Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 September 16

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.

September 16

Name of Canadian river?

What is the name of the river that flows through Sainte-Marie-de-Kent, New Brunswick?--Sonjaaa 01:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A map here shows that it's on the Bouctouche River. Xn4 01:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow you have sharp eyes to be able to read that! :) --Sonjaaa 06:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Japanese in Manchuria

Was there resistance to Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931?K Limura 02:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be Resistance with a capital R: see Invasion_of_Manchuria#Secession_and_Resistance and Anti-Japanese Volunteer Armies. In fact, this invasion was the base for all the tensions between modern Japan and China. The Evil Spartan 05:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How much does a vintage world war 2 plane cost?

How much does a working, vintage, world war 2 plane cost? That people fly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plain Buff (talk • contribs) 03:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What sort of plane did you have in mind? For a genuine WWII fighter in flying condition you're looking at around a million USD, and there aren't many left so they don't come on the market very often. Post-war P-51Ds come in at around half a million. Most "warbirds" flying today are actually trainers like the T-6 Texan or even the well post-war T-28 Trojan - you can pick up one of those for around 2 to 3 hundred thousand dollars. FiggyBee 14:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. This answers my questions perfectly. Plain Buff 17:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC).

Medieval Hunting

What were the traditions of hunting with birds and hounds? Was it a competition or a sport? How did the event take place and what were the rules to participate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.228.21 (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

For birds, see Falconry. For hounds, see Hunting. Hounds were used for hunting animals such as the stag and the wild boar. In the Middle Ages, these were sports rather than competitions, directly descended from ancient hunter-gatherer ways of getting food. The sports had (as they do now) plenty of traditions, and where there were rules they were chiefly informal ones to do with keeping to the traditions (especially social distinctions) and not endangering others. The relevant laws were mostly to do with poaching - that is, who had the right to pursue game (viz., the birds and animals hunted) and who did not. In most countries, sporting rights (the right to pursue game) generally belonged, as now, to the landowner, but in some areas (such as the royal forests of England) they might also be reserved for the king or some other office-holder. In the modern world, such sports are usually also controlled by laws to do with public safety, animal cruelty, environmental nuisances, the preservation of protected species, etc. Xn4 05:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We have a pretty good medieval hunting article, it has a bit about birds and hounds. Adam Bishop06:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.48 (talk)

Views of 'Otherness' in Medieval Europe

How did Europeans view other races and other cultures, African or Asian, strangers and enemies? Wild Winnie 05:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Most Europeans in the Middle Ages would never have come across an African or an Asian, unless perhaps a Jew or a Gipsy. To the south and east of Europe, the Moors, the Turks, the Arabs and others were generally seen as the enemies of Christendom, although not without reason. The treatment of the Jews in medieval Europe was occasionally good, more often not. But then Europeans treated each other pretty badly, too. Xn4 06:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

They didn't really think of them as other races, just other religions. They understood "religion" as Christianity, but only in the form of what we call Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Catholic and Orthodox did not always get along, and as the middle ages progressed, the worse their differences became. The west often portrayed the Orthodox Greeks as soft and effeminate and somehow not quite truly Christian, and they could appeal to classical Roman texts like the Aeneid where the Greeks were cunning and deceitful. Essentially, a complex political system was "the other" to western Europe! As for other forms of Christianity, it was simply new and heretical and was to be stamped out as quickly as possible (the Cathars particularly). Heretical movements were usually assumed to come from some foreign land in the east (the Cathars from Bulgaria, for example). The east also had a huge number of pagans right up to the 15th century, and pagans were to be killed or Christianized. Judaism were an accepted religion but it took a lot of effort by the church to protect the Jews. Secular rulers kicked them out of their countries every once in awhile. Basically every horrible anti-Semitic legend you can think of was considered true by the average medieval person. They were doomed to wander the earth because they had killed Christ, and as soon as they converted, Christ would come again; so, why don't they just convert to Christianity already? To the west, south, and southeast was another strange religion, Islam, which was originally assumed to be a heretical offshoot of Christianity. To a medieval Christian it couldn't be anything else! Most people would never encounter a Muslim, and would be far more likely to run into a Jew, except in Iberia. During the crusades and afterwards, there was a lot more contact with the Muslim heartland, so they were understood somewhat better, but they were still "other". Whereas Christians descended from Abraham legitimaely through Sarah and Isaac, Muslims descended illegitimately from Ishmael, son of Abraham and the slave-girl Hagar, hence the alternate names for Muslims, "Hagarenes". They were also called "Saracens" and one etymology of that word claims it to be the Latin "Sara sine", "without Sarah", haha. Beyond that, there was very little contact with other races. When the Mongols arrived, Christians assumed the Mongols were Christian too (as they had a common enemy in the various Muslim states), and were confused and disappointed when that wasn't quite true. Hinduism or Buddhism was unknown, although they had vague knowledge of India and China, and they knew that luxury goods like silk and spice came from there. Adam Bishop 06:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.48 (talk)

Of course, that depends on who 'they' were. Such (and any) knowledge, if any, was largely kept by the scholars (monks and such at the time). I wonder if ordinary people had any thoughts at all about what lay outside Europe. Or beyond the next village, for that matter. The 'outside world' was largely the nearest town or city, or wherever the yearly market was held; that was a grand outing, which most would never make, I suppose (note that I'm not too knowledgeable about such details). There were depictions of what was out there - monsters and headless people. All very scary and best left alone. Although I also wonder who ever got to see even those pictures, because they were in books and most people would never even have seen a book, let alone looked inside one. Actually, I wonder if commoners even had a concept of Europe. DirkvdM 09:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the Middle Ages is a rather large time-span, roughly from 500 to 1500 - a millennium. But essential is that its end might be defined as the emerging desire to spread knowledge - actual knowledge, not handed-down stories which were never questioned. Which is pretty much the heart of the subject at hand. DirkvdM 09:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of Europeans in the Middle Ages (something like 80%) were uneducated peasants. It is very unlikely that they had a concept of "Europe" or anything beyond Europe. The word Europe (or Europa) did not enter European languages other than Latin until early modern times. Even the educated minority would have been more likely to think in terms of "Christendom" than of "Europe". As for the uneducated minority, they might have a vague, almost mythical sense of places mentioned in scripture or the distant sea, without knowing much about them. Some spotty knowledge of their own and neighboring countries might have come from villagers who had served as infantry in a feudal lord's army. However, as others have said, the known world of most Europeans did not extend more than about a day's walk (say, 12 miles or 20 km) from their homes. They might have heard about the nearest cities from traveling merchants and the like. Beyond that was the wide world of story and romance. Marco polo 15:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We should also note that "the other" is a concept in philosophy and literary theory that gets a lot of press these days. "The other" in the Middle Ages should be a popular topic but I wouldn't even know where to begin looking for information or publications (which is kind of embarrassing since it's pretty important to everything I do, ha). Adam Bishop 16:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Coming up 'from below' I can say quite definitely that there was indeed a concept of 'otherness' in the Middle Ages, of the monstrous and the different, not just confined to fictions like the Sciopods. As always when one considers these matters analysis is inevitably confined to what educated people believed, because only they have left traces in time. You will find in Medieval sources black Africans-usually defined as 'Ethiopians'-ranged among the 'Monstrous Races', along with the one-legged Sciopods and the Blemmyai, whose faces were on their chests. You see, in the Christian Middle Ages, blackness, black skin, was considered to be demonic. St Jerome specifically says that the 'Ethiopians' will lose their blackness once admitted into the New Jerusalem. Marco Polo (sorry, Marco!) wrote of the people of Zanzibar that

...they are quite black and go entirely naked except that they cover their private parts. Their hair is so curly that it can scarcely be straightened out with the aid of water. They have big mouths and their noses are so falttened and their lips and eyes so big that they are horrible to look at. Anyone who saw them in another country would say they were devils.

