September 28

Inquiry for Governament Affairs,

Can you help me to identify at least 3-new nations that seceeded peacefully?

This question seems rather simple, but as attempted to research the idea of a "peaceful secession" to form a new Nation, it was not so easy to determine the answer to this government affairs class question. My research to uncover a particular Nation, formed by peaceful secession, was something I could not determine, not even 1-such nation.

So, is there any reasonable way to conduct a search to determine, over the entire world, which 3 nations were formed by "peaceful secession". The nations can be any location around the world and the time frame is not limited.

Thank you in advance for your kindness to consider my question. If there is any comment ,then it is greatly appreciated.

Well,

Former Soviet Union, most of which obtained their independence in a reasonably peaceful fashion. Thinking of an older example, Norway obtained its independence in 1905 by seceding peacefully from the union with Sweden. Clio the Muse 01:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If dissolution of a crown union counts, there are several cases in medieval Spain where two kingdoms were brought together by marriage and divided again on the death of the first joint heir. —Tamfang 19:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada, Australia, New Zealand? They count as "nations", don't they? Pfly 02:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (oop, I missed the word "new" in the question) Pfly 03:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent example I can think of is

Montenegrin independence referendum, 2006. Xn4 02:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I considered suggesting Canada, but I'm not sure that colonies achieving independence counts as secession. Reviewing that article suggests that it's more about a constituent part of a country leaving - Scotland leaving the UK, for example, would be secession but the departure of colonies would not be. - Eron ^Talk 03:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The

Republic of Macedonia seceded peacefully from Jugoslavia, as I recall, though it was later involved in the ramifications of the Kosovo war. SaundersW 08:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

What would Luxembourg have seceded from? Its relation to

successor state, a useful category in this discussion. --Wetman 17:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Going back to former colonies, how about

US ? Neither was entirely peaceful, but both were mostly so. Violence in those struggles for independence mainly took place years before independence (such as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in India). StuRat 18:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Switzerland de jure seceded from the Holy Roman Empire at the Peace of Westphalia, although the process had been gradually ongoing and it is debatable whether the HRE counts as a nation for the purpose of your question. Sandstein 22:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg more or less seceded from the Netherlands in 1890 (the real relation between the two was a bit more complex than that: the Dutch king was also grand duke of Luxembourg, but the states themselves were separate. It is somewhat similar to Elizabeth II, who is the queen of i.a. Australia, Canada and the UK) when the Dutch King William III died. He was succeeded by his daughter Wilhelmina, with his wife Emma as caretaker-queen. Laws in Luxembourg didn't allow for a female monarch at the time, so a distant cousin took over and Luxembourg became independent. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another more or less peaceful secession was that of Suriname from the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1975. I think that for the Balkans, the secession of Slovenia from Yugoslavia was quite peaceful, or at least not as hostile as the other secessions. The establishment of the Vatican City in 1929 was also quite peaceful. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finland has a unique position wrt this issue. The secession from Russia in 1918 (the Soviet Union hadn't yet been formed at the time) was peaceful, because the new government in Russia was too busy with completing the revolution and establishing their authority in the country, and therefore wasn't able to quell the rebellion in Finland. Russia/the USSR did manage to conquer Karelia after WW2, but Finland more or less snuck/sneaked away from Russia when it was busy elsewhere. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aecis, I feel reasonably safe in saying that the question is about secession from an existing state, and therefore colonial independence, including the independence of Surinam, does not really apply. As for the other examples you have given, while nowhere near as bloody as the wars in Bosnia and Croatia, the secession of Slovenia was considered illegal by the Yugoslav Federation and was accompanied by limited conflict. While the subsequent secession of Croatia prevented land forces being used against Slovenia it was certainly bombed by the Yugoslav airforce a short time after its declaration of independence. I'm not sure that the Vatican example is a good one, in that the Lateran Treaty merely ended the political uncertainty that had existed between the Papacy and the secular Italian state since 1870. The Pope had never been subject to the authotity of the Kingdom of Italy. The secession of Finland from Russia was most assuredly not peaceful, as you will discover if you read the page on the Finnish Civil War.

