Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 July 6
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < July 5 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 7 > |
| 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 6[edit]
Rankings of British Monarchs[edit]
So the other day, I was reading an article on the BBC's website about James Buchanan's legacy as one of the worst presidents -- he's usually at or near the bottom of most lists. Curious about that, I looked it up online and found our article Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States and the similar Historical rankings of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. I was wondering if there are similar lists (either on Wiki or not) of British monarchs. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Here's the BBC panel's top three in various categories (although the same three are listed in the same order in all of them). And here's Andrew Roberts' (presumably this chap) list of the bottom ten. Amusingly enough, one of Roberts' choices is also in the BBC list. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- That page is not a ranking, but a listing of arguments for the importance of the three contenders according to several criteria. Since it's a listing of positives, some of Henry VIII's strikingly negative personal characteristics (especially later in his reign) which got him onto that worst list go unmentioned... AnonMoos (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Here's one by a website named "Rankopedia", so give it whatever credence you may, but it gives the top 5 as Elizabeth I, Henry V, Victoria, Alfred the Great, and Edward III and the bottom five as Canute, Charles II, George V, Henry II, and Edward IV. This list by the BBC has the top 3 as Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and Victoria, but doesn't rank beyond that. This site has a "top ten" which begins Henry II, Elizabeth I, Henry VIII, and Victoria. This list by the Daily Mail of the worst monarchs includes Henry VIII (he's a polarizing figure who seems to show up on both ends of many of these lists), Stephen, Mary I, George IV and Edward VIII. This list of the worst by the BBC includes Edward II, Mary Queen of Scots (considering both England and Scotland as predecessor states to the modern UK, which is a good way to do it), and George IV. If anyone asked me, I'd have to put (in no particular order) Elizabeth I, Victoria, Henry II, all near the top, with John, Stephen (having no successor take your name is usually a bad sign), Richard II, Henry III, and Richard III near the bottom (having widespread rebellion and/or being deposed or imprisoned during your reign is a sign things aren't going well). --Jayron32 03:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure why Canute is one of the worst -- he was successful in his goal of incorporating England into a Scandinavian-based empire in a way that hasn't been done before or since. AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah that list gets a little suspect near the bottom. George V is also not usually thought of as a particularly bad monarch, while usually despised monarchs like John, Stephen, etc. get off rather lightly on that particular list. All of these always carry a YMMV disclaimer. --Jayron32 03:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- "Rankopedia" appears to merely arrange the list according to the votes of anyone who turns up. So far only 27 people have voted. I guess Canute is there because some arbitrary ignoramuses vaguely remembered that he tried to stop the tide. Also, their picture of Henry II depicts Henry II of France. How he and Edward IV can be at the bottom of the list when both their hopeless predecessors get off scot free is a mystery that only the "27" can answer. Paul B (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah that list gets a little suspect near the bottom. George V is also not usually thought of as a particularly bad monarch, while usually despised monarchs like John, Stephen, etc. get off rather lightly on that particular list. All of these always carry a YMMV disclaimer. --Jayron32 03:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure why Canute is one of the worst -- he was successful in his goal of incorporating England into a Scandinavian-based empire in a way that hasn't been done before or since. AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Reading the three-way arguments in favor of Henry, Elizabeth and Victoria, I see repeated mention of praise of establishing Protestantism in England. Yet theologically neither of the Tudors embraced Calvinism or even Lutheranism; they simply opposed papal supremacy (no more than JFK) and Victoria reigned while Catholics were re-enfranchised. Nowadays the CoE is moribund, while conversion to Catholicism has been the trend amongst believers since the mid-1800's. What, exactly explains the glorification of Tudor "Protestantism" other than as a political resistance of the powerful non-Protestant France and Spain? μηδείς (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Don't be rude to the CofE please; "Moribund" is overstating the case. The fact that Anglicans think that the founding of Anglicanism is a good thing shouldn't be surprising, and that Anglicanism isn't Calvinism is self-evident. Alansplodge (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Medeis, I