Humanities desk
< July 30	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	August 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 31[edit]

What religion am I? help me[edit]

Hi all. Im looking to find out what religion i am. I belive in jeues but i think he was just a normal human. I also belive he married Mary Magdalene and had a child. I belive the bible is not all true and that it mayed jeues out to be someone special they needed someone special so people would "buy it to the bible" so i would like to know what relgion that is. it may not be one but any help at all and any websites will be at much help.. Thank You Stuart

Well, what part of the Bible do you belive is "not all true?" The New Testament? All of it? Bits and pieces of the Old Testament and the New Testament? The best I can say is that you aren't Christian... - AMP'd 00:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe in god(s)? --S.dedalus 00:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im still undecined about god, I belive the bible was just a story and that was writin to hide true facts. I must admit i havent read the bible as i think its a story. I belive when the bible says jesus helped and precead but i dont belive he did mircals i think he was just living in those times like me or you are now and just made out to be someone special in the bible so Christiaty had somthing to start of with.

If you "believe in Jesus", i.e. you consider yourself a Christian, but you deny the divinity of Jesus, that's a form of Unitarianism (specifically "Psilanthropism" or Socinianism). I don't think any organized religious groups that specifically think that Mary Magdalene was Jesus's wife (I think that's more Dan Brown), but if you're interested in that idea, you would probably be interested in the history of Gnosticism.--Pharos 00:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, read Agnosticism and see if that sound right. If you are spritely inclined but just aren’t sure about god, you might also try reading about a non-theistic religion like Buddhism or Jainism. All these titles are really just ways of categorizing people though. There are many people whose beliefs fit outside of any denomination. --S.dedalus 00:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be amused by any seeker's quest, but it is a bit like a strain of Deism. There were certainly Deists who thought that Jesus was a great moral leader, that institutions of man created the Bible to make it false, etc. Pharos is right, though, that it kind of turned into Universalism, so that's probably the closest in terms of a brick and mortar church. Geogre 01:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and an aside: Peter Ackroyd, in his T. S. Eliot, said that Eliot's family in St. Louis were the sorts of Universalists who saw Jesus Christ not really as divine, as much as a "sort of superior Emerson." That always cracked me up. Geogre 03:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be a Quantum Daoist and not even know it. 38.112.225.84 05:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Belief-O-Matic® questionnaire will tell you.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like you are simultaneously gnostic and agnostic. Take care you don't disappear in a puff of logic. Friday (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you say doesn't seem to me to amount to a religion. That doesn't mean you don't have one, but it seems unlikely. Xn4 00:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion is a grouping of people forcing each other into the same thoughts. You've started independent thinking, which is very healthy. Keep that up and don't bother trying to squeeze your thoughts into a religion. Make up your own mind. DirkvdM 06:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop preaching, eh? The Jade Knight 09:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! It's incredibly tiresome. Clio the Muse 22:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He asked. I just pointed out that he might be of his own religion, unaffiliated (or at least that was the intention). That's a good possible answer to the question, isn't it? Okay, I also suggested that's the right path, but that's not such a big deal, is it? DirkvdM 08:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by 'believe in Jesus' you simply mean you believe he existed, that doesn't make you a Christian. Other then the fact that Muslims believe Jesus existed, many Jews also do so as well. Even a number of atheists probably believe Jesus existed and many others are likely to be ambigious, i.e. they don't think there is sufficient evidence either way. See Historicity of Jesus. While simplisticly, Christians are often called believers in Jesus Christ, there are many implied connotations with that. It doesn't simply mean they believe Jesus Christ existed Nil Einne 13:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you (Stuart) are a relatively young person who read the works of Dan Brown without enough background knowledge of a)the history b)the religion c)the bible to know how silly the books are. If you think the Bible is just made-up stories to the extent that it isn't worth reading, why would you think Jesus ever existed? The New Testament is the only real evidence for his existance. This doesn't sound like a specific religion to me, other than Brownian! Although specific bits of your beliefs do have names. Skittle 21:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankans tamil Toronto[edit]

Which Toronto area has the most Sri Lankan Tamils residents?

