Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Utgard Loki (talk | contribs) at 18:02, 7 June 2007 (→‎Bagman and Cigarette Lighter Economy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg


June 4

Canada/US split border towns

I was reading some time ago about how border towns split between Canada and the United States create hassle for residents who must often clear customs on their way to and from a shopping trip. Wouldn't it make things a lot easier if the two countries just traded some land so that each town was entirely in one country and had only one road exit (which is where the customs post would be moved) to the other? If I lived in such a town, I'd demand this of both my MP and my Congressman. NeonMerlin 02:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neon might demand such a solution, but the people who learned that their property would now be in the other country probably wouldn't. In general awkward border layouts are difficult to resolve for this reason. Enclaves pose worse problems than towns with a simple border through them, and yet many of them persist today -- check out the Bangladesh/India entry in that article! --Anonymous, June 4, 2007, 04:22 (UTC).
Wikipedia covers everything: see Divided cities which lists towns split between countries all over the world, including Canada-USA. I read years ago that Rock Island, Quebec had a law enforcement problem with a single house that sat on the border, and an occupant who just would move jurisdictions by moving from one room to another. Because the border is an international one, extradition was the complication that prevented the two forces from working together. Bielle 05:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read a (probably apocryphal) story about a drinking establishment that sat on the US/Canada border where the actual border was marked with a line down the middle, and if you were 18, 19, or 20 years old and wanted to drink alcohol, you had to stay on the Canada side. :) --TotoBaggins 13:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's almost the premise of Bordertown, except the line ran through the sherriff's office, or something. Adam Bishop 15:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the Time magazine article linked off of, I think, the Derby Line, Vermont article, it has a couple interesting anecdotes, one of them involving a meeting at the public library where one person came in through the window and stayed on the Canadian side in order to not be apprehended by the U.S. police forces. Dismas|(talk) 16:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My favorite such anecdote is of an English-speaking town in Quebec, where the owner of a business on the border road mentioned he was thinking of putting up a billboard in New York so that it wouldn't have to be half in French. —Tamfang 04:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'd need to move the border quite far to get rid of the problem -- if there's a city on one side of a border, a corresponding city on the other side will tend to grow, giving you back the divided city. --Carnildo 06:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is really not much different than border towns in U.S. states. Consider Kansas City. It is just as much in Missouri as it is in Kansas. There are problems - mainly around taxes and the lottery. But, law enforcement isn't much of an issue. If you are speeding in Kansas and try to run the border into Missouri to evade capture, you'll find that the Missouri side has granted the Kansas police to continue pursuit into Missouri until a Missouri patrol car can take over. There are some funny stories also. When I was young, there was a case where a guy purchased whiskey from McCormick's distillery in Missouri (just north of Kansas City) and took it home to Kansas City in Kansas. The police wanted to search his car and property for another crime, but couldn't get a warrant. When he crossed state lines with alcohol, he was bootlegging and they were able to stop him and search him all they wanted (and bust him for the larger crime, which was child porn if I remember correctly). --Kainaw (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Northwest Angle says: "Secession from the United States and annexation by Canada has been proposed by some area residents on occasion, but little action has resulted given the proposal's non-urgent nature, lack of popular support, and sovereignty rights of the United States." Adjusting an international border, even slightly, would be time-consuming, controversial and legally complex. -- Mwalcoff 23:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought secession from the U.S. was unconstitutional. --Kainaw (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only in the sense that the winners write history. None of the Confederate leaders were ever tried for treason, because to do so would raise that constitutional issue. The Articles of Confederation (1777) say "perpetual" but the Constitution of 1787 does not; I assume that's because to make it expressly irrevocable would scare off some of the ratifiers. I reckon secession is among the "reserved powers" under the Tenth Amendment. —Tamfang 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, none of the leaders who established the new government under the Constitution were tried for treason either. The Articles of Confederation could only be amended by unanimous agreement, but the Constitution claimed it was effective when 9 states ratified, and the new government was set up when 11 had -- in violation of the Articles. In due course the last two states were persuaded to ratify, ducking the issue, the winners now pretended it had never arisen. --Anonymous, June 6, 2007, 08:24 (UTC).
On another hand, there's nothing in the Articles (so far as I know) forbidding the member States to make other agreements among themselves, so long as such agreements do not contradict explicit provisions of the Articles. So I guess the States were in violation when they stopped sending representatives to the Confederation Congress? —Tamfang 20:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kainaw may be thinking of the provision that no change to the borders of any State may occur without the consent of the State(s) affected as well as of Congress. —Tamfang 22:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Douglass

Is there any more detail of Frederick Douglass speaking tour in Ireland in the 1840s? 80.177.38.137 06:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an account in his own words from The Frederick Douglass Papers at the Library of Congress: "Thought and Recollections of a Tour in Ireland" (Series: Speech, Article, and Book File---A: Frederick Douglass, Dated) (total of 18 pages) ---Sluzzelin talk 06:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was a temporary file. Go to The Frederick Douglass Papers' query site and type "Ireland" in the keyword box, then hit the "SEARCH" button. The fourth entry, titled "Thought and Recollections of a Tour in Ireland", is the one I was referring to. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Douglass was not the first black abolitionist to speak in Ireland; his tour in 1845 had been preceded by that of Charles Lenox Remond, who came four years previously. While Remond was there, Daniel O'Connell, the leading spokesman for Irish nationalism, organised the 'Great Irish Address', a petition urging Irish Americans to oppose slavery, which attracted some 60,000 signatures. So, Ireland was fertile ground for Douglass' tour, which took in some fifty locations, but the specific reason for coming when he did was in anticipation of the first Irish edition of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. Also, Douglass had great respect for O'Connell, considered by many to be the leading European abolitionist. When he died in 1847, Douglass wrote of him "...the cause of the American slave, not less than the cause of his country, had met with a great loss."

Douglass' lecture tour began in Dublin in August 1845. The topic, curiously, was not slavery at all, but the evils of alcohol -"The immediate, and it may be the main cause of the extreme poverty and beggery in Ireland, is intemperance." But Douglass was also fully aware of what was happening in Ireland at this time-the beginning of the great Potato Famine-and of the various political injustices that had been perpetrated on the island-"They have been long oppressed; and the same heart that prompts me to plead the cause of the American bondsman, makes it impossible not to sympathise with the oppressed of all lands." He confined these thoughts, though, to his letters to William Lloyd Garrison, using his public platform to focus for the most part on the issue of slavery.

Speaking in Belfast in December Douglass singled out the Free Church of Scotland, led by Thomas Chalmers, for particular criticism. Chalmers had received large donations from the American slave-owning states for his work among the urban poor in Scotland, which Douglass argued should all be sent back. Although well-received in Belfast it ensured he met with a hostile reception from Free Church members when he came to Scotland.

Douglass continued to take an interest in Irish affairs up to his death in 1895, speaking on the theme of Irish Home Rule on the same platform as Charles Stewart Parnell. Clio the Muse 23:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Frederick Douglass and the White Negro, this documentary film tells the full story.

Anne Boleyn

Anne Boleyn was beheaded with a sword rather than an axe. Why was this preferable and why did the executioner have to be French? Judithspencer 07:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The usual explanation is that execution with a sword is more likely to sever the head with a single blow, and therefore be more "merciful" and painless than repeated chops with an axe (Mary Queen of Scots took three blows with an axe). The usual method of execution in Britain was with an axe, so a swordsman was imported from Calais, where beheading was carried out with a sword (bbviously the skill of the swordsman plays a part in how "merciful" the execution is. The executioner didn't have to be French, but they wanted a good executioner, and no one in Britain had the requisite skills. - Nunh-huh 07:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Mary executioner was especially sloppy, and spectators took note of "bad" executioners (see, for example, Jack Ketch). An executioner's axe was an immensely heavy object and should have severed the spinal column rather quickly, if it were aimed properly and delivered with force, but the human neck is meant to resist such blows. However, only a gentleman got a sword, while any peasant might have an axe, so there was a dignity in the sword. This is in addition to there being perhaps a low confidence in the native executioners (who would soon get a great deal of practice in the Marian and Elizabethan courts). Utgard Loki 15:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a condemned traitor, Anne should have been burned at the stake. The equivalent punishment for male offenders was hanging, drawing and quartering. However, in the case of those of noble birth, it was usual for sentence to be commuted, by royal prerogative, to beheading, a more 'merciful' fate. But, as both Nunh-huh and Utgard Loki have indicated, beheading with an axe could indeed be a gruesome and bloody affair: if you really want to know how bloody you would do well to examine the case of James, Duke of Monmouth in 1685. Decapitation by the sword was the practice in France; so this was presumably also the source of those most skilled in the technique. Also, the French method dispensed with the indignity of the victim having to prostrate themselves with their head on the block. Anne, so far as I am aware, was the only person in England to be beheaded in this fashion, the usual method being restored for the later execution of Katherine Howard. One small point of correction, Utgard Loki: no 'peasant' ever received the 'mercy' of the axe. If traitors they suffered the full penalty of the law. If convicted of lesser felonies they were simply hanged. Clio the Muse 23:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US bombs Switzerland

Why, and under what circumstances, did the Americans bomb Switzerland during the Second World War? Captainhardy 11:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to a footnote in our article on World War II casualties, the Americans accidentally bombed Switzerland during the war causing civilian casualties. References given are two articles from Aerospace Power Journal, Summer 2000:
 --LambiamTalk 13:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Accidents will always happen in war, and given Switzerland's proximity to several important Axis targets, I suppose that it is no great surprise that it fell victim to a significant number of misdirected bombing raids. But the problem became so bad that the United States and Switzerland were virtually in a state of undeclared war in 1944 and 1945. The victims were not just Swiss civilians, but American aircrew, shot down by the Swiss fighters. Perhaps the most notorious incident came in March 1945, when a B-24 Liberator, commanded by Lieutenant William Sincock and Lieutenant Theodore Balides, dropped its bomb load on Zurich, in the mistaken belief that it was Freiburg in Germany. As John Helmreich points out, Sincock and Balides, in choosing a target of opportunity, "...missed the marshalling yard they were aiming for, missed the city they were aiming for, and even missed the country they were aiming for." The Swiss reaction was to treat these violations of their neutrality not as 'accidents', but as specific acts of war. The United States was warned that single aircraft would be forced down, while bomber formations would be intercepted without warning. In a space of three days in July 1944 no fewer than 23 aircraft were forced to land by Swiss fighter formations. While American politicians and diplomats tried to minimise the political damage caused by these incidents, others took a more hostile view. Some senior commanders argued that, as Switzerland was 'full of German sympathisers', it deserved to be bombed. General Harris Hall even suggested that it was the Germans themselves who were flying captured planes over Switzerland in an attempt to gain a propaganda victory! Clio the Muse 00:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this curious passage to Switzerland during the World Wars. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindertransport

I would like some more detail on the Kindertransport, specifically the experience of the children who came to Britain. Thanks. Captainhardy 11:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at World Jewish Relief. Their "Jewish Refugees Committee" is the descendant of the body that organised the Kindertransports and helped look after the refugees. There's further information at their website ([1]) and there was also a book on the subject, called (I believe) "Men of Vision". I find several similarly named works on Amazon and elsewhere; I've not a clue which one (if any) this was. According to the charity's site, there were 10,000 Kinder who came to the UK and four have become Nobel laureates, which is extraordinary. --Dweller 12:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The book you are referring to, Dweller, is, I think, Men of Vision by Amy Zahl Gottleib, published by Weidenfeld and Nicholson in 1998. This deals with the attempts by the Anglo-Jewish community from 1933 onwards to save as many as possible from Nazi persecution, rather than the Kindertransport as such. For that specifically I would recommend Into the Arms of Strangers. Stories of the Kindertransport: the British Scheme that Saved 10,000 children from the Nazi Regime by M. J. Harris and D. Oppenheimer (eds.), and I Came Alone: the Stories of the Kindertransports by B. Leverton and S. Lowhensohn (eds.) The transports began in in December 1938 and continued until the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939, by which time nearly 10,000 children had arrived in Britain. One of the key organisers of the scheme, Nicholas Winton, was later to be recognised as a 'British Schindler.' Clio the Muse 01:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another book that, in part, discusses the kindertransports from the view of a child is Joe Schlesinger's Time Zones: a Journalist in the World.. He was evacuated from Bratislava on one of the transports along with his brother, only finding out after the war that his parents had perished in the Holocaust. --Charlene 07:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the RMS Titanic

What I don't understand about the Titanic; this might take a while.

1.)If the ship could carry 3,547 passengers, how come it left with 2,220 when it was allegedly the safest ship afloat at the times. Surely it would have been a sell out?

2.)How was electricity supplied to the ship, was this done through the boilers too, because as far as I'm aware - although i could be wrong - they only powered the propellors.

3.)Surely the White Star Line kept records of the amount of passengers on the list? If this is the case, how come historians find it so perplexing to fathom how many people survived. When on the Carpathia, the surviving crew must have made a list, so as to informed the deceased person's family.

4.)And most annoyingly of all, why did the thing have to go and sink. Why did the Captain ignore the iceberg warnings? Was it so they could get into New York City earlier?

Thanks for answering my questions guys, --Brent Ward 14:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the other three, but I can answer question 4. I just watched the Titanic movie with DiCaprio and Winslet, and I think the captain just felt so good about himself. With over 20 years of experience out at sea, he probably just thought that he could manage it. Does that make sense?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 16:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The movie Titanic does not necessarily present a faithful historical account of the captain's motives, and cannot be relied upon to answer question 4. The screenplay may contain fictional modifications and fabrications introduced for dramatic effect. No film camera or other equipment was present on that fateful night to record his thoughts. As captain Edward Smith died that night, he was not available later for giving a report. The captain had not ignored earlier warnings, setting a more southern course, and may have been unaware of the strength of the danger because more recent warnings had not reached the bridge (see our article on the sinking of the RMS Titanic).  --LambiamTalk 21:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The movie Titanic is highly suspect in many ways. One historian said (in exaggeration, of course) that the only thing he got right was that the ship sunk! James Cameron took a standard and rather trite love story and glommed it onto a horrendous tragedy. He changed around characters, making Thomas Andrews, for instance, the main designer of the ship, and deleted others. He brought a late 20th century sensibility to the relationship between Jack and Rose (they might have had sex but she'd never have posed nude for him - the mechanics of her clothing would have made that impossible). He didn't even do enough research to realize that there had been a J. Dawson on the real Titanic - a middle-aged stoker, whose family was shocked and disgusted to find his gravesite desecrated over and over and over and over again by fangirls. It's rather annoying that the deaths of 1,500 people, including dozens of babies and children, is now mainly known because of a trite, hackneyed love story. --Charlene 06:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On question 2: Per Encyclopedia Titanica the ship had four main 400 kilowatt 100 volt DC generators, with electric lights and electric heaters in the cabins and electric elevators. There were about 10,000 light bulbs on board, operated at about 100 volts. Emergency lighting was powered by separate emergency dynamos.
The power was Direct Current, and the dynamos were powered by steam from the boilers. The two emergency generators produced 30 kilowatts each, and were located 20 feet above the water line, with pipes to allow operating them from any of the boilers. The emergency lighting included 500 light bulbs throughout the ship as well bridge lighting, mast lighting, arc lights, the Marconi apparatus, and of course the boat winches. Switchboards allowed the emergency power to operate boat winches and elevators as well as emergency lighting. Sources are unclear as to whether the wiring included both an outgoing and a return path, or only one conductor with the hull as the return path.
There could have been a set of batteries to back up the emergency generators, but I have not found a references for that. The Marconi room had a low power backup apparatus with its own batteries which could continue if the mains power on board failed. The dynamo crew kept the lights on until the ship broke apart. Thomas Edison demonstrated in 1880 that lights could be operated underwater. A hot bulb suddenly immersed in cold water might have shattered from thermal shock, but if it did not it could have continued to glow as long as the voltage remained on. The dynamos probably kept operating until the steam pressure failed during the sinking. There were 50 individual main circuits, each with its own circuit breaker in the gallery at the top of the dynamo room, which being towards the stern would not have been submerged until late in the sinking. Light fixtures seen on the wreckage today have shattered glass, so the pressure may have smashed them during the descent to the bottom.
A great site with reprints of some vintage articles is [2] where you can find an article from "The Electrician" of 1911 about the electrical systems. (Edison 15:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Where does the figure 3547 come from? That doesn't sound right. I think it was filled to capacity, but I would believe this figure to be somewhat inflated.martianlostinspace 17:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Our article says 3,547
I recall reading that there was a coal workers' strike around that time and it wasn't certain how many ships would be able to sail, so people were reluctant to make travel plans; and in fact the Titanic would have sailed with even fewer passengers if it hadn't taken some people that were booked on another ship whose departure was canceled. Sorry, I can't remember the source to be able to cite it.
As to the inaccurate knowledge of the number of people on board, I believe this is for two reasons. One is the possibility of last-minute passengers (after all, the ship wasn't full) and another is possible confusion about people who may have been counted as either passengers or crew, such as the ship's band.--Anonymous, June 4, 2007, 22:33 (UTC).

sorry.martianlostinspace 22:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, records just weren't kept as well back then as they are now. This was a time when the borders were relatively open. I don't believe that ships shared their passenger or crew manifesto with the authorities. Third-class passengers had to disembark at Ellis Island, but first and second class passengers generally just got off the boat. Also, at least one crew member jumped ship in Queenstown, and some that were scheduled to make the crossing spent too much time at the pub in Southampton and missed the sailing. Some names were written down twice and others were written down incorrectly. (And since at that time everything was hand-written, some crew and steerage passenger names were not accurately transcribed.) There were also a few passengers travelling under assumed names, which at that time and given the lack of border controls was possible.
martianlostinspace is right in that the coal strike was the main reason why there were so few passengers. Not only were people reluctant to make plans, but many immigrants from further east weren't able to get to Southampton or Cherbourg because their boats were stranded back east. What's more, many of the immigrants who were in Southampton waiting to cross had tickets issued by Cunard or other companies, and wouldn't be able to transfer to a White Star liner such as Titanic.
Some experienced travellers preferred not to board a ship on its maiden voyage. This wasn't generally due to fears the ship would sink, at least not according to contemporary reports, though. A maiden voyage was somewhat like a shakedown cruise; little things often went wrong. I think it was an older version of the Oceanic that had problems producing enough hot water on its maiden voyage!
Also, April was not a popular time to travel. Leisure travel had its seasons, just as it does now.
If you're interested in going into this in further detail, I strongly suggest the book "Titanic: Triumph and Tragedy" by Eaton and Haas. --Charlene 07:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Titanic did have to provide a count of passengers and crew to the British authorities because it was an "emigrant ship", meaning it could carry at least 50 passengers. I copied the details of a book once, but did not note which book it was. Note that only boardings are shown, so passengers getting off before New York would be included. And as Charlene says, there would be various sources of error as the statistics were compiled by hand. --Anonymous, June 5, 2007, 23:12 (UTC).
                          Southampton   Cherbourg    Queenstown
   Cabin passengers
     "Adults" (12 years and upwards)
        Married
           male               52            29            0
           female             52            29            0
        Single
           male              196            51            5
           female            101            58            2
     Children between 1 and 12
           male               10             3            0    
           female             12             2            0
     Children under 1 year 
           male                4             0            0
           female              0             0            0
     Total.................. 427           172            7
Equivalent # adults ........ 412           169½           7
(under the applicable law)

   Steerage passengers
     "Adults" (12 years and upwards)
        Married
           male               25             4            2   
           female             25             4            2   
        Single
           male              314            59           50   
           female             74            18           54
     Children between 1 and 12
           male               22             7            5   
           female             28             7            0   
     Children under 1 year
           male                3             3            0   
           female              3             0            0
     Total ................. 495           102          113
 Equivalent # adults ....... 464            92½         110

   Crew
      Deck Dept.          73
      Engine Dept.       325
      Stewards' Dept.    494
   Total ............... 892
   Equivalent .......... 892

   Total actually on board 1814            n/a          2208
   Equivalent # adults     1768            n/a          2147
And to add to my previous comments, some passengers missed the sailing due to illness, transportation problems (one couple missed the sailing because their car broke down on the way to Cherbourg), and the like. There were also some passengers who boarded in Southampton and debarked in either Cherbourg or Queenstown, among them Francis Browne. There was confusion at the time as to exactly who had debarked and who had missed the boat, since records weren't kept as well as they would be today. Also, some of the names of the personal servants on board the ship were not known for some time, since they were only listed on tickets as "and maid" or "and manservant". --Charlene 07:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In those days, if I remember correctly, the minimum regulations for lifeboats were 12 lifeboats. Unfortunately, the builders of the Titanic utilized a loophole in the law: the law didn't mention what size boat the specific law was for. So to save money, coupled with a feeling of invincibility, there were very few lifeboats on the Titanic. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 00:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is partly right and partly wrong; see RMS Titanic#Lifeboats for a better discussion. It is also irrelevant to the original poster's questions. --Anonymous, June 5, 2007, 04:57 (UTC).

What are the "Isles of Ken"? (Beatles, Dead Can Dance, other)

At the end of the Beatles song "One After 909", John Lennon plays the opening of folk song "Danny Boy" to the altered lyrics "Oh, Danny Boy, the Isles of Ken are calling..." -- So, what are the Isles of Ken, what did it mean, where did he got that from?

