User talk:Clio the Muse/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Clio the Muse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Happy New Year to you all. I have some wonderful pictures of me, Bibliomanic, sailing on the Nile, in the jungles of Rwanda, on the plains of Tanzania, and staring on to the snows of Kilimanjaro! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Any way to share one or two of them, please? I vote for Kilimanjaro... Xn4 23:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

When I was young, I never thought of years beyond 2000. Calenders still look like props from a science fiction play. I get the same feeling at airports, in cities, whenever I fall asleep. Years like 2008 have to come out of nowhere. Another year that most WWII veterans wouldn't survive to see; ever imagined surviving to see. And a year closer to some yet-unimagined paradigm shift in science, culture, who knows. A year closer to Green Earth, or Space Elevator, or Singularity, or whatever else is impossible. A year closer to the end of mortality, slavery, involuntary illiteracy (or of information darkness). History has never been more important when we hardly have a chance to see the present. From a snowed-in corner of New England, I wish you a New Year. Big, personal, implausible dreams: come true :) DeepSkyFrontier (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ever so, DeepSkyFrontier. Things will always be worthwhile with people like you around. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. You know, when they make "Wikipedia: The Musical," you won't be in the chorus. It's very possible, even, that someone like you will get top billing. Also, Wikipedia Lunchboxes. You're going to be collectible! DeepSkyFrontier (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

♥ Clio the Muse (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hence the reference desk, where no-one can butcher what I write

After seeing that I've thought that perhaps this[1] might interest you. I hope you're having a nice safari. :) --Taraborn (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So, I missed all the drama! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This was created recently and I see nobody that deserves this more than you. --Taraborn (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		For being arguably the best RD respondent ever. Taraborn (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How nice! Thank you so much, Taraborn. It almost makes being back a pleasure (well, almost). Clio the Muse (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So much for popping in now and then from an online source...X-(! I guess you're not due back for another 24 hours at least, but a preheated talk page makes it cozier for us to listen to your travel tales. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I should have kept a list of the number of times I have been reading a question on the Ref Desk and have thought, "We need Clio on this one". Alas, no such lass! You are welcome (and welcomed) back with much enthusiasm. My late-night reading has been uninspiring since you went touring. Bielle (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both so much for such a lovely warming welcome! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back also from me! Xn4 23:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How nice of you to drop in, Xn4. And thank you so much for the wonderful Christmas card. I adore the Wilton Diptych, white hart badges and all! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw your name on my watchlist and cheeered. There are times when I wish WP had a side where there was permission for a bit of non-encyclopedia chat. I would love to have heard , at least, about those adventures of your safari last month that you are prepared to have on the Net. (I'd love even better to hear about those you are not prepared to have on the Net, but I have to be realistic here.) Happy New Year Bielle (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Bielle. I had a simply wonderful time, perhaps the best travel experience I have ever had. I have now fallen madly in love with Africa; with the people and the place. Unfortunately we had to cancel a planned visit to Kenya, for obvious reasons, but went just about everywhere else intended, with a trip to Burundi thrown in for extra diversion. I have done the most amazing things, Bielle, and met the most amazing people; I had my fortune told in a village deep in rural Uganda, not, I assure you, part of a bogus tourist experience! I dined with African families by the banks of the Nile under a deep red sun. I was there; I was there. I simply cannot wait to go back. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no more exeats his term! Xn4 23:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrrgh! I shall just have to construct a nice little research proposal, one involving a minimum of travel, of course. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Clio, welcome back! I'm pleased to hear you had an excellent trip. It sounds heavenly. Rockpocket 23:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Rockpocket. Yes, it was heavenly, and more! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Alas! Africa is no historical part of the World. Xn4 00:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We will make our own history, Xn4! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Exdent) Almost everywhere I have ever been for more than two weeks, excepting only those places where I was on "Deep R&R" which means "restricted soley to sun, sand and sleeping", I have wanted to return to immediately. I always feel that there is not enough air to breathe at home, that I must go forth again before I lose the travel high. The problem is, I also have this long list of places I haven't been to yet, and desparately want to experience. I have world enough, and then some, but not time. If I have any advice for anyone who might read this, it would be: if you want to do something and you can do it, do it now; you have no certainty that you even have tomorrow, never mind what constraints (physical, mental or financial) tomorrow might bring. My whole life changed in less than 5 seconds, and nothing in this world will ever leave me as free again. So, go back, go forward, just don't stand there, flapping in the breeze. That's your life in the wind. One day you will write about it all, Clio, and, if I am lucky, I will read it. Bielle (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Carpe diem, dear Bielle; Carpe deim. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

One fish each day? Edison (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Not carp, though! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In Albania, I really did read in an English-language guide book "Nothing on Earth tastes anything like the crap from Lake Shkodra". Xn4 23:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Tasty! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

While Edison and Xn4 set the safari theme, wearing pith helmets and performing their fish-slapping dance, allow me to celebrate and say how good it is to have you back safe and in one piece, and how happy we are to hear you had the trip of trips! ---Sluzzelin talk 20:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I did! Thank you so much for your kind wishes, Sluzzelin. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Clio, please see this note which I've left at User talk:Victuallers -

Victuallers, thanks for your note, which has prompted me to look at the numbering of the articles we have on Dukes Robert of Normandy... Our article Robert II, Duke of Normandy is plainly about the Duke usually called Robert I, or Robert the Devil, or Robert the Magnificent, and not about the Duke usually called Robert II of Normandy, who is his grandson and has an article at Robert Curthose. In the lead of that article, Robert Curthose is introduced as Robert II. We can see why he is sailing under the name of Curthose. I tried to move Robert II, Duke of Normandy to Robert I, Duke of Normandy, but it can't be done except by an Admin, perhaps because there's already a page at Robert I, Duke of Normandy, which redirects to Rollo of Normandy. At Rollo of Normandy we read that some sources call him Robert, but so far as I'm aware he isn't known as Robert I, Duke of Normandy. I'll copy this note to Clio, who may be able to say if I'm missing something before we ask you to Do Something.

Any thoughts? Xn4 01:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right, Xn4, there is some confusion here. I have never come across any source that refers to Rollo as Robert. Besides, it is uncertain if he was ever known by the title of Duke of Normandy. Robert the Magnificent, father of William the Conqueror, is thus generally recognised as Robert I, which makes Robert Curthose, or Courte-Heuse, his grandson, the second duke of that name. In fact you will find them with the proper numerical identity if you look at the genealogy on the page for Robert the Magnificent, and at the list on the Wikipedia page on the Dukes of Normandy. I was under the impression that title changes could be made by any editor? Anyway, I'm copying this note to your talk page and that of Victuallers. Best wishes to you both. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Clio.

Victuallers, I don't entirely understand why I need to trouble an Admin for these moves, but -

1. would you please consider moving Robert II, Duke of Normandy to Robert I, Duke of Normandy?
2. That move will create a new redirect page called Robert II, Duke of Normandy, redirecting to Robert I, Duke of Normandy, but could Robert Curthose please be moved to Robert II, Duke of Normandy, nevertheless?
3. Robert the Magnificent should then be redirected to Robert I, Duke of Normandy instead of to Robert II, Duke of Normandy

Many thanks. Xn4 01:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello old friend! I thought you may wrinkle your nose (prettily) at the red wound that is Children's Crusade.

If ever there was a great History topic for an encyclopedia to cover well and... well, let's just say it's well digested.

Fancy making it more worthy? --Dweller (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, hello, stranger! It's nice to see you are still around. The Children's Crusade? Give me a day or two and I'll see if I can add anything of value. Keep in touch! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What's that stench? Oh, it's the pong of OR, missing information and undue weight in that article. Poo-eee! It's difficult to type with fingers grasping nostrils. Where's that clothespeg? --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Dweller; I did have a look at the article but it may require deeper surgery, the kind of operation for which I have neither the time nor the necessary expertise. I'm also wary of walking into Wikipedia minefields, of which I suspect this might be one! It may be best if I pass the matter over to another user, one with Crusading expertise, and see what he thinks. Take care. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear lady thanks for your kind regards, the latest mankster had to have emergency heart surgery at five weeks old - on my birthday, the best present i have ever had was being told that 'everything was fine' - by the best heart surgeon Mr Pollock, Sick Kids Glasgow- right now he is fast asleep, after having his supper of porrigde and mashed banana (our mankster, not the heart surgeon) the past six monthes have been a 'bit chicken oriental' and i have been off work - hence no contact- but santa was very good to the badger king and i now have a spiffy laptoap n broadband eh, ken? saw dr loomis (oops sorry 3 degrees) tried a cunning disguise, polar opposite of being a prick he tried being a..., well i am talking to a lady, excuse my langauge. will message soon, someone has awoken take care lovePerry-mankster (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Perry; it's so nice to hear from you, and I am truly glad that things have worked out well. I can only imagine the terrible anguish you and your wife must have been through; it's a relief to know that the worst is over. My best wishes to all of the Mankster tribe. Love, Anastasia. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Clio. Re this - no, it’s not ok for anyone to judge anyone else by use of a pejorative label. But just in case you missed the sequence of events, the first finger-pointing exercise was by yourself – "... but those, like DuncanHill, who turned this into a silly Wiki drama have done you no service at all", followed later by "... he flounced off in the huff ... To act as a drama queen ...". Do you expect to be able to make such statements and for DuncanHill not to respond in kind? That seems hardly fair. It’s not that I approve of him referring to you as a “bitch” (it was clear, without him naming you, that it was you he was talking about) - but since I didn’t comment on your quoted-above posts at the time they were made, I was hardly going to comment on his later riposte. I just let it lie, in the hope that all this name-calling would end soon. The distinction I made, and I believe it’s a valid one, is that his remark was about you, but to me, on my talk page – whereas, your remark was made to him, on my talk page, as if I no longer existed but had transmogrified into a place where all and sundry can have it out with each other. Well, my talk page is not a battlefield for others. To a casual reader, it could well have looked as if "Well, the bitch knows you now for exactly what you are" was meant for my ears, not Duncan’s. Indeed, I first thought that was the case, until the penny dropped. This was the essence of what I took exception to, and I don’t resile from it. On reflection, I hope you’ll agree that by not at least addressing your remark to DuncanHill by name, better still going to his own talk page to do it, you’ve caused a level of (I hope unintended) offence to me. Not a huge degree, but not nothing either. I also don’t want to take this any further, but to continue the good relations we’ve always had, so I’m prepared, having said my piece, to let bygones be bygones and leave it at that. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Jack, Jack; can't you see the difference between my remarks and his? I was commenting on his approach, on a pattern of behaviour, not about him. He did this before, adopting an attitude based on a gross overestimation of his worth and value. He was not saying goodbye; he was waiting to see what effect his announcement of departure would have. You must surely recognise this. I knew he would be waiting for everyone to say how sad we were to see him go, hence my direct and honest response. His reaction, an indication that he was keeping matters under watch, as I knew he would, was lodged on your talk page, to call me a bitch, the inadequate response of inadequate males when dealing with women; direct, personal and deeply offensive. Just imagine if anyone had responded to you, not on the basis of what you had said, but what you are; on the basis of your sex and sexuality. Yes, I apologise for lodging a third party comment on your talk page; it was not right, and it is not something I have ever done before. But I would have thought it obvious to whom my remark was addressed. I now know exactly what kind of person DuncanHill is, and I am glad he is going. As far as our relations are concerned you need have no concern. I may not always agree with you, but you are one of the few people here for whom I have had consistent respect. I deeply regret that this has come between us, and I hope you will understand my feelings. Clio the Muse (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Clio. I really dislike getting into these sorts of discussions, because it places me at risk of appearing "holier than thou", which is absolutely the last thing I would ever want. And if do decide to say anything, I have to choose my words in a particularly "walking-on-eggshells" manner. But I can't just let your response pass without comment. Yes, I understand the difference between comments on behaviour and comments on people. It's fine to comment on a behaviour or a pattern of behaviour - the worse the perceived offence, the more scathing the criticism might be. The trick is not to go the extra step and make uncivil statements about the person him/herself. DuncanHill referring to you as a "bitch" was such a statement. Your " ... adopting an attitude based on a gross overestimation of his worth and value" seems to be another. "I now know exactly what kind of person DuncanHill is" is another, when read in context. If one objects to pejorative personal comments on principle, as one is entitled to do, one cannot respond with pejorative personal comments without ipso facto sacrificing the moral upper hand. Enough said. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My observations, personal and direct, are, of course, in direct response to his offensive and immature remark, in some ways made all the worse by his bogus apology and explanation on your talk page. I could be a lot more cutting about him, Jack, if I had a mind to be; a lot more cutting. But he is not worth it. Anyway, he is history. Let's move on. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You're still doing it, you realise. Wasn't the avoidance of cutting personal remarks the very thing I was talking about? Saying that you have chosen not to make a cutting personal comment because you consider the person not worth the effort, is in itself a cutting personal comment; possibly even more cutting than the comments you might otherwise have made. Getting into judgments about a person's "worth" or lack thereof (twice now) as a way of determining how, and whether, one might choose to communicate with them, doesn't seem to be a good approach. Surely it's the perceived "worth" of their contributions that matters, not their worth personally. That's my point. I'm happy to move on now, but am just as happy to discuss this further if you're minded (which I kinda doubt). I'm interested in the mechanics of human interaction, finding out why some things work and others don't, and also seeing the world the way others see it - not necessarily to instantly adopt their view, but to discuss points of difference, whether they be fine or gross, and see where the common ground lies. (PS. I thought you were interested in "history" - lol). Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Alas, Jack, Clio is divine, but Anastasia is human, all too human. When she is angry she is very, very angry, and then she is as venomous as a cobra! I cannot perceive DuncanHill now beyond his stupid insult, and his contributions, so far as I am concerned, are now irrelevant. He has ceased to exist, no longer forming part of my mental horizon. If he hangs around I will simply ignore him, like others who have long since been deposited in the 'memory hole'. I'm always happy to talk to you, Jack, but I don't really see this going anywhere. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You're probably looking for the essay at meatball:GoodBye (though you may not have realized it until just now). There's particularly valuable advice in the section on MentioningPatterns to invididuals who are still in an AngryCloud. (Which is not – I hasten to add – any excuse for him to have called you a bitch.) Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ten, thank you so much. Those links are brilliantly perceptive! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme." (Usually attributed to Mark Twain, several variants of the quote exist.) There's very little that can happen on the Internet – at least in the realm of interpersonal conflicts – that is not a variation on an existing theme. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is so true! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer to the question. I expected that you would come along and expand on the answer, and I'm glad I didn't get it all wrong. I'm stopping by just to add myself to your undoubtedly long fan-list! Are you lying about your age :-)? How is it possible to have read all the litterature that you have, have time for all the sports activities you mention on your userpage, make all those wonderful contributions to the reference desk, be 24 years old and have a boy friend? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 09:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, hello, NorwegianBlue! Thank you ever so much for your good opinion of me, which I value highly. I suppose I could admit to you that I am really 102 years old, with a back-up team of children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren to act as a research team; or that the goddess Clio stands ever by my side, whispering knowledge and wisdom into my ear. But, alas, the truth is far more mundane, and Anastasia has always been an avid reader and an eager player. She is a busy, busy bee! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Clio,

