Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 January 8

= January 8 =

The Memory Man (novel)
Hi there, I know it may sound like homework but it isn't. There some questions about "The Memory Man", written by Lisa Appignanesi. Please, take some time to read the questions, after reading the book and please answer the questions. yes, I have read the book but I don't get the subject and genre, setting, narrative structure, character, images and symbols, theme, point of view, tone, the beginning. the ending, overview, sentence structure and diction.

1) What is the novel about? 2) Does this work belong to a particular genre of fiction or fictional tradition(e.g., romance, detective, science fiction)? What are the main characteristics of this genre? 3) What are the most important locations in the work? How extensively are they described? 4)During what historical period is the work set? What period of time does it encompass? 5)Does the work create a particular social environment through the portrayal of manners, customs, and moral values? 6)How important is setting to the novel as a whole? 7)What is the main conflict? 8) Does the action lead action lead towards a climax? Is there a resolution of conflicts or a conclusive revelation? If there is no climax or resolution, how does the action develop? Is there a turning point/ 9) What is the principle by which events are linked? Cause-and-effect? The development of the main character? A physical, mental, or spiritual quest? A seemingly random association? 10) Are events are presented in chronological order? If not, in what order are they presented? Are flashbacks used? 11) To what extent are events presented as a series of dramatic scenes? To what extent are events summarized(e.g., "Five years had passed, five hard years in which the cow had died, the barn had burned and Jane had married Tom.")? 12) Is there more than one story being told? What purposes do these subplots serve? 13) Is the story set within some outer framework that is exterior to the plot? If so, why? 14) Is the work divided into parts? Do these parts correspond to stages in the development of the action? 15) What is the motivation of the central character? 16) What traits-psychological, moral or physical-help or hinder the central character in the achievement if his or her purpose? 17) What other characters support or oppose the actions of the central character? 18) In which scenes does the central character make choices essential to success or failure. Are they the result of conscious deliberation or the consequence of certain deeply embedded character traits? 19) Are the main characters round (with complex or contradictory aspects) or flats (type characters, stereotypes)? Is there a broad or narrow range of characters? 20) In what ways, if any, do the main characters change? 21) How is character revealed? Indirectly or directly? 22) Are there any figures of speech (metaphors, similes, personification) employed in the narrative or used by the characters that seem significant because of placement or repetition? 23) Are there any sensory descriptions (e.g., heat, cold, dark, color, smells, sound) that seem significant because of placement or repetition? 24) Are there any objects, images, actions or settings that take on symbolic meaning? Are there any conventional symbols (cowboy's black hat, represents evil)? Are there any contextual symbols (conch shell in "Lord of the Flies", which is associated with order)? 25) What are the main thematic concerns of the work? Is there one which seems to be most important? 26) What comments does the work make on these subjects? 27) What techniques does the writer use to convey these views? Consider as vehicles character, dialogue, action, setting point of view and tone. 28) What is the point of the view from which the story is told? First-person; third-person limited or omniscient or third-person objective? 29) Is the narrator also a character in action? 30) Is the narrator's attitude toward the story? Seriously? Playful? Ironic? or detached? 31) What main concern does the title suggest? 32) What central characters are introduced? 33) Is the ending "just" or "right"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you even take the plastic wrap off the book? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that it is not schoolwork, I am curious about how this list of questions was composed! Maybe User:Don Mustafa works for a library that does some exceptionally detailed classification of its fictional holdings. —Tamfang (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Given how long the question is, he might have told us what he did understand about the book. Not that this would do me any good; I haven't read it. It was nice of User:Don Mustafa to suggest we take some time to read the book first, before attempting the questions. Bielle (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If this isn't homework, what is it? I can't imagine someone setting out to answer these questions just for fun. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you also notice that the list of questions is completely off the peg, i.e. they are questions that could be asked of any novel. --Richardrj talkemail 11:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This may not apply, but I've noticed that some books now have questions such as this listed in an appendix for use in book clubs. I've never actually taken part in a book club, but if I were to do so, I'd hope that the discussion could be a lot more spontaneous.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  14:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. The first question I find particularly odd. I mean sure I can understand if you don't quite understand some details of the plot. But if you can't at least come up with some answer for 'what is this novel about' after reading a book then perhaps your English & comprehension skills are in serious need of work Nil Einne (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, can you answer the questions or not? Did you read the book, yet in order to read the questions? Please, answer them. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes.I have read the book.No,I can't spend a couple of hours answering your questionshotclaws 08:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You might try reading it yourself. You should have tentative answers to #2 and #4 after reading the first two pages.  &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but the question is what are the themes in this book, Hotclaws? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 23:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not CliffsNotes. --Candy-Panda (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please help me already. the theme of the memory man?