Searches done:

  • Wikipedia at One After 909, Danny Boy, Ken, and via search engine, obviously.
  • All of Google (web, books, scholar, newsarchive, groups, blogs, even the images...) was to no avail for me about "Isles of Ken", "Isle of Ken", "Ken Island", "Ken Islands", or even "Isles of Cain" -- The only occurences of "Isles of Ken" seem to be those 1970 Beatles lyrics, and later 1988 Dead Can Dance lyrics (either quoting the Beatles, or referring to the same arcane source).
  • Searching for / "isles of ken" -"ken are" -"ken we" / weeds out most Beatles and Dead Can Dance lyrics pages, leaving me with only a few pages without useful content.
  • No more results at Altavista/Yahoo or Live.com

Some negative results:

Is there something obvious I'm missing, a wordplay, a phonetic joke, or is it slang, arcane, or nonsensical?

Thanks. 62.147.39.62 19:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "ken" means range of sight or understanding, akin to German kennen - to know, to be aware of. I'd venture guessing that's what Lennon had in mind. Dr_Dima.
Dictionary.com: "ken ... –noun 1. knowledge, understanding, or cognizance; mental perception: an idea beyond one's ken. 2. range of sight or vision."[3] The Isles of Ken may be beyond our ken. The name also occurs in the lyrics of the song Ul(l)ysses on the album The Serpent's Egg of Dead Can Dance: "For the Isles of Ken we are assailing /Just like Ul(l)ysses on the open sea / On an odyssey of self-discovery".  --LambiamTalk 20:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a loooonnnnng shot, but ken is also Fifer speak for ''''know'''' as in ah ken whit ye mean = I know what you mean and fifer's (generally) speak fast so the phrase i'll (I will) might sound like isles granted John was from liverpool and their accent sounds bugger all like a fifer's and it would make the line mean = I will know are calling, bit like ah sed it wiz a lonng shot, ken. Perry-mankster 12:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Always late but never without merit. This http://www.recmusicbeatles.com/public/files/awp/oa909.html page suggests that the line is "The Odes of Pan are calling." which does not make much more sense except Pan used pipes, but it does sound more like what is being sung to me. meltBanana 13:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PEER RELATED ARTICLES

I AM LOOKING FOR PEER RELATED ARTICLES ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE

  • I assume that you mean peer reviewed articles, and you will not find them on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia was designed to replace a peer reviewed project. If you go to http://scholar.google.com and use Google Scholar, you will have better luck, but, honestly, you should not be at such a rudimentary state at this point. Geogre 20:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russia´s targets in Western Europe

"If a part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States appears in Europe and, in the opinion of our military specialists, will threaten us, then we will have to take appropriate steps in response. What kind of steps? We will have to have new targets in Europe": Putin, today. Just out of interest, can anyone here conjecture what the principal new targets would probably be in this case? (or is it purely bravado with no substance?). Thanks for info. --AlexSuricata 20:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be referring to the bases in Poland and the Czech Republic that the US are looking to build. [4] Recury 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That, and probably Euro Disney, that bastion of anti-Russian sentiment. --24.147.86.187 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tinker Vs. Des Moines

Hello, I have a question that I hope someone can help me with. I am writing a thesis paper (7-10 pages) on Tinker Vs. De Moines, Supreme Court Case in 1969. It was about students protesting with arm bands in school about the war. I know the background, circumstances and basically the case, I have reseached it out but i have a problem. My thesis is "The Tinker Vs. De Moines was the case which stated the way for a student to protest in school legally." For this paper we must use any primary sources...Here is were I get stuck. I can't find hardly any.. Although minus the court transcript... Can you help Thanks, Jeffrey

Have you read our article at Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District? Check the external links at the bottom. Corvus cornix 23:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the transcript is probably your best primary source for a paper like this, unless you have access to things like newspapers from the time (which is easy if you are at a university, but it sounds like you are not). My suggestion: make your thesis a little more tailored to the arguments in the case or the way the ruling was established, that way your paper can be about how it was argued (and thus your primary source can be the transcript without any difficulty). A good generic thesis structure of this sort might be: "The key issue in Tinker v. Des Moines was not X, as one might expect, but actually Y." Of course, the hard work comes in trying to figure out X and Y. Read the transcript of the decision carefully, try to outline as you go through exactly what the argument is and its structure, and the odds are a somewhat more interesting and specific thesis will jump out. --24.147.86.187 03:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious primary source for a paper on a court case would be the judge's opinion itself. Or, in this case, opinions, since this case had a majority opinion, two concurring opinions (additional views from judges in the majority) and two dissenting opinions (views of the judges who were against the decision). If you've never read a judicial opinion before, you might want to have someone more familiar with law help you read it. -- Mwalcoff 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Cuba

Flag of Cuba

do the colors on cubas flag stand for any thing? thanks --Sivad4991 23:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on the Flag of Cuba, designed by the poet Miguel Teurbe Tolón, the three blue stripes represent the sea that surrounds the island of Cuba, the two white stripes symbolize the purity of the patriotic cause, the red triangle stands for the blood shed to free the nation, and the white star in the triangle stands for independence.  --LambiamTalk 23:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flag of Puerto Rico
Such "symbolism" in heraldic colors is usually made up after the fact. More likely imho, it mainly means "not the same as Puerto Rico". —Tamfang 04:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The design of the Puerto Rican flag was inspired by the older Cuban flag. For obvious reasons they chose not to make the flag identical, but on a gliding scale from "the same as" to "not the same as", I'd say it rather leans to the side of sameness.  --LambiamTalk 23:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks, I assumed (unconsciously?) that the one more similar to a more famous flag came first. —Tamfang 04:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you much --Sivad4991 23:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Monaco
Flag of Indonesia

It's not so obvious that the flags of different countries would be different. The flags of Indonesia and Monaco are identical for all intents and purposes. -- JackofOz 01:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more impressed if you were to show me identical flags for two entities not separated by most of the length of Eurasia. —Tamfang 04:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I failed to impress anyone, but that wasn't my motivation. Just stating facts. The impression I got from your previous post was that you were saying, obviously no country would ever be silly enough to copy an existing flag of another country. I agree it would be silly to do that, but Indonesia did it anyway. Cheers. -- JackofOz 04:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insert "knowingly" and "nearby or prominent" as appropriate, and you'll come closer to my intended implication. —Tamfang 05:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the next-most-similar pair are Chad and Romania. See the Gallery of confusable flags for other candidates (including many non-national flags). --Anonymous, June 6, 08:28 (UTC).
Whoa. Good gallery. —Tamfang 20:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's one thing if the designs happen to come out identical, each arrived at by its own historic process of development. It's another thing if the designers of the flag for one country, using another flag's country as "inspiration, then choose to copy the design without any change.  --LambiamTalk 10:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reminded of "He's So Fine" / "My Sweet Lord". According to folklore, George Harrison took some other song and turned its melody upside down, thereby backing into HSF by accident. One could fancifully imagine that Indonesia did that with Poland's flag. —Tamfang 17:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


June 5

Billy Strayhorn lyrics to "On the Wrong Side of the Tracks"

I am trying to locate the lyrics of a song by Billy Strayhorn entitled "On the Wrong Side of the Tracks", but am having trouble locating them. Can you assist me? Often Strayhorn's songs were misattributed to Duke Ellington.

Victorian Troopships

Did the British Army of the 19th century run its own troopships, or did the navy transport army troops overseas? If the answer depends on the year, the questions concerns 1880 or before. Thank you. 68.106.202.126 03:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Jason[reply]

Jason, all of the answers you are looking for should be in Troopships and their History by H. C. B. Rogers. This deals with the history of troopships from the reign of Charles II (1660-1685) onwards. Clio the Muse 05:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Near crash of airline flight because of autopilot joke

About 8-10 months ago, I read an article on wikipedia detailing an airline incident in the U.S.A. where a plane almost crashed. Does this article still exist or can someone point me to more information? The details, that I remember, were that the pilot turned on some form of autopilot and invited another person to sit behind the stick/yoke (whatever the correct term is). Then, for some reason, (I think the pilot had planned this), the plane went into a slight dive or climb and the person at the controls reacted by pulling back or pushing in the stick, but to no avail. They all had a big laugh and the joke was over. When the pilot turned it off ("it" might be some sort of yoke/stick lock too, I'm not sure), the plane went into a steep dive and everybody became weightless (except the co-pilot, who was still strapped in). The copilot recovered from the dive at only one thousand 1000 feet and everybody lived, but the pilot was promptly fired. I believe this incident occurred over Texas between 1940 and 1970, but I'm not sure. Any more details would be great. (I realize I've recounted the whole story, but I'd like some verification of whether it is true or not. Thank you. --Rajah 05:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall the details, but it sounds like something I saw on Air Crash Investigations, so maybe try looking through the list of episodes there? Confusing Manifestation 07:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm ... it looks like the one I remembered was Aeroflot Flight 593 - is this the one? Confusing Manifestation 07:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I was just about to mention the Aeroflot flight. --Charlene 07:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That Aeroflot crash reminds me of the Ehime Maru incident. --TotoBaggins 11:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no particular resemblance between the two accidents. --Anon, June 5, 23:44 (UTC).
Civilians at the controls leading to loss of life. --TotoBaggins 17:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I missed the "civilians at the controls" bit in the submarine accident. But it wasn't a cause of the accident; they were doing what they were told. It was the submarine's crew that was at fault. According to Wikipedia, anyway. --Anon, June 7, 12:00 (UTC).
Sure, but that was the case in the Aeroflot incident, too: pilots/commanders who let children/dignitaries control airplanes/submarines are at fault, not the tourists. --TotoBaggins 23:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original poster is confusing two incidents. The "inviting another person to sit" is the Aeroflot disaster, while everything else in the description is about American Airlines flight 311 on October 8, 1947. Its description at www.planecrashinfo.com is currently here, although that URL may not be durable. --Anonymous, June 5, 2007, 23:20 (UTC).

Thank you, anonymous. Flight 311 from 1947 was it! I wasn't confusing it with the Aeroflot flight (which I knew about). The wikipedia article, which I assume has long since been deleted for non-notability, was a rewrite of the link you provided. Thanks again! --Rajah 06:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolution

Is Mel Gibson's movie The Patriot an accurate depiction of the War of Independence?

