Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 May 7

= May 7 =

Anyone ever "speak now?"
Like in how wedding ceremonies, when the one who's doing the wedding says to speak now or forever hold your peace. Is there any famous mid-wedding objections throughout history? Bellum et Pax (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I know of at least one, in fiction, admittedly! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In the Vicar of Dibley, in a dream that the vicar had when she was about to marry David Horton. Sean Bean comes and rescues her. Does that count...? :) PeterSymonds | talk  05:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Vicar of Dibley has an even funnier one, during the wedding of Alice and Hugo (a sweet, innocent, dumb couple) where a woman appears at the back of the church at the critical moment and says something like: "He is already married to me and has three children.". As the shocked congregation turns to her she says: "Oh sorry. Wrong church.". DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, yeah, she has to pick Alice up off the floor! Love that show, shame it's gone. :( PeterSymonds | talk  20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Graduate!  Corvus cornix  talk  19:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, in The Graduate, Dustin Hoffman's character, Ben, is too late for the "forever hold your peace" part. He gets to the church right at the "you may kiss the bride" moment. Elaine apparently is married but she goes off with him anyway. --D. Monack | talk 19:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I remember another occasion when the groom said 'I do' at that point and was told he was to early, but really he wanted to object. I think it might have been the modern remake of one of Shakespeare's plays, but I forget which one. And Coronation Street and Eastenders have probably both had this happen lots of times. But it seems noone knows of any famous real weddings where it happened, which is a shame.HS7 (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In most places where that is a part of the service, it is usually the last chance to respond to the previously published Banns of marriage. Most objections, I would imagine, are brought to the attention of the officiant prior to the service itself - that is the reason for publishing them prior to the service. Pastordavid (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"In many traditions if banns are read this is not asked.


 * I seem to remember, from my long time ago legal studies, that, in the UK at least, if you do this as a joke you can be fined; it's a minor criminal offense. --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Clinton's vs. Obama's plans
I know that Senator Clinton plans to but a cap on college tuition prices. Does Senator Obama also plan to do this if elected? If so, what is the difference between their plans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.8.220 (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither one can do that if elected. A cap on college tuition prices would be the result of a law from Congress.  As President, he or she could only agree to the law, not create it.  Even if he or she were to veto the law, Congress could still enact it. --  k a i n a w &trade; 14:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since very few colleges are federal institutions (and those don't have any tuition), it is not clear how easily this could be done. U.S. colleges are generally private or state-run. Rmhermen (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A large proportion of the College-going students in the US rely on Federal Student Aid. The government probably has some clout and leverage by denying student loan payments to Colleges and Universities which do not toe the line with their policies - and it's hard to run a successful school if you do not get students. This is reminiscent of how 21 is the national drinking age. Technically, the federal government does not have authority to regulate the drinking age, as that is left to the States - however, Federal money for road repair is tied to having a 21 year drinking age, so unless the States want to lose billions, they all set the drinking age to 21.
 * As far as what a President can and can't do, while Kainaw is correct that a President needs Congress to pass a law first in order to sign it, a large number of laws actually originate from the White House. (That is, the President drafts a law he/she wants, then gives it to loyal members of Congress to "officially" present.) Additionally, the President may deem that a law already exists which gives him/her the authority to regulate student loans. Thus, he/she may not need an additional law but may accomplish the same thing with an executive order. Most of the federal agencies are part of the executive branch, and are thus under the (indirect) control of the President. Although Congress is needed to authorize the creation of the departments, and give them their mission statements, the day-to-day operations and regulations are not covered by legislation, but by internal rules created by the government agencies (to the fulfillment of the duties set out for them by Congress). As such, they can (usually) be altered by the President without having to involve Congress. I don't know if the Clinton/Obama plans fall under this category, though. -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3671 --this is what I was referring to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.8.220 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That isn't putting on a tuition cap, that's giving a $3500 tax credit, which is a drop in the bucket when it comes to tuitions, and doesn't do anything to keep the colleges from increasing tuitions.  Corvus cornix  talk  19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, according to http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/#higher-education, Obama is offering a $4000 tax credit, but it's still a drop in the bucket.  Corvus cornix  talk  19:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry I thought I heard her mention a tuition cap in one of her speeches but I guess it was just tax credit. Thank you. Anything else either of them is planning on doing to help families send their kids to college? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.8.220 (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No Revolution in Britain
Marx and Engels always used Britain as the example of the most developed capitalist country, a place where the revolution would come first in accordance with their theory. Yet, not only was there no proletarian revolution but the country, unlike Germany, never even developed a mass party organized on Marxist lines. What is the reason for this? Big Sally (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In a meeting of the General Council of the First International on January 1, 1870 a resolution was passed - of which Marx is assumed to be the author - that said that "[t]he English have all the materials requisite for the social revolution; what they lack is the spirit of generalisation and revolutionary fervour." (Not much of an explanation really - why do they lack the spirit and the fervour, that is the question - so maybe he just didn't know.) 194.171.56.13 (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Could it have anything to do with us being the 'nation of shopkeepers', that so many people here base their income on capitalism that a communist revolution wouldn't help much? Or maybe we're just such nice people that we don't go around doing stuff like that, and just let our government gradually pass laws leading toward socialism and a better life for average people.
 * Maybe being foreign he didn't understand what it means to be british, and didn't know to include that in his theory.HS7 (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Even until this day Britain retains a deep respect for their monarch. The monarchy in the United Kingdom has always been advanced and modern (despite what people say!). The monarchy in Britain has learned to evolve and adapt to the people's needs and desires. That is a very brief summary, you may also want to read Monarchy of the United Kingdom for more information on the evolution of the institution...--Cameron (t|p|c) 19:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep. While the German Empire, Russian Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed during WW1, the monarchy here adapted to the people's desires, and therefore managed to avoid the same fate. It changed its family name from the heavily German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor, and even blocked Nicholas II of Russia from coming to Britain (which would have saved his life) in the face of public opposition. The key thing, as Cameron says, is being able to adapt and change. Probably if Queen Victoria had been alive during WW1... well... but her successors certainly saw the monarchy as an institution of guidance, continuity and moral support, rather than autocracy, authority and power. That's why, I believe, there has been no revolution here, because our monarchy is able to respond to public opinion, and the public love them for it. PeterSymonds | talk  19:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * According to our article on the House of Wettin, "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" was the British Royal Family's Royal House name, while the equally German "Wettin" was their personal surname. Both were changed to "Windsor" in 1917 for the patrilineal descendants of Victoria and Prince Albert. --Lambiam 10:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect the supposed British love of the monarchy has very little to do with it - there is very little evidence of such a love amongst the common folk for most of the period from the time the British lopped off their king's head (some 150 years before it occurred to the French to do this) up until the later years of Victoria's reign. The fondness of (certain) Britons for the monarchy only began to emerge around the time the monarch largely withdrew from political affairs and became a figurehead (i.e. between the beginning and end of Victoria's reign).


