Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

< Wikipedia:Reference desk
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lambiam (talk | contribs) at 13:43, 30 May 2007 (→A painting: dab wikilink). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 3 months ago by Tamfang in topic Racism in a popular song??

Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg


May 27

Fat women with horns

Latest comment: 18 years ago15 comments11 people in discussion

Where did the stereotype of opera containing fat women with viking helmets, complete with horns, come from? Is there a particular opera that this is based on? And if so, why that one? Dismas|(talk) 01:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The articles on Ride of the Valkyries in popular culture and Valkyries in popular culture have some information on this operatic stereotype (Die Walküre is the opera). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
The figure is of a valkyrie. The association with operas comes, in particular, from Richard Wagner's The Valkyrie. I'm thinking the fatness comes from some practice of gaining weight to achieve a lower voice tone. (edit conflict: Sluzzelin beat me to it) — Kieff | Talk 01:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
While singers do sometimes describe their breathing technique as "fatness in the low stomach" or "filling an innertube around their waist" when they make use of the entire torso (lungs, ribs, diaphragm and viscera, see this pdf file e.g.), I don't think being fat is an advantage in singing. See also OperaNews's report on Deborah Voigt being sacked for being too fat to play the principal part in Ariadne auf Naxos. And, of course, "it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings". ---Sluzzelin talk 02:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Since the archetypal fat female opera singer is a soprano, the highest of the three traditional female operatic voices, I wouldn't think they wanted a lower voice tone. More likely more power in their voices (and probably just an excuse to eat a lot anyway!). The same goes for male singers - the fattest ones tended to be tenors, the highest of the three. -- Necrothesp 16:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Awesome! Thanks for the correction. — Kieff | Talk 18:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't have a reliable source for this, but one point my old music teacher once made was that when the stereotype arose most women wore tight corsets and therefore had very small waists. You can't wear a tight corset when singing opera, so singers would be the only women most people saw in public without corsets. This would likely make them look "fatter" than other women at the time, even if they were the same weight. --Charlene 03:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
That's interesting. --Proficient 05:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Our valkyrie article shows a winged helmet, not a horned one. Presumably one developed from the other, but it would be interesting to know how and when.--Shantavira|feed me 11:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Possibly caused by a false memory mixup occasioned by the memorable co-appearance of a Viking-helmeted Siegfried with a winged-helmeted Brünnhilde, as three-dimensionalized here. The archetypal horned valkyrie seems to have cartoons as her natural habitat.  --LambiamTalk 13:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I can't find it now (argh!), but I did find once a thing about how there had never, ever been found a horned helmet (of the stereotypical "viking" sort). Think about sitting in a narrow long ship, 2 men to an oar, and your neighbor has horns sticking out of his head. It would be rather uncomfortable. Geogre 12:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Argh! indeed. This claim can be found in our article Viking Age arms and armour, in the section Helmet, and is also found on this page, from which our article appears to derive its information. If you find a citable "reliable source", please add it to the article.  --LambiamTalk 13:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
The original a-historical "horned-helmet" images were disseminated by members of the Swedish Geatish Society, an outgrowth of 19th-century Romantic nationalism. --Wetman 14:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, that was where I had heard it. Someone was doing research on the Geatish Society, and one source pointed out who first came up with the longhorn steer-meets-Sven Forkbeard imagery. Sigmund as John Wayne -- real Geatish Society stuff, there. The Minnesota NFL team's helmets have depictions of horns on them, just so the fans can be sure that they are, indeed, the Minnesota Vikings (and that, too, is a 19th c. ex patriot Swede/Norwegian thing). Geogre 14:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

On the fat part of the question, there was a debate here that is a bit relevant. JackofOz 00:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Abbas and the Armenians

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

What was the impact of Shah Abbas I's wars against the Ottomans on the people of Armenia? Decline and fall 11:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

This question relates, I believe, to the scortched-earth campaign Abbas the Great pursued against the Turks in the southern Caucasus in 1604. The old Armenian town of Julfa in the province of Nakhichevan was taken early in the invasion. From there Abbas' army fanned out across the Araratian plain. The Shah pursued a careful strategy, advancing and retreating as the occasion demanded, determined not to risk his enterprise in a direct confrontation with stronger enemy forces. While laying siege to Kars, he learned of the approach of a large Ottoman army, commanded by Djghazadé Sinan Pasha. The order to withdraw was given; but to deny the enemy the potential to resupply themselves from the land, he ordered the wholesale destruction of the Armenian towns and farms on the plain. As part of this the whole population was ordered to accompany the Persian army in its withdrawal. Some 300,000 people were duly hearded to the banks of the Araxes River. Those who attempted to resist the mass deportation were killed outright. The Shah had previously ordered the destruction of the only bridge, so people were forced into the waters, where a great many drowned, carried away by the currents, before reaching the opposite bank. This was only the beginning of their ordeal. One eye-witness, Father de Guyan, describes the predicament of the refugees thus;
It was not only the winter cold that was causing torture and death to the deportees. The greatest suffering came from hunger. The provisions which the deportees had brought with them were soon consumed...The children were crying for food or milk, none of which existed, because the women's breasts had dried up from hunger...Many women, hungry and exhausted, would leave their famished children on the roadside, and continue their tortuous journey. Some would go to nearby forests in search of something to eat. Usually they would not come back. Often those who died, served as food for the living.
Unable to maintain his army on the desolate plain, Sinan Pasha was forced to winter in Van. Armies sent in pursuit of the Shah in 1605 were defeated, and by 1606 Abbas had regained all of the territory lost to the Turks earlier in his reign. The scortched-earth tactic had worked, though at a terrible cost to the Armenian people. Of the 300,000 deported it is calculated that under half survived the march to Isfahan. It was the first great tragedy in Armenian history: it was not to be the last. Clio the Muse 23:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
The text of Clio's reply moved to Persian Armenia. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

"God doesn't believe in atheists... so therefore they don't exist"

Latest comment: 18 years ago22 comments14 people in discussion

Driving home I passed a church - and in this city the churches often have fairly large signs always displaying something about belief in God.
Today the sign reads:

God doesn't believe in

ATHEISTS
Therefore they

don't exist!


I realise that atheism isn't an organised religion, but is this at all considered hate speech or religious persicution?
Rfwoolf 13:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Any actual hate speech directed at atheists could be considered an attack on them because of their beliefs, and thus a form of religious hate speech. This mildly humorous comment does not seem to qualify as hate speech though. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I learned from a usually reliable source that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not believe in atheists either! While perhaps not conclusive, we should not lightly discard this corroborative evidence.  --LambiamTalk 14:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's a philosophical comment buried in a joke. "Atheists don't believe in God, and so they say that there is no God" is illogical. Your belief or lack of belief in a thing does nothing to confirm or deny its existence, much less to constitute it. I can choose to believe that there is a Baffin Island or not, but that wouldn't affect the 12,000 proud Baffinese one way or another. This joke is an attempted satire -- suggesting that God's disbelief in atheists does not make them wink out of existence any more than their lack of belief in God changes metaphysical reality. It is also a cute allusion to Bishop Berkeley and his "to be is to be perceived." In Berkeleian empiricism, the world persists solely because it is continually perceived by God. If God were to stop believing in atheists, they would, in fact, cease to exist. It's certainly not hate speech -- any more than my favorite religious bumper sticker ("Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to the garage makes you a car") is. Geogre 15:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
To answer the second question you adjusted your comment to ask ([1]), it is not an example of religious persecution either. See the WP articles on the Inquisition, Holocaust and Wars of Religion for examples of real religious persecution. (Hint: in the future, rather than altering your post, you may want to simply ask a follow-up question.) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your answer. I adjusted my question and I fully realise I was violating some or another protocol or convention, but exercised my discretion in this case considering 1) It was fairly soon after my initial post, and 2) The existing two responses to the question were addressing a part of my question that I have left intact, and 3) I would generally not do such a thing in a more formal atmosphere, such as a debate. I wanted to rephrase because my question appears as though I'm claiming the sign to be hatespeech etc, when in fact what I'm asking is to what extent does the sign cross the line, if at all. Originally I considered posting similar signs to demonstrate the issue at hand, such as "God doesn't believe in Muhammed, therefore Muslims are wrong" or "Jews killed Christ, therefore Christians should kill..." and so forth. Quashing other people's religious beliefs (even athiests) by a church seemed rather odd to me. I mean plenty of people have no respect for scientology as a religion, but consider a church or synagogue advertising against scientology - that could be problematic. Therefore the question was posed. So far nobody has really addressed these issues. Rfwoolf 16:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I think I see why you are confused. The sign you quote isn't actually proposing that atheists be eliminated. That would be hate speech. It is apparently trying to refute (using lame humor) a variant of the Russell's teapot argument. Merely expressing disagreement with a belief or the tenets of a religion or is not, in and of itself, hate speech or persecution. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure the sign was meant in a silly, absurdist way. Vranak

Wikipedia believes in atheists. "That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." Clarityfiend 17:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
LOL! That's just a sort of "right back at ya" response from the Church to the concept of atheism, meant to expose how ridiculous it really is. Just because you don't believe in something does not mean that it doesn't exist; therefore, it is a fair statement to say that God exists, even though some people do not believe in him. Also, atheism is a truly ridiculous concept because people need to believe in some sort of higher power; the need for religion is hardwired into the human brain. (This is not only the source of religion, but it also leads to nationalism, humanism, hero worship, science worship, etc. if religious faith wanes.) The way I see it, the need to believe in a higher power is God's way of trying to keep us close to Him, or, failing in that, to prevent us from becoming oppressive big shots. --Luigifan 18:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
In your edit summary you have said "It's just the Church's way of exposing atheism for the ridiculous load of bull-**** that it is" - you are welcome to give your personal opinion - much like you have in the paragraph above, but please refrain from inciteful comments about religious beliefs, "bull-****" or otherwise Rfwoolf 18:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't want to sound as unfriendly as I am, but actually users (questioners and respondents alike) are not welcome to use the Reference desk (or any other pages on Wikipedia) as a soapbox for their personal opinions (such as that "atheism is a truly ridiculous concept"). Please do not bite this bait. I thank you all for your understanding.  --LambiamTalk 19:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
However, "insightful" comments are always welcome on any topic. Bielle 18:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
"Also, atheism is a truly ridiculous concept because people need to believe in some sort of higher power; the need for religion is hardwired into the human brain". Sure, if you replace 'religion' with 'mysticism', or anything else without deep historical roots. Vranak
Luigifan, a "hardwired need for religion" only illustrates one of my favorite aphorisms: "Remember, your mind only simulates logic." You might as well argue that optical illusions contain some profound truth. Also, the need for religion is satisfied for many people by religions without gods. —Tamfang 09:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
If the billboard's assertion is accurate, then is it a sin to believe that atheists exist? —Tamfang 22:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Is it hate speech? It is certainly anti-atheist. I'm not sure it qualifies as hate speech though — it does not threaten violence, does not claim bad things should or will happen to them, does not even say disparaging things about them. So I'd say there's no "hate" involved. Is it a logical philosophical statement? No, but it isn't likely meant to be. It is literally preaching to the converted; it is not meant to be a rigorous argument nor convince anyone who is not already convinced. I don't see any actual or advocated persecution either. I say this, mind you, as an atheist. It's silly and ineffectual (a step down from "Nietzsche: God is dead. God: Neitzsche is dead.", which is at least clever) but not much else — not nearly on the level of "hate speech" as some things politicians say about atheists ("I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." — George H. W. Bush). --24.147.86.187 23:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's certainly in bad taste, and I wouldn't be exactly running to befriend someone who believed it, but hate speech? More making-themselves-seem-faintly-ridiculous speech. --Charlene 07:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I used to be a Christian and have an understanding of the religion. In all aspects of the Christian, God loves us all "Apparently". The only reason im not a Christian now is because I have studied the bible for a couple of years now and the book contradicts itself and you 'the reader' 407 times. I’ve been thinking for some time of how the religion started and where it originated. Some help someone?

