Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 March 29

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.

March 29

Born in the wrong ethnicity

If transsexuality is the belief that one was born in the wrong sex, and therianthropy the belief that one was born in the wrong species, what is the term for the belief that one was born in the wrong ethnicity? NeonMerlin 00:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Tuff luck? 71.100.2.150 00:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

See poseur and wigger. StuRat 00:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In the medical world, a transsexual is more technically/formally referred to as someone who is Gender Dysmorphic, so I went out looking for the phrase Ethnic Dysmorphic and found one reference, to a 2001 conference paper called "'How to Eat an Oreo': Using African American Research through Personal Narrative To Analyze Ethnic Dysmorphic Phenomenon" (Ashford) source. Jfarber 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Since dysmorphic implies negative feelings of one’s self would not Ethnic Sociodysmorphic fit the following circumstance:

There are persons who belong physically to the White race (although they may have a visibly undetectable percent of Black genes) who posses mannerisms, speech, mind set and ethnicity of a Black person. Such persons are completely genuine individuals and do not fit either the definition of poseur or wigger. They are not ashamed in public to utter profanities, spit on the sidewalk, loose control, etc. They do in fact find it odd that White people are not like them and from this awareness one would expect they might briefly wonder if they have been born into the wrong ethnicity. What they do believe, however, is that Whites have been born into the wrong ethnicity. The descriptive term they use to convey this belief is to call Whites Whitey (similar to calling a transsexual a Homo). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.2.150 (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Isn't those traits rather about class and upbringing than race? (Or maybe I shouldn't start discussing this, anyway...) 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 09:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The particulars above are provided merely to distinguish between the terms Ethnic Sociodysmorphic and Ethnic Dysmorphic. Ethnicity may embrace race or races, class and upbringing among any number of other common denominators between individuals. 71.100.2.150 13:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

See Tim Westwood. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

legal terminology

What is the legal term used to define a person who withholds knowledge that taking too much of a drug or taking a drug such as methadone or chloral hydrate in combination with certain other drugs may kill? 71.100.2.150 00:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Criminally negligent? Professionally negligent? JackofOz 00:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are looking specifically for terms that apply to a person, you might also try tortfeasor, offender, suspect, defendant, person of interest, or even just person ... you might also try refining your question, since the factual scenario you describe doesn't give the first hint at who this "person" is, and what legal duty (if any) might be breached by this "witholding" of information. Once you've clarified the question, consider posing it to your family legal advisor, instead of Wikipedia. Just a thought. dr.ef.tymac 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The question can not be answered by my legal advisor since it is generic rather than specific although if you follow certain recent newspaper articles an example could possibly be derived from them. If the person were a lawyer for instance they might claim they could not be held liable since they were not a medical expert even though they demonstrated sufficient expertise to provide the drugs but withold the correct instructions. The proper term for such a criminally negligent person, however, now that I have thought about refining the question is a Criminal. 71.100.2.150 13:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if the question is purely hypothetical, or loosely based on newspaper articles, a conclusion of criminal or civil liability would still require more facts, at least more than you've provided here. For example, assuming the person is a lawyer, under what circumstances did she provide the drugs to the recipient? Has an attorney-client relationship been established? Who is the recipient? Is this just some random person off the street? A minor child? A police officer conducting a search in the lawyer's home? An armed robber? A pharmacist? dr.ef.tymac 17:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The prosecutor would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the lawyer a) knew how much a lethal dose would be; b) knew how much to give the victim in order to get that lethal dose in the bloodstream and how the dose would have to be given (not all forms of administration result in the same blood levels); c) knew that the victim had other serious health problems (say, for instance, a massive, life-threatening infection that would reduce the dose the lawyer would need); and d) actually administered the dose himself or herself.

