Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 October 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< October 14 <<Sep | October | Nov>> October 16 >
Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.


Contents


[edit] Soccer question

Hi, I need some help as to the most up-to-date Manchester United jersey. I think it says AIG on the front, but I'm not sure. Also, will they be changing it anytime soon (apprx. 6 months)? | AndonicO 00:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
AIG have been sponsoring them since the summer. Most clubs change their home shirts every two years, and never less than one year, so it will probably be current until mid-2008. See here for pics. The red one is the home shirt and the white one is the away shirt.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  11:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
If it's Manchester United you're interested in, you'll need to learn to call the sport "football". (That might be the closest I've ever come to trolling. Sorry. Couldn't help myself.) --Dweller 14:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communist China

I was taught that farmers were paid the same no matter how hard they worked. Wouldn't it have failed in the first minute?!!!?!???100110100 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You might care to have a look at the history of agriculture in Mao's China, with particular reference to the Great Leap Forward. Sometimes people worked for food alone, when they could get it. It was often a choice not between prosperity or poverty, success or failure, but life or death. It's as stark as that. White Guard 01:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Who taught you this 100110100? --The Dark Side 02:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
My Grade 6 Social teacher. Sorry, Social Studies teacher. Why?100110100

While money is the best way to motivate people in the long run, it's not the only way. Some worked because they felt it was there duty to the community, some out of patriotism to the state or loyalty to Mao, and others worked to avoid criticism or possible punishment. Consider students who do school work despite the lack of any pay. StuRat 02:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Amana Colonies were started by dissident Lutherans in the early 1700s, who had their own prophets and lived communally (like communists but without the Marxism). They moved to America in the 1800s and to Iowa, where they founded Amana appliances and several other businesses. But in 1931, after all that time, they decided that the communal living (becides stifling individuality) overly rewarded lazy slugs, so they had a vote and reorganized as a stock company. When I heard that, many years ago, I decided it was only a matter of time before the Soviet Union went much the same way, and lo and behold. Red China is a workers' paradise in name only, with rich capitalists and rich party bosses using the Red Army to keep the peasants in line. Probably a matter of time before they adandon the pretense of a Marxist egalitarian society as well.Edison 02:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Pretence of Marxist egalitarian society? My goodness: have you been to China recently? That old fig leaf went a long time ago! And it isn't just party bosses and rich capitalist who are the beneficiaries of the New China: it has one of the fastest growing and moneyed middle-classes in the world. Go to Shanghai-you'll be amazed. White Guard 03:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I really do not understand the philosophical underpinnings of present day mainland China. Is it a 'worker's paradise" or a capitalist paradise of social Darwinism? We see on TV the rich and the poor. What is the philosophical basis of the class stratified society? There are workers inside China who seem to be much like illegal aliens in the U.S.A. who come here from Mexico. The Chinese workers are displaced farmers who move to the cities illegally and do construction work. China does not provide free public education or affordable health care. What excuse does their government present for existing and for trampling on individual liberty?Edison 05:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Edison, you are right to be puzzled; but the real key here is that hypocrisy was always a part of twentieth century Communist systems; they have always said one thing and done the other. Have a look at the Stalin Constitution of 1936, the most perfect declaration of human liberty ever conceived, then have a look at real life in the Soviet Union of the day. At the moment China has a booming economy and that's all most Chinese people care about, not the obvious absence of political liberty. White Guard 05:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Hypocrisy is not quite unique to 20th century communist systems. And that's a huge understatement. One of the most common criticisms of people in democracies is that the people they elected don't do what they promised before the elections. DirkvdM 08:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? Did I say that it was unique to Communism? And, for goodness sake, what do you mean by a 'huge understatement'? Do try to express yourself clearly. Now I'm quite happy to agree with your contention that people in democracies often accuse their politicians of telling lies. If they do this in Communist countries they either end up in prison or concentration camps. That is the difference between freedom and tyranny. White Guard 23:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Easy, easy. You tend to get way too worked up about things. I merely made a loose remark that you shouldn't read too much into. DirkvdM 05:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So my teacher was wrong and a liar?100110100 03:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. What was your teacher wrong about? Chinese farmers may indeed have been 'paid the same', even if that was only a bowl of riceWhite Guard 05:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone can be wrong without being a liar. One does not necessarily have to include the other. Dismas|(talk) 03:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
