From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< October 3	<< Sep | October | Nov >>	October 5 >

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.

Contents 1 October 4 1.1 Tron riot 1.2 Norwegian Dialects 1.3 Franco from the Canaries 1.4 Franco and the rebellion 1.5 First Battle of St Albans 1.6 Types of Colony 1.7 accounting terminology 1.8 Inventor of the balance sheet 1.9 Lord Haw Haw 1.10 Cotton mill process 1.11 Terrorism then and now 1.12 Electoral Administration Act 2006 1.13 Military Attire 1.14 biggest modern british killer 1.15 divorce services 1.16 as for taxes

[edit] October 4

[edit] Tron riot

What was the Tron riot? SeanScotland 05:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Google knows something. Algebraist 15:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is your Tron Riot!

It refers to an out-break of public disorder in the neighbourhood of the Tron Church on Edinburgh's High Street, during the New Year celebrations of 1811/12. Amongs the croweds of revelers there were gangs of organised thieves. To aid their activities, they chased off the watchmen, the only effective police force of the day, one of whom, Dougall Campbell, was murdered. As a consequence of the 'moral panic' that followed the local authority strengthened the watch and decided to take ever more severe action against 'juvenile delinquents', including a group known as the 'Keelie Gang from the slum areas of the Canongate, who had armed themsleves with sticks on the evening of 31 December. A number were arrested on the night, and a reward subsequently offered for the apprehension of the remainder. In all, some sixty-eight arrests were made, of youths between the ages of twelve and twenty. Some were hanged, others transported. The youngest to be hanged, sixteen-year-old Hugh Mackintosh, was also given over for anatomical dissection to Edinbutgh University's Medical Faculty. As a result of the riot the Edinburgh Police Act of 1812 was introduced, allowing for a unified response to problems of public order, and to reassure citizens, afraid to go out at night. Clio the Muse 01:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian Dialects

In http://books.google.com/books?id=CPX2xgmVe9IC&pg=PA335&lpg=PA335&dq=%22middle+norwegian%22&source=web&ots=IJVj3Zzc-U&sig=_uSbhtzkjboI_XuW9brgk7eGau8#PPA337,M1, it says "Runic writing survived into the 18th c. in archaic communities such as Oppdal (and the neighbouring region in Sweden)....". I was wondering which are the other archaic communities and where is other "...neighbouring region in Sweden"? Thanks.24.70.95.203 05:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Franco from the Canaries

Who arranged to bring Franco from the Canary Islands in 1936 prior to the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryinggame (talk • contribs) 05:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

He arranged it himself, by agreement with Emilio Mola, José Sanjurjo, and their fellow rebels, soon to be called the Nationalists, soon after he finally came down on their side. They offered him command of the Spanish Army of Africa and planned their military coup for 18 July. Franco then chartered a private plane in England. Government forces killed the opposition leader José Calvo Sotelo on 13 July, and the African Army mutinied on the 17th, a day ahead of schedule. Franco flew to Tetuan in Spanish Morocco on the 18th and took command on the 19th. As some forces (including much of the Navy) stayed loyal to the Republican government, the planned coup turned into the Spanish Civil War.Xn4 06:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The de Havilland Dragon Rapide has includes informations about this event. See the Spanish version of this article for more.--Tresckow 10:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, 'Miss Canary Islands', as he was referred to by some of his fellow conspirators, did not in fact arrange for his flight, yet another sign of his hesitancy at the time. Transport was, in fact, arranged for him by the Marques de Luca de Tena, owner of the right-wing ABC newspaper, with money provided by the millionaire businessman Juan March. It was de Tena who phoned Luis Bolin, his correspondent in England, instructing him to charter the plane. Bolin contacted Olley Air Services at Croydon. He also obtained the services of two Englishmen, Major Hugh Pollard, formerly of Military Intelligence, and Captain William Henry Bebb, a former RAF pilot, who flew the plane to Casablanca. Franco still had not made up his mind at this time. It was only after the assassination in Madrid of Jose Calvo Sotelo, leader of the Spanish monarchists, that he finally decided to act. The Dragon Rapide took off on 18 July, bound for Tetuan in Morocco, with Franco disguised as a diplomat. He shaved off his moustache for the occasion, causing Queipo de Llano, a leading rival, to remark that this was the only thing he ever sacrificed for Spain! Anyway, no British aircraft; no British officers; no Civil War. If only it were that simple! Clio the Muse 02:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I must bow to Clio's command of Franco. Xn4 02:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! Clio the Muse 22:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, Clio, it's just as well you were there to straighten it out. Let's hope it teaches me not to rely on doubtful sources... Xn4 23:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Franco and the rebellion

