his new bride is not a virgin.  Which is a different kind of issue altogether (and note also the protection for falsely accused women).  That said, the death penalty existed for a number of crimes, including adultery (but both partners were condemned), but before we shout "cruelty" we should look at some of the hangings meted out in 18th C England...and also resist the urge to judge other times and cultures by our own standards (if they could come forward they would probably think some of the things we do most bizarre). Which brings us on to the whole "eye for an eye" thing.  This is best understood as a restrictive law, not a prescriptive one.  In a culture/time/society where crime and retribution and feuding could escalate easily (actually, when has there not been such a time?), the Mosaic law sought to limit punishment.  "OK, so he knocked out your eye?  Then limit yourself to taking his eye, don't kill him for it."   Read the context in Exodus 21 (and following) and you will generally find moderation and reasoned analysis.  The harsh penalties are reserved for those who upset the designated order of society: attacking their parents, cursing God, scheming to destroy others, some types of adultery (breaking the establishment of marriage) and so on.  While we might not agree with the specifics, it is easy to see the principle still at work today: those upsetting the established order  are punished more harshly: such as treason, revolt, terrorism (the biggies), but also smaller but serious anti-state things like killing a police officer (which is worse than killing a civilian) or striking a judge.  Gwinva (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The eye for an eye thing was, I understand, to stop the former practice of escalation: you only took an eye, you must not escalate with greater revenge. 80.2.205.59 (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's all very true. A lot of our laws are based on Judaic laws, and the Judaic Laws were good for their day at keeping things from escalating. I think, though, that you can easily say that Christ's new law was less based on "the Law" and was more introspective. It went from "Take his eye, just don't kill him for it." To "Take a look at your own faults for a second. Take a breather. Look at things from the perspective of your own weakness." Judaic law really wasn't all that bad, as you say. Jesus just took it to another level of thought. Wrad (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Try not to judge other cultures? WHAT?! Have you seen this video? It's a brutal, horrible form of unjustifiable murder, and soothing book-learnin words of tolerance and reason won't un-rage me. Watch the video and remember that that's what the old testament commands to be done to her. Then look your jewish (or Yazidi) friends in the eye. I'm not saying that Judaic law didn't do a fantastic job of developing that society and keeping its citizens (mostly) safe and in line, and preserving their heritage for millenia.. I'm just saying it's unforgivably backwards and wrong D\=&lt; (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that’s a still from the stoning of Du'a Khalil Aswad. I’m glad the photo’s blurry. The actual video is ten times more horrifying. --S.dedalus (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh that's the whole video. Hit play in the lower left D\=&lt; (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry. :-P I see your “her” link too now. Considering that I work extensively on that article I should’ve been able to figure that out at least. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing about stoning is that it is at once personal and communal. It is a form of execution in which everyone there literally takes part. When someone is hanged, you just watch while someone else does the dirty work. During a stoning, you do the dirty work. Whether this is a false sense of separation could be brought up as a point, but I think that need for separation in Christian nations just illustrates what Christ's teachings have done. Before a person influenced by Christianity throws the stone, they are inclined to think more about how that person will feel when it hits. They need more of a legal separation between them and the deed. Wrad (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I also want to point out that the kind of stoning you mention is not what the Jews had in mind. In cases of adultery, as Gwinva says, both parties were to be punished, and there were protections against false accusations. Still, the idea of throwing rocks at someone until they're dead isn't too appealing. Wrad (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Froth, please do not mistake me: I in no way condone what happened to Aswad, and do not need to watch the video to feel horrified; it is hard to consider it dispassionately. But just as that incident is discussed and judged according to the morals (and laws, societies and organisations) of today, so we must look at the context (life and times) of the Mosaic law if we are to understand it (the Mosaic law). It was initially given while the Israelites were a small people, struggling to maintain their identity within a much larger world.  Stoning (however dreadful it is) was not seen as a "punishment" so much as a purging: the community removing the evil from within it. Taking it to another, controversial, context look at the firing squads of WWI.  Here we have a crime, say, of  "desertion": not pulling your weight, not supporting your comrades and creating a voice of dissent which will infect the army, lower morale and which might, if not cut out, break the establishment.  It must be "purged" and be seen to have been purged.  The corporate involvement continues in the firing squad: no one man is responsible for the killing, but all contribute.  Just as we cut off a gangrenous limb, so we remove/purge/excommunicate from society the "poisonous" aspect. So I can understand why it was done (I refer to the OT and WWI judicial killings here, not the murder of Asward).  However, I do consider it a horrible way to kill someone.  But then, so is crucifixion. Gwinva (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Every soldier is fully responsible for their comrade's death.. firing squads multiply guilt, not divide it. Also I have two points to make about capital punishment:
 * It's more destructive than helpful to the community's cohesion/identity to kill off the abberant members.