As I have said, I do not think the process by which former colonies achieved their independence really applies here. However, in the hope of preventing any misconceptions arising from a previous contributer's contention that the independence of India was 'mostly peaceful' I would draw attention to the information in the article on the Partition of India. Clio the Muse 01:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question was on "peaceful secession", which I consider to mean little violence between the colonial power (Britain) and the former colonies (India, Pakistan, and later Bangladesh). I consider the prior and subsequent violence between the various ethnic groups within the colonies to be outside the scope of this question. StuRat 14:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comment whatsoever to make on this person's empty speculations. For the benefit of the wider community, and for the sake of factual accuracy, I would like to emphasise that there was intense violence both before and after partition, as those of you who have even a passing acquaintance with the history of India will understand. However, this is getting too far away from the point of the original question. If anybody requires any further information I would be pleased to take up the issue with you on my talk page. Clio the Muse 23:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why colonies achieving independence shouldn't be included in the scope of this question/topic. The article secession defines it as "the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or political entity." Wiktionary defines seceding as "To split from or to withdraw from membership of a political union, an alliance or organisation." Neither definition says anything about the relations between the seceding party and the seceded party. Aecis^Brievenbus 02:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. I've made my point. Clio the Muse 02:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, please, you've made me curious. Could you explain why decolonization wouldn't constitute secession? At the very least, your answer could provide the OP with an interesting insight, and you might convince me in the process ;) Aecis^Brievenbus 11:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Aecis; just a little more. First of all, please re-read the question. My understanding, my particular reading,-and I leave it to the questioner to correct me if I am wrong-is that it is concerned with the creation of new nation states, energing amoeba-like from a pre-existing political structure. The example I gave of the separation of Slovakia from the rest of the Czech state is a case in point. Colonial independence, again reading in the context of the question, simply does not fit the model. During the course of the last century literally dozens of states emeged in this way, and the questioner would surely not have been pressed to find two or three examples. Moreover, in discussing colonial liberation the emphasis is always on independence and never on secession, even in a case like that of Algeria, which until 1962 was formally part of metropolitan France. Look a little more closely at the example of the British Empire. This was always a patch-work of separate administrations, often with quite specific and unique local arrangements. None of the colonies, territories, protectorates or dominions was ever considered to be part of the British state (setting asode the single example of Ireland), and therefore never seceded from that state. Besides, India, to take but one example is an ancient nation, and to suggest that it only created itself in 1947 by 'peaceful secession' is laughable in its absurdity. Now, I have only a vague idea how the Dutch overseas empire was administered; but I think I can guranteee that the people of the East Indies and Surinam would have thought of themselves as achieving national independence, not seeing their nations arising by 'secession' from a distant European state. It is not impossible to use the word 'secession' in the context of decolonialisation, as Xn4 has indicated below; but it in my estimation at least it bleeds the word of all precision and meaning. I hope this is all clear. Clio the Muse 23:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be saying that the nation of India existed prior to British colonization. That's just wrong. Before that, India was a collection of principalities, not a single, united nation. StuRat 01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OP referred to "nations formed by peaceful secession". The secession article gives us 'the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or political entity', and I suppose it's arguable (but only just) that India withdrew from the British Empire. However, it was the very act of shaking off British rule which brought about a disastrous clash between Muslims and Hindus, one which both sides had long foreen and made preparations for. The idea that India's independence from Britain was 'mostly peaceful' just isn't arguable. It was every bit as violent as had been feared. (It's a semantic point, of course, but Pakistan wasn't a former British colony, any more than the Indian Empire itself was ever a colony.) Xn4 23:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The split of the GDR (East Germany) and the FRG (West Germany) in 1949 was quite peaceful, but I don't know to what extent the formation of these states constituted a secession, because there was no real state to secede from at the time. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Aecis; again I do not think this is a good example. At the end of the war Germany was divided into four zones of occupation-British, American, Soviet and French. In 1949 the British, American and French zones united to form the Federal Republic of Germany, tied in to the western economic and defence system. Because of this the Soviets held aloof, their own zone later emerging as the separate German Democratic Republic, unrecognised by its western counterpart until Willi Brandt began his Ost Politik. Clio the Muse 23:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the dissolution of the Soviet Union qualify as a secession? And if so, which of the involved countries acquired independence peacefully and which didn't? Aecis^Brievenbus 11:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow did not want to keep any constituent republic by force. Yeltsin said that each nation was free to go its own way. It should be remembered that some of the newly independent republics were split from the territory of Russia as a result of Stalin's arbitrary decisions (Kazakhstan), others had no previous tradition of statehood at all (Tajikistan). --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was the government of the Russian Federation or the government in transition that made that decision, not the government of the USSR. The restoration of the independence of Estonia and Latvia seems to have been quite peaceful, but Lithuania had the