By what process did Franco emerge as head of the military rebellion? Cryinggame 06:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

He was chosen as commander-in-chief and head of government by the military junta in September 1936. There was a vacancy because the rebels' intended leader, José Sanjurjo, had been killed in an air crash on 20 July. The choice was influenced by Franco's excellent relationship with Hitler, who was providing him with military support. See Francisco Franco for more. Xn4 07:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that also Emilio Mola also opened way for Franco´s carreer by crashing with an airplane.--Tresckow 10:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mola was a rival and commanded the Army of the North. His air crash was in June, 1937, several months after the junta chose Franco as commander-in-chief. Xn4 16:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

true. But still Mola was a figuer head of the nationalists and a possible rival for Franco.--Tresckow 17:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Of the two Mola was certainly the more intelligent, and by far the most politically astute. By 1937 the rivalry between the two was becoming quite pronounced. The outcome of any direct clash is difficult to predict, though I think it worth noting that Mola enjoyed the confidence of the Germans in the way that Franco did not. His death in July removed an inconvenient obstacle. Hitler is later reported to have said, "The real tragedy for Spain was the death of Mola; there was the real brain; the real leader...Franco came to the top like Pontius Pilate in the Creed." Clio the Muse 02:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Battle of St Albans

Should this battle of 1455 really be regarded as the start of the Wars of the Roses? Janesimon 07:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting, perhaps, that this was a one-off battle, and the Wars of the Roses-proper started with the Battle of Blore Heath in 1459, or at some later point? Or that there was period of tension between supporters of York and of Lancaster well before 1455 which should count as the early stages of the war? -- !! ?? 22:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say not. It shifted the balance of power for a time. Even so, the lines of combat had not been firmly drawn and there were serious attempts afterwards to prevent the country descending into a general civil war. Despite the deaths at St. Albans, both parties were reconciled one to the other by 1458, albeit temporarily. The First Battle of Saint Albans, moreover, did not challenge Henry VI's right to the throne, no more than that Battle of Radcot Bridge did that of Richard II in 1387. Just as then the 'rebels' claimed to be acting in the greater good of the king, ridding him of 'evil counsel'. The dynastic war could not, and did not, begin until a rival claimed the throne, and that did not happen until 1460, when Richard, Duke of York finally showed his hand. Clio the Muse 02:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Types of Colony

Discussing the British Empire above, I wondered about names for the different types of colony. For example America, Australia, Canada etc where settlers effectively replaced the indigenous population, compared with Ghana, Nigeria, Pakistan etc where there was only a small ruling class. There seems a major difference in discussing independence between the two cases, I am sure there must be technical terms? Cyta 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"America" wasn't a colony. Each of the thirteen colonies was a distinct political structure, and each had its own colonial charter and form of government. Maryland, for example, was privately owned and run by the Baltimores. Pennsylvania had a charter from the King and pretty much ran its own affairs, with a royal governor oversseeing and interfering in things. Corvus cornix 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The areas of the later British Empire which had a European majority (Canada, Newfoundland, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand) achieved self-government in the nineteenth century or in the early twentieth century as Dominions. They had a high degree of independence in their internal affairs and gained effective independence by the Statute of Westminster (1931). The Dominion of Newfoundland gave up its self-governing status in 1934 and became a province of Canada in 1949, in strange circumstances. Xn4 01:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It really was a patchwork, Cyta, of differing types of authority; of the higher, the lower and the in-between; of dominions, territories, crown protectorates; some with varying degrees of local administration; others directly administered from London; still others held by lease from adjacent powers. There was even a condominium. We use the term British Empire for convenience, but strictly speaking only India was truly an Empire with an Emperor. And before that it was little more than a commercial opportunity! Clio the Muse 02:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Australia wasn't a colony, either. It was 6 self-governing colonies, which federated in 1901. The former colonies became the 6 states of Australia. -- JackofOz 04:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all, I guess my question was oversimplistic. Cyta 07:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Your question was fine, but was not answered. There's a tendency to reply to simple questions with unrelated, pedantic answers, e.g. "'America' wasn't a colony." I plead guilty to the occasional pedantry too. ;-)