 * Human society hinges upon an acceptance of the idea of morality, but groups of people getting together and calling themselves "governments" have no moral authority to perform capital punishment-- there's no moral distiction between capital punishment and murder. It's just a more comfortable idea because it's easier to avoid.
 * D\=&lt; (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They're interesting points to consider, and I'm sure there are many people who will agree vehemently, and others who will disagree just as vehemently. I going to try and do neither.  However, I do wish to run with your second point a bit... if capital punishment = murder, then are custodial sentences = unlawful imprisonment?  Fines = theft? Or can self-proclaimed "governments" decide on these, but not death? Gwinva (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Age-old instincts are still alive and well. I have a friend who was brutally murdered last year. He was cut into pieces by his killer. It was very brutal and senseless. My friend was just trying to defend his home. I don't have a strong opinion about the death penalty, but his mother does. She wants justice. She isn't a hateful lady at all. She just wants some peace in her life knowing this killer won't be around to do any more damage. Wrad (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right that's definitely age-old instints. It's not her being an unhateful lady just wanting some peace, it IS her hatefulness craving revenge.. I don't blame her for that, it's perfectly understandable, but there's no such thing as just unhatefully wanting some peace in that situation. D\=&lt; (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. Well, no. Money has value only because other people honor it, so that's well within "human authority" to sieze. It's been argued that the social contract gives governments the right to imprision people. But penalties that control a person's very life, who he is at a level that is just sick to toy with, including capital punishment and LWOP, are beyond anything that I think governments should be able to do. Obviously one or the other is necessary to protect people from particularly vicious criminals, but that doesn't make any difference on the moral issue. So I guess it's necessary, but wrong, but I don't have an actual solution other than to sort of awkwardly ignore the 800 pound moral dillemma in the room and lock people in cages D\=&lt; (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting back (sort of) to the original topic, the Talmud says that the Sanhdrin almost never imposed death sentences. Although the Torah calls for death sentences, including stoning, for some crimes, the procedural hurdles were hard to overcome, much as in some U.S. states with the death penalty on the books today. In addition, the Torah verses about "an eye for and eye" were not interpreted literally in the sense that an assailant's eye would be gouged out as punishment. Instead, it meant that punishments should be consistent. So it's not as if, as Wrad hints, the Jews were stoning each other and gouging eyes out in the time of the New Testament. Note that the "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" quote from the NT doesn't show up in copies until the 4th century, so it's very possible it was added by Greeks or Romans without firsthand knowledge of indigenous capital-punishment practices in first-century Judea. (Needless to say, the Romans brought ample capital punishment with them to first-century Judea.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A query on Wrad's comment "Before a person influenced by Christianity throws the stone, they are inclined to think more about how that person will feel when it hits.": Does not Judaism preach compassion and empathy as most other religions do? Buddhism is probably an extreme example, but if I understand correctly mainstream Islam and most other major religions today all encourage people to be "nice" to others. Could you elaborate on what is the theological difference between Judaism and these other religions in that regard? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Judaism doesn't stone people anymore. Something has definitely changed. I don't know that you can give all the credit to Jesus' life and work. Several others have contributed to peaceful philosophies. I guess I was portraying the Christian perspective. Wrad (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It was almost impossible to be put to death by a Jewish court. For one thing, you'd need to be warned at least three times by a pair of witnesses that what you were about to do was a capital crime. It's not surprising that the Talmud says that a court that executed even one person every 70 years was a "murderous" court. Further, the Jewish understanding of an "eye for an eye" was about monetary compensation for personal damages, the main (there were five in total) element of which was calculated by comparing the values of, say, a 1 eyed person and a similar person who has 2 eyes (thus, an eye for an eye). --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By New Testament times, the jewish leadership was inciting mobs and coercing roman governors to eliminate political components, aka Jesus D\=&lt; (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Opponents? I tend to view claims of "[insert ancient or remote people] are much less/more barbaric/violent/civilised than we think" with scepticism. The truth is almost always somewhere in between "what we think" and the author's claim. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He was a threat to their power so they killed him, this isn't a matter of historical dispute here.. D\=&lt; (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Only in Mel Gibson's version of history. In the actual history of first-century Judea, the Jewish leadership had no power to have someone executed, since the Romans were in firm control. Mwalcoff (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. Gibson the Historian. In Braveheart, I believe he implies that William Wallace (d. 1305) illegitimately fathered Edward III (b. 1312). --Dweller (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I recall from The Bible's version of history, the jewish leadership manipulated Pilate by inciting a mob.. if Pilate didn't do what they wanted, they'd start a riot and ruin Pilate's career as a governor. D\=&lt; (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Froth is right. While the Jewish leaders were unable to do the execution themselves, they did their best to pressure their Roman ruler, and it worked. Wrad (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, don't blame poor Pilate. He's a saint in the Ethiopian church.  Gwinva (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(Original questioner) Thanks for the inputs. Wrad, you said that the Mosaic law "isn't all that bad". I suspect that you base that on the analysis of the laws in the context of the time, much like what Ginva has said. Correct me if I'm wrong: Your view is that judging from how the Israelites lived at the time, the Mosaic laws, which includes punishments such as stoning, were valid (or even good) for the time. Would God (the Christian God) disallow the stoning of people if it were done today? Since "God" commanded the old laws, and then Jesus (who is "God" too--this could get into a convoluted discussion of the trinity ;) ) abolished those laws, would stoning be allowable today? Wrad, you talked about how the changing of the laws from Jesus is much deeper than saying that stoning is forbidden (you talked about looking at humanity in a different way).

But does Jesus' changing of the law go far as to making stoning people a sin, or a morally reprehensible act, if it were done today?128.163.224.198 (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to the original question, another perspective on the issue can be had by reading Margaret Atwood's novel The Handmaid's Tale. Excerpted from that article (caveat lector -- I contributed or rewrote some of this):


 * The government of the United States was overthrown several years before the opening of the novel. The country has been taken over by Christian fundamentalists who have abrogated the constitution and founded a theocratic state. This Republic of Gilead is ruled through Biblical fundamentalism and rigid enforcement of social roles vaguely resembling Dominionism. Most citizens, and all women, have been stripped of their freedoms. This revolution succeeded because terrorist acts caused the populace to become fearful, suspend criticism of the government, and accept "temporary" measures that became permanent.


 * This theocracy was planned by conservative Christians, based on their interpretation of Biblical law. The state religion, which draws on an evangelical version of Christianity, is the only system of belief that is allowed. The rulers believe they have a cultural mandate to create and govern this new society, aspects of which are based on harsh interpretations of the Old Testament.  For example, the most severe form of punishment is public stoning to death, the so-called "particution" (participatory execution), similar to justice under the Taliban in Afghanistan.