Our article on the film has a section detailing the inaccuracies. --Charlene 06:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably one of the most disturbing and historically inaccurate scenes in the movie is the scene where Tavlington burns citizens of a town within a church. In a July 2000 New York Times article called "Hubris, But No History" David Fischer, a U.S. historian and author, said the following concerning that scene. "Something remarkably like this event actually happened, but not in South Carolina during the American Revolution. It happened in the French village of Oradour-sur-Glane on June 10, 1944, during World War II, and it was done by Germany's 2nd S.S. Panzer Division. There were atrocities enough on both sides in the American Revolution, but Roland Emmerich, the film's director, has converted an 18th century British and American Loyalist Army into the S.S." There are other historical facts and tidbits that are wrong in the movie, but it is my opinion that it is this inappropriate vilification of the British that could do the most damage to people's understanding of the Revolutionary War. Sjmcfarland 09:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree, Sjmcfarland. When I saw that scence on DVD recently it occured to to me that the British should not have been wearing red coats but field grey, with the double lightning flash on their collars. Professor Richard Holmes, author and television presenter, explained some of the thinking behind a documentary series, Redcoats and Rebels, shown on British television; "...I made the series to reveal textures too often obliterated by Hollywood's airbrush...I might not have felt so strongly had it not been for Mel Gibson's antics in the 2000 film, The Patriot. To those who say that some of the incidents, such as the massacre in the church, were simply metaphors, gleaned from another century and perpetrated by another army on a different continent, I would reply that audiences are more suggestible than film-makers admit, and one dramatic exaggeration has more impact than a forest of scholarly footnotes." I would say that there is history, and there is Mel Gibson. The two are never to be found in the same place at the same time. Clio the Muse 23:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My favourite bit from that article is "The film also makes reference to the British having lost at the earlier Battle of Guilford Courthouse (1781, Major-General Lord Cornwallis against Major-General Nathaniel Greene), when in fact the British won in spite being outnumbered 1900 to 4400.". Just, why? Skittle 20:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Superior numbers do not always bring victory, Skittle, as you will see if you read the Battle of Guilford Courthouse. The British Army is often at its best in adversity. Even so, in gaining the advantage that day, Cornwallis sustained high casualties, leading Charles James Fox, the leader of the Whig opposition in Parliament, to describe the battle as a 'pyrrhic' victory. Clio the Muse 23:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain, but I think Skittle may have meant "Just why did they misrepresent the winner of the Battle of Guilford Courthouse" -Czmtzc 13:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Czmtzx; I wasn't sure. I that case I would say it is really in the nature of the medium, either to distort history, or simply turn it upside down. Clio the Muse 22:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sustain in that usage is a funny word; it would seem more applicable to the other side. "We're cutting 'em to ribbons, Colonel!" "Good, sustain it." —Tamfang 04:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, that is certainly one usage. 'Experienced' or 'suffered' is another. Clio the Muse 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Banastre Tarleton was a villain in US history books decades (centuries?) before the film in question. A U.S. tv series in the early 1960s about the American Revolution had Tarleton as a recurring villainous character, as did The Swamp Fox (TV series), a 1959 Disney TV series of 8 episodes about Francis Marion, who is the basis for Gibson's character in The Patriot. The massacre of surrendered opponents in the Waxhaw massacre and other extreme incidents led to "Tarleton's quarter" as a rallying cry for American patriots such as Francis Marion. Tarleton's atrocities were a spur to increased fighting spirit amoung the Southern U.S. forces. The film is in that way an illustration of how cruelty and barbarism by Tarleton motivated the Americans to fight with all the more determination in the crucial battle of Kings Mountain, which was a major turning point in the war. Edison 16:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Each nation is obviously at liberty to create its own national myths, but it unsettles me when the past is distorted or even completely rewritten. OK, OK; I know we should not expect a high standard of historical truth from cinema or television, but 'Bloody Ban' is not quite the complete villain you may suppose, and Francis Marrion is not such an unsullied hero. I would imagine most Americans who have even a passing acquaintance with the history of this period are well aware of the crimes of Ban; but what about those of Light Horse Harry Lee? The massacre of the loyalist on their way to join Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1781 would appear to have been airbrushed out of history, receiving no mention at all, even in his Wikipedia page. Let's not forget that the loyalists were Americans too. I really do not want to take this point too far, because war produces excesses of all sorts, committed by all sides. I simply make a plea for an understanding of the past, with all of its complexity, in its own terms. I imagine no filmaker would now depict 'Redskins' in the fashion formerly favoured in Hollywood; by it is still alright, it would seem, to depict the British as Nazis. Clio the Muse 22:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Kane

What is Citizen in Citizen Kane ? Is there such a real-life title for eminent citizens ? Tintin 08:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question; I had never thought about the use of this word in the name of the film before. It's certainly not a title in the same way as "Mr" or "Mrs". What it does is spell out the idea that Kane was a man of the people, rather than an aristocrat. There was a BBC sitcom in the 70s called Citizen Smith, which might be a reference to Kane but is also a joke about the main character's revolutionary beliefs. To address someone as "citizen" is to make a kind of statement about your supposed socialist affiliation with them. It connotes leftish comradeship in the same way as addressing someone as "brother" or "sister" does. These days, such terms would only ever be used ironically. Maybe there's a hint of the same irony in the use of the word "citizen" in relation to Kane. --Richardrj talk email 09:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's also an outside reference. The state would refer to a person as a "citizen" in early communist nations. See W. H. Auden's "The Unknown Citizen": it is a way of depersonalizing and suggesting an economic unit rather than a living person. At the same time, it's a way of punning/playing with "first citizen of the United States." Such is the president of the US. That formulation has gone out of fashion (gee, can't imagine why, with all this talk of commander guy), but Kane is first citizen in another way. Finally, it is a sincere reflection of what the film is trying to get at: the man without sentiment. It is also a way of saying that he is us, and we are him, that he is average like us. Utgard Loki 13:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may have two meanings. First, the direct meaning, wherein he is a person and member of the nation-state with similar concerns to all Americans. Second is the ironic meaning (as Richardrj stated), wherein Kane has much more power, influence, prestige and longevity of myth than the average person. I think these play against each other in the film and can most easily be seen in scenes with Kane's wife where they attempt to enjoy the ordinary pleasures of life in a massive mansion. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 20:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last battle between England and Scotland

I had a friendly argument recently with some friends on that last battle fought between the Scots and the English as distinct national groups. Most people say it is Culloden in 1746, but I do not think that is right. If not, which is it? I've taken bets on the right answer, so please do not disappoint me, people! (Clio, are you there?) SeanScotland 09:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave Clio to give the accurate answer, but culturally, you could say it was this battle. --Dweller 09:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing... I'm not sure if that counts.

The phrase "distinct national group" is somewhat ambiguous. If the Scottish Jacobites who supported Charles Edward Stuart in 1746 can be seen as a national group, then yes, this battle would represent the last battle fought between the Scots and the English. The Scots in this conflict, as I'm sure you know, didn't represent the nation of Scotland which had become part of the Kingdom of Great Britain after the Acts of Union 1707 Sjmcfarland 10:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, are you equating the nation with the state? —Tamfang 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was unclear. I was merely trying to make reference to the fact that in that battle the Scottish Jacobites did not represent all Scots, and as Clio makes clear below, there were Scots who fought for the British. Sjmcfarland 05:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presente, Commandante! Putting Dweller's caveat to one side (that is surely part on an ongoing war?) there are one or two small points we have to make clear. First and foremost, it is important to understand that that the various Jacobite Rebellions, which took place in the period between 1689 and 1746, were all in the nature of civil conflicts. Although there were strong pockets of Jacobite support in Scotland, these were largely confined to parts of the western Highlands and the Lowlands of the north-east. The southern Lowlands were almost uniformly hostile, as were large parts of north, especially those areas under the control of pro-government clans, like the Campbells, the Mackays and the Gunns. Although the British Army, and I place a deliberate stress on British, faced a largely Highland rebel force at the Battle of Culloden in April 1746, three of Cumberland's professional regiments-the 1st, the 21st and the 25th-were all made up of Lowland Scots. He also had a large number of Campbell auxiliaries. So Culloden was most definitely not the last battle between the Scots and the English as distinct ethnic groups.

So, where does this leave us? Do we have to go all the way back to the days before the Union of the Crowns in 1603, to the late Middle Ages? No, we do not. We have to travel no further back that the early 1650s, to the so-called Third Civil War. After the execution of Charles I in 1649, Scotland and England went in separate directions politically: Scotland recognised Charles II as King, while England became a republic. Charles came to Scotland in the summer of 1650, and so, too, did Oliver Cromwell and the New Model Army. The scene was now set for the last war between England and Scotland. The last battle of that conflict was fought at Worcester in September 1651. Now, while all of Cromwell's army was certainly English, Charles' army included some English royalists. Therefore, the very last engagement in which one side was all Scots and the other side all English was the Battle of Inverkeithing, fought in Fife in July of that same year. The game is yours, Sean! Clio the Muse 23:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weel done, cutty sark! I have one more question. Why did the Scots end up so deep into England after a defeat in Fife? SeanScotland 07:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Tam! The defeat at Inverkeithing turned the flank of the main Scottish army, based at Perth. With John Lambert moving north-west through Fife, and Cromwell probing westwards from Edinburgh, Charles could either retreat north in the face of an ever more difficult supply situation, or sweep south past Cromwell, and thus over the English border. He chose the latter, in the hope of attracting recruits from the old Cavalier faction. It was a desperate gamble, which failed at Worcester. Oh, yes, and before I forget; But here my Muse her wing maun cour/Sic flights as far beyond her power. Clio the Muse 22:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindertransport pt. II

If the Nazis were trying to exterminate the Jews, why did they allow the Kindertransports? Or did they just not want Jews in their country and they didn't care if they lived somewhere else? Dismas|(talk) 09:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the previous discussion(s) on Holocaust timelines. There's no compelling evidence (in fact, no real evidence at all) of planned extermination of Jewry until long after the Kindertransports were stopped. --Dweller 09:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. Dismas|(talk) 20:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Pitt's Reign of Terror

What was this? MindyE 12:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Reign of Terror and William Pitt the Younger. --Kainaw (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This, in fact, has nothing at all to do with the French Reign of Terror. It is, rather, an ironic description of the legislative response of the government of William Pitt to the perceived dangers presented by native radicals. After Britain went to war with France in February 1793, it was felt that a pro-French 'fifth column', represented by groups like the London Corresponding Society, was ready to assist the enemy in the event of an invasion. In 1794 the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, which meant that people suspected of subversive activities could be arrested and held without trial. This was followed in 1795 by the of the Treasonable Practices Act and the Seditious Meetings Act, the so-called Gagging Acts. By the opposition these measures were known collectively as 'William Pitt's Reign of Terror.' It effectively made gatherings of the radical societies illegal. In the House of Commons, the 'Committee of Secrecy' assembled information on all suspect groups and publications. The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine was outlawed. The London Correspondence Society was subject to growing harrassment, before it was banned outright in 1799. Many suspects were held for lengthy periods in Coldbath Fields Prison, effectively the Guantanamo Bay of its day. Pitt's 'Reign of Terror' ended with his resignation in 1801. Clio the Muse 00:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despair

Who is the roman god of dispair? I assume he is mostly known under a synonym of despair. Or it might be a goddess.

