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

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 4

A question of the law...

I was surfing on Youtube watching videos when this caught my attention and piqued my interest. Is this actually legal? In Madrid or in America I'm not sure it is, and after watching this I can't tell. Is this a case of Police brutality because it seems to break the Rules of Engagement? The police were still allowed to arrest him but I'm not sure. Can you guys help me out here?

Many Thanks- User:ECH3LON

Interesting question. I can offer this, from the point of view of USA. (I believe that video was from Spain, however.) Generally speaking, the police can only use deadly force to combat the criminal's use of deadly force. In other words, if the criminal is using deadly force, the police can counter with their own deadly force. However, if the criminal is not using deadly force, the police officers cannot counter with deadly force. Thus, the counteractions of the police can only be as great as (or less) -- but no greater than -- the amount of force or threat demonstrated by the criminal. So, the police can "meet" (equal) the level of threat against them (or other innocent victimes), but not go above that level. In this case, the criminal ("alleged" criminal, I guess) was not demonstrating deadly threat when he was riding a motorcycle away from the scene of the crime. (However, he was immediately in flight from a scenario in which he did employ deadly force.) In the USA, the police would not have legitimately been able to utilize deadly force against this criminal who was not himself using deadly force (even though he was in immediate flight therefrom). A good example to think of is this. Say you are in your home. An intruder comes at you with a knife (deadly force). You are legally allowed to use your own deadly force against that intruder (to protect yourself or your family). However, let's say that that same intruder "gives up" and starts to leave the house, walk away from you, and walks down your front lawn to exit the scene. At that point, the intruder has stopped using deadly force, and -- at that point -- the homeowner also must stop using deadly force against the (retreating) intruder. In other words, if he is walking away from the conduct of harming you, you can't just shoot him in the back as he retreats. Again, this principle applies in the USA. (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, that's at least 2+ years old from Spain. But one yellow flag for US law: the police have enormous leeway to act as they see fit. In fact, just this term, in Scott v. Harris (2007), the Court held that qualified immunity precluded a lawsuit against the police officer who ended a high speed chase by ramming the suspect's car off the road (the suspect, as the article notes, was paralyzed as a result). You may also want to take a look at Tennessee v. Garner (1985). You have to be careful comparing this kind of situation to a situation where someone threatens you in your home--the standards of review are different. And especially given the trends of US criminal caselaw, the courts are more likely to give discretion to police.

Would this preclude qualified immunity and allow the police to be sued if it occurred in the United States? That's though to say (for me), but I sure would not want to represent the person who sued the police. –Pakman044 07:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

An important distinction, however. Whether or not police are allowed to legally use deadly force is one issue. Whether or not they are immune from suit is a wholly separate issue. That is, even if Cop X is immune from suit, that does not necessarily mean that he was legally allowed to use deadly force. It only means that he is immune from the lawsuit (regardless of whether Cop X was in the right or in the wrong). (Joseph A. Spadaro 22:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

This reminds me of something that happened in the US some years ago, as reported on UK TV news. A man stole a small tank. It got stuck on what I think our American chums call the "median", or in the UK we would probably refer to as the middle bit of a dual carriageway. The police opened the lid of the tank and shot the driver, although apparantly he was not threatening the police and the tank wasnt going anywhere. This seemed cruel. Do people recall this, and if so what was the rerason the driver got shot? Thanks. 80.2.211.116 19:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely recall this. But, I recall that the driver was being threatening -- i.e., attempting to get the tank to move again and continue his rampage. And, I am sure, the police were attempting to thwart that possibility. (Joseph A. Spadaro 21:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