You're right, at the basic level there were two fundamentally different kinds of colonies: those primarily of settlers and those primarily of indigenes. Increasingly the first is called (I think primarily by leftist advocates of postcolonial theory) a "settler society" to distinguish it from the second. Wikipedia has a (somewhat crappy) article on the first, settler colonialism. —Kevin Myers 15:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried searching for settler colony and it redirected to settler, rather than settler colonialism which seems strange. Don't know how to fix it though. Cyta 09:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] accounting terminology

Here is where I get confused with bookkeeping or accounting terminology. Suppose I am paid a salary and income taxes, etc. are deducted so that what I receive is net income. Now I go to the store and buy ingredients to make a cake to sell at the flea market. The ingredients cost IC and my other expenses like travel, electicity, etc. cost TC plus my time which is say W. Now I sell the cake and it renders a net income of NI which I also keep such that I have both wages W and NI. Are both W and NI considered gross taxable income? Is there a definition for these terms that can be easily applied to such complcated situations? Clem 08:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the terminology that you are discussing is not universal accounting terminology, but terminology specific to the tax code of the United States (or perhaps some other jurisdiction). Here is how this works in the United States. Your salary, net tax-exempt deductions, such as payments into a 401(k) plan, but not net income tax deductions, is one component of your gross taxable income. (The income tax deductions are subtracted from your total tax to determine your tax payment (or refund) due, but they don't affect your taxable income.) For some people, net salary or wages are the only component of gross taxable income. However, other possible components include interest, dividends, capital gains, and self-employment income. (Now, there may be a threshhold below which you are not required to declare self-employment income. If you sold just one cake all year, you might be below that threshhold. But there may not be any minimum, and you might technically be required to declare even minuscule self-employment income. I don't know the law on this, and you should consult a qualified accountant or tax lawyer if you are concerned about it.) Your income from the sale of that cake at the flea market counts as self-employment income. Taxable self-employment income consists of total sales minus business expenses. So you would take NI and subtract IC and TC (both of which constitute business expenses) to determine your self-employment income. "W" does not come into play because it isn't income, or an actual payment. In effect, your W is NI-(IC+TC). If the amount produced by NI-(IC+TC) is less than you would want in wages, then you should give up baking cakes for the flea market and find a more lucrative line of work. But this amount would still count as self-employment income and would have to be included in your gross taxable income (though I think that you might be able to deduct a portion of your self-employment tax from your gross taxable income for income tax purposes). Marco polo 16:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so as far as taxes are concerned then I can forget about paying myself wages and should just settle for the profit instead. If I hire my neighbor's daughter to bake the cake her wages will become part of TC so the cost of labor to bake the cake just gets deducted from my profit instead of being added to my income. The only other thing then I am confussed about is whether IC or TC can be deducted the next year. In other words if its January and I purchased the cake mix in December of last year then can it be added to IC? Clem 22:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inventor of the balance sheet

who is the inventor of balance sheet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.236.99 (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Luca Pacioli, I should imagine. Corvus cornix 21:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See Double-entry_accounting_system#History. --24.147.86.187 22:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Haw Haw

Can the execution of William Joyce be justified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.78.131 (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it can. It's possible to justify anything - but not necessarily to everyone's satisfaction. -- JackofOz 10:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't assume the questioner is an idiot just because his question is rather vague. Questioners in the Reference Desk shouldn't feel like facing the wish-granting gorilla hand of The Simpsons.

As for the original question, I'd say absolutely, since he actively (and famously) collaborated with a foreign power that seriously threatened Britain with annihilation. --Taraborn 15:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Though it could be argued (not be me at this time, I hasten to add) that death was a disproportionate penalty for the mere broadcasting of propaganda. In addition, as William Joyce explains, his status as a Briton was in doubt; if accepted as solely a US citizen, he could not have been executed for betraying a nation not his own. Algebraist 17:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Although not, like Roger Casement, "hanged by a comma". -- !! ?? 22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