 * What the United Kingdom had by around 1870 - and what Germany, Russia and Austria all lacked - was a constitutional monarchy with an enfranchised middle-class who could elect actual governments. The best that Germany, Russia or Austria managed before 1918 was a partial franchise that voted for legislatures who could be over-ruled by a monarch-appointed government. The potential educated middle-class leaders of any revolution were therefore separated in the UK from the discontented masses. Of course Marx talked of a proletarian revolution but in practice the Marx-inspired revolutions in Europe, successful and unsuccessful, of the years from 1917 onwards were largely led by members of the educated middle-class, not horny-handed autodidacts. In addition, in the late 19th and early 20th century the franchise in the UK was repeatedly extended so that the number of those who were cut off from having a say in their own affairs was reduced repeatedly - and even those who had yet to be enfranchised could see the possibility that they might obtain political power soon and so were less likely to turn to violent means to attempt to obtain it.


 * To this gradual spread of political power (as a result of which those who also sought greater economic power might also see a way to obtain this through evolution rather than revolution) must be added the fact that the UK did not suffer the same degree of economic, military and political failure as Germany, Russia and Austria all did by the end of World War 1 and it would seem that a great societal breakdown - a sense that things have got worse and only radical change can fix this - is generally required to precipitate a revolution. The people of Britain in contrast generally saw their material conditions improve throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries (and World War I and its aftermath did not change this). I am sure more learned posters will be able to add more detail and probably with greater succintness. Valiantis (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Before proceeding to my own answer I would like second what Valiantis has written here, particularly in relation to the monarchy, which has not always been 'advanced and modern'! For much of the nineteenth century the institution was, in fact, highly unpopular, particularly in the shape of the viciously caricatured George IV and William IV, his equally unprepossessing brother.  The institution regained some of its popularity in the early years of Victoria, but declined again in stature and estimation after the Queen disappeared into exaggerated and morbid forms of mourning following the death of Prince Albert.  This was a time when the republican movement began to gain ground in Britain.  It was really only in the later years, as she came back into public view, that the 'Widow of Windsor' managed to restore the reputation of the crown.  Clio the Muse (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As I am (supposed to be) working on a very boring report, I wonder is it too late to have one now? -- Q Chris (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sally, Marx arrived in England in August 1849 with high expectations that the 'British Revolution', long in gestation, was shortly to be born. After all, this was the most industrialised country in Europe with the biggest proletariat. He placed particular faith in the Chartists, a mass movement which aimed at the democratic reform of the whole British political process. Before arriving he had written "The most civilized land, the land whose industry is the most developed, whose bourgeoisie is the most powerful, where the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are divided in the sharpest fashion and stand most decisively opposed to one another, will be the first to witness the emancipation of the workers of all lands. That land is England.".

Chartism, however, was not to be the vehicle of emancipation. Already in decline when Marx arrived, he held on to his unrealistic hopes as long as he could, but eventually agreed with Engels, who had a far better understanding of English politics, that the proletarian movement "...in its old traditional Chartist form must perish completely before it can develop in a new vital form."

This, in fact, is a key moment in Marx's personal and intellectual evolution; of the transformation of the young optimist into the ponderous critic of capitalism. A new crisis would come, that was always his belief, but if the revolutionary phoenix was to arise it would only do so through a proper understanding of the "law of motion of capitalist society." Das Kapital, volume one of which appeared in 1867, is not an analysis of capitalism in general: it is an analysis of English capitalism, or at least it is from this that he draws most of his practical examples. However, just as the English economy encouraged Marx in his model of historical development, his observations of English politics made him increasingly pessimistic. And here we have the key to the very thing that was to perplex not just Marx but generations of Marxists thereafter: namely, what was the precise relationship between objective economic forces and subjective revolutionary action? English capitalism may have been 'classic'; but English politics and the English working class was 'unclassic' in every degree!