Non-Christians could also be depicted as monstrous, as Jewish people frequently were. The twelfth century Winchester Psalter depicts them as ugly and depraved, standing among Christ's tormentors along with, yes, you guessed it, an 'Ethiopian.' And as for the otherness of the Saracens, Pope Innocent III declared, as I am sure Adam must be aware, that Muhammad was the Anti-Christ in person. In the popular literature of the day, the Chansons de geste, the Saracens are often described as 'black'. But the ultimate in 'otherness' must be that of the Tartars, an even more fearful enemy from the east. On them we have the description given by Matthew Paris in his Chronica Majora of their ugliness, and of their cannibal feasts. For Paris and others the Tartar hordes were Gog and Magog. Clio the Muse 04:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

One could argue that Mohammed was indeed the antichrist, because he was the nearest competition. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is a matter of pov. Btw, that association between Jews and Ethiopians is almost prophetic considering the existence of Ethiopian Jews. Btw, I wonder why the article is called 'Beta Israel'. The beta sounds rather derogatory and Israel is an odd name for Ethiopians. Of course, the name originally designates Jews in general, not a nation, but few people will know that. DirkvdM 06:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I always assumed Beta Israel came from the Hebrew beit yisrael, the House of Israel, i.e. the Jewish people, and that it was better to call them beta Israel (their name for themselves) as opposed to Falasha, which was an insulting name given to them by the Ethiopians; compare Inuit vs/Eskimo. But this is second-hand knowledge, since I've interacted with Ethiopian Jews only briefly and I've heard about them mainly from my cousin who works with them. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 21:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That term would then refer to all Jews, not just the Ethiopian ones. Btw, Eskimos and Inuit are different people. Calling an Eskimo an Inuit could be equally insulting (although I consider insult a rather strong word for this). Or so I heard on QI. The Eskimo article tells yet a different (more complicated) story. DirkvdM 06:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Beyond the Known

Related to the above, what views did people in Medieval Europe have of the edges of the known world? Wild Winnie 06:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There be dragons. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's hard to know exactly what you're hoping for, or what constitutes "the edges of the known world" and "Medieval" for you. Certainly by the late 1300s, accounts from people such as Marco Polo and John Mandeville would reach many of the educated (and some of the uneducated). It seems to me, though, that it is very hard to determine what average people in Medieval Europe thought about much of anything at the time. If you're hoping for ideas, I'd start by reading the accounts of the men I mention. Hopefully Clio or one of the other regulars will arrive soon to give you a much more comprehensive answer (since I am by no means an expert in the area). User:Jwrosenzweig (editing anonymously) 06:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.34.128 (talk)

Legal interpretation (Canadian law)

a Laymans interpretation of the following is requested:
Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 on the http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ site, defines "King's Highway" as:

“ includes the secondary highways and tertiary roads designated under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act; ("route principale") ”

Does this then mean ALL roads in Ontario? Are there any other interpretations of this term? Is there ever a 's (ie. highway's) appended to the term?

Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but I think it refers to 500- (secondary) and 800- (tertiary) series highways in Northern Ontario. -- Mwalcoff 12:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a layman's interpretation. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. I am a layman with some experience in reading, interpreting, and occasionally drafting government regulations. The definition you quote does not mean that all roads in Ontario are considered the King's Highway. What it means is that secondary highways and tertiary roads can be designated the King's Highway so that any laws or regulations applying to the King's Highway will apply to them. Looking into the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, it states that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate a highway, secondary highway, or tertiary road as the King's Highway - so the King's Highway is whatever the government says it is. Not all roads are eligible for this, though. Section 41 of the PTHI Act notes that "the Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate an existing road that is in whole or in part in territory without municipal organization as a tertiary road." Any road that is entirely within the bounds of a municipality - the street that I live on, for example - cannot be called the King's Highway. I would assume that somewhere in the Ministry of Transportation there is a list of all roads which have been designated the King's Highway. It should be possible to find that list, but I haven't been able to yet. - Eron ^Talk 15:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Films with plots based around other films.

In Woody Allen's film Play it Again, Sam, footage from Casablanca is shown, characters from Casablanca intrude into the story and various bits of dialogue are repeated verbatim. Are there any other films where existing real-life films play such an important part? Froglars the frog 10:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

From our Vertigo (film) article:

Terry Gilliam's film Twelve Monkeys contains a scene in a movie theatre that is showing Vertigo . . . both films deal with memories, identity and the blurring of past and present. Likewise, La Jetée, Chris Marker's famous short which served as the basis for Gilliam's film quotes a couple of scenes from this film as acknowledged by Marker. The plot of the short film has loose thematic similarities with Vertigo and quotes some scenes directly (most notably the one with the Redwood tree rings). In his essays Marker has joked about his film being a remake of "Vertigo" set in Paris.

It's not as intrusive as what you're looking for, but it is a great scene in 12 Monkeys. It gives it a lot of depth. --Sean 12:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In The Freshman, which stars Marlon Brando and Matthew Broderick, Brando plays a mafia guy who, to Broderick's character, looks just like Marlon Brando from The Godfather.

I don't know if this counts, but in Back to the Future Part II, Michael J. Fox goes back in time into the first movie and has to make sure the plot of the first movie turns out the way it did the first time. -- Mwalcoff 13:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't count sequels, but then there aren't a lot of sequels involving time-travel! —Tamfang 16:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen it, but I think the plot of Rumor Has It... is that Jennifer Aniston believes her character's family are the inspiration for Benjamin Braddock and Mrs. Robinson's affair in The Graduate. Hammer Raccoon 14:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are movies about the making of other movies, although I'm not sure if this fits what you are asking. BAADASSSSS! comes to mind. --Joelmills 15:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In Last Action Hero, magic brings various characters out of the movies, including Death from The Seventh Seal. —Tamfang 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Adaptation and Being John Malkovich (the latter is contained in the former). Vranak 17:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid surely the granddaddy of them all...hotclaws 10:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Language, Accents, and Podcasts

Is there anyone out there who knows of a Spanish equivalent of the BBC? I mean that in both the way they have numerous podcasts and that it is an excellent example of perfectly spoken language? --Grey1618 13:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This question would make more sense on the language ref desk or somewhere at the Spanish Wikipedia. But what about TVE? I'm no native speaker, but it sounds like pretty standard and it's Spain's version of the BBC in that it is the state television, so it's probably also a bit 'educational' in various senses, such as speaking 'proper' Spanish. Of course, on the BBC you can often hear various dialects and TVE is probably not much different in that respect. DirkvdM 17:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The BBC world service has let down its linguistic hair a lot over the past decade, especially on radio -- I enjoy listening to the way some of the Scottish newsreaders pronounce "Bush" ;-) AnonMoos 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In terms of accents the news of TVE are the best. Perect Castilian. Although some of their reporters speak with accents (Mexican, Argentinian). But this mostly when they cover stories in South America. In the regular program you will run across many different accents catalan pronounced Spanish, Andalusian and so on.--Tresckow 19:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want to make it clear that Mexican, Argentinian, and all other Latin American accents are equally acceptable and just as good as castillano. :) --El aprendelenguas 16:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want a talk show, there's six hours every weekend with Pepa Fernandez, "No es un dia cualquiera", which can be quite entertaining. Then there was "Vanguardia de la Ciencia" and "El sueño de Arquímedes", two top quality science podcasts by Ángel Rodríguez Lozano, which regrettably were taken off the air June this year. But there's still a bunch of programs on RTVE's web pages, so hurry and download while they're there. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How can music be scary?

