Humanities desk
< June 17	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 19 >

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.

June 18[edit]

Tamil[edit]

Which states of Sri Lanka speak Tamil the most?

You might want to ask this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka. Corvus cornix 02:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Tamil language states that it was the first language of the majority in the North Eastern Province (since split into the Northern Province and the Eastern Province.) You might also be interested in the figures for population by district and ethnic group from the 1981 and 2001 censuses from the Sri Lankan Department of Census and Statistics.—eric 04:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have we no map of the territory claimed by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam? The map I occasionally see in magazines shows a strip along the north and east coasts. —Tamfang 09:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The area claimed by the Liberation Tigers is not necessarily the same as the area where Tamil is the prevailing language. The Tigers claim some areas that have mixed populations, including some where Sinhalese is probably more popular. Marco polo 14:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if you use the Sri Lanka Census data, the Sri Lankan government distinguishes between "Sri Lankan" and "Indian" Tamils, a distinction that is rejected by many Tamils in Sri Lanka, and that both groups speak Tamil. Also, members of the group known as Sri Lankan Moors generall speak a form of Tamil as their first language. To find what part of the population of a given district speaks Tamil, you will need to add the figures for these three groups. Marco polo 19:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signe Lund-Skabo[edit]

I have a book with different classical pieces of music for solo piano by various composers that I play from occasionally. There is one prelude that I have started playing. The prelude is by a composer named "Signe Lund-Skabo". I like the piece a lot, so I decided to do some research on this composer. However, I can hardly find any information on the man. Does anyone know anything about this elusive composer? Stevearius 00:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about translating her piano work into midi format so that we can all hear it please? 80.0.98.213 18:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signe is a female name. I've never heard of her, none of the music reference books I have access to make any mention of her, and I can find precious little about her on Google, but here a few things that might bear out further research:

This site refers to the composer as “den norske komponistinnen Signe Lund Skabo”, which my almost non-existent Norwegian tells me she was a woman. This is confirmed by --

this, which seems to be a mini-biography of her in Norwegian, including a picture of her portrait.

Unfortunately all it tells is how she came to buy the largest house in the town of Loshavn, including some quotes from her autobiography. The entire site is focused on the history of the town. Regardless, there doesn't seem to be any better internet source on her. 84.239.133.38 18:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This tells us she lived 1868-1950, and lists a handful of her works.

This article on the (presumably) Norwegian Wikipedia is a list of pieces played by Kjell Baekellund includes “Skumring” by Lund-Skabo.

This gives some detail of one of her songs. -- JackofOz 02:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Norwegian musician. Signe Lund was my grandfather's cousin. She lived in Norway, France, US, and back in Norway again. I have read her autobiography in Norwegian, it only covers the first half of her life. She was thrown out of an American university for being communist - and then, a couple of decades later - she was thrown out of the Norwegian Composers' associacion for being nazi. Controversial womanjonHL I have an old sheet music of Sidne Lund. Meditation Op 49 No. 1, on it is listed the following compositions also by her. Ballade in E Minor Op.37 No. 5 Concert Etude Op. 38 Legende Op. 16 No.1 The sheet music had the following publishing info: Chicago Clayton F. Summy Co. A Weekes & Co. London Eng

Area of Behavioral Science[edit]

I really love what you are doing on this site, though am new in this site but i've been able to solve some of my problems. keep up the good work and more power to your elbow.

Please can you assist me by sending me an answer or a site that can find a solution to this question THE WAY THINGS LOOK MIGHT NOT BE THE WAY THINGS ARE, what area of Behavioral science best describe or explain the statement. Mabel

Unless you are looking for optical illusions, you might try phenomenology. No doubt other people will be along with a few more ideas...--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Just to clarify, which specific aspect(s) of Behavioral science do you consider relevant? Are you also considering solutions from Cognitive psychology? dr.ef.tymac 13:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to me like an issue that's relevant to Behavioral Science at all. I'd start with Rene Descartes' method of systematic doubt, and George Berkeley's argument from perceptual relativity. Llamabr 14:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are also the notions of hallucination (not really studied in Behavioral Science) and deception (more like it). Wrong assumptions based upon false appearances play a role in decision making, as they can contribute to cognitive biases. It might help to focus more if you could give an example of what you have in mind by way of something not looking the way it is. Are you thinking more of a cheese sandwich looking like the Virgin Mary, or of Enron looking like a respectable and thriving company? --Lambiam ^Talk 16:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The short "solution" is that we never actually know how things are, we only ever know how they look, feel, taste, smell or sound. From that, we deduce how they "are", but there's never any guarantee that one's deduction is accurate, because there's nothing we can measure it against. Except, of course, other people's deductions, which are equally hamstrung. So what we have is that all of so-called "reality" is at best a matter of common agreement, not necessarily of actuality. -- JackofOz 22:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the matter? Never mind. What's to mind? Never matter. Clio the Muse 00:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see perception. StuRat 02:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon in the Hundred Years War[edit]