don't ask a chatty internet board if you want a reasonable reply to that. WP:RD may be alright for unearthing factoids, but a coherent reply to a complex question is not what you'll get here. Read development of religion, myth and ritual, mythology and religion, Homo Necans, Life-death-rebirth deity, monotheism#Origin_and_development, history of religion, religious studies, prehistoric religion and see where the references cited there take you. dab (𒁳) 10:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

as for that sign, it isn't hate speech. it's an infantile wisecrack ineptly disguised as a joke to make it seem smart. What's really behind it is "cargo cult criticism", the parroting of criticism without having understood its essence, the way five year olds say "you are stupid too". Or, possibly even worse, advocating nihilism, stating that both belief and thought are intrinsically worthless because they could always be different. I don't think the jester who put up the sign thought it through sufficiently to appreciate the diabolical nature of the statement, but that's what it really amounts to. dab (𒁳) 10:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It strikes me as a variant of the There are no atheists in foxholes fallacy that some religious types like to use to explain away the "problem" of people not following religious teachings, the "ah, they're not really atheists, they're just pretending!" argument. -88.109.226.73 10:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Guys, this is a joke, can't you see it? Only Geogre is wise to the philosophical implications of the statement, which are actually surprisingly clever. It's always a bad idea to try to explain something like this, but, what the hell, here goes nothing. It is not, in essence, a statement about atheists at all; it is a statement about the nature of belief, and about certainty in belief. People reading this are meant to question the intellectual premises of the contention, because atheists so obviously do exists, in spite of God's scepticism. This is meant to lead to a natural corollary. If atheists exist in spite of God, then God exists in spite of atheism. It makes atheism, insofar as this is set of beliefs about the absolute non-existence of God, look arrogant and dogmatic, which I take to be the whole point. Nietzsche IS dead. Clio the Muse 10:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Like I said, silly and absurdist. Vranak
Nietzsche is NOT dead, merely pine'in for the fjords Perry-mankster 15:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I am certainly "wise" to the "philosophical implications" here, I just don't think they are clever at all. Nihilism by any other name. They are saying that atheism is just as arbitrary as their own theism, which essentially leads to the Spaghetti Monster religion. It's just as stupid to believe in the Bible, than to disbelieve it, or to believe that God is made of pasta. No atheist ever argued 'My disbelief exists, therefore there is no God'. I know it pretends to be a joke, and presumably some people find it funny (although I think they are more laughing at their own cleverness than at the joke itself). The "philosophical implication", however, is just pathetic. Now "Nietzsche is dead. - God." is much cleverer. It's actually deep, laconic humour, because it exposes philosophy as sophistry besides the power of mere reality. The present witticism comes nowhere close to that. dab (𒁳) 12:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Italian hill towns

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

What are the origins of Italian hill towns? He who must be obeyed 14:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The existing evidence points in the direction of a human origin. A high town is more defensible in case of an attack. They may go back a long time; for example, Cortona, Orvieto, and several others, were founded by the Etruscans, while most others are at least medieval, if not older.  --LambiamTalk 14:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The orthodox thinking here was outlined some thirty years ago by the French historian, Pierre Toubert, in Studies in Medieval Italy from the Ninth to the Fourteenth Centuries. His thesis, based on a variety of monastic sources, was that the hilltop villages evolved, with the rest of Italian Medieval life, from the introduction of a money-based economy by the Carolingians in the ninth century. The economic transformations this entailed led, in the Toubert thesis, to the process of incastellamento-fortified hilltop villages- from the ninth and the tenth centuries onwards. The problem with this whole argument is that a gap of three centuries or more is left between the patterns of settlement in the late Roman Empire and those of the Carolingian recovery. Why, in other words, did the Romans live in the valleys and Medieval Italians on hilltops, like San Gimignano? More recent archaeological investigations have discovered that the 'retreat to the hills' can be dated to a far earlier period than Toubert supposed. What is now believed to have happend, on the basis of a number of excavations, is that the collpase of the Roman Empire, and the rural economy upon which its was based, caused peasant communities to 'redefine the landscape' in their own terms. In the ninth century pre-existing castelli simply acquired a legal identity for the first time, formalised by written charters. The castelli, so typical of much of rural Italy, were thus a sign of the political and economic fragmentation caused by the great crisis that overtook the whole Roman world from the fifth century onwards. Clio the Muse 00:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Names

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I like to know that what are the common names for Canadian girls and boys or should I say male and female? Thanks.

I presume you mean given names? See here for the list and breakdown among French and English speaking Canadians. If you are interested in surnames, here is that list. Rockpocket 19:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Black people names

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

HI there, I like to know what are common names for girls and boys among the African-American and -Canadian community?

See above for the Canadian data. African American names are more difficult to find data from. Websites like this list them and have a "rating". presumably giving an indicator of popularity. However, I couldn't find any official ranking based on census data. The US census office has a remarkable website recording name popularity from 1879-2006, but doesn't break the data down by ethnic group. As an aside however, browsing it I was amazed, and somewhat horrified, to note that there was 31 sets of twins born in the US given the names Faith and Hope, then 13th most popular combination. Sadly they don't have data for triplets, so can't know how many parents went for the Holy triumvirate. Rockpocket 19:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
This article shows most common names for African-American babies in Pennsylvania in 2002. Corvus cornix 23:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
The book Freakonomics devotes a whole chapter to studying the socioeconomic patterns of naming children, contrasting "black" and "white" names. On Amazon.com you can "Search Inside!TM" the book.[2] (The chapter starts on p. 179, search for "Roshanda".) One conclusion is that, although there is a correlation between having a distinctively black name and "life outcome", the name by itself is not at fault, but the circumstances of the family into which a child is born. The tables of the most common names (split in varying combinations according to black|white, girl|boy, low-income|high-income, low-education parents|high-education parents, 1960|1980 or 1990|2000) show that "high-end" names quickly become "low-end" names and cycle out of use.  --LambiamTalk 11:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Wow, the names for twins on that site are horrifying. Here's the top ten:
  1. Jacob, Joshua
  2. Matthew, Michael
  3. Daniel, David
  4. Ella, Emma
  5. Isaac, Isaiah
  6. Madison, Morgan
  7. Landon, Logan
  8. Taylor, Tyler
  9. Brandon, Bryan
  10. Christian, Christopher
I think it's fair to assume these poor kids will spend their childhoods in matching outfits. --TotoBaggins 13:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

How sad - elephant deaths

Latest comment: 18 years ago16 comments9 people in discussion

I recently came across the following sad articles:

Anyone know of any other historical animal deaths/abuses? Not just elephants, but any sort. I can think of the space dogs and the space monkeys for starters, but can't think of anything else for the moment. Though that detour did bring up the little gem of spider webs in space! Carcharoth 16:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

There's quite a few:
Unnecessary_Fuss
Britches
Primate experiments at Cambridge University
Covance
Huntingdon Life Sciences
Pit of despair
Silver Spring monkeys
Rfwoolf 16:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I feel sick. Still, I did ask. Thanks. Carcharoth 18:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Do the members of the species of bipedal primates Homo sapiens count as animals? Then there are a few more cases.  --LambiamTalk 19:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
At risk of offending anyone, I should note many of those examples are not "abuse" in an objective form (since many of the experiments were legally sanctioned) and neither were many of them particularly notable other than that animal rights activists chose to use them for publicity purposes (Harlow's Pit of Despair, the possible exception to this). For some other notable experimental animals - in that their use, and subsequent deaths, shaped human history, see Laika, Dolly the Sheep, Cumulina, Ivan Pavlov's and Frederick Banting's dogs, the original BALB/c founding stock. These are among the truly notable through the rich history of model organisms, rather then examples of adroit media manipulation by PETA et al. Rockpocket 19:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Just because something is state-sanctioned, doesn't mean it can't constitute abuse. See human rights. --Richardrj talk email 20:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hence objective - see Animal rights#Animal rights in law and Cruelty to animals. Rockpocket 22:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Repeating the non sequitur doesn't clarify it, unless you're taking the nominalist line that an act isn't wrong unless the almighty legislature says so. —Tamfang 23:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Let me clarify, then. With regards to the treatment of animals for human purposes (rather than human treatment of other humans), what is considered "right" and what is "wrong", what is "abuse" and what is not, is largely subjective, since there is no consensus among humans for awarding animals rights. Therefore the use of the term "abuse" outside a legal framework reflects but one point-of-view. This view is perfectly acceptable, of course, and may be held by a significant, though unknown, proportion of people. I felt that to be worth pointing out in the interests of WP:NPOV. Rockpocket 23:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Instead of objective I think you mean legally. There is a big difference. Something can objectively be "murder" but legally dismissed on a technicality or plea bargained down to "manslaughter", etc. In any case some animal deaths by science are more easily justified in the long term than others; Dolly sure, Banting's dogs yes, Laika probably not, anything Harlow did probably not. --24.147.86.187 23:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
No, I meant objective. When we are talking about interpretations of "abuse" based on our moral beliefs, then the issue of objectivity and subjectivity is important. My error above was the use of the word since, suggesting that it is lacking objectivity because it is legally sanctioned. I appreciate this is not the case and have struck it to indicate as such. Rockpocket 23:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for trying, but the offending sentence still seems to say that the cases in question were objectively not abuse; and implies that other cases were abuse by the (nonexistent?) objective standard. Hence the uproar. —Tamfang 09:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
The only objective standard we (as in Wikipedia) use to describe animal abuse is legal criteria. An animal is described as being "abused" (as opposed to being "used") when the law or rule governing the terms of its use are broken. If that is not the case, the use of the term "abuse" is subjective and we must attribute it to the holder of that opinion. The cases I referred to did not meet those objective standards, therefore I suggested the term was being used subjectively. There are indeed cases of "animal abuse" by those standards. I don't see what is so controversial about this rather obvious application of WP:NPOV. Rockpocket 21:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't quite buy that legal definitions of animal abuse are any more objective than any other definition, as laws are based on the same subjective criteria as any other standard. Also, the same activity (say setting a cat on fire) may be illegal and carry serious jail time in some countries and not be a crime at all in other countries. StuRat 03:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
It is indeed true that the creation of the laws are based on subjective criteria. However, for our purposes as an encyclopaedia, we can cite those laws as an basis for using "abuse" as a descriptor in an objective, neutral manner, because it is independent of personal opinion. That does leave situations where something that happens in one jurisdiction is "abuse" but isn't in another. But that is no different, for example, than having sex with a 16yr old. In the US you would be described as a sex offender, in the UK a player. Rockpocket 07:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply


Bringing the question back to elephant deaths, the links from the List of historical elephants might be useful. --Anonymous, May 28, 00:28 (UTC).

Some animal rights groups say that the list of abused animals includes all in a zoo, all pets, all working animals,all performing animals all research animals, all farm animals including all milk cows, beef cattle, sheep and goats, animals raised for wool or fur. That includes a lot of animals. Apparently only those who live in some state of nature are not abused. Not clear if their being eaten by other animals or dying of starvation or disease would constitute abuse or be a reason for sadness. Edison 16:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

National Socialism and German Universities.

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I previously asked a question on Martin Heidegger and got a most useful answer here. I would now be interested in the consequences the rise of National Socialism had for German university life more generally. Some specific examples would be useful. My thanks E. G. A.. Husserl 18:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Instead of the students finding the party, in Nazi Germany the Party finds the students?

