Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 1

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

August 1

Type C Personality

What is it? - Pharrar 07:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't seem to have an article on it, but googling "Type C personality" turns up a lot of information. 152.16.59.190 08:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We have the start of something now!. Well done!--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the text that was added to Type A personality as being a copyvio from http://mindpub.com/art558.htm.  --Lambiam 15:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia

How large is wikipedia? - Pharrar 10:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia.martianlostinspace 11:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The article does not say how manmy times larger than Encyclopaedia Britannica it is. 80.0.96.70 11:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh no... to compare Wikipedia to encyclopedia only to Encyclopedia Britannica would be well below our standards! Wikipedia:Size_comparisons#Comparison_of_encyclopedias. martianlostinspace 12:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. much better to ask, if Wikipedia were printed on rolls of toilet paper, how many times would it stretch to the moon and back? --Wetman 14:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The answer might depend on whether or not it's been used --JAXHERE | ^Talk 15:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this [1] shows half a billion words in the English wikipedia alone, last year. If you assume a rate of 50 words per side, then 100 words double sided. That comprises the grand total of ten million squares.martianlostinspace 16:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

But wait - here [2], there is apparently 264 squares per roll. I think that comprises about 40,000 rolls. Perhaps beyond the scope of the question, though!martianlostinspace 16:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Greatest discussion of Wikipedia ever. :)Zidel333 15:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If all the above calculations are correct (I’ll take your word for it!) than Wikipedia printed on toilet paper would only stretch approx. 666.666 miles. (spooky!) I’m assuming that one sheet of toilet paper in 4 in. long, and I’m using NASA's estimate of the distance to the moon (240,000-miles[3]). That’s only 0.28% of the distance to the moon. Anybody want to check my math for me? I’m not a math whiz. We should add this to the Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia article though! --S.dedalus 23:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we could perhaps add some info from this thread to possibly one of the above links on the size - yes, I know we have gone rather beyond the question and articles relating to wikipedia's size obviously use "conventional methods" like words and number of articles, but some humo(u)r is unlikely to do too much harm :-) martianlostinspace ^{email me} 10:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Laval the scapegoat

Was Pierre Laval made to carry the burden of Vichy? Decline and fall 12:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is setting you these questions? Unless Laval was an automaton, or some kind of cyborg, the answer is going to be no, which makes for a very short essay. See Meaning of life, which will make for a very long essay. --Dweller 12:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I need this information for background research. Thank you. Decline and fall 12:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are going to credit all the good people that have helped you as your research team. These sound like a series of homework questions. Lanfear's Bane

Decline, I do apologise for being so blunt, but the question is quite definitely an essay question - it is not the grounds for background research. If it were answered, that would amount to your homework being done for you, and a teacher may get suspicious that it sounds like a PhD History thesis. If you would be more accurate in your question, perhaps we could help you with your background research.martianlostinspace 13:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, martian, I will do my best not to sound too much like a dissertation! I have a distinct sensation of deja vu here, because I think I may have answered this question, or a very similar one, last month. Here is what I said;

Poor Pierre Laval, most definitely the 'man you love to hate.' Even Marshal Petain, head of the Vichy state, said of him Ce Laval-quel fumier! (What horse shit). In a poll carried out Novelle Litterairies in 1980 on the fairness of his post-war trial, only 2% of the respondents said that he should have been acquitted. Indeed, Laval has become the ultimate scapegoat, the French Judas. There are still those who would excuse Petain, believing he acted for noble if misguided motives. Nobody defends or excuses Laval, who is held to represent the 'unacceptable face' of Vichy. Even his appearance was against him; he seems the very quintessence of the shifty and disreputable politician. He was the ultimate wheeler-dealer, reflected even in his nickname, the 'horse trader.'