That's half right. Being a liar does necessarily mean being wrong, but being wrong does not necessarily mean being a liar. JackofOz 11:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was mostly a matter of subsistence farming, which would mean there was no such thing as payment in the first place. This was pretty much the state of China before the revolution, and you can't change a system that has been in place for milennia overnight. They tried, though, which was the biggest problem. That's always the problem with revolutions. They might be needed to change a system, but the ones who are capable of making a revolution succeed, either the military or blind idealists who can mobilise the people, are not generally the ones who can run a country well. DirkvdM 08:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The majority of Chinese remain subsistence farmers or poor workers. That has not changed. What has changed, however, is the Chinese government's attitude towards this majority. While they used to at least attempt to help the poor (although Mao was highly incompetent at it, as in the Great Leap Forward), now they are on the side of the rich industrialists. So, the poor have the rich against them, the government against them, and no right to unionize. Thus, their situation will continue to deteriorate until something changes, quite possibly a second communist revolution, forcing out the current fake communists and putting real communists back into power. StuRat 17:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Only it will probably fail like in Soviet Russia? --The Dark Side 20:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
No, not necessarily. The Chinese Communist party is much more intellectually subtle that the Soviet version, which effectively ruined the national economy. In China economic prosperity has been gained at the price of freedom. Most Chinese people can clearly live with that. White Guard 23:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that reasoning would necessitate the claim that Soviet Russia was ruled by real communists, something which indeed could be argued. 惑乱 分からん 22:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I would call the communists in the early days of the Soviet Union and China "real communists", in the sense that they did actively try to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Now, however, the Chinese "communists" do just the reverse, they work to take wealth from the poor (such as in the form of land for crops) and give it to the rich. StuRat 17:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The real communists certainly wouldn't agree. They called it state socialism. Real communism isn't practicable. It requires people to be nice to each other, take only what they need, leaving the rest to the others, and that is asking a bit too much. And there are more flaws. But you guys seem to have a different notion of what 'real communism' means and I'm curious what that is.
White Guard, if the Soviets had an economy to ruin, they built it up in the first place. They took Russia from a dirt poor mediaeval society to the first space faring nation in a mere four decades (despite the devastating blow of WWII and without any foreign trade or help to speak of). That has to be the biggest economic achievement of the 20th century. That achievement was, however, largely a result of the opportunities that the tzars had not taken, namely to industrialise in western fashion (including the atrocities that came with it by the way - so much for the 'real communism' that was supposed to get rid of those). But after a while the system turned out to be too rigid and they had to change it. Not that they did that in the best possible way, but that's a different matter. DirkvdM 05:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually the Russia economy was westernising rapidly under the last Tsar: it took the Soviets ten years to reach GDP levels achieved by Russia in 1914. Anyway, I was thinking specifically of the last stages of the Soviet system, a corrupt, centralized economy unable to respond to consumer demand. Gorbachev's liberalisation merely made matters worse. The Chinese, in contrast, have freed the enterprising spirit of their people with astonishing results, in a way not seen in Russia since the days of NEP. China may be Communist in doctrine; it's Capitalist in practice. White Guard 07:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
They liked the idea of an uncriticizable one-party system so much that they kept it, though... 惑乱 分からん 15:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
After WWI, it's no surpirse that it took them 10 years to get the economy back to the same level. But that only makes the achievement even more impressive (they had to recuperate from two world wars). Also, what you say doesn't say anything about what that level was. People didn't revolt (againa and again) for no reason. People are usually not willing to risk their lives unless there is a stron incentive. And hunger is one of the strongest incentives. Note that they stopped revolting after the tzars were gone. It's a very crude form of democracy, but an indication that, if not good, things were at least better. For the rest, we seem to agree largely on the later USSR, so at least that's something. :) DirkvdM 08:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuality and evolutionary psychology

