Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 October 30

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.

October 30

Charles II and Tiberius

Who was it who compared Charles II of England to Tiberius? Admiratio 06:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert Burnet first made the comparison on viewing a sculpture of Tiberius in the Farnese Gardens in Rome. He told the story to James Welwood, who noted it in his Memoirs in 1710:

"One of the most learned men of the age told me that walking in the Farnesian Gardens at Rome with a noble Italian who had been at the court of England"

Later, Burnet himself recounted the story in his History of my Own Times (published in 1724, but likely written prior to Welwood's account):

"At Rome I saw one of the last statues made for Tiberius, after he had lost his teeth; but bating the alteration which that made, it was so like King Charles that Borghese, and signior Dominico to whom it belonged, did agree with me in thinking it looked like a statue made for him."

Rockpocket 08:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

'Port corn' & 'sound corn' in 16th century English agriculture, trade and markets

Hi, I posted this query over on Maize and somebody there suggested here. I'm trying to discover what precisely was meant by 'Sound Corn' and 'Port Corn'. These terms are used quite extensively in 16th century English fiants, and they are significant from my perspective in determining grain quality and/or types of industries in the region concerned. They could of course be more significant once I find out what they were. Here's one context where 'sound corn' was used, 'for which Sir Henry covenants yearly to deliver for her majesty’s use twenty pecks of sound corn out of the said couples, that is to say five pecks of wheat and beer malt and five pecks of oat malt'. For 'Port corn', I have 'over and above the port corn reserved upon leases to serve to his only use.' The following might be more significant, though, 'He covenants to deliver thirty pecks of port corn- that is to say, 15 pecks of wheat and beer malt, and fifteen pecks of oatmalt, on the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin'. This appears that 'Port corn' was a mixture of corn types. But it is by no means from just this one source that 'Port corn' was a 50/50 split between wheat/Beer malt & Oat malt. Indeed, I didn't know wheat and beer malt were synonymous. A third example of 'Port Corn', this time from the Privy Council in England, is 'for such kind of provisions as cannot be supplied out of the said countries for his ordinary charges of household,, nor that cannot be otherwise helped by the reservations of port corn and such like, whereby he should bear the burden of the quarter to end at Michaelmas.’ Any ideas for further reading etc. will be very appreciated. 86.42.98.153 08:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The OED lists an obsolete meaning of port (from the French apporter to bring) "That which anything ‘brings in’, yields, or contributes; a customary or legal contribution, a payment in kind or money, by way of rent, rent-charge, tribute, etc.; in early use, the tribute rendered by a daughter religious house to the mother-house. Also attrib., as port-corn,..."

It doesn't list "sound corn" as such, but I would take that simply to mean corn in sound condition.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that corn, particularly in Britain, is not reliably interpretable as "maize". In context, this looks like "corn" is the "any cereal crop" definition. — Lomn 13:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

British immigration legislation

In the light of current concerns about the rate of immigration into the United Kingdom I would like to put the question into a longer context. Details on the history of British immigration law together with some references on the subject would be very helpful. Thanks. 217.42.101.130 08:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read such articles as historical immigration to Great Britain and Immigration to the United Kingdom (1922-present day) and British nationality law? We seem to have rather a lot of material on these topics. Algebraist 14:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Who suggested the idea of scientific journal for the first time?

The following question was asked in an examination. The idea of a journal to disseminate scientific information was first mooted by: a, John Moray b, Reobert Moray c, Herbert Moray d, Nick Moray Can somebody please tell me the correct answer? Thanks in advance. 59.165.190.49 09:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sir Robert Moray is probably the best answer although I can't find any direct evidence to link him and the journal. Robert Moray was a founding member of the Royal Society and was actually president for a short while in 1660. In 1662 he was influential in getting the society the royal incorporation from Charles II. In 1665 the first scientific journal, The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society was published by Henry Oldenburg so Robert Moray was at least involved in the Royal Society when the journal was being published, even if he wasn't invovled himself. Lord Foppington 10:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

According to this, Moray wrote to Huygens in September 1661 that "... we shall print what passes among ourselves, at least everything which may be published..." and on 1 May 1665, Moray "formally put the motion to the Council of the Society that- '... The Philosophical Transactions, to be composed by Mr Oldenburg, be printed the first Monday of every month ...' " -- !! ?? 15:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is actually incorrect, the Journal des savants beat Transactions by a couple of months (first issue in January 1665), making it the first scientific journal. Suck it, Royal Society! --Oskar 09:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Who first suggested that there should be a French journal, and when? (Moray had an interesting career, including service in France, incidentally.) -- !! ?? 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did they fight?