 * This sort of speculative fiction is both a parable and a warning, and may contribute to an imaginative, if not strictly factual, understanding of your question. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Algeria indipendence
why has algerias after indipendence experience been not good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.98.253 (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know that there's one single explanation, but Algeria's war of independence was very bloody and socially and economically disruptive, so that there was an extremely rocky transition from French colonial rule to independence. The post-independence rulers were guided by an ideology of Nasser-influenced state socialism (which led to inefficiencies and corruption), and were rather dismissive of the role of women in society (though women had played a prominent role in the independence struggle).  One decision with some unfortunate effects was replacing French with Arabic as the main language of instruction in higher education: this was in impeccable accord with Arab nationalist principles, but it led to the hiring of many teachers with a lot more knowledge of Islam and ancient literature than of science or technology, and it only helped to a rather limited degree with the acquisition of basic literacy skills (since the Arabic taught in schools is written Classical Arabic, which is a very very different language from modern spoken Algerian Arabic dialects) -- not to mention that it significantly antagonized the Berbers.  Algeria was also afflicted with the "Oil Curse".  In the end, there was the same phenomenon seen in a number of other middle-eastern Muslim countries -- a large percentage of the population feels that the government is a corrupt oligarchical elite unhelpful and unresponsive to their problems, but ordinary political channels are blocked, so that discontent is channeled into religious forms... AnonMoos (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What people tend to overlook is that colonies that have to fight for their independence tend to have a more troubled history after it is gained than those where it has been obtained peacefully. The point is that 'wars of liberation' are largely fought by ambitious minorities, supposedly acting on behalf of the 'nation', which on the whole remains quiescent. This means, in effect, that liberation and independence comes, not as an effort of national will, not by consensus, but by the efforts of a well-organised and self-interested groups, who then feel that they are the rightful guardians of the victory. The post-war history of Algeria, and, indeed, of Zimbabwe, follows this kind of pattern; the victors take all and the victors keep all. The history of Algeria since independence is a history of internal struggle, in some ways as brutal as that against the French; of minorities against minorities; of the army against the Islamists; of the Islamists and the army against the people, a struggle that was at its bleakest in the 1990s. And it was the educated, westernised minority, those with most to offer the country, who were caught in the middle, the victims of both sides. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Lake Norman
Dont know if its true or not but when they created lake norman for the two power plants there was said to be towns and a factory that was covered. Is this true I cannot find any information on the creation of lake norman other than it was for the power plants and when. Can you find any more info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.180.138 (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For those who wish to research more, the question seems to refer to Lake Norman in North Carolina, USA. -- LarryMac  | Talk  22:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * An excerpt from "Lake Norman: Our Inland Sea" notes that the village of Long Island, including textile mills, was submerged. This is quite common for man-made lakes due to the advantages of locating towns beside rivers. &mdash; Lomn 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Jacobite Rebellions
Is there any reason why the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745 in Scotland came close to success while that of 1719, which got off to a better start, was a total failure. Thank you Hamish MacLean (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, Hamish there is: in 1719 the British Government acted quickly to suppress what was little more than a minor bush fire in the western Highlands; in 1745 it was completely unprepared, allowing a local emergency to get well out of control. It is also important to remember that while in 1719 the Jacobite plotters had more in the way of foreign support-even if was only a small contingent of Spanish troops-than Charles Edward Stuart had in 1745, the clans had not completely recovered for the demoralising failure the Rising of 1715-16.  As a result relatively few joined the Jacobite standard.  More might conceivably have come out if the little Highland and Spanish army had been allowed to move east, but General Joseph Wightman moved quickly westwards from Inverness with experienced government troops, blocking the further progress of the enemy and completely defeating them at the Battle of Glen Shiel, a victory which brought the rising to a premature conclusion.


 * The real difference between 1745 and 1719 was there were no reliable troops on the spot. The nearest government army, commanded by General Sir John Cope, was far to the south.  This was also a time when Britain was involved in the War of Austrian Succession, which meant that almost all of the experienced troops had left for the continent, including the Black Watch, which had been raised specifically to deal with Highland emergencies, leaving Cope with raw recruits and unreliable militia companies.  In London the government only began to take the matter seriously after Charles Edward had pushed through to the Lowlands, defeating Cope at the Battle of Prestonpans.  If London had acted quickly the '45 might very well have been no more significant than the '19.  Instead the emergency took months to contain, regiment after regiment being drawn back from the campaign in the Low Countries, leading to the final defeat of the Jacobites at the Battle of Culloden in April 1746.  