Avoiding USAs indpendence
If England had given the American colonies representation in the British government, could the whole independence thing have been avoided? Someone really dropped the ball, huh? Seans Potato Business 01:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Its possible. but unless there opionion had real weight it wouldnt of made a differnce. Bones Brigade  01:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a commonwealth status like that presently held by Canada could have tamed the revolutionary American zeal. Edison (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Something like this is the premise of The Two Georges by Harry Turtledove. Algebraist 01:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a whiff of grapeshot early on would have sorted the whole thing out. DuncanHill (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's hard impossible to know. It would be interesting to speculate how the slavery issue would have worked out, though—would the American bid for independence have been launched by secessionist Southerners? Creepy thought. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Importation of slaves to the the North American colonies had largely ceased by 1776, and the trade was mostly handled by European ships, not American ships, before and after independence. Statistically, almost all slaves went to Brazil, with North America getting less than ten percent of the intake. If we are to speculate on an avoidance of seccession, the most likely scenario would be that the Southern colonies would evolve like the other English slave-holding colonies like Jamacia. -Arch dude (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC) England emancipated the Jamacian slaves in 1838. The United states emancipated the slaves of the South 25 years later, in 1863. -Arch dude (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that would have had any possibility of happening. If Americans had representation equal to their population, they would have rivaled the British representation. Other colonies would have sougth the same rights. With communication as poor as it was, representation could never have been as good as the Americans wanted. No, representation was part of a larger issue which Americans began to see. Many of them felt destined to be independent and set the standard for the world as a nation. Many others argued that it made no sense to be ruled by country so far away. Thomas Paine argued this very point in his Common Sense. The plea for representation was part of a larger philosophy, brought on by the fact that America was populated by a highly educated group familiar with the principles of freedom, representation, and communication, many of whom had strong religious beliefs. Wrad (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The American colonies of Britain in the 1770's was about half the British population, so proportional representation would have given the US quite a block of voting power. It would also be interesting to know how much of the tax revenue at the time came from the future US. Some limited representation and the right to speak in parliament might have helped to foster communication, just as the District of Columbia has limited representation in the US Congress at present. Edison (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's see... A nation with limited resources (space, money, etc) locates a huge place overflowing with natural resources that's too far away for effective control, secures it's external borders, helps the settlers with their aborigine problem, and then both forcibly settles it with people who can reasonably be expected to hate the establishment (the poor, the homeless, the criminal, the wrong religion), and, on top of that, allows/encourages immigration by people who already admit they hate the establishment (all the Scots after the Act of Union, my ancestors). What did they expect the resulting population to do?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyJax (talk • contribs) 17:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Searching a place to live
I want to move out to live in a new place. I am searching for a big city, with subway, in Europe or North America, no huge problem with criminality, sea not far from, mountains for climbing.