What defence can be made? Very little, I suppose, but I will try my best. First and foremost, he set out to preserve his country, not to betray it. He was never in that sense a Quisling, and senior French fascists were kept out of the Vichy administration. His task, as he saw it, was to continue the work of Aristide Briand in ending the emnity between France and Germany. But whereas Briand had Gustav Streseman, Laval had Hitler. He was also mindful of the fate of Poland under the Nazis, and saw active collaboration as a way of preventing a similar fate befalling France, thus ensuring that the country would have a role to play in the post-war settlement. He did not 'believe' in a German victory; but he did expect it. His chief aim was to conclude a treaty that would end the occupation, bring French prisoners of war home, and secure France's overseas empire. His chief failure was that he never really understood that the Germans were not at all intrested in maintaining a 'reasonable relationship', only in securing French support in advancing their war aims. Even his scheme to bring the prisoners of war home in return for sending French workers to Germany produced little in the way of practical returns, France giving far more than it received. He did his best to save the French Jews from deportation, but only at the sacrifice of those not of French nationality, which had the effect of turning his horse-trading into the grossest forms of moral turpitude.

He may indeed have been right, that things would have been worse without him, a defence that he made at his 'trial' in 1945. To the very end he preserved the semblance of an independent French state, and kept his long-standing promise that he would never consent to a declaration of war. The problem was that he simply lost all sight of the big picture, and that the collaboration which he believed would save France forced him into ever decreasing circle of compromise and betrayal. A more prudent politician would have said much and given little. Laval said much and gave even more. Clio the Muse 02:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To the above I will add one point. Was he a scapegoat? Possibly; but no politician was ever better placed to take on such a fate. Clio the Muse 01:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

More on Vichy

Who were Herold Paquel, Robert Brasilach, Joseph Juanovici, and Alphonse de Châteaubriant? Also can anyone recommend any good films or novels that would cover the Vichy period? Decline and fall 12:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tell us the source of your list, because we can tell that it is a pre-existing list and know that you have a source for these names. --Wetman 14:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, more on Vichy, my favourite state in all of history! Sorry, I'm being facile. Here is the information that you are looking for.

Jean Hérold, also known as Jean Hérold-Paquis or Paqui, was a French journalist who fought for the Nationalists during the Spanish Civil War. In 1940 he was appointed as Delegate for Propaganda in the Hautes-Alpes department by the Vichy authorities. From 1942 he broadcast daily news reports on Radio Paris. He was a member of the Parti Populaire Français, better known as the P.P.F., one of the two main Fascist parties under the Occupation. After the Liberation he fled to Germany and then Switzerland. In 1945 he was handed over to the French, and subsequently excuted for treason.

Robert Brasillach, also a journalist, was a follower of Charles Maurras, and a regular contributer to his newspaper, l'Action française. In 1938 he was appointed editor of Je suis partout. He was captured in 1944 in the wake of the Liberation, and shot as a traitor in February 1945.

Joseph Juanovici was a Romanian Jew who settled in France in 1925, where he founded a scrap-metal firm. During the Occupation he transferred ownership of the business, but remained in control, supplying metal to the Germans. His whole conduct during the Occupation was highly dubious, a man who was on all sides and none. He survived deportation by obtaining false papers, disguising his Jewish origins. His dealings with the Germans, both officially and unofficially, were highly profitable, and he later confessed to having made 25 million francs. He was also a member of the Bonny-Laffout police group, working for the Germans. At one and the same time he was involved with the Resistance, hiding Jews, and rescuing Allied airmen. At the end of the war he was prosecuted for profiteering, as well as tax evasion. In 1949 a French court sentenced him to five years imprisonment. He was released after two years but placed under house arrest in Mende, from where he escaped to Israel. In 1957 the French began proceedings against him for tax fraud, and he was expelled from Israel. In France he was imprisoned for other financial irregularities. He died in 1965.

Alphonse de Chateaubriant was a writer who won the Prix Goncourt in 1911 for his novel Monsieur de Lourdines. After a visit to Germany in 1935 he became an enthusiastic advocate for National Socialism. He was a member of the central committee of the Légion des Volontaires Français contre le Bolchévisme, an organisation founded in 1941 by Ferdinand de Brinon and Jacques Doriot to recruit volunteers to fight alongside the Germans in Russia. In 1945 he fled to Germany, dying in the Austrian Tyrol.