I have read in several places that homosexuality is hypothesized to have an evolutionary function, producing adults who could contribute more to the community in other ways than parenting. Wouldn't this purpose be better served by asexuality or autosexuality, which would save time on courtship? NeonMerlin 03:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite a factual question, but I'd assume so if it was true. I've heard other theories that said homosexuality evolved from superpopulation, so it would supposedly kick in to keep the population stable. I find both theories hard to believe. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 05:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'd say that homosexuality in itself isn't counter-evolutionary. It's lacking the ability to reproduce, that is. Considering bisexuality is fairly prevalent, if we'd see it as a genetic trait, the parents would pass it on to their children, and there's no reason to see it should have disappeared. 惑乱 分からん 12:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

One must consider the social purpose of sex to see a purpose in homosexuality. If sex is used to cement social relationships which are necessary for any social species to survive, then homosexuality is a normal variation which still serves that purpose. Bonobos are a great example of this process in action. StuRat 17:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You may also want to be careful of any evolutionary explanation that relies on "group selection", which appears in your explanation. A perfectly fine counter-explanation would be that homosexuality is just a naturally occurring random variation that has found a social role in some cultures/societies. As to User:Wakuran's claim that homosexuality is not counter-evolutionary, I disagree. Any feature that decreases either/both the sexual and natural fitness of an organism is not evolutionarily beneficial. Since homosexual sex cannot create offspring, then (of course we're assuming homosexuality has a primarily genetic basis) there can be no way to spread the genes. This is quite ironic if you look at the conservative Christian position of reforming homosexuals into upstanding heterosexuals, as they would be essentially allowing the genes for homosexuality to spread throughout the population. Another explanation off the top of my head (which is mostly meant to show how gene expression does not just require certain genes but also environmental triggers) could be that homosexuality is largely produced by the lack or overabundance of a certain chemical/nutrient in the womb. Homosexuality then would serve a display function, it would be displaying the organism did not develop properly and therefore their genes may not be worth reproducing.--152.2.62.69 18:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's the absence of reproductive sex that's counter-evolutionary, not homosexuality in itself, whether referring to sexual attraction or action. (You might claim that homosexuality necessitates the absence of reproductive sex, although I actually doubt that it's necessary the case.) 惑乱 分からん 21:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The arguments of 152.2.62.69 (whom I shall call 152 for short) are flawed. 152 argues, "Since homosexual sex cannot create offspring, then (of course we're assuming homosexuality has a primarily genetic basis) there can be no way to spread the genes." However, this is not true if a tendency toward homosexuality is controlled by recessive genes, or if a genetic tendency finds expression in behavior only under certain circumstances (for example, in high-birth-order sons). In these scenarios, individuals who manifest heterosexual behavior may carry genes that program a tendency toward homosexual behavior. Now, such genes could confer an evolutionary advantage to the individuals carrying them if it meant that those individuals, and their offspring, enjoyed the material support of a nonreproductive family member. Under either of these scenarios, homosexual individuals do, in effect, help to perpetuate their genes. They just do so through nieces and nephews rather than sons and daughters.
As for 152's argument about a negative "display function" for homosexuality, it does not make sense on careful examination. First of all, the judgment that an individual who exhibited homosexuality "did not develop properly" is a culturally conditioned one, and there is no reason assume that such a judgment is or was made in all human cultures. In fact, the ethnographic evidence suggests otherwise. (See, for example, Two-Spirit.) Second, for this "display function" to impair the reproductive chance of a mother who bore a homosexual child in a society that devalued homosexuality, the child's homosexuality would have to manifest during the mother's reproductive life. However, if a mother bore such a child at the age of 20, she would be well into her 30s, and nearing the end of her reproductive life, before her child's homosexuality would be likely to manifest. Therefore, it is unlikely that homosexuality serves a negative "display function." Marco polo 01:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Another way homosexuality could be passed on (if it is a genetic effect) would be by mitochondrial DNA, which is directly passed on by mothers to their offspring without recombination. If homosexual sons help their mothers raise their (younger) siblings they could improve their siblings fitness that way and increase the likelihood of exactly that mitochondrial DNA to be further passed on. Lukas 01:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
To support this thought, note that some other social species have members which can't possibly reproduce, such as sterile female worker bees. StuRat 12:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
These ideas are plausible, but if Lukas's hypothesis is correct, then homosexuality would not be a genetic "defect," but just another genetic feature that contributes to the adaptive advantages of the community and the species. There is lots of genetic diversity within and among human communities. It may be that homosexuality is part of that diversity. Being a minority trait does not make it a defect. Marco polo 19:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
What the hell are you saying!! Homosexuality is NOT a defect!!!!!100110100 11:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
A good comparison might be with the sickle cell gene. At first, it appears to just be a defect, but it has a hidden advantage (it provides a partial immunity to malaria), which compensates for the disadvantage. StuRat 04:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
"effect" not "defect". I intended that as a neutral word. The sterile worker bees (and ants) are definitely a good example. Lukas 05:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
In any case homosexuality must be advantageous to a species if it says in the population.100110100 11:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The end of the world as we know it