What are my options?217.168.1.83 (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * San Francisco —Tamfang (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you mean subway or subway? Pretty much any city on the US or Canadian west coast fits the bill. FiggyBee (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The restaurant chain is nice, but I meant subway system.217.168.1.83 (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As a starting point, see list of rapid transit systems. In the UK, the only place I know that might fit your criteria is Glasgow, which is close to some great mountain country, but its subway system is rather minimal (basically one loop), and like any city there is no shortage of crime.--Shantavira|feed me 10:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As usual in life, you may not get everything you are looking for. But you could at least consider Vienna.  It's got an excellent public transport system, crime is very low and the Alps are not far away.  Austria is a landlocked country so you won't get the sea, but there are many beautiful lakes here instead.  By the way, how are you planning to support yourself?  Many European countries, and the USA, place strict restrictions on immigrants' ability to work. --Richardrj talkemail 11:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you tried findyourspot.com? Dismas |(talk) 11:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How about Oslo? Beautiful city, very safe, you've got sea and Norway is positively teeming with mountains. DuncanHill (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I preferred Tromsø to Oslo. I didn't see a subway there - but I rode the bus around without a problem. --  k a i n a w &trade; 13:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Tromsø is certainly not a "big city", as requested. Many people would say that Oslo isn't either, and its subway (T-Bane) system, like San Francisco's BART (but more so in the case of Oslo), consists mostly of above-ground lines to suburbs with a relatively short urban underground section. (This may seem unimportant to some people, like the ones who mutated Wikipedia's article on subways into Rapid Transit, but it actually makes a difference.  Actual subways give a place more of a big-city feel, because everything can be closer together at ground level when there aren't ground-level rail lines consuming space, and still close to subway stations as well.  Elevated lines are next best in this respect.) --Anonymous, 19:35 (edited 23:38) UTC, January 8, 2008.


 * San Francisco's rapid transit leaves a lot to be desired for, says this former resident. But other than that it seems to fit the bill, although it is very expensive to live there. It's hard to beat the San Francisco Bay Area for sheer natural beauty—right on the ocean, very near to all manner of state parks, mountains, whatever—coupled with cultural offerings. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Some more nice European options:
 * Zürich. Sea's a bit far though.
 * For hardcore climbing, move to Chamonix. The best climbing town in Europe.
 * Milan. Both close sea and mountains.
 * Munich. Far from the sea, though the Bodensee is close.
 * User:Krator (t c) 15:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest Slough? No mountains, no sea, no underground system, more than a little crime, but it's really lovely. Honest. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answers so far. Until now I am seriously considering San Francisco and Glasgow. Milan, Munich, Slough, Oslo, Zürich, Vienne and Chamonix seem like nice places to visit or stay some months. Strange that nobody suggested New York or London. @Richardrj: Immigration is not a problem since I work online.217.168.3.246 (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Chamonix is a small town. Slough is an outer suburb of London and used to be considered notoriously unattractive, although I can't say about today; I think was mentioned as a joke.  Zurich, like Oslo, would not be considered a large city by some people, and while (like most German-speaking cities) there is good public transportation, it has no subway. --Anonymous, 23:40 UTC, January 8, 2008.


 * OK, but you can't just expect to walk into any country in the world and be allowed to stay there indefinitely, even if you don't intend to seek paid employment. Most countries only allow you to enter on a work permit, a student visa or a tourist visa.  All of these are time limited.  --Richardrj talkemail 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not walking into any country and staying there indefinitely. I limited the scope to North America and Europe because in these countries I can set this problem. There are, BTW, many more kinds of visa besides the three that you cited above. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a lot of mountains in either New York (City) or London. -- LarryMac  | Talk  16:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You said "mountain climbing". That rules out Great Britain and the east coast of the United States. If you'd be content with hiking in stubby old worn-down mountains, then OK. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * San Diego fits the bill except it has no subway. It does have a trolly system though. It also has a milder climate than all the other suggestions. Rockpock  e  t  18:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm astounded no one has mentioned Vancouver yet. Mountains, sea, something like a subway. Well worth your consideration. - EronTalk 19:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point, although the SkyTrain of course is almost entirely an elevated system, not subway.


 * Looking back to Europe, Milan was already mentioned, but Turin (Torino) has similar advantages. It's within 100 miles of the Mediterranean in one direction and the Alps in the other, it's a major city, and it now has a subway although not yet a big subway system.  I don't know anything about crime there, though. --Anonymous, 19:43 UTC, January 8.


 * I did think it was rather curious that the original question specified "subway". I'm not sure why underground transportation would be considered a necessity, as opposed to any other form of rapid transit system. In fact, there is no Wikipedia article on subways, as in "underground rapid transit system". Subway is a disambiguation page, and the relevant article, Rapid transit, addresses both above- and below-ground systems. - EronTalk 20:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * On this point see my comments above. --Anonymous, 23:40 UTC, January 8, 2008.