Aec·is·away ^talk 14:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't buy into a theory that these events scared the Soviet government into accepting Lithuania's independence as a fait accompli. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I, but it was a secession, and it's wasn't peaceful. So of the former member states of the USSR, Lithuania doesn't seem to meet the OP's question.

Aec·is·away ^talk 14:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I assume that peace implies absence of full-scale military conflict rather than absence of one-night clashes. If we are to follow your rigorous criterion of "peacefulness", we'll have to admit that Russia's secession from the USSR was not peaceful either, if only because the

Soviet coup attempt of 1991 claimed several lives too. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If my criterion is too rigorous, what criterion would you suggest? Aecis^Brievenbus 00:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find info on how to start my own underground newspaper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prestown (talk • contribs) 03:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For general information on the topic, you can review Underground press and Alternative media. Practically speaking, I think that access to a computer, printer, and photocopier would pretty much set you up. - Eron ^Talk 03:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can the American Civil War be properly considered as the first modern conflict? General joffe 10:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. For what it's worth, our article modern warfare says no. Algebraist 10:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can redefine "modern conflict" to fit your needs, but the common definition requires the conflict to include the use of electronic technology. --

™ 12:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Says who? Our article on modern war includes no sources on that definition. Definitions I have heard have used the

World War One as the first modern war. Rmhermen 12:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Telegraphy was used in wars before and during the American Civil War. Not that I think this makes them modern... Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would call the telegraph "electrical" but not "electronic" because it did not involve the controlled conduction of electrons in vacuum , in gas, or in solid. Just wires, batteries, switches, and coils. Edison 12:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the question is whether or not it needs to be "electronic" or "electric", which to me seems arbitrary. An "electric" war is pretty modern, in that it allows rapid coordination of movement and rapid communication. Combine the telegraph with the railway and you've got a pretty modern looking war — at least, you've got a war that no longer looks logistically like wars before it. --24.147.86.187 13:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in singling out changing elements of warfare and deciding which of them really changed the nature of warfare (i.e., chemical warfare did not really change much, while nuclear warfare did; improvement in rifles seemed to me to change little, while improvements in machine guns did), I found John Keegan's History of Warfare to be wonderfully large in its scope and wonderfully happy with making the sort of sweeping generalizations one needs to do in order to posit such a thesis. --24.147.86.187 13:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have said attacks on civilians are an important characteristic of modern warfare, which to the best of my knowledge first took place in the form of Zeppelin raids on London in the First World War. 80.254.147.52 14:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of an odd criteria to use. There are countless examples of civilians being targeted and massacred in ancient warfare, suggesting that this is hardly a characteristic unique to modern warfare.

Ghengis Khan are two examples that come to mind...Civilian deaths in ancient warfare would be an interesting article. 38.112.225.84 17:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It's a false question, because the answer is just a function of a definition of "modern", applied to technology and politics.--Wetman 17:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of war has changed a lot in every generation for hundreds of years. Huge changes came with the discovery of

W. T. Sherman's March to the Sea? As Sherman said himself "We are not only fighting hostile armies, but a hostile people; and we must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war." Now, that really was the wave of the future. Clio the Muse 02:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The Crimean War could be considered the first with the use of armored barges and the creation (though not used until the American Civil War) of ironclad ships. There was also some semblance of trench warfare during that time, if I'm not mistaken. Ripberger 05:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The US have never been a bellicose nation, and its influence on the development of the 19th-century warfare was negligible. Looking with hindsight from the vantage point of the