In the UK the road would have been closed to traffic rather than killing the driver. 80.2.207.114 22:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It happened in San Diego in 1995. He was trying to throw the officers off, by lurching the tank, and had ignored their calls for him to surrender. You can read about the incident at Shawn Nelson; the video links are at the bottom. Antandrus (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Him being killed and nobody apparantly being too bothered about it does, I'm sorry to say, suggest that life is cheap in the US. In the UK I expect the killer-policeman would have been tried for murder. 62.253.48.5 23:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing we say can be construed as legal advice. Per the commentary with the video, he was a hostage taker, and usually a hostage taker has threatened to use deadly force. The police are not a homeowner shooting at a fleeing burglar. If a homeowner shoots another person and claims the deceased was a fleeing burglar, others might say it was just a murder over some personal issue and that the burglary claim was just an excuse. In the US, police sometimes shoot fleeing felons such as murderers if they won't stop, even if the fugitives are not at that instant shooting at the police. UK police shot a Brazilian who was suspected of being a terrorist, but was completely innocent of any crime. Most US police departments do not allow shooting of fleeing felons unless they are believed to be armed and dangerous, or if they are believed to be a threat to the police or others. Flying bullets might kill innocent bystanders, the fleeing person might just be afraid of the police or avoiding arrest for some minor offense, and the police and mayor will be made to look bad in the news afterwards. It is iffy when there is no video to prove what was going on. The fugitive's family usually maintains that it was an unjustified police execution of an innocent young man. There is generally no presumption that the police can shoot a fleeing misdemeanor suspect, and their career may be over if they shoot a fleeing felony suspect, but no weapon is found on the body. It has been alleged that some cops carry weapons to plant on the deceased in such cases. It would be pretty strange if the man in the video was just allowed to ride off and go about his business and take more hostages when it suited him. An important US case related to use of deadly force against fleeing criminals is Tennessee v. Garner. See [2] which mentions the common law fleeing felon principle. See [3] for a legal memo written by Supreme Court Justice Alito when he worked for the Reagan administration, about the Garner case, justifying police shooting an unarmed 15 year old boy to death when he was suspected of burglary and was climbing a fence to escape. He had stolen $10. Alito quotes a model penal code as saying "The officers may be justified in using deadly force if the suspect has committed a violent crimeor if they have probable cause to believe that he is armed or that he will endager (sic) the physical safety of others if he is not captured." See also [4]. I believe Spain has the civil law tradition of Rome rather than the British common law tradition, so very different notions may apply. Edison 15:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In the US I don't think this would fly as reasonable force. The man was not using his motorcycle in a way which was going to harm anyone else — he was resisting arrest, trying to escape, and had made threats about a hand grenade, but usually when you use a car to utterly destroy the vehicle of someone else you need to being doing it because they are causing a threat with the vehicle. Otherwise it is not different from just shooting someone who is effectively unarmed. In this case as well the police were not using spur-of-the-moment judgment; the incident was clearly pre-meditated. I don't think it would fly under the Scott v. Harris ruling (vehicle itself is a dangerous weapon), or the Tennessee v. Garner ruling (hitting him with a car and making him do two flips off of a motor cycle is the use of deadly force, whether it killed him or not, not just trying to stop him from fleeing). Again, that's in the US, not Spain, of which I know nothing. (To answer any "what else could they have done?" questions, I imagine i would have been relatively trivial to put an additive into the gas tank of the motor cycle which would cause the engine to fail in a more graceful way after going 50 feet.) --24.147.86.187 22:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The distinction is that the cops should be reasonably trying to stop the fleeing criminal, not kill him. And using the least possible (legally allowable) force to effectuate that stop. (Joseph A. Spadaro 22:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

However in the US, even if such an action were likely illegal, it's difficult to get a legal finding to that effect. It's incredibly difficult to hold the officer criminally liable (grand juries often will not return an indictment in police incidents), and bringing a tort action against the officer by means of a lawsuit is difficult with qualified immunity. There are other ways of bringing police in line (internal investigations and civilian review boards (see NYPD's Civilian Complaint Review Board) among others), but it's still amazingly difficult. In Spain, given the climate, and if I recall, this wasn't too far after the Madrid subway incident (??), they weren't taking prisoners so to say. –Pakman044 01:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But, the original question was whether or not this conduct is illegal. Whether or not the officer is immune from liability is another issue altogether. That is, he can be doing something illegal -- yet hold immunity for that illegal conduct. Generally speaking -- the answer to the original poster's question is: no, most likely this is not legal (in USA). However, what can be done about that illegality, as Pakman points out, is a whole different can of worms. (Joseph A. Spadaro 22:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