How can music possibly be scary, it's not like you're in danger or something sudden might happen, from hitchcock-like violin music. Why does it inspire fear (unless it is parody, "scary" music over something as innocuous as a baby). Is it a cultural thing, or would someone who had never been exposed to western civilation be scared because of scary music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.158.169 (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Music speaks to emotions. Fear is an emotion. 'nuff said. Vranak 17:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is probably a cultural thing. The SKREE SKREE SKREE of Psycho is not scary (just annoying) unless you know the context, at which point it serves to heighten the tension. Remember of course that there are a lot of audio clichés/conventions at work in making something "scary" — things which we have been programmed to associate with murder and tragedy and the like because we've seen them over and over again in movies. I would assume they are not totally limited to Western culture only because in terms of things like movies they have been exported all over the world for a very long time now. --24.147.86.187 17:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Films can also be scary, even though people know that the monster or whatever can not jump at them from the screen. On top of that, the scary effect mostly comes from the music or sounds you hear. Sound is more effective than images at scaring people. Why that is, I can't say, really. DirkvdM 18:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's not so much that one is more effective than the other, than the fact that in combination they can be quite effective. That being said, sounds can vary in intensity in a way that visuals generally don't, so that probably has something to do with it. Going from a whisper to a SHOUT can startle just about anyone; having something go from small to BIG is less effective if you are watching it on a small screen. --24.147.86.187 18:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wolf's Glen scene (Act II, scene ii) in Carl Maria von Weber's Der Freischütz was the scariest music anybody had ever heard in 1821. Find a recording and see if "scary music" isn't culturally defined.--Wetman 20:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Here in the USA, we haven't had to worry about an invasion in decades. Some towns still use their Air raid sirens for fire alerts or (in my hometown) to signal the beginning and end of Trick or treat on Halloween. It was a fairly mundane sound for me... until I played Silent Hill. Now, it's one of the creepiest things I've ever heard. -- Kesh 21:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

One might also say that people are afraid of a lack of harmony. Thus, a minor chord or any other strange combination of sounds can be scarier than a melodic, major chord. Wrad 22:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Does the creation of goosebumps qualify as scary? As a child, a large pipe organ could scare me. I think this is why so many people shy away from them, especially when they have lots of reeds. Also, the sound of a concert grand in a living room could be scary. I found the modern atmospheric choral work in the soundtrack of "2001, A Space Odyssey" scary because I couldn't understand what was happening. The same thing occurs in children when they don't comprehend what is making adults upset. I was once told by a kid of limited education that classical music made him "nervous" because he couldn't feel the beat.LShecut2nd 23:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon 24, you're right and I partly take back what I said. By coincidence, I watched one of the few scary episodes of Buffy last night, Hush, and I noticed the music was only scary in combination with the images. Another piece of music that scared me was the in the intro of The World at War (an excellent series, btw, if you want to delve into WWII history). I watched that when I was about 10 and 30 years later I could still remember the music and it still sent shivers down my spine. But again, it was the combination with the images (the faces being burnt away) that made it really scary (for a 10 year old). By itself, the music is rather sad than scary. Btw, nails over blackboard is a very annoying sound, but I'm not sure if that can be called scary.

So it's only in combination with each other that sound and vision are scary. How about other senses? Can smells and tastes be scary? Rotten meat should be scary, but instead it's filthy. Or touch? What about slime? That's more eerie than scary. Or are that variation of filthy and eeriness variations on 'scary'? Hmmm. DirkvdM 07:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Listen to Revolution 9 by The Beatles in the dark, you'll start freaking out. Although that's not really music. EamonnPKeane 20:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the all-time biggest MASSACRE, ever, of ALL MASSACRES

of all time massacres, what is the massacre where the most people were massacred in a MASSACRE (note: not a non-massacre, genocide, etc). The wikipedia article for massacre doesn't list the biggest massacre.

Thank you!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.158.169 (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

List of wars and disasters by death toll. Vranak 17:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The article says:

Massacre most commonly refers to individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing where the victims have no reasonable means of defense and pose no immediate physical threat to the assailants.

It's still possible to quibble about the meaning of parts of that, like "individual", but if you restrict the killing to a single short military operation, a good candidate might be the firebombing of Tokyo, which killed as many as 100,000 people in one night. There were plenty of horrors in WWII that would be in the same ballpark. --Sean 18:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

After edit conflict:

You should have looked a little closer - there's a link to the list of massacres at the bottom of the massacre article. Massacre is a rather difficult term to define, but wars don't count because they're not single events. The biggest massacres listed had around 1 million deaths. One of those listed is the partition of India, but I doubt if that really counts as a massacre - it was too spread out and impromptu to be called a massacre, I'd say. One massacre that really drew my attention is the 1258 Battle of Baghdad (there were several), which had up to one million deaths. Given that that took place in 1258, it might count as the biggest massacre ever in terms of deaths per capita. Note that it probably counts as a massacre because of what happened after the battle, not because of the battle itself. If you count battles (and why not?), then the battle of Stalingrad might be the biggest massacre, with 1.5 million deaths.

If you'll allow a bit of pov and a slight deviation from the subject, I don't get why battles don't count as massacres. People have this strange tendency to think that if mass murders take place by regular armies for war purposes then it is sort of ok. For example, the holocaust is often seen as the greatest horror of WWII, but many more people died in agony because of the war in general. Hitler's decision to start a war, and specifically to attack the USSR and the way people (soldiers and civilians) were treated in Eastern Europe dwarfs the holocaust. I;m not talking just about the deaths on the Allied side (soldiers and civilians alike), but also the German soldiers (who didn't have much of a choice) who were sent to their deaths and the equally severe loot/rape/pillage reaction of the Soviet army. Hitler caused that reaction and was therefore also responsible for that result. Note that I usually blame the Nazis in general in stead of just Hitler, but in the case of the eastern front, he was almost solely responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people. DirkvdM 18:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that this question can't really be answered, as massacre is one of those words of uncertain origins which doesn't have a precise enough meaning.