The greatest puzzle for Marx was that England's political clothes simply did not fit its economic body, at least in the terms his theory prescribed. For Marx parliamentary republicanism was the political form best suited to advanced capitalism; but England retained not just a monarchy but a powerful aristocracy, which should have passed away with feudalism. It was the capacity of the English to absorb change without revolution that perplexed him most. England had a capacity for reform which;

''...neither creates anything new, nor abolishes anything old, but merely aims at confirming the old system by giving it a more reasonable form and teaching it, so to say, new manners. This is the mystery of the 'hereditary wisdom' of the English oligarchical legislation. It simply consists in making abuses hereditary, by refreshing them, as it were, from time to time, by the infusion of new blood.''

It was the English working class, which preferred to work within the existing system, that was to cause him his greatest annoyance, particularly in its support for the bourgeois Liberal party, parliamentary reform, moderate trade unions and the co-operative movement. The English had all the material necessary for a revolution but what they lacked was "the spirit of generalisation and revolutionary fervour." He became ever more pessimistic, towards the end of his life, seeing the English working class as no more than the 'tail' of the Liberal Party. Worse still, he came to agree with Engels that the English proletariat "was becoming more and more bourgeois, so that the most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat as well as a bourgeoisie."

Alas the 'Red Doctor', as he came to be referred to in the British press after the Paris Commune, never understood the country he lived in for over thirty years of his life. His last recorded words were "To the devil with the British." Ah, well; Marx is dead, but capitalism lives! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sally, as several posters have already said, the answer almost certainly lies in the nature of change. The Marxian theory of revolution is predicted on increasing contradictions within society that will end with revolution. This would require political power to continue to be concentrated in a smaller and smaller oligarchy, as economic monopolies grow. In England, as in one or two other countries, this did not happen - probably because of Marx's youthful hope, the Chartists. Periodic extension of the franchise served as a pressure valve to control growing unrest over economic inequality. This, the current consensus in political science, is summed up in one of the most-cited and influential research papers of recent years here. -- Relata refero (disp.) 11:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

