Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 November 2

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.

November 2

bairum khan...of iran

GOOD morning sir, myself KADIR KHAN,from mumbai,india First of all i really thank you and wikipedia.org that they provide us with the column that we can ask question to it.

I want information about Bairum khan,who once upon a time a great soldier and commander,in one of the rule of the then king of iran .But i am not getting any information about him.I know only few things that,he was a great commamnder and soldier in army and once he had won a great fight,due to which his king got very happy and he rewarded him to go along with his family and stay in india,on which he came to india and resided in uttar pradesh,india..being i stay in India i cannot go iran and go on for so long search.it will be time consuming for me.also i am busy person with my studies..my parents had once told me this true story.. \ please sir will you help me,by searching this information..i love history.. [contact information removed] THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.140.126 (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a short but decent article about him at Wikipedia, but it appears you just misspelled his name. See Bairam Khan. The article also has lots of references and additional reading, so if you can located those sources you can find more information about him. --Jayron32 04:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I found some information in The Cambridge History of Indua on Google books (I hope you can see it too, as different results are sometimes shown in different countries). You may be able to find a copy of this book in a public library. Alansplodge (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Liliuokalani on film

Was Queen Liliuokalani of Hawaii ever filmed on camera? It wouldn't have been in her reign but she did live till 1917.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Like these? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you mean a moving image? There doesn't seem to be anything online.Alansplodge (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes moving pictures.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

IMDb only credits her for her songs, mostly "Aloha ʻOe" (as opposed to someone like Mark Twain, who has two acting credits). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

One Twain credit seems to be a mistake. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've found a clip of it on youtube but here at 1.57 but does anyone know about the moment these two clips were taken and who she was with.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerical dress question

I was watching the old ATV adaptation of the Father Brown stories the other night. Kenneth More as Father Brown dresses always in some kind of cassock, with a sort of very short cape which only reaches to the elbows (picture). Can anyone tell me the name for this kind of garment? Marnanel (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be a mozzetta. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I quote from the Mozzetta article: "A shoulder cape, elbow-length like the mozzetta but open in front, is sometimes worn with the cassock, either fixed to it or detachable. It is known as a pellegrina. It differs from the mozzetta also in not being associated with a cotta, surplice or rochet". Alansplodge (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How many Hail Mary's must I say? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I only got there by following your link. I can do traditional Anglican kit, but Catholics have a whole lot more in their wardrobe, and Italian styling too! Alansplodge (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ulster Resistance

What was the point of the Ulster Resistance thing? Why did someone feel that yet another loyalist paramilitary was needed instead of just, say, strengthen the UDA? I heard Ian Paisley supported the movement at first but when he "realized" it was violent in nature he retracted his support. Our article about them doesn't say much. --Belchman (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the need for any new "splinter group". Obviously, the people who formed the Ulster Resistance opposed some fundemental philosophy in the UDA. This isn't a novel event, in many paramilitary groups this sort of thing happens all the time. You'll also note that besides the Ulster Resistance and UDA, there is also the Ulster Volunteer Force and the whole bunch listed at Ulster loyalism. See List of organisations known as the Irish Republican Army for a list of similar splinter groups. --Jayron32 13:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ulster Resistance came about in the wake of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It was an umbrella organisation comprising many leading Unionist politicians and religious leaders. The UDA was already an unwieldy, cumbersome organisation, with its many brigades. It often carried out bloody feuds with the UVF. Ulster Resistance served to bring in all loyalist groups and leaders.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

So it wasn't really a paramilitary organization —at first—, but a loyalist umbrella group to plan the loyalists' reaction to the Anglo-Irish Agreement (more or less), right? --Belchman (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a paramilitary organisation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

From the very beginning? Ian Paisley says he didn't know that —which is kind of difficult to believe, but whatever—. --Belchman (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This article from the Belfast Telegraph may be of interest to you: "A Spectre From the Past Back to Haunt Peace". Belfast Telegragh--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Grim, indeed. --Belchman (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Pythons gave us some hilarious satire on splinter groups (socialist groups, to be fair). See Monty_Python's_Life_of_Brian#Political_satire. --Rixxin (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary autodidacts