 * I do think subway is a necessity. It allows to move quickly from one point of the city to other. Above-ground transportation system normally don't offer a tight transport net. Usually they just communicate the city center with the airport or some suburbs.217.168.3.246 (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * San Francisco would be a good choice for you. I used to live there.  You can even get to the (nearby, low) mountains by a bus connecting to the subway.  You'd have no real need for a car.  You should take into account that the ocean is very cold near both San Francisco and Glasgow, too cold for comfortable swimming.  Another city you might want to consider is my present home, Boston.  It is close to the ocean, and the ocean actually gets almost warm enough in August for comfortable swimming.  It is certainly warm enough for swimming all summer at Horseneck Beach State Reservation, a little more than an hour's drive south of Boston.  Very close to Boston, and somewhat accessible by public transport are the Blue Hills. These hills are not very high but are surprisingly rugged and offer great views.  The hills cover a large enough area that you can get a real workout on their trails.  A little over an hour from Boston is the surprisingly steep Mount Monadnock, with its spectacular views, and bit further (two hours' drive) from Boston are the White Mountains, which have many steep peaks and hundreds of miles/kilometres of trails.  Boston has an extensive transit system. Crime varies, but most parts of Boston are quite safe, as are most neighboring cities that share Boston's transit system.  Marco polo (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Toronto has a subway and not a huge crime problem (depending on where you live and whether or not you are in a drug-running gang, really), although I guess the lack of sea and mountains negates that. Unless you count the shores of beautiful Lake Ontario and the Canadian Shield which is well over dozens of feet high in some places! Adam Bishop (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Seattle seems to fulfill all your criteria, except no subway. It does have a bus tunnel and a short monorail. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male--prosecution of doctors?
Was there an attempt to prosecute the doctors? I hope there was some law against what they did! Thanks, Rich (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's a form of medical malpractice, that's for sure, but I'm not sure that's criminal law so much as civil law, and even then it gets into legal questions about the role of "experimental" treatment in clinical research. There was a class-action suit that probably included some clause in it about the doctors in question not having any criminal charges filed against them, but I don't know that for a fact. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

KathyR (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you mean that you think the class action suit had a clause that complained about the injustice of no prosecution or that you think it had a clause saying no criminal complaint would be filed by the plaintiffs? Thanks, Rich Peterson130.86.14.165 (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not uncommon for class action suits to contain in them clauses that say that if the defendant agrees to pay a certain amount then they get to admit no guilt and not be liable for criminal charges from anyone who takes the money, or something along those lines. Again, no clue if that applies here. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Cost of Living increases the U.S. over the last 10 years
I would like to know how to figure out the cost of living increases for the last 10 years, and put it in a graph form to be used as a visual aid. Example: a person makes 42,000 a year in salary in 1997. How much would his salary have to be in 2007 to be equal in buying power, and to be able to maintain the same quality of life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Checker148 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a very vague topic. You can look at this to see the change in the consumer price index since 1913.  Keep in mind that you are trying to pack the value of the dollar and the increase/decrease in the cost of many different things into one figure.  For example, gas prices have increased faster than the price of milk where I live in the U.S. - how do you account for that with one number, especially since I don't drive and I go through two gallons of milk every week? --  k a i n a w &trade; 16:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What I am trying to do is try and figure out how much of an increase in salary based on inflation(?) there should have been in the last 10 years You cannot buy as many gallons of milk or gallons of gas with the same 42,000 now as you could have 10 years ago.KathyR (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cost of living and value of the dollar are two completely different things. While they are related in the trend that both continue to increase in a capitalistic economy, they are not actually related.  The cost of living is based mostly on how much things cost, such as houses, cars, food, clothing, and medicine.  The value of the dollar forced downward by inflation to keep people investing in the economy.  Consider an economy where a dollar increases in value over time.  You can stick cash in your mattress and it will increase in value over time.  We want people to invest - so we devalue cash over time to keep the money in the system, not in someone's mattress.  I explain this because you asked about the cost of living increases, which are not based on inflation.  Then, you asked how much of an increase is needed, based on inflation.  The link I gave you before is a general cost of living change over time (since 1913 if I remember correctly.  United States dollar has a table of dollar values over time (since 1774).  You can see for yourself on the two charts (the Cost of Living one and the dollar value) that cost of living and dollar values follow similar trend lines, but they are not directly related.  One may go up when another goes down. --  k a i n a w &trade; 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Source of Quotation from Spenser
I'm looking for the poem this comes from -