It looks like this question has been given pretty thorough treatment already, but there's still one slightly annoying omission, anyone care to describe in brief what the video actually shows? Some users are unwilling or unable to access non-text content, and the continuity and archival value of this thread would be greatly enhanced by an included description. Just a thought. dr.ef.tymac 01:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. This video is one of the type that you would see on a TV show such as "America's wildest police videos" ... and, in fact, I did see it on such a show. The video is from Spain and apparently a few years old. This is what it shows: A man takes two hostages in a bank. I believe the man is holding a gun to the hostages. The man agrees with police to exchange the two hostages for a motorcycle with which to drive away (escape). The police agree and provide the man with a motorcycle. The hostage-taker releases the two hostages and drives off on the motorcycle. As he is driving down the street -- perhaps a few yards or so -- a police car suddenly (and unexpectedly from the hostage-taker's point of view) darts out of a side street and purposely crashes into the motorcyclist speeding away. In the crash, the police hit the motorcycle broadside and the motorcyclist / hostage-taker is thrown up into the air with great violent force. He does perhaps two full flips / rotations in the air and comes crashing down on the street pavement. Apparently, he lives but is taken to an ambulance / hospital. The end. The question is whether or not the police had the right to purposely crash into the cyclist with their police cruiser. Seemingly, the police were more than willing to kill the cyclist ... and it is probably only through fortuity (as opposed to deliberate conduct by the police) that he survived the crash. (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Southern Literary Journal and Monthly Magazine

Is The Southern literary journal, and magazine of arts another name for Southern Literary Journal and Monthly Magazine? John Vandenberg 04:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And a related question, was "Maelzel's Chess Player" first published in "Southern Literary Journal" or "Southern Literary Messenger"? The Edgar Allan Poe Society of Baltimore says both Messenger and Journal; the latter appears to be a mistake. The society does not have an email address, but does list a US phone number. John Vandenberg 05:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the Edgar Allen Poe and Southern Literary Messenger articles, and the geographical locations (Virginia vs South Carolina), I'd say that it is almost certainly the Messenger and not the Journal in which the chess essay was published. Someone should correct s:Maelzel's Chess-Player, as it links to the wrong journal article. Carcharoth 12:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the two titles above (magzine of arts vs monthly magazine). Google for each one as a complete phrase and have a look through the results. Some JSOTR and MUSE results there should help. Carcharoth 12:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.

Does anyone have any ideas for places to go in Washington, D.C.? I'm going with family for three days (Saturday-Monday). I'm touring Georgetown University, and I know about the Smithsonian museums, and the obvious memorials and other such things. Any ideas? Thanks, Abeg92contribs 05:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Any Ref Desker worth his or her salt should ensure they take the time to visit the Library of Congress! See also Category:Landmarks in Washington, D.C. for some ideas. Rockpocket 07:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I've done that before. It is kind of a disappointment to me, because they won't let me read the books (under 18). However, the category does seem useful, at first glance. Abeg92contribs 12:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

When I was there for three days, I found out a few things after I got there that I wish I knew before I went:

• You have to petition one of your Congressional representatives or senators to get on the list to tour the White House before you go to Washington DC.
• Once you are in "The Mall", all buildings have extreme security to get in. Once in, you can quickly go from building to building through underground tunnels - no need to go in and out of security checks again.
• The Reagan Center has a food court that has normally-priced food.

Unfortunately, I spent my first two days waiting in security lines and paying $15-20/meal. -- Kainaw^(what?) 14:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

On my visit to DC, my dad regaled me with his tales of walking up the Washington Monument, but when we got there we were told that the stairs had been closed. When? "About 20 years ago." (I believe they are opened for special events, but the public has to take the elevator as we did.) Confusing Manifestation 01:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

My top three choices would be 1) The National Zoo. 2) The Squished Penny Museum, and 3 The International Spy Museum. --LarryMac | Talk 16:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Clumsy people at art museums

This is kind of a weird question, but I was wondering how often art pieces are accidentally damaged by visitors at art museums. I doubt there are any exact numbers, but is this a common occurrence? Are there any notable sculptures or paintings that were destroyed because some klutz walked too close to them? Zagalejo 07:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

One that springs to mind is the damage caused to Michelangelo's Pieta in 1972, but that was intentional violence on the part of an Australian (shame!!) lunatic, rather than mere klutziness - all the same, if a barrier had been there as there is now, it couldn't have happened. -- JackofOz 08:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't at a museum, but last year an art collector poked his elbow through a Picasso painting that he'd just agreed to sell for $139,000,000 (US). The painting was repairable, though. See Le Rêve (painting)#Wynn incident. --Anonymous, August 4, 2007, 09:26 (UTC).