Please name some contemporary autodidacts such as Eliezer Yudkowsky. --Toiuyty (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Most people are somehow autodidacts nowadays, but you seem to be searching for someone without formal education and with a successful career. 88.9.210.218 (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --Toiuyty (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe you want to know about school drop-outs who became successful? It's not rare to find self-made men in some fields like business. Many people like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs apparently didn't get any business formal education and only a little college exposure. 88.9.210.218 (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Though being a drop-out is pretty different from being an autodidact. Getting into the position to become a drop-out usually requires substantial formal learning, and exposure to college can be as valuable as the actual education. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The other major problem is that most modern developed societies have full compulsory education though someone's late teens, and most of those also offer free post-secondary education for people who show the right apptitude for it, making it rare for a person who was raised in a developed nation to have avoided exposure to some level of advanced education. Presupposing the objections to this analysis, I will remind all people that the word "rare" is not a synonym for impossible, so I expect it does happen, just not as commonly as it used to. The OP can likely find people they are looking for at the article List of autodidacts. --Jayron32 16:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a difficult thing to find out about, because in the modern age (where policitians are castigated if they don't put on a show of providing education for all) it's quite easy to be handed a structured education, whether at school or at university, even if you actually found the structure useless and took the initiative. (I see Jayron has just said much the same thing.) Searching for "did poorly at school", I came up with Jack Russell Weinstein, who "was able to pursue his long-held interests in reading, writing, and learning in the free university environment". I also found Arran Fernandez, who is extraordinarily precocious and passed a mathematics exam at age five. Does he structure his education himself? I'm not sure how to determine that.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

N.K.B.

Old New York Times Book Reviews are sometimes signed "N.K.B", such as this review from 1947. What is the full name of this reviewer? Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Nash K. Burger, one of the editors of The New York Times Book Review. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Viriditas (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"Phaedon" in Moby Dick

In chapter 35 of Moby Dick, Melville writes:

And let me in this place movingly admonish you, ye shipowners of Nantucket! Beware of enlisting in your vigilant fisheries any lad with lean brow and hollow eye; given to unseasonable meditativeness; and who offers to ship with Phaedon instead of Bowditch in his head.