could you please take a look at the entry for this obscure Polish "historian"? I think it is not tolerable in this form (if the person is relevant at all). However the person responsible for it says it would be ok to ommit the facts as it is only about the historian. I ran across this point several times on the en:wp, is thris truly a correct proceeding here? It isn´t on de:wp. In my opinion this is a shocking, revisionist article.--Tresckow (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Tresckow. Please forgive me, but I'm not quite clear what the exact problem is. Do you have general concerns about information in the page on the Katyn Massacre? If so, it would be helpful if you could give me some more detail. Who is the Polish historian to whom you refer, and in what way has he biased or distorted the page? Perhaps the most appropriate course of action would be to outline your worries on the article's talk page. In the meantime I think it best for me to take this up with another user-a specialist on Polish matters-who might provide me with some further enlightenment. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the issue concerns Romuald Świątek-Horyń. I have troubles veryfing his article, as most of the refs I found don't appear to be neither in Polish nor in English. Not sure if he is notable, but the article is not linked, so it is rather harmless in any case.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Piotrus. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was changed. So my concerns aren´t so big anymore. The article stated unreflected that the germans committed said massacre. Which is one (of the few) they definitely did not. If this socalled historian is relevant is another question. He was or is being deleted in two other Wikipedias. By the way, Orwell mentions a Red Letter Affair in his book Hommage to Catalonia. Does that ring a bell to you?--Tresckow (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's now clear to me, Tresckow, what the exact nature of your worries were. You are, of course, quite right: the Germans had nothing at all to do with the Katyn Massacre. To insist that they had, in the face of all of the evidence, would seem to reveal this person's old-style Soviet politics. I can't imagine he is taken very seriously, especially in his own country. Anyway, it is the moral and intellectual equivalent of Holocaust denial, and this 'historian' deserves to be mentioned in that kind of context, if no other.

It's a while since I've read Homage to Catalonia, and I cannot recall the specific reference you have in mind. It may be an allusion to the Zinoviev Letter, a political intrigue that helped bring down the first British Labour government in 1924. This concerns a letter allegedly from Grigory Zinoviev, then president of the Comintern, instructing the British Communist Party to begin a campaign of subversion. In fact it was a forgery, concocted by the British Secret Service to discredit the political left. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I´m glad that you got me right. I didn´t ment to deminish German atrocities. However I can´t stand guilt upon "us" when it is not justified. This is pretty Leuchter-Style and it wouldn´t have been good to let it uncommented. The case is even stranger if you consider that this "historian" is a Pole.

Now to the Letter. I don´t htink it´s the Zinoviev Letter. I´ll try to give you more details: Orwell tries to help a friend in jail and goes to an officer of the Republican Army on his behalf. When the officer agrees to help and asks in which unit he served Orwell says that he s a POUM officer. The officer is shocked and Orwell elaborates that what he told him was like if somebody entered the Cavallry Club after the Red Letter Affair and would´ve called himself a communist. I would look this up myself but my university is pretty germanocentric in terms of history books and I have no idea where to do so.--Tresckow (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tresckow. I'll have to look into this a little further, and get back to you as soon as I have an answer. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply on Tresckow's talk page. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Clio. Would you mind taking a look at this new article, I believe it's in your period? Any suggested improvements very welcome. I've struggled to find sources, I wonder if you may be able to suggest some I've missed? Xn4 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done, Xn4; readable, well-presented and nicely laid out. I can see no obvious need for improvement. It's every so slightly beyond my immediate period of concern and, to be perfectly honest with you, relatively minor royal figures tend to escape my scrutiny! I cannot think of any obvious additional sources. You might have a look at John Callow's The King in Exile: James II, Warrior, King and Saint, 1689-1701, published Sutton in 2004, though I cannot recall if Louisa Maria is mentioned in much detail. There is also The Last Stuarts: British Royalty in Exile by James Lees-Milne, which I have not read. Quite honestly, though, I would say the piece is well enough sourced as it stands. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for those kind words and recommendations, which sound just what I need. (The only thing is, for all James's good points, doesn't the last of those words, 'Warrior, King and Saint', suggest a touch of barminess?) Xn4 05:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's actually quite good, despite the odd title. It's an allusion to attempts by sections of the Catholic community to have James cannonised, a proposal that finally came before the court of the Archbishop of Paris in 1734, though it never went any further than that. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Great Scott! Xn4 09:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking, how apt... cannonised sounds very much like the good old tradition of kissing the gunner's daughter? Xn4 07:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Ha! Ha! Perhaps an excusable error, considering James' naval background! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Clio (and Dweller, if you are reading this), I've noticed there are problems with the Children's Crusade article too; in fact just the other day an anonymous user reverted it to an earlier version, which may or may not have been an improvement. The problem, I think, is that this is one crusade that has entered the popular imagination, so it gets a lot of traffic and a lot of editing, much like the Crusade article itself. As a result, it is extremely difficult to keep up with it. At the same time, it's such a non-event that there isn't very much scholarly literature about it. But I suppose that is a blessing, that means there isn't as much work to do! If I can find the time I will take a look at it. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Aha, there is even a brand new book about it, "The Children's Crusade: Medieval History, Modern Mythistory", by Gary Dickson. Unfortunately the library doesn't have it yet. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks to the unflappable lady for her intervention. I look forward to seeing the article improve, Adam! Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sidus clarum

puellarum,

flos et decus omnium

rosa veris,

quae videris

clarior quam lilium.

Hey, guys; this is really sweet! ♥♥♥♥ Clio the Muse (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Just a word to say my comment in that section was only aimed at Edison's comment, although worded generally to include any subsequent replies in the same vein :P Though you can be a little jingoistic for my personal tastes, your point was relevant to the discussion and I wasn't refering to it. Skittle (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Skittle, I understand. I still thought the point worth emphasising for any further readers. Jingoistic? Hmm...I have always thought of myself as a patriot rather than a chauvinist, but, what the hell! I don't want to go to war, but, by jingo, if I do, I'll fight the French, I'll fight the Dutch, I'll fight the Americans too. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Clio. Well, firstly I wish to clarify that I'm not the user who is removing the corpse's picture. Second, I believe and I wish to believe you were joking when you compared Bush's image with Frick's image. One of them is a picture of an alive person, the another is a corpse with BLOOD on the neck. Disturbing. Also, I'm Israeli and I hate Nazis but I don't believe that putting pictures of their corpses is very appropriate. On Wikipedia, perhaps, are people very sensitive. But well, I hope this will be resolved. Care for you. Ahmed987147 (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Ahmed, of course it was a joke. Please try not to be so literal-minded! I do not hate anyone, even Nazis; but this is an encyclopedia, with a commitment, as I understand it, to honesty and the truth, no matter how unpleasant. There are a great many disturbing things in the world. Even some mild images might be offensive to some and not to others. To start removing things, or suggest they be removed, simply because we do not like them is a clear invitation to chaos. For instance, would you wish to remove the images here or here? They are obviously disturbing and distasteful. I hope you take my point, and understand that we have enough malicious trolling as it is. I do accept, though, that your point was made in good faith. Take care now. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, I understand you now, if we remove all "disturbing" images , we will not have images. I'm Israeli and I DO hate Nazis, and Holocaust's pictures are terrible to me. Also, pictures about Palestinians attacking us is terrible to me, and disturbing but it's the true. I understood. Kisses and a Hug. Ahmed987147 (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

♥ Clio the Muse (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I love you Clio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.2.206 (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Awww! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(I quite like you, too.) But I was just putting my head round your door to ask if you could spare a few minutes to look at this conundrum? Virtual history only works if you know nearly everything, but I don't think I can see another answer to this question? Xn4 20:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Xn4. It really has to be George I, unless Mr. Hill's fancy also embraced the death of Caroline of Ansbach. His 'solution' may have offered a way out of a problem that was to trouble the kingdom for another forty years, though, quite frankly, I think he was being over sanguine. I simply cannot see the young Princess marrying a man so many years her senior, nor can I envisaged any circumstances in which Mary of Modena would agreed to such a match, holding to her Catholic convictions, even if her daughter did not. Perhaps a more plausible scenario would have been a betrothal between Maria and Frederick, the future Prince of Wales. Even here there are problems, considering the seventeen-year age gap between the two. By the time Frederick would have been mature enough to marry, Louise Maria would have come to a point in her life where child bearing was increasingly dangerous. One would also have to assume that George Augustus would have agreed to such a match, which seems highly unlikely.

Anyway, setting that to one side, let us assume,-as you have,-a possible marriage between the elderly George Louis and the young Princess, one which produced children. Given the state of George Louis' relations with George Augustus he may very well have put him to one side, though he would also have to have displaced his own grandson in the process. I would have thought, though, in terms of the strict rules of primogeniture, George Augustus would still have a superior right to any son born to a subsequent marriage to his father, even one to the Jacobite heiress. But, of course, by this time, the succession was an entirely political matter. Parliament would have to agree, both to the marriage between George Louis and Louisa Maria and to a major amendment to the Act of Settlement. Can you imagine George Augustus sitting quiet while this process was under way? He would almost certainly have made use of Robert Walpole and his other Parliamentary contacts to frustrate the passage of such a bill.

There is, I suppose, one last piece of counter-factual speculation that might be worth raising. Let us assume that George Louis and Louisa Maria married and had children. What then might have happened is the kind of solution that followed the death of William the Conqueror in 1087, which saw the political division of his realms. In the case of George Augustus he may have been reconciled to his loss of the crown by succession to the Electorate.

All fascinating stuff, but all speculation. Even as an exercise in virtual history I simply cannot see any of it working. Still, an interesting mind game!.

Before I go I have a piece of trivia for you that you might wish to add to the article. After the birth of Louise Maria James declared that she had been sent by God as a consolation for him and Mary in their time of distress. In the years to follow she was often to be referred to as 'La Consolatrice'. You will find this in Callow's book at pp. 203-4. Anyway, I'll copy all of this to the relevant talk page. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for all that, Clio. I suppose Richard Hill, did say it, I can't think Dartmouth was pulling our Legge? I'll add your grace note in the Birth section. Regards, Xn4 00:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A masterpiece, even by your own standards. If it was referenced, it would make a valuable addition to the mainspace.

As there are so many nutters out there who still propagate or believe in blood libel, I hope you don't mind if I suggest you clarify that when you wrote "some even advocated that a watch should be kept on the Jewish community around Easter, to prevent ritual child murder. Yes, that is true." The "Yes, that is true." does not mean that the practise of ritual child murder by Jews is true. Let's not provide any ammunition for those sickos who represent today's generation of those who for millenia have been such arch twisters of words and ideas. Cheers! --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, kind sir! Oh, Dweller, I had no idea that anyone could draw that kind of reading from my remark, which was meant to emphasise just how absurd it was that such beliefs could make way into the twentieth century. 'Yes, it is true' relates to the suggestion that a watch should be kept on the Jews at Easter to prevent the kidnapping of children. But if you think that it would be possible for someone to construe my words as a defence of the blood libel then I will, of course, make the position clearer. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, racists and other fanatics have an outstanding track record of word-twisting. <sigh> Hope you're well. --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be offended, Dweller, but to me the "Yes, that is true" is crystal clear... Xn4 21:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken. Anyone in their right mind would read it that way. Sadly, sometimes you need to consider those not in their right minds. Heck, maybe I've been editing too much lately. Then again, certain comments I've seen in the last 24h at the Humanities Desk make me think I'm not being oversensitive. Anyway, always nice chattin with the good guys. --Dweller (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I would come here and thank you in person for your brilliant response to my question on the Humanities Desk. You have provided just the kind of missing links that I was looking for. I've not long discovered the reference desk and consider your contributions second to none. That on Celine was good but that on the develpment of modern conspiracy theories was altogether stunning. Thanks again. SubAtomicCat (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC) I come in this guise because stupidly I forgot mt previous password!