There is a very good essay by Tim Grady in the July 2002 issue of History Today which examines the single example of the Friedrich-Alexander-University, Erlangen-Nuremberg in Bavaria. More widely, you may care to consult Students and National Socialism in Germany by Geoffery Giles, and The German Universities and National Socialism by Edward Hartshorne. The latter was published in London in 1937, and is thus, I would imagine, only available in a decent research library.

It is a sad fact that German Universities were among the earliest of the national institutions to embrace Nazi ideology. This is explained, in part, by the emergence in the period after the First World War of a 'lumpen proletariat' mentality among a large part of the undergraduate population. There were simply too many students, living often in quite squalid conditions, and competing for too few jobs on graduation. It was argued by those on the right that Jewish people, who formed only one per cent of the general population, were taking up as much as four or five percent of the university places. To this antisemitic mood one has to add the general right-wing political ethos of German university life of the day, which carried over many traditions from the Kaiserreich, including that of the dueling fraternities, which all outlawed Jewish membership as early as 1921. At Erlangen the General Student Committee was dominated by right-wing groups, including the National Socialist German Students' League, known as the NSDStB-the largest of them all. In 1929 the NSDStB at Erlangen delivered a considerable propaganda coup to Hitler by winning the elections to the Student Council on a platform which, amongst other things, announced that 'the struggle against the Jews is nothing other than self-defence.' The mood amongst the student body was also to be found, in some measure, among the academic staff. Although demands from the students for a numerus clausus, limiting Jewish intake, was rejected, a wave of provocative right-wing behaviour was accepted without action or reprimand. One Jewish student who wrote a letter of complaint to the Vice-Chancellor was merely told to avoid 'doing anything that could excite or annoy his völkisch leaning colleagues.'

After the Nazis came to power the students at Erlangen and elsewhere took an active part in the burning of 'subversive' books of May 1933. Although instigated by Goebbels, it was the NSDStB which arranged the whole spectacle, and selected the candidates for incineration. It was at this time that antisemitism in the university sector shifted from a student-led activity to standard policy. In April 1933 two significant measures were introduced in this regard: The National Law for the Restoration of the Career Civil Service, which removed Jews from the civil service, and the National Law for Overcrowding in German Schools and Universities. Since academic were classified as civil servants, Jewish teachers now faced possible expulsion. The second introduced the numerus clausus, previously demanded by some among the Erlangen student body. In the winter of 1932-33 there were 3,336 Jewish students in German universities. A year later this had declined to 812. Jewish academics were dismissed across the whole sector. Some teacheres were dismissed merely for having Jewish partners. The whole atmosphere was one of fear and intimidation. At Erlangen one professor of archaeology received a severe reprimand for praising a Jewish academic's research in a scientific journal. By 1938 the whole university sector was declared 'Jew free', and courses on eugenics, nominally part of the medical faculty, were open to all students. Clio the Muse 02:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, my dear Clio. I also take this opportunity to thank you for your previous recommendation of Ott's book on Martin Heidegger. It provided all of the information that I was looking for and more. You are a credit to your sex. E. G. A.. Husserl 05:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
???! She is a credit to Wikipedia! Corvus cornix 18:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Please forgive me: I meant no offence. I'm just a little old-fashioned. E. G. A.. Husserl 08:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm touched! Clio the Muse 23:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Petrarch's library materials

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Petrarch during his lifetime collected much material for his personal research. When he died, how was this material dispersed? Who received most of Petrarch's library (ancient books) and personal manuscripts (i.e. Africa, De Viris Illustribus, letters, poems, etc).--Doug talk 22:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

According to our article Petrarch, he bequeathed his notable library of manuscripts to the city of Venice, where they form part of the nucleus of the Biblioteca Marciana. I don't know if this included personal manuscripts such as letters and notes. The answer to that may possibly found in Petrarch's testament, which should make clear what he bequeathed to whom. It has been translated to English by Theodor E. Mommsen (not the Theodor Mommsen but a grandson) and was published under the title Petrarch's Testament by Cornell University Press in 1957. It is not in print, but available second hand.[3] I don't have access to a library, otherwise I would have looked it up.  --LambiamTalk 10:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again Lambiam for this excellent answer. I have located a source of this translation and can get it through ILL.--Doug talk 13:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

invocational address

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

request information on how to deliver an invocational speech/prayer that does not offend people of all religions for a large union group of various ethnic/cultural backgrounds.

The standard lawyerly term for God, when trying not to offend, is "a higher power". I believe Alcoholics Anonymous uses this dodge to avoid lawsuits that court mandated AA counseling is a violation of the separation of Church and State in the US. This "higher power" can be taken as God, gods, or some other creative force in the universe. Avoid mentioning sex or alcohol consumption, but common sense should tell you that. Toss in an inoffensive joke (there are a few) and you've got it written. StuRat 03:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC) StuRat 03:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Can you tell us more about what kind of event occasions such an invocational speech? I assume the intended sense of "invocational" here is not the dictionary meaning of "the act of conjuring up a spirit by incantation", but, rather, "an appeal to a higher power for assistance". If all these people are followers of monotheistic religions, then surely a formula like "may God's blessing be with/upon ..." is inoffensive to everyone present. Hindus should not be offended either, since they see their various Gods as diverse manifestations of one Supreme Being. The situation with Buddhism is less clear (see God in Buddhism), and Taoism seems to be genuinely polytheistic. Invoking God in the name of everyone present may be most offensive to any atheists. A possible acceptable formulation to those could be to omit a reference to any possible bestower of the blessing wished for: "may blessing be with/upon ...". Then again, believers might get offended... there is no sure way to please all people.  --LambiamTalk 14:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Pedophiles in Nazi Germany?

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion

What did the Nazi's do with pedophiles?--81.76.16.52 22:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here's some info: Sexual deviance laws passed by the Nazi government. Anchoress 23:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I know this sounds bad, but from reading that, I think the Nazis had the right idea in that area. I see pedophilia apologists spouting off on the internet and it makes me feel sick to the stomach.--81.76.16.52 23:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Actually a large part of the german people at that time were convinced of the nazi ideology and supported it. The nazi party gained 37.4% of votes in the first elections of 1932 (German election, July 1932). Although the support receded after that, and no free elections were held after 1932, it is reasonable to assume that the support for the nazi party was even higher during the war in 1940-1941. It would be very stupid to believe, that a single evil man with a strange moustache decieved the world. The nazi ideology had and has a lot of honest supporters, like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.187.28.243 (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Can we now stick to the original question and perhaps not debate the merits of Nazi ideology and policy? Thank you. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't know how we should interpret this: "paragraph 176 outlawed pedophilia". Did it outlaw sexual desire for children itself, or did it outlaw abusing children, or did it outlaw having sex with children? What about children that had sex with other children, was that "legal"? A.Z. 01:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Likely it outlawed adults having sex with children. Likely they had age of consent laws like everywhere else. The Nazis took extreme care with their laws in order to make them look rational and orderly. It is one of the fetishes of authoritarian states to appear "legal" and thus "legitimate." Actual enforcement and practice was rarely as orderly as the language of the laws, or relied upon extreme ambiguity in laws ("enemies of the state", "endangering national security", etc.). --24.147.86.187 01:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the information. We do have an article on Paragraph 175, but not one on Paragraph 176, although German language Wikipedia does: § 176 StGB. A.Z. 01:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
For what it's worth, that article is on today's penal code and doesn't discuss § 176 as it existed during the Third Reich. § 175 has been repealed and removed without substitution from modern day Germany's penal code [4], while § 176 is still there, addressing "Sexual abuse of children" [5]. I can't reference the changes to § 176 since 1945 though. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is VERY hard indeed to work this out exactly.

The Wikipedia article on German ages of consent explains that the lowest age for sex was set at 14 during 1870s and it does not mention any rise in the Nazi era.

There is frequent reference to a paragraph 176 which outlawed paedophillia.

However I have come across web refs that simply say that this applys to those in a dependancy relationship (this was aimed at those charge of the Hitler Youth). In relation to lesbian relationships one web ref says And, where a so-called relation of dependence existed between a superior and a subordinate or between a teacher and a school girl, the provision of paragraph 176 of the penal code would apply." This would imply that 176 had to have a higher age of consent for those in a dependant relationship because the standard age (i.e. 14) was inadequate to offer protection in such cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.249.5 (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I prefer to avoid discussions like this because of some of the 'fruit' they tend to bear; but a feel perhaps one or two observations might be appropriate, purely for the sake of clarification. First a question, one with a rhetorical intent, I fully admit. Do you feel that the existing laws we have today against pedophilia are somehow less stringent than those in the German penal code in use during the Third Reich? This is certainly not the case in my own country (England) nor, I suspect, is it the case in most other countries. In all my reading on the subject of Nazi Germany I have never come across any evidence to suggest that pedophilia was identified as a particular problem in Germany to which the Third Reich offered a unique solution. However, it did offer a solution to other 'problems' connected with children, as you will discover if you care to cast your eye over the page on Action T4. I remember one case I read of in an article on the operation of the euthanasia programme, concerning a little girl 'who liked to sing in the morning'. She was gassed at Hadamar in 1940. Those who participated in T4, men like Christian Wirth and Franz Stangl went on to even greater tasks. You are worried about pedophilia apologists on the internet? This must be bad, I feel sure; but it is in the nature of the medium. There is so much poison out there, as we must all be aware, including pages with apologetics for the likes of Irma Grese (yes, Irma Grese) and Julius Streicher. Now, if you really want to be 'sick to the stomach', as you put it, and if you can read German, have a look for an copy of Der Stürmer, any copy, it does not really matter, for the general thrust is much the same. It might put you in a slightly better position to pass judgement on the moral standards favoured by the Third Reich. Clio the Muse 09:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The information that this thread provided so far does not allow us to compare the stringentness of the laws that there are in England today with those in the German penal code. Anchoress's link only says "paragraph 176 outlawed pedophilia". It doesn't explain what they mean by pedophilia (though someone suggested a meaning above), nor what was the punishment for those convicted for this crime. A.Z. 16:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
It seems that I was wrong (and so was Clio the Muse): "Paragraph 174 of the penal code forbade incest and other sexual offenses with dependents, while paragraph 176 outlawed pedophilia. Persons convicted under these laws also wore the pink triangle. The Nazi's passed other laws that targeted sex offenders. In 1933, they enacted the Law Against Dangerous Habitual Criminals and Measures for Protection and Recovery. This law gave German judges the power to order compulsory castrations in cases involving rape, defilement, illicit sex acts with children (Paragraph 176)." A.Z. 16:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I suspect that Nazi officials would have only enforced anti-pedophilia laws against people they considered "subhuman". The logic would be "Aryans aren't sexual deviants, so, if one is so accused, then they are either innocent or they aren't an Aryan". On the other hand, early on, when being a Jew or some other "undesirable" wasn't yet legal cause for imprisonment, the Nazis may very well have falsified charges of pedophile against them. I believe in the movie Judgement at Nuremberg, an account was given of how charges were falsified against an older Jewish man for supposedly having sexual relations with an Aryan girl (played by Judy Garland). In this case, the charge was a violation of a law forbidding sexual relations between Jews and non-Jews, and the girl may have been above the age of consent, and this particular case may be fictional, but I still feel this illustrates how charges of "sexual perversion" could be brought against those the Nazis wanted eliminated. BTW, I highly recommend that movie (who wouldn't like a movie with both Captain Kirk and Colonel Klink in it ?). :-) StuRat 03:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