And there's that pesky ol' "reasonable doubt" thing. Let's hypothesize, for instance, that the victim has a long and varied history of self-medication that began years before the lawyer met the victim. Also hypothesize that the victim is afraid of doctors and won't go to one, and because of that refuses to have the serious infection treated properly. The fever and discomfort from the infection both make it difficult for the victim to sleep or to concentrate, perhaps causing them to take more of a drug than they would normally take. (Also take into consideration the fact that the drug has a relatively narrow therapeutic window, and is therefore not very difficult to overdose on.) In other words, it'd be difficult to prosecute, and I'm guessing many prosecutors might shy away from it. --Charlene 02:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: The mens rea dimension of a criminal offense might indeed require a showing of a) through c) above, and d) might be relevant to the actus reus dimension, however those would still only be necessary for crimes requiring intent. Liability for criminal negligence could still apply, even if the lawyer did not intend harm to the recipient. Under such circumstances, the question is not what the lawyer knew, but what would a reasonably prudent person have done under the same or similar circumstances. It's a subtle but important distinction that is addressed in the article. dr.ef.tymac 22:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Religious views on Waco

I skimmed through the the Waco Siege and the Branch Davidian articles and I couldn't find the answer to my question. What were/are some of the views on the whole event by other religious groups? --The Dark Side 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would expect most established religions to view David Koresh as a false prophet. StuRat 02:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Matthew 7:15. Clio the Muse 05:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mussolini

Someone told me that Mussolini kept two pictures on his desk, one of himself and one of someone else. Is there any validity to this, and if so, who was the other person? Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

One with Claretta Petacci on one side and Donna Rachelle on the other (just in case)? Clio the Muse 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have guessed the other pic was Manfred von Richthofen, while he was suffering from some sickness. In other words, an "ill ace". :-) StuRat 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Martinique

If you have been to Martinique (or any of the other overseas areas controlled by France) does that technically mean you have been to the nation of France

You have certainly been to one of the Overseas departments of France, now more correctly known as Overseas regions. Clio the Muse 05:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not all of the "overseas areas controlled by France" are overseas departments. There are other kinds, which may be better considered dependencies and not part of France itself. So it depends on which specific place you've been to. As for the overseas departments themselves, they are part of France just as Hawaii is part of the US. --Anonymous, March 29, 2007, 06:05 (UTC).

Very true. This was highlighted when the French did nuclear testing on Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia. Many neighbouring countries that objected to the tests, suggested France let off her bombs in her own backyard, to which the French replied, "We are doing exactly that. French Polynesia is as much a part of France as Paris is". JackofOz 22:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay

This is a hypothetical situation if your were born in the US controlled part of Guantanamo Bay would be considered a US citizen and if so could you run for president? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.86.190 (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

• Guantanamo Bay is not considered American territory, just like the Panama Canal Zone wasn't considered American territory. So, if a non-American visiting there gave birth, her child would not be an American citizen. However, citizenship (even "natural-born" citizenship) can also be derived from one's parents, so Zone-born John McCain is still-eligible for the presidency.--Pharos 07:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, McCain's constitutional eligibility is disputed, though it is unlikely to be legally challenged. Marco polo 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Extremely unlikely, I would say. There are some Americans of course who hold dissenting constitutional views on almost everything in the document. For all practical purposes, though, this is rather settled, considering that he's been allowed to run in the past. If you thought Bush v. Gore was controversial, imagine the Supreme Court denying the presidency to a winning candidate for being born outside of US territory. Not gonna happen, unless they have a sudden yen to start Civil War II.--Pharos 18:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please cite where this has been allowed to run in the past. Corvus cornix 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

John McCain sought the republican nomination in 2000. He's never actually run for the presidency though. Not sure at what point the supreme court would intervene, should they be crazed enough to do so. Algebraist 02:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the US Supreme Court is that they don't unilaterally intervene. They hear cases that are brought to them from lower courts. Seems to me all it would take is an opponent to challenge McCain's eligibility on constitutional grounds; this might be seen as a more effective ploy than trying to beat him at the ballot box. But then, I might not have the faintest idea of what I'm talking about. JackofOz 05:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Plea Bargain Gone Bad