Bulgarian War or the Opium Wars. We should keep in mind that, back in the 1860s, US was no more than a regional power. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Is it really true that the exact reasons for the treason of Alfred Redl are unknown? Rupert of Hentzau 13:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on our article, and the German one, it does seem that Redl took his reasons to the grave with him. Georg Markus's Der Fall Redl is referenced by both articles and would be worth looking at. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, it is not true. Russian military intelligence, based in Warsaw at the time, under the command of Colonel Nikolai Batyushin, had discovered Redl's homosexuality as early as 1901, information that was used to blackmail him into revealing classified information. However, that only explains the origins of his treason; it does not explain the wholehearted enthusiasm with which he embraced the profession of spy. It would appear that there was a strong element of vanity involved, as well as a taste for the dangers. As I said in response to a recent question on the Cambridge Five, it also became something of a self-perpetuating game, with its own rules and codes of practice. A Russian report of 1907 describs Redl as 'more sly and false than intelligent and talented', a cynic 'who enjoys dissipation.' In the end it may have come down to the nature of the Austrian state itself, an anachronistic idea, rather than a fatherland. In the political post-mortem one Hugarian newspaper noted, with considerable insight, "The Redl affair cannot be seen as a private matter. Redl is not an individual but a system. Whilst soldiers elsewhere are taught to love their homelands, lack of patriotism is held to be the greatest military virtue in this unfortunate monarchy. With us military education culminates in all national feeling being driven out of our soldiers...In the Redl affair this spirit has had its revenge. The Austrian and the Hungarian soldier possess no fatherland; they only have a war lord." Redl was also dying slowly of syphilis, a decadent embodiment, perhaps, of the whole Radetsky March syndrom. Clio the Muse 01:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WUD LIKE TO KNOW A BRIEF INFORMATION OF FORMATION OF MUNCIPAL CORPORATION_MUNCIPALITY IN INDIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.18.140.89 (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See

Panchayati Raj. Xn4 03:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• What is foreign exchange markets? and how many types of foreign exchange markets.Georgekalusanga 14:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)georgekalusanga[reply]
• Do u agree or dis agree that“All scientific knowledge come from practice?” i beg your arguments!Georgekalusanga 14:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)georgekalusanga[reply]

• Not if "practice" means experiments. Scientific knowledge also comes from theory, which may or may not later be confirmed experimentally. There are also observations, which aren't really "practice". For example, one can conclude that the Earth is round because the shadow it casts on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is always circular. StuRat 17:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There are few (if any) scientific theories that are widely accepted without some kind of physical observation or experimentation to at least verify the predictions of theory. One outstanding example of that is

Black holes are a great example. The theory first popped up in 1783, then again in 1930 - and the name 'black hole' wasn't coined until 1967. That was still a 'theory' until an actual black hole was first confirmed in 2004. So it's taken 220 years for that theory to finally be fully accepted. SteveBaker 19:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

There are many theories which can never be proven experimentally, yet are still widely accepted, based on math and observation, like the Big Bang. StuRat 10:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really the case that a widely accepted, but untested or unproven, theory is "knowledge"? That seems to be a contradiction in terms. -- JackofOz 13:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What is valuation? and what are the roles of valuer in both public and private enterprises.Georgekalusanga 15:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)georgekalusanga[reply]

Do your own homework. There's a search box you can use to answer with relative ease those questions. --Taraborn 16:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the artical on the DSM but am not clear: is the DSM considered "evidence-based" and, if so, how is the research to establish this conducted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.35.21.126 (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a name for a phenomenon that occurs in many different cultures in the world. This phenomenon is such that people continue to eat foods that they were forced to eat on the basis of poverty after the economic reasons have gone. e.g. In American Black culture back bones and hammocks are considered a delicacy...Fatback and beans ....these foods were originally eaten because there was no other food available.....in some areas raccoon and rabbit is eating preferentially.

In Japanese culture fish heads are a delicacy and in many subcultures preferred over the rest of the fish.