List of United States Presidents by genealogical relationship
The above article is one of my favorites. I was curious if our 3 candidates for president could be linked in such a way to the former presidents as listed there. Bill Clinton isn't listed there, but perhaps Hilary is related in a closer fashion? Obama being linked would be surprising and extremely unlikely. Mccain would be interesting to see. If anyone can help me out with this that would be amazing. I've tried looking around here for some info but couldn't find much. Chris M. (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Obama and McCain are cousins. One of their relationships (common descent from King Edward I of England) is delineated on this page. For further info, see McCain's ancestry, Obama's ancestry, Clinton's ancestry, and Reitwiesner's notes on the ancestry of the presidential candidates. The first two have royal descents; as far as I know, there's no known royal descent for Clinton, though she is a cousin of Alanis Morissette and Madonna. - Nunh-huh 06:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's my browser playing up, but not a single one of those links works for me, Nunh-huh. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I don't know what's up...I just clicked on each of them, and each opened for me. Maybe copy and paste the urls into your browser? - Nunh-huh 06:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Still no luck, I'm afraid. I've cut and pasted them, to no avail.  I must have this matter investigated.  --  JackofOz (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (All the links are fine for me) Wow, what a fantastically speedy and informative response. These links will bring up some very exciting discussion, thank you very much, anyone else with anything, feel free to add. Chris M. (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Obama is also related to George W. Bush, and McCain is related to Laura Bush - .  Corvus cornix  talk  19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, this must surely count among the higher forms of silliness! Obama and McCain are descended from Edward I?! Why, of course they are; who could possibly doubt such a thing?! But why stop there? Why not Henry III and through him to King John? But let's be really ambitious. After all, there is Conqueror himself; there are even links back to Alfred the Great and the old Saxon monarchy of England, perhaps all the way to Hengest and maybe even to Horsa, to say nothing of Gog and Magog! Guys, I hope you won't think it an awful cheek if I tell you that people in England think the American obsession with 'roots' verges just a tad on the ridiculous! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course not. Why would we care what people in England think? They completely misunderstand football. And they talk funny, too. On the other hand, I think it's a bit difficult to square the success of, say, Who Do You Think You Are? with your assertion about the British opinion of genealogy. I suspect it's a bit less monolithic and a bit more nuanced than you claim. - Nunh-huh 23:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That show you've linked, Nunh-huh, is far more about celebrity, the contemporary religion, than genealogy. Sorry for treading on your toes, but the American obsession with links and roots seems to me to arise from a sense of personal insecurity; a feeling of not quite being sure of one's exact place in the great order of things.  The silly attempt to draw a link between Osama, McCain and, of all people, Edward Plantagenet would seem to be a perfect example of this.  Ah, but it's fun, is it not?  And it makes no difference to me; for I, at least, know who I am, all said in my best plummy accent!  Clio the Muse (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're certainly entitled to your opinions, which never fail to entertain. - Nunh-huh 01:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean Obama -- come on, the "S" and "B" aren't that close together on your keyboard. Anyway, your critique of the American obsession with their "roots" is fair enough, but I find it strange that someone who has dedicated so much of her time to the history of kings, queens, emperors, dictators, wars, treaties, elections, social movements, authors, artists and revolutions would be so nonchalant about discovering her own history. I guess it's different when your family may have lived in the same village for 900 years. Until I discovered distant relatives on the Internet, I had no idea where my ancestors lived in the 19th century. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooops, I slipped on a 'B' and landed on an 'S', or perhaps I simply can't tell my Osamas from my Obamas; how silly of me! Oh, but there again, I think dear-old Osama has as good a right as anyone to claim descent from Edward I, or Genghis Khan or Messalina, or whomsoever he chooses.  I suppose my own history, as you put it, has really never commanded that much importance because I have a comfortable sense of where I belong in space and time; of where I have come from and where I am going.  My precise 'roots' just never seemed all that relevant when there was a far bigger picture to examine; things altogether more exciting.  I'm sure you are very pleased to learn of your Lithuanian antecedents, Mwalcoff.  I would just ask you please not to take that extra step and tell me you are the twenty-ninth cousin, six times removed, of Gediminas!  Clio the Muse (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm more likely to be related to this person, this person or even this person, all of whom trace their origin to the same area. But as far as kings go, this guy is a more likely match than a pagan Lithuanian. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For some, like me, genealogy is interesting as a kind of semi-personal way to look into history. I once read somewhere that the westward migration of Americans tended to occur along particular, generalized routes -- and usually kept relatively close to the same latitude as people went west. I figured I'd see if this held true for my own paternal/surname line. The results were striking enough that I made a rough map -- due west indeed. Pfly (talk) 06:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I confess, Pfly, that I have always viewed genealogy with, I suppose, more than a touch of snobbish condescension, as one of the lesser breeds of historical inquiry. I have to say, though, that the information you have uncovered clearly has a more general relevance with regard to patterns of migration and the like.  Clio the Muse (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the snobbish condescension towards genealogists is a fairly well-known disease of historians. It probably makes them more comfortable in their sense of knowing "who they are". :) - Nunh-huh 00:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that mathematical models seem to predict that the most recent common ancestor of all Western Europeans (and due to migration those Americans with Western European ancestry) may have lived as recently as 1000 AD, it's not at all surprising that so many US presidents and presidential contenders may have common ancestors. The point is that if you go back to the people who lived in the 14th century - say 20 generations ago - they will either have no living descendants at all or probability would suggest they will have hundreds of thousands of descendants. At 20 generations remove I have 220 ancestors - that's 1,048,576 potential ancestors. It's thus hardly a revelation if many people who appear to be unrelated turn out to be my twentieth cousins. This is a clear example of something that is mathematically obvious being newsworthy - I've seen these purported relationships reported in the press on this side of the Pond too - simply because most people don't have a grasp of mathematics. Indeed if you factor in that most US presidential contenders come from WASP backgrounds (including Obama on his mother's side) and the number of individuals of this background who actually migrated to the US is relatively small, then the likelihood is that most US presidential contenders, past and present, are related to each other at a distant remove. Valiantis (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's certainly no surprise that we're all ultimately related to each other, and that indeed we're all related to everyone who's ever lived. But those are mundane and dull facts, and they're not what drive genealogists.  In this case it's finding out the precise connections between notable people whose paths have crossed at historic moments in this lifetime.  Analogy alert:  It's not enough to deduce that there must be other populated and civilized planets out there somewhere - we want to know exactly where they are and precisely what life forms inhabit them. --  JackofOz (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that genealogists' interest is in tracing the link. However, what is considered newsworthy by the public at large is that there is a link at all. Such reports are quite common - in the UK some years ago the "revelation" that Margaret Thatcher and John Major were distant cousins made the national press - and the tone is consistently that it is surprising and even amazing that this might be so. The news reports generally give relatively little time to the work of the genealogists in determining what the links are (and the article linked in the title of this section also presents the relationships as a fait accompli rather than showing the actually genealogies). Clearly many people do not understand the mathematics of the matter when even such an erudite person as Clio the Muse dimisses as ridiculous the suggestion - fairly well supported in the form of a full genealogy at the website linked to - that McCain & Obama are both descended from Edward III. The maths makes it likely that many many people of English ancestry are in fact his descendants (and thus descendants of his royal forebears). Valiantis (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of trains daily from Vienna to Magdeburg in 1889
Can a reader please let me know how many trains ran each day from Vienna to Magdeburg in 1889? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt that there were any direct trains from Vienna to Magdeburg in 1889. A rail journey from Vienna to Magdeburg would almost certainly have involved more than one change of train, at Prague, Dresden, Leipzig, and possibly at Halle and one or more points between Vienna and Prague.  Information on these train schedules is probably not available online.  If it is available at all, it is probably only from archival timetables, which might or might not be available from one or more state libraries or archives.  This may be beyond the capacities of the Reference Desk.  Considering that rail travel was relatively costly and time-consuming in the 19th century, particularly over long distances, I would be surprised if there were more than two direct trains per day between Vienna and Prague.  I would not be surprised if there were only one per day or even only three or four per week.  Marco polo (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * According to [this document] (p4), In 1879, (the Verein Deutscher Eisehnbahn Verwaltungen) united 110 railway administrations from Germany, Austrio-Hungary (sic), Luxemburg and the Netherlands, representing in total a network of 53.385 kilometres. There was, it appears, coordination of many aspects of railway administration in northern central Europe. SaundersW (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. According to the German Wikipedia's article on Schnellzüge (express trains), there was in fact a direct train from Vienna to Dresden beginning 1862.  Very likely, such a train would have continued on to Berlin by 1889.  However, I still think it unlikely that there would have been a direct train from Vienna to Magdeburg.  To get from Vienna to Madgeburg, you could have taken the express to Dresden, but you would most likely have had to change at least there, if not also in Leipzig.  Marco polo (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see this question follows on from Simonschaim's previous question, Journey from Vienna to Magdeburg in 1889, posted on 13 February 2008, when Angr thought that the journey would probably have taken about two days. Pending the timetables turning up, I'm inclined to think she may be right. Xn4 21:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Dr Simons. There is a railway museum in Vienna which may have historical timetables and other suitable data for your research, address is archiv@eisenbahnmuseum-schwechat.at.  The person responsible for the archives is Dr. Dietmar Ganzinger.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.Simonschaim (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League Role in Great Sedition Trial
In the following article David Baxter, an individual who was indited during the Great Sedition Trial in the United States in 1941, states that "actually, the Anti-Defamation League was the catalyst behind the entire Sedition Trial. I couldn't prove it then but I can now. A few years ago I demanded, through the Freedom of Information Act, that the FBI turn over to me its investigation records of my activities during the early 1940s leading up to the Sedition Trial.... Oddly enough, in a great many cases, it wasn't the FBI that conducted the investigation but the Anti-Defamation League." This is an extract from a memoir published by the the Journal for Historical Review (a questionable journal I know) in 1986. Furthermore, it was originally presented at a "revisionist" conference. I know practically nothing about the Great Sedition Trial, and was wondering if someone who did could confirm if there is even a sliver of truth in the statements Baxter made. Was the ADL involved in any way in calling for or carrying out the investigation of those who were tried? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.174.0.10 (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 198.174, on a small point of information the said trial was in 1944, not 1941. As far as your question is concerned, unfortunately I cannot give you a precise answer.  It seems to me, though, from a reading of Baxter's paper that he is remarkably vague for a man who is claiming that an interest group, like the Anti-Defamation League, was able to exercise such power and influence over the whole criminal and judicial process in the United States.  It simply wafts up, once again, the old stale odors of 'conspiracy theory'.  On a more general point, and in the full awareness that I am expressing a purely personal prejudice, if the Journal of Historical Review said that the world was round I would immediately send off for the literature of the Flat Earth Society!  Clio the Muse (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Silly mistake on my part. There were investigations related to the Smith Act (the legislation behind the Great Sedition Trial) in 1941. Baxter's testimony does seem pretty worthless; I'll try to find more reputable resources. One reason I asked was because that link came up third (after two wikipedia articles) when I searched for the Great Sedition Trial on Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.174.0.10 (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Support organisation or information on rape victim compensation in Germany
Does anyone know about where one can obtain free information or advice about the system for compensation of rape/sexual assault victims in Germany - and specifically, in Munich? I'm contemplating something like community legal centres/citizen's advice bureaus, legal aid, rape crisis centres, or university services in or around Munich? Thanks in advance. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A rape victim is called "Vergewaltigungsopfer" in German. "sexuelle Gewalt" is a more general term including rape probably equivalent to sexual assault. I can't tell you if any national organization dedicated to this topic exists.  The German wiki didn't say.  Most cities have a phone-helpline "Frauennotruf," Munich even seems to have several.  Victims of domestic violence can find shelter at a "Frauenhaus". For citizens below a certain income level there is a free public legal advice center "öffentliche Rechstauskunft" operated by the government.  Given however that the German legal system is one of the most complicated ones there is, one should really try to get a lawyer.  As far as I know only lawyers and that government "Rechstauskunft" may give legal advice in Germany.  As far as university services go, you'd have to ask at the student committee "ASTA" or the student services office of the respective university.  Most university hospitals (Universitätsklinikum München) have a sort of ER for psychological trouble.  ( I thought that was called Sozialpsychologischer/psychosozialer Dienst, but could not verify either of those.)  Both the catholic and lutheran churches offer counseling for victims as part of their community service.  "Frauenhilfe" and "Wave-Network" are two organizations offering help in Munich.  Compensation is "Schmerzensgeld". The vicitm may either choose to obtain a judgement on that as part of the criminal prosecution or file a claim separately.  By law all victims of sexual assault are entitled to compensation. (since 2002) Apart from that there appear to be thousands of self organized groups offering help and counseling. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the detailed answer. They look promising! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This may or may not be of use: in the United Kingdom a rape is both a criminal and a civil offense. The criminal bit is handled by the police, who must prove the case to a criminal burden of proof ('beyond reasonable doubt'). A victim also has the right to sue the rapist, in a personal capacity, for damages, based on trespass against her, on the civil burden of proof ('on the balance of probabilities'). As the case will usually already have been proved to the more stringent criminal burden, any subsequent civil case is simply a formality.