The Tamil community in Toronto is concentrated in the Scarborough area in the east end. They are mostly in the Dorset Park, Malvern, Toronto, and Woburn neighbourhoods, all of which are about 6% Tamil. - SimonP 18:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stock market[edit]

First: is there a significant number of people who buy stock for reasons other than selling it for more? Second: if not, how is it ethically different then a pyramid scheme (other than the person who starts it generally having a better use for the money)? — Daniel 03:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people buy shares of football clubs (many of which are traded on the stock market) because of a love for the club, not necessarily for profit (for example David Dein). ugen64 05:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the first question, another reason for buying stocks is to receive dividend income over the long term. I can't say how many people have this as a major reason, though. It may vary by country depending on how capital gains are taxed and how dividends are taxed.

On the second question, people who buy stocks know the value will vary with the market and may go down as well as up; and it isn't going to collapse completely unless the company does. People who buy into a pyramid scheme are tricked into thinking they are making a safe investment, like a savings bond (only better paying), when in fact it is known that it will collapse completely at some point. In ethical terms these are completely different. --Anonymous, July 31, 2007, 09:05 (UTC).

The basic rule in investment (as opposed to speculation) is that you're selling something a bit different than what you bought. In the case of stocks, you buy a company with revenues of Y and sell a company with revenues of X (in some cases, the company's whole business model might change along the way). There are occasional speculative bubbles (which seem to recur with alarming frequency) where prices get out of line with fundamentals, and in that instance it is exactly a pyramid scheme (although not necessarily a conscious one). Donald Hosek 14:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the value of the stock doesn't collapse until the company does, it will still collapse. I figure there's normally four different kinds of people in a given market: the producers who make the products, the middle men who buy the product to sell, the buyers (I can't think of a better name) who buy the product to use, and the people who buy the product to use for a while then sell (I can't think of any name at all). With a pyramid scheme, there are the producers, who start the scheme, and the middle men, who enter intending to make money getting others to enter. There is no one who functions as a buyer or the fourth person I mentioned. Because of that there is no net gain. How is this different in the stock market? Another way to look at it is that there is a constant amount of money. If nothing is produced besides money, the people are wasting there time moving money around. If the company buys back its stock, it's okay, and functions something like a loan. How often does this happen? If it gives dividends, it functions less like a loan, but it's still okay. — Daniel 16:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting the other side of the coin. Raising capital from the stock market allows companies to make things and invent or innovate. They may not be able to raise this money from banks because of the very high risk involved - most new companies and new products fail. I'm trying to think of examples - I suppose many of the things we take for granted like cars, televisions, railways, computers, medicines, and many other things - where all manufactured or even invented by using money from the stock market. Without the stock market, there would be little money for the high risk of developing new technology and new products, and we in 2007 would have a very much lower standard of living. I think you may be thinking that wealth is not created: but it must be created because otherwise we'd all still be living in caves. Investors deserve a reward for taking the risk of losing all their money. It is in practice very difficult to buy at a cheap price and sell at a higher price - see the Efficient markets hypothesis article. 80.0.104.224 22:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They could do that with a pyramid scheme, couldn't they? — Daniel 16:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. A pyramid scheme only continues as long as it can bring in new recruits because it needs them to be able to pay the people in the scheme already. A stock market firm does not need people to continuously buy their stock to survive. Firms often have buy-backs where they purchase up shares to try reduce the amount of shares open on the marekt, they also have individuals building up enough shares to take the firm from the public markets. As the last respondent notes the share-market system is extremely valuable at funding developments that government and/or charity other funding types would not necessarily consider worthy of investment. The allure of investing money into a firm which can potentially develop a fantastic service whilst simultaneously make money for the invest is what makes the market good. Thousands of firms fall apart, collapse get bought out/overtaken each year. The money invested in a firm is used to make money, whereas in a pyramid scheme uses its money only to pay out what it promised. A business can use its money to sell a service/product to customers and make profit. It's really rather a major difference. Whether you invest in a firm to make profit or because of some ethical/moralistic reason is a mute point. What matters is the investment. People mistakenly believe that the reason for doing something matters more than the outcome of your actions. Check out the economic genius that was Milton Friedman for an excellent viewpoint on economic policy. ny156uk 22:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is a buy-back when the company buys its stock back? If so, what incentive is there for a firm to have buy-backs? Do they usually have them? If so, then it's more like a loan than a pyramid scheme, like I said before.