And thank you for your very kind remarks, SubAtomicCat. I'm so glad to have been of some use to you. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

welcome tae scotland, ken! xxxxPerry-mankster (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Not to Glasgow, though! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• ...that the first Regius Professor of Civil Law at Oxford was elected to parliament, imprisoned, self-exiled, re-elected, became a subject of the King of Spain, then was kidnapped, put in the Tower of London, tortured, hanged, drawn and quartered, and later beatified? Xn4 01:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I did, somewhere at the back of my mind! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, doesn't surprise me. I like the one who drowned in the River Cherwell in pursuit of botany. Xn4 02:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, that is one I did not know about! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we had better rescue him from obscurity. Xn4 02:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A belated "Welcome back!!!" and here is a remedy to a very surprising omission:

Unlike the complimentary barnstars these are statistically determined, but in your case the qualitative caveats don't apply. (See Wikipedia:Service awards). If you wish, you can swap this for one of the other versions of it to suit your formatting preferences. I was going to pin on the star for Experienced and Established Editors (at 6800 edits you're well past the threshold) but I figured some pedant would gripe about you have having less than 1.5 years as a registered user. Well, that clicks up on 22 April, 2008, so justice should soon be done. Retarius | Talk 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Retarius; you are a gem. I would not dream of changing your star for any other! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you for that passage from J K J. It's wonderfully apt!!!. I've read some of your other contributions and it is clear to me that you really are something special. Highland Chief (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You are very kind. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering this section of your user page, might not Citizendium be a more appropriate outlet to showcase your obvious expertise? Zunaid©® 15:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Zunaid, and thank you so much for bringing Citizendum to my attention. I had no idea it existed. Anyway, I've now had a chance to dip into it, and what I have read seems very reasonable. I will have to give your suggestion some serious thought. The only thing that puts me off slightly is the 'full identity' requirement. I have been careful here to conceal exactly who I am, which has served to protect me from at least one obsessive stalker. I have an unmistakable style, and I do not think it would take very long for anyone with malicious intent to link Clio to a new persona on Citizendium. This might not matter if I was a complete unknown; but I am not, and I really do have to protect my private life against unwanted intrusions. However, as I have said, I will have to give this some serious thought.

I really like Citizendium's 'approved article' strategy. Wikipedia's 'open access' policy has simply meant that even good articles are unstable, open to endless corruption; not vandalism as such, which is easily detected, but the even greater problem, in my estimation, caused by the onslaught of the mediocre and the second-rate. It has meant-and I am sorry to have to say this-that Wikipedia has to be treated with extreme caution as a research tool. I know of no-one in my particular intellectual and academic milieu who has any faith in it. I have written some articles, though my activity here has been confined to the margins; to relatively obscure historical subjects which do not attract the crowds. I could do so much more in the mainstream, but simply could not bear to see my writing weakened and contaminated. Besides there is the issue of intellectual capital to be considered! Thank you again, Zunaid; I am in your debt. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that you would never act carelessly where your professional reputation might be involved. I am no expert in your field, but I am a reader, and I care about good writing as well as about good information. Sometimes an idea is much better than its execution. May I suggest that, as a part of your consideration, you read the "approved article", Edward I, in Citizendium and then the one for Edward I on Wikipedia, where just anyone may edit? Which one would you rather read? Which one would you rather have your professional name associated with? I will accept your judgement about this example. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Bielle. I shall 'compare and contrast' and let you know what I think. Keep watching! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I shall be away from the computer for an hour or so, but I look forward to reading your analysis later. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a few RD regulars that work over at Citizendium, Clio. If you are interested, I could direct you to them for their thoughts. Incidentally, I almost made the jump across there myself after a run in I had with a person familiar to us both on the role of experts in Wikipedia (names have been changed to protect the not so innocent!) In the end, I decided to stick it out here simply because I don't actually edit much in my particular area of expertise, but I like the concept. Rockpocket 00:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Rockpocket. I'm going to think about it for a day or so. Bielle, it will probably be tomorrow before I have a proper chance to look over the two Edwards. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem - in your own time. Thanks for warning me, though. I might have otherwise worn out my "refresh" button. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are two links you might be interested in reading: Citizendium:We aren't Wikipedia and Wikipedia:We aren't Citizendium.

Another project, Veropedia, was launched for those who wish for more stability content-wise, but remain interested in collaborating at Wikipedia (allowing for anonymity and, at present, also a much larger body of colleagues though not necessarily peers): See also User:Moreschi/If, I'm sure Moreschi is willing to assist and answer questions. But see also the top paragraph at User:Angr for possible concerns.

If you find another acceptable way of using your knowledge, wit, and writing skills to convey history (and other topics!) to the world community, that is only good news, Clio, and you'll excel in writing for eternity. Nor will eternity forget how well you write for the just-in-time moment. Fortunately for those of us hanging out here, Citizendium doesn't seem to have a reference desk. :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 10:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Sluzzelin! You are just so bloody (kicks chair, wrinkles forehead, looks for small child to berate) balanced. Now I suppose I am letting the side down if I don't go and deliberately seek out a subject better treated on Citizendium than on Wikipedia. In theory, this should be the easy task. (The other was happenstance, honest.) Oh drat! What a way to spend a Saturday afternoon, looking for ways to send Clio away. "Mumble, mumble, 'snot fair", slams door on way out. ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm back. Instead of looking for an article on one that was better/worse than on the other, I have done twice more what I did with Edward I above. I looked for two more titles on Citizendium's Approved Articles' list that I thought Clio either might enjoy reading and/or have some expertise to bring to the reading. I shall leave her to decide which group has done the better job. First, there is Butler and [2], and then there is Joan of Arc and [3]. Oh my ears and whiskers! ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, I think I love you: you do wonders for a girl's ego! Oh, Bielle, I might just be lost for words. Wait, on reflection; no, I am not! The Edward piece on Citizendium is a mountain upon which Clio would not place her flag! It's awkward, badly-written and without a full command of the subject. It reads to me rather like the efforts of an earnest but not particularly perceptive junior undergraduate! It does not betoken at all well for this to be raised as a banner of pride. Perhaps they really do need people like me, she says in all modesty!

Seriously, guys, even if I did cross over I would still maintain a Clio presence here on the Wikipedia Reference Desk, which provides me with constant stimulation, amusement and the occasional soupcon of drama!. I would be living, so to speak, in parallel universes. However, this is all rather premature. I still have serious concerns about the disclosure requirement on Citizendium, which is likely, in the end, to stop me making a full commitment. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea this would start such an interesting debate! For my part I've got too many work commitments to be actively involved in either, however, I have stopped editing the Wikipedia mainspace largely due to having to "defend" my favourite articles (sports cars and South Africa) against well-meaning but fancrufty contributions. This IMHO is much worse than obvious vandalism. I really do want my edits to "stick", except for improvements and new information added by other "good" editors. Wikipedia simply does not meet my requirements. The Citizendium model appeals because it is impervious to vandalism (you WILL get banned, and since you have to prove that you are who you say you are, the effort to game the registration process using a fake persona is simply too much for vandals to bother with). Also, since everyone there is of a relatively higher education level, writing standards *should* be better (although the examples above show this isn't always true), fancruft *should* not be a problem and best of all, articles are vetted by experts in the field so that one *should* be able to trust the information contained in them. Citizendium can be cited as a reliable source (ironically Citizendium probably meets Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline, which Wikipedia itself does not). As for anonymous registration, there may yet be some hope Clio. There was some discussion (not sure if it's still ongoing, check http://forum.citizendium.org) about allowing pseudonyms as user names, such that only the executive (or whatever they're called) would know the real-world identity of the user. Have a look see, or drop me a message if you want this pursued further. I just think your obvious talent could be better utilised than answering Refdesk questions, as noble as that is. Zunaid©® 15:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, Zunaid. I'm still thinking! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed your Kenyan crisis crisis by redirecting. It appears that the main article has an emdash instead of a dash. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 23:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, Bibliomaniac. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Any chance you can find me a learned definition of "archetypal name", with typical citation information? Lots of love, your regular irritant. --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I simply adore being irritated! The best I can do here, Dweller, is to give you the definition of 'archetype' from Britannica:

(From Greek archetypos, “original pattern”), in literary criticism, a primordial image, character, or pattern of circumstances that recurs throughout literature and thought consistently enough to be considered a universal concept or situation. The term was adopted by literary critics from the writings of the psychologist Carl Jung, who formulated a theory of a “collective unconscious.” For Jung, the varieties of human experience have somehow been genetically coded and transferred to successive generations. These primordial image patterns and situations evoke startlingly similar feelings in both reader and author

Perhaps you might find something in Jung to provide you with a more tailored definition? Love you back! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks for trying, but I'm stymied. I'm looking for a reference to something more specific, like a provocative young girl being called "a Lolita" or a confusing jumble of technology being "Heath Robinson", which are what I understand as "archetypal names". Does the marvellous old OED help? I don't have access to one. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I understand, it's just that I don't think you'll be able to get that much further here than the general definition offered by Britannica. However, I will look in the Oxford tomorrow, just in case. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As I suspected, Dweller, the OED takes the matter no further forward. There is no definition at all of 'archetypal name'. The closest it comes to what you are looking for is in the reference to archetypes in literary criticism, especially in the use of certain motifs in mythology and fairy tales, like the 'Great Mother', the 'Wise Man' or the 'Enchanted Prince.' Clio the Muse (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hy Clio, how do you do? I couldn't help to notice your arguments against the EU at the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Britain and the EU. While I was quite aware that the 'anti-Brussels?, anti-EU?, nationalist?, patriot?, anti-European super-state?' -feelings were quite strong in the UK I never had the chance to hear arguments of the 'other side' (truth be told I tend to be Pro-EU but I like to think that I'm not blind to many of its failings).

If you have the time, the patience, and the generosity to ignore my mistakes at the English language I would like to ask you a couple of questions and (if you wish) to present you my reasons why I'm in favor of the EU. No, I'm not going to try to convert you "over" (I like to leave the "conversion business" to religious fanatics, Americans, and other kinds of radicals) and I don't believe that I will change my mind about the EU. Yet I truly wish to try to understand the 'other side'. If you agree I want to propose a couple of guide-lines (which are open to change): 1st) One can leave when one wants. A message telling that the conversation is finished ends the "debate - more like: question - answer - comment" immediately. 2nd) A single place. To avoid confusion we would use a single talk-page (mine, yours, I don't mind). 3rd) Time is of little matter. Both parties have a limited amount of free time, therefore we have a couple of days to answer any question of the other side. 4th) Rules of common sense and politeness apply. What is there to say? If you don't have the patience for this conversation, then by all means decline it. Thank you. Flamarande (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Flamarande, and welcome to Clio land! I would be delighted to answer your questions and debate the issues with you, here, for preference, and for as long as you wish. It might help you to understand my position a little better, though, if you had a quick glance through Robert Michels' Political Parties, the book where he defines the iron law of oligarchy. I should make it clear that I am not opposed to an economic partnership with Europe, but I have serious worries with the political baggage that comes with it. I believe that a European super-state would be a threat to all of our liberties, both yours and mine. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For what my view is worth, my objections to the EC (strictly speaking not yet an EU, I think, Flamarande) are just as much economic ones, though if we could confine the EC to matters of free trade I should be happier... but I find most aspects of its parent, the Council of Europe, which is about setting and implementing standards of democracy, human rights and the rule of law (that is, mostly about political and not economic matters) a Good Thing. I think all that can be reconciled with Euroscepticism. Xn4 00:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your view is always welcome, Xn4. It is now confirmed we are to have no referendum on the 'constitution'. The iron bands grow ever tighter! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

For once, Cameron speaks for England... but where is the Thin Red Line? It is Interred in the Urns and Sepulches of Mortality.Xn4 01:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What about Corporal Clegg? Mrs Clegg you must be proud of him; Mrs Clegg another drop of gin...Ha! Ha! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Curiously enough, a clegg is a kind of horse-fly. T. H. White uses the word somewhere, either in The Once and Future King or in Mistress Masham's Repose. (I'm sure you would like the Professor and the Lord Lieutenant in the second of those, if you don't know it.) Xn4 02:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not; but I shall! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Clio,

Thanks for taking the time to properly respond to my question on North and South. I truly appreciate you time, and your thoughts, and I would like to say that I agree with your comment on reading about a vanished time. That is indeed why I'm reading the novel in the first place. I must admit the interpretation just threw me off so completely I decided to seek another opinion. It may be an American fad, but all my past/present English professors love to read into any and all symbolic passages.