noms d'electron

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Has anything been written about why most of us adopt fanciful handles for such purposes as this, even when anonymity is not a factor? Is it a tradition with an identifiable root? —Tamfang 23:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Maybe this study (pdf file!), titled The Proteus Effect: The Effect of Transformed Self-Representation on Behavior, by Nick Yee and Jeremy Bailenson (Stanford University) offers some insight. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
There is a lot of ink spilled on the subject every year, but rarely is it really strong or satisfying to those of us with "handles." In the US, this mania began with Citizen's band radio, where hairless paunch porters called themselves "Red Baron" and the like. However, if you want to spend your time parsing the papers, I think CMC Journal ("computer mediated communication") is one of the more august organs. Personally, I'd suggest that names fall into the heroic cult (mine), the aspect identifier (foxymama44 and bruinsfan10), the cleverness sign (mine, too), etc. They have functions of identification. Whether they are actually meaningful in that regard anymore or not is another matter. Utgard Loki 13:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Did you notice that Yee and Bailenson recognize part of the cleverness and included your handle's second half in their paper? (Along with werewolves, vampires, kitsune, and Proteus) ---Sluzzelin talk 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
There have been incidents of persons who have strong beliefs about some issue harrassing those who dare to disagree. This has ranged from angry emails and phone calls to bogus accusations of violations of the law to physical assults. One problem with use of a particular penname is that others may take it as an implication of bias in discussions of issues relating to historical personages with similar names. Many famous persons wrote letters to the editor under pennames, so there is a historical background. Benjamin Franklin wrote as the prudish widow Mrs."Silence Dogood." Alexander Hamilton published as "Publius." I can't find a reference, but I seem to recall that Abraham Lincoln also used a pen name for newspaper writings. Edison 16:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Lincoln used the pen name "Rebecca" to criticize another politician per [6]. This reportedly led to a demand for a duel on the part of the target. Edison 16:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply


May 28

Human seasons

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Duuude (or whomever is reading), I was just thinking. The term "mother nature" and father time might have something on them, you know. Because father time and mother nature gave birth to their four children spring, summer, fall and winter. Don't you get it, it's like time combined with nature equals the seasons. Anyways, in case you thought of this too I was wondering if it's predjuiced to say that fall might be the emo, slash sad teenager, in the family and King Winter is the succesful oldest kid (I mean he is "King")? If that's okay then is it okay to say that the summer is a vigorous woman and spring is like her younger sister, who's still mentally-innocent and silly (Just look at the colours when spring comes... or... something).

Anyway I was just wondering about this, and if you guys can research this some more maybe I can start a world-religion based on the concept, (just hopin' I ain't copying them wicca-folks too much).

Thanks a lot, because I can't seem to find anything on the subject and it seems like we have thies names on abstract concepts for a reason right?

I don't know who emo, slash sad teenageer, in the family, and king winter are, but it is okay to say that summer is a vigorous, even fertile woman, and spring is younger and perhaps even silly. As for starting a religion based on the seasons, I'm afraid you've been preempted by several thousand or tens of thousands of years. Search some more, you should be able to find gobs of info on seasons and mythology/religion. There are interesting and easy to find web links on how Christianity is linked to the seasons. Like, how odd is it that Christ was born at, approximately the winter solstice? Then there is stuff about Christ being the "lamb", even the sacrificial lamb, relating to the zodiac. Not to mention his relation to fish (pisces). And Easter being near the the Spring equinox... coincidence? In any case, I'm picking on Christianity, but these sort of things are common to nearly every religion, so you may as well forget about a "new" one! Pfly 07:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Actually, in that particular case, Christmas is simply the mass for Christ, and the early church didn't know when Jesus was born. The association with December is part of conscious syncretism on their part. They did it very specifically to coincide with the Saturnalia of Rome, and that, of course, was a nature/fertility thing. Normally, mid-winter is the time of the 'death of Adonis' in fertility cults, so "birth of the savior" is not a logical nature thing. In the case of Easter, that one is much more historical, and it seems to be entirely tied up in when Passover was, because that was necessary for the entry into Jerusalem, the release of a prisoner, and the Sanhedrin's campaign against Jesus. It could hardly have been any attempted or conscious association with nature cults, there. As for why Passover happened then... I cannot say how accurately the Jews had kept the precise dates of their escape for Egypt, and historians have more trouble with Exodus than nearly anything after the flood. Utgard Loki 15:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
The Silly season is a peculiarly human one...--Shantavira|feed me 11:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Rabbit season!--0rrAvenger 20:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

vich

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What does the word "vich" mean in Punjabi?

According to a Punjabi to English dictionary there is no such word. However, they list vichch as meaning whithin. Rockpocket 03:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Funny, ththat! Bielle 04:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

In the US, how much does a legal name change generally cost in court fees?--Azer Red Si? 02:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It varies by ___location. Can you tell us what state you are in? (E-mail me if you don't feel comfortable sharing this on-wiki.) Newyorkbrad 02:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
As Brad says, it varies by State (and county). For example in King County, Washington the "District Court fee for name changes is $100," [7] in Eugene, Oregon the filing fee for a name change is $102 [8] and in Hawai'i there appears to be a $50 filing fee followed by a further $25 paid to the "Bureau of Conveyances." [9] The average appears to be around $100. Rockpocket 02:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
As you say, it varies by county. With few exceptions, it is generally the county's superior court in which you live who handles name changes. So in your case, just contact the clerk and ask. And for the general case, it's likely to vary with as many counties we have in the US. Llamabr 16:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Since usurpation has been practiced regularly, several hundred username changes have, I'd imagine, been performed. I wonder whether we might not have done well to have asked users upon their requesting usurpation if they might be interested in donating (entirely voluntarily) some small sum (US$3-5, e.g., substantially less, it appears, than charge other jurisdictions) in exchange for the username assumption. Perhaps in preparation for SUL we might set up a bounty board at which a user otherwise entitled to a particular username on a given project might surrender it to another user in exchange for the latter's making a donation to the Foundation (as in the purchase by one sportsperson of another's squad number)... 05:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Slovakian Politics

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Hi,
I'm participating in a mock UN security council meeting thing; representing Slovakia. I've had a quick look on the article on Slovakian politics but couldn't really find any relevant info so thought it would be a good idea to post this question here where it might be read by real Slovakians. What I'm asking is how do Slovakian's view Climate change and things like the Kyoto Protocol which aims at reducing carbon emissions. Also, do Slovakian's favour the idea of a Palestinian State? Thanks for any responses, --Fir0002 10:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Slovakia ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Sites such as Slovak Permanent Mission to the UN or Slovak Ministry of Foreign Affairs might be useful. --Brand спойт 10:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
There is an article Foreign relations of Slovakia AnonMoos 14:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Slovakia is not a state that has much of an ability to extend an independent foreign policy. As such, its exercises foreign policy goals through the collective framework of the European Union. Especially on issues like Palestine and Climate Change. May I recommend you get to know the other 26 mock UN-ers who will be representing your Bloc, so you may offer a united front. Ninebucks 19:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cromwell assassination plot

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Are there any details on the assassination plots against Oliver Cromwell? Martinben 13:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The only assassination plot against the Lord Protector that I am aware of, Martinben, was that of Edward Sexby and Miles Sindercombe, and it came not, as one might expect, from the Cavalier and Royalist right, but from the Leveller and Republican left. Sexby and Sindercome were, in effect, Cassius and Brutus in an English guise, determined on the destruction of the new Caesar. Sexby was to publish a pamphlet before his death, under the title Killing, Noe Murder, a detailed justification of tyrannicide.
Sexby, a former officer in the New Model Army, and an ardent republican, was the driving force behind the whole plot. He had been deeply angered by the coup of April 1653, which saw the end of the Commonwealth of England and the eventual elevation of Cromwell into the semi-regal position of Lord Protector. From this time forward Sexby plotted to remove the 'apostate', as he referred to Cromwell, by one means or another. His hatred of the English dictator led him into the oddest of alliances. In 1655 he left England after one of his intrigues went wrong, immersing himself in a variety of cloak-and-dagger schemes among spys and plotters of all kinds, even making contact with the court of the exiled Charles Stuart. Sexby initially wanted to lead a military invasion of England, but realised that such a thing would never work in view of the military strength of the Protectorate; so the murder of Cromwell became the key part of his whole strategy, which was to create a political vacuum into which he and his colleagues could step. As he noted to a correspondent "either I or Cromwell must perish." To further his aims he even tried to persuade his Royalist contacts that he himself favoured a restoration of the ancient monarchy.
While in Flanders, Sexby made contact with Sindercombe, a former Leveller, and a man just as passionate in his hatred of the usurper. Sexby promised to provide arms, ammunition and money, and, in return, Sindercombe promised to arrange the assassination, returning to England in 1656. It was then that things started to go wrong, for one reason or another. One scheme failed because Cromwell, whose usual practice was to leave town at the weekends for Hampton Court, decided to remain in Whitehall because of pressure of business. Others followed, which also came to nothing, either because of a failure of nerve or an absence of opportunity. As is usual with these things, the more people who became involved, the more difficult it was to keep matters secret, and John Thurloe, Cromwell's secretary and spy-master, picked up the rumours. As a last act of desperation, the plotters planned to burn the Palace of Whitehall, killing Cromwell and everyone else, guilty and innocent alike. In the fashion of Guy Fawkes, the terrorists-and it now seems fitting to use this word-planted a device in the palace chapel in January 1657. All the while they were being watched by Thurloe's men, who now made their move. Sindercombe eventually killed himself while a prisoner in the Tower of London, but not before revealing Sexby's part in the plot.
Not long after, Killing, Noe Murder appeared on the streets of London, in justification of Sindercombe's actions, and arguing that if Cromwell really wanted to serve his country he should do so by dying as quickly as possible. Three hundred copies of this seditious pamphlet were seized in the city on 27 May alone. Sexby himself came to England in disguise, only to be captured, dying of disease in the Tower in January 1658. His real legacy was in his theoretical defense of political murder, which still has some resonance today. For Sexby tyrants had placed themselves beyond the law, and therefore the scriptural precepts and ethical imperatives against murder no longer applied. In the place of God and the morality Sexby substituted political necessity. He did not invent political assassination; for that is as old as human history. He did, rather, provide a theoretical defense for the indefensible, and an abiding notion that, in certain circumstances, the ends will always justify the means. Clio the Muse 01:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sexby: Poor regime-changer, mediocre grammarian, good logician. Edison 17:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Stonewall Jackson