My two sons were arrested on burglary charges. The older son turned State's evidence against the younger son. The older one (21 years old) had a fat juvenile record, while the younger one (18) had no record at all. The court granted the older son Youthful Offender status, and the Judge, Assistant D.A., Probation Officer, and our attorney agreed that the same would be granted to the younger son. The younger son's hearing was a week later, and the attorney was not able to be there, so a court appointed attorney was present, as well as a different District Attorney. Instead, the Y.O. decision was denied for our younger son. Is there some way this can be reversed, either by going in front of the Judge again at the next pre-trial hearing, or behind closed doors, or is there a way we can force the court administrators to stand by the original "talked about" agreement? One of the burglaries committed was at a local sheriff's house, where an illegal automatic shotgun was supposedly taken. However, the sheriff, who is a neighbor of our's, did not file a report because the gun stolen was illegal. Our attorney has told us that the local law enforcement really "have it in" for our younger son because of this sheriff's loss. Would a change of venue be appropriate because it does not seem that our son will be treated in an unbiased manner in this case. Any advise you may have will be greatly appreciated. We are desperate for some help for our son. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.150.231.15 (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I won't offer any legal advise, but do have some general advice. Your sons are both on a path to a miserable life, unless you do something drastic to turn their lives around now. Prison time might be just what they need (the older son may have already done time, in which case it might be time to give up on him, but the younger son might still have a chance at a good life). Also, the older son appears to be leading the younger son into a life of crime, you should keep him away from that bad influence in any way you can. StuRat 04:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I very much doubt StuRat is a parent, with advice like "it might be time to give up on him". I recommend you don't do that, ever. JackofOz 00:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No question about it you need professional legal advice. While your sons may have at one time found "sanctioned" careers as thieves with the CIA, the CIA only considers hiring applicants with resumes which included a long list of undocumented thefts, i.e., persons smart enough not to get caught, no offence to your sons intended. With a CIA career now out of the question the Mafia may still be hiring. 71.100.2.150 07:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Your children's interests are better served by legal professionals, not random internet nerds. Emails edited out to protect you from spambots. --TotoBaggins 04:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Your son really needs to talk to his lawyer about these issues. And if you and your son so distrust the lawyer's ability that you are turning to random strangers on the Internet, I suggest for the sake of your son's future that you scrape up enough cash to hire a better lawyer! I don't know what jurisdiction you are in, but in some states, if the judge doesn't sign the plea agreement, he/she isn't bound by it. If that's the case where you are, I double my suggestion that your son find a good lawyer because it sounds like he's really going to need one. Good luck. Crypticfirefly 02:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The responses above already indicate the seriousness of your question, nuff said. Just 2 more points: seeking any "closed doors" negotation would be ... not a good idea, "ex parte" communication. You should seriously consider contacting the professional responsibility section of your State Bar Association, the number should be in the phone book, or google for it under "YourStateName Bar Association". The internet is not a good place to be seeking this kind of help. Please re-read Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. Best wishes to you and your family. dr.ef.tymac 22:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

'Trex' as used by Martin Amis

In his novel The Information, Amis often uses the word 'trex' when referring to something worthless - the word seems interchangable with 'crap' or 'rubbish' - but can anyone tell me what it literally means? Surely he's not referring to the composite wood-plastic material that comes up when I google the word.

Thanks,

08:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Knowing Amis I would imagine he coined the word himself to mean exactly what you say. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As a sidenote, it sounds similar to Yiddish/German "dreck" (crap, waste). 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 10:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Trex is a brand name for a solid-fat product (vegetable fat sold as a solid, as a replacement for lard). See here. Trex, like lard, does have that rather nasty wax-meets-fat character. Perhaps if you look at the context of where he's using it and substituted "unpleasant fatty material" it would still make sense? But certainly Trex isn't used in the UK to mean any more than this (minor) brand, so I think Richardrj is correct in saying that his usage (whether based on the fat stuff or not) is uniquely Amis. Darryl Revok 11:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This would have been an excellent question for the Language Ref Desk. StuRat 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, Darryl, he's taken the product name and run with it, made it his own; so almost a neologism, Richard, probably influenced by its similarity to dreck, Wakuran. Adambrowne666 22:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Impeachment

What are the advantages and disadvantages of impeachment as a means of removing a president from office? What other mehtods might be acceptable alternatives?