"In evile howre thou hentst in hond,

Thus holy hills to blame;

For sacred unto saints they stand,

And of them have their name.

St Michael's Mount, who does not know,

That wards the western coast."

Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Look here. -- k a i n a w &trade; 18:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wonderful - thank you! DuncanHill (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And we have an article on it too - The Shepheardes Calender. DuncanHill (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

a simply question.
is hitler living in a "ice glass" at southpole? thank you sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.53.65 (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No. -- LarryMac  | Talk  19:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We have an article Death of Adolf Hitler which may be of interest. DuncanHill (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to know more about hitler's last days we have an article called Death of Adolf Hitler that should be of interest. Also the recent film Downfall was an extremely interesting film portrayal of this (I have no idea how factually accurate it was but as drama it was excellent). Though I suspect your question was more an attempt at humour than genuine confusion as to the whereabouts/life of Hitler. ny156uk (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In any case, whether or not you think he died in 1945 or not, if he were alive today he'd have to be 119 years old, which would make him the current oldest man in the world by quite a large margin, and in the running for oldest person of all time. Unlikely. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

British government department naming
Is there any reason why government departments in the U.K. are sometimes named "ministries" and sometimes "departments," and sometimes "offices?" For example, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Health and the Foreign Office.

At first I thought that Ministries were older, established departments, like the MoD, and the former MAFF. But the establishment of the Ministry of Justice seems to make that theory incorrect.