@ Taraborn: There was no assumption on my part that the questioner was an idiot. My reply was brief on 2 grounds: (a) it smelled like a homework question to me; and (b) regardless of (a), this is the sort of question that invites opinions, which we're not supposed to be dealing with. One might argue that Joyce committed treason and therefore deserved to die. One might also argue that the death penalty is abhorrent in all circumstances. Each would be valid points. We could debate it forever and get essentially nowhere. So I decided to cut to the chase. -- JackofOz 23:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me be brave for both of us, Algebraist, and say that his execution was little better than an act of judicial murder, an opinion I am quite happy to share with A. J. P. Taylor, amongst others. Even Hartley Shawcross, who successfully prosecuted Joyce, was later to write of the case "It remains in my mind the one of which I am least proud." You see, Joyce was born in New York, and therefore not a subject of the British crown; so he was in essence hanged for making a false statement on his 1933 application for a British passport, the usual penalty for which at the time was a £2.00 fine. He did not, moreover, by his words alone kill any subject of the crown, nor did he recruit for the enemy, unlike John Amery, who was also hanged for treason around the same time. In essence, Joyce was executed not for what he did but for who he was. Death, for him, was the price of fame, a point made by Mary Kenny in her excellent biography, Germany Calling. There were, after all, other broadcasters for the Nazis, including one Margaret Bothamley, over whose nationality there was absolutely no doubt, released on a suspended sentence for essentially the same offence. But Lord Haw Haw could not be allowed to escape, could he now, not when much of the British press had decided the matter prior to his trail? The whole business reminds me to some degree of George Orwell's essay Shooting an Elephant, where death is the result of the pressure of 'collective will'; where 'the state' is pushed forward by powers beyond its control. Who, after all, was Joyce that he deserved such special treatment? Was he any more than a rather pathetic individual, or, as Rebecca West put it in her trial report, "A queer little Irish peasant who had gone to some pain to make the worst of himself." Clio the Muse 00:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Not hanged by a comma"... but not much more than a comma. As Clio says, Joyce was hanged as a traitor because he held a British passport obtained by deception. The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords heard Joyce's final appeal on 10-13 December 1945 and decided against Joyce by four to one. It may not have been the finest moment of Lords Jowitt, Macmillan, Wright, and Simonds. Lord Porter gave a brave dissenting opinion. Xn4 00:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The three counts of treason Joyce was charged on read as follows:

1. William Joyce, on the 18 September 1939, and on numerous other days between 18 September 1939 and 29 May 1945 did aid and assist the enemies of the King by broadcasting to the King's subjects propaganda on behalf of the King's enemies.
2. William Joyce, on 26 September 1940, did aid and comfort the King's enemies by purporting to be naturalised as a German citizen.
3. William Joyce, on 18 September 1939 and on numerous other days between 18 September 1939 and 2 July 1940 did aid and assist the enemies of the King by broadcasting to the King's subjects propaganda on behalf of the King's enemies.

He was found not guilty on the first two counts - 2 July 1940 was the date on which his passport expired, so if it had run out a year earlier, no case to answer would have been found. Xn4 00:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hugo Pratt's album of Corto Maltese The Celtics has a great, very fictional depiction of Lord Haw Haw and his German spy wife. 81.241.103.75 08:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That's very interesting, 81.241. There is only one tinsy-wincy problem: neither, Hazel Barr, Joyce's first wife, nor Margaret Cairns White, his second, were German; nor were they spies! Clio the Muse 23:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cotton mill process

What is the different between mule spinner and bobbin winders? --125.24.176.10 11:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A mule spinner is an early type of mechanical spinner to take raw fiber (cotton, wool, etc.) and create thread (yarn) from them. The mule spinner winds the finished yarn onto a large cone, spool or bobbin. A bobbin winder takes the yarn from the spool and winds it onto a small bobbin that would fit inside a loom to create cloth. The spinning and weaving need not take place at the same factory (so a weaving factory could get it supply of yarn on large spools and wind it on their own bobbins on site). Rmhermen 14:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism then and now

Can any parallels be made with present fears about terrorism and those of a hundred years ago? Gordon Nash 12:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The article on the history of terrorism may prove useful. Remember that any parallels drawn are likely to be subjective. — Lomn 13:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

By calling them both terrorism there are of course parallels by definition. In other words, they're basically the same, because else why would you call them both terrorism? Or do you mean what was then considered terrorism as opposed to now? Anyway, I'll mention one because it goes against what a lot of people seem to think. Nowadays, people are much more mobile, so any freedom fighters (which terrorists usually are basically ) can more easily take the battle to the invaders/colonists/agressors/whatever. But in reality, most terrorist attacks are done by residents of the coutry where the attack takes place. The 2001 attack on the NY WTC and Pentagon, for example, really was an odd one out. It is much more common to attack, say, an embassy of the US because that is closer at hand and gets the message across more clearly. And the IRA did some bombings in England, but I believe most bombings were done in Ireland, despite the fact that England was really close by. DirkvdM 18:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it can! But first, can I just point out that there is a huge gap in the page on the history of terrorism: it says not a word about the impact of anarchism at the turn of the last century; not a word about the assassination of President William McKinley, Umberto I, king of Italy, and Elizabeth of Bavaria, empress of Austria.