In fact, DirkvdM, battles have sometimes been called massacres, depending on the circumstances and the balance of numbers and weapons on each side. If people "think that if mass murders take place by regular armies for war purposes then it is sort of ok", then clearly it isn't. Murder is unlawful killing, while deaths which result from military action between countries at war are not murder. The deliberate killing of prisoners of war is unlawful and can be punished by a war crimes tribunal. The Holocaust, the murder of civilians (and also some prisoners of war) in captivity, many of them not even enemy aliens, was equally unlawful and could no doubt be called a massacre or series of massacres.

If we look at the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was nothing in international law to prevent the indiscriminate killing of huge numbers of enemy civilians as an act of war, but those events could be called massacres, too. It's a flexible word. Xn4 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"There was nothing in international law..." — this isn't exactly true. There is a nice compedium of relevant international law to the mass killing of civilians via indiscriminate aerial warface (atomic or not). I don't think you can avoid the word "massacre" when talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nor Dresden, nor Tokyo. Whether or not you agree that any of those hastened the end of the war (Dresden and Tokyo, certainly not; Hiroshima and Nagasaki, potentially, but it is a problematic assertion), that doesn't change the case that they were intentional and indiscriminate targeting of civilians, aka, a massacre. You can have war without massacres, much less massacres of tens of thousands of people over the course of a few hours. --24.147.86.187 00:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Be careful, 84.0, of the Wikipedia 'massacre' list. Some of the detail is wildly inaccurate, including the absurd contention that 30,000 people were killed when Berwick-upon-Tweed fell to the English in 1296. There is no mention, moreover, of the fall of Magdeburg in 1631 during the Thirty Years War, when some 20,000 people were killed in the course of a day. But I agree that your question is probably incapable of a direct answer. It may also come down to simple semantics. I for one do not accept that people killed in World War Two bombing raids, or soldiers killed in the course of a military campaign, can be considered to have been 'massacred.' Such a definition would render the word truly meaningless. For me it is action against the defenceless, carried out in a face-to-face manner, usually, but not always, in the heat of circumstances. But you might wish to examine the actions of Timur for some truly hair-rasing, (and skull mouinting) cold-blooded brutality. Clio the Muse 03:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I distinguish between war and massacre in terms of whether it is a single event or a series of massacres. So I consider a battle to be a massacre, because I don't see an essential difference. Both sides being equally strong can hardly be an excuse for mass murder.

Xn4, why is killing done by an army not murder? I don't see the difference. If you're personally under attack and there is no other way to defend your life than killing the other, then it's excusable and might even not be called murder. But training people to kill and then sending them somewhere to practise what they have learned, that is mass murder. One might even call it that when it is done for defense of the own country, but that's an entirely different and exceedingly difficult discussion. For example, I don't get the Geneva Convention. When you're busy ripping each other's limbs off and such, you have to do it in a 'civilised' way? War is filth of the worst kind, far from heroic. Not fighting when under attack is really heroic. If only we could all be heroes. :) DirkvdM 07:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that is about as far from my definition of heroic as it is possible to get. Some things are worth fighting for. Those who do not resist, moreover, are often those who die the quickest. Clio the Muse 00:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wherein the heroism lies. In this sense Gandhi was one of the few heroes of humanity. The urge to fight is too strong. Enduring hardship to make a point is heroic. DirkvdM 07:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Clio touches on one of the weirder aspects of massacre definition: it's worse if you do it face-to-face. There's some confused angle of human psychology that makes it more abhorrent to shoot hundreds of civilians retail than in their tens of thousands wholesale. Cue Stalin quote about tragedy and statistics. --Sean 15:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that is a valid distinction, Sean. The point about My Lai, or Lidice, or Oradour-sur-Glane, or Babi Yar or Srebrenica or the thousands of other places that witnessed similar outrages is the element of calculation involved; a full awareness that an act is being carried out contrary to law and ethics; an act that embraces the killing of even the most defenceless, precisely because they are defenceless. All of the variables are controlled; the village or the community is cordoned off; people herded together and shot at close range, or burned alive inside their own church. At My Lai William Calley knew exactly what he was doing; he knew just how many people were to be disposed of, including the old and the young; he had them all before him. Now, if you could somehow prove that Curtis LeMay knew exactly just how many people would be killed in the fire bombing of Tokyo, and further prove that he set out to kill that number of people, then you might, just might, have a case for describing the act as a 'massacre'. But there were other variables involved, not least the complete inadequacy of Japanese air-raid precautions; their failure to evacuate a sufficient number of people timeously; the over-concentration of people in the area of a military target, one that was little better than a tinder box. Horrible as it was, the fire boming of Tokyo, and the later atomic bombing of Hiroshima, was an act of war, not calculated murder; unless you consider all war to be murder. If so, then real problems of meaning and interpretation begin to emerge. But I suppose in the end, Sean, it come down to one thing: a million deaths is not a statistic; a million deaths is a million tragedies. Clio the Muse 00:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. In a single event? That's tough; the obvious cases of Nazi Germany are pretty bad, but they were more systemmatic and slow. I would say the Rwanda genocide ranks pretty far up there (400,000 in a few days), as well as the killings by Pol Pot, though I don't know how long they lasted in Cambodia. I would say it'd certainly have to be the 19th century or later, given lower population levels beforehand. The Evil Spartan 00:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

DirkvdM asks me "Xn4, why is killing done by an army not murder? I don't see the difference."

Well, "killing done by an army" can be murder, but what I said was "...deaths which result from military action between countries at war are not murder". The point is that murder has an unambiguous meaning, it's unlawful killing. (Most religions also distinguish between murder and the killing which happens in war - see, for instance, Just War.) Murder is a serious criminal offence. Military forces can and do commit murder, whether during wartime or peacetime (for instance, the killing of prisoners is murder), and when that happens those responsible can and should be tried and punished by law. But when they are fighting for their country, the deaths the military cause have a quite different character from murder and are self-evidently not punishable as criminal offences, unless they have some special character which is contrary to international law. That should be no surprise: those who kill the enemy in battle are obeying lawful orders. Indeed, it used to be a common practice for armed forces to execute deserters. Xn4 02:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I take the points made by 24.147.86.187. I'm not sure that the Hague Convention of 1907 applies ("The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited"), as air defences appear to cancel its effect. It seems the Nuremberg Principles were promulgated on 8 August 1945, two days after Hiroshima and the day before Nagasaki, and the US was one of the four powers which signed them. Article VI (b) includes under war crimes "...wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity", and Article VI (c) includes under crimes against humanity "inhumane acts committed against any civilian populations". The Nuremberg Principles weren't adopted by the UN's International Law Commission until 1950, but it does seem remarkable that the US was signing up to them the day before Nagasaki. Someone may know more about this? Xn4 06:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Shimoda Court cited the 1907 Hague Convention in its 1963 decision.—eric 07:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This sounds really silly. Now you're saying that when a city is prepared for the eventuality that I will bomb them then that makes it ok for me to bomb them? DirkvdM 07:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone here says "that makes it ok". This is going off the point, which is whether, in August 1945, it was a war crime. Even if we agree that it should be, and should have been, that doesn't mean ipso facto that as a matter of fact it was. Xn4 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Xn4, now you shift the definition problem from 'murder' to 'legal'. Which doesn't change anything really. In other words, I'm saying it should be equally illegal to kill someone in wartime (unless that person is directly threatening you personally - which is not easy to delineate either, btw). Else, law is immoral. Note that this is not a legal but a moral discussion (or rather has turned into one). An extension of that is that sending someone out to kill others (under serious threat (for desertion)) is also murder. Extended even further, though, someone who voluntarily joins an army knows (or should be expected to know) that that can lead to be sent to war, so when that happens, it still counts as murder on his part. So then there are two guilty parts. "The killing of prisoners is murder" is a bit of a silly argument because the easy way out of that is not to take any prisoners and try to kill all your opponents in battle. Basically, you're saying that would be ok then, but I doubt you would agree to that. DirkvdM 07:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I referred you back to what I'd said before. You argue that "I'm saying it should be equally illegal to kill someone in wartime (unless that person is directly threatening you personally - which is not easy to delineate either, btw). Else, law is immoral". That's an arguable view, but the law is what it is, and declaring it to be immoral doesn't change it. Xn4 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Clio, if it is less ok to kill someone who is (h)armless then it is more ok to kill someone who is armed. To me that seems to imply that an armed person is doing something wrong, for they apparently deserve punishment - what else would you call killing them? Would you agree to that? If so, then organising huge numbers of people and giving them guns and training them to be as massively lethal as possible amounts to murder if that force is some day put to 'good' use.