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I would be interested for some insight into the qualities, particularly the religious qualities, that went towards making Thomas J. Jackson such a commanding presence on the battlefield. Many thanks. General joffe 18:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would go so far as to say here that it would be almost impossible to understand the great Stonewall Jackson, either as a man or as a soldier, without some appreciation of his views on religion. In a letter of 1863, Daniel Harvey Hill, a fellow Confederate general officer, wrote of Jackson, "The striking characteristic of his mind was his profound reverence for divine and human authority. I never knew of any one whose reverence for Deity was so all pervasive, and who felt so completely his entire dependence upon God." Moses Hoge, a Presbyterian cleric, was even more direct, "To attempt to portray the life of Jackson while leaving out the religious element, would be like undertaking to describe Switzerland without mentioning the Alps."
There are, I believe, strong parallels between the lives of Oliver Cromwell and Jackson. Both men shared the same Calvinist ethic; both underwent a kind of spiritual crisis; and both emerged with a single-minded determination that they were following a path prescribed by God. It was this conviction, as well as natural ability, that made them both such formidable soldiers. Jackson's search for commitment in faith took him through various church denominations in the period after the Mexican War in 1847, till he eventually alighted on Presbyterianism, with its stress on individual morality and personal salvation. Like all Calvinists he loved God with all of the frevour of his singular character, and hoped that God loved him in return. Belief in predestination was the natural corollary of this commitment. With the approach of the Civil War, he told a minister that dissolution of the Union, which he personally opposed, 'can come only with God's permission.' His first political loyalty, though, was to Virginia, the Old Dominion; and it was Virginia he followed in April 1861.
Once in arms faith and soldiering walked side by side. The great catastrophe that descended on the country was, in Jackson's view, a judgement from God. The Civil War was, therefore, in his mind, akin to a religious crusade to regain the favour of the Almighty. Christian faith and the Confederate cause were thus one and the same thing. In pursuit of this belief he was to become utterly ruthless in the field, driving his men as hard as he drove himself. After one of his victories he said to an aid 'He who does not see the hand of God in this is blind, sir, blind!' Confident of God's grace, he became a soldier of extraordinary brilliance, and the Valley Campaign of 1862 still counts as one of the supreme achievments in all of military history. Afterwards, in his official report, he wrote, 'God has been our shield, and to His name be all the glory.' After the Valley, the 'Army of the Living God', as he himself expressed it, marched east to drive the Union forces away from Richmond in the Seven Days Campaign, where he established his unique partnership with Robert E. Lee. Jackson's accidental death in 1863, after the great flanking march at the Battle of Chancellorsville was probably the most serious single blow ever suffered by the Confederacy. Clio the Muse 02:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Once again I am in your debt, Clio. Now, let us cross the river and rest in the shade of the trees! General joffe 10:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
It must have been an effort for great men, having said their Famous Last Words like those joffe quoted of Jackson, to refrain from asking for a drink of water or the bedpan. Edison 17:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
"Last words" is another topic. There is a long tradition to the genre. Anyone who purchased Tom Waits's Orphans will see a CD sleeve of a reproduction of a 19th century collection of FLW's. Generally, the audience collected the last words other than the routine. Goethe's "mehr licht" is nice, but so is Joel Chandler Harris's response to yet another person asking him how he was, "I believe I am the breadth of a gnat's eyelash better." He was wrong about that. Utgard Loki 17:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

"K" for Contracts

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
(I made a title to separate this from Stonewall, above,)

Why does the law field appreviat a "K" for contracts. Where did it originate and why?

What does appreviat mean? And which country or legal jurisdiction are you interested in? -- JackofOz 21:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think he meant "abbreviate"--0rrAvenger 22:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The use of "K" to abbreviate "Contract" most likely originated from Law students, many of whom find it necessary to use many abbreviations to quickly summarize principles from a dizzying panoply of byzantine, turgid, and obtusely written precepts found in tomes known as casebooks. (sometimes rendered as "CB").
The letter "K" is sufficiently obscure (in the legal profession anyway), and the term "contract" is sufficiently prevalent, to make the former a suitable and fairly unambiguous indicator of the latter. The same holds for the greek "Delta (letter)" for "Defendant" and "Pi (letter)" for "Plaintiff". The letter "C" is already encumbered by enough of its own baggage; "Contract" would have been one straw too many for the back of that particular Camel. (go see "C" under List of legal abbreviations). dr.ef.tymac 01:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

guantanamo

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion

I have just been reading Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Surely the US government is breaking it's own constitution with the goings-on there? Doesn't the treatment of the illegal prisoners at guantanamo constitute 'cruel and unusual' punishment? MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 21:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Isn't the argument that Guantanamo Bay is not United States territory? Because the amendments apply to everyone in the United States, not just Americans. AecisBrievenbus 23:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Truly, the common argument goes like this...
Doesn't Guantanamo violate the Constitution?
Specifically what at Guantanamo is violating the Constitution?
I don't know. But there must be something because Bush is evil.
Rarely do you see an argument that brings up specifics about treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo. But, it does come down to the fact that they are not in U.S. territory and they are classified as Prisoners of War, not criminals awaiting trial. It is up to the lawyers to break down the legal loopholes that allow Guantanamo to be considered "not U.S. territory" and the prisoners to be classified as "POWs". --Kainaw (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Actually, they are specifically not classified as POWs, which would require that they be guaranteed some basic human rights and protections. They're enemy combatants. --TotoBaggins 00:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Logic is of no use in these cases, except the logic of the stick. However, they have done some amazingly frightening things in their arguments. An "enemy combatant" is a person engaging in terrorism, and they are treated however and by whatever means because they are in the legal limbo of a prisoner in custody who has not yet been processed. In previous wars, an enemy might be captured, bound, and then sent off to immediate processing as a POW. The right to a speedy trial was assumed to be operative, and so the branches of the military regarded it as their duty to process as quickly as possible and to charge these people. It only works, however, if they are captured on the "battlefield" and not, for example, in a capitulated city. I.e. it can only apply in the case of a captured soldier who was soldiering at the time. Since there is an (undeclared by Congress) "war on terror" (which isn't constitutional since the President can't declare war), and since "terror" is terrorism, the "battlefield" is any place at all, peaceful or hostile, domestic or foreign, where the terrorist is "fighting" by being terroristic. The administration has chosen to say that there is no need for speedy processing, so they pretend that these prisoners are "bound and awaiting processing" indefinitely, without habeas corpus. They can only hold without charge indefinitely if they do not allow the prisoners onto US soil, and Guantanamo is an interzone, and so perfect: it's a military base that is merely rented.
To say that it violates the US Constitution is an understatement of epic proportions. Utgard Loki 15:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Legal nit-pickers might also look at the text of the agreement between the U.S. and Cuba which allows us a continuing presence on that island. It states that the agreement continues in effect only as long as the U.S. uses the land exclusively as a naval base. What part of "naval base" includes "prison for illegal combatants from around the world." Is it somewhere under "anchoring ships," or perhaps "fuel storage?" Edison 17:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Since the Constitution is what gives the US Government conditional permission to exist and function, to deny the local applicability of any jot or tittle of its terms is to deny the USG any authority there. But then we already know that I'll never be appointed to the Supreme Court, whose job is to rationalize whatever the President and Senate want to do. See Insular Cases. —Tamfang 06:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago8 comments8 people in discussion

Can you tell me more about this, now very popular, song thats going something like "Play that fuckin music, white boy"?

And init the most specific form of racism, so present in the British society today? How is it possible that songs such as this are not banned, but many other are, even though they are not anywhere near as offending as this song? Unsigned comments by IP 77.105.51.120


reply Its play that funky music white boy!!! —Gaff ταλκ 21:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
This song is "now very popular"? The song was written in 1976, the last version of it was released a year ago. AecisBrievenbus 22:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I could be remembering wrong here, but wasn't it sung by a white person? As in, it is a statement about themselves, and inherently cannot be racist? Pastordavid 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
And who can forget the Maxell(?) advert in which Kathy Griffin recited the words —Tamfang (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Besides, the cliché is that white people have no rhythm, so it's actually going against racial stereotypes to say that a white boy can play funky music. -88.109.226.73 22:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, every song offends someone. We would live in a world without music all together if we banned every song that was considered by someone to be offensive. Even completely innocent songs, like "Itsy Bitsy Spider" can be offensive to someone overly sensitive to songs about small things or usage of phallic words like "water pipe". --Kainaw (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that song was actually written by a white dude Play_That_Funky_Music. There was a radio piece telling how some blacks hated the song because it made them cringe (the song was supposedly inspired by the request of a black person to a white, go read the article).

As an aside, my old roomate used to have a rather odious habit of changing popular "peaceful" songs to sound racist (e.g., c'mon nigga now, smile on the wetback every body hug a paki, try to love all the Guidos right noww...". Needless to say, he had a penchant for offensive "humor". NoClutter 23:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

A popular song that, with the best intentions, uses language that would make pretty much anyone cringe these days is Blue Mink's #3 hit the UK 1969 Singles Chart, Melting Pot:

Take a pinch of white man / Wrap him up in black skin / Add a touch of blue blood / And a little bitty bit of red Indian boy / Curly Latin kinkies / Mixed with yellow Chinkees, yeah / You know you lump it all together / And you got a recipe for a get along scene / Oh what a beautiful dream.

Those were different times alright. And to think the guys that wrote those lyrics also penned I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing. I think the execs from Coke chose the right song. Rockpocket 08:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why didn´t the Allied forces bomb the train rails going to Auschwitz II?

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion

I don´t understand why the British/Americans didn´t bomb the train lines leading to concentration camps such as Auschwitz to cut off this terrible transport. I´m sure they had sufficiently penetrated German air space at this point (even as far as Gdansk was bombed in 1944 - ?) and surely the Allied intelligence knew what was going on there, no? I heard an Auschwitz survivor in a documentary saying she sometimes heard planes overhead and hoped they would bomb the rail tracks, so why not? --AlexSuricata 22:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The mission was to defeat the Axis forces. How would bombing the rails be a more effective means of defeating the Axis forces than bombing the military outposts, military factories, and military supply chains? How can you make an answer to that question that a military officer would understand (and agree with)? --Kainaw (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Here's a good review of a book of essays about it that brings up some of the relevant issues. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is a hugely controversial topic, Alex, which I do not suppose will ever be resolved to any satisfactory degree. Anyway, you should also look at Auschwitz bombing debate and The Abandonment Of The Jews for some additional information. Clio the Muse 23:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

,

Further to the above excellent answers, Auschwitz was bombed (it seems by accident) on one occasion, brilliantly described from an inmate's perspective by Primo Levi. From memory, the incident is in his peculiarly ignored masterpiece Moments of Reprieve, although it's possibly in the more celebrated If This Is a Man - maybe both. The redlink (as I write) shows how overlooked the former book is. Perhaps I'll turn it blue. Levi spent the precious interlude of the air-raid sitting inside a pipe, swapping folk tales with another inmate. --Dweller 09:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The practicalities of bombing rail lines is pretty arguable, even had a conscious decision been made to do so. Modern airpower could do it - but even daylight strategic bombing, in WWII, usually got as far as "we can hit the right city". (Night bombing, of course, was "we can hit the right county"). Transportation interdiction was usually either done on the tactical level by short or medium range aircraft patrols attacking individual truck convoys or trains; or on the strategic (long-range) level, where it concentrated on attacking large, static, transport hubs such as canal basins or railway marshalling yards.
Whilst you could have tried to use strategic airpower to break bridges or rail lines, what you'd probably do was waste 99% of the effort on ploughing fields and cause a few breaks which could be repaired relatively easily; a lot of your effort expended on something they can fix fast, whilst if you go for transport centres (themselves usually in city centres), your target is over a large area and easier to hit (and any bombs which miss are going to hit something they have to rebuild...)
Tactical airpower was usually deployed in direct support of the ground units (and thus not easily divertible to strategic roles like this), but more to the point was medium range - it could be used for precision work which didn't have a strict military role, such as famous things like Operation Jericho, but only really in western Europe - anywhere else was just too far.
So, in short - the planes that could do it well couldn't reach, and the planes that could reach couldn't do it well. They could have made attempts, but even with hindsight they wouldn't have been very effective - the question becomes, in hindsight, did hastening the end of the war do more or less to help the camp inmates than redeploying the strategic airpower to attack the Holocaust infrastructure directly would have done? And therein lies a thousand doctoral theses. Shimgray | talk | 12:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have personally done railroad line construction. Gravel, crossties, spikes. Nothing very high tech. I can envision the next transport being ordered out of the cars to lay rails and quickly having the damage repaired, unless a bridge or tunnel were destroyed, in which case the transportees could be force-marched to a point where a transport train could shuttle them to the camp. Many would doubtless have died from the effort required to repair the tracks or from the effects of fording a river or climbing over hills. Certainly forced labor could repair a tunnel or bridge, or die in the effort. A similar question might be asked as to why planes did not drop food to starving civilians. The military planners may not have seen it as the most effective way to bring the war to the quickest end. Edison 17:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
They did, though only by the point at which the strategic bomber wing was effectively surplus to requirements. Operation Manna, last month or so of the war in the Netherlands. Shimgray | talk | 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

To bomb Aushwitz the allies would first have to know that death camps existed. The Polish resistance AK and specificly Jan Nowak-Jeziorański delivered proof about the nazi "final solution" but nobody wanted to listen. Mieciu K 00:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Naal

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What does "Naal" mean in Punjabi?