Although the money raised by putting a company on the stock market is generally used in a vastly different way then the money used in a pyramid scheme, each can, in theory, be used for the other purpose. Is it any better for a company to get funds by selling its stock than by starting a pyramid scheme? At least with a pyramid scheme you don't have to worry about people having control over your company and only caring about the value of its stock, and even then only until they sell it. If there were laws that said a company had to pay dividends, or better yet, buy back its stock by a predetermined time at a predetermined time, it seems like it could still fund the company without acting like a pyramid scheme.

By the way, when I say pyramid scheme, I don't mean it has to have its "value" (for lack of a better word) increase that quickly. If you owned a portion of the scheme that increased at 5% APR, compounded continually, and were allowed to sell any portion of your portion at any time, it would increase in a slower, more controlled manner, much like stock. I'd still consider that a pyramid scheme. — Daniel 00:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is untrue to say that that a stock market flotation or IPO are interchangable with a pyramid scheme. People will always lose money with a Pyramid scheme, and they do not create value. You might as well say that a company could raise money by robbing banks. Have you read the Pyramid scheme article? And getting back to your initial comment, there is nothing wrong with people people investing their savings in the stock market if they want to - as far as I recall most investment comes from pension funds. [User:80.0.135.231|80.0.135.231]] 22:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

separation[edit]

How to communicate separation for 5 years old kid?

You need to be more specific before we can answer your question. In what sense do you mean "separation"--divorce, leaving the house, death, or what?--Eriastrum 19:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume "separation" to amount to parents living in separate houses, yet not legally a breakup of the marriage, which would be a divorce. There would be somewhat less ambiguous ways to put "death" or "divorce". I do not think anon necessarily means a "legal separation" as is precisely described in the article.martianlostinspace 19:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably depends on the kid and their comprehension levels. "Mommy and daddy are going to live in different houses for awhile, because they want to try not living together. Because mommy is a... nevermind." --24.147.86.187 09:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas was killed at Naseby fight[edit]

I came across an old English ballad called "The World is Turned Upside Down" with the above line. Could someone please put this all in context? Sally Simple 11:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Googled and found out this:

http://www.lukehistory.com/ballads/worldup.html Slmking 11:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Slmking[reply]

In a literal sense, Christmas was killed at the fight. The Christ Mass was, of course, a Roman Catholic celebration (the feast day for Jesus), but it had continued into the Church of England. The Puritans were really anxious to strip away "corruption" and "Papist" (Roman Catholic) elements in the church, and so they went on a frenetic "reform." Anything associated with the veneration of saints was out (by fire and bomb, if necessary), and anything that looked like "idolatry" was gone. In the democratic theocracy that followed, the celebration of Christmas was outlawed. Statuary in churches was removed. Stained glass windows were sometimes broken (that was actually pretty rare). The point is that Christmas didn't make a full comeback for two hundred years, and, by that time, it picked up several continental traditions. See Christmas. Geogre 13:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Battle of Naseby and the re-use of the title by later anti-Parliamentarian and then by anti-Cavalier balladeers, and then the re-use in the 20th century by historians of the dissenters, and then, lastly, re-use by Billy Bragg (although he didn't write it) for a fantastic folk song. Geogre 12:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Naseby was, of course, the penultimate Puritan victory in the First English Civil War, a victory of the 'new' England over the 'old'; and Christmas, and all that was associated with it, was very much part of the old. The festival was hated, in the first place, because it was 'popish', and in the second, because it was 'pagan'; it had no authority in scripture and it was the occasion for unseemly and drunken revels, presided over by the Lord of Misrule. In the 1580s Philip Stubbes had written in The Anatomie of Abuses that;

