Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 October 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< October 28 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 30 >
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.


October 29[edit]

Modern Princesses[edit]

Please tell me I'm sane and that there isn't a current British Princess called "Victoria Augusta Margharet Anne Mary Elizabeth Windsor." 138.192.140.113 01:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one, although (apart from the spelling of Margaret) it really isn't an impossible name at all. I can offer you the late Princess Alice Mary Victoria Augusta Pauline, Countess of Athlone, and also a bevy of European princesses Victoria Augusta, all of them no longer with us. (The first Victoria Augusta, by the way, was a Roman goddess.) Xn4 03:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not Margaret? Wrad 04:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Margaret is fine; I think it was the OP's "Margharet" that was considered unlikely. - Eron Talk 12:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All current British Princesses should appear on Line of succession to the British Throne. There aren't very many of them anymore. I only count five. And the requirements have been changed since some of the oldest of them got their titles so the number will probably stay small in the future. Rmhermen 15:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have the rules changed again since 1917? —Tamfang 21:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I figured the name itself may not have been impossible, but the person claiming it certainly was. I just needed some evidence to show everyone so they'd know it was a lie. 138.192.140.113 19:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for your sanity or lack thereof, we cannot provide psychiatric diagnoses here. You would need to talk to your doctor as a first step.  :) -- JackofOz 20:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the list at British princess. —Tamfang 21:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British House of Commons - Prime Minister Questions - Standing and Sitting[edit]

I was watching the British House of Commons Prime Minister questions on C-Span tonight, and whenever the Conservative Party Leader would stand to rebutt, ten or 20 people in the rows behind him would stand then sit. Then, when the P.M. would stand to rebutt, a different 10 or 20 people would stand then sit. What is the significance of that? Is it to show support? Are they required to stand so often? Or are they trying to ask questions? I read through the section on British House of Commons on Wikipedia, and also googled this question, but could not find an answer. I am curious to know the answer. Thank you. 72.178.31.119 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They want to make a point and stand to catch the Speaker's attention. They can only make their contribution when they are named by the Speaker. Clio the Muse 02:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC
But the order has already been selected? 128.54.77.51 19:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. Not during Question Time. Unless the UK practice is significantly different from the Australian experience. There are certain types of debate where the order of speakers for any one party is communicated to the Speaker, who then chooses to call them in that order whenever it's that party's turn. But Question Time is not a debate, it's a series of unrelated questions to the PM or his/her Ministers. (These questions are supposedly without notice, but advance notice is often given privately, particularly by government members; or the government "arranges" for one of its members to ask a "surprise" question, the answer to which the PM just happens to have a full brief on. We call these "Dorothy Dixers" over here, btw.) The only order, as I understand it, is that questions alternate between the government and non-government parties, to preserve the Speaker's appearance of impartiality. -- JackofOz 20:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those who ask questions are chosen well in advance by ballot, and if asked by the party whips will generally ask the question they give them. It is very, very rare for the Speaker to pick a party member not on the ballot, that has stood up to gain the Speaker's attention, to comment or question the PM. RHB - Talk 18:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your information. I did just google the string again and came on this Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister's_Questions which I didn't find the first time I was looking before I posted this question. Isn't Wikipedia awesome!

Impacts of the 23rd Amendment[edit]

How did the 23rd amendment of the constitution impact society? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.205.44 (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ask the Reference Desk to carry out your homework assignments. --Wetman 10:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article on the 23rd Amenedment has some good information and links you to more information. You can find it here Josborne2382 10:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the Twenty-third Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, or some other? —Tamfang 21:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II-Descent from William I[edit]

Under genealogic relationships, it is stated that QEII is the 14great granddaughter of Henry VI. In the biography of Henry VI of England, he had only one legal marriage to Anne Neville, and it is also stated that they had no children. So Henry VI, while indeed a relative of some description, cannot be a direct ancestor of QEII. Can someone correct this, please. Thanks, RButtemiller68.226.102.103 04:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to Descent_of_Elizabeth_II_from_William_I#Genealogical_Relationships_to_Elizabeth_II. You're right that there's a problem there (though you've given Henry VI the wife of Richard III). The correct relationship seems to be ½-15th Great-Uncle which would be ½-14th Great-Granduncle. - Nunh-huh 04:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Henry VI did have at least one child, Edward of Westminster who appears not to have had any children himself. Also remember that descent does not require a "legal" marriage. It's pure biology - and especially when royalty was involved the legality seemed to be flexible. Rmhermen 14:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nunh-huh and Rmhermen. The line ended with Edward, son of Henry VI, and indeed Edward was married to Anne Neville before she was married to Richard III. She was for a while at least, the daughter-in-law of Henry VI. Think Nunh-huh is right on target with the half 14th great grand uncle through the line of Catherine of France, mother of Henry VI by one marriage and grandmother of Henry VII by another. Docgoldfinger, formerly RButtemiller. Docgoldfinger68.226.102.103 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)68.226.102.103 16:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat unethical inquiry...[edit]