have no idea if your comment on the two religious groups is correct or not but I would point out that without a reference it is your opinion. And two sections earlier you stated that "we are not allowed to give opinions". CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not that I agree with μηδείς on the substance, but your logic is faulty. "There are infinitely many prime numbers" is a fact, even if I don't reference it to Euclid. A fact does not cease to be a fact because it is not sourced. It may make it easier to dismiss it as "only an opinion", but again, that dismissal has no bearing on the actual state of the statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- First, I have asked a question. I am not arguing for a claim. I want to know if these authors are saying the Tudors were important because the advent of the Church of England was important, or if they are arguing they were good because the advent of Protestantism was good. My understanding is that most people view Henry's split as cynical and politically motivated, and view Elizabeth's attempt at an accommodation ("no windows into men's souls") as her best attribute, not her mere protestantism. Second, moribund is not an insult--it's a fact. The Church of England now has less than 2% weekly attendance, halved in the last 50 years, while Catholic affiliation has almost doubled over the last hundred. This is not even to mention non-belief and Islam and other sects. So my question stands. Are the BBC authors reflecting a widespread opinion in England that the Tudors were good or important because of their role in protestant history? If so, is that a theological viewpoint? A nationalist one? An Objective one based on national interest or human rights? μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any great emphasis on the Church of England in the BBC website. It's referred to a few times, yes, but is given no more prominance than cultural, military and administrative achievements. For the most part it seems to be mentioned because it's significant in creating the culture England/Britain as we understand it. Henry and Elizabeth are important because they essentially founded the "English State" of the modern era. Victoria creates a modern "symbolic" monarchy. However, I don't think it essentially matters whether or not the C of E is currently "moribund" as a religion. Essentially it represents the subordination of the church to the state, which, one could argue, is a major step towards de facto secularisation. However one understands it, it's a major development. The British Empire is also "moribund", but that does not alter its world-changing historical significance. Paul B (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- But Medeis's question is, is the ranking in terms of "important", or in terms of "good"? There's no question that Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were extremely important, but by my lights they were both tyrants. (BTW the rankings of US presidents tend to suffer from a bias in favor of activism, which to my mind is generally a bad trait in a president; something similar might be going on here.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- If we are still talking about the BBC pages, the historians quoted do seem to oscillate between "important" and "good" arguments - which I think is mainly because they are equating "important" with "making Britain (or England) a major and influential nation", which is "good" for Britain: and thus the Big Three are "great" monarchs. They certainly don't mean good in the sense of "virtuous". Whether Protestantism is or is not good as such (or "theologically") is obviously another matter altogether, but the language used by the historians quoted certainly seems to imply that they think it was good for Britain. Paul B (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Trovatore is reading me correctly. Also, note that Victoria is praised by the same authorities, but her liberalization of the treatment of Catholics contradicts with Henry's split and Elizabeth's solidification of Protestant rule. I guess I'll have to settle for the fact that the BBC rankings were basically top-ten type lists in a pop-forum. You do run into the same problem with presidents. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Richard Nixon are rightly considered highly important, even great presidents, but none of them was, in my opinion, a good president. On the reverse, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland and Howard Taft were very good presidents but rarely considered important or "great" in the way even Nixon could be. μηδείς (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Huh. Usually Abraham Lincoln is considered to be a president who's status is ambiguous. — Melab±1 ☎ 04:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Trovatore is reading me correctly. Also, note that Victoria is praised by the same authorities, but her liberalization of the treatment of Catholics contradicts with Henry's split and Elizabeth's solidification of Protestant rule. I guess I'll have to settle for the fact that the BBC rankings were basically top-ten type lists in a pop-forum. You do run into the same problem with presidents. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Richard Nixon are rightly considered highly important, even great presidents, but none of them was, in my opinion, a good president. On the reverse, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland and Howard Taft were very good presidents but rarely considered important or "great" in the way even Nixon could be. μηδείς (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- If we are still talking about the BBC pages, the historians quoted do seem to oscillate between "important" and "good" arguments - which I think is mainly because they are equating "important" with "making Britain (or England) a major and influential nation", which is "good" for Britain: and thus the Big Three are "great" monarchs. They certainly don't mean good in the sense of "virtuous". Whether Protestantism is or is not good as such (or "theologically") is obviously another matter altogether, but the language used by the historians quoted certainly seems to imply that they think it was good for Britain. Paul B (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- But Medeis's question is, is the ranking in terms of "important", or in terms of "good"? There's no question that Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were extremely important, but by my lights they were both tyrants. (BTW the rankings of US presidents tend to suffer from a bias in favor of activism, which to my mind is generally a bad trait in a president; something similar might be going on here.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any great emphasis on the Church of England in the BBC website. It's referred to a few times, yes, but is given no more prominance than cultural, military and administrative achievements. For the most part it seems to be mentioned because it's significant in creating the culture England/Britain as we understand it. Henry and Elizabeth are important because they essentially founded the "English State" of the modern era. Victoria creates a modern "symbolic" monarchy. However, I don't think it essentially matters whether or not the C of E is currently "moribund" as a religion. Essentially it represents the subordination of the church to the state, which, one could argue, is a major step towards de facto secularisation. However one understands it, it's a major development. The British Empire is also "moribund", but that does not alter its world-changing historical significance. Paul B (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- First, I have asked a question. I am not arguing for a claim. I want to know if these authors are saying the Tudors were important because the advent of the Church of England was important, or if they are arguing they were good because the advent of Protestantism was good. My understanding is that most people view Henry's split as cynical and politically motivated, and view Elizabeth's attempt at an accommodation ("no windows into men's souls") as her best attribute, not her mere protestantism. Second, moribund is not an insult--it's a fact. The Church of England now has less than 2% weekly attendance, halved in the last 50 years, while Catholic affiliation has almost doubled over the last hundred. This is not even to mention non-belief and Islam and other sects. So my question stands. Are the BBC authors reflecting a widespread opinion in England that the Tudors were good or important because of their role in protestant history? If so, is that a theological viewpoint? A nationalist one? An Objective one based on national interest or human rights? μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not that I agree with μηδείς on the substance, but your logic is faulty. "There are infinitely many prime numbers" is a fact, even if I don't reference it to Euclid. A fact does not cease to be a fact because it is not sourced. It may make it easier to dismiss it as "only an opinion", but again, that dismissal has no bearing on the actual state of the statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Medeis, I have no idea if your comment on the two religious groups is correct or not but I would point out that without a reference it is your opinion. And two sections earlier you stated that "we are not allowed to give opinions". CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Don't be rude to the CofE please; "Moribund" is overstating the case. The fact that Anglicans think that the founding of Anglicanism is a good thing shouldn't be surprising, and that Anglicanism isn't Calvinism is self-evident. Alansplodge (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Surely such a ranking would depend on your point of view. A republican might put Charles I at the top of his "worst" list, or a Northern Irish Catholic might put William III (William of Orange) at the top of his "worst" list. Are there any objective criteria for such a ranking? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- The BBC article on US presidents here, incidentally, does have a fairly "objective" list, ranking presidents by "Peace, Prosperity and Liberty", which puts Tyler (!) at the top and Polk (!!) at the bottom (well, ahead of Dubya, but that's a given). I'm sure it would be possible to put together a similar assessment of English/UK monarchs - as a non-historian, I wouldn't be surprised if Edward VII were at the top and George V at the bottom. Would it be impermissible speculation if our resident historians were to opine on this question? Tevildo (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- (Not a historian but) I like Edward VIII. Sure, his politics were a little dodgy, but he didn't really do anything about them. And it's true that he didn't know how to do anything after abdication except be a useless aristocrat, but was that his fault? What else had he ever been taught? I like him for looking at the whole deal (give up your personal life to serve the nation; in exchange we'll make it extremely comfortable) and saying, nah. --Trovatore (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, I don't know about that. Apart from the abdication speech, his most famous quote is "Something must be done" [about the poverty of the Welsh miners] - he was heading for a greater involvment in politics than one expects from a 20th-century king, and (as you point out) his other political views were decidedly out of step with modern ideals of social justice. But, it's true, he didn't have time to do any actual damage, and he _did_ show us how to tie a tie properly. Tevildo (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- From "something must be done", people assume he was going to meddle outside his accepted responsibilities? I think that's a lot of stew from one oyster. But it's a good example of one reason that I don't like the monarchy. These people are born into a very unnatural role where they have to be more symbols than persons, a gilded cage with unlimited creature comforts but without the basic liberties the rest of us take for granted. Not too many of them have the guts to call bullshit on the whole thing. Edward perhaps did not demonstrate exceptional courage in any other aspect of his life, but at least he got that one right, at least that one time. --Trovatore (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Are you saying that the only good monarchs are those who choose, well, not to be monarchs? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 02:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty much. --Trovatore (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think the verdict of history is dead against you. Edward VIII is the only British monarch to have voluntarily abdicated (the other 2 were either forced to or deemed to have done so), yet he's been the target of more derision and contempt than almost any other monarch, for things like his avowed admiration of Hitler, not to mention the abdication itself. Even his own father had no time for his lack of character, and predicted his reign would come to a sticky end within a year (it took only 10 and a half months). I am much more impressed by someone like Elizabeth II, who made a public vow on her 21st birthday that when she became queen she would serve her people for her entire life, whether it be long or short. And she's done exactly that. In 60 years, not one breath of personal scandal has ever been forthcoming, in stark contrast to the disastrous personal lives of three of her four children, the regular shocking faux pas of her husband, and the disgusting lack of loyalty exhibited by certain of her staff members who have published their memoirs of palace life, contrary to their duty to maintain such confidences to their graves. I am certainly a republican, but if we have to have a Queen of Australia for now, I would take Elizabeth over anyone else you could name. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 06:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I have nothing against her. Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl, as The Beatles said, and she has played the hand she was dealt. But I would have even more admiration for her if she'd forthrightly said it was a crummy hand and she hadn't joined the game voluntarily in the first place, and she was going to go find a way to be happy on her own. --Trovatore (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- But see, you're imposing your attitude to the monarchy onto her, and she clearly does not share it. Whatever her private opinion of the hand fate dealt her may be - and we'll never know - she has embraced whole-heartedly what she perceives to be her duty. Not that being born a queen is like being a Nazi concentration camp inmate, but Viktor Frankl (who wrote Man's Search for Meaning) would have tipped his hat at the way she has actively chosen the life that she had no say about, and lived it to the fullest, rather than spending her life resenting that her childhood dream of becoming a landscape painter or a Shakespearean actress or a champion jockey, or whatever, was denied her. Where is your evidence that her decision has caused her not to be happy? She does a damn fine job of impersonating a happy old lady if she's really miserable. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 08:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not saying she's miserable. She's not free. My highest admiration is reserved for people who go seek their happiness-slash-meaning as radically free persons, while always being careful of their effect on others. Now, you could be right; maybe she is free after all, the way Sisyphus is in Camus's famous essay, but on the surface, giving speeches that other people write for you is not very obviously consonant with that. --Trovatore (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- On the surface, I agree, it's not. But it goes deeper than the mere surface. In the Westminster system, it is vitally important that the monarch always be above politics, and always be seen to be so. This method of reading a speech prepared by her government for her to read is one of the ways this is demonstrated. She's entitled to her private thoughts about politicians and their doings, but there's no place for the public expression of them. One might say that that is proof positive of her lack of personal freedom. Or, one might consider that she knew this full well before she ever became queen, and chose it anyway. All of us who consider ourselves "free" still experience certain lacks of freedom. But the queen, for all the restrictions her role places on her, has at least three rights that nobody else has - to be consulted by the government about its proposed policies; to warn; and to encourage. So, for every swing there is a roundabout. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 09:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not saying she's miserable. She's not free. My highest admiration is reserved for people who go seek their happiness-slash-meaning as radically free persons, while always being careful of their effect on others. Now, you could be right; maybe she is free after all, the way Sisyphus is in Camus's famous essay, but on the surface, giving speeches that other people write for you is not very obviously consonant with that. --Trovatore (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- But see, you're imposing your attitude to the monarchy onto her, and she clearly does not share it. Whatever her private opinion of the hand fate dealt her may be - and we'll never know - she has embraced whole-heartedly what she perceives to be her duty. Not that being born a queen is like being a Nazi concentration camp inmate, but Viktor Frankl (who wrote Man's Search for Meaning) would have tipped his hat at the way she has actively chosen the life that she had no say about, and lived it to the fullest, rather than spending her life resenting that her childhood dream of becoming a landscape painter or a Shakespearean actress or a champion jockey, or whatever, was denied her. Where is your evidence that her decision has caused her not to be happy? She does a damn fine job of impersonating a happy old lady if she's really miserable. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 08:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I have nothing against her. Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl, as The Beatles said, and she has played the hand she was dealt. But I would have even more admiration for her if she'd forthrightly said it was a crummy hand and she hadn't joined the game voluntarily in the first place, and she was going to go find a way to be happy on her own. --Trovatore (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think the verdict of history is dead against you. Edward VIII is the only British monarch to have voluntarily abdicated (the other 2 were either forced to or deemed to have done so), yet he's been the target of more derision and contempt than almost any other monarch, for things like his avowed admiration of Hitler, not to mention the abdication itself. Even his own father had no time for his lack of character, and predicted his reign would come to a sticky end within a year (it took only 10 and a half months). I am much more impressed by someone like Elizabeth II, who made a public vow on her 21st birthday that when she became queen she would serve her people for her entire life, whether it be long or short. And she's done exactly that. In 60 years, not one breath of personal scandal has ever been forthcoming, in stark contrast to the disastrous personal lives of three of her four children, the regular shocking faux pas of her husband, and the disgusting lack of loyalty exhibited by certain of her staff members who have published their memoirs of palace life, contrary to their duty to maintain such confidences to their graves. I am certainly a republican, but if we have to have a Queen of Australia for now, I would take Elizabeth over anyone else you could name. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 06:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty much. --Trovatore (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Are you saying that the only good monarchs are those who choose, well, not to be monarchs? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 02:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- From "something must be done", people assume he was going to meddle outside his accepted responsibilities? I think that's a lot of stew from one oyster. But it's a good example of one reason that I don't like the monarchy. These people are born into a very unnatural role where they have to be more symbols than persons, a gilded cage with unlimited creature comforts but without the basic liberties the rest of us take for granted. Not too many of them have the guts to call bullshit on the whole thing. Edward perhaps did not demonstrate exceptional courage in any other aspect of his life, but at least he got that one right, at least that one time. --Trovatore (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, I don't know about that. Apart from the abdication speech, his most famous quote is "Something must be done" [about the poverty of the Welsh miners] - he was heading for a greater