And sorry if they don't have one. Is there anyone like this in the roman religeon?

I, for one, can't think of any. I'm thinking back on all the despairing moments in tragedy, and I can think of several invocations of dark gods and goddesses, but none for despair itself (herself, I'd say, but that may reflect my experiences). They'd invoke Nox and Dis and Hecate, but those were generally not despair so much as wicked darkness, and Hera was supposed to guard mothers from post-partum depression. Utgard Loki 15:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I can tell you that the Anglo-Saxons had a nice word for despair: "wanhope." It was sort of "hopeless" and "death of all hopes" mixed -- a state of enervation and ... despair. Utgard Loki 15:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fast-forward to the 14th century, and you can have Giotto's Desperatio. Wareh 17:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Oizys (a goddess) was in charge of "misery and woe, distress and suffering." The Romans knew her as Miseria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapesaresour (talk • contribs)

Yes, Hesiod (the source here is Theogony line 214) is a good pedigree for such abstract constituent elements of human existence, and Cicero's Miseria (De natura deorum 3.44) is clearly a translation of Oezys. Wareh 18:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic

Hi there! I really can't figure out if I'm in the right forum. Should I be going to the Entertainment forum? Anyway, did Rose DeWitt Bukater, or Rose Dawson, and Jack Dawson really exist? That's the impression that I got from the movie, since you could see Rose talking about her voyage on the ship. However, many other sources on the internet say that she didn't exist. How is this possible?

See this article for information on the woman who inspired the story. --Kainaw (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That really isn't what I meant. Did the couple actually exist?
When a real person inspires a fictional story, it means that the people in the fictional story did not exist, but were based on real characters. Please read the article. --Kainaw (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. That's too bad. If the characters weren't real, then who was the older Rose Dawson in the movie?

An actress :] HS7 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I get it. So what you're saying is that the entire love story in Titanic is a fake? There never was a diamond or some crazy forced fiancee? Also, does this mean that Rose Dawson never died since she didn't actually exist? Does this also mean that Jack Dawson never drew Rose naked OR fell to the bottom of the sea because he didn't exist either?

Yep. The film was inspired by (but not based on) the memoirs of a Titanic survivor called Helen Churchill Candee, "a 50-year-old American divorcee who was also a writer, nurse and suffragette, returning home in 1912 after learning that one of her sons had been injured in a car crash" (from the ABC news article). Most of the film's plot doesn't appear in her memoirs. Down M. 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the general subject of filmed history, the vast majority of bio-pics contain characters who never existed, and depict events that never took place, while leaving out some of the real people and real events that would have made the story more historically accurate. These days, most bio-pics contain disclaimers that some characters are amalgamations of two or more people and that events depicted were "inspired by" real events and are not intended to be accurate portrayals of what actually happened. -- JackofOz 01:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One strange example is Dreamchild: the poster said "a true story" (or similar language) while the opening titles, if memory serves, had the usual disclaimer. (And while I'm up, it was miscast: Dodgson would have been 30 at the time of the flashbacks, but was played by Ian Holm at 53.) —Tamfang 05:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, "Fargo", which stated it was based on a true story. It was not based in any way on any true story. The writers put that at the beginning of the movie as a joke. Sometimes it isn't needed though. It took years to convince one of my Aunt's that Forrest Gump was not a real person. --Kainaw (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luya Province (2)

Thank you for answering my questions. My motivation was because my last name is LUYA. In my country every person with our last name was part of my family. My research when I was living in Spain resulted that missionaries went to Cuba and other south american countries and I was wondering if maybe some of this missionaries did such a wonderful job in Peru that a province and district it was named in their memory. Thanks again 63.3.3.129 16:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should have told that. The name "Luya" in Luya Province comes from a small town (more a village) named Luya, which is the capital of Luya District (but not of Luya Province). This is deep in the Amazonas, and most toponyms around there have an Amerindian origin. On this "virtual portal" of the municipality of Luya we learn that the meaning of "Luya" is "Alegría" (in Spanish), that is, "Joy".  --LambiamTalk 22:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, "luya" is also the Tagalog name for "ginger". See here[5]. Bielle 03:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Frenzel

He was relased 25 years ago because of the "bad health",but hes still alive.Shouldnt he go back to jail,because its clear hes health is not so bad after all? Is it really fair that they let him live to be 100 years old,enjoying free life? Init time for him to go back to jail??

Well, "bad health" doesn't necessarily mean "terminally ill." Presumably, he has some kind of chronic illness that, while not immediately fatal, makes it unreasonable (at least, unreasonable in the jurisdiction in question) for him to be imprisoned. Carom 18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Wikipedia article on Karl Frenzel, albeit extremely short, and the external links to it, he was released from a life sentence originally on some unspecified technicality after serving 16 years. He was then retried, convicted and, again, sentenced to life imprisonment. This second sentence, however, was not imposed on the grounds of an alleged heart condition. As to whether or not this is just or fair, you would have to ask the authorities who granted this stay of sentence.Bielle 22:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are other examples of such anomalies - see Mal Colston#Travel allowances scandal. -- JackofOz 01:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or see Willy Lages.  --LambiamTalk 06:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reminded of an Italian who avoided prison for about 14 years by keeping pregnant (as much of the time as is humanly possible). —Tamfang 22:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is very typical of postwar Germany. Everyone's heard about the Nuremburg trials and the executions of a few of the most-famous Nazis. What we don't hear about is how the vast majority of Nazi war criminals who were in West Germany after the war were never punished or got off relatively lightly. The postwar West German judiciary was full of judges who themselves had questionable Nazi-era histories, so there was a lot of sympathy for Nazi defendants in the system. The occupation authorities, starting with American Gen. Lucius Clay, were far more concerned about the immediately pressing problem of the Soviets than they were about punishing West Germans for their wartime deeds; the Western Allies sought to get on the Germans' good side by taking it easy on the denazification of their friends and neighbors. And, lest we forget, sympathetic immigration authorities in the Americas, who had done their best to keep Jews out during the war, often overlooked or failed to properly investigate the wartime activities of ex-Nazis and collaborators and let them into their countries. What seems to be unique about this case is just how high-ranking of a war criminal got off and how late this happened. You would think that by the 1980s, the Germans would know better. -- Mwalcoff 07:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ok,so shouldnt them send him to prison at least now,since he lived 25 years on freedom,its clear hell live some more years in jail.Is there a single reason for him to be free just now.Today he might playing with his grandchildren,eating fried turkey and coke...WHile all the people he killed are gone forever.Shouldnt he go to jail,AT LEAST NOW??

Yes, he should. Unfortunately, I'm not the German legal system. -- Mwalcoff 23:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without any further comment on this case, you might find this blog interesting. The author appears do be doing some kind of series on Frenzel at the moment. Carom 17:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I request information on Ayaan Hirsi Ali. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.183.179.116 (talk • contribs)

Check out this article on her.Sjmcfarland 19:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Dee (Robert van Gulik)

Hello everyone,

I have read the first fictional Judge Dee book (The Lacquer Screen), and I am anxious to read the next. I see that Judge Dee at Work contains the next three stories, but then chronologically it skips to other times. The next complete novel is The Chinese Lake Murders. Should I read the three first stories in Judge Dee at Work, and then go back to the rest of the stories in this book after I come to them chronologically, or just read that or The Chinese Lake Murders in their entirity? Thanks!

Transcription 22:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a matter of personal opinion, but personally I believe reading them in the chronological order is always best. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 23:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that "chronological" in terms of when they were written, when they were published, or when the action in any book takes place? Bielle 02:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bielle, it is the order in which the action takes place. Also, The Random Editor, so you would recommend reading the stories which take place before the book first, then go to The Chinese Lake Murders, and then go back to the stories that take place after? Thanks for the help everyone!

Transcription 01:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost shareholders

I understand that transfer agents are employed to handle shareholder records. To that end, their (failed) efforts to track down certain shareholders results in so-called "lost shareholders." But what ultimately becomes of those 'lost shares'? Does a corporation absorb them after a certain amount of time? Any help, with references, is much appreciated. Wolfgangus 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rules will vary by country, and even, perhaps, by province, state or county. The U.K., I think, has a "reasonable efforts and 16-year" rule, after which the lost shares may be absorbed back into the company. There is a site the purports to tell you, country by country, what the rules are. Go here [6] and click on the relevant flag. However, this may well be a legal matter and Wikipedia does not give legal advice. We recommend you consult an legal expert in your jurisdiction. Bielle 01:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually just doing some fact-checking and I think the referred site will do just fine. Thanks for the help. Wolfgangus 19:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

4 WIKIPEDIA

what/who is the sponsor of wikipedia (website) ? i need to know for my project> bibliography and it is due tomorrow.

See Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. But know that most teachers don't like people using Wikipedia in school assignments. --24.147.86.187 01:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia, along with the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation is a (501c I think) nonprofit organization. See also Wikipedia:About. - AMP'd 01:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to cite specific facts, you could also use the sources themselves cited at the bottom of each article. Teachers rarely complain if you say "According to the NY Times/BBC/Kathmandu Post, etc.".martianlostinspace 14:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Ages

Hi there, I got 16 questions about the Midddle Ages.

1. How effective at spreading Christianity were the laws passed by the Byzantine emperors? They were fairly effective. The succeeded for example in closing the plato academy the center of pagan intellectual thought. Many pagans as a result of laws and lack of support either coverted or left christiandom.

2. How did the Emperor Justinian bring the unity to the Byzantine Empire? He wrote

3. How did the withdrawal of Roman forces from Western Europe contribute to spread of Christianity in this area?

4. What was the significance of the crowning of Charlemagne by the pope on Christmas Day, 800? By the Justinans emperorship being dependenet on papal preogative justinain has suborbinated himself to the pope. This high profile expression of the popes authority helped stregnthen the rule that the pope was superior to christiandomes secular kings. Furthermore it helped guarteed that the pope would never become subordinate to any king. 5. Can you described the nature of education in the Early Middle Ages, including who was educated and what was studied? Education tended to be informal parents and grandparents taught their children their occupations. Their where no universities and few schools. Literacy was the exception. Virtually no peasents learned to read. Much of the aristocracy, including the most powerful kings, where also illiterate. The only class who tended to be educated was the clerical and scribe class.

6. Can you described the impact of the Vikings on Europe before 1000?

7. Although the peace movment at the beginnig of the High Middles Ages had little success in sustainingpeace, it did have some important consequences for medieval Europe. Can you describe two of the consequences?