I recently read in one of the daily papers (in the UK) an article about what would happen if Mankind were somehow spontaneously removed from the Earth (Strangely the details of this don't seem to be relevant). The article focused on the amount of time it would take for the Earth to recover from Mankinds effect and featured a time scale stating what would happen within the first few days, i.e all power stations stopping after x? hours and the subsequent cessation of light pollution etc. The timescale continued through to detail how long it would take endangered species to recover and even for roads to become overgrown and buildings to collapse. In the longer term the article dealt with pollution and chemical waste etc.

Does anyone know any more details about the article/know whether it is credible and, if it was research based, where I could find out more? Many thanks for your help and apologies if I posted this in the wrong section!Scrivens 17:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I found the picture but not the article itself. Hyenaste (tell) 21:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The original news articles seem to be based on the publication of a thought experiment; Imagine Earth without people; in the New Scientist. The paper doesn't seem to have published academically (with Peer Review etc), but NS tends to be a pretty reputable magazine/journal, ignoring the fact that they did a big piece about a perpetual motion drive without mentioning that it defied the laws of conservation of momentum. Laïka 15:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Most concrete buildings gone within 1000 years? Surely, the concrete buildings we make are stronger than what the Romans did and many (most?) of their major structures are still standing. DirkvdM 06:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
No, our buildings are not made to last for thousands of years, as the Roman buildings were. I believe we use fast-setting concrete which isn't nearly as durable as what the Romans used. Rather than being "gone", I would expect all evidence of our civilization to be buried under sediment in a millennium. We also use steel extensively, which rusts away in no time, once the paint or other protective covering wears off. StuRat 11:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
So, basically, if we were to dissapear, for the next few millennia, (did I spell that right?), animals would be living in our buildings? But, what if we don't dissapear yet, we could develop new materiels and/or construction techniques (carbon frames in the walls perhaps) for buildings, which would then last longer. | AndonicO 12:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Our buildings would collapse in just a few decades without maintenance. Note that we are fully capable of making buildings that would last thousands of years, now, if we chose to do so. There just isn't any financial justification for spending that kind of money when our only interest is in quarterly profits and yearly dividends. The ancient Egyptians had a much longer-term perspective than we did, so built things to last. StuRat 03:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Progress means change and if you build things to last forever, they get in the way (eg wrong cabling for new techniques). The victorians built like that and that hindered further progress of England. Ironically, building with the notion that it will be an everlasting empire actually helped in its downfall. Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but there is an element of truth in it. DirkvdM 08:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Buildings could be made to better support new technology, however, by having "access ports" (holes precut in the walls and plugged), to allow for future technology, like fiber optic lines, hydrogen gas, or whatever the future brings. Buildings which are built in such a way that nothing can be easily added (with wet plaster walls, for example), are far less friendly to new technology. StuRat 20:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff. For a less scientific, but beautifully crafted version, read Day of the Triffids. --Dweller 10:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Dreams