Does anybody know if it is against the law (united states) to write papers and sell them to college students? I imagine, obviously, the colleges would take ethical issues and likely expel the student if caught, but are there any legal or other ramifications for the author? Thanks in advance! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.86.67 (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been argued that this question requests legal advice. See the discussion at the reference desk talk page. Please keep answers and discussion here focused on the abstract question, "would it be illegal to...?", without offering the original poster legal advice as if he were planning to actually write papers and sell them to college students. Thank you. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would that be illegal? There are books for students, which are sold to them. What do you mean by a paper? And in general in principle anyone can sell anything to anyone else. Do you mean through unofficial channels, such as selling in the street? DirkvdM 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not illegal to plagiarize in any form. It is, of course, unethical, and if they are caught it will result in academic misconduct hearings (e.g. they will get kicked out of school). --24.147.86.187 14:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not vouching for this website, but it's worth noting that MyEssays felt it necessary to put up these legalese guidelines. --M@rēino 13:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the South (especially rural) dominate the American literary imagination?[edit]

I browsed the National Book Award and Pulitzer Prize fiction winners and finalists lists and found the South to be overrepresented. Considering America is over 3/4ths urban/suburban and almost 3/4ths non-Southern, can anyone explain the South's special role?

lots of issues | leave me a message 08:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The South is unique. Whereas rural Maine is a lot like rural Alaska or California, the rural South has quite a different feel, with different accents, customs, etc. I suppose this is the legacy of the Confederate States, from the Civil War era onward. StuRat 03:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate goals in Religion[edit]

I've been reading again the articles about the abrahamic religions and Hinduism looking for what was their stated ultimate goals. I could only find what could be called behaviour modification programs (ethics) in order for individuals to save their souls or equivalent. So is most religions ultimate goal to save the individuals once comes the end of time or have I missed something? (please could we limit the discussion to the stated goals thank you) Keria 10:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Christianity
  • Islam
  • Judaism
  • Hinduism
  • Other
Is the "end of time" even a doctrine of these religions? I know there is some stuff about it in Revelations in the Bible, but is it a key concept for Christianity in general? I thought quite a few Christians didn't take Revelations all that seriously. I'm not aware of "end of time" doctrines in Judaism or Islam (but am no expert). And isn't the cosmology of Hinduism cyclical rather than "ending"? Pfly 15:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the escatological idea of the judgment is primordial in Christianity as it is the basis to justify the obligation for individuals to behave according to the moral law as they will be judged on the basis of their actions (and thoughts?). In regard to Islam it seems pretty similar see here [[1]]. I don't know if the Jewish faith has an end of times concept. Keria 16:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Jewish eschatology. Yes, there is a Jewish concept of the end times, but I don't think Judaism has a "goal" centered around the end times like you can say Christianity does. I'm no rabbi, but I would guess the "goal" of Judaism is to serve God by fulfilling His mitzvot as laid out in the Torah. Note that fulfilling mitzvot (a word translated as both "commandments" and "good deeds") is not a means to an end but an end in itself, according to this Jewish theologian -- Mwalcoff 23:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ultimate goal of religion is to survive and spread. The promise of salvation is really a proximate goal for a relgion (while it may be ultimate for an individual). I think you will find that all traditional religions are death-centered as avoiding death is our most basic desire as living organisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diletante (talk • contribs) 16:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ultimate goal of nearly all religions is to insure that power remains in the hands of a small rich ruling class. Often this is composed of church leaders and sometimes the state. Religious doctrines themselves are adapted to serve this purpose best. --S.dedalus 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats just another proximate trick that religion uses to ensure its survival. State and church walk hand in hand because they both help each other to survive. -- Diletante 22:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Karl and Friedrich. I'm sure that's just the answer the original poster had in mind. -- Mwalcoff 23:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think my original post did directly address the OPs question. Maybe if I said salvation-centered instead of death-centered I wouldn't have been called a communist and cynic... -- Diletante 00:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the cynicism above, the stated goal of Christianity can be reasonably summed up as "making men right with God by means of Jesus". I'd say that's a close parallel with end-of-time soul-saving. My understanding of Judaism is that it's less focused on end-of-time heaven/hell judgement (Christianity and Judaism may be enlightening). Islam I understand to be akin to Christianity, replacing "by means of Jesus" with "by adhering to the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad". Hinduism... I'm not sure that a single agreed-upon "goal" exists. — Lomn 21:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles of Habsburg[edit]