I can not think of many novels with a Vichy theme. You might try Castle to Castle by Celine, though. As for film I would recommend La Guerre d'un Seul Homme, a superb 'documentary fiction' constructed on the basis of the war time journals of Ernst Junger, directed by Edgardo Cozarinsky. It touches on Vichy and collaborationist themes, though it has a much wider resonance.

Finally, if you are looking for any more details on this period, Decline and fall, I would urge you to consult France : The Dark Years, 1940-1944 by Julian Jackson and Voices from the Dark Years: the Truth about Occupied France by Robert Self. Good luck! Clio the Muse 01:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Assembly on Federal Property?

The building I work in is across the street from a federal building, and our evacuation plan entails a large number of employees (over 1000) congregating on the grounds surrounding the federal building. This seems like it has to be illegal, or at least improper. Can anyone shed some light on this? 204.154.43.244 14:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this in the United States? Citizens of the U.S. have the right to assembly. -- Kainaw^(what?) 14:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The day the government charges a crowd evacuating a fire or other emergency with unlawful assembly is the day I renounce citezenship and move somewhere else.

As an additional note, federal property is often the most legal place for assembly as federal law is often less restrictive than local laws are wrt assembly and takes precedence over local law on federal property. When I was in high school, the music club would raise money playing christmas carols on the steps of the post office because the local police couldn't touch us there. Donald Hosek 15:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that your building owner probably talked to someone who manages the federal building, and there's probably some kind of agreement for that kind of situation. It would be just a little unnerving to see a thousand people show up on the grounds of any building without notice!

On the assembly issue: Yes there is a right to assemble, but similar to the freedom of speech, you can't just assemble anywhere you want. Certain forums have a greater protection than others (for example, you don't have a right to assemble in the Oval Office just because of the First Amendment). –Pakman044 15:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking for an article #1

I am looking for an Wikipedia Article that states the debts of each of the 50 states, respectivly? Thanks. --Savedthat 15:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A start might be United States public debt. Not each state but there are lots and lots of links, one which may contain what you require...ny156uk 18:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Unlike the federal government, most state constitutions do not allow for the state to have a debt. The governors and legislatures are required to pass a balanced budget. Corvus cornix 21:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I asked this question once before in June: I recently edited [[United States public debt]]; I am looking for an Wikipedia Article that states the debts of each of the 50 states, respectivly? Thanks. --[[User:Savedthat|Savedthat]] 04:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC) :The Federal government of the United States is (and always has been) required by law to operate in debt, but the states are not. So, why do you assume that each of the 50 states has a public debt? --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] <small>^{[[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]]}</small> 12:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC) ::I'm not sure about your assertion about the requirement to operate in debt, but as for individual state debts, even those states with balanced budget requirements in their constitutions have debt, in the form of bonds. I don't think that there is any state which does not have bond debt. [[User:Donald Hosek|Donald Hosek]] 16:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC) --Savedthat 04:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Third Hellenic Civilization

What is the Third Hellenic Civilization and how does it relate to an important day in the Greek calendar? Rather cryptic, I know, but it is snippets taken from a novel set in Greece in the last century. Pacific231 18:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

On August 4, 1936 General Ioannis Metaxas established the 4th of August Regime regime calling it the "Third Hellenic Civilization."—eric 22:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Metaxas the 'Third Hellenic Civilization', his own regime, was the successor to Ancient Greece and the Byzantine Empire. In practical terms it was a nod towards existing fascist states in Europe, particularly the Third Reich. I would, however, say that the important date in the present day Greek calendar connected with the former dictator is 28 October-Okhi Day, literally 'No Day'-taken from the one word response he is alleged to have made to Mussolini's ultimatum of 1940, demanding that Italian forces be allowed to enter Greek territory. Clio the Muse 23:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Information on an scaffold-accident

I remember a book about the director John Waters, and in this book it was a picture that Waters had glued in his scrapbook. It pictured a horrible scene from an Indy-race (at least I think it was one of those races), where a 100 foot scaffold with many spectators wanting to watch the race, was on its way of collapsing, - the photographic moment taken only seconds before impact. I would assume that such an accident would result in many deaths, but I haven't found any info on it on the net. The info given beside the scrapbook-picure were also very scarce. I believe the photo was from around 1945-55. Anyone? (By the way, sorry for my poor english. It's not my native language.)--193.216.162.117 18:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.indymotorspeedway.com/scaffold.html Is this the one? Bunthorne 03:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Thanks for the great work, Bunthorne! --193.216.162.117 04:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Stupidity or treason" speech

