After the Russian Revolution the British government under Prime Minister

Polish-Soviet War had broken out. With the Polish army advancing deep into the Ukraine Lloyd George decided to send military equipment to aid the offensive. In May 1920 the Jolly George, berthed in London, was being loaded with munitions bound for Poland. When the nature of the cargo was discovered by the dockers they refused to continue loading the vessel. The action was supported by The Daily Herald, a left-wing newspaper, which went on to publish the name of every ship bound for Poland. Faced with the threat of widespread strike action the government agreed to send no more munitions while the Poles were winning. This changed in July, after the Russians forced the Poles on to the defensive. The French were keen for intervention, as was Winston Churchill, the most militant anti-Communist in the cabinet. But opposition was even more widspread, from the Councils of Action all the way up to the Trades Union Congress. Once again Lloyd George backed down. In the end the Poles halted the Russian advance without the aid of the British. Clio the Muse 23:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

A note and a corrections 1) Lloyd George was a supporter of the Russian Empire; hence hostile to Bolsheviks - but later he became a supporter of the Soviets, seeing a 'big Russia', in whatever form, a needed party in the European 'balance of power'. 2) Polish-Soviet War has in fact broken as early as February 1919.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your correction. My meaning was that the Russo-Polish war was underway by the time of the end of direct British intervention in Russia in 1920, not that it started at this time. I am very well aware that it began in 1919, though I apologise for any ambiguity. And a correction, if I may, to your note. Lloyd George was not a 'supporter' of the Russian Empire as such, if by this you mean the Tsarist Empire. He was hostile to the Bolsheviks because they withdrew Russia from the war, though prior to this he had extended his support to the Provisional Government of Prince Lvov and Alexander Kerensky. Clio the Muse 00:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A most basic social/political science question: Where did the tradition of one officeholder (one person) per office originate? It seems to be a rule that is rarely stated but almost universally observed. So far, I've only found two instances of organizations where two persons were allowed to serve in the same position at once: a high school swim team - and Vanderbilt University!! Any key words that might aid additional research would be appreciated also.209.20.241.34 21:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not always universally observed. If you are looking at this subject from an historical perspective you would have to consider diarchy. In ecclesiastical history there was also the abuse of pluralism, whereby a single individual could hold more than one benefice at the same time. Clio the Muse 22:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An obvious answer is that if there is one person is responsible for a task, decisions are taken faster and if things go wrong it is easier to point at one guilty person. A disadvantage, though, is that that person might start thinking that since they are in that position they are supposed to know best and don't need to listen to others. DirkvdM 06:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not yet looked into the Triumvirates of the late Roman Republic, and related stuff on the Roman consuls, I think this would give a great deal of insight into both how a system functions when more than one person holds the same office and why the system might have become unworkable. (Although as recently as 1787, the framers of the United States Constitution had a lengthy debate over whether or not the powers of the chief executive should be held by one person or several...though of course the vote came down in favor of one executive. I cannot now recall who advocated more than one--John Blair, or Edmund Randolph, perhaps?--but I remember reading of it in Madison's notes. I am sure there are other more recent examples where countries considered this possibility, and perhaps one who put it into action.) 71.112.32.249 09:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw I once experienced a system where no-one was in charge and it worked wonderfully well. That was at a Rainbow Gathering. Whenever something needed to be done, someone would always step forward to do the job. Even work on the shitpits was done this way and actually got done (to some extent anyway). But that was an idealistic gathering where there were always enough people who would 'sacrifice' themselves for the greater cause.

Of course, another example of such a system is Wikipedia. :) DirkvdM 19:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have citations that Epicurus believed the purpose of philosophy and life was the attainment of a peaceful happy life. Seeing as the article provides no citations. I really just need someone who knows of a book where its written, preferably as close to the horses mouth as possible. If possible providing a link to the known passage on Google Books. I really just have no idea of where to start looking for this, as all I know from him is what's on this encyclopaedia, but I'm writing an essay, where, unfortunately, due to the open nature of wikipedia, using it as a source is frowned upon. Thanks in advance ΦΙΛ Κ 21:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, from the top of my head (yes, it is!), is a fragment from his letter to Menoeceus:

We must also reflect that of desires some are natural, others are groundless; and that of the natural some are necessary as well as natural, and some natural only. And of the necessary desires some are necessary if we are to be happy, some if the body is to be rid of uneasiness, some if we are even to live. He who has a clear and certain understanding of these things will direct every preference and aversion toward securing health of body and tranquillity of mind, seeing that this is the sum and end of a blessed life.

You will find this, phil, in The Essential Epicurus: Letters, Principal Doctrines, Vatican Sayings and Fragments, trans. by E. M O'Connor. Clio the Muse 22:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry Clio, but you wouldn't happen to have a copy of it at hand would you, as Google books doesn't have it, and neither does my library, so could you possible give a page reference? Thanks so much. ΦΙΛ Κ 10:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, Phil, my copy lies in Cambridge, some distance hence! I can give you the reference next month, if you are prepared to wait that long. Otherwise you should be able to obtain a copy of the book through inter-library loan. It's also available on Amazon.co.uk. (I've just checked!) Clio the Muse 00:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll find a way I'm sure, the start of my term is the deadline, so I can wait, but it will be tight. Thanks very much for your help, but if you could possibly give me a note when you do get back, we can see if its any good. Thanks Again. ΦΙΛ Κ 20:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly shall. If possible I'll try to get a hold of a copy over the next week or so. If I do I will put a note on your talk page. Clio the Muse 23:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks very much Clio. ΦΙΛ Κ 20:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today I found something that puzzled me. This page (in Polish, sorry; English version has just the name) shows a colored version of a painting by famous 19th century Polish painter,

I imagine this depends on the jurisdiction you are currently in. --24.147.86.187 00:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite recently the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. ruled that the heirs of