What is the exact purpose behind the American Dreams? Is it a world of Illusion & impatience for desires? Is it that the western culture promotes materialistic desires What is the heights of creativity? [kj_venus]

Read our article American dream. It seems to be the case, indeed, that capitalism, an aspect of Western culture, promotes materialism. But I heard from an Indian software engineer who returned to India (from the U.S.) that she found India to be far more materialistic than the U.S. I suspect it has much to do with the values of an emerging middle class. I don't see the link to creativity.  --LambiamTalk 21:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
One very important "American Dream" that became a reality was a little something called Wikipedia. It was invented by an American and is based in Tampa Bay, Florida, AMERICA. You seem to be quite enchanted by this "American Dream" yourself. Is Wikipedia a world of "illusion"? Absolutely not! It's an incredible educational tool about the REAL world. Is it about "impatience"? Perhaps! I suppose you can say that I love Wikipedia because I'm too impatient to leaf through tomes of books to learn about something I'm curious about. Is it about the promotion of "materialistic desires"? I can't see how. I'm just sitting right here typing about a subject that fascinates me (Wikipedia) rather than running out to make an extra buck to buy some flashy car or any other "material" possession. To me, a Westerner, Wikipedia, a Western invention, has nothing to do with materialism and all to do with intellectual exploration. I'd say one of the "heights" of creativity is the "American" invention of Wikipedia. However if your understanding of creativity is going to see the same ballet or opera for the hundredth time, then by all means, log off and go buy a ticket. Loomis 04:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Bravo! Hurrah for Loomis! Encore, encore! In other words, well put; an exellent point. I think America is getting bad "press"; of all the people I know, not many are materialistic, just a couple. Obviously, we all want something (which, if taken literally, makes us materialistic), but not in an exaggerated manner. | AndonicO 12:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Its based in america, why does that keep coming up, if I put some servers to my page in china, does that mean I'm an adamant communist? Philc TECI 18:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comparing the American dreams to the materialistic attitudes of the growing indian middle class is absolutely foolish. It shows the mental competence of the working class Indians both in & around the globe. America simply offers a chance to shoot in the air & court success. Otherwise Freedom is simply over done.Its a world of illusion and chasing it sometimes doesnt yield the desired consequences. Its purely impatience for desires. People who are wealthty to support their existence and easily chase such dreams where people are not grounded to face the real challenges of life. [kj_venus]

[edit] French wars

I remember a scene from the DVD version of Apocalypse Now where a one of the french plantation owners is telling Cpt. Willard how the French have lost every recent war. That's true, but what I want to know is this: Have the French lost more wars then they have one? When I say lost I mean like they either flat out lost or it was a phyrric victory.
Lost:

  • Vietnam war
  • WWI
  • WWII
  • Franco-Prussian war
  • Algerian war of independence
  • Seven Years war

That's all I can think of off the top of my head. --The Dark Side 22:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