Perhaps we could form a Humanities Ref Board Book Club, and reach obscure literature to discuss. :P Thank you again. Zidel333 (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Great idea! Is this your first trip into Gaskell land, Zidel? If it is I envy you; you have some great discoveries ahead. From time to time the BBC here do some excellent adaptations, which have included North and South, Wives and Daughters and, more recently, Cranford. Anyway, please drop by any time you want to discuss literature. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My question about "a gentleman in every parish" still sits on the refdesk. Eric has done a great job so far, but even he is covertly calling out for you (as one "of the ref desk's heavy hitters"). I know that I would value what you have to bring to the question, which I've fleshed out with lots of supplementary contextual ones. Can I tempt you to try your hand at an all-round answer? Or perhaps you have your reasons for not having done so already, in which case, fair enough. I don't want to come across like one of those horrible marketing surveys: "Your opinion matters!" All the best, BrainyBabe (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it, BrainyBabe. It's an interesting subject, so please be assured if Clio had anything to say she would say it! It's just that I am not familiar with Coleridge's essay, and therefore not able to offer much beyond what Eric has already written. I will, however, scout around and let you know if I manage to pick anything up. Best wishes. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If not Coleridge's essay, then the general context of the times. If he never used that actual phrase, how did it become lodged in our cultural memory? What does it really mean, to have a gentleman in every parish? Was it a Good Thing, or a good idea gone awry? I don't know why I'm so curious. It just stuck in my head, and I can't think of anywhere better to ask. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

BrainyBabe, I can offer you some educated guesses of a general nature on the subject, if that is what you are looking for; but-in the absence of a reading of Coleridge-I do stress that they will be guesses. Not tonight, though. I had an incredibly busy day, so I'm off to bed! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your educated guess is good enough for me. My enquiry is pure intellectual curiosity, so I don't need to footnote it for an academic paper or anything of the sort. Ideas to feed the mind, that's what I want. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I should add, I tried to read the original essay and found it hard going, very convoluted. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, BrainyBabe. The only way I can give a proper answer is to plough my way through On the Constitution of Church and State, which I will do in the next day or so. Keep looking here!

My guess is that Coleridge is most concerned with the need for penetration, so to speak; for the Anglican Church to reach out to every community, in the same fashion as the Catholic Church, and with an equal degree of commitment. This would be especially important because of the fundamental social changes that England was undergoing at the time, changes that could very well have furthered the distance between church and people. I would imagine that the real danger for Coleridge would be in the kind of 'High Church' thinking that took the senior clergy closer to the state and crown than to the people. The Church as the 'Tory Party at prayer' is an altogether different and older notion. Since early Hanoverian times, if not before, High Church Politics were most identified with the Tories, the political guardians of the place of the Church in the life of the nation.. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Clio, that's an interesting beginning. "Penetration" is now most often heard in marketing circles, in the sense similar to what I think you mean (when it is not being used for the follow-up to sugar-tong analogies, of course). I thought "the Tory party at prayer" was a Victorian throw-away line, and hadn't realised it was much older. I am no historian, as you can tell! I must have assumed it was on a parallel with Saki's description from "Reginald at the Theatre", when a young man-about-town is bantering with his hostess:

"The fashion just now is a Roman Catholic frame of mind with an Agnostic conscience: you get the mediaeval picturesqueness of the one with the modern conveniences of the other."

The Duchess suppressed a sniff. She was one of those people who regard the Church of England with patronising affection, as if it were something that had grown up in their kitchen garden.

I will look back here, as you so kindly suggest, Clio, but I suspect others may be interested in your response to the original question, so if you prefer to post to the ref desk (before it slips off again into archives), that would be splendid.

May I ask a personal question? How quickly do you type? My fumble fingers are a handicap, but perhaps in my case it is wise to slow the access of thoughts to screen. YMMV, as our trans-Atlantic cousins say. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you are absolutely right; the reference to the church as the 'Tory Party at prayer' is of Victorian provenance, though it is based on a long-standing link between the two; between the Tory squirearchy and priesthood at a local level, mirrored by the close association of the Tory grandees and prelacy at the national.

It's likely to be tomorrow at the earliest before I can give an answer to your question(s), BrainyBabe, by which time it will be on the threshold of archiving, if it has not already tipped over. You can, I suppose, move the whole thing down again, if you wish.

I type with all fingers, fairly fast, but I could not really say how many wpm, never having been tested on this! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, BB, I've rushed through On the Constitution of the Church and State, and looked at some background, enough, I think, to give you a partial answer. The context, in which Coleridge was writing, as I am sure you are probably aware, was that of Catholic emancipation. His chief concern is over the future well-being, the continuing relevance, if you prefer, of the Church of England. He promotes the role of a new class of men, the clerisy, educated and enlightened, ready to carry the message of the church to all corners of the land. Above all, he was in favour of preserving a direct link between the Church and the State, thus reversing the views he had held in his youth. More than this he sees a need for a balance or a partnership between the 'landed interest'-which represents permanence-and and the 'commercial interest', or the forces of progress. As I have already indicated, this is a thesis clearly shaped by the rapid changes taking place in England at the time, changes which threatened both the established order of society and the place of the Church in the life of the nation.

Coleridge is fully aware of the potential for conflict between 'feudalism' and 'capitalism', though, of course, he does not use these terms. And it is here that his new class of men, the clerisy, plays the most vital role in reconciling opposites. It is also this educated class that will give the Church a new and higher form of spirituality, making it a permanent and progressive part of the nation. The hidden message-for Coleridge is never explicit on this-is on the need for a reformed or a renewed Anglican Church, one in which the clergy-and the clerisy-are not necessarily bound by all of the 39 Articles. Above all it is a plea for a broad church. This is not in any sense 'the Tory Party at prayer', but a far more comprehensive and inclusive force, with a presence in every parish, and an impact on every mind. I return here to the theme of penetration or, better still, dissemination.

Coleridge's book was well received, though it was only after his death that the message was fully absorbed. In particular, it became a source of inspiration for the Broad Church Movement, those who rejected the narrowness of High Anglicanism, on the one hand, and the anti-Catholic evangelism of the Low Church, on the other. The Broad Church Movement was to include such influential people as Dr. Thomas Arnold, the father of Matthew Arnold. Coleridge's thinking was also admired by John Stuart Mill, who saw him as one of the most significant representatives of nineteenth century thought.

Well, that's it, and I hope it makes sense! I'll also post this on the Humanities Desk, though I suspect that the thread has now been archived. Best wishes. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Clio, I thank you. I appreciate your taking the time to read up on this question, quite apart from the crafting of the answer. So many of the refdesk responses you provide seem to come flowing from your quill, within a very short time of their being posted, and I take it that those are within your area of interest and expertise, and within your mental library. The fact that this one was just beyond your comfort zone, that you had to stretch to find the right tomes on the upper shelf of the library, so to speak, is testimony to your helpfulness and -- I hesitate to use the word these days, but -- professionalism. I would buy you a round if I could. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would drink it; if I could! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The sheer sweep of your knowledge is breathtaking, as is the ease and beauty with which you express your thoughts, Clio. This is no more than I would expect of course from an alumna of Wycombe Abbey and Cambridge! Yours most truly, Hamish MacLean (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You are a gentleman, Hamish! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Xn4! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Not only does she have volunteers archiving her page, she even has the unflappability to "thank" them here, where she celebrates all the attention. It was no different back home. The expensive scroll and the wreath Mum had twined for her precious little head weren't enough for Miss Special, were they? When Erato and I got our lyre and aulos, the spoiled one had to make a fuss until she received her own trumpet, and, ever since, has been proclaiming her wisdom louder than the rest of us together! Nothing changes, as that mortal of Elea once wrote. (Hi, sis. :-D) ---Euterpe the Muse (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

EUTERPE! As always you manage to both surprise and delight. I truly hope you stay and allow me to proclaim to all the world the love I have for my sister (do you think the other seven will show up also? I think I may have to ask Daddy for some thunderbolts!) Clio the Muse (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

χαίρετε, Ευτέρπη!

ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, Μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ

πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν...

Xn4 01:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Alas, Xn4, I have been away from the groves of Arcadia for so long that I have turned into a radish, knowing no Greek! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, Euterpe! Sing to me, Muse, of the man of many turns^[1], who wandered far after he sacked the holy city of Troy... Xn4 23:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Augustus! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Beware all! I have spoken. Olympian Zeus (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Daddy! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My comparing you to young Mattie Storin seems to be not too far from the mark! Rockpocket 07:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I might just change my name. Electra would become me very well! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh. We certainly don't need HIS attention. (Not now anyway. Where was HE when we were little girls?). Take it easy, Dad. Perhaps Clio can calm you down. She's always had the knack for stealing your thunder (and mine, I must say, what a warming welcome, you sister of reverse psychology!)

As for the other seven, I don't know whether they will show up. Calliope certainly seems to be watching over your page. Always the bossy one, she's already berated me for stirring up trouble here. I think Urania once spent some time editing here, but then moved on to other projects after reading the stars more carefully. On the other hand, Thalia and Mel have noticed this site's dramatic potential and their inspiration is all over the place. I haven't heard from Poly in eons, what is she doing these days?

That's all for the moment. Take care, dear sister, learned new friend Xn4, and also Dad. I will pop in from time to time. Right now, I have songs to hum and people to please. ---Euterpe the Muse (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Where was Dad? You must know, Euterpe: he was with her, and her, and her and her and her, and so on and so forth, building our extended family! Poly? The last time I saw her she was still deep in thought. Perhaps it is time we had a family reunion? I'm not sure, though, if there would be sufficient room here! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a cabal of gods. Just remember that god's are only human in wikipedia. Even those thunderbolts will be useless in beating off the trolls and vandals. David D. (Talk) 07:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

True, sad to say. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I modestly welcome Zeus and his old-fashioned notions of justice. Death by thunderbolt for impersonation (Salmoneus), petrification for theft (Pandareus), transmogrification into a mountain for vanity (Queen Rhodope), eternal torture for conspiracy to procure cannibalism (Tantalus), and deep-sea submersion for black magic (the Telchines) may at first gulp seem more Draconian penalties than we need here, but we need to conceive them in their virtual forms. Xn4 00:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am always delighted to see daddy! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Added a bit at the Humanities page regarding FDR. RegardsEdison (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Edison, I remembered answering a question on that very point. I've now managed to dig it out; so here it is below. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Malicious stories about Roosevelt and syphilis began to circulate before he was even nominated to stand for his party in the presidential election of 1932. In the build up to the Democratic convention of 1928 an anonymous circular was sent to all delegates and alternates, claiming that he was infected with the disease. "In the home office of every life insurance company in the United States", it said, "there is on file the health examination report of every person holding a life insurance policy...If you will examine the health examination report of Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt you will find that he is suffering from ataxia produced by syphilis. For almost ten years, however, Governor Roosevelt has been parading himself before the public as a victim of infintile paralysis in order to gain sympathy and hide his real affliction. Carrying on this deception further, Governor Roosevelt has induced some men of wealth to establish at Warm Springs, Georgia, a sanitarium for the real victims of infantile paralysis. The most disgusting, vicious and really dangerous thing about this matter is the fact that Governor Roosevelt (with his loathsome and infectious venereal disease) bathes in the same pool with these poor innocent children..."

And this poison most likely from fellow Democrats! In response, Roosevelt took out $560,000 worth of life insurance from twenty-two different companies, who appointed a panel of doctors to examine him. He was declared to be perfectly fit, though the whispering campaign against him, and his suitability for high office, was to continue. All of the details here can be found Ted Morgan's FDR: A Biography, (London, 1985) p. 337-8. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw your Ref Desk answer about the Edict of Expulsion and would like to know the reference for that item about the barons persuading Edward to oust the Jews. I started tinkering with the article, as you may remember, after noticing the link Bielle left on the Citizendium topic, above. (I checked Google and found that the article ranks first in a search for Edward I and I thought that the high school students who are probably reading it deserved better than what was on offer.)

I see what you meant about "editorial creep". Since my copyediting, another person has tacked on that bit about usury, which slightly changes the import of the paragraph. The whole thing, apart from the (now, apparently incorrect) Cambridge encyclopedia reference which I added, is a collection of plausible statements with no historiographic merit. It reads nicely, but you could substitute twenty different versions which are just as superficially plausible. Retarius | Talk 05:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. --Dweller (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Retarius. Yes, I saw and liked your work on the Edward page. It's a real pity that people will not leave things as they are when an acceptable standard has been achieved. But, alas, that is the way Wikipedia works; a mixture of the good, the bad and the dreadful! You may be mindful of Dirty Harry's comment about opinions?!

Anyway, the book you should look for is A Great and Terrible King: Edward I and the Forging of Britain by Marc Morris, published in England earlier this month by Hutchison. I took the specific reference from his article, Edward I: Best of Kings, Worst of Kings?, which appeared in the March 2008 issue of the monthly periodical History Today, p. 57. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks greatly, you queen of the Wikiscreen. Actually, I didn't mind the amendment about usury, it was just that it added another straw to the pile of unsourced material. Just for fun, I thought I'd try some "free-association creative history-writing" in the same vein (I promise there won't be 18 more):

1....Edward at that time was considering a proposal of marriage to Anastasia of Wyccombe* and believed that his mother, Eleanor de Provence, would more likely favour the marriage if he complied with her constant entreaties and exhortations to drive out "the usurious and pestilential Jews". Edward had accommodated his mother's anti-semitism to obtain much-needed loans from her in 1275 when he passed the Statute of Jewry. This was a compromise to her own expulsion of Jews from her estates in that year....

*Believed to be a pseudonym for a notorious noblewoman who, when between paramours, was wont to feign piety in a convent. "Edward ♥ A", the mysterious carving on the king's banquet table, may be finally explained by this...

2....Edward received an embassy in that year from the Margrav Retarius of Ulimaroa, an inveterate warmonger, who provoked much turbulence in late 13th-century Europe. Greatly pressed by both domestic and foreign concerns, Edward could not afford to grant the Margrav's request for a contribution of forces to the Crusade which he was preparing. Disinclined to offend the Margrav, he offered moral support by expelling the Jews of England. As a further placation, most of the funds appropriated from them were contributed to the Margrav's cause....