I am fully aware that an alternative to an army is far from obvious and I have until a few years ago believed that it was a necessary evil. But I haven't stopped looking for alternatives. And a few years ago I thought of one. This came about when I was thinking about how ad hoc my uncle had to set up the Valkenburg resistance in WWII (btw, I wrote that article and there is a picture of my mother in it :) ). He knew nothing about fighting and more or less stumbled into it. What if one would train the entire population in fighting off an invasion? Only a small amount of arms is needed for training because an invading force would bring in the arms. So people need to be trained in taking those arms and then set up an organisation ad hoc, but based on some system of impromptu cooperation. Ie if someone undertakes some action, bystanders react in some way that turns it into a small uprising, in which not only the enemy are killed, but also more arms are gathered. Basically setting up a guerrilla. Note that I don't consider this murder because there is a sufficiently direct threat. At first, the enemy can overtake the country, but the resistance will gradually grow to make life so hard for them that there will be no gain for them. If this works then no army would want to invade and the country itself cannot invade another country, leading to world peace if everyone starts adopting the system because it saves them huge amounts of money.

Btw, shortly after, I learned that that is done to some extent in Cuba. But that doesn't teach us much until that force is put to the test (or was it in the Bay of Pigs invasion?). It would be a risky experiment, but if successful it would greatly benefit mankind. I should write this out in more detail in English somewhere on the Internet someday (I've got it on paper in Dutch, but it's several pages long). DirkvdM 07:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying so, Dirk, but you seem to be demonstrating quite a high degree of confusion here; or at least you give the apperance of tying yourself in all sorts of conceptual knots and simple contradictions: at one point seemingly advancing a position of absolute pacificism, at another justifying the need for self-defence. Anyway, on the basis of your question to me let's assume you are a pacifist. That's fine; I am a pacifist too-or at least I am up to the point where some aggressor comes knocking on my door! I believe in armies; I believe in soldiers, and I think it deeply wrong to define them, without distinction or qualification, as 'murderers.' A national army may not be necessary in a perfect world; but we do not live, nor will we ever live, in a perfect world. Yes, I think the men in grey who crossed the border of the Netherlands on 10 May 1940 were doing 'something wrong', as you so quaintly put it. You may have stood aside and welcomed them in, not a position, I imagine, favoured by most people in your country. I have long admired the Dutch for their simple heroism; for their courage in the long struggle for independence against Spain, and for their determination in maintaining that independence against the aggression of Louis XIV. If people had not taken the decision to kill armed men who were 'doing wrong' the Netherlands would not exist today. Defence is not 'punishment'; it is necessity. History defends those who defend themselves. Clio the Muse 23:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm a pacifist where pacifism is due and aggressive where aggression is needed. In other words, I don't follow any teachings, just what logic and common sense seem to dictate. (This is a rather essential point for me in general - I don't follow any teachings! Many people can't grasp that.)

My principles here are quite simple: killing is murder unless done in self defence. If people come marching down your street carrying guns, then you have a right to kill them, unless they obviously don't mean to threaten you (military parade). Like you say; "I am a pacifist too-or at least I am up to the point where some aggressor comes knocking on my door." That's almost exactly what I say, except that I say there should be more than door-knocking - there should be a threat, but I assume that's what you mean too (English understatement?). Indeed we do not live in a perfect world, but that's precisely the dilemma I'm trying to find a solution for - not kill or prepare for it (army), but not letting yourself get killed too easily either. Once an army exists, it will be put to use, and likely every now and then by some bad leader somewere. In my idea, there is no army that could be used by a bad leader, but people aren't defenseless either - your last point. I wouldn't stand by as they march in - the idea is that everyone immediately starts some unplanned (and therefore unforeseeable by the invaders) uprisings, starting with capturing weapons and then gradually growing so large that the invaders are no longer in control of the country. It is essential that there are no weapons - the invaders have to bring them in.

I don't know how many snags there will be in my idea (there are bound to be some), but an added advantage is that no military coups are possible (there is no army) and if someone would somehow still take unjust control of the country (be it internal or external), people will have the power to overthrow this illegal government. Sounds ideal to me. I was hoping you or others could point out some of the snags.

Btw, no need to apologise for criticising me - I do it all the time (me and others). DirkvdM 07:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, I just watched a documentary that led to some questions in Dutch parliament about some form of preemptive resistance (to coin a phrase) in the Netherlands, just after WWII, as a reaction to the perceived 'red danger' (the USSR). This was a clandestine organisation of hundreds of civilians (preferably as 'ordinary' and therefore inconspicuous as possible). These were effectively secret agents (and presented in the documentary as such), except that they were sleepers, waiting for one specific thing to happen. The only ministers who ever knew about this organisation were the prime ministers and ministers of defense. People were contacted to join this organisation pretty much at random, based largely on their political views (which of course excluded communists, some of the best resistance fighters in WWII).

It fell under the vaguely named 'Section General Affairs' (Sectie Algemene Zaken), 'I' (for 'inlichtingen' or 'intelligence') and the more military 'O' ('operatieën' or 'operations'), the guerrilla section, so to say, the existence of which had always been denied by the government (food for conspirationists).

The 'sleepers' had some weapons at home, with which they had received just a few shooting lessons (horribly primitive, in other words), but there were also depots of arms dug in in forests and such. Disaster struck when one depot was emptied by top criminals, which had to be kept secret because of the nature of the whole affair. This was the largest arms robbery in Dutch history.

By the late eighties, the combined budget of O & I was 6 million guilders (about 2.5 million euro) per year. In 1992 the organisations were dissolved and many documents were destroyed (which is illegal) and the remaining documents are still state secret. However, in 1998, information leaked out that the organisation still exists and there also appears to exist a secret organisation named 'Quia Opportet' (Latin for 'just in case') that has funds, but is not registered at the chambre of commerce. When the documentary makers inquired about this they were told it's state secret until 2050.