What was the background and substance of the "stupidity or treason" speech delivered by Paul Miliukov in the State Duma on 1 November 1916? --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Melissa Kirschke Stockdale in Paul Miliukov and the Quest for a Liberal Russia, a "...volatile combination of revolutionary passions, escalating apprehension, and the near breakdown of unity in the moderate camp that provided the impetus for the most notorious address in the history of the Duma..." At Progressive bloc meetings near the end of October, Progressives and left Kadets argued that the revolutionary public mood could no longer be ignored, and the Duma should attack the entire tsarist system or lose whatever influence it had. Nationalist feared that a concerted stand against the government would jeopardize the existence of the Duma and further inflame the revolutionary feelings. Miliukov argued for and secured a tenuous adherence to a middle ground tactic, attacking Boris Sturmer and forcing his replacement. According to Stockdale he had trouble gaining the support of his own party, at the October 22-24 Kadet fall conference provincial delegates "lashed out at Miliukov with unaccustomed ferocity. His travels abroad had made him poorly informed about the public mood, they charged; the patience of the people was exhausted." He responded with a plea to keep their ultimate goal in mind:

It will be our task not to destroy the government, which would only aid anarchy, but to instill in it a completely different content, that is, to build a genuine constitutional order. That is why, in our struggle with the government, despite everything, we must retain a sense of proportion.... To support anarchy in the name of the struggle with the government would be to risk all the political conquests we have made since 1905.

The day before the opening of the Duma, the Progressist party pulled out of the bloc because they believed the situation called for more than a mere denunciation of Sturmer. At the start of the session government ministers, forewarned by an informant within the bloc of the attack to come, left the chamber. Alexander Kerensky spoke first, called the ministers "hired assassins" and "cowards" and said they were "guided by the contemptible Grishka Rasputin!" The acting president ordered him away for calling for the overthrow of the government in wartime. Miliukov's speech was more that three times longer than Kerensky's, and delivered using much more moderate language.

He began by outlining how public hope had been lost over the course of the war, saying: "we have lost faith that the government can lead us to victory." He mentioned the rumours of treason and then proceeded to discuss some of the allegations: Sturmer had freed Sukhomlinov, the was a great deal of pro-German propaganda, in his visits to allied countries he had been told that the enemy had access to Russian state secrets, Sturmer's private secretary had been arrested for taking German bribes but was released when he kicked back to Sturmer. After each accusation near the end of the speech, he asked "Is this stupidity or is it treason?", and the listeners answered "Stupidity!" "Treason! "Both!" Miliukov stated that it did not matter as "the consequences are the same."

Stockdale also points out that Miliukov admitted to some reservations about his evidence in his memoirs, where he observed that his listeners resolutely answered treason "even in those aspects where I myself was not entirely sure."

Richard Abraham, in his biography of Kerensky argues that the withdrawal of the Progressists was essentially a vote of no confidence in Miliukov, and that he grasped at the idea of accusing Sturmer in an effort to preserve his own influence.—eric 21:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Eric, this is more than I could reasonable hope for. I stumbled upon the issue while revising the article about Boris Stürmer and assumed that Miliukov's ire was provoked by revelations concerning Stürmer's separate peace talks with Germans in Stockholm before the Brusilov Offensive. The speech appears to have been a milestone on the road to Rasputin's murder and the February Revolution. It may deserve a separate article. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Glorious Revolution