72.159.131.254 12:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In the United States, we currently have a highly effective way of removing a president from office - election. A president can serve for 4 years and then, if a plurality of the electoral college believes that another candidate is better, the president will be removed from office. Also, after 8 years, it doesn't matter how good the president is doing. He will be removed from office. Impeachment is rather silly in modern times. It takes so long to impeach a president that his term will likely expire before any impeachment process is complete. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It only drags on in questionable cases. Four years would be too long to wait if we had a President who was clearly insane, etc. In such a case the impeachment would proceed rapidly, as even those of the President's party would realize that having an insane President is neither in the nation's interest or the interest of their party. StuRat 18:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, I don't think what little empirical evidence exists suggests dragging even in the questionable cases. The impeachment of Bill Clinton — certainly an excellent "modern times" example — took less than two months from House impeachment to Senate acquittal. In contrast, Andrew Johnson's impeachment, sans modern media frenzy, lasted over three months. Neither supports the claim that the process is likely to run past the term of office. — Lomn 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

How long from "we want to impeach that guy" to "we need to create an independent panel to investigate him" to "we need to go over the findings of the panel" to "we need to start an impeachment hearing" to "we will impeach him now"? I wasn't referring to the final stage. I was referring to the entire process. For example, if Congress wanted to impeach Bush right now. They would have to vote on it (a good month or two of debates), then form a panel (a few months there to vote on who will be on the panel), then wait for the independent investigation (that can take years), then discuss the results of the investigation (a few more months), then vote on the formation of an impeachment panel (a few more months), then have the impeachment panel set up the impeachment process (a few more months), then vote on impeachment. I can't see Congress doing that all in a few months. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

An attempt to impeach Bush now would, indeed, drag on, and likely fail in the end, as the evidence that he intentionally lied to Congress about Iraq to get war authorization is lacking. They could just claim they "misinterpreted the evidence". However, if a video tape became available with Bush explicitly telling his cabinet to lie to Congress, that would change things, allowing the impeachment proceedings to go forward. StuRat 21:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

One note: a plurality of the Electoral College is insufficient; a simple majority is required or the election moves into Congress. As for the original question, we don't answer homework. — Lomn 13:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Historically, the other methods are coup d'etat from within, invasion and occupation from without, and assassination. Impeachment seems preferable to me, as well as several years overdue. alteripse 14:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As Kainaw points out, impeachment by itself is not a means of removal from office, it's only part of a longer process. That longer process is colloquially, but inaccurately, referred to as "impeachment". Both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached, but both stayed put because they weren't "impeached". JackofOz 22:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Stu, there is a separate procedure for removing Presidents who are simply mad. See Amd 26, I think. Majority of chiefs of executive departments, plus vice-Pres agreement. If the President argues, it goes to Congress.