• On a more constructive note, I'd like to offer, in reciprocation, a couple of references that you may find interesting:

Poprzeczny, Joseph. (2004) Odilo Globocnik, Hitler's man in the East. Jefferson, N.C. : McFarland. ISBN 978-0-7864-1625-7 (pbk.) ( 0786416254 )

Bosworth, Richard J. B. (2002) Mussolini. London : Arnold. ISBN 978-0-340-80988-4 (pbk.) (0340809884 )

These were written by two Western Australians; Poprzeczny is a Perth journalist whose family were affected by Globocnik's activities; Bosworth is a professor of history at UWA. I know that you have access to extensive resources but I thought these might have slipped by you. (The 2004 book on Globocnik was the first thorough treatment published in English of this very significant Nazi. Prior to this he was to be found only in imagined form in Robert Harris' Fatherland and in precis entries in Encyclopedias. Since then, one of Poprzeczny's sources, Berndt Rieger, has hopped on the bandwagon in 2007 with Creator of Nazi Death Camps. The Life of Odilo Globocnik . ISBN 9780853035237. They're both sources for the Wikipedia article.)

Retarius | Talk 05:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: You got me. What did Dirty Harry say?

Yes, Retarius, I know and admire Bosworth's work. I've read both his biography of Mussolini and the later Mussolini's Italy: Life Under the Dictatorship. Poprzeczny's book on Globocnik is unfamiliar to me, so thanks for drawing it to my attention. Dirty Harry's quote? Let me see, now. I believe the exact words were "Opinions are like assholes-everybody's got one." Love from Anastasia of Wycombe, aka Clio the Muse (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, now I remember. (Haha! Nice one.) Love to you too, from the artist occasionally known as Retarius | Talk 05:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I responded, somewhat belatedly at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 March 13 about Eddy I. I do enjoy debating with you. What I cannot remember (and am too busy/lazy to look up!) is the extent of Eddy's possessions in modern day France. I'm guessing he must have had fairly extensive lands there, but cannot for the life of me remember anything about it, whether they expanded, shrank or stagnated under his rule. --Dweller (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Dweller. Thanks for your response. I should make it clear that it was not my intention to challenge your selection of Edward, who is certainly one of the most important of Medieval English monarchs. I was just a little puzzled by your point about his 'Empire'.

Edward was Duke of Gascony in south-west France, all that was left of the old Angevin Empire. Ever since the Treaty of Paris in 1259 this land was held in vassalage to the crown of France. It was actually confiscated for a time by Philip the Fair, Edward's feudal superior, the cause of some desultory warfare between England and France. English possession of the area was also to be one of the future causes of the Hundred Years' War. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

<smacks his head>Yes, of course, and he took Gascons with him on Crusade, and it's assumed that his chief castle builder was a Gascon, IIRC. So did the northern French possessions of the crown come about later (presumably through conquest or marriage)? Which of Eddy's forebears lost Normandy? --Dweller (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh bugger. My mind's gone. James of St. George was a Savoyard, not a Gascon. Berk, me. --Dweller (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a patchwork, Dweller, sewn together over time. It begins with the Norman Conquest in 1066, which brought England and Normandy into a cross-Channel partnership. The next stage came with the marriage of the Empress Maud, the daughter of Henry I, to Geoffrey Plantagenet, who held extensive lands to the south of Normandy in Anjou, Touraine and Maine. Geoffrey went on to conquer Normandy in 1144 as part of the ongoing struggle between his wife and King Stephen. Henry Fitzempress, the son of Geoffrey and Maud, succeeded to his father's titles on his death in 1151, and to his mother's claim to the English crown on her death the following year. In 1152 Henry married Eleanor of Aquitaine, soon after her former marriage to Louis VII had been annulled. By this marriage Henry acquired the huge duchy of Aquitaine in the south-west of France, which gave him control of territory from the Channel to the Pyrenees, more land than even the crown of France itself. When Henry succeeded to the throne of England in 1154 the Angevin Empire now stretched south from the Pyrenees all the way north to the River Tweed on the Anglo-Scottish border. The final acquisition was the Dukedom of Brittany.

I'm sure that it will not surprise you to learn that the man who lost Normandy, and most of the remainder of the Angevin Empire, was Henry's son John, in war with Philip Augustus of France at the outset of the thirteenth century. His later attempt to regain the lost Plantagenet inheritance was frustrated at the Battle of Bouvines in 1214. In the end, all that was left was the Duchy of Gascony, the rump of the much larger Duchy of Aquitaine. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest help. Is there a book you could recommend? Donald Paterson (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Donald, I would suggest you try A Land Afflicted: Scotland and the Covenanter Wars by R. C Paterson, a decent overview of the whole subject. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I like real people too, who are they? Thanks ahead. 99.226.39.245 (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I really only have one candidate for the position, 99.226-William Marshall, 1st Earl of Pembroke, reckoned by Stephen Langton and others to be the 'greatest knight who ever lived.' Clio the Muse (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.39.245 (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

{{Vacation}}

I will be spending Easter Week in Burundi-yipeeee!!! A Happy Easter to you all! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please give my best regards to all the Burundi-yippeeeans, Clio.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Burundi-yippeeeans send their regards right back! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Clio. Thanks for the email, and happy Easter to you too. I'm afraid I will not have the pleasure of spending it with gorillas (which I am very jealous of, by the way), but I can't complain because am off on my own adventure the following week. I'm traveling to some of the most remote Yasawa Islands do so some field research for a few weeks, followed by a vacation in Australia. I'll be back in May, when we can catch up and swap stories! Rockpocket 18:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow-the Yasawa Islands! Now, that really is different! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I loved Australia! Be sure to have a beer with JackofOz, and drink a toast to all of us, busily working away. I still have 2 feet of snow on my deck. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Bon voyage! At this rate, do you think you might turn into a new Lady Florence Dixie? Xn4 17:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Front page updated accordingly. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A combination, perhaps, of Lady Florence and another of my favourite travellers! Thanks for the image of the languid lady herself, Sluzzelin! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, languid sounds antonymous of Clio. But I liked Xn4's comparison and love Chartran's elfin portrait, mayn't she stay? (And how would you describe Clio's facial expression in her very own portrait?) ---Sluzzelin talk 04:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Pensive, as always! Yes, of course Lady Florence will stay in Clioland; she is quite delightful. Clio the Muse (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The desk is likewise delighted at having your pensive self back and hopes your travel budget is depleted now. I confess, in my head I was trying to anticipate your answers to OTMA's question, but wasn't even close, nor disappointed! (Though I would have asked for your favorite poison as well, while I was at it.) ---Sluzzelin talk 05:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

My favourite poison? This, when I am feeling particularly naughty! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Clio. I hope you don't mind me coming here. I just wanted to say how much I enjoy your varied contributions on the reference desk. Also I would like to ask you a question, if you do not mind. What is your all time favorite movie and why? A fan. OTMA (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I see you are on vacation so I'll just have to wait until you get back. Perhaps you could also let me know what your favorite song is as well! Hope you had a great time. OTMA (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

My, my; there are so many movies that I love, but if pressed I would have to select this [4] as my all-time favourite: I love the music; I love the history; I love the mystery. And I still not really sure who was responsible for the death of Mr Herbert!

I have no doubt at all that this [5] is my favourite song. I used to listen to it when I was little, and it brought me to one of the greatest love stories in the English language. It's me, I'm Clio, I've come home now; let me in your window! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. OTMA (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome, OTMA. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2008(UTC)

and i always thought it would be a stone's track, ah well you can't always get what you want...x Perry-mankster (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dou you mean like this, Perry [6]? Who says you can't always get what you want?! Clio the Muse (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, man, where have you gone? You have never been more needed.217.43.15.210 (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the preceding two sections. Rockpocket 19:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If you mean Clio, she is in Burundi this Easter week. ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm so glad that you missed me! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. You gave very good answers to my previous questions on Sartre. Are you able to help with the latest (25 March)? F Hebert (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I'll have a look at it, along with all of the others that I have missed. Keep watching! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll post my answer tommorrow. I've too many other things to do! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

First, F Herbert, my apologies for the deferred reply: besides catching up with other matters I wanted to reacquaint myself with the Critique of Dialectical Reason.

So, can I ask if you have read the Critique? Then surely you will have noticed that there is a pattern here, an intellectual genealogy, rather, which stretches back through his work on Flaubert, all the way back to Being and Nothingness. The first volume of the Critique comes just after his break with the French Communist Party, and he uses the occasion of the text to analyse the complex and difficult relationship between Marxism and Existentialism. It's clear that his philosophical values, his concepts of freedom, take precedence over the growing intellectual and political sclerosis of modern Marxism; or, rather, in the forms it has taken in Stalinism. His phenomenology is there, revived to take account of changing realities, in a complex game of philosophical mirrors. Actually, it might help you to understand the Critique a little better if you read it side by side with Flaubert, as the same intellectual, historical and anthropological themes appear in both. Quite a task, I know, but worth it! It also might help you to know that, after Nausea, his existential novel, the Critique was Sartre's favourite work, which shows there was no 'epistemological break', if I can put it in these terms.

To attempt to reconcile Phenomenology and Freedom with Stalinism would, indeed , be a clear exercise in bad-faith. But I do not believe that there is any evidence that Sartre, in all of his many intellectual peregrinations, ever attempted such a thing. If you can get a hold of it you might wish to consult Stalin's Phantom, an article by Sartre which appeared in Les Temps modernes in the autumn of 1955. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Clio. I am overwhelmed, both by your courtesy and by the power of your intellect. You are an obvious asset to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. F Hebert (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your kindness is appreciated, F Hebert. Clio the Muse (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Clio. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, dear Bielle. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And I was wondering why didn't you reply :) Yes, I am still interested in this issue, thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, here I am!

Anyway, to begin with, the figure of 800,000 given in the 1946 source for the Yugoslav Partisans has been misinterpreted. This does not relate to the core Partisan force but to the Yugoslav National Army, called up by Tito in February 1945, by which time the Germans were largely gone. (Tito: A Biography, Jasper Ridley, Constable, 1994, p. 251)

Now, let's look at the Partisans themselves. In September 1944, as the Soviet Army was entering Bulgaria, Tito's main force amounted to 80,000 men. (Yugoslavia in History, John R Lampe, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p.225) At the same time the Chetniks had about 40,000. Tito's army was increasing in strength at this time, up from the 20,000 he commanded in Bosnia in May 1943 during Operation Schwarz, the German counter-insurgency operation. As the Germans retreated many of the Chetniks deserted to the Partisans. Even so, by the spring of 1945 Mihailovic still had some 12,000 men under his command. By my 'guesstimation' the total Partisan force, prior to the February call up, would have been in the region of 100,000 men.

You will find some Russian figures in the Wikipedia piece on Soviet Partisans, though, as always with Wikipedia articles, these should be double, double checked! I would recommend that you have a look at War in the Wild East: the German Army and Soviet Partisans by Ben Shepherd (Harvard University Press, 2004). I am unable to give you any figures from this at present because I left my copy in my parent's house in London! I could send for it, if it is urgent.

As for the Chinese partisans unfortunately I have no precise information. The situation in the far-east is complicated by the fact that during the war against Japan the People's Liberation Army-a partisan force by any reckoning-was incorporated within the general structure of the National Revolutionary Army.

Please let me know if you need any more information. In the meantime Marsz, marsz, Dąbrowski! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those very interesting facts. Do you think that in that case AK's article would be justified in claiming it was the biggest resistance organization - given several reliable sources confirming this fact? See also this note.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly think there is ample evidence to prove that the Polish Home Army was stronger than the Yugoslav partisans in the period leading up to the Warsaw Rising. So, by that reckoning, it was also the strongest independent resistance in Europe at that particular time. Prior to this, though, the evidence suggests that, in absolute numerical terms, the Soviet Partisan forces were even greater in strength. However, by the time the Soviets entered eastern Poland almost all of these units-those that were not disbanded-had been absorbed into the Red Army. So, you do have a good case, Piotrus. Just be careful of the time frame! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue of whether the Soviet partisans were larger than AK or not has unfortunately led to an edit war and protection of the AK article. I have tried to find data on Soviet partisans and what I found suggests that they were at best similar, and for some periods certainly less numerous (see my post - second from the top - here). Alas, the other party, while not presenting a single ref to back up their claim (that Soviets were the largest) continued to insert this claim into the article. Perhaps you could help us - either find a claim supporting the claim of Soviet numerical superiority (do note we have a lot of refs who give primacy to AK, black on white) - or suggest some other way out of this deadlock. I have started a new thread where I asked (for the third or fourth time) interested editors to present claims supporting the Soviet claim for largest here. PS. If I may ask you for one more thing related to AK: for the purposes of related discussion about possibly undue claims in AK's lead I tried to find out all general descriptions of AK. I have listed all I found - and there were not many - here (last post of the thread). If you can find any others, I'd appreciate the links/refs (if they are not online but you have access to them, the issue is whether they mention AK committing atrocities or collaborating with the Nazis, as certain users wanted to add such claims to the lead of the article).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll let you know if I uncover anything useful, Piotr. It may take a few days, as I am quite heavily committed at the present. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Take your time, neither Rome nor Wikipedia are to be build in one day :) I will be happy to provide any needed information regarding AK.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there you are, Piotr! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The undernoted has been copied from the Home Army Talk Page. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, guys, here we go.

Before proceeding I suppose I should answer M. K’s question, which I accept was placed in good faith, though I am not completely convinced that the information required is at all material to the purpose. My (female, incidentally!) particular expertise is in the politics of the seventeenth century English Restoration, the subject of the doctorate I took last year at the University of Cambridge. The details are all on my user page. I do, however, teach and lecture on a wide variety of historical topics, including twentieth century European history. I also have access to a superb library.