I know that Bowditch is the famous navigator, but who is Phaedon? Wikipedia finds several people with that name, none of whom seem to make sense here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.112 (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This essay on the relationship between Herman Melville's writing and the US Civil War says: "Ishmael's deft contrast between Phaedo, Plato's great dialogue on the immortality of the soul, and Nathaniel Bowditch's New American Practical Navigator (1802) is but one indication of Melville's juxtaposition of the philosophical problem of the nature of the soul, with all its attendant implications for the best political regime, and the utterly practical problem of how to find one's way on the vast expanses of the ocean and thus to safety at last by returning to the shelter of political society." (p.202 - 203 or 11/104) I'm not much wiser after that, but at least we know who Phaedon is. Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it isn't an alternative or misspelling of Phaeton, the reckless driver of Apollo's chariot (and not somebody you'd want at the head of your boat). Probably not, though, given the above. The more I read it, the more I think it's basically saying, "don't trust your boats to someone who reads philosophy rather than practical boatsmanship." Which seems like good advice... --Mr.98 (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely (your first thought, that is), because the same passage continues: ""Beware of such an one, I say: your whales must be seen before they can be killed; and this sunken-eyed young Platonist will tow you ten wakes round the world, and never make you one pint of sperm the richer" (my emboldening). This confirms his reference to Plato. Now, I'm sure an otherwise respectable editor is at this very instant itching to make a gag about the "pint of sperm", so I'll yield to the inevitable. Alansplodge (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. (Coincidentally, I've been reading Moby Dick myself lately, though I haven't gotten quite that far. It's really a marvelous book. I had been put off by its "mandatory reading" status, but it's far more entertaining, funny, and cleverly written than I had expected.) --Mr.98 (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Alansplodge, you've hit the nail squarely on the head. Bowditch refers to Nathaniel Bowditch's The American Practical Navigator. An updated version is still published by the DMA's Hydrographic/Topographic Center, and it remains a well known book among modern sailors who refer to it simply as "Bowditch" or as "Publication Number 9". (As I type this, both volumes are within arms reach on the port bookcase.) Likewise, Phaedon refers to Plato's dialog Phaedo (Greek: Φαίδων, Phaidon), named after Phaedo of Elis. Thus the line from Moby Dick is telling ship owners to sign on sailors who have studied the practical arts of sailing and navigation, not those contemplative souls who have studied philosophy (just as Mr. 98 wrote). -- ToE^T 00:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Melville places a lot of imagery into Moby Dick which exemplifies the painting of School of Athens by Raphael. You will notice that the Ishmael character goes to great length discussing the practical reality of whaling. There are several chapters, a little fantastic, which describe this. We learn that whales use their tails to feel out the bottom of the sea according to Ishmael. Also, sailors are paid according to their ability with a cannibal receiving one of the larger shares due to his immense skill as a harpooner. These descriptions are to be contrasted with Ahab's description of the Great Whale: a supernatural force of evil and the social and racial inequalities of the time. The chapter in question deals a lot with the superstition of the masthead. When we read this book, many years ago, we memorized four poems and recited them as class opened: Sea Fever by John Masefield[1], The World Is Too Much with Us by William Wordsworth, Once by the Pacific by Robert Frost[2], and excerpts of the The Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Besides overwhelming students with literature, the point was to show the students that the myths that we placed on the sea drew a contrast to the practical. The contrast of Plato pointing up and Aristotle with his hand outstretched over the ground is played out in Moby Dick and in the poems mentioned. In the context of the times, America was in the midst of the industrial revolution; its effect was decried in the Wordsworth poem in the English context. Melville presents us with both views in The School of Athens which exemplified the philosophical challenges in a world he found was rapidly becoming modern. There are other deep contrasts in the book: a golden doubloon embedded in the mast represents the practical implications of finding Moby Dick and material rather than a spiritual reward. In contrast, the coin contains astrological symbols representing fate, the supernatural, and the power beyond the physical realm. The coin's symbols are similar to Queequeg's tattoos. (yar, here be spoilers!) He later inscribes these on his coffin when he believes he is fated to die (showing a connection between finding the whale and his death all part of the ship’s fate). That coffin then serves a practical use in storing his belongings and saving a life. The particular passage in question in chapter 35 is yet another example of the character of Ishmael, representing the modern practical sailor of Aristotle, contrasting the superstitious, romantic, and Platonic sailor who reads much more into a wooden carving. Hopefully, that should be a sufficient star to steer her by for our inquirer to write a paper. Gx872op (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The inherent bias of public opinions

Hello,

I'm am writing an essay about my skepticism about the notion that ideology was the main reason behind the conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War, as it is generally (and nearly universally) assumed by the historiographic scholarship of the era. I'm mostly having an issue with John Lewis Gaddis' work, who purports that the legitimacy of the Soviet memos that he had access to is irrefutable proof that 1) the Soviet leadership strongly believed in communism, and 2) since strong belief in something leads to proselytizing, imperialism was unexpected. (however Gaddis also notes that the U.S wasn't really a Saint, either; but that's beyond the point)

However, how does one know that what the Soviet leadership wrote was sincere? It's frigging words. They're dead, and even if they weren't, they could still be lying. That's like when politicians claim that they are very saddened by events; how does one know that they are actually disturbed, and not playing a game due to peer pressure? Further, assuming that the politicians know that some day it is highly likely that what they're writing will be unveiled to the public, they're probably taking extra care for the sake of their historical posterity. let's say that Khrushchev wrote in a memo "America must be destroyed. The Motherland is awesome". How does one know that Mr. Khrushchev was not playing ta game for the sake of power (i.e. for the chicks) and not a closeted liberal? Has there been any scholarship done on such a subject? Like, I don't know, the bias of historical documents. 184.163.160.61 (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your premise that nearly all scholarship of the era claims that ideology was the main reason behind the conflict. In fact I don't think I have never run into any scholarship that claimed ideology was the main reason for the conflict. Neither of the current main works of the history of the 20th century, like Tony Judts Postwar, Mark Mazowers Dark Continent or Eric Hobsbawms Age of Extremes, claim that ideology is the main reason. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