Someone tripped on the stairs at the Fitzwilliam in Cambridge last year and smashed three Qing dynasty vases.[5]--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, interesting. Thanks for the replies! Zagalejo 17:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Recently a tour guide in a Polish museum (Łańcut castle) warned us (his tour) to keep children as a year ago some running children broke a vase, too (seemingly glued back). But anyway, bringing kids to museums is a stupid idea for all concerned :D -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat related. This reminds me of video posted on the internet where a mother and her toddler son were at a Post Office. On the ground, roped off, was a colored sand design being worked on by Buddhist monks. The kid wanders away from the mother and steps inside the roped off section and proceeds to walk all over (and destroy) the intricate art work. After a minute or two, the mom sees this and grabs the kid and walks away nonchalantly. The whole thing was caught on video. Does any one else recall this? (Joseph A. Spadaro 22:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

Aren't those paintings supposed to be destroyed anyway? Maybe the monks would have considered this 'Karma' or something, especially since it was an innocent child that did it. DirkvdM 07:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those intricate sand designs are indeed meant to be destroyed once finished. I believe that it represents how fleeting material existence is, and that things in life are very evanescent. (I think.) But, the general idea is that the art is completed, then destroyed (after we have had a chance to appreciate the beauty -- if even for a fleeting moment). In this case, the toddler destroyed the art midway through its creation. And, yes, the monks were quite forgiving. I believe they actually started the whole project over again, in order to complete it. (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

I think you'd be surprised, in general, how much art and etc. has been tailored and fixed and patched together. We have this sense that the things we see in a museum are basically in exactly the same state that they were made, but this is often not the case — they have undergone centuries of re-touching and cleaning and fakery to make it look good, because frankly most of these things are fragile and will need maintenance over time. --24.147.86.187 22:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the most affecting things for me at the Met was a room full of Roman heads and torsos. These were not displayed as accidents, but genuine. Nevertheless, all the pointy bits had broken off. Therefore, it was a whole room of decapitated men and women without noses, penises, and breasts. The faces were serene, hopeful, and serious, and yet the effect, once I stopped looking at the artistry and began noticing the overall effect, was like going through a Pathology lab. (I.e. in statuary, in particular, anything that sticks out -- fingers, noses, penises, toes, Amazon breasts -- breaks off.) Geogre 13:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

All the more reasons to photograph, scan and put online the entire world as soon as possible. And make backups - always make backups... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, except that archivists are bedeviled by archaism. How are your 5.25" floppies doing? How are your wax cylinders? Right now, the Library of Congress, for one, is really in a tizzy about its vinyl collection. So, while we're digitizing, we have the awful prospect of another Betamax obsolescence or the possibility of destroying vast amounts of knowledge with sufficient failures of electricity/magnetism. Optical media have trouble being permanent. Flash memory isn't forever. Paper books are still about the best thing we have, and photo plates. Already, though, historians have suggested that we have reached the "end of history" because of the transience of e-mail, PowerPoint, and the like. (In one gut-churning development, the US Pentagon has come to use PowerPoint presentations for the most vital meetings. No more the days of reading Stimson's notes on the atomic bomb or Dulles's letters. "Cya b4be im N mtg PTUS" is not going to make for great historical research.) Geogre 19:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the best idea for nearly perfect archiving is based on p2p system :) There would be many databases in museum/libraries around the world, each with redundant backups of one another; if one place collection gets corrupted or lost, it would be restored from others. Vive la Google Print :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Admiral of the Fleet

Is Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy) a singular position. That is to say is there only ever one at a time? Come to think of it, is there only 1 fleet? The list has dates. I presume these are dates of appointment. If there is only ome at a time, what happened about the early ones who are still alive (eg Duke of Edinburgh)? -- SGBailey 08:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The Royal Navy used to have about nine or ten Admirals of the Fleet - it wasn't a fixed number, it depended on how long they lived. The number is now falling, as until about ten years ago Chiefs of the Defence Staff who were naval officers were always made Admirals of the Fleet, but this is no longer the case.Xn4 12:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now only one Fleet, often called Her Majesty's Fleet, under the command of Commander-in-Chief Fleet, though it has small squadrons within it, such as the Gibraltar Squadron and the Fishery Protection Squadron. Until 1971, there were two Fleets: see Eastern Fleet and Western Fleet (United Kingdom). Xn4 12:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hundred Year's War