Most of my time on Wikipedia is spent on the Humanities desk, where I answer a broad range of questions on historical topics, including one posed by Piotr not so long ago on the relative strength of various partisan movements. Here is part of what I said to him on that occasion:

"I certainly think there is ample evidence to prove that the Polish Home Army was stronger than the Yugoslav partisans in the period leading up to the Warsaw Rising. So, by that reckoning, it was also the strongest independent resistance in Europe at that particular time. Prior to this, though, the evidence suggests that, in absolute numerical terms, the Soviet Partisan forces were even greater in strength. However, by the time the Soviets entered eastern Poland almost all of these units-those that were not disbanded-had been absorbed into the Red Army. So, you do have a good case, Piotrus. Just be careful of the time frame!" Clio the Muse (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What I am now about to say about the Soviet Partisans has been garnered from a variety of secondary works, some specifically written on this topic. As one would expect, the movement in Russia had several tributaries. The first and most important was the mass of armed men, cut off and left behind by the German advance on Moscow in 1941. According to Alan Clark in Barbarossa: the Russian-German Conflict, 1941-45 (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1995) the lowest estimates indicate that there were never fewer than 250,000 of these in the occupied territories (p. 153). Of course, not all of these became partisans, but a great many did. They were supplemented by those fleeing from the prospect of forced labour and others angered by the nature of German occupation policy. Recruitment was particularly heavy in Belorussia, where several liberated zones developed by 1943, some covering very large areas. By the end of 1942 Richard Overy gives the total number of partisans as 300,000 (Russia's War, Penguin Books, 1999, p. 147).

The particular difficulty, I found, was in establishing precise figures at any given time. There are also issues arising from the nature of the figures themselves. Overy's 300,000 is really only a snapshot, which may hide more than it reveals. In other words, it says nothing about the turnover, the number of men and women who were processed through the partisan armies in any given period. The movement grew considerably in strength throughout 1943, increasing, according to official Soviet sources, from 130,000 in January, to 250,000 in December (N. Markov, KPSS-Organizator vsenarodni bor'by na vermenno okkupirovanni territorri SSSR in Velikaia pobeda Sovetskogo, Moscow, 1976, p. 167) However, I think the point made by Leonid D Grenkevich in The Soviet Partisan Movement, 1941-44: A Critical Historiographical Analysis (Frank Cass, London, 1999) is worth quoting in full;

In actuality, these estimates of partisan strength may be low, given the tremendous turbulence in partisan ranks. Estimates based on the most recent Russian archival research indicate that the total partisan strength may have reached 550,000 men if personnel turnover is considered. This was so because thousands of partisans were killed in combat operations, and old partisan units were being disbanded and new ones activated in continuous fashion. The new figures approximate closely to some Western sources that place partisan strength at 500,000 men throughout the entire period of the German occupation. (p.229)

This global figure is also supported by Walter Laqueur in The Guerilla Reader: A Historical Anthology, (New York, Charles Scribiner, 1990, p.233). Indeed, some accounts go so far as to say that, by December 1943, there were 360,000 partisans operating in Belorussia alone. (The Partisans by David Mountfield, (Hamlyn, London, 1979, p. 187).

All this would seem to confirm various Russian sources that estimate a growth rate of 250% from December 1942 to December 1943. Set against this there is the contention of Matthew Cooper that the Soviet figures are a 'ludicrous exaggeration' (The Phantom War: the German Struggle against Soviet Partisans, 1941-44, (Macdonald and Janes, London, 1979, p.67). However, Cooper gives no detailed reason for taking this view, beyond some general speculations about irregular units and infiltrators parachuted in by the Red Army. The rapid growth of the partisans is supported by one German source I came across, that provided by Eric Hesse in Der Sowjetrussische Partisankrieg, 1941-44 in Spiegel deutscher Kampfanweisungen und Befehle (Götingen, Munster-Schmidt Verlag, 1993, pp. 207-8). See also War in the Wild East: the German Army and Soviet Partisans by Ben Shepherd (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England, 2004, p. 168)

Well, that's it. I do not believe there’s is any reason to suppose that by the winter of 1943/44 the whole of the Soviet partisan army was by far the strongest in Europe, not just in overall numbers, but in fighting effectiveness, having a readily available source of re-supply and rearmament, even on occasion making use of artillery. Precise figures, I accept, are very difficult to establish, but 500,000 is quite possible. However, returning to the point I made to Piotr the Russian partisan army would, in large measure, have ceased to exist as a partisan army by the conclusion, one supposes, of Operation Bagration, which cleared most of the remaining German forces from Soviet territory. So, in the period leading up to the Warsaw Rising the Polish Home Army may very well have the right to be considered as the strongest partisan force at that particular time. In comparative terms, though, it has to take second place to the Russians.

As I said at the outset, I am entirely neutral here, and have no wish to upset anyone. My only interest is in accuracy. Anyway, I hope you find this of some use, and my very warm wishes to you all, Polish or Russian or whoever! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that detailed analysis. I have however one comment: why "in comparative terms, though, it has to take second place to the Russians"? As you've noted in the sources presented, at any one time the "snapshots" did not exceed 350,000. AK's "snapshots" did so (with the 400,000 estimate being most common, and some Polish historians arguing for 450,000-500,000). Thus, of course, the AK's "turnover" would be accordingly higher. Or am I missing something? In any case, your suggestions as to the best wording of the phrase about "AK was the largest resistance in WWII" would be much appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome, Piotr. What I really mean is that when you set one against the other; that the figure for the Russian force at upwards of 500,000 by the beginning of 1944 is, on the face of it, greater than that of the Polish Home Army. Also, I suppose it should also be made clear that this, as I understand it, is the number of fighters, independent of the forms of civilian support and back-up upon which a resistance army inevitably depends. I haven't studied the Polish figures in any detail, so I can offer no comment here. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, I am confused. It is my understanding that the Soviet figure of 500,000-550,000 refers to the sum total of alive and dead partisans at the end of the war. I.e. total number of one's alive at the end of the war and casualties. Now, we do not have a comparable number for the Polish partisans (I couldn't find one). What we have for the both are the snapshot numbers - sum total of alive partisans at the given time and those numbers for the Soviet partisans are either smaller or as high as (but not higher) than those of the Polish partisans. Thus I cannot see how can we use the above data to argue that the Soviet partisans were more numerous than the Polish ones? PS. Perhaps this graph will help to clarify my point - it contains all the snapshot estimates I had (not counting the high Polish historiography estimates of ~500,000), plus some extrapolation (lines connecting the dots); there is no point that the red line is above the blue one.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Piotr; I'm not surprised by your confusion. It's probably a reflection of two things: the speed with which I had to carry out this research, and the way in which the information is presented in the sources themselves. I was looking from straightforward figures which could be presented in the same fashion as shown in your graph, showing figures from 1941 onwards, with yearly or, better still, half-yearly increases. But I just could not get this. I am, however, confident that there were some 360,000 fighters in the Belorussia area alone by the close of 1943, with possibly at least another 200,000 in the Ukraine. Grenkevich gives figures for the dramatic rate of increase in Belorussia; from 65,000 in February, 100,000 in June, 245,000 in October and 360,000 in December (p. 230). Unfortunately, I could not get any detailed information for the Baltic area, for what was left of occupied Russia, and for the Crimea; so the overall figure of about 500,000 probably errs on the side of caution. If one considers the actual turnover of fighters or, indeed, the civilian and non-combatant support beyond that, then the overall figure might be even higher. I cannot be precise because the data will simply not allow me to be precise. This whole topic is worthy of a doctoral survey on its own. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I know how often one is shocked to find out that a topic one cosiders basic is heavily underresearched and missing basic data. I am very suprised to find it is so difficult to find numbers for Soviet partisans. Do note that I have managed to find some and as cited in my post and shown on the graph, they indicate that AK was slightly more numerous. It is possible that better research would show that Soviets were more numerous, and you are right we could interprest some of the sources you cite that way. That said, we should remember WP:OR and WP:V. ALL of our sources assign primacy to AK. We can speculate about their correctness, but until we can cite a source that contradicts it, we cannot really insert OR speculations - how would that sound: "all of the sources we have found claim that AK was the largest, but our own research (extrapolations of some numbers and additions) indicate that Soviet partisans might have been larger"... As I said, I would support the Soviet largest claim - IF a reliable, verifiable source can be found that states it clearly (or gives a clear number for a given date that is larger then the Polish one). PS. It would really hope if you could clearly say whether we have or we do not have sources that support the statement that AK was second largest after the Soviets; currently both sides disagree on interpretation of your post. I would ask that if you support such a statement, please provide a reference - author, source, page number and quotation that we could add that would prevent further edit warring on the subject.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be best, Piotr, If I take this discussion to the AK talk page, and then append a concluding statement by me. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. I would be delighted to have an answer from you on this question. Thank you for your consideration. Tee Pot (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Tee Pot. First and foremost, I would refer you, as I did before, to the book by Professor Gellately, particularly chapter seven, that headed Special 'Justice' for Foreign Workers.

Because of serious labour shortages, coupled with an ideology that placed restrictions on the use of women to make good the shortfall, the Nazi state, of necessity, had to draw on ever larger reservoirs of foreign workers, particularly from the east. For Hitler this was a challenge to his ideas of racial purity, so he and Himmler drew up plans for a system of apartheid. The restrictions put in place were to be monitored by the Gestapo, which was to form the greatest part of their wartime work. The chief 'misdemeanor' investigated by the Gestapo, it may not surprised you to learn, concerned the sexual liaisons between foreign workers, especially Poles, and German nationals. Germans were punished for such contacts, though not to the same severe degree as the foreigner workers, who risked death or prolonged incarceration in a concentration camp, even if they were the victim of unwanted sexual attentions, as many Polish women were. One Polish man caught in a voluntary relationship was 'sentenced' to detention in Natzweiler for thirty years.

As the war progressed the system became ever more severe, executions becoming ever more commonplace. In 1942, by agreement between Himmler and Otto Georg Thierack, the Minister of Justice, Slavs sentenced to three years or more under the normal judicial process, were to be handed over to the Gestapo. Himmler issued instruction that these foreigners were 'racially inferior people', and like Jews and Gypsies should be subject to a different penal code. It was the Himmler-Thierack agreement that removed the last threads of legal protection from the Poles, Russians, Ukrainians and Czechs. In December of that same year, in another agreement with Thierack, it was decided that Himmler's decrees would constitute 'the basis for the penal proceedings against racially foreign people.' The normal justice system was for Germans only. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

My sincere thanks for being willing to share such expertise. With every good wish, John D. Hamilton. Tee Pot (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome, John. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We know all is well when we hear your distinctive voice where it belongs. You may have missed the delightful episode of Charlotte Green' giggles ^[1], or, who knows, the giggles may have been heard in Rwanda, but in any case, I wish you a light-hearted return to your myriad labours. You do realise you are in danger of becoming a living icon, worshipped by RefDesk seekers as a kumari-like figure.... BrainyBabe (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ever so, BrainyBabe. Alas, poor Charlotte! I confess that I know what it's like to be overtaken by a fit of the giggles in the most awkward situations. I remember once when I was an undergraduate a professor with a particularly long and droopy moustache came in to the college library, where I was working with some friends. One of my partners turned and whispered in my ear "Old X looks like a walrus." Well, that's when it started! I tried to control it by suppressing the titters and holding my breath, but I just turned red and let it out like an explosion! I was forced to run out as the whole place turned to look at me! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, if Clio should speak with the voice of the angelic Charlotte Green... there could be no resistance. Xn4 12:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Her voice comes sweet and gentle through the night! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Clio,

Since you suggested leaving a note on your talk page or reposting the question, I did both.  :) This is partially out of curiosity, and partially becuase I want to improve the education in the Soviet Union article, if it needs improvement. Thanks for your eagerness to help! --Bowlhover (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, Bowlhover. It's an interesting question, and I was sorry to see that you got no response at all. I may not be able to give you all the information you need, but I might just be able to cast some illumination. Anyway, since you have reposted it on the Humanities Desk I will answer there after I've caught up a bit. See you soon-I hope! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

and bon courage! Julia Rossi (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Julia. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I answered your question on my disc. although not very thorough.--Tresckow (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Tresckow. I think it's very well done. I still believe that SPD poster shows Germany before 1914, though, with the inclusion of Danzig and West Prussia-unless the printer went quite mad! Clio the Muse (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Who but you deserves one of these. I suppose it should really be the Hypatia Barnstar! OTMA (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

How lovely! Thank you, OTMA. I shall add both star and Hypatia to my user page. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a good thing that we disagree occasionally, it will keep us both sharp. ;-) (We have, incidentally, met before.) --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Captain, my Captain! I think we may very well have met even before that. It was your reference to Professor Gregor that rather gave things away! It matters not to me in what form you come: yours is an intelligent and perceptive voice, and that is always welcome. Incidentally, I am sorry that your Cold Dead Hand question was removed. I do not edit war, and try to avoid conflict as far as I am able. But I do intend to register an objection by posting an answer on the Reference Desk, all the more effective, I think, by being placed in the vacant space. And don’t worry about disagreeing with me. I love challenges. It helps to keep me sharp! Clio the Muse (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: previous encounters. Highly possible. I have been around here for awhile under a number of different names. I find changing hats periodically keeps the internet fresh and the cumulative drama low. And Gregor is a memorable fellow (that picture of him, in the article on him, is spot-on. He would glower at the auditorium through those heavy glasses, while he derided us for having glue for brains, or something along those lines. He had a number of bizarre insults he liked to constantly reuse). Anyway, no worries about Cold Dead Hands, though I do resent that the fact that the more I try to spell out my thinking, the higher the chance of getting accused of trying to cause a row. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry. I, at least, appreciate the subtelty of your argument. I'm not at all surprised by your annoyance. We get many stupid and trolling questions on the Reference Desk, most of which I ignore. It realise how irksome it must be for anyone to suggest that your thoughts could in any way be placed in the same category. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio,

Thank you for responding to Capt. Ref Desk's question and for opposing the attempt to suppress it. Since you and I tend to differ politically, I was surprised to find myself in complete agreement not only with your position but with your reasons for holding it. The last lines of your answer though, puzzled and intrigued me. You wrote:

There are, however, powerful vested interests at work, which might very well serve to undermine the operation of democracy itself. I can offer no answers, merely lodge yet another question. Perhaps the time has come for new forms of moral authority, for a new style of leadership and direction, and-dare I say it-for a new Bill of Rights?