involvment in politics than one expects from a 20th-century king, and (as you point out) his other political views were decidedly out of step with modern ideals of social justice. But, it's true, he didn't have time to do any actual damage, and he _did_ show us how to tie a tie properly. Tevildo (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- (Not a historian but) I like Edward VIII. Sure, his politics were a little dodgy, but he didn't really do anything about them. And it's true that he didn't know how to do anything after abdication except be a useless aristocrat, but was that his fault? What else had he ever been taught? I like him for looking at the whole deal (give up your personal life to serve the nation; in exchange we'll make it extremely comfortable) and saying, nah. --Trovatore (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- The BBC article on US presidents here, incidentally, does have a fairly "objective" list, ranking presidents by "Peace, Prosperity and Liberty", which puts Tyler (!) at the top and Polk (!!) at the bottom (well, ahead of Dubya, but that's a given). I'm sure it would be possible to put together a similar assessment of English/UK monarchs - as a non-historian, I wouldn't be surprised if Edward VII were at the top and George V at the bottom. Would it be impermissible speculation if our resident historians were to opine on this question? Tevildo (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
This question was definitively answered in the book 1066 And All That, which most agree was a Good Thing. 86.9.66.238 (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Famous editors on Wikipedia[edit]
Are there any famous editors .? I mean a serious non-vandalizing editor who has gotten some sort of fame or recognition for their work? I don't know if this has been discussed before.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- It has been asked whether any editors have become professional writers. Try searching the archives. Someone will probably answer anyway if they do know an example, but the only one I can think of was the fraud with the supposed theological degree. μηδείς (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles, although to my mind it doesn't adequately distinguish between those who're just here to edit their own article and talk about themselves, and those who actively participate in the encyclopedia in general. Few would meet even a generous definition of "famous", however. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 09:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Johann Hari? Horatio Snickers (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- I was a minor reporter for a major paper for a while. Some sort of recognition in the byline, but never shared my photo, so was never really recognized. Couldn't get free meals like Jimbo Wales might, or likely even a Wiki article. But I did briefly feel notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- We generally don't discuss private identities of editors, as per Wikipedia:OUTING. However, there have been quite a few prominent persons engaged in WP:COI editing. --Soman (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Roger Ebert is pretty famous. Matt Deres (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Brian David Josephson won a Nobel in physics and edits a variety of articles. Others edited mainly their own articles and articles related to their interests, and publicly identified themselves: The woman who led the drive against hocus-pocus black box voting machines in US elections: Bev Harris, and a former head of SDS: Michael Klonsky. Edison (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- On both the French and English Wikipedias, the Bogdanov brothers repeatedly rewrote the article about them to erase embarrassing information. --Bowlhover (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- In his autobiographical Over Time, published last year, Frank Deford indicated he had made some corrections to an article about one of his books. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Two that I've come across are Chip Berlet and Michael Everson... AnonMoos (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- First one who comes to mind is Arthur Rubin (User:Arthur Rubin), who appears to be somewhat of a figure in the mathematics/computer science world. Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
What languages did Robespierre speak?[edit]
I'm trying to research Robespierre's early life via the internet, and I'm unable to find an answer to the question in the subject line. What languages, apart from French, did Robespierre speak? I'm particularly interested to know if he spoke English, and if he could read and write in it as well.
I suspect that he only spoke French, though I can find no page that explicitly confirms this.
thanks,
- I found some sources saying he was quite skilled at Latin, and a biography saying that he had to take French, Latin and some Greek in grammar school. (Robespierre, a Revolutionary Life by Peter McPhee, p. 1,713) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- PS: I doubt that 1,713 is the correct page number, the google book seems to have the page numbers all messed up and it's impossible to say what the correct page number is. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Eulenspeigel and Pp.paul.