What were the factors leading Englishmen to go off and fight in France in the Hundred Years War? Was it all greed, like Shakespeare's Lieutenant Bardolph, Corporal Nym and Ancient Pistol? By the way, what on earth is an Ancient? Does it just mean the character is very old? He isn't shown to be in stage and film productions. 86.147.185.173 11:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Ancient" is a corruption of Ensign. As for why they fought, it could be any one of a large number of reasons- desire to make money, patriotism, the need to avoid creditors, pressure from family members to do one's duty, etc. There is no one reason why people join the army. Lurker (said · done) 14:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The feudal system placed a military requirement on lords/barons to provide men for the King to fight. This duty passed on down through various levels, down to field workers who might owe service in return for growing crops on their lord's land. Though this system was more important at the start of the Hundred Years War, before the Black Death, Peasants' Revolt etc increased the standing of serfs and peasants and the number of free men in towns, who were influenced by a variety of reasons as mentioned above. Cyta 16:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In Shakespeare's play, before the Battle of Agincourt King Henry V tells his men

And gentlemen of England now abed

Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here

And hold their manhood cheap whiles any speaks

Who fought with us upon St Crispin's day.

This might sound as if it were all about the supposed glory of war, but people in the Middle Ages understood war's horrors and dangers better than we do now. One thing to remember is that most of the medieval ruling class was, by definition, the military class, and to fight was its purpose in life. Medieval fighters certainly saw a successful war or battle (or, indeed, some more local power struggle) as their best hope of enrichment: for the soldiery and seamen, there were chances of booty and prize money. For knights, there were much greater possibilities: grants of land, titles, and other promotions, as well as (yes) the glory of being remembered in story and song. Xn4 18:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What motivated men to fight? Why, the three Ps: Patriotism, Propaganda and Profit. Clio the Muse 03:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wives and Daughters

What is the significance of the character of Aimee in Elizabeth Gaskell's Wivws and Daughters apart, that is, from being Osborne's secret wife? Also I would like to no some more about the role of the Governess in the early nineteenth century, her background, her prospects her pay. Was it a good occupation, one that people would aspire to? Jane. Princess of the night 12:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr Patsy Stoneman of the University of Hull says "The introduction of Aimee and her child suggests... that the novel which started with a critique of Molly's various mother-substitutes was to end with some comment on alternative modes of motherhood".

On the position of governesses, parents or guardians who could afford to support a full-time teacher for their children (usually for their girls, as boys were more often taught by tutors or else went to school) wanted someone to teach the rules of good society as well as reading, writing, drawing, sewing, music, and so forth, so to be a governess in a good house was very much a role for hard-up gentlewomen. Apart from marriage, teaching was almost the only respectable occupation open to them, but it wasn't usually well paid. It was a less demeaning position than that of (say) a housemaid, and no doubt some servants envied the role of governesses. Perhaps there were women who aspired to be governesses, for instance, to get away from home, but it would be very unusual to aspire to it as a career for life. Read about the life of the Brontë sisters (the daughters of a poor clergyman) to get more idea of this. As women teachers and governesses were generally hard-up and lacked dowries, they had only a limited chance of marriage into the property-owning class, but (as you'll see from the novels of Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, and so forth) that was still something to aspire to. Many women went into teaching as a career, but very few went on with it if they got married.

In The Domestic Sphere in the Victorian Age, Bonnie G. Smith says

"The governess in the nineteenth century personified a life of intense misery. She was also that most unfortunate individual; the single, middle-class woman who had to earn her own living. Although being a governess might be a degradation, employing one was a sign of culture and means... The psychological situation of the governess made her position unenviable. Her presence created practical difficulties within the Victorian home because she was neither a servant nor a member of the family. She was from the social level of the family, but the fact that she was paid a salary put her at the economic level of the servants."

I hope this will give you a start. Xn4 22:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well Aimée represents everything that Squire Hamley detests: she is French-a nation of king killers-and she is Catholic, two unpardonable offences for the Tory squirearchy. A nineteenth century readership would have recognised this immediately!

Being a governess was possibly the only outlet for educated woman of reasonably decent background, but with absolutely no prospects. They worked long hours with little time off. Too humble to dine with the family, but too elevated to sit with the servants, the govermess was possibly the most isolated figure in the household. In the early nineteenth century she could expect to earn about £15 to £40 a year. Accommodation and food was clearly provided, but this is still at the top level only about £2000 in today's values. From that she would have to cloth herself, support any dependant relatives, and save for her old-age. It was a bleak existence which they could only hope to marry out of, a favourite theme of much of the literature of the day. Perhaps the most infamous governess of all is Becky Sharp from Thackery's Vanity Fair. She is an unprincipled social climber, clearly one that her creator dislikes, and intends the readers to dislike. But for me Becky is rutheless because circumstances have made her so; she has no other choice; no other recourse. Give me £10,000 a year and I will give you virtue! Clio the Muse 02:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Why did they kill Louis XVI?