 * Examples of taking civil action for criminal wrongs include the Yorkshire Ripper; the families of the victims managed to get his house made over to them, and the case of Nicholas van Hoogstraten, where he managed to avoid a criminal conviction for murder, but was found liable to pay damages in the civil courts. You'll have to consult a German lawyer to se if a similar situation applies. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Other Minds
A question about the problem of mind. How do we know, how can we prove, beyond intuition, that other beings have minds? Is the qualitative character of the world, how things are felt and experienced by others, beyond the scope of philosophical ionquiry? Not too difficult, I hope! Steerforth (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's one of those big questions, isn't it? I don't think we can ever prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, any more than we can prove that everything we experience isn't just a really complicated hallucination or a dream. (This is the old "am I man who just dreamed that he was a butterfly, or am I a butterfly dreaming that I am a man?" thing.) Articles like dream argument and simulation hypothesis touch on this, although they really are more about reality and existence in general than about whether other individuals really have minds -- but it comes down to the same thing, pretty much. Of course, you can always employ a bit of Occam's razor here -- is the simplest explanation really that you happen to have a mind, but everyone else around you doesn't? Wouldn't you have to come up with something pretty weird and convoluted reasoning for why these people who look like you and, to a great extent, act like you, wouldn't also have minds? (I'm going to assume that you have already concluded beyond a shadow of a doubt that you yourself have a mind; cogito ergo sum and all that. If you're questioning that, too, you're probably way beyond any insight I might have. =))
 * But while this stuff is very interesting, in the end it easily comes down not seeing the forest for the trees. On a practical level, we just have to accept that we probably aren't hallucinating when we go about our daily lives, and that the people we interact with are not some kind of automatons, simulations or hallucinations. I mean, I know you can get very, very deeply into this whole thing, but in the end, on a purely practical level, the way you know that your friend has a mind and that he experiences emotions and has free will of his own is that you see him express these things, and that it makes sense that they have minds just like you do. Either you believe it or you don't.
 * And if you honestly don't, you're probably living a very challenging life... -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Our article on Problem of other minds covers some of this, and Solipsism touches on some as well. --Delirium (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think that other beings, such as myself, have minds? Of course we don't have minds. You're just paranoid, that's all. -79.71.252.66 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Look at Analogy and Deductive reasoning for one approach to your question. Most of us would apply a variation of "Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ... It's got to be a duck." to evaluating the possibility of the other individual having a mind like one's own.  Note that common language would describe the phrase "out of his/her mind" when the qualifier "acts like he/she has a mind like mine" is no longer met. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a problem, Steerforth, that has been addressed by both Bertrand Russell and A J Ayer. Russell puts forward one solution: the argument from analogy. We see that other people's behavior resembles our own, and we know that our own behaviour arises from mental processes, so it follows that other people also have these processes, though, of course, this proceeds from intuition, it might be said, rather than proof. The example here is that if I experience pain on the basis of certain unpleasant experiences, then if someone else reports pain I assumer that they are having the same unpleasant experience.