I see from your page on Charles or Karl that there was an attempted restoration in Hungary in 1921. I'd love to find out some more about this. Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.15.240 (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All is revealed at Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1944). Xn4 00:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is an even more tailored discussion of this topic in Conflict between Charles I of Austria and Miklós Horthy! There are, I think, two essential points which worked against the restoration of Charles, two factors which effectively tied the hands of Admiral Horthy: the hostility of his own Hungarian National Army, on the one hand, and the hostility of the Little Entente, on the other. Horthy, a committed royalist, had only accepted the regency in 1920 on the understanding that it did not conflict with his duty to the royal house of Habsburg. However, during the Communist dictatorship of Bela Kun Horthy had bulit up a counter-revolutionary force in western Hungary, known as the Hungarian National Army, made up for the most part of younger officers, who blamed the old military and political elites for the loss of the war and for the revolution. The leading representative of this group was Gyula Gömbös, who organised the military resistance when Charles attempted to force the issue in October 1921 with his March on Budapest. After Charles' withdrew the Entente presented a note to the Hungarian government in November, effectively demanding that a Habsburg restoration be rejected for all time. Contrary to the wishes of the die-hard royalists, the National Assembly had little choice but to accept the ultimatum. So, Hungary would remain a monarchy without a king ruled by an admiral without a fleet. Clio the Muse 00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angels On a Pin[edit]

Did medieval theologians really debate this 'point'? Jan Zizka 12:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. See How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?. Algebraist 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cecil Adams takes it up over here. --Sean 14:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German field executions[edit]

During the First World War 351 British servicemen were shot for desertion and other offences. How does this compare with the Germans? 86.147.191.32 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only 48 in total, which is quite remarkable when one considers that the German Army was considerably bigger than the British. Indeed, German officers were of the view that discipline in the British Army was unusually harsh, an interesting reversal of the common perception. The reason for the different approach to discipline is not that hard to detect. The German Army long before 1914 was a national formation, recruited by selective conscription across all of the classes. The British Army, in contrast, was a regular force, generally recruited before the war from the the very bottom of the social hierarchy, people who had little economic alternative but to volunteer for military service. Although flogging and other such practices had been abolished in the nineteenth century by the Cardwell Reforms, in other respects the attitude by the command towards the ordinary soldiers had not changed that much since Wellington referred to them as the 'scum of the earth.' By 1916 Britain was in the process of creating a national army on the same basis as the Germans, though the system of military justice was not reflecting the changing realities. Clio the Muse 00:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's 48 from around 150 death sentences. The German Army fought long and hard in the First World War, but the great and the good seem to have thought that the British disciplinary model was in some ways better, and could even be improved upon. As a result, the German Army in the Second World War operated in a completely different fashion, one more commonly associated with the Red Army and the NKVD. There were over 15,000 executions (Bartov, Hitler's Army, p. 6; I believe this is a low estimate). In one division of the German army alone (12 I.D.), 68 death sentences were passed down between the outbreak of war and 30 June 1943 (Bartov, The Eastern Front, p. 28, table 1.7); it seems reasonable to conclude that more soldiers in a single division were executed during WWII than in the entire German Army in WWI. "The barbarisation of warfare" as Bartov says. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the sword in the stone[edit]

hi

i am having a debate with my father and i am trying to find out where King Arthur pulled the sword of Excalibur from the stone?

would be greatful if u could help

craig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.109.210 (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the links for more information. But you should know that the legends aren't clear if Arthur got one or two magical swords and which one was Excalibur - the one from the Lady of the Lake or the one from the stone. Rmhermen 15:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the sword in the stone wasn't Excalibur. Beekone 16:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it depends on where you get the information. Malory, for example, does call the sword in the stone Excalibur. It's not really possible to make absolute statements about a set of confused and often contradictory legends. Donald Hosek 22:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beekone means T. H. White's wonderful book The Sword in the Stone. Xn4 00:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everyone knows it's impossible to dislodge paper from stone. Once it's in there, it's in there, divine right or no. Beekone 13:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant to make reference to was the Sword of Britain, only I was in to much of a hurry to find where I'd originally read about it. "The Sword of Britain (the Sword in the Stone) - the sword of Magnus Maximus (Macsen Wledig), Aurelius Ambrosius, Uther, and Arthur consecutively." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beekone (talk • contribs) 13:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward VI, Mary I, Elizabeth I, relationship to Queen Elizabeth II, Descebt from William I[edit]

Edward is listed as a first cousin 12 times removed, while Mary and Elizabeth are both listed as first cousins 13 times removed. Is there a line through Jane Seymour that makes Edward a different relationship to the present Queen than were his half sisters, or is the table incorrect? Thanks--Docgoldfinger68.226.102.103 17:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The table is correct. Jane Seymour's parents, Sir John Seymour and Margaret née Wentworth, were 12G-Grandparents of Elizabeth II. Henry the VIII was a 13G-uncle, and both Catherine of Aragon (the mother of Mary), and Anne Boleyn (the mother of Elizabeth) were 13G-aunts. - Nunh-huh 17:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, you are good! Thanks Nunh-huh. Docgoldfinger68.226.102.103 02:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan[edit]