On your general point, there is definitely a line of criticism that suggests that the obsession with archival findings (as opposed to intangibles) is a basic part of historical methodology. In the end there is an insurmountable gulf when one discusses the internal states of human beings. We do our best to navigate around it — any such approaches must be theories at best. The question is whether the theory matches up with the indisputable things. It would be a fair criticism to say that Gaddis uses official documents to derive internal states of being, and this is no doubt as false as doing so today would with regards to official press statements. By itself that's not enough, though — you'd want to push the alternative as well and show how it could be acceptable given said documents.

As for historiography, Gaddis is something of a revisionist, so attributing the majority point of view to him is wrong. Gaddis pushes ideology in particular as a way to revise the pre-1990s view of the Cold War as just realpolitik. Gaddis is saying, no, ideology was important too. Whether one agrees or disagrees with that, it's important to situate Gaddis correctly. He is important and a major figure, but he's not what I would call representative of the general historiography of the Cold War. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose one could try to understand what people really believed by looking at their non-public works, such as their diaries or personal letters. Granted, no one among the Soviet nomenklatura was going to leave a diary saying "I hate Stalin" around or something. The KGB didn't ask for search warrants. But I did see an interview with Khrushchev's son Sergei in which he says his father really believed in communism, and I see no reason not to believe him. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In the end it's a judgment call. Part of what it means to be a real historian is to learn enough of the facts and context to be able to interpret actions, letters, utterances, etc. A huge amount of historical practice is judging which sources are the most reliable, and making sense of the genuinely contradictory nature of real-life human beings. There is always some unknown there. I'm glad for it — it makes being an historian interesting, and it means there are always a lot of new things to be found, interpreted, understood. History has always straddled the boundary between the social sciences and the humanities; I lean towards the humanities personally, recognizing that there is a great deal of art to it. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You could look for Western appreciations of Soviet theory of international politics from the era; but, you'd be arguing that Soviet theory actually influenced practice. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your skepticism in believing the words of politicians. I would judge them by their actions, not their words. Did these "communists" actually work for the equality of all or just use that as a pretext to accumulate riches and power unto themselves ? StuRat (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Eeesh, this could lead to some rather conflicted results. While Soviet policy within its current sphere of influence was defined by obvious and immediate support for bastards in almost all instances (Kadar at the head of an "anti-party bloc" over Nagy at the head of a bunch of reformists with broad worker's councils support for example; for the counter, consider the removal of Rakosi); in the case of Soviet support for agents outside the Soviet sphere of influence, for example with the Vietnamese Workers' Party this is less clear, as it is only possible to untangle the revolutionary current from the nomenklatura current in the mid 1970s. An equivalent analysis of the United States would leave us with a similarly schizoid power that acts with apparent altruism at times (Suez), merely lobbies for its ridiculous policies in some allies' public sphere (Encounter Quadrant), but in other cases engages in acts of mass barbarity for the most trivial reasons only rivalled by the other great powers' own trivial mass barbarity of the day. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Im confused by one thing - why do you say imperialism was unexpected? Is this confusing ideology with idealism, or have I missed something? It is possible to believe in communism as a system, but not be sincerely egalitarian, or share too much common ground with Marx. It's been emotional (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible to really believe that true communism can work, yet still only give it lip service as a means to establish yourself as an absolute dictator. This would seem more likely early on, before the shortcomings of communism became apparent. Later communist leaders must have been fully aware that true communism would never work, yet still used it as a means of controlling the masses. Then there's the case of the leader who is a true believer at first, but, once they figure out it will never work, then decide to use it for their own purposes, instead of to benefit their people. StuRat (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Small c-Conservative and large c conservative

What is the difference between small-c conservative and large-c conservative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.151 (talk • contribs)