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's fair to say that the 1745 rebellion "came close to success". The Jacobite army marched into England, and it's possible to imagine them winning a battle of London and enthroning James III. But how would they have governed? They had no support from the English, and their base of power in Scotland was inadequate to project a force of occupation. It's hard to see how they could have prevented the English from gathering armies and crushing them, short of a full-scale French invasion, which would have had to overcome a substantial English naval superiority in the Channel. Gdr 10:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is getting us into speculation, but one supposes King James III would have declared his toleration of the Church of England and the Protestant dissenters, many wily survivors of the House of Lords (mostly, but not only, Tories) would have come to terms with him and joined a government, and the die-hard Whigs would have gone into opposition or exile. The House of Lords, of course, would have included all the peers of the Jacobite peerage, and more new peers would have been sure to follow the change of régime, enough, if necessary, to ensure a majority there. Undoubtedly, James would quickly have removed the most determined Hanoverians from all positions of power (not least from all commands they had in the British Army) and the Hanoverians would have been on the run. There might have been a crunch moment if the new government felt it was necessary to repeal the Act of Settlement 1701, the Correspondence with James the Pretender (High Treason) Act 1701, and so forth. Gdr suggests, I think, that all of this would have led to another Civil War, and perhaps it would have done, but I can't see that 'the English' would have been united in a willingness to take up arms to remove James, who would have started such a war with many advantages, not least financial ones. He would have had loyal Irish forces, as well as Scots, and no doubt in the circumstances of a Restoration the English Jacobites would have rallied to his cause at last. Xn4  14:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Gdr, Xn4 and, in particular, Clio the Muse for giving such intelligent and considered responses to my question. In relation to the point made by Gdr I should make it clear that I was speaking in relative terms, comparing the 'near success' of the rebellion of 1745 with the 'absolute failure' of that of 1719. I, too, do not believe that the Jacobites could have retained a control on the whole of Britain in the face of widespread popular opposition, though Xn4 makes an interesting argument to the contrary. I am very impressed by the intellectual quality of the volunteers on the humanities desk. I an a teacher in a Scottish secondary school, and I came here just to test the waters. I think I may recommend this service to the kids I teach, if only to make sure they treat it as a beginning and not an end! Hamish MacLean (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't say above that James III could have held on in the face of "widespread popular opposition", although perhaps it isn't so much popular opposition which brings a monarch down as popular force. Usually it takes armed force, sometimes the power of the ballot box. Other European rulers in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries found themselves deeply unpopular, and some survived, some didn't. I do say it's arguable that James's cause wasn't a hopeless one. Xn4  17:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No you're all wrong. The reason is that in 1719 there was a shortage of Girders in Scotland. This meant there was a shortage of Irn Bru, without which Scots are incapable of getting out of bed, never mind fighting. Willy turner (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Willy, at least some Scots must have had their 'Iron Bru; those fighting on the side of General Wightman! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing of Silesia
I am looking for information, please. on the ethnic cleansing of the German commmunity from Silesia, now in Poland, in 1945-6. How this was carried out, personal accounts and such things. Please direct me to good references if you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnvater (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Shelton, R. M. (1982). To lose a war: memories of a German girl. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press., and here's a short bibliography: .&mdash;eric 23:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

On this subject, Turnvater, I would refer you in the first instance to Giles MacDonagh's recently published book, which appeared in England under the title of After the Reich: From the Liberation of Vienna to the Berlin Airlift. I'm not sure where you are based, so I checked if it was available on Amazon.com and see it has been published elsewhere in the world under the altogether more provocative title of After the Reich: the Brutal History of the Allied Occupation.

The book deals, of course, with the whole history of post-war Germany, and not just with the expulsions from Silesia, but you will find a lot of useful information and suggestions on further reading. The suffering of the German inhabitants of Silesia was to do with the speed with which they were ejected from their homes, and the casual brutality that followed them along the way. There was also little in the way of provision for their reception in the west though, to be fair, the British and Americans were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the evacuees, who came regardless of formal protests to the Poles and the Russians. By the end of July 1945 over 400,000 Germans had been expelled. In one town, that of Grünberg in Lower Silesia, the remaining German inhabitants, those who had not previously been killed or committed suicide, were given only six hours to pack and leave. In all of Silesia only Gerhart Hauptmann, playwright and Nobel Laureate, seems to have been allowed to live out the final stages of his life in relative peace. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet, according to de:Gerhart Hauptmann, even Hauptmann was not allowed to find eternal peace in Silesia. Four weeks before his death, he had learned about the Polish government's decision and formally requested that an exception be made for his bodily remains to be buried in Silesia. He seemed to even have had some official support from the Soviet Union due to his recognition as a nobel laureate. The request was denied by the Polish authorities. The corpse was kept in a zinc coffin in his study for over a month, the family was kept waiting, until the Soviets finally put their foot down, for reasons of hygiene among other.The coffin was finally brought to the cattle station in Jelenia Góra (Hirschberg) and left Silesia on a cattle freight train. The obsequies were held in Stralsund on July 27. He was buried on the island of Hiddensee on July 28, 52 days after he had passed away. ---Sluzzelin talk  09:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)