The more mischief is that time committed than in all the year besides, what masking and mumming, whereby robbery, whoredom, murder and what not is committed? What dicing and carding, what eating and drinking, what banqueting and feasting is then used, more than in all the year besides, to the great dishonour of God and impoverising of the realm.

Ah, yes: robbery, whoredom, murder, dicing and carding. Just a typical family Christmas, then!

The festival had also become something of a political battleground between the stricter Protestant sects and Catholic recusants in England; for while it was condemned by the one it was growing in popularity with the other. Catholics, moreover, were quite happy to combine religious devotion with an attachment to the more profane aspects of Christmas celebration. Dorothy Lawson, a Catholic gentlewomam, was noted for celebrating "in both kinds...corporally and spiritually." Christmas thus became a prime target during the period of Puritan ascendency, both before and after Naseby.

The attack began with attempts to divorce the religious from the secular elements of the holiday, with Parliamentary ordinances from 1642 onwards calling for a more 'seemly' observation. The campaign was stepped up in early 1645 with the publication of the Directory of Public Worship, which plainly stated that "Festival days, vulgarly called Holy days, having no Warrent in the Word of God, are not to be continued." The final victory over the King also saw the victory over Christmas. In June 1647 it was abolished outright. Neverthless, the festival remained popular with ordinary people, and fresh ordinances had to be issued throughout the period of both the Commonwealth and the Protectorate; even people attending church on 25 December were liable for arrest and interrogation by the army. The World is Turned Upside Down was part of a much wider popular and literary response to the whole Puritan campaign, including the wonderful satire The Arraignment, Conviction and Imprisioning of Christmas, printed by 'Simon Minced Pie' for 'Cicely Plum Pottage.'

Alas, England, ruled by Cromwell, in much the same fashion as Narnia was by the White Witch, was a land 'where it was always winter and never Christmas.' Old Father Christmas only returned with Summer and the King! Clio the Muse 00:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting thing is that, while Christmas came back (and lavishly, like everything else, at the Restoration itself), the Puritans and their voice of "naughty, naughty" prevailed pretty quickly. Christmas faded over the 18th century, and it really was in danger of falling away again -- and for the same reasons (ok, no whoring, but, let's face it, there probably wasn't a lot of whoring involved in it before, either) when Dickens made it the centerpiece of winter. Geogre 01:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clio's is a lovely comparison between Jadis and Cromwell, but of course she was far more wicked. There's no question that Cromwell would have jinked at using the Deplorable Word. Xn4 02:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic, isn't it, that it's the Christian Conservatives, the spiritual descendants of the Puritans, who are arguing that there is a War on Christmas going on. Corvus cornix 21:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that irony, but then they topped themselves by being wholly in favor of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Apparently, they had forgotten the crucifix arguments of the Puritans and the distinction between the emphasis on the passion and the resurrection that had inspired their religious fore bearers. Gibson's film was radically Roman Catholic. My suspicion is that this is not actually a reflection of the Puritan (i.e. presbyter-run church) as much as the Independent and Anabaptist (i.e. congregational and non-doctrinal) churches, because only congregationalism could have forgotten that degree of theological debate. Indeed, the people most like the 17th c. Puritans and 18th c. Awakenings, the Evangelicals, have now taken positions 180 degrees from them. Geogre 15:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