What made the Glorious Revolution so glorious? As opposed to just another change of power. --Czmtzc 20:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: it was glorious because those responsible proclaimed it glorious. Someone else will, no doubt, provide a lovely detailed answer. Skittle 21:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the fact it brought a protestant monarch from a catholic one pleased Parliament. When you tie it in to the Bill of Rights, I suppose you could call it glorious as in a triumph of good government - in the long run, it became a major factor in diluting the power of the monarchy to a constitutional democracy.martianlostinspace 22:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It was also bloodless (at least at first), as opposed to the very bloody civil war that occurred a few decades earlier. -- Mwalcoff 23:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Glorious Revolution was surely glorious only subjectively. The name is very loaded, and the use of it has always tended to be avoided by Catholics and even to mark those who side with the Protestant ascendancy. Revolution of 1688 is more objective, but it seems to me unlikely that it will ever replace a name which has been around for so long. Xn4 23:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It is, essentially, a label taken from the Whig view of history, represented, most particularly, in the work of men like T. B. Macaulay, especially his The History of England from the Accession of James the Second. From this perspective, history is seen to be working in a teleological fashion towards an ideal and predetermined outcome, in this particular case the victory of constitutional and parliamentary government over absolute monarchy. The Glorious Revolution, also known as the 'Bloodless Revolution', though it was far bloodier than usually depicted, was seen to have addressed and settled the issues left open by the Great Rebellion and The Restoration, particularly the precise relationship between the monarch, the church and parliament. It also established a form of parliamentary oligarchy, which was to dominate England for well over a century; so it was certainly far more than just 'another change of power.' But, in the final analysis, I can make no advance on Skittle's answer: it was glorious because the people who made it said it was glorious. More recently there have been attempts by some scholars to devise a more neutral usage, though the term is too well-established, and too well-understood, for this to make much impression on historical consciousness. Clio the Muse 23:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me never be found endorsing Macaulay's history, but I will say that "glorious" is comprehensible without him. If we grant that it was a revolution, and that seems reasonable, then this one was certainly peaceful. "Bloodless Coup" is a later concept, but the fact that there wasn't a second Civil War had to make people feel at least relieved, even Tories.

In fact, Tory opposition very rarely went to rhapsodies on how James II should have fought and generally went into bills of indictment against Parliament for disloyalty, oath breaking, and the like. The English Settlement, in particular, was going to have a gigantic effect on the law and psychology of the people. In 1714, it was only going to get more profound. As someone has said, an alert and considerate Londoner could not escape the suspicion that Parliament had elected a king and could elect a different one instead. Geogre 12:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

All that makes sense, but being comprehensible and peaceful is a long way from being glorious. In the event, of course, the revolution did lead on to Civil War, even though the fuse proved to be slow-burning. Xn4 12:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Peaceful? A highly Anglo-centric view, I would have thought. The aftereffects of the coup were bloody in Scotland and even bloodier in Ireland, leading at Aughrim in 1691 to one of the largest battles ever fought in the British Isles. In Scotland the Highlands were left in a prolonged state of political upheaval, that only really passed away after the Glencoe Massacre in February 1692. Clio the Muse 23:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, peaceful. A national revolution occurred without a civil war. Additionally, the aftermath left battles, yes, to 45 and beyond, but these are not the same thing as in other rejections of kings. It is still jaw-droppingly amazing that a king goes without a war or a murder. The mess in Scotland was a mess before, with differential economic and political arrangements, and there is no need to find a pax Jacobeanis to say that it was a peaceful revolution. My own feeling is that it is the one event that creates the 18th century. It causes the panic after Anne's death and the odd choice of Hanover, causes the red scare-like politics of "whoever most hates the Pretender wins" that put Walpole in the center of the web, causes the triumph of the dissenters over the high church, enables the expansion of capital into the countryside, and keeps Scotland prey for England, Ireland the whipping boy of England. Do not think that my saying that it was peaceful is somehow a vote for beefeater English chauvinism. Geogre 11:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Clio, isn't it also often specifically referred to as a "bloodless coup"? --Dweller 11:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

We haven't been debating the word Revolution, because that wasn't Czmtzc's question, but isn't coup nearer the mark? James's support crumbled in the face of a substantial Dutch invasion in early November, led by William. Apart from his Irish troops, James's own army had little stomach for the fight, and key people drifted away from him, including his daughter Princess Anne. The Royal Navy defected in December. There was some anti-Catholic rioting, which sounds more like the way of a revolution, but it's doubtful that that was critical. Even after James fled, he was still king, and it took a Convention Parliament in January to declare the throne vacant and offer the crown to William and Mary. So at the centre of events was William's invasion and his military strength, backed up by the political and military weakness of James. Is that a revolution?