82.44.114.243 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To be extremely general, a ministry is headed by a minister while a department is headed by a secretary. So, the Ministry of Defence is headed by the Minister of Defence.  The Department of Health is headed by the Secretary of State for Health.  I assume an office is headed by a person with neither a minister or secretary title. --  k a i n a w &trade; 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not true. All government departments are headed by Secretaries of State, whether their departments are known as Departments or Ministries.  (Confusingly, though, these guys are collectively referred to as Cabinet Ministers.)  As William says below, it's arbitrary/historical. --Richardrj talkemail 21:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which begs the question - why are some such limbs of government headed by Secretaries, and some by Ministers? DuncanHill (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Auuuugh. Fifty lashes with a cold, used teabag for using "begs the question" that way.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  20:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer given begs another question - which I then gave. I am not a logician - I am a native speaker of English. DuncanHill (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what point you are making here. LarryMac's point was that your usage of "begs the question" in your previous post was incorrect. --Richardrj talkemail 21:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The point I was making was that my usage was perfectly correct in English "as she is spoke" by natives - logicians speak a strange variant which has its own rules. DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that widespread usage of an incorrect phrase makes it correct. That is, to say the least, debatable.  If everyone started saying "could of" for "could have", would that make it correct? --Richardrj talkemail 21:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Eventually, yes (at least for a language like English). Consider the evolution of the split infinitive. &mdash; Lomn 21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Language is not a free-for-all. We need norms and standards, otherwise the whole thing falls into disarray. --Richardrj talkemail 22:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * English has norms, yes, but it doesn't have formal standards (look to French for those). Obviously, then, they're not needed.  English evolves solely because people use "incorrect" vocabulary, syntax, or grammar until it becomes a new norm. &mdash; Lomn 17:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Even in my most prescriptivist mood, I see nothing wrong with the vernacular sense of beg the question. It's not a malapropism, or a broken metaphor like tow the line.  The only complaint is that the logicians staked it out first, and the phrase is natural enough that I don't think first claim gives them exclusive use of it.  &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What should I do with this teabag? Seans Potato Business 21:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming it's in the EU you have a Composting Mandate. William Avery (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect it's all rather arbitrary. See Departments of the United Kingdom Government and Secretary of State (United Kingdom). William Avery (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is very confusing. We have a Westminster-based system in Australia, but we're a little more consistent with our terminology.  There are no Ministries of anything.  There is the overall ministry (e.g. First Rudd Ministry) which is the collection of Executive Councillors who form the government (not all of whom are necessarily members of the Cabinet).  There are various Departments of state.  The minister (always a member of the parliament) who administers the Department of XYZ is the Minister for XYZ (although it can be Minister for X, or XY, or AX, or ABXY ...).  One minister can administer more than one department, and a department can be administered by more than one minister.  The ministry also includes Parliamentary Secretaries, who are also members of the parliament.  They are like assistant ministers, but they don't directly administer any departments.  The bureaucrat/civil servant (we call them public servants) who heads the Department of XYZ is usually known as the Secretary of the Department of XYZ.  They used to be called Directors-General, but that's passé now.  As well as the departments, we have various agencies, offices, bureaus, government business enterprises etc, which all come under the ultimate administration of some minister; in some cases they're formally a part of a larger department albeit with their own separate public identity; in other cases they exist independently of any department and report directly to the minister; in yet other cases they report directly to the parliament, but are still under the general administrative control of a minister.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Viet Nam War Memorial: Funding
It is my belief that the final funding/approval for the Viet Nam War Memorial was contingent upon the selection of Mia Lin as the winning artist. Is there any truth in this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.109.75 (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't you get proof for it before making it your belief? Anyway, the relevant section of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial makes this sound unlikely: the choosing of the artists was done blindly by a selection committee, the money seems to have been privately raised, and the designer (Maya Lin) was apparently not even named during the dedication ceremony and had to defend her design at every turn. So I'm not sure what you mean by "contingent upon the selection" though if I understand correctly you're implying that the funding would have been there for a memorial ONLY if they had chosen Lin's design, and I don't see any evidence for this at all and much to the contrary. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to mention Maya Lin feels that her design wouldn't have even been chosen were it not for the fact it was blind suggesting that she feels (and I don't see any reason to doubt her believe) given the sentiments of the time who she was was likely to negatively affect the chances of it being funded/approved rather then positively. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

City Smoke Commissioner
What would such a person do? Fill the cigarette boxes in City Hall? I ask, because I see that Raymond Tucker was once such a person. DuncanHill (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Or was he responsible for filling rooms with smoke? DuncanHill (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A smoke commissioner would be responsible for improving air quality by reducing emissions from sources of smoke -- probably factories and maybe also household fireplaces, steam locomotives, etc. Here's an article about Tucker that mentions his contributions in that role.