It depends on your political context (politics is relative to the political system you are working in). I see from your IP address that you appear to be editing from Canada, I apologize in advance if you are not, but I will make my answer based on that assumption. In that case, the difference is likely between people who self-identify as "political conservatives" (see Conservatism) and people who are members of, and/or self-identify with the Conservative Party of Canada. A small-c conservative would be someone who supports political conservatism as a concept, but does not belong to or support the Conservative Party of Canada. A large-c Conservative would be a person who was a member/direct supporter of the Conservative Party of Canada. The difference would be between a person holding a particular ideology and belonging to a specific political party. Usually, someone who specifically calls themselves a "small-c conservative" is saying they adhere to the ideology of conservatism, but for whatever reason are distancing themselves from the Conservative Party. --Jayron32 19:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, see Small-c conservative. --Jayron32 19:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard Armour once defined "conservative" as "a man who saves his money (even before women and children)." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Red grit and blue grit

Is there such thing as red grit and blue grit in Canadian politics? what about blue tory and red tory?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.151 (talk • contribs)

See Blue Tory and Red Tory for the different strains of Conservatism in Canada. There are no "Blue Grits" and "Red Grits" because the Liberal Party of Canada has not had the same sort of shake-up and division that the Tories have had. The distinction between the reds and the blues among Canadian Tories has to do with the way in which divisions arose within the Conservative Party (or parties, there have been several splits and mergers over history) over fundemental ideology. It appears that the distinction came about in the 1960s, per info in some of these articles. --Jayron32 19:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The term "Blue Liberals" has sometimes been used to describe centrist members of the Liberal Party. For those unfamiliar with the topic, members of the Canadian Liberal Party are knowns as "grits" for some reason. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes wondered about that. It seems the name came from a predecessor of the Liberal Party, the Clear Grits. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

See Blue Grit Topher67 (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

England political conservative and liberal areas

Which parts of England are conservative due to history of Conservative Party traditional strongholds and which parts of England are liberal due to history of Labour Party traditional stronghold?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.151 (talk • contribs)

You can find a map of the most recent election by constituency at United Kingdom general election, 2010 and you can also work backwards to previous elections using the navigation tools at the top of the infobox in that article for similar maps. Going just by the 2010 election, the three main parties appear to be arranged on a rural/urban distinction: Labour won most of the seats in urban districts (the red bits on the map are concentrated near the largest urban areas like London, Merseyside, Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, the Edinburgh/Glasgow axis in Scotland, South Wales which has many of the urban areas in Wales) while the Conservatives seem concentrated away from those urban centers. The Liberal Democrats seemed to take sizable numbers of seats in the Scottish highlands, in the Southwest, and in Central Wales. The balance of the seats seems to mostly consist of the Nationalist parties like the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, various Irish national parties in N. Ireland, etc. There are also a few random seats from various minor parties. --Jayron32 20:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Do note that the Labour Party are historically socialist, rather than liberal. You may be thinking of the Liberal Party or the Liberal Democrats. Or you may have confused liberalism with the left wing. Marnanel (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

To add to the above, generally it's the industrial or formerly-industrial areas like Merseyside, Tyneside, and parts of the Midlands and Yorkshire that were traditionally liberal or left-wing. In the 19th century, Whigs and Liberals were associated with Manchester and Liverpool, the West Midlands, and other areas of early industrialisation; the newly wealthy industrialists were in conflict with the Tories who got their wealth from land rather than manufacture, and who had their power base in the more rural areas and the south-east. The strong working-class culture of trades-unionism, particularly in mining and heavy industries like steel and ship-building, had close links to the Labour party; these were generally based in the north and midlands (where there was coal, water, iron ore, etc). London has traditionally been more mixed, with lots of wealth, but also poverty, immigrants, and some industry. The countryside and farmers in particular have always been Conservative supporters (for various, not always obvious, reasons). The south-west (Cornwall and Devon) has a strong history of Liberalism rather than socialism through the 20th century, often returning Liberal and Liberal Democrat MPs; I'm not so sure why this is, but it probably reflects an independence of spirit and localism. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Independence of spirit and localism yes, but also chapel: church is Tory ("The Church of England is the Tory party at prayer"), chapel is Liberal. DuncanHill (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not so much now - more the bane of the Conservative Party. The Dean of St Paul's Cathedral invited anti-capitalist protesters to camp out in the forecourt[3] and the Archbishop of Canterbury (who was once arrested at a US airbase on a CND protest) said this week that bankers should be taxed more[4]. Then there was the Faith in the City thing in the 1980s that riled Mrs Thatcher so. Alansplodge (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe anything about the Labour party being particularly liberal. Bunch of statist control freaks is the description you're looking for.