I think this is a question for the Language reference desk. JackofOz 00:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

May 29

Play like someone

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I think i may have asked this question before, but I can't seem to find it in the archives at all so I will ask again (if I did indeeed ask it before). I saw a news program that featured a young man that was autistic and could paly the piano very well. The interviewer asked him to play Für Elise by Beethoven and he did so. She then asked him to play the same song as if Mozart had written it. He played it differently, but it had the same tune to it. Actually as I am typing, I am almost certain I asked this question before but as I said before, I can't find it anywhere. Thanks schyler 01:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

If your question is about the man's identity, it might have been Derek Paravicini, Tony DeBlois or (less likely) Matt Savage. See also Category:Autistic savants and Autistic_savant#Famous_autistic_savants ---Sluzzelin talk 01:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
You're almost certainly thinking of a 60 Minutes interview. The third kid Lesley Stahl talked to had the talents you describe. Clarityfiend 02:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Interesting question: is it appropriate to call a 26 year old man a "kid" if he is on the functional level of a preadolescent or younger. dr.ef.tymac 03:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hah! Missed that. I automatically lumped him in with the other two, who are kids. Clarityfiend 03:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Boy gets cooked alive

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

This one I know I havent asked before. I saw a grusome picture e-mailed to me of a boy that had been cooked alivei n the desert. Apparently he had been climbing in between some rocks in the desert in Arizona/New Mexico/California/... and got stuck. His friend he was climbing with called the Fire Department on his cell phone to get him unstuck. They tried and tried to do so, but they couldn't. One of the firemen had a brilliant idea to use Crisco to loosen him up. As you could guess, it didn't work and he thusly cooked alive on the rock in the extreme heat of the desert. I don't have the picture anymore, so I can't upload it and the e-mail didn't have a story attached to it. I was wonderign if someone could find a news article about htis somewhere. Thanks, schyler 01:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a made-up story to me (possibly with a made up pic to match). Crisco would not cause him to be "cooked". If the temp was high he would likely die from dehydration or hyperthermia, but this could be easily prevented, if the fire department was there, by hosing him down periodically. StuRat 02:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's not listed on the Urban Legends Reference Pages of Snopes.com. At least, the search term "Crisco" does not turn this up, and neither does any of "desert rocks", "desert stuck" and "rocks stuck".  --LambiamTalk 07:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
So they happened to have a load of crisco with them, but nothing with which to cover him up?? In any case, crisco has no cooking effect, neither would the sun unless concentrated somehow.--Shantavira|feed me 08:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
On the contrary, covered with Crisco one's natural perspiratory mechanisms would be foiled, so you could easily overheat. Vranak
I don't consider a person "cooked" until he reaches an internal temperature of 160 F (70C), and he would have died long before before reaching that temperature, so he couldn't have been "cooked alive." For him to reach even 140 F (60 C) would be rare. Edison 17:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think the original poster meant 'cooked' in a non-literal way. Vranak
Personally, I like my human a bit rarer. :-) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Need help with Ontario towns

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I need to figure out whether any of the towns in a list I have is part of a larger regional district/metropolitan area, or if any of them are very near to one. This is the list:

  • Beamsville
  • Brantford
  • Smithville
  • Dunville

I hope someone who knows a bit about Ontario can help me?

NVM I figured out everything but Dunville.

Here is a long list even though you figured everything out.
I did a bit of checking and here is what I pulled up. Brantford, Ontario is a rather large city in Ontario. Beamsville, Ontario is a community in the town of Lincoln, Ontario, which is within the Niagra region. Smithville, Ontario, is a community within the town of West Lincoln, Ontario, which is also in the niagra region. Dunnville, Ontario is roughly 30 miles from the NY border. Dunnsville, is the town farthest to the south. Next is Smithville roughly 10 miles north. Beamsville is 10 miles further up being on the south-west shore of Lake Ontario. Forty miles to the east of Smithville lies the city of Brantford. Hope that helps. --Random Say it here! 01:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
User:Random is right about all the towns being in southwestern Ontario. "Dunville" - one "n" is on Placentia Bay in Newfoundland, but "Dunnville" -2 "n"s- is in Haldemand County near Niagara. Bielle 01:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh yeah, I guess I spelled it wrong. That's useful, thanks. I wonder if anyone knows where I could see a detailed map of the region? So I could see with my own eyes how close the cities are to each other? I'm sucky at finding maps online, and the wikipedia ones don't seem that grea.

Try the following website, Google maps. Once get to the website type in the search box the name of one of the cities you are looking for, and that should give you a map of the area. --Random Say it here! 01:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I tried Google for you as I know the area. I couldn't get a scale that showed all the towns. It is either 20 miles or 200 miles to the inch. On the 200, none of the names show; on the 20, they are spread too far apart, and, even then, not all of them show. Lokk. Do this the easy way. Let's step out to my garage. I have just the right map in the car. Sorry Bielle 02:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's O.K. I don't like google maps, but it's better thanothing. I know some of the towns are really little, so if I can see the region that's enough. Thanks a lot for all the looking.

To clarify, Brantford is an independent city -- that is, it is not in a county or regional municipality for government purposes. It is geographically in Brant County. Dunnville is in Haldimand County, which is no longer divided into townships. Beamsville and Smithville are parts of townships in the Regional Municipality of Niagara. -- Mwalcoff 04:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you prefer the Ontario government's highway map, you can find it online (divided into sections) in PDF under this page. --Anonymous, May 29, 2007, 23:23:23 (UTC).

Luya Province

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Where can I found more information about Luya Province? Ej: When it was funded?...By whom?...culture? Thanks 63.3.3.1 03:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You can find some information on Luya Province in our article named Luya Province. Assuming that you mean "founded", you can read there that the province was created by law of February 5, 1861. By following the links you can find a bit more, such as that in Luya District you can find ruins of the Chachapoyas civilization. Unfortunately, these articles are not yet in very good shape.  --LambiamTalk 06:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Painting

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I came across this incredible painting and I would like to know its name and the name of the arist. it depicts scenes of torture, a man on the left side being hanged from a ceiling, while his arm is being twisted. There is a woman in the right foreground, tied to a post with her back to the viewer, and a girl on her knees by a man in a cap on the far right. Not much to go on, I know, but please help. 80.177.38.137 05:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Where did you come across it (in a museum, as a reproduction in a magazine, on a web page, in your attic)? Is it oil on canvas? What are the dimensions; is it "portrait" or "landscape"? Can you say something about the style of painting – does it for example resemble that of Caravaggio?  --LambiamTalk 07:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

This, I believe, is The Night by Max Beckmann, a German painter often associated with Expressionism, who later became a leading influence on the Neue Sachlichkeit (New Objectivity) in the 1920s. You will find it depicted here [10]. It was painted just after the First World War, during which the artist, who was a medical orderly, had a nervous breakdown in the face of the suffering he witnessed. The Night is one of his most recognised works, a brilliant but bleak painting, depicting a world of arbitrary violence, violence without redemption or purpose. It is a violence that comes from everywhere and nowhere, and was to be a prophetic image of Germany-and Europe's future. The pictorial vision derives ultimately from Matthias Grünewald and the German Middle Ages. Clio the Muse 07:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

THAT'S IT, thanks, Clio. 80.177.38.137 22:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Stalin's continuous working week

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I came across a reference to the 'continuous working week' in an overview of the Soviet economy on the 1930s. How did this work in practice? Fred said right 10:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Bolsheviks had always been great admirers of the 'cult of Ford' and all that it embraced, Including the time and motion studies of Frederick Winslow Taylor. The enthusiasm for the 'high priests of capitalism' became evem nore intense after Stalin introduced the First Five Year Plan in 1928. But, of course, the Soviets had to go yet one step further in the pursuit of maximum efficiency. Although the working day had been reduced from eight to seven hours, what the state gave with one hand it took away with the other. In 1929, not long after the introduction of the reduced working day, all factories were ordered to adopt a three-shift system, allowing them to work day and night. This meant that many had to work at the most undesirable hours. No sooner had this policy been announced than one Yuri Larin devised a scheme for even greater efficiency. All factories were still closed on Sundays. Why not, Larin reasoned, abolish the wasted day by introducing the continuous working week? When this proposal was first raised at the Congress of Soviets in May 1929 it attracted little support. It was only when Stalin took an interst that matters changed. By June the press was full of articles praising the idea; and in August the Council of People's Commissars decreed that it should be brought into immediate effect.
Simple enough in theory, it proved very awkward in practice. Complex shift patterns had to be introduced, and the number of holidays allowed reduced. Workers in each establishment were divided into five groups, distinguished by a colour code, which appeared on the new Uninterrupted Work Week calendars. The scheme was also used to further the regime's atheist policy, because the bulk of the working population were no longer free to attend church on Sundays. The most serious impact, of course, was on family life; but the state argued that the collective good had to come first. This was the Ideal, and like most Ideals, it was universally hated by those that it effected most-the working population. Husbands and wives rarely had rest days that coincided. This grass-roots resentment could be, and was, ignored. Not so the deleterious effect on production rates. With complicated rotas, work teams found themselves performing different tasks on successive weeks. Machines were no longer in the continuous keeping of those who knew them best, with the result that breakages became increasingly common, often put down to 'political sabotage.' Bit by bit the scheme lost favour. In June 1931 Stalin gave a speech, criticising the 'depersonalised labour' brought about by the hasty introduction of the continuous week. This was the beginning of the end. In November of that same year the government ordered the reintroduction of the six-day week, although Sunday remained a working day. But even this last vestage of the 'continuous week' was not to last; and by 1940 Sunday had been restored as the universal day of rest. Clio the Muse 23:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Kipling and socialist folksong

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Here's an odd one.

Rudyard Kipling published a collection called The Seven Seas in, I believe, 1896. In it, he contained a poem called "The Song of the Dead".

We have fed our sea for a thousand years
And she calls us, still unfed,
Though there's never a wave of all her waves
But marks our English dead...

There is a song attributed to "an unknown socialist worker", first published in 1908, entitled "We have fed you for a thousand years".

We have fed you all for a thousand years
And you hail us still unfed,
Though there's never a dollar of all your wealth
But marks the workers' dead...

On first glance, the latter is a pastiche of the former. But is it? 1908 is only twelve years subsequently, and this sort of thing has a tendency to float around for ages before being collected. Couple that with the fact that Kipling had a tendency to himself lift various bits of existing verse and twist them in his own way - often without ever stating that he had done so, or where it came from, in the assumption his readers were as obscurely well-read as he was.