After reading your page on the Hundred Years War I'm still a little puzzled about the precise and immediate causes. Why did Edward III chose to make the claim to the French throne and go to war exactly when he did? Thanks. Brodieset 12:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the article, "Edward III, being the nephew of Charles, was his closest living male relative, and was at that time the only surviving male descendant of the senior line of the Capetian dynasty descending through Philip IV. By the English interpretation of feudal law, this made Edward III the legitimate heir to the throne of France." as for the timing, Edward finished off the Scots quicker than the French anticipated when they tried to take Gascony from the English. In 1337 the French began attacking some English coastal towns in response (supposed) to Edwards violation of his oath by neglecting the needs of the province. Therefore it seems, at least partly, that hostilities broke out for reasons other than Edwards urge to take the throne, which seemed to have subsided somewhat after he initially (grudgingly) accepted Phillip, and it seems that Edward's urges were rekindled by the outbreak of hostilities and the opportunity they presented, rather than the other way around. Of course you can always argue that a king with differnt urges may have found a peaceful solution out of the whole issue, to perhaps the escalation of the war can be linked to Edwards aims for the French throne. Summed up, I think Edwards targeting of the French throne is both a cause and effect of the outbreak (and escalation) of the war. That's my take though! :) SGGH ^speak! 14:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, there is a problem with the page on the Hundred Year's War. The suggestion that the kings of England owed homage to the kings of France from the time of the Angevin Empire is quite wrong. These lands were held under allodial, not feudal tenure. It is not until the Treaty of Paris of 1259 that Henry III entered into a direct feudal relationship with the French crown. Up until that point Gascony, all that remained of the old Duchy of Aquitaine, was an independent territory, outside French control. The 1259 treaty was intended to secure a lasting peace between the two realms. Henry abandoned his claim to the old Angevin lands of Normandy, Anjou, Maine and Pitou. He was allowed to continue in his possession of Gascony, but only in a relationship of vassalage. That is to say, the king of France now had the right to interfere directly in Gascon affairs, and even to confiscate the fiefdom if the 'King-Duke' was held to be in breach of the conditions of tenure. This is the first, and most significant cause of the outbreak of the Hundred Year's War; for as time went by, and the kings of France became ever more centralising and imperious, the political status of Gascony became less and less certain, as the War of Saint-Sardos was to demonstrate.

So, English anxiety, and French ambition, over Gascony was the decisive long-term factor. What better way of breaking the humiliation and uncertainty of vassalage by claiming the French throne outright? Edward III was in a position to do so because of his descent from Philip the Fair. The more immediate cause of the war was Philip VI's alliance with the Scots, renewed in 1326 at the Treaty of Corbeil. After Edward went to war in Scotland in 1333 Philip's aggressive posturing, particularly after he moved his Mediterranean fleet into the Channel, was a considerable threat to English security. Just as Philip offered counsel and aid to David II, enemy of England, so too did Edward offer counsel and aid to Robert III of Artois, enemy of France. In May 1337 Philip declared Gascony forfeit, in terms of the Treaty of Paris. Edward responded by issuing letters of defiance, addressed to "Philip of Valois, who calls himself King of France." By 1340 he was calling himself King of France, and so it followed. Clio the Muse 01:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition to what the previous responders have stated, in feudal society, allegiences were taken seriously. Edward needed the support of Flanders, but they officially owed allegiance to the King of France, Edward's claim allowed enemies of Philip to side with Edward as the rightful king, with out being seen to abandon there feudal duties. It also seemed he used it as a bargaining chip, renouncing the claim on the throne was often on the negotiating table. Edward didn't take the position of King of France, even when in a military position to do so, but was happy to keep taking beneficial peace deals from Philip. Edward's tactic was to keep the war out of his own country, so his own people wouldn't suffer, but it seems he had no intention of actually making France his own country, being happy with Gascony and Calais (must be the cheap wine!). Cyta 14:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A popular line when I was studying medieval history was that "feudal"/"feudalism" has become a meaningless term and is in fact "the dirty f word". Gotta love those critical historiographers, so bored of disputing, they start disputing how to describe their disputes. --Dweller 14:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Need help finding health issues