Which vested interests did you mean? What new forms of moral authority? What sort of new Bill of Rights? I don't intend to debate you if I disagree; I just want to understand your thinking.

Regards,

Marco polo (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Marco. Just some musings, I suppose. I am, however, aware of the extent to which American politics is dominated by powerful lobby groups of one kind or another. In the context of this particular question I was, of course, thinking of the National Rifle Association. You see, there are lobby interests in English politics also, but they do not enjoy the same degrees of influence, or have the same forms of access to the executive power. The danger in the States-and you are a much better judge of this than I-is that the lobbies act like a fast growing forest canopy, cutting off the light, and perhaps even choking democracy itself. Take the gun lobby. To be able to stand up to this would indeed require the most determined forms of leadership; leadership based on a willingness to tackle some cherished assumptions; to have the moral authority to appeal to the community at large and to withstand the negative backlash. As I understand it the original Bill of Rights was advanced in defence of the ordinary people of a new democracy; the powerless and the dispossessed, the people always at risk from Monarchy or Oligarchy. A new Bill of Rights-and I have no precise idea what form this would take-would offer guarantees that democracy is not simply a periodic electoral carnival; that the community at large has a right to be heard, not just those with organisation, expertise and money. I am a Conservative, Marco, but a very English kind of Conservative! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Clio. Again, I could not agree more. While I would not call myself a Conservative, still I find much to admire in the British tradition of Conservatism. Edmund Burke had a wisdom that is still relevant today. Marco polo (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see my questions. I value your view.F Hebert (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do my best. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments on my sentence "Strangely enough, Magda Goebbels was described as an emancipated, headstrong and intelligent woman."

• It is my working hypothesis that "headstrong and intelligent" implies - inter alia - independence, scepticism, nonconformism and analytical aptitude. Reading about her life in the Third Reich and looking at the few quotes attributed to Ms Goebbels (including the letter to a son from her first marriage) I found little, indeed, nothing of that.
• I found a person who let herself be marketed as an ideal of Aryan motherhood, I read of a woman who (presumably) married a man she did not really care for, I saw a woman whose adoration of Hitler seems to have been without rational limits, I met a woman who, till the very end, thought that loyalty was a higher duty than being true to one´s own principles.
• Ms Goebbels needs my approval as little as anybody else, dead or alive. I certainly don´t think that it is my privilege to judge others. I expressed, maybe poorly, my incapacity to understand a human being of unquestioned complexity. I thought that senescience would alleviate this juvenile problem of ignorance. Instead, it gets worse...

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Headstrong and intelligent implies lots of things, independent, sceptical and non-conformist among them; Magda was all of those things, and more. She also had presence and charisma; she saw life as a challenge, and she rose to that challenge in the most extraordinary way. She could adapt to any situation, a woman who was always going to make an impression on the world, for good or ill. She stands above all of the other leading Nazi women, most of whom were mediocrities or tiresome Hausfraus. She was certainly fascinated by Josef, and I can see no reason at all to suppose that she did not love him. I, too, have read parts of her correspondence-some of which I quoted in my Humanities Desk response-taking an entirely different impression from you. For Magda loyalty was a principle. If she was 'marketed', as you say, she certainly turned that process to her own particular ends. Yes, she did adore Hitler, but not uncritically so, especially towards the end. Look, in essence what I am saying to you is there is absolutely nothing to be gained by traducing those people, and those things, one does not happen to care for; it serves no purpose whatsoever. No, I would go further; it only weakens understanding. You might like to believe the great tragedy of Nazi Germany was conceived and executed by stupid people. It was not; not by any measure. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct, I hope? Nice to see you're still around; I've not been on the refdesks much these past months, unfortunately. · AndonicO ^Hail! 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And it's nice to see you back! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, I completely agree with you on that one (this subsection's title being the only work I sort of enjoyed). By chance of location, we even had the pleasure of meeting the gentleman as little kids - he really was kind to us - but the pleasure faded the more I read. Her books, on the other hand, I like a lot, but he obviously had trouble accepting her talent. What a pedantic narcissist and self-embarassing kisser-and-teller. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly the very worst! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I can not say just how impressed I am by your answers to my philosophy questions, which demonstrate a fluency and a comprehension that go well beyond my most optimistic expectations. I assumed from your earlier responses that you were at the very least a student of modern philosophy, but I see from your user page that you are a historian. Whatever you are you are a phenomenon. You speak clearly, with a quite authority. You make most of the others on the reference desks look like fools. You are indeed high among the wise. With much respect. Ferdinand Howard Hebert. F Hebert (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You are too kind, Ferdinand. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio is her father's daughter, but she has far to go before she sleeps. I have spoken. Olympian Zeus (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As always You speak wisely, Great Storm Father! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This really is a funny place, sister. Responding to possibly innocent, but incredibly impudent blasphemy, Dad flashed a friendly warning bolt on his own talk page here and promptly some Barbarian from the north warned him here. Imagine that! Poor dad, living in the Iron age of disrespect; his daughter getting all the praise, and Barbarians taking over! Fools indeed, bring on the deluge! ---Euterpe the Muse (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Euterpe, what fools these mortals be (especially Vikings!) Clio the Muse (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't help feeling sorry for Erik the Red 2. What dismal fate can we foresee for him? Xn4 01:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What about a repeat of this? You know how those Norsemen love to eat and drink! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And wasn't there even a hint of cannibalism in the North, helping us in that direction? So it would be just the thing. The poor Erik! Xn4 01:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

He-he! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a userbox for knowledge of Russian on your user page, so if you need help, feel free to ask--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That is just so sweet of you, mrg3105; thanks. If you have read my user page then you must surely have noted that this user does not use user boxes! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, user boxes are hmmm, a temporary addiction? I went overboard at first, but later decided to hide most since they begun to annoy me. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I simply hate being referred to as a generic third person, as in 'this user thinks this' or 'this user does that'! Besides, I've already revealed as much about myself, my interests and my beliefs as I would wish. After all, I do have to preserve some degree of mystery! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is preservation of mystery a neo-feminist development, a retro-feminist development (I have failed to keep up), or just being yourself? ;o) So few women leave much to mystery these days that I no longer bother to look for it (mystery that is). In any case, its refreshing.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, mrg3105, Clio is only ever herself; unique in every way. And if there is no mystery there is no romance! Incidentally, I now have some information on the strength of the Soviet Partisan movement, as you will see from the Home Army talk page. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My English name is Greg, which is certainly not as exotic as Anastasia ;o) Please understand that I have a fairly pedantic personality, and training as an economic historian. Any time someone says "largest", or uses any other form of comparative phraseology, I want to see the spreadsheet. When I looked at the sources the numbers in the article are currently referenced to, they virtually quoted each other on the matter of AK's size with none offering archival substantiation, or even basic comparative analysis. The reason I am unable to devote time to the question of Soviet partisans is because I am, at this time, doing a course, and I had just spent more time then I cared to spend on de-constructing similar claims by Latvian editors on the Courland Pocket article, which ended with the ultimate irony that the proof of the Latvian SS being "heroic" in this article comes from research, via Latvian emigrants in Sweden, by a Soviet Jewish veteran of the war, documenting awarding of Hero of Soviet Union to Jewish recipients, most of whom fought in the Soviet 130th Rifle Corps composed of mostly Latvian-speakers who fought the Latvian SS opposite them!

In any case, I enjoyed your input into the discussion not because it supported my denial of the claims made in the article, but because of the professionalism, and erudition with which t was delivered. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome, Greg (thanks for that!) All historians are pedants; it comes with the territory! Anyway, I just hope a little peace breaks out! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that, however I am increasingly becoming conscious of the nature of Wikipedia and its reliance on by the general public, not realising that the articles they use may not always have been subjected to rigorous peer review, or even a review based on the sorts of rules considered standard when applied in the academia like checking sources, producing analytical thought, not abusing statistics, etc.

By the way, speaking of Charles II (not that we were!), someone knowing my passion for history told me the "20 years later" movie would be on tv, and I watched it, not having seen it for a while. The same person then remarked that the French may have sent more then four people if they really wanted to save Charles I from death! I then had to explain that no such attempt was made, and that the movie in any case took substantial liberty with Dumas' work. I hope that Wikipedia will not become some online version of Hollywood ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose in some way it already has! I've long had serious worries about the nature and purpose of Wikipedia, not the obvious vandalism, which is easily detected and rectified, but some of the more subtle distortions and misconceptions, which serve to rewrite history on a drip-by-drip basis. It's not as obvious as the practice adopted by Minitrue in George Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty Four, but it's just as alarming in its own way. I have noticed that when errors are adopted by Wikipedia they have a tendency to appear right across the internet.

As for the political battles, well, what can I say about those? I've had to take pages as diverse as James I of England and Josef Stalin off my watch-list in disgust over the storms that were conjured up, including an incredibly tiresome contest over James' sexuality! In the end the open access policy only serves to undermine Wikipedia, in my mind at least, as a reliable source of reference. The first thing I tell new students is to treat everything they find here with a high degree of caution. I could contribute so much more-beyond the amusement I get from answering questions on the Humanities Desk-but will not do so because I simply could not bear to see my efforts corrupted and undermined. Best wishes. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, your comments do not leave much to be added. I had come to Wikipedia to satisfy my own interest in the Eastern Front, and documenting the well over 200 major campaigns and offensives by the Red Army which are unrecorded here, represented largely only be the much better known "Battles of" articles, and find myself engaging in the sort of discussions that would have never taken place in my university days...even in year 1.

James I's sexuality!!! Only now that you bring this up do I realise there was even an issue to consider. I am not at all a specialist in the period, but given the precarious state of affairs in the realm, any suggestion of impropriety, aside from the accepted (expected?!) male adultery, would have given James' opponents ample weapons for blackmail. In any case, it is obvious that people who can suggest such things fail to appreciate the social standards and customs of the age when a kiss from a man to a man on the lips was considered normal and asexual (even in 1939), and when guards were posted during the monarch's dip in the lake so no one could "espy" his majesties unclothed person ;o)

You may be interested to know that someone had recently tried to add to the Stalin article a suggestion that he was an alcoholic, completely neglecting to mention that Stalin's own father was an alcoholic, which is usually used to analyse his personality development.[7] Also neglected is that although he invariably forced others to drink at his meetings, his own drink of choice was a Georgian home-made wine made for him by personal friends, and more rarely other Georgian wines, and only rarely vodka.

Yes, Greg, his sexuality. If you ever have a spare hour or so you might care to read through the relevant talk page. There were points when the whole thing got completely out of hand, especially after it attracted the LGBT cabal. It's actually quite hilarious! I tried to introduce some sanity, saying that it was not a matter that was subject to the test of any acceptable historical proof. I also pointed to the scholarly sensitivity with which the issue was handled in the page on Frederick II of Prussia, but the battle continued notwithstanding. I see the LGBT flag is off at the moment, though.

So Stalin is turning into Beso, is he? How he would have loved that! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the "invitation", but I am not interested. I' afraid I am not politically correct in regards to LGBT, and not interested in political arguments that seek to "out" a long dead English monarch to "prove" the LGBT contention of their version of history where every other notable individual was a closet "LoG". I have seen some "historical works" that purport to argue a version of "historical sexuality". I see you have an interest in feminism, so I will say no more on the subject. However, I'm sure you are well aware that sexuality is an integral part of the culture, and is as dynamic as the culture itself. Superimposition of contemporary conceptions on historically removed times is what I call the "writing of history" as opposed to the study of it, never mind actually learning from history. It is somewhat akin to the discussion you just contributed to where the Polish editor refuses to acknowledge the obvious facts largely because such acknowledgement would grate on his anti-Soviet feelings, therefore the Polish AK resistance has to be the largest, the Latvian SS had to be "heroic", the LGBT has to be historical, and therefore acceptable...minorities tend to be the most vocal majorities.