Was this the work of political subversives, seduced by the doctrines of the Enlightenment?

Laregly, it was because Austria and Prussia, at war with France at the time, declared they would restore Loius, who had been forced to give up most of his powers, to the position of absolute monarch. Lurker (said · done) 14:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly what Augustin Barruel believed. In his Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism, published in 1797, he might very well have been said to have invented the conspiracy theory. Barruel had long been a foe of Enlightenment thought, and the French Revolution for him only served to prove the malevolence of a doctrine that had first subverted the Church and then the Monarchy. The Revolution was no accident: it had been plotted in secrecy in the masonic lodges, the temples of subversion. In 1789 these lodges became the Jacobin Clubs. They were responsible for all that followed. The overthrow of the monarchy, and the execution of Louis XVI did not come by chance; it had been planned from the very outset. Monarchy was incompatible with Jacobin ideology; for, as Louis de Saint-Just put it, 'no king could reign innocently.' Of course, Barruel was working forward, from origins to final conclusion, whereas Saint-Just was working backwards, from conclusion to origins. Each in his own way selected that which gave encouragement and support to their arguments, discarding the rest. The truth, of course, is rarely pure and never simple, and history is never, or almost never, fashioned by conspiracies, or by ideals. It was events, dear boy, events. Clio the Muse 03:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Jerzy Kropiwnicki, President (Mayor) of Łodz

Hi there. I'm looking for some information on Jerzy Kropiwnicki and his (former) party, the Christian-National Union (ZChN). His page says that he's left the ZChN and joined Law and Justice. Can anyone tell me (1) when he founded ZChN, (2) when he joined PiS, (3) and a little more about ZChN? (Polish Wikipedia has what looks like a good article on them, but sadly, I can't understand Polish. A link to a page with a good description of ZChN and its politics in English would be an great help.)

Many thanks. --Harpo Hermes 13:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

1. ZChN was founded on 28 October 1989, shortly after the establishment of the first non-Communist government in post-war Poland. It was co-founded by, among others, Jerzy Kropiwnicki, Stefan Niesiołowski (now member of the Civic Platform, PO), Jan Łopuszański (now leader of the Polish Agreement, PP), Marek Jurek (now leader of the Right of the Republic, PR) and Wiesław Chrzanowski (apparently, and rather oddly, still a member of ZChN).
2. Kropiwnicki is still a member and a leader of ZChN. He was recommended by Law and Justice as a candidate for the City President of Łódź, but he is not a member of that party.
3. ZChN is one of the multitude of right-wing parties that mushroomed during the early years of Polish post-Communist democracy, with their roots in the Solidarity Trade Union. The party is strongly nationalist and religious. On the economical side, they supported a welfare state, pro-family policies and protectionism, and opposed the Balcerowicz Plan of market reforms. In ideological matters, they were strongly pro-Catholic, srictly pro-life and advocating religious instruction in public schools. The party was in favor of decommunization and lustration. Initially opposed to European integration, they later adopted a more pro-European stance, but still supported the idea of strong nation states within the EU. During the first half of the 1990s, ZChN supported President Lech Wałęsa and the cabinets of Prime Ministers Jan Krzysztof Bielecki, Jan Olszewski and Hanna Suchocka. In the parliamentary election of 1993, won by the ex-Communist left, ZChN won no seats in the Sejm and only one seat in the Senate. Later, ZChN became part of a bloc of right-wing parties known as Solidarity Electoral Action (AWS) which won the parliamentary election of 1997. ZChN members were thus part of PM Jerzy Buzek's cabinet. After the the election of 2001, which was utterly disastrous for AWS, many members of ZChN went over to the newly founded Law and Justice party; one of those was Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz who served as Prime Minister in 2005-2006. In 2007, many of what remained of ZChN joined the League of Polish Families. Some prominent ZChN members joined yet other parties: Niesiołowski went to PO, and Ryszard Czarnecki – to the Self-Defence party. ZChN still exists, but it hardly matters anymore. — Kpalion^(talk) 00:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! That's an enormous help. I like Wikipedia - people are so nice here. --Harpo Hermes 09:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

William III in the descent of Elizabeth II from William I

William III is listed in the relationships table as a first cousin 8 times removed, while Mary II and Anne are listed as second cousins 8 times removed. I see no evidence that George I and William had a common set of grandparents, so I think William III is also a second cousin 8 times removed. Is this correct or am I missing something? Docgoldfinger68.226.102.103 16:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