I've presented my quandry on my talk page, under User talk:Healthwise#Health issues. If you know anything about the topics I'm exploring, please point out where on Wikipedia or the Web I can find information on them. Thank you. Healthwise 20:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Population control: effect on economics

How would imposing a limitation of the number of children a couple can bear a la China, directly affect a developed countries economics? Considering the damage caused by climate change, is the idea any more feasible? --Seans Potato Business 20:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, think about it this way: In a country like China where each couple only has one child, every couple must produce enough to support 7 people—themselves, 1 child, and 4 parents. In a country where each couple has 2 children, each couple must produce enough to support only 6 people—themselves, 2 children, and 2 parents (the other child and their spouse support the other 2). So by having 2 children instead of 1, the overall economic burden on the working class is lessened. The Jade Knight 20:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me as a rather overly simplistic approach to it — that presumes that 1. all children support their parents in old age, and 2. that multiple children will spread such a burden equally amongst themselves. Both of those assumptions seem to me highly suspicious. --24.147.86.187 00:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It also seems to overlook the fact that economically active people are economically valuable, especially if skilled. If the Chinese one-child policy were applied successfully (in fact, its success has been rather limited in China), the outcome would be a falling population with a falling proportion of people in it who were capable of working. Clearly, a population explosion has all kinds of ill effects, but from an economic point of view falling populations can and do wreck economies. (In the modern world, such falling populations are generally due to mass migration, and it is always people with skills and professions who find it easiest to migrate and to find work elsewhere.) Xn4 02:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Something like this is taking place in the Netherlands (more than in most other western countries, I believe). Just have a look at the Dutch population pyramid. In a 'healthy' demographic development the base (youth) is at least as wide as the central bit (adults) - and wider if there is a lot of infant mortality), which is called a youth bulge (see the pyramid for China there, too). Btw, might it be an idea to make an overview of the population pyramids of all the countries in the world? That would be easy if they were all templates, but that doesn't seem to be the case, alas.

Anyway, for the Netherlands, the bulge in the middle is the baby boom around 1950. But in the 19060s people started having fewer kids. So now 'greying' is a major point of discussion in election time. One obvious solution is to let people work longer, because one of the two causes is that people grow older because they remain fitter than in the days when the pensioning schemes were devised. But people have grown so used to the idea of retiring at 60 that it is difficult for them to swallow such a change. But your question is about the other cause, reduced influx from the bottom end. One solution is to import people from countries that have a surplus. But people are already starting to complain about there being too many foreign influences (what 'we' call allochtoon). Another thing is that those imports might stay, like the immigrants from Maroc and Turkey often did before them. But it would at least soften the blow. And another version of this is the EU. I assumed that Eastern European countries like Poland have different demographics (catholics, you know :) ). And they are much more likely to go back home because moving across Europe is so easy these days. But to my surprise, Demographics of Poland and Demographics of Romania (the two biggest eastern EU countries) show a recent decrease in births. So they're likely facing the same problems. Alas, the articles don't have population pyramids. See also Demographics of the European Union#Demographic future.

So the question should not be 'what if' but 'what now'.