 * Try this google search: . Also, Tucker was smoke commissioner from 1937 to 1942 (not 34-37) according to Gonzalez, George A. (2002) "Urban Growth and the Politics of Air Pollution." Polity. 35.2.&mdash;eric 00:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the role title reflected an early version of town twinning and Mr Tucker's city was twinned with the Smoke (aka London)? BrainyBabe (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Now why didn't I think of that! :) DuncanHill (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Expelled from the party
Worldwide and throughout history, political parties have often dealt with problematic members, especially those with influence or notoriety, by expelling them. But I don't know of one instance where a U.S. party has expelled a member. George Wallace, Lyndon LaRouche, David Duke, Pat Buchanan, Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, and currently Ron Paul have all worked "against" their respective parties, or at least at cross purposes to them, and have sometimes been intensely unpopular among other party members, but as far as I can tell none of them has ever run the risk of being formally ejected. David Duke, for example, has belonged to both major parties and neither made any formal attempt to force him out. As far as I know, he's still a GOP member. It seems that if it were even a theoretical possibility, someone like Duke would be expelled, if only for PR value. So why does it not happen? Is it merely a convention to prevent the party from appearing draconian or undemocratic? Is it a consequence of the federal structure of parties? Or are there other reasons? I would also be interested in the situation in other democracies, particularly in Europe and Asia. Are there other countries where the situation is like the U.S.? Lantzytalk 22:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In the UK Ken Livingstone was expelled from Labour for standing against an official candidate after he failed to win secure the Labour nomination in the London mayoral election. See Ken_Livingstone. William Avery (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Recently populist Dutch politician Rita Verdonk was expelled from the VVD.User:Krator (t c) 22:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And Geert Wilders before her. And Ali Lazrak and Duzgun Yildirim who had been expelled from the SP. And what about the List Pim Fortuyn? I think half of their members of parliament were expelled from the party, while the other half broke with the party a few months later, so you eventually had a political party carrying the name LPF, and a no longer affiliated parliamentary faction carrying the same name. A  ecis Brievenbus 22:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In Australia it's relatively common for people to be expelled from their party. Some prominent examples include: in October 2007 Kevin Rudd insisted the Labor Party expel Joe McDonald ;  in 1996 Pauline Hanson, an endorsed Liberal candidate, was disendorsed (not sure if she was formally expelled from the Liberal Party) and went on to create a new party One Nation; in 1975 Albert Field was expelled from the Labor Party for accepting his appointment by Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen as a Labor Senator, over the party's nomination of Mal Colston. --  JackofOz (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Two recent examples in CAnada are Carolyn Parrish and Garth Turner. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In Switzerland, party exclusions of prominent politicians are almost unheard of, I think. This is perhaps because parties are organised at the municipal and cantonal level, and the national party is an umbrella organisation that can, by itself, expel no-one. Recently, when the Swiss parliament elected Eveline Widmer Schlumpf (a member of the Swiss People's Party) to the Swiss government instead of that party's official candidate Christoph Blocher, she was stymied by the national party leadership and excluded from the meetings of the party's parliamentary group, but no one proposed to expel her from the party. Sandstein (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Do parliamentary parties tend to be more centralized? Lantzytalk 01:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In the U.S., party "membership" pretty much only means that you vote in a particular party's primaries during primary election time -- and this is handled by public voter registrars who are local government employees (not by any private party secretariat). There's nothing that party officials could do to prevent a validly-registered voter from voting in that party's primary, and very little they could do to prevent a legally-eligible candidate from running in that party's primary.  What's very significant is when the party structure refuses to support the candidate who won that party's own primary election -- that's the meaningful U.S. equivalent to expelling someone from a party... AnonMoos (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed -- American parties can't expel members because they don't really control their membership. What they can do is expel someone from a legislative caucus. That's exactly what congressional Democrats did in 2001 when Jim Traficant voted for the Republican candidate for House speaker, i.e., to continue Republican control of the House. That's the only time I know of when someone has been expelled from a legislative caucus in the U.S. Individual legislators in the U.S. have wide leeway to vote how they wish, even on things like budget resolutions, and it's generally accepted that while party leadership can beg, cajole, push and encourage members to vote a certain way, they can't force them. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely the CPUSA has expelled any number of revisionist Trotskyite running-dog objective Fascists etc ? Rhinoracer (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It may have maintained membership lists, but the U.S. Republican and Democratic parties don't (not in the sense that if you're not on the list, then then you're not considered to be a member of the party). AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In the US, the Congressional representatives of a party can strip a member of his/her rights to chair or be a member of a committee.  Corvus cornix  talk  19:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, and I presume this applies to other European countries as well, expulsions are not all that common though. Expulsions create a lot of drama and negative media attention, so parties prefer to avoid going that route. Difficult politicians are often "promoted away" (in Dutch: weggepromoveerd) to harmless positions elsewhere, like being the alderman of a medium-sized town or the chairman of a semi-political committee or organisation. A ecis Brievenbus 19:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a town alderman be elected by the people of that town? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in the Netherlands. The council of aldermen (in Dutch: wethouders) is formed from a number of parties in the city council, like the Dutch government is formed from a number of parties in the Dutch parliament. The mayor is appointed by the Home Secretary or the Queen. Only the city council is elected in the Netherlands. See Politics of the Netherlands (terminology), #College van Burgemeester en Wethouders, #Gemeenteraad and #Wethouder. A  ecis Brievenbus 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)