So, I guess the question is - does anyone know of a pre-1896 source which could be a common root for these two? Shimgray | talk | 12:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

...because it just couldn't be cribbed from Kipling? this is more interesting as a case in the psychology of evidence: you must look into your own indoctrination to find the source of yourdenial of the evidence. The Kipling poem's first appearance in print may have been in a journal or magazine prior to its collection in 1986. The 1908 publication may easily have been consciously intended to remind readers of Kipling's familiar original. --Wetman 16:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's very likely to be an adaptation of Kipling. Given that Joe Hill and other members of the socialist International Workers of the World very, very, very consciously adapted hymns with socialist lyrics, the habit spread. It became a sort of detournment to be fancy about it or a "repurposing" to be banal. Given the Kipling was regarded even then as a voice for the Establishment, he would be a prime target for defacing and rearranging. (Hill and the other union socialists did what they did because the Bosses would send the Salvation Army band to drown out the organizers. By coming up with socialist/union lyrics for hymns, they could use the SA band for their own purposes.) No doubt this was an effort to fight back against a pietistic quietism. (The various churches allowed themselves to be used far too readily at the time.) Utgard Loki 17:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Interesting. I guess the part that surprised me is what an odd thing it is to pastiche - it's obscure even by the standards of run-of-the-mill Kipling, as far as I'm aware, and in retrospect it seems a pretty unusual bit to end up lifting - hence why I began to suspect a third work. Shimgray | talk | 17:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
You're probably right about the obscurity, but it's really hard to tell. Given how close in time it is, it's possible that the poem enjoyed a brief life as a popular item and faded soon after. It might be "the latest #1 hit from Rudyard Kipling," in other words, and enjoyed multiple reprints and quotation immediately after its publication. In a few years, other "#1 hits" of his poetry eclipsed it in popularity so strongly that no one much remembered it. I know that it's flip to compare to popular music, but the analogy isn't insincere. Public poetry like Kipling's had a functional life separate from its literary quality, and 1890 - 1910 may be the heyday of such public poetry. (Think of the American "poet of empire," Longfellow, and how quoted and quoted and memorized his verses were, and how quickly they received that kind of attention in the industry of public education.) This is why we really needed more reception aestheticists (followers of H. R. Jauss). Utgard Loki 12:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Taxation of dividends - International perspective

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am busy with a treatise and need the following information with regard to the taxation of dividends? I am a South African Master's student in Income tax41.240.18.210 14:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

a. What: i. The theory of dividend taxation ii. South African historical perspective iii. International comparison – United Kingdom and Australia iv. Developing countries Estonia and India

b. Why: i. Changes in approach to taxing dividends Budget Speech 2007 ii. The effect of taxation on preference shares iii. Optimisation of design options an International perspective iv. The value of international comparison on Fiscal policy

c. How: i. In coordination with SA National Treasury ii. Desk research on historical perspective iii. Market trends on preference share values iv. International comparison on design options and experience v. Direct enquiry, University and National Treasury database

“Most countries have a dividend tax at the shareholder level. We have a secondary tax on companies collected directly from a few thousand companies as opposed to millions of shareholders. To further improve the transparency and equity of the tax system, we are proposing that it be phased out and replaced with a dividend tax at shareholder level. This reform would consist of two phases. We propose reducing the rate from 12,5 per cent to 10 per cent and that the base be redefined to apply to all distributions. This will come into effect on 1 October 2007, except for standard anti-avoidance measures that will commence on conclusion of this speech. The conversion to a dividend tax collected at the shareholder level will be completed by the end of 2008 subject to the renegotiation of a number of international tax treaties”. Budget Speech 2007 Minister of Finance Trevor A Manuel, MP 21 February 2007

“Preference shares have seen prices decline recently, prompting investors to question whether they are a good place to put their money. Though they are usually chosen for their strong tax-free yield, the capital value can — and does — fluctuate. However, André Roux, the head of fixed interest at Sanlam Investment Management, says the preference-share market could be bottoming out. “I wouldn’t sell now. Prefs are becoming cheap and investors should be better off than in cash [where the yield is now similar] after tax — even after the 10% withholding tax that has been introduced.” Chris Needham Preference punters feel the pinch Sunday Times 29 April 2007

I know I can't answer any question on this topic, but I, and perhaps those who could help you, would like to know what the question is. Bielle 20:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Madame de Pompadour

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

What impact did Pompadour have on the history of France?

See Madame de Pompadour. --Kainaw (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm surprised that she didn't have "big hair". :-) StuRat 16:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The article itself does not really go quite far enough in explaining her true political significance. In many ways she was a quite extraordinary woman, a commoner and a member of the Third Estate, who grew to be one of the most powerful political figures in eighteenth century France. She established her position by beauty; and when beauty started to go, she maintained it by intelligence. She gave an added brilliance to the court of Louis XV that might otherwise have sunk under the diffident character of that unimaginative and melancholy man. Yet, in the long-term, the 'Pompadour effect' was damaging for both the monarchy and for France. After the War of the Austrian Succession, when economy was the thing the French state needed most, she drew more and more resources into the lavish court. Her influence over Louis increased markedly through the 1750s, to the point where he allowed her considerable leeway in the determination of policy over a whole range of issues, from military matters to foreign affairs. Her importance was such that she was even approached in 1755 by Wenzel Anton Graf Kaunitz, a prominent Austrian diplomat, asking her to intervene in the negotiations which led to the 1756 Treaty of Versailles. This was the beginning of the so-called Diplomatic Revolution, which ended long antagonism between France and Austria. It also led to France's disastrous involvement in the Seven Years War against England and Prussia. After the defeat of France at the Battle of Rossbach in 1757, she is alleged to have remarked après nous, le déluge. France emerged from the war diminished and virtually bankrupt. By the time of Pompadour's death in 1764 the waters were already pushing hard against the walls of the dam. Clio the Muse 00:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Anansi

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone know an Anansi story where Anansi is helpful to someone? DuctapeDaredevil 17:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here you go: [11]. You can also check out the archive here - [12]. If you need a Jamaican-to-English translation, let me know :) ◄Zahakiel► 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nude Bowl

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed that there was no article for the Nude Bowl. I created it, but I only have distant memories of going there in the 80's and skating. Then, I went in 1993 and it was a skinhead hangout (no skateboarding). Does anyone have any valid sources about the history (a nudist resort) or articles about the closing the bowl by the police - other than songs claiming the police tore it up? --Kainaw (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Female pilgrims in the Middle Ages

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The Wife of Bath is an example of a medieval female pilgrim in fiction. Are there good real life cases that we know of? Thanks

This sounds like something you might be interested in: Women Pilgrims in Late Medieval England: Private Piety as Public Performance by Susan Signe Morrison, ISBN 0415221803, although at $130 you may want to try to find it at a library intead of purchasing it yourself. (amazon.com) Corvus cornix 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Egeria is a famous female pilgrim from the 4th century (maybe a bit early to really be "medieval"). Adam Bishop 00:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
The one person that leaps into my mind is the wonderful Margery Kempe, the author of The Book of Margery Kempe., arguably the first English autobiography. After a twenty-year marriage, and fourteen children, Margery, now in her forties, began the first in a series of pilgrimages in 1413. Unlike the Wife of Bath, who only went as far as Canterbury, Margery made it all the way to the three great centres of Christian pilgrimage: Santiago de Compostela, Rome and Jerusalem. Despite the spiritual benefits attached to pilgrimage, it was not considered advisable for women at the time, because of the perceived dangers to their 'chastity' in travelling to foreign places. By Margery, against all the odds, and in the face of the dangers, persisted, though, among the other hardships, she had to endure some 'lousy' fellow-travellers-"Through mixing with them, she caught some of their vermin and was dreadfully bitten and stung both day and night, until God sent her other companions." Clio the Muse 01:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Seven

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

In medieval times God was sometimes called The Seven. Why? When was this term used exactly (i.e. 12th Century, 14th Century)?--Doug talk 19:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not familiar with that term for God... where did you hear about that? That might provide a starting point. I did find this on a website, however, that is interesting, even if not exactly an answer to "when" this name was applied:
Seven Names of God Of the many names the ancient Hebrews had for the deity, the seven names of God were those over which the scribes had to take particular care, the names being: El, Elohim, Adonai, Yhwh (Jehovah), Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyer, Shaddai, and Zebaot. Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins (Hendrickson, 1987) (http://towerweb.net/alt-lib/seven.shtml) ◄Zahakiel► 19:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not saying it couldn't be true, but I have never seen nor heard of the use of that particular circumlocution for the divine Name. Pastordavid 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Great answer and appreciate you finding a website with this information. I couldn't find anything. I stumbled across this in a 50 year old encyclopedia called The Reader's Encyclopedia. It says basically what you said, however they say also "In medieval times God was sometimes called simply The Seven." I believe since there is not a Wikipedia article on this I may just start one - what do you think? If you stumble across anything else on this(i.e. further medieval dating) let me know. Thanks again for your help!--Doug talk 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a plan. I'll keep my eyes open for further information. Let me know when you have started the entry. ◄Zahakiel► 20:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Started the new article on the Seven Names of God. I am not a religious person, so maybe you could help me on #5, #6, #7. The wording of my article is almost word for word with just minor differences.--Doug talk 22:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Almost word for word" sounds like plagiarism to me. Bielle 22:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I figured somebody would jump on this. Its really a reworded (i.e. paraphrase) between the two references. Since there is few words involved, some words had to be kept to hold the general concept (i.e. "to excersise particular care"). Otherwise I believe it is far away from plagiarism to not qualify as such. If you would like me to e-mail the exact article I'll be glad to. Used that phraseology so that others knew I didn't just dream this up. --Doug talk 22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are you aware of our article Names of God in Judaism? "Shadai" is more commonly "Shaddai". "Zebaot" is actually the Hebrew word Tsebaoth (צבאות‎), which means "host" (the heavenly army, of which God is the Lord). Many other transliterations are common, generated by {Ts|Tz|S|Z}{e|a}{b|v}ao{t|th}, for example Tzevaot or Sabaoth. In Christian circles Sabaoth is most common, because that is hwat is used in the Vulgate. See also Names of God in Judaism#YHWH Tzevaot/Sabaoth.  --LambiamTalk 00:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, I was not aware of the Names of God in Judaism, because as I pointed out above "I am not a religious person". That's why I did not recognize the misspelling of Shadai - I linked it, however it didn't work because of the misspelling. Also that's why I didn't know the proper categories this should go in. Thanks for all the improvements you made.--Doug talk 11:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, yes; and the Names of God in Judaism actually seems to cover much of what might be said in the "Seven names" article after it's expanded. It might be a good idea to make the "Seven Names of God" a sub-section of the pre-existing article in order to avoid redundancy. A redirect to that article with some integration of whatever else we can find might be best. What do you think? ◄Zahakiel► 13:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Duke of Wellington