ALR (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on your soapboxing, but the person asking the question is from Canada, where "liberal" can mean "left of center," as opposed to "libertarian." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Liberalism and Libertarianism are themselves quite different, although there is a more Libertarian wing within the Liberal Democrat Party, as there is in the Conservative Party. Equally neither of those would compare to the flavour of libertarianism in North America.

There is a very small liberal wing within the Labour Party, although predominantly present in the Co-Operative Party element there. They've certainly not been particularly prominent in the last 13 years.

ALR (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The debate on the political complexion of Labor generally accepts that Labour has always been multifaceted. Why the ILP ran a strong socialist line in early labour, the majority of labour were lib-labs with a liberal or at best "Labourite" mentality of social progress. The role of nationalisation and universal welfare in labour were hotly contested, especially from working class areas satisfied with working men's welfare. The emergence of a concept of labour as nationalisation and universal welfare came relatively late in British Labour due to a strong lib-lab influence, and due to confusion over whether nationalisation actually meant socialism (a thing many labourites opposed). So while it is more than a little silly to call Labour voters in the UK "Liberal" from a US perspective, when "Labourite" represents a long running ideology of social welfare in British society and is the term of art often used in political analysis of the Anglophone labour parties... the UK Liberal mentality had a long standing influence on Labour through the lib-labs. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Which cities of England liberal and conservative?

Which cities of England are liberal and which cities of England are conservative?

Your use of these terms in opposition suggests that you are from the U.S., where these terms refer roughly to "left-wing" and "right-wing" respectively. From a U.S. perspective, all but a tiny handful of Britons would be considered "liberal", so your question doesn't have much meaning. All English cities are liberal from a U.S. perspective. Marco polo (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

right wing and left wing france

Which part of France has been traditionally left wing stronghold (e.g. Socialist Party) and which part of France has been traditionally right wing stronghold (e.g. UMP, and its predecessors)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.151 (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The maps in the article French presidential election, 2007 should give you an idea. Also in the French wiki article there are some maps and a table "Analyse socioprofessionnelle" at the bottom of how different employment groups voted. Sussexonian (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In recent years the east and north have voted conservative, while the more rural south and west are more left-wing.[5][6] However, 30 years ago things were a bit different with the industrial north-east and the area around Marseille (traditionally popular with immigrants and full of shipworkers) left-wing or even communist.[7][8] Lately Marseille seems to have gone more towards the National Front. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Several of the Département d'outre-mer are traditional communist strongholds, such as Reunion, Martinique and Guadeloupe. Also, there are several municipalities in the north and north-east of the Paris region, that are communist strongholds, were you find schools and streets named after Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Marx, etc.. --Soman (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

French cities liberal and conservative

Which cities of France are liberal and which cities of France are conservative?

Your use of these terms in opposition suggests that you are from the U.S., where these terms refer roughly to "left-wing" and "right-wing" respectively. From a U.S. perspective, all but a tiny handful of Europeans would be considered "liberal", so your question doesn't have much meaning. All French cities are liberal from a U.S. perspective. Marco polo (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

How can I go about researching the Hobby Horse for an article I need to write on wikipedia for class?

Besides utilizing my school library and google, where else is good to look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MYoung1030 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look at our Hobby horse (disambiguation) page and let us know what sort of hobby horse you would like to know about. Alansplodge (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you mean hobby horse, we already have an article on that. If you want to add to it, perhaps you could call toy stores and antiques dealers and see if any of them have one you can take a picture of, and then upload that picture to Wikipedia (which would require scanning, if it's a film picture). StuRat (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Leaving the euro