I'm starting work for a paper on the use of cannon in the Hundred Years War. I've found some information in this encyclopedia, though not a lot. Does anyone have any more details? Bryson Bill 10:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you've found our articles on the Battle of Crécy and the Battle of Castillon, but if not, both are relevant. Hopefully our real history expert will be with you shortly. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the arsenal of hell came the gun, soon to make such an impact on popular consciousness that Geoffery Chaucer was able to write in the fourteenth century that foul words were spread "as swift as a pelet out of a gonne, when fyr is in the poudre ronne." In 1326, Prince Edward, soon to be king of England, was first made aware of the use of guns in warfare in a manuscript presented to him by one Walter de Milimete. He was quick to appreciate the potential of the new weapon, though at this stage of their development they were "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Even so, several years later, now as King Edward III, he purchased several firearms, probably of Florentine make. These are mentioned in a 1339 Tower of London inventory: "Also, in the Chamber of the Guildhall, there are six instruments, of latone, usually called 'gonnes, and five rolares to the same. Also pellets of lead for the same instruments, which weigh four hundredweight and a half. Also, 32 pounds of powder for the said instruments."

While we cannot be absolutely sure, it is possible that English firearms first saw action in the Hundred Years' War in 1340 at the Battle of Sluys, because the royal cog, Christopher, is said to have been armed with guns-possibly the latten from the Tower-as well as longbows. Edward most certainly deployed, and used, some of his guns at Crecy in 1346. As the war progressed the guns was to become increasingly significant, especially as a siege weapon. Experimentation led to the development, amongst other things, of the mortar, a short, fat gun capable of firing balls at a high trajectory over walls. Other specialised weapons were introduced, including the long and thin culverins. However, in the long run, it was the French, not the English, who obtained the greatest advantage from the new technology. It was they who were the first to make effective use of firepower in pitched battle, beginning with Formigny in April 1450, where culverins broke-up the hitherto indomitable English longbowmen. Field artillery were also responsible for the final French victory at Castllion three years later. The gun was an unorthodox weapon, best used, as the French discovered, in an unorthodox fashion. Clio the Muse 22:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I note that the Germans at Tannenberg used cannon to a significant extent -- and the Hussites in the Hussite Wars much more successfully -- before Formigny. 70.16.4.233 04:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the Chinese well before either of these. But you will note that the question is about the use of cannon in the Hundred Years' War. Clio the Muse 04:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was merely commenting on your comment that the French were the first to make effective use of firepower in pitched battle (which the Chinese did not do to any great extent at all). 70.16.4.233 04:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leninism[edit]

How is Dictatorship of the proletariat different from Totalitarianism?
Zain Ebrahim 15:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See proletariat. Arguably, this is "dictatorship by the people," which is no dictatorship at all. It is the idea that all of the people together will have the dictator's powers, with no professional class of politician or capital owners at all intervening. If it were to occur, there would be no one oppressed, because all would be the corporate body of the dictator. Totalitarianism is personalized control of a state apparatus (meaning loads of bureaucracy and management as a professional class) that is the opposite of the dream of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Utgard Loki 16:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dictatorship of the proletariat is a more immediately relevant article. One should distinguish between the somewhat vague concept as developed in original Marxist theory, and Lenin's conception of it, in which the Bolshevik party kindly "assists" the working class by imposing this dictatorship on its behalf – we know how that turned out. On the other hand, Bakunin, in his criticism of Marxism, had warned from the start that the dictatorship of the proletariat would turn into oppression: "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself." --Lambiam ^Talk 21:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Lambiam quite rightly says, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is possibly one of the least well-defined concepts in the whole of the Marxist canon. In terms of concrete political practice this was to have a particularly serious impact, because it is also one of the most central.

The root cause of the problem is that Karl Marx himself wrote far more about Capitalism than he ever did about Communism. The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is mentioned for the first time in rather vague terms in a letter of 1852, where he suggests that it will 'emerge' as the outcome of the ongoing class sruggle. It was to take another twenty years before it had a second outing, this time in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, where Marx made essentially the same vague pronouncement: "...between capitalist and communist society lies the period of revolutionary transformation...Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." The problem this presented for those who followed was simply this: in what fashion or manner would this coercive use of political power lead to the second great element of Marxist eschatology-the 'withering away' of the state?