In parliamentary systems, you just get a vote of no confidence - with the crucial difference that they can be removed for purely political reasons - a president can only be impeached for a "treason, bribery and other high crimes" (USA). That's why the French 5th republic has such a strong president: a parliamentary system (3rd Rep) didn't work. There were motions of no confidence far too often for a government to achieve anything.martianlostinspace 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The reality is that, since probably every US President does something "questionable", they can all be impeached at any time for "political reasons", if unpopular, or can serve out their term unmolested, if popular. StuRat 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about having the insane Pres declared "incapacitated" instead of going through with impeachment ? In that case, let's say the Pres was caught "with his hand in the cookie jar" (if a Republican) or "caught with his pants down" (if a Democratic), in an extremely serious breach of office, say taking a bribe from one country to agree to declare war on that country's enemy. In such a case, where obvious evidence was available, I would expect the impeachment to sail right through, as it would be in no Congressman's interest to have him remain Pres. StuRat 23:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that in the US system, if the President is impeached and convicted, the vice-president automatically becomes president. He will certainly be a member of the same party and, at least in a case where the impeachability of the offence is marginal, it's possible that the other party would avoid an impeachment because they think things would be, from their point of view, even worse with him in charge. (Of course they could always try impeaching the VP as well, if they could find charges against him.) In a parliamentary system, if the parliament votes no confidence in the present government (= US "administration"), it's possible that some other party (perhaps a new coalition) will be able to find support of a majority of members and take power. This difference may be viewed as an advantage for either system, depending on one's point of view. --Anonymous, March 30, 23:54 (UTC).

I have been looking and I cannot find it anymore. I saw, I belive on the Whitehouse website, a list of investigations for impeachment. I was rather surprised that nearly every president has had someone in Congress try to launch an investigation for impeachment against them. Some actually wasted our money performing an investigation. Of all that work, we only got 2.5 impeachments (giving a 0.5 to Nixon). --Kainaw ^(talk) 06:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Iranian criminal acts

If it can be verified by third parties that British sailors and marines did not in fact violate Iranian waters can Iran be charged which kidnapping or any similar crime that can be pursued and resolved in the International court? 71.100.2.150 13:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope not. International courts are dumb. HappyBlackGuy 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be unlikely to help, the Iranians would just ignore the court. A similar incident happened when North Korea decided they needed some Japanese translators, so they naturally kidnapped around 20 people from Japan, around half of which agreed to serve as translators, with the other half mostly dying of "natural causes". No action taken by the international community, short of removing the current government of NK by force, could ever bring about trials of those involved in the kidnapping, since NK is a rogue state, just like Iran. StuRat 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Stu Rat, not natural causes, but car accidents. An ordinary tragedy in the West, but almost unheard of in NK, where car use is not widespread. DDB 21:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually DDB I was just looking over the statistics on car and motorcycle accidents in Vietnam and it appears that fatal car accidents all over the world have risen well beyond fatalities of war or those caused by other conflicts (domestic violence, etc.). 71.100.2.150 21:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User 71.100, NK has not got a substantial car industry. In fact, lights are not in widespread use at night. Vietnam is not a valid comparison, as it is opening to foreign trade while NK is not. The truth is, those people were either murdered, or, are still in captivity. DDB 10:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me attempt an answer based on what little I know about international law. First, if it turns out that the sailors were not in Iranian waters, then I would strongly suspect that Iran's actions in boarding their vessel and detaining the crew constitute a breach of international law. I note that Iran has not yet ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea but I would suspect that its action nevertheless violates customary international law and possibly Article 2 of the United Nations Charter. I do not see how the International Criminal Court (ICC) would have any jurisdiction, especially since neither Iran nor Iraq has ratified the ICC implementing statute. Instead, the relevant court would be the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The United Kingdom (or possibly Iraq) might initiate proceedings against Iran in the ICJ, alleging that Iran breached international law. If that happened, Iran would most likely argue that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case: see Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. To respond more directly to what the original questioner asked, such a proceeding in the ICJ would not be analogous to a criminal prosecution (i.e. you would not say that Iran had been "charged" with kidnapping); rather it would be roughly analogous to a civil action where the United Kingdom (or possibly Iraq) alleges that its rights at international law had been violated by Iran. A sovereign state cannot be prosecuted for a crime, but may have liability for having breached international law. Hope this helps, but I am not an expert in this so don't rely on anything I've said. --Mathew5000 09:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela

I have asked this question before, but i forgot to keep looking at this page :( so here it is.