It's not a particularly strong argument, as Ayer was quick to recognise. To assume that it is possible to generalise one's own thoughts to those of other people is not a justifiable inference. Ayer also rejects a behaviour-based version of the argument from analogy. We learn what words like 'pain' mean by observing the behaviour of others. This means that our justification for attributing pain to them simply comes from the fact that their behaviour exemplifies what pain means. Put this way pain doesn’t refer to a particular type of inner sensation at all. It is, rather, whatever causes a certain type of behaviour. In other words, if the behaviour is present so, too must pain, as pain is simply the cause of the behaviour. In such ways is the problem of mind dissolved.

But for Ayer this is quite wrong, because he sees no reason to suppose that the meaning of words should be strictly determined by the way in which they were learned. Just because we learn what mind-words mean by observing behaviour, this does not imply that the meanings of these words can be exhausted by what can be observed in behaviour. It is a mistake, as Ayer sees it, to confuse the method of learning a word with its actual meaning. You may learn what a tiger is from seeing a photo of a tiger, but it does not follow that 'tiger' means 'photo of a tiger’. So, on this basis, it does not follow from the fact that we learn about mental concepts from behaviour that the manifestation of certain kinds of behaviour ensure that which the mental concepts refers to are present.

The argument between Russell and Ayer gets ever more complex to the point where it seems impossible to discuss the problem of mind on any common philosophical grounds. But Ayer offers a solution in the work of Hilary Putnam, who argued that the belief that others have minds like mine is justified because it explains human behaviour. More than that, there is no other rival theory which explains human behaviour so well.

I suppose it's a solution, it might be said, of simple exhaustion; it is because it is! For, as with all other sceptical problems, we simply cannot prove beyond all doubt that other people have minds. In the end the words of Aristotle have abiding relevance-"It is a mark of the trained mind never to expect more precision in the treatment of any subject than the nature of that subject permits." Amen! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely BRILLIANT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steerforth (talk • contribs) 08:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing I've never understood about philosophical discussions of these problems is that they always seem to use such facile examples. It's not hard to imagine an unconscious explanation for the observable pain response, but that hardly seems to matter. If one's theory of mind is any good it needs to explain even the most surprising human behavior, and it seems to me that the most surprising human behavior in this context is talking about our subjective experiences. What compels us to do that? If we don't have minds, or if the mind can't influence the body, then there must be some unconscious unit in the brain which produces the behavior of claiming explicitly to have subjective experiences and writing philosophical essays analyzing the "problem of mind". What would be the evolutionary purpose of such a unit? It seems to make no sense. I can imagine that there might be a counterargument to this. What I don't understand is why philosophers of mind don't spend all of their time on those counterarguments and rebuttals to them. It seems a waste of time to digress into anything as trivial as the pain response.