This organisation(O&I) was coordinated by Max van der Stoel, the Dutch branch of Operation Gladio, the Italian branch of which was infiltrated by rightwing froups to discredit the left (how is not made clear). When this became known, the whole international organisation's cover was blown. Dutch prime minister Lubbers declared that such affairs would be unthinkable in the Netherlands.

That last bit is one of the scarier aspects. It's another case of too much power in the hands of too few people, a danger I regularly warn about, an argument I often use against a country having a president, but it also applies here.

The big differences with my idea are that it was secretive (I specifically want this to be out in the open), just a few hundred people (I'm thinking about the entire population) and they had a large arsenal of guns, not for practise, but to fight the invaders (as if they would have stood a chance). I want fewer arms and more training. That these arms were stolen points at a serious disadvantage. In my plan there wouldn't have been that many weapons and it would have been easier to keep them safe because it would all be above ground (literally). DirkvdM 07:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dirk wrote:

"Once an army exists, it will be put to use, and likely every now and then by some bad leader somewere. In my idea, there is no army that could be used by a bad leader, but people aren't defenseless either - your last point. I wouldn't stand by as they march in - the idea is that everyone immediately starts some unplanned (and therefore unforeseebale by the invaders) uprisings, starting with capturing weapons and then gradually growing so large that the invaders are no longer in control of the country. It is essential that there are no weapons - the invaders have to bring them in. I don't know how many snags there will be in my idea (there are bound to be some), but an added advantage is that no military coups are possible (there is no army) and if someone would somehow still take unjust control of the country (be it internal or external), people will have the power to overthrow this illegal government. Sounds ideal to me."

This is all hopelessly muddle-headed. If your plan for dealing with a foreign invasion is to let it happen and then respond by "unplanned (and therefore unforeseeable by the invaders) uprisings", then you are planning to begin by losing all your resources and to start to fight from a position of great weakness: the certain outcome is far more deaths than you can imagine. And to plan to be without military forces does not mean there will be "no military coups". The world is full of weapons, and also of people who know how to use them, and arms dealers can get weapons into almost anywhere, not least when there is no one to stop them. Abolish the police, and you get the reign of organized crime, plus gang warfare. Abolish formal armies under the control of governments, and you get anarchy on a grander scale - informal armies, fighting local undeclared wars, led and paid for by what used to be politely called warlords. Xn4 15:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked for the pointing out of snags, and you complied, for which I thank you (no irony - I want more input on the idea). But don't forget the reason for all this. Armies cost shitloads of money, that had better be used to increase the wealth of the nation. This gives one a serious advantage over others during peacetime, which I am assuming to be the normal state of affairs (see further down). On top of that, armies tend to lead to war, which hardly any party ever consistently profits from.

Also, note that they don't loose all their resources, because they didn't have any to start with (assuming you mean military resources). They take them from the enemy.

I didn't suggest abolishing the police. Whether they should be allowed to carry guns is an interesting point. Since I've never heard of a coup by the police force, I don't think there's too much of a risk there (I suppose handguns alone aren't enough). And trafficking guns isn't quite as easy as you suggest. At least the amounts needed to start a war. And what sort of war? By whom? Not by the people themselves unless they've got a very evil government, but as I said, that's actually an advantage. So unless that's the case, you'd have to import the fighters as well, in large numbers, and that is bound to get noticed. As for the warlords, who would that be? Organised crime? Well, we've got some of that already and I'm not suggesting a solution to that - it can be dealt with in the same way it is now, by the police. Maybe you're thinking about Iraq, and not having an army there (for internal reasons) seems like a bad idea indeed, because the police wouldn't be able to cope with that situation (also note, though, that that resulted from a situation in which both sides had a serious army). But I was thinking more about a stable western European country. Admittedly, that strongly suggest the idea will not spread that easily over the world, as I suggested. Sorry about that dream. :)

You also suggest there would be more deaths if the country gets invaded. Why would that be? On the invaders side perhaps, because a guerrilla army has a huge advantage - they decide where and when the battles are fought. There is of course the risk of retaliatory mass murders. But if that would amount to more deaths than in the case of all-out in-the-open warfare, I don't know. Wars usually result in extended fighting that kills a few percent, up to 10% even, of the population (retaliatory mass murders aren't usually that serious) or one side being quickly defeated by the other, in which case that other side might as well not have had an army in the first place. It would have made more sense for them to prepare for the guerrilla warfare that will almost inevitably result.

Note that I am thinking specifically about the situation of the Netherlands at the start of WWII (that's what started me thinking about this). We could have mobilised and tried to fight the Germans, but that would have cost more lives and we wouldn't have stood a chance. We hoped that the Germans would leave us alone, as in WWI, because trade is much more beneficial to both sides - typical Dutch thinking. Note that that was a much more risky policy than what I am suggesting. Basically, what I suggest is the way the Netherlands dealt with the two World Wars (neutrality, small army, no mobilisation), but with a better preparation for when that doesn't work. So the idea is firmly rooted in a real-life situation.

I'm not suggesting I've got all the answers and there will be problems, but the idea is that it would be better than what we have, most certainly in peacetime and possibly also in wartime. The alternative is all countries continuously trying to outdo each other in an arms race that can lead to some seriously dangerous situations, of which the Cuban missile crisis is an extreme example. DirkvdM 06:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the worst massacre should depend not on absolute numbers, but ought to be relative to the number of people living at the time. Killing a quarter of the world's population must be a pretty spectacular feat. By that logic, I would say Cain, history's first murderer, would also have to be the worst. 203.221.127.9 17:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I need DETAILED info on Édouard Lalo

I need in-depth information on the French composer Édouard Lalo. There is a Wikipedia article about him, but it and all other sources I have found on the internet and elsewhere give the same basic facts about him.

A source in French (or Spanish, or whatever) would be welcome as it would be worth the expense to get it translated. Of course English would be bettter. I don't necessarily need the actual information; just pointing me in the right direction would be fine. Extensive searches in university libraries and many hours online have not yielded results.Ormewood 17:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Huebner, Steven (1999), French Opera at the Fin de Siecle, Oxford:Oxford University Press, OCLC 40043694 has a short chapter on Lalo, and cites:
  • Lalo, Pierre (1947), De Rameau a Ravel, Paris: Albin Michel, OCLC 3160860 contains an essay on the author's father.
  • Lalo, Edouardo; Joël-Marie Fauquet ed. (1989), Correspondance, Paris:Aux amateurs de livres, OCLC 21268611.
• Ewen, David (1937), Composers of Yesterday: A Biographical and Critical Guide to the Most Important Composers of the Past, New York:The H.W. Wilson Co., OCLC 851554 has a short biographical sketch and points to:
  • Seré, Octave (1911), Musiciens français d'aujourd'hui, Paris:Mercure de France, OCLC 69102235.
  • (March 1923), La Revue Musicale, 4:97 was dedicated to Lalo, has a full list of works and bibliography.
• Norman, Gertrude ed.; Miriam Shrifte Lubell (1946), Letters of Composers: An Anthology, 1603-1945, New York:A.A. Knopf, OCLC 911392 contains two translated letters to Pablo de Sarasate October 28, 1878 and November 21, 1878.