Stedelijk Museum after WW II.[2] This may not be immediately relevant to the original question because it is unclear that the works in question were acquired bona fide. It shows, however, that the notion of which jurisdiction may apply is not at all obvious: a U.S. Court decides that a Dutch administrative body can be sued in relation to art by a Russian painter, a subject of the Soviet Union, left by him in Germany, from where they were brought to the Netherlands.  --Lambiam 01:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Indeed, not obvious, but that's still a US ruling (which only applies in the US). Whether or not the Dutch decide to honor it is a different issue. --24.147.86.187 01:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been under the impression that the US courts often consider their jurisdiction global... :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these cases hinge on the legal principle of laches. One recent one (I'm sorry, I can't remember who or what painting, but it was a US court) concerned a painting stolen from someone in the Low Countries during WW2 which was later sold and re-sold in New York several times (New York is one of the centres of the world art market, so many transactions occur there and thus the matter falls within US jurisdiction). The court heard that the painting had been listed in several sale catalogs over the years and was in a number of noted indices of paintings. The original owners (from whom the painting was stolen) didn't have any original documentation, hadn't filed (or couldn't show they had filed) the requisite report of theft after the war, and hadn't continued to search for the painting in the decades since. If they had (if they'd written regularly to auction houses, major museums, law enforcement agencies, and specialist dealers) then laches might not have applied. But the court felt that they'd not done nearly enough to continue to assert their rights over the painting, and so had lost them. There's a reasonable moral basis for this too - the final owners (while in possession of stolen property) had behaved well (they'd not bought the painting off a dodgy bloke at a car boot sale), had been open and public about their dealings, and had been duly dilligent about searching to make sure the painting they were buying was legal. 40 years had passed since the painting surfaced in the legal market, with several (good faith) owners in the mean time: it wasn't reasonable (the court held) that the first post-war owner be required to show documentation for a sale that occured so long ago, and so long after they divested themselves of the painting. -- Hydrogenated 11:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally (for stuff that was in private hands before the war) courts have to worry about how the disputed painting came to leave the hands of the original owner. Undoubtedly the nazis looted private collections (particularly, but certainly not exclusively, those of wealthy jews), or acquired stuff at knock-down prices with the seller under duress. But there undoubtedly also are cases where desperate collectors disposed of their art to buy necessities during harsh wartime conditions. The latter acquisition is, in most circumstances, legal. Say, in this case, the buyer was a weathy german collector. If the sale is challenged later (with the decendants of the original owner saying the painting was stolen not sold) the german collector's or his heirs would be asked to show evidence of the sale (to support their claim that the painting was sold legally); 10 or 20 years later that's a reasonable request - but 50 years later (with the collector and his children dead, and the painting having been resold several times) it's not reasonable to expect those heirs to still have the evidence. Laches, or its equivalent, appears in most legal systems (to one degree or anther). In general, you have to actively seek payment of a debt or restitution for a crime (with a fairly low level of activity being all that's required) for that obligation to continue to exist. -- Hydrogenated 12:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the case of some of

^{talk email} 12:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Also Jacques Goudstikker#Fate of Goudstikker's collection Gzuckier 15:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody recall a fictional character from a classic novel whose first and last names are the same? For example, "John John". I've been searching for half a day now to no avail. There doesn't seem to be a word to describe such a name either (I thought I'd find what to call it first, to improve my searches).

Any help would be greatly appreciated.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.73 (talk • contribs).

See Lolita.  --Lambiam 23:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing Tin Tin doesn't count? (presumably that's also not his name...). I except nordic/icelandic literature will have more as they have some sort of setup that I expect makes this more likely? ny156uk 23:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, who could possibly forget

(after e.c., adding it anyway inspite of resolved state) I also thought of

Durand Durand, so I googled "Durand Durand" and "Humbert Humbert" and found that Reuben has a list of people with same first and last name on his page. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Short story, but Edgar Allen Poe's "William Wilson" has two characters with the same name, and that name is, of course, William son of Will. Geogre 02:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a very odd play wherein a character was named "Phonograph Phonographovich." I think he may have been a dog who somehow became a person in Russia. Edison 02:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sirhan Sirhan --Wetman 05:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing fictional about him, Wetman, sad to say. Clio the Muse 05:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might be Polygraph Polygraphovich Sharikov. --Reuben 07:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The very play! I guess I just like phonographs more than polygraphs, and that distorted the recollection. Edison 19:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to pour cold water on this handsome dog, but once we get into patronymics the list is endless - Nikolai Nikolaevich, Leonid Leonidovich, Michael Michaelovich, old Uncle Tomas Tomasovich and all. Xn4 10:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really on point, but I can't resist adding this line from Bill Bryson's wonderful The Mother Tongue:

The best [English names] go in for a kind of gloriously silly redundancy toward the end, as with Sir Humphrey Dodington Benedict Sherston Sherston-Baker and the truly unbeatable

Leone Sextus Denys Oswolf Fraduati Tollemache-Tollemache-de Orellana-Plantagenet-Tollemache-Tollemache

, a British army major who died in World War I.

--TotoBaggins 15:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the best Sanskrit-English dictionaries is by Sir Monier Monier-Williams. —Tamfang (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MEYER MEYER from the 87th Precint novels by Ed Mcbain

And then there is Dorothy Dunnett's character, Johnson Johnson -a portrait painter with a yacht called the Dolly Bird- from her now sadly out-of-print detective novels. Bielle 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not classic literature, but it is classic television: In the sitcom

Wilson W. Wilson Jr. (I wonder if his middle name is Wilson?) — Michael J 03:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Now I'm wondering what novel has a major character named August August, because an uncle(?) declared, "An August [born] in August can only be August!" —Tamfang (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]