What is the significance of the number 108 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.19.113 (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read 108 (number)? Algebraist 18:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civilized War?[edit]

Is it true that the English Civil War (1642-1651) saw none of the inhumanity that accompanied the Thirty Years War In Europe? Thanks, Toni Lamont. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.184.13 (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in our article on the English Civil War, particularly regarding Ireland. It also depends on how you're defining the inhumanity of the Thirty Years War. Finally, in my experience, "is it true that something always..." and "is it true that something never..." are almost invariably false. — Lomn 21:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was there ever a humane war? Xn4 00:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there have been many civil wars, but for a humane war, how about the Toledo Strip War ? StuRat 00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a curious article about a war I must admit I hadn't heard of, but if you ask me it wasn't very humane for Two Stickney to stab Deputy Sheriff Joseph Wood with a pen knife. Xn4 01:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would be wonderful if that was the extent of the bloodshed in every war, wouldn't it ? (I'm from Michigan, where we say that we won the war and made Ohio take Toledo. :-) ) StuRat 04:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Cod War was pretty humane. 80.254.147.52 10:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...but hardly a war! Xn4 22:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may know where this notion is coming from; it is the old-fashioned Whiggish view of history, once favoured by the likes of G M Trevelyan. In his classic England Under the Stuarts he says that the Civil War was 'eminently humane', a war of principle, without malice or vindictiveness; a war without atrocities. Of course, it was nothing of the sort. It is true that it saw none of the large-scale horror of the Thirty Years War-and here I am thinking specifically of the Sack of Magdeburg-yet it has been estimated that around 2.8 per cent of the British population died as a result of the conflict, which compares with 2.2 per cent for the First World War. Prisoners of war died in their thousands, less because of deliberate cruelty and more because neither side had the apparatus or the means to deal with the problem of large numbers of captives; but they still died, usually of disease or starvation. The cruelties associated with the sack of Drogheda and the Wexford in Ireland were also matched in England, where Bolton and Leicester were sacked by the Royalists with much loss of civilian life. Cromwell allowed the slaughter of priests and women after the New Model Army stormed Basing House, and the massacre of Welsh camp followers after his victory at the Naseby. War by its nature is brutal. The Civil War was no exception. Clio the Muse 01:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Clio. And (as we've discussed before) the explanation given for the massacre of hundreds of Welshwomen after the Battle of Naseby was that they spoke no English, so they were taken for Irishwomen! So much for the humanity of the English civil war. Xn4 02:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rome HBO series[edit]

In one of the episodes Cesar is being prepared for burial and a woman gives his dead body her breast. It seems to be a kind of ritual. Does anyone know what it means?--85.180.14.93 18:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I do not remember that scene, and am not familiar with any Roman ritual concerning the breast-feeding of the dead! Are you sure it didn't just fall out!? Clio the Muse 01:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. A servant with exceptionally large breasts was taken to him for this purpose. I wondered about that too. Btw, it's a BBC/HBO coproduction. DirkvdM 08:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The episode in question is the first of the second series: Passover,On the "Inaccuracies and errors" part of the wikipedia page it says that Ceasar's private funeral ceremony is incorrect and that "instead, the mourning women smote their breasts, also as a rhythmic figure accompanying the dirges (neniae) sung by the praeficae" Lord Foppington 10:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy Hitler[edit]

Who was the economist, a figure of some significance in the early Nazi Party, who criticised Hitler for his irregular work habits?86.147.184.13 20:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was Gottfried Feder, who wrote the letter in the early 1920s, in the period before the Munich Putsch, taking issue with the Führer's Bohemian lifestyle and slovenly attitudes towards work. Feder, an economist of sorts, coined the phrase 'the slavery of interest', and was an important influence in the early days of the party. His significance began to decline over the years, and he occupied only a junior ministerial position in the Third Reich. Details of the letter can be found in Gottfried Feder Calls Hitler to Order: An Unpublished Letter on Nazi Party Affairs by O. J. Hale in The Journal of Modern History, vol. 30, no. 4, December 1958, pp. 358-62. Clio the Muse 23:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sun King[edit]

Why King Louis XIV is called "Sun King"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.134.190 (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He chose the image of the Sun, or Apollo, as his personal emblem. Clio the Muse 23:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Louis XIV habillé en soleil.jpg shows him dressed as the 17th century idea of Apollo. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the aspects of the sun that he felt himself to embody were its brilliance and the way everything else revolved about it. 62.30.217.57 15:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot recall where, but I read that he played the part of the Sun in La ballet de la nuit in 1653 as a teenager.Polypipe Wrangler 10:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_October_29&oldid=1138600647"