So, you see, Gordon, what Al-Qaeda is for us, anarchism and anarchists was for people living in the late nineteeth and early twentieth centuries. You will find contemporary fears reflected in the literature of the day; from Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent to E. Douglas Fawcett's Hartmann the Anarchist, and George Glendon's The Emperor of the Air. The latter work, published in 1910, actually envisages a terrorist attack on New York from the air, by aircraft loaded with dynamite and piloted by anarchists. Consider also Emile Zola's Germinal, with the unforgettable and single-minded figure of Souvarine, who can destroy even those he loves in the pursuit of his ideal. It was a time that saw the murder of several heads of state and prominent public figures, including those I have detailed above; a time when bombs were thrown into pavement cafes, at religious processions, or into crowded theatres, as in Barcelona in November 1893.

People were worried, in essence, about the same things they are today: that an unscrupulous and amoral terrorist (or 'freedom fighter' if you prefer; the end result is just the same) would get a hold of ever more destructive weaponry and use it without scruple of conscience. It was a time also when England, yes, England, was felt by various countries to be a 'refuge for terrorists' because of its lax asylum laws. In 1898 an international conference was held in Rome to try to secure co-operation against the anarchist threat. The recommendations included tougher immigration laws and easier extradition. England attended, but effectively ignored the provisions. It was felt at the time that a more stringent policy in this area would be unpopular with an electorate, suspicion of Continental despotism. How things have changed! Clio the Muse 01:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

One thing I have wondered about for the last few years is if the death toll of terrorism has risen. If, following a standard statistical practise, we ignore the excess that the WTC/Pentagon attack was, is it much different now, compared to, say, the late 20th century or indeed a hundred years ago. I've searched for info on this, but to no avail so far. Of course, the fact that it is very difficult to define terrorism makes this difficult, but if the same definition is consistently used (and not a fabricated one to manipulate the outcome) then this shouldn't be too difficult for someone who has the relevant data (and where could those be found then?). But what I'm getting at is that probably then, as now, people's fear of terrorism was highly disproportionate to the actual death toll. The chances of getting killed by terrorism are totally negligible, especially compared to the big killer, traffic. I suppose the fear is mostly instilled by the randomness and the intentions. The idea that it could happen at any given moment, combined with the evil intentions and the notion spread by the mass media that there are such evil people around is understandably terrifying. I can't resist the temptation to point out that the best way to fight the fear of terrorism (and thereby the reasons for it) is to ignore it, or at least not give it undue attention. Alas the freedom pf the press gets in the way there. Everything good thing has its disadvantages. Of course an even better way to fight terrorism is by pulling out the occupying troops in the country of the terrorists, but this is getting to be a bit too POV. :) DirkvdM 17:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Clio. Great answer. Can you help with my new one? Gordon Nash 09:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electoral Administration Act 2006

Is all of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 in force now? British House of Commons#Qualifications talks of "until S.17 [of the act] comes into force...". If it's not in force, when does it become so? - I ask because Emily Benn (a prospective candidate who is 18 today) would be eligible in the Next United Kingdom general election only if S.17 is in effect. Although the bill had its Royal Assent last Summer, S.17 is not one of those sections which came immediately into force: S.77(2) says such sections "...comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint." (Presumably this would mean some order by the Secretary of State for Justice) -- 217.42.190.82 15:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is in effect, see the statutory instrument here [1]. DuncanHill 15:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've amended the Act and the #Qualifications sections accordingly. -- 217.42.190.82 15:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure, it was a good question. DuncanHill 15:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military Attire