Im looking for a video of Nelson Mandela on a place such as youtube, where they offer code so that you can embed the video in your own site/blog/whatever.

The video i need is of Nelson Mandela saying the following: "Even in the grimmest times, I have seen glimmers of humanity which have reassured me that man's goodness is a flame which can never be extinguished."

I think it was shown alot on NBC or CBS as a service announcement in the United States.

Does anyone know where i can find a clip of this? i looked all over youtube :(

Also, if you somehow are able to capture it, please upload it to youtube and post the link here?

Greatly appreciated!

137.81.113.190 16:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

IF the video clip was shown in the mass media, then it is under copyright, and we can legally do little more than suggest that you contact the network in question directly. Jfarber 21:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, who has seen it? I'm sorry but i forget what network it is on :( Thanks for the help Jfarber! :)

137.81.40.118 01:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The use of laudanum in the Victorian era?

Please help me:

I am writing a book review about the Victorian era and I need to know what were the effects of the opium based drug laudanum on the women who frequently used it at the time?

Thank you in advanc

--213.202.165.57 16:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you read our article on laudanum? A quick search is often the fastest way to resolve these questions. — Lomn 17:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The effects of laudanum on women were no different from the effects on men. For a superb literary account of the nineteenth century experience you could do no better than read Thomas de Quincy's Confessions of an English Opium Eater. The pursuit of the vengeful Chinaman sticks in mind! Clio the Muse 17:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've now had a chance to go in to this subject in a little more depth. Laudanum was used for a huge variety of ailments, from colds to heart conditions, for both children and adults. Women used it to relieve period pains, and for attaining the pale complexion so prized at the time. It was spoon fed to infants to keep them pacified, many dying of overdoses. Karl Marx makes note of this practice in volume one of Capital I found this quote from an English doctor, writing in 1873:

Anyone who visits such a town as Louth or Wisbeach, and strolls about the streets on a Saturday evening, watching the country people as they do their marketing, may soon satisfy himself that the crowds in the chemists' shops come for opium; and they have a peculiar way of getting it. They go in, lay down their money, and receive the opium pills in exchange without saying a word...In these districts it is taken by people of all classes, but especially by the poor and miserable, and by those who in other districts would seek comfort from gin and beer.

If you want to investigate the subject in more detail have a look at Secret Passions, Secret Remedies: Narcotic Drugs in British Society, 1820-1930 by Terry Parssinien, and Opium and the People: Opiate use in Nineteenth Century England by Virginia Berridge and Griffith Edwards. Clio the Muse 23:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1907

who was prime minister in 1907 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sweetpea007 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir Wilfred Laurier. (Er, you meant Canada, right?) - Eron ^Talk 17:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom it was Henry Campbell Bannerman, heading a Liberal government. Clio the Muse 17:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And if you have somewhere other than those in mind, try List of state leaders in 1907. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

eastern religon Jane

I am seeking information reaging a sect, I think Budist, near India- The name of the religion is Jane.

thank you

Sounds like Jane: Jain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also Jainism is not a "sect" but a religion. It shares some principles with Buddhism, particularly a commitment to ahimsa (nonviolence), but I always understood that Jainism originated as an offshoot of Hinduism. See the articles Jainism and Buddhism and Jainism and Hinduism, although both articles are unreferenced. --Mathew5000 09:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be either a variant of Hinduism or Buddhism, nowadays, but a separate Dharmic religion, just as Christianity, Islam and Judaism are separate Abrahamic religions. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 10:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Difficult piece