According to the article hello its use is limited to the past 180 years. What kinds of salutations did English-speaking people use prior to that, say in England in the 1700s? Rfwoolf 11:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that both hullo and hallo preceded hello. Also, there are many better options that preceded the boring "hello", such as "Good day", "Nice to meet you", and "Top of the mornin' to you." -- Kainaw^(what?) 13:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ahoy, hoy!" --TotoBaggins 14:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Monty Burns is pretty old, but I'm sure he'd have "hullo'd" or "hallo'd," and I suspect our article is being overly nice. It's the orthography that's unusual before the 19th century and not really the word. "Greetings" was popular, and "Good day" was probably most popular in literature I've read (which is a bit), along with, "My dear, Name" (insert name of choice). Utgard Loki 14:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than a different word being used, it's more a case of regional variations in spelling and pronunication. According to the OED Shakespeare uses "hollo" as in Titus Andronicus ("Hollo, what storme is this?") and "Holla hoa" in the Taming of the Shrew.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But in this usage, it isn't being used as a greeting/salutation. I gather that use only really developed with the telephone (unless this is an urban legend). Skittle 20:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends a lot which English people. How now is an informal greeting which springs to mind from several directions - How now, young man! mean'st thou to fight to-day? (Hector to Troilus in Troilus and Cressida)... How now, sirrah! what make you here? (Ben Jonson, Every Man in His Humour). How now, brown cow... Xn4 01:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before telephones came into use, "hello" was often spelled "halloo", and was used more as a shout to attract people's attention from a distance than to initiate close-up conversations... AnonMoos 18:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the fox-hunting field, "halloo!" is an encouraging shout which can be called long and loud... "view halloo!" tells the followers a fox has broken cover. Xn4 03:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corporations[edit]

What is a class B corporation? Does it have to do with federal tax credits? Is there a list of class B corporations in California?Prestona 16:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of a Class B Corporation, but Class B Stock is common. It is a special stock that owners of a company have. Unlike public stock, class B stock allows the owners special dividends and voting privileges (among other things). For example, Disney used to have free tickets and free hotel rooms for class B stockholders (I don't know what they offer now). -- Kainaw^(what?) 16:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually not true. In the United States, a corporation can designate different classes of stock and give them varying rights to voting and dividends. There is a fair amount of discretion, as long as the corporation complies with some basic rules. Disney's class B stock may have provided for those things (I honestly don't know), but that is not necessarily true for the Class B stock of every corporation. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In some states, a Class B Corporation is a not-for-profit. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadinejad's Attire[edit]

Why does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dress so casually? 208.114.153.254 17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To identify himself as "a man of the people", a common ploy established by twentieth-century autocrats. --Wetman 20:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean by this why does he not wear a tie, this is because it does not form part of Iranian dress. By the standards of his own culture and society he is thus as formally dressed as any other man in his position. He was also elected to office, and therefore cannot really be compared to 'twentieth' century autocrats (and some twenty-first century residues), most of whom draped themselves some kind of military-style or party uniform. Clio the Muse 22:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although he wears Western, not Iranian, dress. Strangely enough, I got interested in this and did some clicking. The Wikipedia articles for most of the Presidents and recent Prime Ministers of Iran show them either (i) in suits and ties or (if they were imams) in clerical garb. 15 minutes of my life I'll never get back! ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it goes even further. The Iranian army officers wear a western style uniform jacket without a tie. The tie is seen as a symbol for the west and the rule of the Shah.--Tresckow 23:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if I move to Iran I won't ever have to wear a tie? Sign me up! Adam Bishop 06:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other countries in hot climates where politicians go tieless more often than not. Israeli politicians, for example, or leaders of some Southeast Asian countries, such as the Philippines, often wear neither tie nor jacket. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Petain[edit]