8. What were the four changes that occurred during the Early Middle Ages and what were the four things that stayed the same?

9. Although the peace movment at the beginnig of the High Middles Ages had little success in sustainingpeace, it did have some important consequences for medieval Europe. Can you describe two of the consequences?

10. Can you describe the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and the rulers of medieval Western European kingdoms?

11. Why were the Crusaders a military failure for the Europeans who set out to recapture the Holy Land?

12. Can you list the three factors that led to the rise of towns and cities in 12th century Europe?

13. Considering the objective of the Crusaders, how successful were the Crusades? Considering the effect of the Crusades on the development of European culture and society, how important were the Crusades in the history of Europe?

14. Can you describe two effects of the Black Death on European society and were these effects positive or negative? and Why?

15. How did peasants' revolt erupt in many parts of Europe during the last half of the 14th century?

16. Can you describe the effects of the Avignonese papacy, the Great Schism and the sale of indulgences on the Roman Catholic Church?

If you goin to refer them in the articles, please tell me article's name and tell me which sentence is which and this is not homework because these questions I made up to know about the Middle Ages.

Thank you. (Above user is User talk:76.64.129.188)

The 16 questions themselves demonstrate a level of language use (vocabulary, syntax, grammar) that is much more advanced than that shown in the explanation by the questionner. Ignoring for the moment the high degree of likelihood that these are, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, homework questions of a review sort, if nothing else, it would take even our best historians and most fluent writers a great length of time to answer them all. May I suggest that you pick the one or two that are most interesting to you, and bring the rest back, one at a time, over time, as your interest continues to direct you? Bielle 02:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) What an amazingly fertile mind you must have. So fertile that you use one standard of spelling for the numbered questions and a different one for your last sentence. Did you really think we'd be fooled? You need to do the basic research yourself - we have articles on Justinian, Charlemagne, the Vikings, the papacy in Avignon, and so on - and come back here for specific questions that the articles don't answer. -- JackofOz 02:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see Mr Murdstone is getting ever more demanding! From Greece, through Rome and now into the Middle Ages. My, my; all those double-Gloucester cheeses! Clio the Muse 04:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

I wonder: must the two consequences of question 7 and the two of question 9 add up to a grand total of four consequences, or can we economize by supplying the same answer to either one? To the questioner: you'll get better grades if you give the answers expected of you, which can be found in the course material you have. Thousands of changes occurred during the Early Middle Ages, and no two historians would agree on "the" four changes that occurred during the Early Middle Ages.  --LambiamTalk 05:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any teacher would be insane to set that much homework. I guess that (given the time of year) this is more in the nature of exam preparation and the popular sport of "question spotting" from past papers. I've started Wikilinking key words in the questions, which will help provide answers for the questioner to discover for themselves. Other editors are welcome to help with this process. And Clio... restrain yourself. I can imagine you spending the next 6 months on this question! --Dweller 07:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked some more. But these sound like a list of possible essay questions on a final exam for a Medieval Europe survey class, from which the students will have a choice of four and will have to answer two, or some such combination. Adam Bishop 14:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something tells me that even Clio wouldn't spend 6 months here to answer all of them. That said, the RD is something to be used sparingly. She can answer all of them if she wants, but personally I would doubt it! The RD ought to be used for occassional questions - even if one of them is sheer trivia, only wondering, that's alright. But we might as well say "Please write me a Detailed History of Time". As for homework, we could of course be dealing with a list of past papers, couldn't we? It doesn't have to be homework for it to be even vaguely school related.martianlostinspace 14:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC) And please sign your messages. Especially for our most ethusiastic user!martianlostinspace 15:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to answer number 6 - "No, I can not." --LarryMac | Talk 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they were always in contention for the old NFC Central Division title, winning several times. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, the impact of this achievement on Europe may have been limited, since Europeans don't follow American football. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is several bridges too far, even for Clio the Muse. The Muse will treat seriously what needs and deserves to be treated seriously. The 'scatter-gun' approach falls outwith my orbit. I feel sure, though, that Mr Murdstone will have all of the answers! Clio the Muse 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Grail

I would like to know something more on the origins of the Grail quest stories. Thanks

You could start by reading our Holy Grail article. If you have more specific questions, please come back here.  --LambiamTalk 06:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can also read Umberto Eco's Baudolino for a somewhat different version ;) . It's a very enjoyable book to read, too. Just don't take it too seriously, or else you will have to read Foucault's Pendulum, too :) . Cheers, Dr_Dima.
See also Chretien de Troyes and Wace for actual origins and Jesse L. Weston, From Ritual to Romance, on a comparative religion explanation of the ethnography. See Joseph Campbell's infamous Hero with a Hundred Faces for an hyperbolic Jungian analysis. (Sorry, but those folks annoy me.) Utgard Loki 13:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good recent scholarly book is "The Virgin And The Grail: Origins Of A Legend", by Joseph Goering. Adam Bishop 14:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bismarck

Sirs, I would be interested to know how the political right in Germany made use of the image of Bismarck in the period up to the Third Reich. My thanks E. G. A.. Husserl 08:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book you need to look for, E. G. A., is The Bismarck Myth: Weimar Germany and the Legacy of the Iron Chancellor by Robert Gerwarth. You might also try Bismarck and the Development of Germany by Otto Planze.
Bismarck is one of those great historical figures destined to be misunderstood: loved and misinterpreted by the right, hated and misinterpreted by the left. Most people are familiar with his words about 'Blood and Iron' (misquoted, incidentally) but not, perhaps quite so many with his contention that Politik ist die Kunst des Möglichkeit-Politics is the art of the possible. And for Bismarck the possible had definite limits. He used war to unify Germany, in his terms, and then used diplomacy to ensure that his settlement was preserved. It was a fine and carefully constructed balancing act, all but destroyed by his successors, who lauded the man and wilfully misunderstood his message. During his lifetime he rejected the kind of radical nationalism with which he was later associated, believing this to be a danger to the lasting peace that he considered essential for Germany's economic prosperity. Bismarck's policy after 1871 was, in essence, peace and prosperity at home, coupled with the maintenance of the balance of power abroad.
How did the political right make use of his image and legacy? During the later years of the Kaiserreich it was used to justify a policy of militant colonial expansionism, though Bismarck himself had been opposed to such adventures. It was also used to justify new forms of pan-German nationalism, in complete contrast to the policy pursued by Bismarck, which placed definite political limits on the extent of the German Imperium. Many of the memorials erected after his death in 1898 carried his words "We Germans fear God, but nothing else in the world", missing out the conclusion, which is "and it is that fear of God that makes us love and cherish peace."
After the First World War the usage of the Bismarck myth became ever more perfidious. He was the strong man, who had created and dominated Empire, and image cast against the 'weakness' of a Republic dominated by Socialists and Catholics, the 'political outsiders' in the days of the Iron Chancellor. The yearning for a strong man in the fashion of Bismarck was, of course, ruthlessly exploited by Hitler, who depicted himself as nis natural successor. But no politician could have been further from Bismarck than Hitler. The goals and ambitions set out in Mein Kampf, limitless and imprecise, were, in every degree, the opposite to those of Bismarck. Perhaps no better assessment of the Nazi misapproptiation of Bismarck was that given by General Otto Korfes, captured at Stalingrad, and who later broadcast on Radio Freies Deutschland from Moscow in January 1944, "Germany fell into the misfortune of the First World War because we deviated from Bismarck's clever and cautious policy. The gamble by which Adolf Hitler forced the German Reich into this war is an act which Bismarck would class as a crime against the nation. Every German should be aware of the gap which separates the demagogy of Adolf Hitler from the statesmanlike intelligence and thoughtfullness of Otto von Bismarck." Clio the Muse 23:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Products becoming common names.

Is there a word for a product which is so successful that it becomes the common name for the item? Two examples that I can think of are hoover for vacuum cleaner, and recently, iPod is becoming a common name for any mp3 player. If there isn't really a word for it, i'd still love to see other examples. 213.48.15.234 08:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Genericized trademark. Dr_Dima
I swear I put this on the Language desk 213.48.15.234 08:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Linky Linky. Anchoress 08:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

buildings

I have been trying to find this out for a while, but haven't so I came here. I want to know what the oldest building still in use is. By this I mean a building which is still used for what it was originally intended, but not including monuments, tombs, &c. Can anyone help? HS7 11:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the Pantheon in Rome? It was built as a pagan temple and is now a Christian church, so it is still in use as a religious building. Marco polo 12:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice question, though I'm not sure what falls foul of the "&c." of "monuments, tombs, &c.". However, how about the following (oldest first):

The Western Wall is the oldest of the three. It does still fulfil its original function (a retaining wall) although this has become very much a secondary function today.

Not a bad start, but I'd guess someone can come up with something older than c.2500 years old. --Dweller 15:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People still try to use Stonehenge as a place of worship, although that may not have been its intended purpose. Adam Bishop 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that, by "building", the querent meant an enclosed structure (with a roof). Are there any older than the Pantheon still in use? Marco polo 17:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For continuous use along the same lines, perhaps Hagia Sophia (a youngster) or Church of the Nativity? Comparatively, the Forbidden City is a recent craze. Utgard Loki 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there might be some Hindu temples older than the Pantheon, but I can't seem to find out when any of them were built. Adam Bishop 18:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I researched Hindu temples before my last trip to India. Before the Buddhists started building stone stupas in the 3rd century BCE, the Hindus built their temples of wood. None of these have survived. The oldest stupa, Dhamek Stupa, dates to the 3rd century BCE, but it is in effect a tomb and a monument. No Hindu (or Buddhist) temples per se survive from the period of Buddhist ascendancy (circa 4th century BCE to 6th century CE). The oldest surviving Hindu temple is Aihole, whose earliest portions date to the 6th century, four centuries after the Pantheon. Marco polo 19:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many Roman structures are still used the way they were intended to be, e.g., Acueducto de los Milagros or the amphitheatre in Merida, Spain. The Servian Wall is just that: a city wall. When reading our article about Church of Kish today, I discovered that "the cultic site found beneath the altar of the church dates to about 3000 B.C". You'll find a raft of unsubstantiated claims along these lines. Fwiw, Arkaim is still used as a sanctuary by neo-pagans, although its original purpose is not clear. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Day that July 1, 1967 fell on

Can anyone tell me what day July 1, 1967 fell on? Tks.Rhapsody55 14:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a Saturday. Adam Bishop 14:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Adam. I'm not sure how to reply to anyone who answers my question.Rhapsody55 14:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Click on Adam Bishop (it should be blue) it should take you to his user page, click on the discussion tab at the top, click on the plus sign(+) and leave your thanks Perry-mankster 15:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or I can just read it here! :) Adam Bishop 16:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a full calendar for any year, type it (e.g. "1967") in the search box and hit GO. Then click the "full calendar" link near the top of the page.--Shantavira|feed me 17:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Happy 100th birthday, Canada! Anchoress 10:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100?