It's kinda a weird question, but what is/are regarded to be the most difficult pieces of music/tunes/whatever to play on a piano? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dylan-thompson (talk • contribs) 21:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Hmmm, I seem to recall we had this question a while back, but I can't seem to locate it. Art Tatum wrote (and played) some seemingly impossible jazz works. Vladimir Horowitz wrote at least 3 versions of the Carmen Variations, each harder than the preceding one, and he kept the scores in a safe so that others couldn't work out how the hell he played with what sounded like 6 hands. Ravel's Gaspard de la Nuit used to be the standard answer to this sort of question, but these days, almost any talented 20-year old pianist tosses it off as if it were scales (well .. ok, not quite). There are many, many other answers to this question. JackofOz 22:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is Conlon Nancarrow, most of whose piano music is basically unplayable, perhaps most dramatically in his "Boogie-Woogie Suite". Of course since he wrote for player piano perhaps his music doesn't count in the "most difficult to play" category. Personally I always thought Piano Concerto No. 3 by Sergei Rachmaninoff was a major contender. The page on it even says as much. Pfly 04:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I vote for Frederic Rzewski's The People United Will Never Be Defeated!. There's numerous pieces by Charles Valentin Alkan that could be contenders; and I think Ives' Concord Sonata has a few thousand notes too many to be considered merely "difficult." There's tons more. Fun question. Antandrus (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm back. Leopold Godowsky wrote 53 Studies on Chopin's Etudes. This is from our article:

• As a composer, Godowsky has been best known for his paraphrases of piano pieces by other composers, which he enhanced with ingenious contrapuntal devices and rich chromatic harmonies. His most famous work in this genre is the 53 Studies on Chopin's Etudes, in which he varies the already challenging originals by: introducing countermelodies; transferring the technically difficult passages from the right hand to the left; transcribing the entire etude for left hand solo; or (get this) interweaving two etudes, with the left hand playing one and the right hand the other (as impossible as this seems). These are so taxing even for virtuosi that only three have ventured to record the entire set: Geoffrey Douglas Madge, Carlo Grante and Marc-André Hamelin.

JackofOz 04:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, there are at least two virtuoso pieces by Conlon Nancarrow for real piano: Two Canons for Ursula (1989) (that would be Ursula Oppens).

And getting somewhat offtopic, but regarding interweaving different pieces, have a look at one of the strangest characters in all music history: Pietro Raimondi. One of his compositions consisted of three different oratorios to be performed simultaneously, on three different stages in the same hall. This, incredibly, was in 1848. Antandrus (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks, Ant. I've checked Raimondi out in my old Grove V (1966 revision), and it seems he wrote tonnes of music, including 62 operas, 21 grand ballets, the entire Book of Psalms (!) for 4-8 voices, hundreds of vocal fugues including one in 64 parts for sixteen 4-part choirs, and so much more. The article finishes with: "Such stupendous labours ... also give one the heartache at the thought of their utter futility. Raimondi's compositions, with all their ingenuity, belong to a past age, and it may safely be said that they will never be revived". I, for one, would love to hear some of them, so get to it, record companies. Remember what Grove V said about Rachmaninoff - "monotonous in texture ... consist[ing] mainly of artificial and gushing tunes ... not likely to last". Yeah, right. JackofOz 05:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The first time I encountered Raimondi I thought I had found a nihilartikel. That such people could exist ... Oh, and I need one of those Grove Vs; maybe eBay. There's good stuff in that old edition. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