William III and Elizabeth II have well over 4000 different relationships. Yes, they are 1st cousins 8 times removed via common descent from Frederick Henry of Orange-Nassau & his wife Amalia of Solms-Braunfels; and yes, they are 2nd cousins 8 times removed via common descent from James I of England and his wife Anne of Denmark. They are also 3C8R, 4C8R, 5C5R, and any number of other relationships; it's traditional in these matters just to refer to the closest relationship. Is that what you were asking? - Nunh-huh 17:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Nunh-huh, you did it again! Yes, that was exactly what I was asking, and as always, you were right on target. My paradigm of thought said that if William III were a first cousin of Her Majesty, several generations removed, that he had to be a first cousin of George I, and, of course, that does not have to be true if the first cousinship happened a generation earlier. Thanks again for your terrific insight. I think now with your help on Henry VI and Edward VI, that the relationship table to the present Queen is perfect. My only contribution was moving George III to 3rd great grandfather through Queen Mary, a generation closer than her husband George V (the table had originally listed George III as a 4greatsgrandfather, which was true through George V, but that was not the closest relationship.) Also, isn't it interesting that The Queen is a 29great granddaughter of William I in the "royal line" but the closest relationship is 22great grandaughter--a 7 generation gap in 900+ years. Oh, those royals, a great example of consanguinous marriages! Thanks again- Docgoldfinger68.226.102.103 04:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Best DOW Index Direction Indicator

I was wondering what is accepted as the best indicator of whether the DOW will be positive or negative for the current day... any thoughts? --Yoyoceramic 16:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't one, not one that does any better than guesswork at least. On a day-by-day basis, the stock market might as well be a coin toss (and those who claim otherwise are generally selling something). Trying to select an indicator of an indicator (since that's really all the Dow is) is even more arbitrary. What estimates can be done are the product of dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of individual inputs weighted differently by different analysts. Also, it's "the Dow", not "the DOW". No acronym. — Lomn 18:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Source of quotation

"Nobody ever understands anything" is a favourite comment of mine (and of the splendidly curmudgeonly A. L. Rowse), but I was wondering what its origin is? DuncanHill 16:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know when A. L. Rowse first used it, but I guess it will go back a long way in various forms, such as "Nobody ever understands anything until they try to teach it" (which I've heard but can't trace to a source). George Balanchine, who died in 1983, is quoted in Robert Gottlieb's Balanchine as saying "The people here are shit. Nobody understands anything. Their heads are empty unless they see something resembling a sandwich", and I've found this comment by Noam Chomsky in an interview in 1995 - "There's no special inner light. It's common sense. The point about human affairs, the things people care about, is that nobody understands anything." Probably they both had an echo of something in their heads, but it's also the kind of thought which could come to someone de novo. Xn4 18:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

French Anti-Semitism

Please account for the growth in French anti-semitism in the period up to the outbreak of the Second World War. Thank you. Pere Duchesne 17:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There had long been a tradition of latent anti-semitism in French society, evidenced by some of the responses to the Dreyfus Affair, though in the prosperous years of the 1920s this was but of marginal importance. The onset of the Depression, compounded by the influx of German Jews seeking refuge from Hitler, brought a fundamental change in attitudes. Increasingly bad, the general political atmosphere became quite poisionous with the creation of the Popular Front government in 1936, headed by Leon Blum, a Jew. In March 1936 Charles Maurras of the right-wing Action Française, wrote "One thing that is dead is the spirit of semi-tolerance accorded to the Jewish State since the War...A formidable 'Down with the Jews' smoulders in every breast and will pour forth from every heart." Maurras went on to call for the murder of Blum, though he was far from being the most violent anti-semitic propagandist. That dubious honour surely belongs to the novelist Celine, conceivably the most eccentric genius France has ever produced. His diatribes against the Jews in Bagatelles pour un massacre and École des cadavers were so delerious that Andre Gide even suggested that they might be intended as a Swiftian satire. One critic went so far as to suggest that he may even have been paid by the Jews to discredit anti-semitism!

People like Celine were never going to escape from the outer limits of political sanity, but anti-semitism became an acceptable mode of discourse in the political mainstream, even cutting across the divide between left and right. It also became intertwined with new forms of pacifism, increasingly strong in post-war France, which argued that the Jews and the Communists were pushing te nation towards conflict with Nazi Germany. During the Sudeten crisis in the summer of 1938 Ludovic Zoretti, a Socialist, wrote that France did not want to "kill millions of people, and destroy a civilization just to make life a bit easier for 100,000 Sudeten Jews", a sentiment echoed by Armand Chouffet, a Socialist deputy, who said "I've had enough of the Jewish dictatorship over the Party...I won't march for a Jewish war."