I'm seeing articles that Greece could leave the euro.[9] (Also mentioned at Greek_financial_crisis#Objections_to_proposed_policies) Question is... how does that work in practice? It seems to me that anyone in Greece, knowing the local currency would be destined to lose most of its value, would stick to using euros at all costs. So how do they switch? Wnt (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Whooo-hoo! Greece goes back on the dollar? Yeah! Helen never looked so good. USA! Dualus (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Helen was said to have weighed in the neighborhood of 200 pounds. However, that was Troy weight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe they would let people a chance to keep using the euro. They would declare a bank holiday and force convert all assets. Or simply introduce the new currency and start paying all civil servants in it. 88.9.210.218 (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean that right now Greeks are frantically moving their assets to offshore accounts? Wnt (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

[10] it has been happening for a long time, it's not like this is the first time the possibility of Greece leaving the Euro has been suggested. Edit: Rereading the article more carefully it highlights another issue, the Eurozone problems and the risk to Eurozone banks, even without considering Greece leaving, are itself a reason for some to get out. Nil Einne (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The new currency would only lose value if they print too much of it. Given the lack of discipline that led to the crisis in the first place, that's not unlikely, but there is nothing that forces it to happen. Looie496 (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Currency doesn't only lose value by printing too much of it. The new currency would lose value depending on the expectations regarding the Greek economy. And I'm pretty sure that they are bad. 88.9.210.218 (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed given their current situation it's difficult to imagine what's the point of (or how it would happen that) Greece leaving the Euro if it's going to remain the same value as the Euro. Nil Einne (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that leaving the Euro would be a disaster for Greece. If they pay their civil servants in drachmas, with little value (since they could not be backed by anything and people would have no faith in them), and everyone else continues to use Euros (either legally or on a black market, if made illegal), then civil servants would be paid less than everybody else and would eventually all quit. A similar situation exists in Cuba, where waiters who get tips in dollars do far better than doctors who are paid by the government. StuRat (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before, e.g. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 19#The Euro, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 June 21#Weak countries leaving the Euro - could it work at all?, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 September 7#Euro and the debt of others. As mentioned there, Argentine economic crisis (1999-2002)#End of convertibility perhaps has some lessons here. Nil Einne (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Another good historical example from S. America was Plano Real, the Brazilian plan to revamp its currency. Brazil's problem wasn't sovereign debt so much as inflation, but it does present a model of sorts for shutting down one currency and establishing a new one. --Jayron32 05:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I guess I should have looked! [11] was quite informative, for example. Wnt (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wnt -- The "local currency [being] destined to lose most of its value" would be a bad thing for some people, but probably would be an overall good thing for the Greek economy as a whole, according to many economists. Right now, all the EU has to offer to Greece is perpetual austerity with no end in sight. Keeping Greece in the Eurozone requires continual bailouts and infusions of new money, but these expensive bailouts do almost nothing to improve the situation of ordinary people in Greece. By contrast, if Greece had a separate currency, it could take a short-term dose of bitter medicine, and then hopefully be in a position to start a good long-term recovery (as has happened to many nations in the past, including Argentina etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In other words: all bank savings of the Greek people would become virtually worthless as they would be exchanged into the new Drachma, which would lose its value extremely quickly. Better withdraw every single euro before that happens and hide under the mattress (no Greek bank will be able to survive that). The same would happen to the salaries (of the people who still have a job); they would be paid in the new Drachma and as the hypothetical new currency is meant to be devalued on purpose the monthly salary may just become sufficient to by a loaf of bread. I believe that rampant inflation also hurts the economy. But yes, the Greek economy would survive. I'm not so sure about Greek democracy though. Flamarande (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Economics not being my strong suit, can anyone point me to a brief account in plain English of why Greece went down the tubes in the first place? From a reliable source, of course. Textorus (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Never mind, I found one on the Greek_financial_crisis page. Textorus (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A nice summary from the BBC: [12] Flamarande (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps too. Textorus (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I've commented on this kind of question before, but there are ways to control this process. If the process of imposing a new currency is not well-controlled, then you could have bank failures, a public repudiation of the new currency, hoarding, and other chaotic and harmful results. If the exit from the euro is forced and a plan is not in place, then various kinds of unpredictable chaos could result. However, one hopes that Greece's government is competent enough to have a backup plan, which would look something like this: 1) A bank holiday is declared without warning for the conversion to be put in place. Conversion could involve a temporary measure such as stamping euro notes while a replacement currency is printed and distributed. Internal debts and deposit accounts would be redenominated in the replacement currency at a 1:1 or some other rate of conversion. Of course, whatever the official conversion rate for depositors and creditors, the new currency will have a lower market value. 2) The Greek government declares a moratorium on debt service, with terms for creditors to be negotiated. 3) As needed, failing Greek banks are nationalized. 4) As soon as possible, banks are reopened, and depositors are allowed to withdraw a limited amount of funds per day in the new currency. 5) Conversion controls will be put in place limiting the amount of local currency that any individual may convert into euros currency. At first, the limit may be zero. 6) As the situation stabilizes, some controls may be lifted. The results of this process would include the following: People with savings inside Greece would find that they are worth much less. Imports would become dramatically more expensive, while Greek products would drop sharply in price outside of Greece. The result would be a sharp spur to the local economy, although wages and pensions would buy less than before. Greeks would buy local goods instead of imports wherever possible, imports would become unaffordable to many Greeks, Greek exports would jump, and Greece would become the new bargain tourism destination. Outside of Greece, the results would be less predictable. Initially, foreign banks would suffer, but few or none would fail because most have already written off much of their Greek assets. However, a Greek default and exit from the euro could destroy any remaining confidence in Spanish and Italian debt, and that could lead to bank runs and bank failures throughout Europe. It is almost impossible to predict how that process would play out. Marco polo (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a relevant paper Checking Out: Exits from Currency Unions. I agree with AnonMoos & Marco Polo. The problem is that the Euro is an unworkable design, at least if the ECB keeps to its basic mission. Monetary union without fiscal union is impossible in the long run. It can only go on a long time because of the wealth of Europe. The Euro forces mass unemployment on the Euro nations and is bound to suffer an endless series of bailouts and eventually fail. Judging its by its fruits, the aim & consequence will be impoverishment of enormous numbers of Europeans & enrichment of its banks, and even more, its bankers. Returning to a new Drachma would have initial costs, specifically making essential imports unaffordable, but its foreign exchange value would be anchored by the value of Greek exports, including tourism. Staying on the Euro has enormous costs, and is a disaster for Greece already.John Z (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Letter bomb attacks against Alois Brunner