The personality of Stalin is an extremely interesting subject. John Laver wrote books I have not read on him, Lenin and Hitler. The other is Profiling Political Leaders: Cross-Cultural Studies of Personality and Behavior by Ofer Feldman (Editor), Linda O. Valenty (Editor) which includes Mao Zedong, Tony Blair, Seyyed Mohammed Khatami, Helmut Kohl, and Stalin, Yeltsin, and Putin. I wonder if Tony would be interested to find himself in this company ;o)

I see these as a new form of literature, departing from the biographical to a more objective, multidisciplinary psychographical approach which seeks not only to document lives, but also ask the question - what made them do it. To answer your question, no, Stalin did not turn into Beso, which you may be interested to know, by a queer (no pun intended) coincidence very closely approximates the Russian word for Bes - the Devil. Any wonder he changed his patrinomic to Vissarionovich (in Georgian as in Hebrew B and V are sometimes interchangeable), and then adopted Stalin. Retaining B would have made the patrinomic Besserionovish. Stalin was probably born, as his natal chart describes him, a "fairly strong personality that is charming and friendly. There is awakened ambition and a perpetual desire for self-improvement. His most conscious objective is attaining wisdom. He had a love of balance and harmony that extends to his treatment of interpersonal relationships. The result of his universal affability is that he was quite popular." Consider his childhood and youth years, what we know of them. A popular child, intelligent, went into the seminary, joins the socialists, then an idealistically-framed party of social change for the betterment of lives of many, is very popular in the party, and gets-by by managing relationships and first becomes know for considerate and wise individual. However, the family environment DID affect him, and the link I provided earlier says it all. He used his innate personality to adjust to the, what is now called the "hero" role to "try to ensure that the family looks "normal" to the rest of the world. In addition, they often project a personal image of achievement, competence, and responsibility to the outside world. They tend to be academically or professionally very successful. The cost of such success is often denial of their own feelings and a belief that they are "imposters." At some stage Stalin departed his innate drive, and assumed the role of the one responsible for "normalcy" of first the party, and the entire USSR, weeding out anyone likely to discredit him, the party and the country to the USSR, and at the same time, Stalin's personality cult was built, praising his success in everything. The cult of personality has long been accepted and documented, but has the personality behind it received similar treatment? Of course needless to say the above is highly OR, and most will laugh at the astrological citation. Never the less, and subject to my scientific explanation of astrology, this is how I see Stalin, a victim of his own child abuse, and abuse of his own potential never realised due to the circumstances of the times he lived in.

Hitler on the other hand was quite pathological.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I first came to the life of Stalin through the Trotsky perspective, that of the 'grey blur'. The truth is, as I have said here on a number of occasions, he was at least as intelligent as Trotsky, far more personable as a man, and in every conceivable sense a far better political strategist and tactician. I have now, I think, read just about every biography there is on him in the English language, including, most recently, Simon Sebag Montefiore's Young Stalin. Hitler? Well, I think it one of the great ironies of Stalin's career that he was the only man he ever fully trusted! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Care to share your impression of Young Stalin? I have neither the time nor resources right now to read more widely.

On cruel and unusual theories of history, I just listened to the BBC report on the finding that Shakespeare was, to quote the historian, "on drugs" when he composed his works. I think its a sad day.

Immediately following that, was the purely unusual, and maybe iconoclastic of England (if not for one American participating); the story of the burial at sea...of a single Nelson's hair purchased on eBay! I reflected on the report that as the miniature coffin was set adrift, it flipped over, and my first thought was that Nelson may have done the same in his grave at the knowledge of such commemoration ;o)

It seems that some people are seeking to earnestly reach...insanity, the final frontier.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha-ha-ha! Did you know that Napoleon's penis was once sold at auction? Well, you do now!

Young Stalin is the 'prequel' to the author's earlier work, Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar and is written in the same accessible and discursive style, carrying the scholarship with seductive ease. It's a superb piece of work, based on an extensive range of new sources, including original memoirs, recovered from deep hibernation in the archives in Tbilisi, Moscow and elsewhere. He presents Soso as he was; a talented and multi-faceted individual; an intellectual (he read Plato in the original Greek), a poet, a lover...and a gangster! All of the ruthlessness that became so evident in his later career is there from the very outset. Soso grew up tough; Soso remained tough. I cannot help but feel that Montefiore has not become slightly enamoured of his 'monster', his Koba, in much the same way that Thomas Harris fell in love with his. I would certainly urge you to read it, once you have the time. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I know quite a bit about Napoleon, but I think I would have been happier with my knowledge incomplete, an din my ignorance that the Emperor was...I think it cruel

Just for that I will become a billionaire, create a secret lab, steal the artefact and use the DNA to create the new Napoleon...That may be an interesting experience for the EU Parliament MPs ;o)

I was once told by a psychologist that the difference between cops an robbers is that one set wears a uniform ;o) A gangster would therefore be an entrepreneur capitalising on the opportunities in a dynamic marketplace, and the state of affairs in 1920s Russia were very dynamic.

In any case I will try to get hold of the book; thank you for the review! Having written it, you may want to add it to the Amazon page for the book. I don't appreciate the star rating system, but a good review goes a long way to make my mind up about purchasing a book or not.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually have reviewed it, Greg, though I was paid for my efforts! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the review in something accessible online?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. In any case it comes with my full identity, and I really do have to keep that secret. I feel sure you will understand, Greg. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Clio: I didn't see the comments you addressed to me on the Ref Desk until just a few minutes ago, it now being a little past 2:00 a.m. my time. You are quite wicked you know, and you did make me laugh, even though you said nothing that was intrinsically funny -quite the opposite, in fact. I am now definitely one of those people on the wrong side of Dismas's balance sheet, having turned 60 yesterday, and I am more than a little miffed at having my worth so lightly dismissed. You are right to point out that such questions are only ever posited by those who don't view themselves as ever being their victims, not even as an "unintended consequence".

As for Mr. Swift's proposal, that may have been the source of a comment my father used to make when people talked about "living on love"; the only way you can do that, he would say, is to eat the babies. It was quite a shocking thing to say over 40 years ago, when there was barely any public acknowledgenet of a connection between "love" and "babies". I don't have a proposal for the winnowing of the population; I think we need all of us, in general, though there are some individuals I would like removed from my vicinity. Even the terminally stupid have a place in society. (I think it was P. J. O'Rourke who said that, without the stupid, the Republicans would have no candidates, and the Democrats no supporters.) ៛ Bielle (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And a very happy birthday to you, dear Bielle. Yes, I suppose you are right; even the stupid serve some purpose, if only to make me laugh! There is, however, one particularly obtuse individual who comes to the Humanities Desk from time to time to voice his fatuous opinions I would be happy to see indulge in a little self-consumption. For reasons of Wikiquette I obviously cannot name him, but I imagine you have some notion of the person to whom I refer. I would like to think that he reads my words knowing exactly their purport and direction, but I suspect that he is too dense even for that! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel that I ought to introduce myself, as I have taken to trespassing on the Humanities Help Desk and our paths have crossed there (although I think that I may also have come across you on Rockpocket's Talk page?). It's a haven of politeness, general happiness, and intellectual inquiry which, alas, is missing elsewhere and, as far as I can see, a lot of this happy state is owed to you, for which you have my thanks. I'm afraid I'm off now to eat my lunch - a leftover beaver sausage. --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Major, and a very warm welcome to the Clio experience! Thank you also for your very kind words; I try to do my best, being as patient and polite as I can. But you should see me when I bite! Yes, I do come to Rockpocket's page from time to time. He is an old friend and protector, who gave me some much needed assistance when I was being stalked by a particularly obsessive and stupid individual. Anyway, please drop in any time you wish. I hope you enjoyed your beaver (I can't write that without laughing!) Clio the Muse (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that he's one of the best Admins that I've come across. He seems to have had a pretty horrid time recently, so I hope he's enjoying his current tropical holiday. I've been a bit naughty on the Helpdesk, I'm afraid. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How delightful! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dearest Clio, do you know? Mark of Cornwall (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I might, Mark; I just might! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My Lady Muse, I agree completely with your answer. It's always easier, in my opinion, to blame a person than a cultural shift! (And i really really detest Cross's biography) But I concede the point - a gentleman always knows when to concede to the fair sex! Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

An aristocrat and a gentleman: a wonderful combination, sadly not always realised, in my experience anyway! Thank you, my gracious Lord. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio, could you help finding the sculptor/medailleur? See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Sculptor sought. I think I've exhausted the on-line resources, and my local library has nothing useful either. Maybe you've got better resources at your disposition? Lupo 07:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Lupo. Yes, I saw your question and tried find some reference to the said relief in my library, but with no success at all. Sorry! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Clio, sometimes I am reading the Reference Desks at work, where I can't log in to Wikipedia on some of the computers (but on the one I am using at the moment, I can). I try to sign manually but that stupid bot always comes by and exposes me! I know McGonagall too, he's always the best example of a terrible poet, but the Cheese Poet is somewhat of a local legend. And I know poutine well - my high school cafeteria used to serve it for lunch. Sometimes it can also be found at Tim Hortons. I can't stand that stuff! By the way, I made a Crusades "task force" on the Middle Ages WikiProject, if you're interested - I haven't had time to work on the Children's Crusade, as you asked long ago, but I made a note of it there for everyone. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam. I have Dickson's book on my 'to get' list, which is becoming impossibly long! Yes, I'll come along to your task force. Give me a day or two. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm one day early. Let the Wikilawyers sue me. Retarius | Talk 08:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is so sweet! ♥ Clio the Muse (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		thank you for your answers to my questions on philosophy. I cannot say how impressed I am. F Hebert (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

People like you make my efforts worthwhile. Clio the Muse (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's all. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's enough! Thank you, BrainyBabe. This is very much appreciated. Clio the Muse (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings! Xn4 23:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Retarius, I'll see your Dragon and raise you a George! Don't they make a lovely couple! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been off Anzacing, blogging and wrestling sharks, so I missed your riposte (ripe post?). As ever, you are beyond surpassing. Champagne comedy, as the Late Show crew used to put it! Retarius | Talk 09:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

File:Furioso dragon-13-.jpg

‎

Thanks, dear Retarius. Speaking of Anzac Day I was hijacked by a party of Aussies at Cambridge going on a trip to Gallipoli a few years ago. The whole thing was quite incredible. Everybody was so nice, especially the Turks. But the one thing I will never forget was the simple and moving words of Kemal Atatürk on the Memorial:

Those heroes who shed their blood and lost their lives, you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side in this country of ours. You, the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries wipe away your tears, your sons are now lying in our bosoms and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they become our sons as well.

I broke into tears when I read this. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's very famous here; a couple of Turkish Army officers took the podium at the Gallipoli Anzac Dawn Service on Friday to read that in Turkish and English. I don't know if any other Head of State has ever given such a tribute before or since to enemy forces. I am sure it has done much to facilitate friendship between Australia, New Zealand and Turkey. Australia lost 61,508 dead as a result of World War I action and, of course, many more wounded and/or maddened by it all. This sitesays it simply and clearly about our many wars. The population of Australia was only about 4 million at the time of WWI. There isn't a family which was established here at the time which didn't lose at least one member, including mine. That was a break in the trunk of a sapling that changed all that might have been for us, forever. I take this and more recent reapings more to heart than my last posting might indicate, in fact it breaks me down every year. Retarius | Talk 06:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I know how important this is for all Australians. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio, I wonder if I might trouble you with an impertinent request. I've stumbled across an article, Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument which for a number of reasons looks a wee bit spammy to me, and am having at it. I have reason to believe that this paper has something to say about HBDI (such as that it's based on a myth). And it occurred to me that you might have electronic access to the article arising out of your academic pursuits. It's a long shot that you'd feel inclined either to find the article & read it, or mail me a copy for wikipedia research purposes, but shy bairns get nowt, and so I make my request. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Tagishsimon. No request for help is impertinent! I'll certainly try. The trouble is I have a really ghastly cold at the moment, so I'm taking a long weekend. I'll get back to you as soon as I am able. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; but if you will hang out in the fens in April :). I hope it clears up soon. Thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks, ever so. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio, the good Lord Foppington, evidently a reader of your esteemed talk page, has graciously condescended to supply me with the paper about which we spoke, and so there is no need for you to trouble yourself further on this matter. I hope & trust your tubes are somewhat recovered. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done, Lord Foppington! I'm not so feverish now, Tagishsimon, thanks. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Anything to help, my lady! Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, my Lord! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha for the longest time i though you name was "clio the mouse" just felt like tellin you for some reason. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 05:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha-ha-ha! The mouse that roared! Thanks, Bones. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the midst of writing a 30 page thesis on William Cecil's role in the formation of a 'British' mindset in English foreign policy in the early modern period. I have new found respect for just how difficult English/British history can be, not least of all because of the high standards for historical inquiry and scholarship set by people like yourself.

Gradvmedusa (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You are tremendously kind, Gradvmedusa; thank you so much. The very best of luck with your dissertation. It's an excellent choice of subject; among the very best. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I was about to revert vandalism on your user page, but then noticed it was vandalized by no one else but you! ---Sluzzelin talk 01:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean Boris the Menace? Ha-ha! I think he has served his purpose now, so he can go. Welcome back, dear Sluzzelin! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If your page has that power, I might demand its deletion six months from now! ---Sluzzelin talk 01:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I quite like him but not that much! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but to really test the powers of Musean endorsement, you need to pick a picture from this list. There's even one wearing a Roman helmet! (though his article is up for deletion) ---Sluzzelin talk 02:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So there is! The one just below him looks crazy, a bit like Jack Nicholson in The Shining! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Only now do I understand why you had to ask whom I meant. Of course I meant Boris Stanleyich, not Vladimir Ilyich, though I have an inkling which one would make for a more entertaining dinner companion. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Boris, of course; he's an absolute sweetie! I'm off to a party tonight to celebrate the dear man's London coup, so this is just a flying visit. I'll leave you with this fascinating piece of trivia, Sluzzelin: Boris was elected as mayor on the very day that St. Boris of Bulgaria died! Byeeee, from a very tipsy Anastasia!!!! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)