So, the mushroom grew in dank soil; a soil of economic crisis, fertilised by resentment of refugees, anger over alleged Jewish influence in politics and society, and a fear of of being lured into a new war. Clio the Muse 01:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again, Clio. I am always most impressed by the depth of your knowledge. Pere Duchesne 21:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Lockerbie Kick

Where does the expression a Lockerbie Kick come from? I think it might have something to do with a battle fought on the borders between England and Scotland. Donald Paterson 17:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Google, the only use of that term is in "Lockerbie Kick wheel" [1], which is a piece of pottery equipment. In what context have you heard the term used? Rockpocket 17:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Donald, it's not a Lockerbie Kick; it's a Lockerbie Lick. It refers to a the downward back-handed sword-cut delivered by a horseman at the head of dismounted enemy. You are right in that the term is thought to have derived from a battle on the borders; the contestants, though, were not England and Scotland, but the Scottish families of Maxwell and Johnstone. The Battle of Dryfie Sands, which took place on on 6 December 1593, the last ever to be fought in the area, was the bloody outcome of a long-standing feud between the two Reiver clans, and possibly one of the largest private battles in all of British history.

In 1593 John, the 7th Lord Maxwell, and head of the Clan Maxwell, raised 2000 men and issued an offer of £10 in land to anyone who brought him the head of a member of his great rivals, the Clan Johnstone. James Johnstone, being less affluent, offered £5 for a Maxwell head and mustered as many men as he could, Elliots, Scotts, Irvines, English Grahams from across the border, as well as his own family. However, in all he had only 400 to match the 2000 Maxwells. Johnstone, though, was skilled in the techniques of border warfare, luring the Maxwells into an ambush. Surprised by the enemy, the vanguard broke, driven back on the main body of the Maxwell force on Dryfie Sands near the town of Lockerbie. Fighting for their very existence, the Johnstones drove the Maxwells into the streets of Lockerbie itself, where many of the aforementioned 'licks' were delivered. Lord Maxwell himself, burdened by heavy armour, was knocked off his horse, and cut to pieces. In all, some 700 Maxwells are said to have been slain. One measure of the desperation with which the Johnstones fought is that their ranks included one Robert Johnstone of Raecleuch. He was eleven years old. You will find the details of the fight, and the whole dramatic story of the border families, in The Steel Bonnets. The Story of the Anglo-Scottish Border Reivers by George MacDonald Fraser of Flashman fame. Clio the Muse 00:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The story of the feud between the Maxwells and the Johnstones - which continued for more than 20 years after the events of 1593 - can be found in more detail here. -- Arwel (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is this from?

Can anyone tell me who wrote the following and where it is from--

"German philosophy as a whole-Leibnitz, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, to name the greatest-is the most fundamental form of romanticism and homesickness there has ever been; the longing for the best that ever existed." Ta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.87.241 (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche in The Will to Power (ref [2]). Foxhill 19:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

EU oil imports

Where do the major EU countries (Germany, France, Italy, UK, Spain and Poland) import their oil from? (I am especially wondering which percentage comes from Saudi Arabia). Thank you. --AlexSuricata 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you go to the EIA's Country Analysis Briefs you'll find this information in the "oil" page for each country. For example, they tell us that "Germany imported 2.1 million bbl/d of crude oil during the first seven months of 2006, slightly lower than the same period in 2005; most imports came from Russia (34 percent), followed by Norway (16 percent), the United Kingdom (12 percent), and Libya (12 percent). Germany also imports large amounts of refined petroleum products." Cheers Geologyguy 19:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The UK also produces it's own oil from both the North Sea and also minor land based wells. Foxhill 19:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the UK is a net oil exporter (for now) although it became a net importer of natural gas in 2004. Cheers Geologyguy 19:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

search engines

is there a non commercial search engine? Google does not work anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julierall (talk • contribs) 20:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'non-commercial'? Do you mean a search engine that will not return price-comparison sites? one that carries no advertising at all? for instance, http://www.givemebackmygoogle.com/ is a google scraper that won't return all of those horrible comparison results.

Or maybe you'd be better off asking this question at the Computing desk? Foxhill 21:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes adding '-buy' or similar terms removes a lot of the commerical results and makes it easier to browse. Exclude words or terms you don't want to see. Lanfear's Bane | t 22:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Google does not work anymore?" Corvus cornix 16:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)