Another thought on the word glorious - no doubt remembering the ignominious fate of the Spanish Armada, the Dutch quickly named their invasion by sea (helped by another Protestant Wind) the glorious crossing. We know Glorious Revolution wasn't coined until nearly a year after that, but doesn't it seem likely that the name was translated from one to the other? Xn4 18:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Dweller, you are quite right; it has, on occasions, been referred to as the 'Bloodless Revolution', though this is another of those appellations accorded after the event, reflecting the image imposed by the victors, which tends to ignore the less convenient parts of the picture. The point is that the events of 1688 are only 'bloodless' if England is viewed in isolation from Scotland and Ireland; and that, quite simply, is bad history. Even from a purely English perspective 1688 was marginally bloodier than similar coups in 1327, 1399 and 1483.

Geogre, I am certainly not accusing you of you of chauvinism, beefeater or otherwise. Rather you stand accused, if that is the right word, of holding a rather narrow, Anglo-centric and, let me be absolutely frank, a somewhat 'whiggish' view of history. I have read Macaulay for amusement; but as far as serious history is concerned his time is long past. There was civil war in Scotland and national war in Ireland, which cannot be abstracted from events in England. And even here the 'national revolution' is not as 'jaw droppingly' unique as you seem to imply. English kings had been ejected in the past, and with far less fuss than in 1688. But this gets away from the essential point, which is that the historical study of these islands is much more broadly focused than it used to be. The events of the 1640s used to be understood as the English Civil War; they are now more broadly perceived as the War of the Three Kingdoms, with a whole set of indissoluble connections between events, one thing impacting on another, one country impacting on the other. Your point about Scotland is quite wrong: it was far from being 'a mess' before 1688, politically or economically. James' government had been relatively successful, far more successful than it was in England, where his exercise of prerogative power was subject to serious challenge. The tensions over religion in Scotland, which had so disfigured the reign of Charles II, were past and done. The Revolution upset a delicate political equlibrium, which caused an immediate civil war, with aftershocks long into the future. And it was bloody.

Whether the Revolution was 'glorious' or not is a matter of political judgement. To suggest that it was 'bloodless' is an empirical statement, and that is the meat on which I feed. It was not 'bloodless' at Killiecrankie or at Dunkeld. The Highland army was dispersed after the Battle of Cromdale in 1691, but much of north-west Scotland was in a state of rebellion at least as far as the Glencoe Massacre of 1692. Further bloodshed was to follow in 1715-16, 1719 and 1745-6, all a direct consequence of 1688. In Ireland, where James's regime remained largely intact, it had to be battered down, and there was blood at Newtonbutler, at Londonderry, the Boyne, and Limerick as well as Aughrim and elsewhere.

So, looking at the whole thing from a British perspective, and that is really the only valid way to approach this question, the Glorious Revolution had political repercussions that go far beyond the Protestant Wind that wafted William into London. Clio the Muse 00:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I deplore Macaulay's history, as it is utterly bankrupt, and so that strawman is not even worth batting at. However, your effort to be "inclusive" seems like another excuse to try to slap at any received notion, which is a common malady in certain ranks and a mania of the 1970's and 1980's. If you wish, you can see the entire century as part of the "War of aristocracies." You can conflate all things into "early modern," too, if that's your pleasure. By taking the frame farther and farther back, you can put William's invasion of Ireland onto James II's departure, but why stop there? Why not take the clan feuds in Scotland and lay them at the doorstep of James II's departure as well? After all, the bribery, cross-border titling, and the like that he did caused these individuals (suffering from an economic differential that did not change with the Whig governments) to take opposing sides from one another.