 * In any case, that's why I personally think that other people have subjective experiences—because they say they do. If they were unconscious, I'd expect them to say so, or simply show incomprehension when I raise the subject (either of which would create an observable difference between them and me). -- BenRG (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What did Pablo Picasso think about Israel and Zionism?
As much as I know Picasso and his friends in Paris appreciated the foundation of Israel in 1948. But I really wasn´t able to find reliable sources for that. Can anybody help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.121.214 (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * During the Six-Day War, Picasso was one of hundreds of left-wing intellectuals in France (including Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and Marguerite Duras) who signed a statement supporting Israel and condemning the leftist line of thought identifying Israel with imperialism and aggression. This statement appeared in Le Figaro on May 29 and Le Monde on June 1. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Mwalcoff, interesting. But anyway if somebody knows what Picasso thought and did in 1948 I would still be highly interested. 77.2.100.115 (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Themes in The Octopus
Hello. I'm writing a report on The Octopus by Frank Norris and would like to make a comparison with Tolstoy's War and Peace, in that both books display a sense of fatalism concrning human actions, placing strong emphasis on the impersonal forces of history. Is this a reasonable view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.184.112 (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Depending on what subject your "report" is for, it really doesn't matter much if it is reasonable. If I write an essay on my grandmother having green hair and supply well phrased solid arguments and examples, who's to argue?  What they usually want to know when they ask "is it reasonable" isn't "does it make sense" but rather "can you supply enough evidence to support that view?"  So put you view in the intro, then look at support for your argument put those in your outline chart and then find similar aspects in the other book. For example answer these questions: What actions are fatalistic?  Why? What methods does the author use to create this feeling? (look here for other question ideas ) Do this for at least 3 scenes or situations.  Compare to the other book : (same questions).  If not enough material or strong enough evidence can be found then your view isn't "reasonable".  Make sure, though that your instructor is not looking for a certain style of essay.  "Book report" may be strictly defined and may not include comparison in their view.  (look at }. Purdue has some excellent pages on writing online. Unfortunately they are a bit spread out and not that easy to navigate.  But they do have a "search" feature. You could run your ideas for an outline by the desk, but once you have one, I don't think you'll need to anymore.  Hope this helps. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's an interesting thesis, and you might very well be able to sustain it, just as long as you do not make the parallels too close. Just as in War and Peace history has its own dynamism and logic, pushing people forward in a relentless fashion, so in The Octopus rancher and railroader alike must serve the impersonal forces of supply and demand. Remember Shelgrim's words to Presley? -"Men have little to do with the whole business. Can anyone stop the wheat? Well, then, no more can I stop the road." All Presley’s radical convictions are shattered by this encounter. The next time we see him is at a railroad executive's dinner party.

If you are looking for a key to Norris' thought, to understand why the great conflict ends in resolution, fatalism and acceptance, then you should realise just how important the work of Joseph Leconte was on his thinking. In was Leconte's view, expressed in books like Religion and Science and Evolution, Its Nature, Its Evidences and Its Relations to Religious Thought, that Divine Will was operating in nature through evolution. Science offered one perspective, religion another, but both science and religion merely sought to comprehend the will of God in the natural universe. Evil can never be considered an isolated phenomenon. Nature might break some, but only in pursuit of the greater good. So it is that Norris, Leconte's former student, is able to write at the end of The Octopus:

''...the individual suffers, but the race goes on. Annixer dies, but in a far distant corner of the world a thousand lives are saved. The larger view always comes through all shams, all wicked-nesses, discovers the Truth that will, in the end, prevail, and all things, surely, inevitably, resistlessly work together for that good.''

So it is with Norris as it is with Tolstoy; people are carried forward by History, by Destiny, by God, by Fate by Nature or by what you will. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Crimes of Kaiser Bill
How accurate is the traditional view of the Kaiser as a pantomime baddy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.240.240 (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * He was pretty bad, yes, but not perhaps intentionally. He was an incompetent ruler, stubborn, strongly suspicious and jealous of anyone who seemed "better" than he was. At the end of the First World War, he abdicated, effectively stabbing the generals that had supported him in the back. The Treaty of Versailles signed in Paris the following year was one further humiliation that the German blamed on the now ex-Kaiser. Before that, there was an incident called the Daily Telegraph Affair, in which he aimed to promote Anglo-German relations. During the interview, he made emotional outbursts, and managed to aggravate the British (by calling them "you English are mad, mad as March hares"); the French and Russians; and also the Japanese, by admitting that the German naval build-up was meant for them, and not for Britain! In Germany, serious calls were made for his abdication, but he kept a low profile and survived. He was popular in Britain until the death of Queen Victoria, but reports soon emerged that he began a naval expansion; he was attempting to negotiate with Russia and France, so Britain naturally assumed that it was meant for them, and B began its own process of re-armament. As mentioned, during the First World War, he was incompetent and relied too heavily on his generals, so much so that the Empire became an effective military dictatorship under Paul von Hindenburg. His abdication was thus a shock for the Generals that had remained loyal.