Also this worldcat search turns up few others.—eric 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Paupers graves in New York, 1950s

I was watching the film Pickup on South Street (1953) and one scene shows the (anti)hero stopping a boat at sea with several coffins on deck, and he retrieves one of them for a better burial. Did this mean that paupers i.e. the poor were buried at sea in 1950s New York? 80.0.135.165 18:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Coffins stashed on deck simply for faster narrative pace, right? Not for accurate portrayal of coffin transport. The New York City Cemetery, located on Hart Island, the Bronx, in Long Island Sound, serves for paupers' burials. Paupers have never been buried at sea. --Wetman 20:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless they died at sea, of course, and I guess that isn't suggested in Pickup on South Street. Xn4 23:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Primary Presidential Elections

Are the Party Representatives for the Presidential Elections choosen by the voters or by their specified policital party only?24.216.120.113 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Presidential candidates are selected at the National Conventions of each party before the elections. At the conventions, delegates of each state party vote for a potential candidate. The way the delegates for each state will vote is decided either by the state Caucus or by a primary election. FiggyBee 19:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Original questioner, are you asking about electors of the Electoral College? If so, then, yes, the party whose candidate won the general presidential election in a particular state chooses the electors. Corvus cornix 16:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What happens is that each state votes in the primary system to send delegates to the national convention. However, unlike the main presidential campaign, those delegates are not strictly bound to their state's vote; so if one candidate drops out, then some of the delegates could vote for another candidate, which really throws the whole system up in the air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Evil Spartan (talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Some states do require electors to vote for the candidate who won the state's electoral votes, both most states have no such law. Corvus cornix 18:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the secret behind the success of American agriculture?

What is the secret behind the success of American agriculture? How is 1% of the population able to feed the entire nation and export? What technologies and economic organizations make American farms so efficient? Why is the technology and org so complex that it has been unable to be adapted to conditions in Latin America and East Asia? To what extent to other parts of the 1st world also use these advanced techniques?--Gary123 19:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Green Revolution; Factory farming. FiggyBee 20:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

sorry you need to do your own homework. What's the course? --Fredrick day 20:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My "homework assignment" is to fix my nation's economy. Ive got to industrialize La Republica and El General will have mi cabeza if I dont fix our nation's farming problems by manana.--Gary123 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

American agricultural success started long before the green revolution or factory farming. American farmers got to start from scratch, and therefore had a lot of land an not enough farm hands to work it. They therefore had a very strong incentive to use machinery. This is still true today: even a small American farm has a lot of capital equipment. -Arch dude 23:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"a lot of land an not enough farm hands to work it" - except for all the millions of slaves... EamonnPKeane 20:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

U.S. labor has been more expensive than labor in most other countries for much of its history. Therefore, capital investment in agriculture to boost productivity brought strong increases in the profit margin. U.S. agriculture is extremely capital-intensive. Because labor is cheaper in Latin America and East Asia, particularly farm labor, expensive capital equipment often cannot pay for itself. (That is, it is cheaper to continue to hire labor than to purchase the capital equipment.) Consequently, productivity is lower in those places.

Countries that have an agricultural capital intensivity similar to that of the United States include Canada and Australia. Although agricultural labor is as expensive, or more so, than in the United States in much of western Europe, agriculture in western Europe is somewhat less capital-intensive and therefore less productive per unit labor because median farm sizes are so much smaller. A piece of capital equipment that is economical on a 500-acre (200 ha) U.S. farm may not be economical on a 50-acre (20 ha) French farm. Marco polo 00:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the efficiency is due to enormous (and expensive) public infrastructure spending over time (including private infrastructure, like railroads, which have often received massive amounts of public money). The result is a relatively high-density of transportation options including highways, river-barge shipping channels, railroads, and so on. This helps make it possible for what would otherwise be isolated farms to market goods at competitive rates in distant markets. On the other side of the equation, infrastructure that supplies water, for example, makes it possible to intensively farm lands that would otherwise produce lower yields at greater risk. The Central Valley of California, much of Eastern Washington and Southern Idaho come to mind as argiculturally rich areas that depend on huge amounts of water-supply infrastructure built, at great expense, by federal and state governments.

In other words, I think a good part of the "secret" behind the success of American agriculture is "spending massive amounts of money". Pfly 04:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, money makes money. (Although to Europeans the public investment in infrastructure in the US is rather pathetic. I suppose we spent out money somewhat differently.) And poverty perpetuates itself. If a poor country had the machinery to replace humans (and those humans would find employment elsewhere - a social complication) then productivity would go up, the country would become richer, labour cost would go up and there would finally be the incentive to actually buy the machinery. But the money and high labour cost aren't there, so the process isn't 'jump-started' (if that is the right word). It isn't specifically agriculture. It's about who had the first headstart. Europe started inventing the machinery (I'm talking about several hundred years ago), but, as Arch Dude pointed out, that was the result of being rich and that was caused partly by colonialism. But that in turn was caused by having the ships, which was the first richness generating machinery. And that, I suppose, had to do with Europe having a relatively long shoreline. Great civilisations usually arise where you get that (think of the Mediterranean, although China doesn't seem to fit the bill).

In at least some countries (Peru is often mentioned), part of the problem is that the farmers don't have clear title to their land and so cannot borrow against it to raise capital. —Tamfang 00:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So, in short, US agriculture is so efficient thanks to the European background. Note that various European countries and the US moved in rather different economic directions, yet the differences in wealth are negligible compared to poor countries. It's not the method, it's having the money to start with. It takes a very stupid government to not make more and more money out of that. Such as the Tsars in Russia. Only after they had been disposed of and their wealth put to good use could the economy take off. Contrary to what many think, the early USSR was an economic miracle (a tiger, we would say these days). Only after they started somewhat approaching western Europe's wealth did the still not so good government structure (five year plans, rigid structures and such) start to get in the way. But I deviate. DirkvdM 07:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• One last thing -- America is huge and almost entirely in the temperate zone. It is almost impossible to overstate how important both of these things are. We have so much arable land that we need only tend to the very best soils. In America's early years, farmers toiled endlessly trying to turn New England into a breadbasket; when the Midwest opened up for settling in the mid-1800s, the New England farms were abandoned and have largely turned into forest again. Comparative advantage, pure and simple. Unless climate change or new technologies change things (and don't get me wrong, they almost certainly will), places like Siberia or Central Africa simply will never be able to compete with that rich Iowa soil. --M@rēino 20:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hero or villain?