By all means, let us further grab another decade off the clock to toss onto 1688 and say that Meal Tub Plot to Porteus Riots were part of the 1688. It requires no Macaulay to see 1688-9 as peaceful. It requires an effort at publishably-new to see the evens of 1692 as really secretly belonging to 1688. Geogre 03:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I was not asking you to deplore Macaulay or to 'bat' at a 'strawman'; it was merely put forward as the perfect example of the Whig view of history. I have given solid examples to counter a fatuous and somewhat narrow argument. You see the Revolution of 1688 as 'peaceful'; that's your prerogative, a view you are more than welcome to share with Macaulay and many other quite respectable and antique historians. Most of the cases you have thrown out in the above are quite beside the point, and thus not worth answering. However, I will say that clan feuds had little to do with James, unlike the new direction given to clan politics by his departure. The events of 1692, if you mean by this the Glencoe Massacre (once again your taste for elliptical and tortured prose escapes me) belong directly and openly to those of 1688, not really secretly (really secretly?). The Revolution of 1688 was neither peaceful nor bloodless, in its immediate effects or its long term consequences. It's as 'jaw droppingly' simple as that. But there is clearly no meeting of minds here; so I propose to say no more to you on this matter, other than it might aid your understanding if you read Paul Hopkin's Glencoe and the End of the Highland War. And as far as the 'publishably-new' is concerned, well, that is certainly my serious hope and intention. Clio the Muse 05:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Germany-Poland relationship

After the 2006 World Cup Germany match between Germany and Poland, many news report say that both Germany and Poland have a worst relationship in history. is there an article about it?

Well there is a category about it: Category:Polish-German relations. But what exactly is it that you want to know? Evilbu 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternately, we can confidently state that the news reports you mention are, at best, exaggerations. Comparing impact of a football game to that of a 5-year occupation and 20% reduction in population only demeans the latter. — Lomn 21:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lom's statement in every degree: to draw parallels between football rivalry and a great historical tragedy is facile in the extreme. Besides, the tensions between Poland and Russia have always been greater than those between Poland and Germany. Clio the Muse 23:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the former tensions between England and France are rather strong. Just because they are now allies doesn't mean their history isn't full of mutual antagonism. Corvus cornix 23:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Football rivalries can reflect past historical events (see the English tabloids every time we play Germany) and can also make new rivalries. For example English fans probably hate Argentina much more for the Hand of God than the Falklands war! Sport is one of the few chances for people to express patriotism and I think we'll all agree, a much safer one than war. PS with the French tensions, anyone else think the Queen should reassert the English claim on the French throne? We could do with Thierry Henry on our team. Cyta 07:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I often answer a question, then look at the page I've linked to, and amaze myself with the sheer number of articles wikipedia has! I know the question was about Germany and Poland, but amazingly we have articles on Argentina and England football rivalry, England and Germany football rivalry, Argentina and Brazil football rivalry, Denmark and Sweden football rivalry and France and Italy football rivalry but no Poland and Germany football rivalry. And one more point that might cause an increase in Germano-Polish bad feelings is the recent European Union debates, in which the president of Poland asked for more votes than proportional to the population size, becasue if not for German occupation Poland would be as big as Germany. This didn't go down too well in Germany! Maybe he should have tried not to mention the war. Cyta 08:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For football rivalry between nations, I'm not sure anyone can beat this slight difference of opinion between Honduras and El Salvador. --Folantin 12:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To say that in 2006 German-Polish relations were worst in history (and the two nations have been neighbors for more than a thousand years) is definitely rubbish, but to say that they were worst since around 1989-1990 (fall of Communism in Poland and reunification of Germany) is more plausible. The current conservative government of Prime Minister Jarosław Kaczyński (in office since 2006) is generally viewed as anti-German (and anti-Russian as well, but strongly pro-US). There's a number of reasons for this.

Most importantly, I think, the new government is trying to make Poland a more assertive player on the European stage – which means challenging the traditional EU heavyweights, especially Germany. Unfortunately, Polish diplomacy is rather clumsy and prefers the use of brute force which seems to have the effect of alienating Poland rather than strengthening it.

One of the recent rows was when Poland was trying to make EU adopt a vote counting system where each country's number of votes proportional to the square root of its population rather than proportional to the population itself. Under such system Poland would have relatively more voting power in comparison with Germany, whose population size is twice the size of Poland's. The Polish proposal was not adopted even though Poland risked isolation when it threatened to veto the entire constitutional treaty.