Account for the changing political significance of Philippe Petain in wartime France. Decline and fall 18:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. -- Kainaw^(what?) 18:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect this may be difficult to believe, but for most French people Philippe Petain came as a national saviour in 1940, much as he had at the Verdun in 1916. After the resignation of Paul Reynaud, Petain's appointment as Prime Minister was confirmed by a massive majority of 468 to 80 in the National Assembly, which also voted him autocratic powers, effectively bringing the seventy-year-old Third Republic to an end. Support, moreover, came from all shades of French opinion; from the Socialists, on the left, to Action Francaise, on the right. For some time the exact political complexion of the new regime was in a state of flux; so Petain stood all the higher as the one constant, a representative of 'nation' rather than 'party.' The enemies of the new realities were to call supporters of Petain 'collaborators', 'fascists' and 'reactionaries'. Collectively, however, the only title they adopted themselves was 'Petainists' or 'Marechalistes.' Petain attracted the kind of mass reverance formally accorded to kings. Busts and portraits of him replaced Marianne, the symbol of Revolution and Republic, across France. The crucial point here is that in the crisis of 1940 Petain was all things to all people; he was an image, it might be said, without substance. His national halo could only remain as long as he remained inactive, and for as long as he remained in silence.

Bit by bit the saintly image of the national saviour began to tarnish and decay, as the nature of the Vichy state became more apparent. It was not a regime of all France, but a regime of the right, confirmed when the leading representative of the pre-war Polpular Front government were put on trial in 1941. Furthermore, pro-German statements issued from Vichy also lost the government support, as did the forced deportations of French workers across the Rhine. To some degree the burden of unpopularity was carried by Pierre Laval, Petain's Prime Minister, but the Marshal could not escape culpability altogether. The very best that could now be said of him was that he himself was a 'passive' victim. Jean Paillard, one of his most loyal supporters, wrote that after 1943 the Marshal was "a man of eight-five, almost alone and surrounded by young wolves with sharp teeth." In the end, a symbol first of resistance and then of salvation became little more than an embarrasing residue of an uncomfortable past. Even after his death he had supporters; but France had grown beyond the myth of the Marshall. Clio the Muse 01:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that your teacher wants you to discuss broader issues than Pétain's significance in the day-to-day operations of the government, which were mostly insignificant. The key to understanding his popularity (and thus his significance as a political symbol), at least early in the war, was that he promised (and was seen as a symbol of) a national renaissance and regain (renewal), sometimes called the National Revolution, after the humiliation of the Battle of France. Pétain himself blamed the defeat on the the national decline brought about by the individualism and decadence of the Third Republic, a view not shared by his countrymen. This is standard fascist twaddle (although the relation of Pétain and fascism is much more nuanced than this forum permits a discussion of). Travail, Famille, Patrie replaced the old republican Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité. (In many ways, Vichy was a standard government of the far-right. The Communists and Freemasons were outlawed, for example.)

Later, Pétain's political significance would be tied to the fortunes of the German war effort against the Allies, declining when the French got word of German military reversals in the Soviet Union and the Allied victories in the North African campaign. I'll let you work out the details for yourself, but the attentisme (the best English translation is "taking a wait-and-see approach") of occupied France should never be far from your mind. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Clio and ObiterDicta for your intelligent and highly informative answers. I have more Vichy questions below, and I would be grateful for your further assistance. Decline and fall 11:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese election system : what's wrong (Tokyo Block?)[edit]

Hello, as you can see, I like to inform myself about the election systems out there in the world. I was looking at the Japanese system here: Results of the Japanese general election, 2005. It says there is a fixed number of seats for each block, which are distributed using the D'Hondt method. Something seems to be wrong for the Tokyo Block. This handy site allowed me to execute the algorithm and to save it : [1]. Wikipedia says that LDP got seven seats, and SDP one. That applet tells me that LDP should have gotten eights seats, and SDP none. So what is going on here? Did SDP "steal" a seat or something :)? Many thanks,Evilbu 20:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From that article: In the proportional constituency, the LDP failed to submit a long enough list (perhaps electing more of their members from single-seat districts than expected), and thus did not receive one of the seats to which their vote total would have qualified them. This seat went to the SDP. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.This is embarrassing:(.Evilbu 20:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not as much as it was to the LDP! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps what Evilbu implied in his/er statement.martianlostinspace 23:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 31