France lost WWI? That's news to me. The losses were high (German losses were higher) but it was still a victory. Also it is not strictly true that WWII was lost; the French were ultimately on the winning side, being one of the four powers involved in the division of Germany in 1945. Also on a technical point the Algerian War was not so much lost as abandoned by De Gaulle in 1962. White Guard 23:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Notice how I also said "When I say lost I mean like they either flat out lost or it was a phyrric victory." The definition of a phyrric victory is "a victory which comes at devastating cost to the victor." The fact that France was completely occupied for several years in WWII and had their populace terrorized by the Gestapo and friends makes it a phyrric victory. When you think about it France didn't gain anything from the war. Same deal with WWI only there's no Gestapo friends and only part of France is occupied. In Algeria, the French would have inevitably lost even if they had stayed. --The Dark Side 00:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I do indeed know what a pyhrric victory is-a victory that comes close to a defeat, not, I think, an apt description of the outcome of the Great War. It is even less apt for the Second World War, because France emerged among the victors, however that was achieved. What France 'gained' from WWII was her freedom, no little thing, I think. It's debatable if the Algerian War would have been lost if De Gaulle had committed more resources, as he had previously promised. But if you already know all the answers why did you put the question? White Guard 01:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd also characteriz/se a victory that might be relatively easy but that subsequently saddles the victors with great problems as pyrrhic. Maybe that characteriz/ses the whole Nazi campaign from Operation Barbarossa onward...  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Afaik, France didn't lose all that much, especially compared to Germany, Poland, the USSR and the UK (which was up to it's neck in debts). Of course one always loses something in a war, irrespective of whether one is on the winning or losing side, and what France lost was probably not exceptional in that sense. They surrendered pretty quickly and the Germans never even had to fight over the southern half (Vichy France), so that probably emerged relatively unscathed. I'm not sure, though. DirkvdM 06:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Dark Side, your def of a "loss" would mean most wars would have losers on both sides and few, if any, victors, including WW1 and WW2. Perhaps that's a healthy way to look at war, but it's not the normal way. StuRat 11:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah. By those rules, really, the only country in the 20thC to have won any of the major wars is the US, having played the games almost completely on other countries' soil. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Israel won most of its wars - depends on whether you consider them "major" or not. Clarityfiend 17:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Returning to the original question, since the time of Napoleon (1800's) the French haven't gained any major war (and thinking on it Nappy also lost at the end) against any major opponent unless they were allied with another major country (e.g. UK). Franco-Prussian war: ended with the Germans proclaiming their new emperor in Versailles. WWI: the French army nearly munitined because they were sick of being wasted by their incompetent generals and only won it with help of the British and the Americans. WWII? The less we speak of it the better. Vietnam and Argelia: (former colonies who fought the French army for their independence) the same. Hitler himself said something like this: The French ? Hard and strong soldiers,... lousy officers. Flamarande 17:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I really have to say a word or two in favour of La belle France and its military prowess. Major opponents? Well they beat the Austrians in 1859, still considered one of the leading powers in Europe at the time, more or less single-handed. Also people in the Anglo-Saxon world tend to have a very distorted picture of the Crimean War-the Light Brigade and all that-but there were in fact many more French than British or Turkish troops fighting against the Russians. I won't mention all of the colonial wars fought and won because these were obviously not against 'major powers'; but the record in this regard is at least equal to that of the British. But if the colonial victories are to be excluded, so too should the colonial defeats, and that includes Vietnam. As for WWI there were many more French than British or American troops on the Western Front in 1918. So, if we take all of the wars fought after 1815 then the only outright defeat was the Franco-Prussian War. White Guard 23:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html Joneleth 01:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The above website is a badly informed anti-French diatribe, best treated with contempt. White Guard 01:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

They won the Hundred Years' War, eventually, and the some of the Italian Wars. Franco-Dutch War? Wars of the First and Second Coalition? France has a history before Napoleon. Adam Bishop 12:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well for those that dont know albinoblacksheep.com content, the above link is a humorous reference not a factlist. Joneleth 13:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unknown German soldier

Dear Sir/Madam,

I was sent this picture by e-mail by a friend, who does not unfortunately know the source himself. I was seeking the identity of the tall German soldier in the following picture: http://i9.tinypic.com/3zaufy8.jpg

He was supposedly captured at Cap Griz Nez.

Sincerely, Matt714 23:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you have probably set yourself an impossible task. He's just an ordinary soldier, a lance-corporal, I think. The photo was no doubt taken because he was unusually tall (or the British soldier is unusually small!) White Guard 01:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
British or German Army archive website...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)