When I come into money, I'll be buying the latest edition, so I'll let you have my Grove V for a song. JackofOz 08:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Alkan's 'Concerto for Solo Piano', op. 39, 8-10, deserves a mention here. The sheet music is available on the International Music Score Library Project (www.imslp.org) - i think when following the sheet music whilst listening to a recording (preferably that of Mark Latimer), it soon becomes apparent just how technically difficult it is, not to mention how physically fit one must be to pull it off. In most recordings you can hear huge breaths as the performers try and cope with the force of it. To put in context how difficult it is, it is said that Liszt himself used to fear performing in front of Alkan! --194.176.105.40 10:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• 4'33 is impossible to play.hotclaws**== 11:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Naahh, it just gets difficult if the audience is noisy... 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Double naah. It may well be impossible to "play", but it's at the very bottom of the list of "difficult" pieces. You don't even have to lift a finger. JackofOz 11:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't get difficult if the audience is noisy - it's not supposed to be 4mins33secs of silence, but of the noises occurring in the concert hall/wherever else it might be performed, so the audience being noisy doesn't add anything to the difficulty. --194.176.105.40 13:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Piano Concerto by Elliot Carter, and the Etudes for Piano and the Piano Concerto by György Ligeti, are often considered the most difficult pieces in the piano REOERTOIRE. A cursory look at their scores shows these works to be far more difficult than most of the music mentioned above. (The Elliot Carter Piano Concerto, for instance includes doted septuplets in one hand against non-doted quintuplets in the other hand!) However, if one includes the most extreme examples of twentyish century works it is not difficult to find piano works intentionally written to be impossible or (nearly so) to play. For an in-depth study of such music Karlheinz Stockhausen would be a good starting point. S.dedalus 21:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Another contender is Opus Clavicembalisticum by Kaikhosru Sorabji. --ColinFine 23:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuity of government

My question concerns the Franco-American Alliance of 1778. In that alliance the United States and the French agreed to come to each other’s aid against the British. This alliance was made when France was under a monarchy. In 1793, Edmond C. Genêt came to the United States to try obtain American support in the war against Britain. At that time though, the French government was quite different from the one that made the original treaty. (It changed several times in the 1790’s.) I’d like to know if the argument that the treaty could have been disregarded because the government had changed was made at that time. If it was, were there any historical events or political treatises that were referred to? (Even if the Americans didn’t make the argument, are there any historical examples or treatises that would have leant themselves to that argument?)Sjmcfarland 23:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Treaties usually count for less than Realpolitik, but in fact George Washington had issued his Proclamation of Neutrality a fortnight before Edmond-Charles Genêt arrived in Philadelphia. Genêt hadn't hurried to get there. Also, US-British relations were, relatively speaking, warm - the Jay Treaty was signed in 1794. Finally, in 1793 the French revolutionary government looked anything but stable, beset by enemies foreign and domestic. In the spring the main French field army had been soundly drubbed at the Battle of Neerwinden. The French really didn't look like winners in 1793. And as you say, the government of 1793 had little in common with that which had assisted the US, for its own ends, in 1778. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sjmcfarland. I am not familiar with the terms of the 1778 Alliance agreement, but I assume that it was defensive rather than offensive in nature? What I mean by this is that the United States, in seeking French aid against the British, did not at the same time commit itself to going to a future war initiated by France? This would make no political or strategic sense, especially for such a young nation. It was France that declared war on Britain in February 1793; so I imagine Washington, and every other leading American politician, quickly decided that it was not in the nation's interests to become involved in a purely European conflict. The treaty itself remained in force, though, even after France became a republic in 1792, but Genêt's lobbying, and his encouragement of American privateers, was not welcomed by President Washington, who had the minister recalled in August 1793. By that time France was falling under the control of the Jacobins, the Communists of the eighteenth century, and I simply cannot imagine any American administration ever going to war on their behalf.

On your wider point, treaties of alliance in the modern world tend to transcend changes of government, unless one of the parties decides that it is in their interests to withdraw. The Bolsheviks withdrew Russia from the First World War, in defiance of treaty arrangements with Britain and France. The circumstances here were, of course, somewhat unique. For treaties to be abandoned simply by a change of government, and only by a change of government, you really have to go all the way back to the Middle Ages, when alliances and agreements were between kings and princes, rather than nations as such, tending to fall with the death of one of the contracting parties.Clio the Muse 00:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me that the 1778 treaty applied only to the war going on at the time and was not intended to be permanent. -- Mwalcoff 00:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It actually continued to 1800, when it was finally abandoned by Napoleon at the Convention of Morfontaine. You will find the details, and more besides, here [1]. Congress had attempted to annul it in 1798, though the French refused to recognise this. In practice it was only ever effective from 1778 to 1783. Clio the Muse 00:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)