Not sure what you mean by the second question. Do you mean to ask if climate change makes a population reduction desirable? Sure, but it's rather too late for that now. Any peaceful reductions would take way too long for our more immediate problems ('immediate' here meaning the next 100 years or so, even though even politicians don't look anywhere near that far ahead). DirkvdM 08:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Some environmentalists (or at least, a certain sort of environmentalist, including those who write pamphlets and posters for Glastonbury) recommend that people have fewer or no children, in order to reduce their impact on the world. I have to wonder who they think the world is being saved for. If nobody had any children, and just quietly died, the world would probably recover from all we've done and become a lovely place, but the loveliness wouldn't be enjoyed by humans. Low birth rates are a cause for concern in a lot of developed countries; for example, for all the talk of increasing population and the need for more housing, Britain is sitting on a pensions crisis and is mostly sustained by immigration. Search a UK news source for 'Pensions crisis' and I imagine you'll get an idea of some of the economic problems. Skittle 01:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To have no humans would be the other extreme. Animals the size of humans usually number in the thousands, when the habitat is very local, to hundreds of thousands, when the habitat is extensive, such as with the wildebeast. Humans heave spread over almost the entire globe, so let's multiply that by 10, which gives us millions. But there are billions of us, so that's a thousand times more than what would be 'normal' for animals our size. (Whatever 'normal' means.) DirkvdM 07:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And of course permanent immigrants are only a short term solution as they too will grow old. Ideally I suppose some kind of stability would occur, with every couple having two kids, then the working age could be set and not have to change a lot. But who would choose the population level? Are there too many people now? Who should die? I take a rather Malthusian (and unhumanitarian) view that if the population becomes too much, people will die naturally due to lack of food, diseases caused by overcrowding, war over land etc. Not nice outcomes but they keep the population down! This leads to be sceptical of some African charity work, if we save them all from AIDS will there just be less food to go round? If we feed them will the diseases of overcrowding become worse? Maybe reducing the population is the answer, but it's a difficult one to enforce, even in an oppresive dictatorship like China. Cyta 14:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"...some kind of stability would occur, with every couple having two kids". Well, not exactly. Couples form and reform, the question is really how many children women have (often called the fertility rate). Some women remain single and have no children, so a stable population needs mothers to have more than two children. In many European countries, the fertility rate is now well below two. Oddly enough, one of the lowest is in Italy, at only 1.35.

True, I was oversimplifying. Even ignoring changing couples it should state 'on average two children'. 2.4 was for a while famously the average fertility rate, I wonder where and when that applied? Cyta 14:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hymn of hate

Today is the anniversary of Britain's entry into the first world war. In an account I was reading about this there was a mention of a German poet called Ernst Lissauer who wrote the above anti-English poem. I came here looking for some more biographical detail on this man and his poem but there does not seem to be anything. Maybye I'm looking in the wrong place? Can anyone help? MindyE

here is the translated version of the entry for him on the German wikipedia. That seems to be the main biographic thing I could find, many sits merely list the hymn. SGGH ^speak! 22:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That translation is truly terrible!

A German-Jewish poet, Ernst Lissauer is remembered, if he is remembered at all, for one thing, and one thing only -Gott strafe England-the most memorable phrase from his Hassgesang gegen England-Hate song against England.

Lissauer, a friend of Stephan Zweig, was a committed nationalist and a devotee of the Prussian tradition. Zweig said of him "the more German a thing was, the greater was his enthusiasm for it." His devotion to German history, poetry, art and music was, in his own words, a 'monomania'.

In the hysterical atmosphere brought on by the war his Hassgesang became an instant success. Rupprecht of Bavaria, commander of the Sixth Army, ordered that copies be distributed among his own troops. The Kaiser was pleased enough to confer upon the author the Order of the Royal Eagle. However, despite the general atmosphere of condemnation against England for 'causing the war', the Hassgesang was not without its critics. The Frankfurter Zeitung was bold enough to denounced the "impotent hatred that spits at us everywhere". With one or two exceptions it was not widely popular among Lissauer's fellow Jews, who had a tendency to identify with England's liberal tradition. The publicist Benjamin Segel said that the poem did not contain " as much as a spark of Jewish sentiment."

Sadly for him, Lissauer ended by pleasing no-one. In one of history's supreme ironies he was even criticised by the vigorous anti-semitic movement of the day for expressing such 'fanatical hatred', which they considered 'unreasonable', 'utterly un-German', and 'characteristic of nothing so much as the Jewish race'! Difficult to believe, I know, but true nonetheless. Houston Stewart Chamberlain declared that the Teutonic German did not "wallow in Old Testament hate."