My question is "what is the name given for this phenomenon"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdpete317 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's related to "nostalgie de la boue": lit, homesickness for mud, which is alternatively defined as

"yearning for the mud : attraction to what is unworthy, crude, or degrading" [Merriam-Webster] A "compulsion that comes over people when they have, for complex reasons, a need to immerse themselves in self-degradation. It's usually a mix of drink, drugs, and weird sex until the soul is obliterated by the abused flesh" [1] "ascribing higher spiritual values to people and cultures considered "lower" than oneself, the romanticization of the faraway primitive which is also the equivalent of the lower class close to home." [2], and may even be covered by that term. SaundersW 17:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural conservatism more than anything. Adventurous culinary

tastes are acquired, not ingrained. The narrower the cultural horizon, the narrower the range of accepted foods. --Wetman 22:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:subject,when and where ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.222.113 (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikiquote, this line (slightly differently worded) was spoken at a "speech at the Al Smith Dinner for charity (October 20, 2000), as quoted in "Bush And Gore Do New York" (CBS) (October 20, 2000); also in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. Algebraist 16:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you just couldn't make this stuff up :oD --

dab (𒁳) 11:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• As the CBS article points out, it's important to realize that Bush was knowingly making a joke at his own expense here. --M@rēino 21:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reforms of Tsar Alexander II only pushed Russia more quickly down the road to revolution. Is there any truth in this statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.240.197 (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most important thing, I suppose, is that Alexander's reforms were essentially conservative in nature, intended to preserve the existing social and economic structure of the Russian state by modification, if it might be so expressed, rather than any deep-rooted alterations. If anything they only made the underyling problems worse. Consider the most important reform of all-the Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861. The serfs were certainly free from their traditional labour burdens; but the measure was accompanied by a compensation scheme for private landlords, the cost of which was carried by the new rural peasantry. Each village commune, or Mir, was saddled with redemption payments, spread over fifty years. It might even be said that private forms of serfdom had simply been replaced by a new state model, based on indebtedness. It is difficult to conceive of an exact parallel anywhere else, but just imagine if Abraham Lincoln, rather than freeing the slaves outright by the Edict of Emancipation, had purchased collective freedom from their southern owners, and then obliged the black community to pay back the debt to the government, two or more generations into the future. Emancipation also left the former serf owners with the best land, land that previously had been farmed by the peasants. In some provinces this was worse that others. It was worst of all in the Ukraine, where the peasants lost some 30% of the most fertile land, a cause of lasting resentment.

Other reforms in law, the military and local administration had the same limiting effect, opening doors that almost at once were partially closed again. It made the remaining forms of repression and backwardness all the more intolerable for Russia's emerging intelligentsia; men like

Alexander Ulyanov, brother of the future Lenin. Further reform was needed to modernise the whole Russian state and economy, which had to wait until the time of Pyotr Stolypin. It was to be another failed attempt to save what was effectively beyond saving. Clio the Muse 00:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Have a look at Imperial examination for an outline of the general structure. I'm not sure that there was such a thing as a 'typical' examination question; at least not in the sense that we may understand this in the west. Candidates would be expected, though, to have a detailed knowledge of the Five Classics; to interpret them using the principles of Confucius, and to construct advice on contemporary political problems. Proficiency was also expected in calligraphy and poetic forms. There were three levels of examination: local, provincial and national, becoming progressively tougher the further one moved up the scale; a test of one's stamina as much as one's intellectual prowess. Clio the Muse 22:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also on a totally separate note is it true that Poland has a memorial honoring the victims of "Jewish Communists" during World War II? --Gary123 21:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't sound at all likely, considering that Poland was a communist country for more than forty years after the Second World War, and that its governments since then haven't been racist or extremist. Despite the wildest propaganda of the Nazis (Jews were of course said to be the masterminds of communism, as well as being conspirators, criminals, pornographers, capitalist tyrants, and so forth), the evidence shows that there were rather few Jews in the Polish Communist Party in the late 1930s: the Party had something like twenty thousand members, with Jews making up about a quarter of them. With more than three million Jews in Poland, that isn't very many. Xn4 03:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any such memorial. It's very unlikely because members of the Polish Communist Party, many of whom were Jewish, were