Thomas Becket has figured in polls for the best and the worst Britons. Which is it? Judithspencer 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

These polls are a measure of the opinions of the people who can be bothered to vote. They also depend on enough people having heard of the person and having an opinion. Presumably the people who voted him into the "best" category were not the same ones who voted him into the "worst" category. So, how do we measure whether somebody is "good" or "bad", and then, whether they are "good Briton" or a "bad Briton". If the criterion is that it depends on people's opinions, then clearly he fits in both categories. If you think that there is any possible objective measure, then maybe you could suggest what it may be? SaundersW 20:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has a paragraph near the end which explains why one historian selected him as a "worst". FiggyBee 22:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to the question Hero or villain? I'll say it's possible to be both. Although Becket was born in England, he probably saw himself as a Norman rather than a Briton. Apart from that, there's clearly an arguable case for Becket's nomination as 'worst Briton of the 12th century', though it seems to me he'd have a strong field to beat. I suppose most nominations in the 'best Briton' category would be based on his development in the public consciousness since his death, especially in the unlikely role of saint. :Xn4 00:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends on your point of view. As chancellor, he wasn't terribly good (if I remember correctly), as a Christian, he was good, and as a Briton, I don't know. (Read a biography and decide for yourself). · AndonicO ^Talk 01:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It really depends where you are coming from, I suppose. As Xn4 suggests, he might very well be both: a hero for the church and a villain for the state. Henry VIII took the latter view, as one might expect, ordering the destruction of Becket's shrine at Canterbury in 1538. But there were also fellow churchmen who were equally critical of Becket's conduct, including his brother arch-bishop of York. Gilbert Foliot, the Bishop of London, another of Becket's enemies, was even to write after his death, when the cult of the martyr was gathering momentum, "It is difficult for things begun with bad beginnings to be carried through to a good conclusion."

Anyway, I know of the two polls you mention, Judith; the first in the Daily Mail, where he was reckoned to be among history's one hundred greatest Britons, and the second in the BBC History Magazine, where he was runner-up to Jack the Ripper among the ten worst! I find it difficult to determie just exactly who responds to this kind of thing, and if the selections made reflect any real knowledge of the subject. Becket is one of those iconic figures that, I suspect, people feel ought to appear on a list of greats, which I imagine was the basis for his inclusion among the Daily Mail worthies.

In fact Becket, his terrible end notwithstanding, was far from the saintly figure that many people may imagine. His dispute with Henry II was not over any great matter of theology or Christian principle, but about law, about politics and, above all about privilege. Henry wanted priests and clerics to be subject to the general law of England; Becket insisted that they should continue to appear only before church courts, in every way far more lenient than their secular equivalent. Even clerics accused of the very worst crimes, including rape and murder, were merely defrocked. It was an anomaly that Henry wanted to end with the Constitutions of Clarendon. Becket agreed to the changes, but then refused to sign, subsquently taking a path beyond compromise; a political path, and a treasonable path, that even frustrated Pope Alexander III. His cause was certainly damaging for the state; but it was also, according to Folet and others, damaging for the church. Arrogant, proud, high-handed, and vindictive, he seems to have none of the qualities of simplicity and benevolence that make for true saintliness, the hair-shirt and the lice notwithstanding. Best or worst? Well, on that particular question you will just have to make up your own mind! Clio the Muse 01:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

New driving laws

I am interested in finding legislature that will enact laws prohibitting any drivers 16 or under from transporting more than one passenger. Any onfo greatly appreciated. --Jjohn10e 21:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you told us what part of the world you're interested in. FiggyBee 22:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am looking for laws in the U.S.--Jjohn10e 01:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Any particular states? A lot seem to be introducing such limits on drivers under 18. FiggyBee 04:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As the legal driving age in the U.S. is 16, I don't think you'll find many drivers that are under 16 unless they have a hardship license or some such thing. Or they are driving under their learner's permit in which case they are required to have a parent or guardian riding with them at all times. Dismas|^(talk) 05:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why I said under 18. ;) FiggyBee 05:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The legal driving age in the U.S. is not 16. Rather driver's licences are issued by individual states whose age limits range "from 14 years 3 months to 18 years." (from our article [[1]]). Rmhermen 14:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I was adressing the OP. Dismas|^(talk) 08:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The question makes sense. Even though a driver under 16 would presumably have only a learner's permit, which requires him to have a licensed driver in the vehicle, this in itself says nothing about how many other passengers could be transported. Unfortunately, I don't know if any laws have been passed on this issue. I think my home state had a limit on the number, but it wasn't one. GreatManTheory 11:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many laws & proposals in various countries that are designed to reduce the number of accidents younger drivers are involved in and their severity. Generally they apply to age ranges of drivers or are based on how many years they have been driving. Some of them are off the top of my head (by no means exhaustive):-

• Driving Curfews - Studies have shown that driving later at night is associated with higher accident rates
• Limitations on Passengers - Studies have shown that younger drivers drive more recklessly with passengers (especially from their peer group) than when alone. (This and the previous condition are sometimes combined - no passengers after 9pm for instance)
• Power Limitations - Younger drivers may be limited to a certain size of engine or power output or power to weight ratio for their vehicle.
• Size Limitations - They may not be permitted to drive larger heavier vehicles due to the more serious consequences these can cause to other road users in accidents.
• Visible Warnings - They may be required to have plates warning other road users they are recently qualified.
• More Stringent Legal Consequences - They may have less leeway in terms of the number of violations they may accumulate before license suspension/revocation than older/more experienced drivers.
• Stricter Alchohol Limits - They may have a much lower Blood Alcohol limit to discourage drink-driving, or even have an effective "zero limit".

The exact mechanisms will vary depending on the location, age and experience of the driver in quesiton. Exxolon 14:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Our article on Graduated driver licensing should cover this but is only a stub. Rmhermen 14:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't answer about US. But in New Zealand if you have a restricted license you can't drive between 10pm and 5am; you also can't carry any passengers (except for children or a spouse or similar); and if you qualified with an automatic transmission car, you can't drive a manual. However if you have a supervisor (someone with a full license for 2 years or more) who sits in the front passenger seat of the car then you can do all of these (the same as for a learner). To go from a restricted license to a full license you need to pass a more detailed test. You need to have been driving for 18 months if you're under 25 or 6 months if 25 or older before you can take the test. (You can reduce this to 12 months or 3 months respectively if you pass a defensive driving course). Also if your under 20 regardless of what license you hold you have a very low alcohol limit (said to be effectively zero since even one drink will put you over the limit). In Malaysia, for the first 2 years after qualifying, you get a provisional license. This requires you to drive with P identification plates and has more strigent consequences for infrigiments and possibly different alcohol limits but I don't think there are any other requirements. You can automatically apply for a normal/full license after 2 years with no more testing (so it's quite common for people to get a license regardless of whether they're likely to be doing any driving) Nil Einne 22:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Floating a note (singing, not monetary)

Most of my experience with the operatic soprano is through recordings. During the 1970's and 80's I was very interested in technique and beauty. I was told that when I heard a disembodied note sung by Caballé, that she was "floating" the note. Of course, we were listening to two-channel (stereo) recordings. The dimensions were limited to a field spread between the channels with some front to back depth. In the right set-up and cartridge, one might get a feel of space above the head. I was fortunate to hear Dame Joan Sutherland sing "Lucia di Lammermoor" during her final MET engagement. I sat in the orchestra, possibly row M center, and heard a most unusual phenomenon of the vocal art in the "mad scene" when a high note seemed to eminate not from the stage but high up and behind me. This must have been the true "floated" note which is not captured on recordings. How is this note produced? In the Sutherland recording of Turandot with Caballé singing Liu, does Caballé float a note or is it just pianissimo? How many discrete channels would be required to capture this phenomenon in a recording?LShecut2nd 23:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Aren't there any voice coaches or opera singers out there?LShecut2nd 20:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)