jack thompson[edit]
Thompson tried to ban games like gta, manhunt etc. but 1 Amendment (remember out of my head) says that things can not be prohibited on the basis of its contents unless it is child pornography. then it would not have been impossible to get the games banned if he won the trials or he would also change the 1 amendment?--80.161.143.239 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your question is very unclear. What do you want to know? Which of these Jack Thompsons are you talking about? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 21:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Jack Thompson (activist) is a former Florida attorney who attempted to ban violent video games more than a few times, most notably Grand Theft Auto. I'm not sure he cared the slightest about the 1st amendment as it relates to video games. As our article on him states, he does not accept that freedom of expression even applies, as he believes these games to be "murder simulators". He believes that violent video games beget violent people, and sought to get them banned, or at least rendered extremely difficult to procure. Mingmingla (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Does he approve of toy handguns for kids? HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Couldn't say. If you Google "jack thompson" and "toy gun" in two double-quoted search terms, you get quite a few hits, but so far I haven't seen one where they're directly connected (not that I've tried that hard). In this link he appears to want to ban a "gaming gun", which I'm not sure exactly what it is but my guess would be that it's a video-game controller, so I suppose that's a sort of toy gun, but probably not what you have in mind. --Trovatore (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Does he approve of toy handguns for kids? HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Jack Thompson (activist) is a former Florida attorney who attempted to ban violent video games more than a few times, most notably Grand Theft Auto. I'm not sure he cared the slightest about the 1st amendment as it relates to video games. As our article on him states, he does not accept that freedom of expression even applies, as he believes these games to be "murder simulators". He believes that violent video games beget violent people, and sought to get them banned, or at least rendered extremely difficult to procure. Mingmingla (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just from the article Jack Thompson (activist), you can follow a link to the Miller test, which gives an example of how a similar issue was addressed. That covered pornography and its relationship to the First Amendment. The point is that it was a Supreme Court judgement, with specific points that all need to be satisfied. The implication is that the same could happen with regard to censorship of violent video games - it could come down to a Supreme Court ruling. This also shows that your claim, that the only exception is child pornography, is false, since the Miller test relates to all pornography. To see how big the role of the Supreme Court is here, observe that with the Miller test, the Court has effectively made legislation to fill a void, because they have listed some specific tests that can be applied. So Jack Thompson could leave this to someone else to worry about. IBE (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- You can also google "jack thompson first amendment" and follow some links, eg. [1]. IBE (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Prydain and Middle Earth[edit]
When I was a lad in grade three, my aunt gave me a copy of The Book of Three, the first part of Lloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Prydain series. I enjoyed it very much and read the rest of the series. However, I never really got into fantasy fiction. Fast forward (several) years and I'm sitting in a theatre watching the first film of The Lord of the Rings and I'm getting a very weird feeling of having read all this before. I bought the LOTR books and have read them through several times since then. I am just now re-reading the Prydain works and again, the feeling that these two works are extremely similar is just overwhelming.
Now obviously they draw from many of the same sources (I suspect Sauron and Arawn may share an ancestor), so some similarities are to be expected, but it really does seem to be over the top. Google searching brings up forum posts and blog entries of varying coherency; is there any kind of serious literary criticism that discusses this? Any comments from Tolkein himself? Our article on Gurgi hilariously suggests that the film version of Gollum was somehow reminiscent of the film version of Gurgi, while ignoring the rather obvious opposite conclusion: the literary Gurgi is a complete rip-off of the literary Gollum. Is this one of those things that people just don't talk about? Matt Deres (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- The Lord of the Rings came out a decade earlier, and spawned many imitators. You'll note Tolkien made his languages resemble Welsh and Finnish, while Prydain and Arawn are just flat out Celtic. μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- According to the forewords of each of the Prydain books, Prydain is meant to be Wales and the characters are drawn from Welsh myths and legend; for example, "Arawn" actually links to the original Welsh legendary character and not the dude from the Prydain series, who resides at Arawn Death-Lord. Matt Deres (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've usually seen the discussion framed as both using some similar sources (Welsh mythology and language) rather than as a matter of imitation. For example, this forum thread - which also suggests a number of good books on Tolkien's use of existing mythologies. For an example of discussion of Alexander's sources: [2] [3]. 184.147.144.173 (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Tolkien's own notes have been published, and while he was familiar with Celtic mythology (which I think he described as "mad") it is obvious that any resemblance between Sauron and Arawn is coincidental and convergent. See Sauron#Concept_and_creation. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)