But problems are also caused by the German side. The Nord Stream, a planned pipeline supposed to bring Russian natural gas to Germany through the Baltic Sea and thus bypassing Poland, is the major current issue. Particularly cordial relations between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Gerhard Schröder, German chancellor until 2005, were even compared to Nazi-Soviet coöperation that led to Poland's occupation. Germany's new chancellor, Angela Merkel seems to be more sensitive to Polish fears and interests regarding energy security, but it either goes unnoticed in Warsaw or it's not enough to calm the Kaczyński twins.

And of course, there's history. President's and Prime Minister's father fought in the Warsaw Uprising and they mother taught them deep patriotism and suspicion towards Poland's former long-time enemies, i.e. Germany and Russia. When President Lech Kaczyński was City President of Warsaw he even calculated all the damage inflicted by the German during the WW2 and threatened he would send them a bill, if the German expellees tried to claim their pre-war property back.

Anyway, there may be ups and downs in current German-Polish relations, but when the media are saying the relations are bad or very bad, they definitely exaggerate. Looking from the perspective of 1000-year long history of bilateral relations, Germany and Poland today may be described as friendly neighbors and allies, bound by common membership in the EU and NATO. And I don't think that German-Polish football rivalry is any fiercer than Dutch-German football rivalry. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. It's probably high time an article on the History of German-Polish relations was written.

A reasonable introduction to the subject may be found in the latest issue of the Newsweek, under the heading "Poland's government has made the country a laughingstock". See here. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this article is mostly about Poland, mush less about Germany. By the way, it's intersting how often newspapers use the curious phrase "newly assertive Russia"; to me, Russia under Putin seems more aggressive than assertive (and way more than Poland under the Kaczyńskis) – and there's nothing new about that. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I can only endorse Kpalion's post. Polish-German relationship is indeed one of many missing articles about bilateral relations on Wikipedia :( -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The original question could be interpreted as meaning "Germany and Poland have the worst relationship in the history of any two countries", which would be more plausible since it would include both past military occupation and recent sporting events. --TotoBaggins 14:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

as a german I would say its save to say its the worst relationship since the Second World War. Especially since relations between Germany were really good after Germany officially accepted the current borders (something that innofficially was quite some time ago, except maybe some guys on the rightwing). They have declined since the Kaczyńskis took over. Thing is the Kaczyńskis seem to do it on purpose to gain prestige in Poland. At least thats my perception. I mean a statesman cancelling a bilateral meating because of a cartoon drawing of him in leftist German newspaper is a bit over the top. --Tresckow 16:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

He actually cancelled a trilateral meeting of the Weimar Triangle (France-Germany-Poland). Generally, the current Polish government's behavior is a textbook example of how not to run foreign relations. For some more reading on the state of German-Polish relations, I'd suggest this article, written by a Frenchman. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Which musical instrument is this?

I was sitting by my computer when I heard what I thought was a hurdy gurdy playing on TV. I went to the television and saw that it was a man opening and closing some sort of accordion. It did not look like an accordion however, it looked more like a book and opened and closed like one too. On the front of the instrument were five buttons. See my illustration. What is this musical instrument? --Codell^Talk 23:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A flutina (http://images.google.com/images?client=safari&rls=en&q=flutina&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi) perhaps? ny156uk 23:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't as thick as a flutina and I did not see any buttons that stick out like that. --Codell^Talk 00:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It makes me think of a simple portable harmonium (a.k.a. a dulcetina) as in this picture – but these have a keyboard, not buttons. Could you identify the musical genre?  --Lambiam 04:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It might have been a harmonium, but it wasn't that big. He actually wasn't playing music, he was just opening and closing it and it was producing a sound (which at first I though sounded like a hurdy gurdy before I saw what he was doing.).--Codell^Talk 03:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The instrument was almost certainly an Indian shruti box, a simple free reed instrument used to provide a drone accompaniment to wind instruments or voices, so that is probably what reminded you of the droning sound of a hurdy gurdy. The five "buttons" on the front were probably the single-acting valves that provide it with wind. --Stephen Chambers 15:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)