I'd like to know more details about the letter bomb attacks against Alois Brunner. Was the intention of the Mossad to kill or just to mane him? How could he fall into the same plot twice? Couldn't the Mossad have killed him instead of sending letter bombs? 88.9.210.218 (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The only way to know the intentions of a militarised government agency is to either accept the rare public announcements regarding that agency's intentions, or to wait until the archives are released and historians analyse them. As with the great Soviet history debacle, where "pre-archival" and "archival" work often have substantively different conclusions due to the suspect methods of anti-communist Sovietologists; I'd suggest that even "expert" speculation by academics regarding Mossad's intentions will be far less trustworthy than the results of research after the Mossad archives open. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what that means -- When Soviet archives were made partially available in the 1990s, it threw new light on many things, including Soviet spying in the U.S., and even verified many of the claims of Elizabeth Bentley (who had been considered by many to be a hysterical liar). AnonMoos (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept that in areas other than the ones I read, that new light was thrown on different phenomena. In the areas I read, mainly Soviet society, the hystericism of the 1950s and 1960s sovietology in the US wasn't borne out. Rather, the non-Americans, the non-sovietologists, the historians and sociologists generally had their depiction of soviet society confirmed. Fitzpatrick on administrative structures and advancement, for example, did much better than the various hermeneutics of dispatches. (What's even sadder is that it wasn't hard to correctly read data coming of central and eastern europe correctly, and the CIA readers got it right, and quite often published most of it.) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My Auntie Maim wants to know, does he have that ghastly a mullet? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

But, how can we know at all that it was the Mossad then? Couldn't it be any other Jewish/Polish/Dutch/Dane/whatever-Nazi-victims group? 88.9.210.218 (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Our article is reliant on Alois Brunner : La Haine Irreductible by Didier Epelbaum, January 1990; who seems to publish scholarship, but I'm not very good at the French system. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)