Stalinist-era Polish secret police which was staffed mostly by Jews. Still, there are so many different memorials all over Poland, that it's not entirely impossible. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I thought your question was about a memorial to 'the victims of Jewish Communists'. Kpalion thinks you mean a memorial to Jewish Communists. If you do, then that seems possible, but still unlikely. I can't think of a public body (either before or after 1989) which would want to create such a memorial, and I also can't think of an organization which might do so... if you can, then perhaps you could make contact with it and ask the same question? Xn4 21:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, I think I misread Gary's question. Just like Xn4, I don't think a memorial to the victims of Jewish Communists (or Żydokomuna) exists in Poland, although some far-right organizations migh have proposed it. There are, however, memorials to the victims of Stalinism and, as I wrote above, many of the perpetrators were in fact Jewish (which is of course a perfect growth medium for anti-Semitism in Poland). — Kpalion^(talk) 22:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this Koniuchy massacre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.238.192.16 (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Except that today it's no longer Koniuchy, Poland, but Kaniūkai, Lithuania. Besides, not all perpetrators were Jewish. The article says that a memorial was erected there in 2004, but it doesn't say whether it explicitly says that the victims were muredered by Jews. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've written a short story or two and I'm trying very much to get them published: can anyone direct me to a list of magazines or other media that are willing to read and publish such things? They are fantasy tales, though more in the old British tradition than in the category of "sword and sorcery" which is so terribly lacking in originality. I have just sent one to "The New Yorker," but I imagine that the chances of this happening are slim. And I don't know where else one would go. Thank you for any help that you might have :) 161.13.4.76 22:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish[reply]

We have Category:Literary magazines and List of literary magazines. Furthermore the Literary magazine article features a much shorter list of "Selected literary magazines" that gives external links to the magazines' web sites. I've no idea what selection criterion has been used. Your local public library or university library may have subscriptions to some of these magazines, so that you can attempt to assess if there is a potential match between your stories and those a given magazine publishes.  --Lambiam 22:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duotrope is probably the most comprehensive place to find places to send fiction. They leave out any publication which doesn't have publicly web-accessible submission guidelines and are sometimes slow to react to changes (I'm still waiting for an update to the listing for Witness which currently points to an out-of-date website). You can do searches by genre, word count, pay rate and more. There's also a submission tracking service which allows you to see how long you've been waiting for a response and contribute your response times to their database. For genre fiction, the literary magazine listing here is generally going to be useless as most publications explicitly ask that no genre fiction be sent. Donald Hosek 23:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melancholy Danish, I cannot help you with outlets on fantasy tales (not having that much sympathy with the genre!) but I can offer you some gratuitous advice, based on a little inside knowledge of the publishing industry. The most important thing to hold in mind-and I am sorry to disappont you-is that getting an 'unsolicited manuscript' published is about as likely as winning the lottery; it can happen, but the chances, to put it mildly, are not high. Magazines receive thousands of these every year; and that is no exaggeration! If you lived in the United Kingdom (do you live in the United Kingdom?) my first recommendation would be to get a copy of The Writer's Handbook, published annually, which has lots of useful information on publishers and agents, as well as other helpful hints for aspiring writers. I assume there must be an American version? Beyond that I would suggest that rather than sending in a cold manuscript-thus risking the almost inevitable disappointment of a rejection slip-once you have identified the kind of publications that might be interested in your work, write to the commissioning editor which some information about yourself, your background, your interests, and what you can offer. Virtually all magazine articles are written to commission. This is certainly true of the pieces that I have had published. Anyway, the very best of luck! Clio the Muse 23:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the flip side, magazines have a continuing need for material to fill their pages. Some magazines publish more new authors than others (The New Yorker is probably the least likely to be the place of first publication of just about any magazine out there). Remember, if you don't submit, you can't get accepted. When I published a graphic design magazine, I was always more than happy to work with new authors, as long as they knew the publication and the sort of stuff I submitted. Things that were outside the realm of what I published got swift and often rude rejections. It's important to read the guidelines and even better to read the magazine before submitting. I would suggest, with the fiction to also get some feedback on it. [Critique Circle] is one good community for getting short fiction critiqued, although I really like the give and take--and community--of a face to face writing group. Donald Hosek 23:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Clio's experiences do not apply to the world of genre magazine publishing, which as I understand it relies to a very large extent on unsolicited manuscripts for short stories. See for example The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction and Category:Fantasy fiction magazines.--Pharos 23:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On that point, Pharos, I am more than happy to give way! Clio the Muse 02:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]