Lissauer himself came to regret writing the Hassgesang, refusing to allow it to be printed in school text books. After the war he said that his poem was born out of the mood of the times, and that he did not really mean it to be taken seriously. In 1926 he said that rather than writing a hymn of hate against England it would have been better if he written a hymn of love for Germany. In every sense an unfortunate man, he did his best to balance two traditions, one Jewish and the other German, at a time when history was forcing them apart. In 1936, now living in Vienna, he was to write "To the Germans I am a Jew masked as a German; to the Jew a German faithless to Israel." He was now also fully aware of the true implications of the Hassgesang in a world that was "sick from hatred of nation against nation." Clio the Muse 00:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I copied Clio's information to Ernst Lissauer and Gott strafe England. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I just let google do it, I haven't spoke German for two years and I;m not going to translate the whole thing! :D SGGH ^speak! 22:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not misunderstand me, SGGH; I did not for an instant assume that this was your work. Even the worst human translator could not possibly produce that mangled English! Clio the Muse 00:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fitzpatrick French Norman Kings & Ireland

I would like to put forward some iders and questions that instead of the Fitzpatrick family name being the only Fitz name to have its origins in Irish Hitstory that in fact like most other Fitz surnames it origins lay in Norman France. Its long been established that the Fitzpatrick surname has royal connections among the early Irish Kingdoms but I'd like to propose that in fact some of the Royal history can be linked to the French Kingdom. I was recently looking at poitraits of the long dead Kings & Queens of France and was struck by a certain detail within the costumes and regalia, it was something I'd seen before: Three Golden Yellow Fleur-de-Lys on a Royal Blue background this lead me to research some of the history behind the symbol of the Fleur-de-lys. The oldest known examples of fleur-de-lis similar to those used in the Medieval Western world and in modern times can be found on assyrian bas-reliefs from the 3d millenium BC. It is found on tiaras, necklaces, scepters, and seems already to play the role of royal attribute. The origin of fleur-de-lis adopted as heraldic emblems by the Kings of France is a problem that has elicited much discussion. From the middle of the 14th c, several works (mostly designed to legitimize the Valois claims on the throne, against Edward III of England), explain that the king of France "bears arms of three fleur-de-lis as sign of the blessed Trinity. We have always been told that Fitzpatrick was the only Fitz surname to originate in Ireland but how can we prove this?. The prefix "Fitz" is a corruption of the French word "fils meaning son. In time, "Fitz" came to mean "bastard son", as the Normans were regarded with great disdain by the local Gaels. A noteworthy "Fitz" name of true Norman origin is "Fitzroy" which derives from the French "fils de roi", meaning bastard son of the king. Could it be the case that a son decended of the King of France arrived in Ireland after 1066. In a effort to placate the locals he adopted Patrick into the name to honour the fourth century Saint of Ireland St Patrick. Looking again at the coat of arms have you ever wondered why a White cross over Black? Colour has meaning in heraldry, The local community in Ireland around the time of the Norman invasion must have been suffering a great deal, In heraldry Black symbolizes Grief & Constancy, White symbolizes Peace & Sincerity, is it only an accident that Peace as symbolised by a white cross layed over the black colour of grief. Above this the three recognised emlems of French Kingship three Fleur-de-lys over blue. Did these symbols have a now lost meaning to the people of that time. I believe that Fitzpatrick may have been the only Irish Fitz surname but like the British royal family who changed their German surname from Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha to Windsor to placate the British people during world war 2. Could politics have played a part in the use of Patrick in the name if not why keep the Fitz and all the meanings that had. Why three Fleur-de-lys over royal blue in the coat of arms? all questions I've not had the answer to in my search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitzpatrickliverpool (talk • contribs)

My goodness, what a wall of text! It reads to me more like a 'manifesto' than an inquiry. I would have directed you in the first place to Fleur-de-lis, but I assume you are probably already familiar with that page? I have no specific information on the various points that emerge from your 'presentation'; anything is possible, but there is clearly not much to be served by vacant speculation. All I will say is that there was a steady process of mixing and blending between the Normans or the Hiberno-Norman-later the Old English-and the Gaels, to the point where one became largely indistinguishable from the other in terms of religion and language. Fitzpatrick would seem to be a perfect meld. On a small point on information, and to avoid any confusion, you should note that Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was not a surname but the title of a royal house. It was dropped in 1917 by George V in favour of the more English-sounding House of Windsor, which was, of course, during the First World War, not the Second. Clio the Muse 22:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Clio is (of course) right about Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Elsewhere, it later developed into a surname. I'm thinking of Simeon Sakskoburggotski. Xn4 03:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)