 * The key thing to remember is the "pantomime baddy" image is mainly stemmed from British anti-German feeling after the First World War. He was portrayed as "Wicked Willy", responsible for the deaths of thousands of British soldiers. Queen Alexandra had a particular hatred for Germans, but that stemmed back to the Second Schleswig War of the 1860s. He did have some successes to his name, but his incompetence and flight after World War I was the reason for his ridicule. PeterSymonds | talk  19:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Peter, I think you might be just a little confused over some of the issues here. The Kaiser did not, as you have put it, stab 'the generals that had supported him in the back' by abdicating; it was the generals who were telling him to go!  If anything it was the generals, particularly Wilhelm Groener, Erich Ludendorff's replacement, who betrayed the Kaiser, by saying that he could no longer count on the army’s support.  I know of no source that says the Germans 'blamed' the ex-Kaiser for the Treaty of Versailles.  Why on earth should they?  Indeed many Germans thought that, in the absence of their former ruler, their new democracy would get a fair peace, one based on Wilsonian principles.  The ensuing diktat was blamed on the supposed hypocrisy of the Allies, not the Kaiser.  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to say, 86.151, that the old-fashioned image of Kaiser Bill as a cardboard villain is giving way to a far more nuanced view, represented, most particularly in the likes of Giles MacDonagh's The Last Kaiser: William the Impetuous (Widenfield and Nicholson, 2001). He was far from being the archetypal Prussian militarist and warmonger. Indeed as Europe rushed towards conflict in 1914 Wilhelm urged caution. As the war progressed he was effectively sidelined, a spectator to all the major events, both military and political. The suggestion in his Wikipedia page that he personally arranged for Lenin to return home, thereby ensuring the death of the Russian royal family, is quite laughable in its absolute absurdity.

The real problem was that Wilhelm, an intensely vulnerable character, was a little man called upon to play a big part, one for which he was temperamentally unsuited. His tactlessness and his bluster were all too often ways of making up for his own perceived deficiencies as a man and as a ruler. He was in every respect the perfect imperial counterpart to Heinrich Mann's Man of Straw, an actor, as one spectator put it, "effusive, voluble...striving for effect." In many ways, with his withered arm and his periodic bouts of clinical depression, he was a quite pitiable figure; a teenage Emperor of a teenage Empire, full of sound and fury that signified nothing. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Imagine: a country going from a leader with a withered arm to one who could hold his arm in the air for extended periods. Edison (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The recent biography, and its nuanced treatment of the Kaiser's psychological condition, is indeed useful. It is also useful to remember that if he is remembered as a pantomime bully, it is because German royalists of the time expected that their emperor be something of a bully. I wish I could remember which of those royalists it was who said of the possibility of strengthening parliamentary democracy in the German empire that any system that did not permit him to march into the Reichstag and shoot its members if the Kaiser so demanded was unacceptable.
 * Clio, the Lenin section in the article is gone. -- Relata refero (disp.) 11:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, Relata. I suppose I should have done this myself, but I'm always wary of starting yet another of those tiresome Wiki-Wars!  Clio the Muse (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues natural resources
What were the issues in Canada regarding with the iron ore, nickel, zinc, copper, gold, lead, molybdenum, potash, diamonds, silver, fish, timber, wildlife, coal, petroleum, natural gas, hydropower? the previous questions did not get any right answers. Please refers this questions to any website that has the answers for this question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.21 (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by 'right answers'? If you know the answers already why are you asking us? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess we just have a language problem. The OP seems to be in a Toronto public library but is clearly struggling in English. For 'right', try reading 'good' or 'helpful'. Xn4  21:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what you may be looking for it this Economic history of Canada. Economy of Canada also holds some clues. Canadian and American economies compared is worth a look.  But Geography of Canada will probably get you closest to picturing what went on. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW could s.o. have a look at Extreme communities of Canada there seems to be something missing in "Furthest west entirely within Saskatchewan is ??." Since that phrase has looked like that ever since the table was created it doesn't seem to be vandalism. (Anyone got a map?) --71.236.23.111 (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The "??" is a blank asking for someone to complete the sentence. It means "of communities entirely within Saskatchewan (i.e. excluding Lloydminster), the westernmost is (please fill in the blank)." No, I don't know the answer. For all I know, the answer might be some place too small for typical highway maps to show.  --Anonymous, 00:12 UTC, May 8, 2008.

Literature
Who is the author of the poem Alladin's Lamp? The first section of the poem reads "When I was a beggar so poor, and lived in a cellar so damp, I had not a ? nor a ? but I had Alladin's lamp" 76.101.255.137 (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC) John R.


 * Thomas Henry Huxley. It's number 43 in that list. Thanks, PeterSymonds |  talk  20:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's James Russell Lowell's poem "Aladdin's Lamp" that is being referred to in that footnote:


 * When I was a beggarly boy,
 * And lived in a cellar damp,
 * I had not a friend or a toy,
 * But I had Aladdin’s lamp.
 * When I could not sleep for the cold,
 * I had fire enough in my brain,
 * And builded, with roofs of gold,
 * My beautiful castles in Spain!


 * The second stanza is here.

--Wetman (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)