This core problem was to lead to some incredible intellectual contortions, with Karl Kautsky, the leading German Marxist thinker at the beginning of the twentieth century, suggesting that it simply meant 'majority rule', since the proletariat were the 'majority' of the people in advanced industrial societies. But the man who came closest to the truth was another German socialist, Edouard Bernstein, who argued that Marx had derived the concept from Auguste Blanqui, who in turn was looking back to the forms of dictatorship established during the First French Republic by Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety, which, in turn, harked back to the forms of emergency dictatorship established during the time of the ancient Roman Republic.

So, the concept, regardless of the setting, always had authoritarian roots. The best that can be said of it is that, in the manner of Kautsky, in advanced capitalist societies the dictatorship of the proletariat would replace the 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie', achieving a higher form, in other words, of popular democracy. But what about less advanced societies like Russia, with an active Marxist intelligentsia and a relatively small urban working-class? We are now in the world of Leninism, of 'substitutionism', if you like, where the revolutionary vanguard stands in the place of the revolutionary worker.

For Lenin and his Bolshevik Party the working-class, left to its own devices, was only capable of lower forms of consciousness, usually centering around trade union struggles. The Russian Revolution of 1905 and 1917 might, indeed, be said to have established in the Soviets nascent forms of direct democracy, in contrast with 'bourgeois' parliamentary instituitions, like the Duma and the later Constituent Assembly. But the Bolsheviks, in pursuit of their own revolutionary doctrines, were quick to seize complete control of the Soviets, removing all rival voices in the working-class movement, Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks alike. In the end the Soviets were no more than auxilary agencies of the state, and the dictatorship of the proletariat no more than the outright dictatorship of the Communist Party; and the dictatorship of the Communist Party the dictatorship of one man. Bakunin-and Bernstein-were both absolutely correct. Clio the Muse 00:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very enlightening responses. Thank you. I totally misunderstood the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat. Although, practically speaking, I probably wasn't that far off. I'll read over the links you guys provided and I'll be sure to come back here after more misunderstandings.
Zain Ebrahim 13:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The unexamined life[edit]

"The unexamined life is not worth living." To whom is this quote attributed? Can you provide me with a source? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 17:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The unexamined life is not fit for human living—Socrates, in Plato's The Apology of Socrates.—eric 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your future information, just typing "The unexamined life is not worth living" into Google will give you the answer. --TotoBaggins 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! (JosephASpadaro 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)[edit]

Hello. I would like to know how many members European Coal and Steel Community includes now? I know that ECSC was founded in 1951 by France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands and the organization subsequently expanded to include all members of the European Economic Community. If ECSC still exists? If yes, How many members it includes now? Thanking you in anticipation.

It doesn't. See European_Coal_and_Steel_Community. 84.239.133.38 18:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaul/De Gaulle[edit]

Is there any relation between the names of Gaul and Charles de Gaulle? Or is it just a coincidence that France's strongest modern leader shared a name similar to his country's? 209.190.233.66 17:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a neat coincidence; "de Gaulle" is actually a corruption of the German name "De Walle"; see French name. Laïka 17:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love those sort of historical coincidences! If only there was a book of them... 66.112.244.146 03:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish[reply]

The web is full of them, eg. [1], which on a very quick scan I see contains a fair bit of rubbish, but it might also have some gems of interest. -- JackofOz 05:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo and Juliet Themes and Motifs[edit]

Are there any themes and motifs for Romeo and Juliet that virtually every literary expert would agree with? Are there any that are disputed or have various interpretations? If so, can you point me to a source so that I can make some progress on Romeo and Juliet?--Romeo in love 17:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tragedy dominated by the twin themes of love and hate: I imagine that just about every critic would agree on that. I cannot really say more, other than suggest that you try a google search for critical interpretations of the play. Perhaps you might find something of value in William Hazlitt's little essay on Romeo and Juliet in Character's of Shakespeare's Plays? He says that Romeo is Hamlet in love, arguably the most perceptive judgement of all. Clio the Muse 01:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tragedy of hastiness.--Wetman 04:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted, you could point out how this play - shown to the general public - depicted lords and ladies going through terrible tragedies that end in death. Apparently, the public of the time enjoyed watching the higher class people suffer. I wonder if any comparison could be made to modern people. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd comment on that, but am too busy watching Paris Hilton suffer in jail. (That's even more fun than when Martha Stewart was locked up.) StuRat 02:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such references are now the official 21st-century counterpart of Godwin's Law. -- JackofOz 02:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we need a meta-Godwin's Law: "Any sufficiently long discussion will inevitably result in a mention of Godwin's Law". :-) StuRat 04:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Union[edit]

Hello, What structures does European Union have? Thanks.

Quite a lot, if by 'structures' you mean 'institutions'. The primary ones are the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Council, and there's also a European Court of Justice to interpret EU law. Take a look at the main Institutions of the European Union article. Random Nonsense 21:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]