Any theories of an early global religion?

Moved here from the Science desk. 83.79.167.221 15:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through a book recently I saw that Native Americans had built big religious sites similar to the non-stone precursor of Stonehenge in the UK, plus they had made very large images of a bear etc. on the surface of the earth, similar to corresponding images of people or horses in stone-age britain (I forget the name for these), and the even larger images discovered in a desert in central america somewhere. Bearing in mind that an image of the Buddha was discovered among viking artefacts in Denmark some years ago, has anyone every conjectured that thousands of years there was a global religion with perhaps very limited communication between different continents? 80.2.212.97 12:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People have conjectured most things :) A lot of people seem to have come up with ideas similar to this, there may even be something about it on wikipedia :) Or maybe they weer right and all of them were inspired separately by the same god(s) :] HS7 13:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could check out the "Historicity" section of the Tower of Babel article. ◄Zahakiel► 13:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, what you're wondering about occupied a great many people for quite a while. This is called Deism. In general, Deism has two flavors, if you will. One is the idea that there is a true religion that all societies corrupt to their own ends, and therefore what we must do is take that which is found in all religions and start with that as the basic truth that God has imprinted on all hearts. The other is the belief that there is a natural religion, a single religion that is basic and that all persons will go to without any instruction. This natural religion would have existed before the corrupting influence of (take your pick: priests, Rome, empire, money, slavery). Those deists of the second stripe did indeed try to figure out how American Indian religion was the same as native Celtic religion, etc.
The dooms to such projects are immediately apparent, I think. First, the whole project relies upon thinking of peoples of the past, equipped with the same brains as us, as "primitive" and "innocent." Second, it assumes that the function of society and reason is always "corrupting." Third, it requires prior peoples to have lumpen and homogeneous religious and cultural states. Fourth, it needs there to be no other adequate explanation for such similarities except native expressions of a common impulse. Fifth, it requires the native impulse to be true and emanent of a transcendent truth.
When we go off and find "Indians" with structures that look like Viking roundhouses, we needn't assume that they met Vikings, in other words, because "Indians" is a group of hundreds of culturally distinct peoples, and a round house is a round house. Similarly, an Etowah mound and a Saxon ship burial both make hills, but not necessarily for any common cause. Utgard Loki 16:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are some notable similarities between Chinese and Maya cosmologies [7], as well as some parallels between Meso-American and Middle Eastern religious traditions [8]. Of course, this need not mean that there ever was one global religion, but it could point towards shared origins (which should be altogether unsurprising, as humanity did not evolve independently in several places, but spread itself out over the continents). Alternatively, these shared mythological/religious elements could have arisen independently in each of the regions - a convincing argument could be made that, as people have similar experiences and thoughts and seek the answer to similar questions, it should be no wonder that different answers - i.e. different religions - are similar as well.
In all likelihood, it's somewhere in between the two: humanity started off with one 'religion' (or a number of similar ones), and as people migrated and got isolated from others, 'evolved' a number of beliefs that, while different, nevertheless have a number of similarities on account of their common ancestor as well as the common 'human experience'.Random Nonsense 21:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the Buddha reference: it has been claimed that Buddhists travelled to Central America in pre-Columbian times, and even that the name of Guatemala was derived from the name Gautama Buddha. But most people don't believe this. -- JackofOz 02:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to trace all human religious practices to a single origin, it's worth comparing the effort to argue that all human languages are likewise affiliated. This has been the claim of Joseph Greenberg's work (NYT article). Wareh 15:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I was 17 the idea occurred to me that all religions and mythology could be traced back to a single source with an underlying Chomskyan hard-wired "deep-structure". At the time I thought it was a terribly clever and advanced idea but I have long since learned that many versions of the same theme have been offered over the centuries. Read Middlemarch for a description of the sad end of a scholarly cleric who made it his unfinishable life obsession. Note however the difference between an early common source for all languages/religions and the concept of a once-global language or religion. The first is plausible; the second is not, as no single language or religion could have ever been maintained around the globe. alteripse 16:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

APY & APR

Are APY and APR mathematically identical, but APY is used when you are the creditor, and APR when you are the debtor, so it's only a matter of context? Thanks. - MSTCrow 17:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bagman and Cigarette Lighter Economy

In a recent question on Vladimir Putin Clio the Muse mentioned the 'bagman' and 'cigarette lighter' economy that emerged in Russia after the Revolution of 1917. I've been trying to uncover some more information on this with no success. It obviously refer to some form of 'poverty economy, but what precisely was it? Gordon Nash 17:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe post a question on her Talk page? Llamabr 20:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gordon. Picture, if you will, an economy in an almost total state of collapse; one where the transport system has almost ceased to function; where money has little or no value; one where the country has almost ceased trading with the towns. Picture still further millions of hungry townspeople; working and hungry, or unemployed and hungry. What then happens is the emergence of economies below the economy; a world with people on the move; of barter and bargaining, of exchange of goods without the medium of money. Welcome to the post-apocalyptic world of the bagman!

The almost complete collapse of consumer production during the war, coupled with rapid price inflation, meant that the Russian peasantry were no longer willing to dispense with their produce for worthless paper currency. Even when they did there was simply nothing to buy, or goods available were far too expensive. History then began to slip into reverse gear, as the cities returned to the country, and the country returned to forms of economic self-sufficiency not seen since the Middle Ages. Large cities like Petrograd and Moscow lost as much as half to three-quarters of their pre-war population, as people took whatever tansport they could to return to the land, a process illustrated in Boris Pasternak's novel, Doctor Zhivago. It was even said at the time that the Bolshevik party was becoming the "vanguard of a non-existent class."

Those who did not leave the cities altogether took to petty trade to keep themselves alive, 'bagging', as it was called. By 1918 the provinces of Tambov, Kursk, Kazan, Simbirsk and Saratov saw the descent of approximately 100,000 urban 'bagmen' every month. In their bags they brought tools, fuel, scrap-iron, anything, basically, that could be traded for food. Some made goods, using materials stolen from their place of work, that could be used in barter. A whole variety of things were manufactured, from pen-knives to ploughs; but one of the most common barter goods was the cigarette lighter, which gave the name of 'cigarette-lighterism' (zazhigolochnichestvo) to the whole phenomenon. It only really came to an end when things began to stabilise after the introduction of the New Economic Policy, and the return to a settled system of monetary exchange. Bagmanism was truly desperate period in Russian history, which, to some degree, made a reapperance in the 1990s. Clio the Muse 00:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Clio, i think i'm being a bit stupid, i take it the reason the lighters where in high demand would be due to the fact it was an easy way to get a fire (for cooking, warmth etc) started, rather than to light cigarettes? Perry-mankster 08:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all readers may be aware of the British English meaning of bagman as referring to an itinerant vendor. -- LambiamTalk 11:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you,  LambiamTalk . Indeed, in North America, a "bagman" is a slang term for a political fundraiser, and contains some overtones of impropriety. Bielle 15:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "bagman" in US slang can be the political strong-arming agent, but it's also any hoodlum who "holds the bag." The bag in question can be the one that goes over a victim's head (bagman = thug) or, more commonly, the bag of loot (bagman = accessory to robbery). I think it went to politics from the underworld, but it may well have gone the other way. Anyone with an online access to the OED or the full American Heritage (not one's desk copy)? Utgard Loki 18:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duties of the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General of the U.S.

Hello,

I'm putting out a request to anyone who might have information on the duties of the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States. I have been unable to find any information on the Department of Justice website or the U.S. Government Manual.

thank you.

Sorry but there's very limited information on this office on Wikipedia. However, here are some people who occupied that office: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McNulty en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Moschella en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._Mercer 82.152.219.170 10:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is basically a guess. The United States Deputy Attorney General advises and assists the Attorney General. There are several Associates supporting the Deputy Attorney General, each of which has a portfolio devoted to some aspects of law and justice. One of these Associates is the Principal Associate. Start of guess. Next to having a portfolio (like the others), the Principal Associate also supervises the other Associates on a daily basis. End of guess. For a more definitive answer, you can try sending an e-mail inquiry to: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov.  --LambiamTalk 11:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

clay pottery with glass

Is it possible for clay pottery to be decorated with glass pieces or glass shards?

Yes, you just bake it in. - MSTCrow 18:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beware, however, that some types of glass soften or even melt at the temperatures at which some ceramics are fired. For example, pottery states that earthenwares are normally fired at temperatures in the range of about 1000 to 1200 degrees C, and soda-lime glass specifies its melting point as "about 1000°C". Soda-lime glass. according to the same article, is the most prevalent type of glass [...and] is used for windowpanes and bottles. --mglg(talk) 19:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does (Do?) Cloisonné count? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about musical instruments around the world

I'm wondering whether there is a resource for identifying ALL the musical instruments around the world, and their number, as well as ideally also photographs or drawings of the musical instruments. I've googled variations of this question and key words, and not come up with anything comprehensive. There is a big list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_instruments However, I don't think it's intended (yet) as a full list - or is it? I would be greateful to receive either a referral to a resource or a suggestion on how I might look for it, or perhaps the answer to how many musical instruments there are. Thanks!

You are correct, the list is not complete; for example, the albogue and ney are not listed. Making a truly comprehensive list so that you could count the number is nearly impossible. One problem is that that are many regional variations to "essentially" the same folk instrument, but as time went by and the local versions evolved in different ways, did they remain just variations, or become different kinds of instruments? For the same reason, it is impossible to say how many languages there are. Also, many objects that were not intended as an instrument can be used as such: pairs of wooden spoons, washboards, turntables, wine glasses, bottles, ... There are maybe not as many types as instruments as there are languages, but it is safe to say the number is in the thousands. You may be interested in the following books, but I doubt any of them is comprehensive:
  • The Diagram Group (1997). Musical instruments of the world: an illustrated encyclopedia. New York: Sterling Pub. Co. ISBN 978-0806998473.
  • Max Wade-Matthews (2000). The World Encyclopedia of Musical Instruments. London: Lorenz Books. ISBN 978-0754805700.
  • Meryl Doney (2002). Musical Instruments Around the World. Discover Other Cultures. Franklin Watts. ISBN 978-0749645434.
  • Musical Instruments Of the World. Carson Dellosa. 2003. ISBN 978-1580372527.
 --LambiamTalk 22:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest posting your query or otherwise contacting the good folks at the recently formed Musical Instruments WikiProject. (They may not patrol the Reference Desk so might have missed it here.) -- Deborahjay 01:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alcatraz inmate search records era of 1934-1963 Charles Broyce Carriker II #1204

Hello, My research seems to be stalled. I'm looking at how to obtain the inmate records or other for referenced subject. I've reviewed the NARA Access to Archival Databases (AAD) search file to no avail. The ARC didn't seem to be useful at this time either. What other options are there, and how do I proceed to aquire this material? DOCLA429

You might have to check with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Odds are they are not in a repository. In a situation like this I would 1. get in touch with NARA, as they do have some of the records of the Bureau of Prisons and might have some idea where others might be; 2. get in touch with the BOP registrar. As a last resort, because it will take years to process, file a Freedom of Information Act request with the Bureau of Prisons, which will legally compel them to look for the record. You will probably need to provide proof that the person whose records you want is deceased or that they have given you permission to see them. --24.147.86.187 21:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Charles Boyce Carriker? I found his name on this page; there is contact information at the bottom of the page. --Cam 02:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

philosophy textbook

Hello,

I'm looking for a "philosophy textbook", in french or english, i mean a (very) big book that would be ok to read for beginners and that would cover all philosophy, not very deep of course, but with quite a lot of details (much more than an introduction book to philosophy).