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is it correct to view the 1st duke of wellington merely as a 'political reactionary'? 86.138.82.205 20:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, it is not. In many ways the political career of Wellington is not that different from the military: in both he sought to preserve the existing order of things from dissolution and chaos; but just as a good general knows when to advance and when to retreat, so too does a good politician. In political terms he was a Tory, by both instinct and conviction, anxious to preserve the old order in both church and state, and deeply suspicious of all suggestions for radical reform. The political divisions in Lord Liverpool's cabinet between the admirers and opponents of George Canning, the Foreign Secretary, placed Wellington firmly on the anti-Canning right. Canning was in favour of Catholic Emancipation and Wellington was against it, because of the dangers this presented to the 'Protestant Ascendancy' in Ireland, of which the Iron Duke was a part. The contest between tradition and reform saw Wellington emerge as the champion of tradition, resigning when Canning emerged as Prime Minister in 1827. In the political confusion that followed Canning's early death Wellington himself became Prime Minister at the beginning of 1828.
Wellington now held all the keys; but unlike a true reactionary he sought to manage change, rather than resist it altogether. This became apparent when the issue of Catholic Emancipation could no longer be set to one side after Daniel O'Connell, a Catholic, won the County Clare by-election in July 1828. With British authority in Ireland in some doubt, the Duke brought an Emancipation Bill before Parliament, though he tried to mitigate the full effects of the measure by raising the property qualifications for voting. He likened the passage of the Emancipation Bill through Parliament to a military campaign, the political equivalent of the Battle of Waterloo. And for this operation none was better placed that the Duke. He persuaded George IV to accept the measure, and he drew on the Parliamentary support of the Whig opposition against the die-hard Tories who refused to fall into line. His notorious indifference to public opinion, usually harmful for any politician, was of distinct benefit; for he simply put the deluge of anti-Catholic petitions to one side.
Later, while in opposition, he was strongly opposed to Whig attempts to extend the franchise in the Reform Bill. But even here pragmatism came before principle. When Earl Grey, the Whig Prime Minister, threatened to push the disputed Bill through the House of Lords, where the Tories were in the majority, by obliging William IV to create a large number of new peers, Wellington withdrew his opposition, rather than have the King face this humiliation.
As the 1830s developed Wellington gave his full support to Robert Peel, now the Tory leader, in his attempts to give the party a more modern face. Peel's Tamworth Manifesto, which saw the beginnings of the modern Conservative party, would never have succeeded but for Wellington's assistance. In the Lords, moreover, Wellington continued to act as a restraining influence to his fellow Tory peers, who sought to oppose every item of Whig legislation, thus further assisting Peel in winning over moderate opinion in the country at large. Later, when Peel became Prime Minister, he was ably assisted by the Duke in the Lords, despite his advancing years. Both men sought to subordinate party interest to the interest of the country as a a whole. Wellington even went so far as to support Peel over the highly-contentious repeal of the Corn laws, though he was personally unconvinced by the economic arguments. It was only by Wellington's influence that the Corn Law Bill made it through the Upper House. He may not have been the greatest statesman in English history, but to the end of his life he preserved all of the qualities that made him a great tactician. Clio the Muse 02:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Term for Lost in Translation

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am looking for the word or term for when information in general (i.e. ancient history) goes from one generation to another and each time this happens a bit of information gets lost. Ultimately (i.e. 1000 years - 5000 years) enough information gets lost in the "little bits" that some important historical facts are no longer in the history books of modern times (i.e. detailed construction of the Colossus of Rhodes or the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza).What is this "term" or "word"? Is there a term for the opposite of this where then the "original" information is found again (i.e. detailed engineering plans for the construction of the Great Pryamid of Giza found in the center of the structure carved into the walls of a hidden chamber) or another example might be the Rosseta Stone of different languages to be able to then read Hieroglyphs, a skill (knowledge) once lost but then retrieved. This opposite "term" or "word"?--[[User:Doug Coldwell|Doug]] talk 20:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I quite get it, but you might be thinking of semantic augmentation (though google only turns up technical uses of the word. Anyway, try posting questions like this on the language reference desk Llamabr 21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Excellent idea! Did just that.--Doug talk 23:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Masonic lodges

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Are Eton, Harrow, Westminster, Rugby and Winchester each associated with their own masonic lodge? - CarbonLifeForm 20:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I can tell you that my older brothers are both Old Wykehamists (Winchester College) and neither of them have ever heard of such a thing. I have a feeling that this would be contrary to school policy, though individual teachers may very well belong to local lodges. Clio the Muse 00:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Heyford

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

please can someone tell me why "upper heyford" (oxfordshire) was called "heyford warren"? thank you my email address is ... please send answers to there thank you in advance

email address removed (read the directions, and sign your questions) Llamabr 21:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
You can find the information in Margaret Gelling's The Place-Names of Oxfordshire. Parts i and ii English Place-Name Society, Vols. xxiii and xxiv 1953-1954, Cambridge University Press. I don't have access to the book myself, but you may be able to get it from a good library, or you can buy it here. Rockpocket 07:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

A painting

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, and thank you in advance for taking the time to answer my question.

I recently heard of a painting that is called "Who is afraid of red, blue, yellow?" but when I go and do internet search on it, I don't seem to find any information pertaining to it. Did I get the name of the painting wrong, or am I just doing my search wrong? Where on Wikipedia can I find a reference to this painting?71.38.130.240 22:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)NadiaReply

Hi, Nadia. This is part of a series by Barnett Newman, an American abstract expressionist. Clio the Muse 22:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
You may have more luck if you search for "Who is Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue". Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue III (note the contraction (grammar)) is port of the collection of the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam (image), and was in the news when in 1986 a mentally deranged person attacked the painting with a Stanley knife and seriously damaged it. Next it was the centre of a scandal when the restorer Daniel Goldreyer, hired to repair the painting for the sum of $800,000.==, was accused of fixing it up using house paint and a paint roller.[13][14]  --LambiamTalk 23:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

How tall was Abe Lincoln?

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I've heard he was unusually tall, but I'd like an exact measurement. Thank you. 71.172.28.176 23:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can't tell you his length, but I did find this on Amazon.com, suggesting that Lincoln may have suffered from Marfan Syndrome. A friend of John Wilkes Booth, Lincoln's assassin, recalled "I had never seen Mr. Lincoln up close and I knew he was a tall man, however nothing could have prepared me for the sight of him. A long shadow did he have. And his arms, when at his sides, touched near his knees." [15] AecisBrievenbus 23:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
According to Marfan Syndrome: It was once believed that that Abraham Lincoln suffered from Marfan Sydrome, although recent research has demonstrated that he probably didn't. -Czmtzc 12:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I found Abraham Lincoln's Classroom, of the Lincoln Institute, which quotes someone as saying that Lincoln was "over six feet in height." If I recall my anthropometry courses correctly, that was massive, in a time where the average was around 5'. AecisBrievenbus 00:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Many sources say 6'4". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Totally useless, but an alternative diagnosis, if one were really needed, would be acromegaly. As I say, "pathologies of the famous" is rarely very fruitful, but it is another possibility for his height and arthritis. Utgard Loki 13:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

May 30

Israeli Nuclear Technology

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I am trying to find out Israel's views towards Nuclear weaponry and Nuclear power for a world history project. 71.71.88.14 00:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I recommend reading Israel and weapons of mass destruction, and also doing a google search. --Random Say it here! 03:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Further to that, you'll find context by reading The Holocaust and Arab-Israeli conflict (and subarticles). You'll need to understand the state of mind of the Israeli governments since 1948 and these two issues have been paramount in their thinking. --Dweller 08:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Canadian History in 20th Century

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Is there any books on Canadian history in 20th Century and if not, what are major topics or events happened in Canadian history in 20th Century? Thanks

You're talking about a period of 100 years, or 36,525 days. A hell of a lot happens in 36,525 days. Can you be more specific? -- JackofOz 02:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
The Maple Leaf Flag of Canada was adopted in 1964. That always struck me as odd given that Canada a nation for about a century before the issue of a national flag was resolved. And what could be more important than having a flag to wave? Other contenders for important events in Canada during the 20th century might include the addition of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1949, and the introduction of the Loonie in 1987. ..ok, maybe it would be better to read the many articles on Canada. Some even list book references. Pfly 02:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not unlike some other Commonwealth countries, though. Australia's National Flag was first flown in 1901, but was not approved by King Edward VII until 1902, and was not given full official legal status until 1954. And we're still not happy about it. JackofOz 03:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Then there was the repatriation of the Constitution, and, back in 1970, the FLQ terrorist crisis that led to the invocation of the War Measures Act, with its suspension of civil liberties. Bielle 04:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

That remark that Canada was "a nation for about a century before" raises a very deep issue about what it means to be "a nation". If the original poster is looking for a topic to write an assignment on, that's a good one right there.

Some points about the status of Canada:

  • In 1914 Britain's declaration of war was taken as automatically committing Canada to fight as well.
  • Once the war was over, that changed: see Chanak crisis. ([[World War II|In 1939] Canada declared war about a week after Britain.)
  • The UK officially had legislative authority over Canada until the Statute of Westminster.
  • The highest court of appeal for Canada was in Britain until the 1930s or thereabouts. If the Supreme Court of Canada had had the final say in 1929, women would not have legally been considered "persons" in Canada.
  • Canada was considered part of the British Empire until that term passed out of use and was replaced with "British Commonwealth".
  • When the United Nations was founded, the Soviets objected to Canada (and Australia) having a vote separate from the UK, and demanded that what we now call Ukraine and Belarus each be given one also, although they were part of the USSR.
  • There was no such thing as Canadian citizenship (or UK citizenship either) until about 1949. All citizens of what became the Commonwealth were simply British subjects. (The term "British subject" continued in use after the change, but now effectively meant "citizen of a Commonwealth country".)
  • All British subjects resident in Canada, whether Canadian citizens or not, could vote in Canadian elections until the 1970s or maybe 1980s.
  • Canada's Constitution remained under the formal control of the British Parliament until 1982.
  • Even now, Canada still has the same monarch as the UK. However, this is now considered a Personal union, i.e. an independent title, and of course the monarchy is only symbolic.

And some points about nations (see also that article!) in Canada:

  • Many of the French-descended people of Quebec likewise consider themselves a separate nation from the country's English-speaking majority. Canada has been described as consisting of "one nation" and of "two nations" by people taking different views about this. See various articles about Quebec. For a recent official recognition of this view, see here.
  • The aboriginal peoples of Canada and the US (the ones we used to call Indians and Eskimos) also generally consider themselves nations... that is, each tribe a separate nation. In politically correct terminology in Canada they are now called First Nations.

--Anonymous Canadian, May 30, 2007 04:20 (UTC).

Note I was just being silly, and thinking mainly of Canada Day as marking, as that article puts it, "the formation of the country on July 1, 1867" -- and thinking of an episode of "This American Life" about Canada, in which one person, a Canadian, tries to explain to another, an American, various things about Canada. The topic of the flag coming a century after the founding is one of the things they talk about, with the Canadian speaker explaining "we're gradualists". Pfly 05:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Dutch and their cents

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Since the Dutch got rid of their penny in the 80s, what was the impact of the Euro and its one cent coin? Do businesses in the Netherlands still just round to the nearest nickel as I would assume that they did after eliminating the penny? Has the one cent coin caught on there? Or has the one cent coin become like the two dollar bill in the U.S. where it's still legal currency but just never really used at all? Dismas|(talk) 06:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dutch businesses got rid of the 1 and 2 cents as well on January 1 2004. Most business now round to the closest five cents (just like in the good old days). Note that this was a decision made by business and not by the state. So they are still legal. Some business, like Aldi still accept cents. Electronic payment (via your Debit card) is still exact to the cent. Read more on Dutch euro coins.C mon 09:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Cool, thanks for the link! Dismas|(talk) 12:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Disraeli's ideas

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In what did Disraeli's ideas on life and society influence the course of his political career?

Have you started with Benjamin Disraeli? It won't answer your question, but it'll give you a lot of ammunition. --Dweller 08:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Battle of the Atlantic

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How close did the Germans come to breaking the supply links between Britain and the United States in the Second World War? Captainhardy 10:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Probably, reading Battle of the Atlantic (1939-1945), would be a good idea. Personally, I believe they came quite close indeed. Remember that my opinion is POV. --Random Say it here! 12:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Founder of Biblioteca Marciana

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Who or what group was the actual founder of Biblioteca Marciana and how did it start? Did it go by another name when it started?--Doug talk 12:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

According to the "History" page (in Italian) on the website of the Biblioteca Marciana, it started with the donation by cardinal Bessarion also related in the Wikipedia article. Although the city of Venice was in the possession of Petrarch's bequeathed collection of manuscripts, there was no public library in the City. Apparently Bessarion's gift gave the necessary impetus. The webpage states that Venice was committed to house the collection in a place worthy of the gift; I can actually imagine that the foundation of a public library was a condition for this magnificent gift.  --LambiamTalk 13:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=134560515"