I'm trying to find some image resources for early 20th century/late 19th century officers in the 1st King's Dragoons. Any suggestions? Clio, I'm looking at you. Thanks, guys. Beekone 15:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Beekone, we have an article at 1st King's Dragoon Guards, and I've just added external links to a picture which should help you: there's a late 19th century officer's uniform here. Don't confuse the 1st (King's) Dragoon Guards with the 1st (Royal) Regiment of Dragoons, or Royal Dragoons, now amalgamated into the Blues and Royals. Xn4 17:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to find a better explination of the style, like the regulations for their standard uniforms. I tried Google images before and was unsatisfied. All the pictures seem to show different styles and kind of anti-climactic examples. Thank you, though, Xn4. Beekone 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, life is anti-climactic. Xn4 23:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Beekone; I can really make no advance on the information that Xn4 has given you. You might get some more detailed illustrations, though, in The Thin Red Line: Uniforms of the British Army between 1751 and 1914 by D. S. V. Foster and B. Foster. Clio the Muse 02:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Beekone 14:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] biggest modern british killer

killed most people? 81.76.46.148 21:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, not quite sure how to translate that. Are you after a general cause or a specific person? If a specific person, does e have to be directly responsible for the deaths, or could, for example, the head of government be a "killer" for sending people off to war? Then there's the ambiguity introduced by the use of the word "modern". How far back do you want to go? Finally, I'm also not sure that this really falls under the auspices of the Humanities desk, but I guess I may as well try to answer as best I can. Assuming that "modern" equates to the twentieth century, health brochures, television adverts, etc, like to announce that coronary heart disease is the current "biggest killer in the UK". Though I suspect that smoking would easily take its place if you tot up the deaths caused by the habit that are attributed to its various results (cancer, heart disease, etc). As for individuals, my money'd be on either Harold Shipman (genuine serial killer) or Albert Pierrepoint (licensed "serial killer", if you want to put it in those terms). If you allow for heads of government, I suppose you'd have to say David Lloyd George for leading the country through World War I, which resulted in the deaths of more UK citizens than any other conflict of the 20th century. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, thinking about it, did more British citizens die under Asquith's leadership in WWI than Lloyd George? And since the casualties are split either way, would that push Winston Churchill into the lead? (EDIT: Looking at World War I casualties and World War II casualties, the UK figure is more than twice as high in the former, so I guess Churchill's out of the running. Though it's still pretty silly to define "killer" this way :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I do find it just a tad disturbing that Colombia and the United Kingdom take up four of the top five spots in our list of most prolific murderers by number of victims GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Bomber Harris might be notable in this regard. Edison 02:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a philosophical question to be answered here. The questioner might want to know what British person, without legal authorization, with his own hands (or with close up weapons) killed the most people. This removes soldiers, the generals who commanded them, the politicians who set policy or declared war, and the writers, industrialists, financiers, editors, or philosophers who set in motion the process which led to a conflict. It would also exclude executioners( one hangman in particular strung up a great many people). I mentioned Harris because he emphasized and achieved the bombing of civilian areas to try and win the war by inflicting death and misery on Germany's softer and less well defended targets, and resisted shiftinhg the attack to industrial and military targets. This was not considered an acceptable tactic back in 1939 when the British first bombed Axis targets. Of course by mid-war there was little sympathy for the enablers of Hitler on the part of the British public, who had endured the Blitz and the V1 and V2. Edison 16:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

V1 and V2 came later. They had nothing to do with the decision or the simpathy of the public towards the Germans. The Blitz is quite hyped in scale he never was even close to the scale of the allied raids of German cities. To give that guy a monument in the city of London is a dubious choice.--Tresckow 22:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Spanish flu. -Arch dude 22:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] divorce services

Are there any free divorce services through the government or any other organizations in the state of Texas? Specifically Houston, Tx?Aras bridges 22:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly doubt it. Governments and politicians tend to say that they want to promote and support marriage. It is hard to imagine a state legislature (especially in Texas) providing "taxpayer money" to help people get divorced. Marco polo 01:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a book on how to 'do your own divorce' in another US state. If there are no disputes over child custody, child support, alimony or division of property, then in most jurisdictions most people are capable of getting themselves divorced without a lawyer. Of course, there will be court fees to cover. In any event, the way to minimize the cost of a divorce is to reach agreement with your husband or wife on all points at issue, if you can. Xn4 01:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• The State Bar of Texas might also be able to help you find free or cheap lawyers. Be aware, though, that because of ethics rules, they're likely to advise each spouse to get a separate lawyer. --M@rēino 22:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] as for taxes

If I purchase lumber in 2007 and use it to build and sell a house in 2008 can I deduct it as a cost of materials expense or is it too late since it is not the same year? Clem 23:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You should check with an accountant, but wherever you are it would be very surprising if you couldn't. It's common for construction projects to run over more than one tax year. Xn4 01:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you should check with a tax accountant, but if you are in the United States, the instructions for Schedule C suggest that you can deduct the cost of raw materials from the sale price of a finished product even if those raw materials were purchased in a previous tax year. Marco polo 01:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)