It would have to be a book that's pleasant to read in a row, with a time continuity i guess... Much like the 1'000 pages science textbooks, with a lot of pictures, history links, exemples, and so on.

Is it an utopy?

Thanks in advance.

It may not be utopian, but it is certainly ambitious. You are not going to find an awful lot of philosophy books with pictures, to be quite frank: ideas are not photogenic or pictorial, by their very nature. But on the assumption that you are a complete beginner, and are looking for a broad introduction to philosophical concepts, I would recommend Philosophy: the Basics by Nigel Warburton (224 pages) or Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy by Simon Blackburn (320 pages). Moving up the weighty scale there is An Introduction to Western Philosophy: Ideas and Arguments from Plato to Popper by Anthony Flew (511 pages). None of these reach your 'weighty', tome-like standards. I would say, though, that it is best not to be too ambitious: think big but start small. Clio the Muse 01:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be helpful to learn what philosophical problems most immediately interest you -- what would compel someone to read a thousand pages of philosophy? For a broad to the history of problems, I agree with the Blackburn text. But philosophy is a broad discipline. Maybe first narrow down your interests? Llamabr 04:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read Sophie's World. It explains the basics of the history of philosophy in a few hundred pages disguised as a children's novel. And it was a bestseller in Europe. - MelancholyDanish

Sophies' World is great, OK, great lite, but it will explain a little about a lot and then you can dive deeper into the ideas that interest you--Eudaiomonia 12:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'the tao of pooh' for caffeine free great lite :) Perry-mankster 12:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend one of the histories of philosophy. These, in the guise of a genetic or teleological tracking of "thought," will also give you an introduction to each new big idea and its native location in history. Utgard Loki 12:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 7

New Mexico State Penitentiary

Does anybody have any idea how old the New Mexico State Penitentiary is? There is very little information considering that it was the location of a big prison riot. Thank you in advance.

From this website, it appears that the main unit was opened in 1956. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 01:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Tsunami affecting Vivekananda Rock Memorial

how did tsunami 2006 effected vivekananda rock memorial situated at kanya kumari and what is the present situation of that place...?????

There are links to a news report and video here: [9].—eric 06:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Finnegans Wake

Hi again! I started reading Finnegans Wake this afternoon (so far we're tripping along together pretty pleasantly, like lovers in a country dance) and I was wondering if you can recommend any other beautifully nonsensical poetic narratives. Are there any books aside from this one anywhere in the world that have done away with plot and other uninteresting constraints and attempted to craft a work of literature based purely on the loveliness of the language? I understand that Nabokov and Pynchon have come close to doing this. It's difficult trying to find literature that's consistently as elegant as Shakespeare, or Keats, or even Ray Bradbury, really.

On an unrelated note, can you recommend any fantastic social comedies? My criteria for good social comedy (or even tragedy, for that matter - Socrates said they're the same) tends to involve well-constructed situations and unusual relationships between different sorts of people. (For instance, Shakespeare - especially during the middle period - or the television series The Office.) I asked this once before but no one could think of anything. I'm looking for a certain kind of "infinite reflectivity" - in which the various characters all portray a symmetry / series of interrelationships / parallelism, and loads of irony.

Thanks for all your help! I'll be happy with whatever you can give. - MelancholyDanish

I take it you have read Ulysses? You might also want to look at The Street of Crocodiles and Sanatorium under the Sign of the Hour Glass by the wonderful Bruno Schultz I would also recommend anything by Malcolm Lowry, particularly Under the Volcano. I suppose I should also mention One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, since that would seem to fit in with what you are looking for, though personally it leaves me quite cold. Happy reading! Clio the Muse 08:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try the Symphonies of Andrey Bely if you read Russian. It is all verbal music and almost no plot at all. I'd describe some of the earlier, more poetic novels by Robbe-Grillet as "beautifully nonsensical poetic narratives", although many would disagree. I fail to see anything nonsensical about Nabokov, however. I'm not sure that I understand the second half of your question. Olesha's Envy, Bulgakov's Ivan Vasilievich, Gogol's The Nose and many short stories by H. G. Wells qualify as "fantastic social comedies". --Ghirla-трёп- 09:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, shoot, someone might as well mention the picaresque. Apulieus's The Golden Ass is the general starting point, but check out Gil Blas and Tobias Smollett's very interesting Humphry Clinker (note that it's "Humphry" and not "Humphrey"). Utgard Loki 13:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we humans have consciousness at all? (argued from an evolutionary perspective)

Why is it necessary that we have a consciousness and make experiences? Was that an evolutionary advantage? - Wouldn't it have been enough to be like a machine/computer? E.g. instead of feeling being hurt, there would simply be sent a signal to the brain that something is not in order. And the brain would respond to this in the same way as if it would have felt that the human body was hurt. Was consciousness maybe an 'unintended' by product of the brain? The brain being deviced to survive in this world. And its processes creating by the way a stream of consciousness ...? This very special thing which we can't trace by means of material utilities. 84.75.161.211 07:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but it seems to me that being aware of our mental processes gives us a degree of foresight and is very useful in learning complex tasks. If we weren't conscious, we'd find it hard to learn tasks that didn't have an immediate, tangible result. After watching someone else take a piece of flint, hit it with a rock, break a piece off and be left with a useful sharp edge, I imitate him and get the same result. Intelligence but no consciousness required. To make an iron blade I need to find iron ore, dig it up, find the materials needed to make a very hot fire and tools to enable me to manipulate the ore in the immense heat, smelt the ore into iron in the fire, shape it, beat one edge of it very thin, cool it, grind the edge to make it sharper. The sequence of tasks is too complicated to learn by observation and imitation or by trial and error - I have to understand the purpose of each action in producing my intended goal. I need to be conscious. Similarly, when you learn to drive, you're conscious of every action you take, but once you've been driving for a while you do it "without thinking" - not really without thinking, you're still performing the same mental processes, just not consciously. --Nicknack009 08:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly, the google search "evolutionary advantage of consciousness" returns several promising results. Anchoress 08:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having read quite few books and articles dedicated to this question, I can report that I did not find a satisfactory answer – satisfactory to me, that is, although several authors apparently felt they had given the definite answer (ususally quite incompatible with the other answers). Among the many answers, one was that consciousness is an illusion (we just think we are conscious and experience things, but actually we don't), and another that it was an accidental, unintended, and quite useless side-effect of the evolutionarily advantageous capability of self-reflection. One problem in even discussing the issue is to define the terms and notions used. Is "awareness" the same as "consciousness"? Is "self-awareness" more than ordinary awareness in which part of the world the entity is aware of is labelled "self"? How do we know we are not like a machine? (See Problem of other minds.) Put conversely, how can we be so sure machines are not more "like us" than we think they are? Can a computer be bored? If not, why not? Erwin Schrödinger, of Schrödinger equation fame, speculates in his essay What is Life? that individual consciousness is only a manifestation of a unitary consciousness pervading the universe. If he was right – but how could we possibly tell? – then the question remains: why does a unitary consciousness pervade the universe? But perhaps we should first answer the question: why does anything exist at all? See further Cosmic consciousness, Philosophy of mind, Mind-body dichotomy, Thomas Nagel#Philosophy of mind, Consciousness Explained, and The Mind's I: Fantasies and reflections on self and soul. The latter book is a recommended read.  --LambiamTalk 11:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rape case

Hello. I just took a look at the DYK, and found this article. I just wonder if that's the usual way to write of a lawsuit on Wikipedia. The article reads like journalism to me (I don't mean journalistic style is a bad thing). Is that appropriate?--K.C. Tang 08:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a terrible article whose format goes against the Wikipedia manual of style and desperately needs copyediting. Well-referenced, though. There are cleanup templates you can put on the article page, and/or you can bring up your concerns with other article editors on the article's talkpage. Anchoress 09:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief! It's horrible! DYK hasn't been screening for quality very tightly lately. Shoot, I'd say that's an AfD matter, regardless of the citations. It's written as if a first hand account or some attempt at a novel. Ick! Utgard Loki 17:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about 2006 tsunami and rock memorial

how did the tsunami 2006 effect vivekananda rock memorial situated at kanyakumari and what is the present situation of the sight? ---Hardik.rindani 09:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Vivekananda Rock Memorial contains an external link which mentions events related to a 2004 tsunami. Anchoress 09:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, there's also the answer from the other time you asked the question, a few hours ago. Anchoress 10:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin K fortification in foods

I'm currently working in the nutriton labeling department at a major food company. I've been asked to research Vitamin K fortification levels in foods. I was having trouble finding anything, as to what ammounts are legal in the U.S., or if it even is allowed. I guess my question succinctly is:

Is Vitamin K fortification for food products allowed in the United States, and if so, to what level? Onetrickbunny 14:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to have an article on vitamin fortification and the vitamin article on makes passing reference. Anyone want to start one? Rmhermen 15:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a stub at Micronutrient fortification which could link sometime to Nutrient systems. Neither mention vitamin K. Rmhermen 15:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supplementation with K would be very bad. There are tens of thousands of American citizens taking Coumadin/Warfarin, which is a vitamin-K dependent clotting factor antagonist, and those folks would have their numbers (and lives) imperiled by sneaky K levels. Utgard Loki 15:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vitamin K is added to U.S. infant formula though: [10] Rmhermen 15:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but not many infants are on blood-thinners.... -- MarcoTolo 15:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article on vitamin K, it's added to formula specifically as a pro-thrombolitic agent -- to prevent hemorrhage. It's also stored in fat, so that means that you can overdose on it. Thus, it really does look like a suspicious supplement for healthy populations. Utgard Loki 17:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=136645026"