Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< August 19 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 21 >
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.


Contents

[edit] August 20

[edit] Major P. P. Malcolm (character in Leon Uris's "Exodus")

In the novel "Exodus" by Leon Uris, a major influence on the protagonist is Major P. P. Malcolm of the British army, who becomes a fanatical Zionist and uses his knowledge of Palestinian history and genius for military strategy to help the Jewish settlers fight off the Arabs. Was there really such a person, or was this character based on a real person? Or is he entirely fictitious?

Possibly Orde Wingate. Clio the Muse 02:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much!

Da nada! Clio the Muse 22:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Napoleon complex?

Anybody know of a source suggesting what might have happened had Napoleon not destroyed the Holy Roman Empire? Trekphiler 05:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

We'd all be speaking Latin German? (Please note: I'm not necessarily a reliable source) 38.112.225.84 09:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Wrong Roman Empire! Clio the Muse 22:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Napoleon's action had little practical effect, since the Holy Roman Empire had already become a Hapsburg family possession for over 400 years, and the Hapsburgs promptly set up a new empire of their own after the war. What was more important is that the outcome of the Congress of Vienna set the stage for 50 years of Prussian-Austrian rivalry... AnonMoos 11:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The word 'source' isn't the one you want, as what you're looking for is speculation rather than fact. This question seems to be based on the premise that the Empire had a future, if it had not been "destroyed by Napoleon". But it had been in the process of dissolution for centuries. See Holy Roman Empire: The long decline. By the time it came to an end, the Empire had little power or coherence. The remaining strength of its Habsburg emperors was in their own possessions, both within the Empire and outside it, and by the late 18th century the Empire's other parts were running their own foreign policies and fighting their own wars. It's easy to forget, for instance, that Hanover, an electorate within the Empire, was in a personal union with the United Kingdom under the Hanoverians from 1714. In 1804, Napoleon formally created a new Empire for himself, and in 1806, following the fourth Peace of Pressburg, the Emperor Francis II gave the coup de grâce to the Holy Roman Empire, creating the Austrian Empire instead from his own possessions. After (or, more strictly, in the closing stages of) the Napoleonic Wars the Congress of Vienna (1815) redrew the map of Europe and restored much of the old order, but by then there was no impetus to re-establish the HRE. As the 19th century wore on, the age of empires began to give way to the age of nation-states, one of which was a new Germany. The HRE's survival would not have prevented the Risorgimento, the Revolutions of 1848, and so forth. It's hard to conceive that if the HRE had survived another sixty years, it could have become the vehicle for a new German state: it was rather the rise and expansion of Prussia which did that. The Holy Roman Empire was in the way and would have had to go. Xn4 13:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

One should always be mindful of Voltaire's assessment of the Holy Roman Empire, that it was an 'agglomeration' which was "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." By 1806 it was a crazy patchwork of competing authorities, both ecclesiastical and secular. Moreover, well before the dissolution Habsburg power was based almost exclusively on the Austrian domains. In a sense the empire was restored in 1815, in the more modern form of the German Confederation, with a nominal preeminence given to Austria. What happened to this? Why, the same thing that would have happened to the Holy Roman Empire if it had survived into the 1860s. Bismarck happened. Clio the Muse 22:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Cometh the moment, cometh the man." Xn4 13:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] german detective series

I'm trying to get the name of a german detective series that some time ago was show late night on british TV. The main character was plain in dress (a bit like columbo but not as scruffy), his methods were more hard edged (would shoot people etc). As I remember the action took place in a large german city (possibly Hamburg). I also remember that people would often be shot by a single bullet to the head (not sure if this was a trademark of the series) - dcan anyone help.?87.102.2.76 11:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I probably need more information (what did he look like, who were the other characters, how old was the series?), but my first association was the legendary Schimanski, Tatort's most famous roughneck, played by Götz George. This would have been in Duisburg, however. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
YES, that's it thank you.
Bless you. Now all I need is re-runs.87.102.2.76 13:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Austria and Serbia

I'd like to know something of the long-term background to the relations between Austria and Serbia leading to the crisis of 1914. Brodieset 11:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

See First Serbian Uprising, Principality of Serbia, Austria-Hungary, Border history of Serbia, History of Serbia, First Balkan War and History of the Balkans: The Balkans in modern times. Xn4 13:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You forgot to mention Bosnian Crisis. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Misha Glenny has written an excellent and readable book about the Balkans, too. SaundersW 13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is, I suppose, tempting to attribute the deterioration in the relations between Austria and Serbia to the rise of a militant form of Serb nationalism, given an extra edge by the Austrian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908. But the whole thing can be traced to another date and to another form of nationalism altogether: to the Ausgleich of 1867, which saw the creation of Austria-Hungary, followed by the rise of an assertive Magyar identity within the Empire. The Ausgleich, in creating a semi-independent Hungary, meant that the Slav minorities were at the mercy of Magyar nationalism, far less liberal in every way than the policy previously followed by Vienna. After the agreement of 1867 the Imperial foreign minister was obliged to take account of the views on the minister-president of Hungary; and the one thing the Hungarians were most concerned about was the threat of Pan Slavism. Here Russia was perceived as the immediate threat, with Serbia as its 'Trojan Horse' in the Balkans. No individual represented this view more clearly than Gyula Andrassy, first minister-president of Hungary and then himself the Imperial foreign minister.

Set against this general background it is also important to remember that, by the late 1860s, Austrian ambitions in in both Italy and Germany had been choked off by the rise of new national powers. Only the Balkans were left. The whole Empire was thus drawn into a new style of diplomatic brinkmanship, first conceived of by Andrassy, centering on the province of Bosnia-Herzegovina, a predominantly Slav area still under the control of the Ottoman Empire. It was a dangerous game to play in a dangerous place. A road was thus mapped out, with a terminus at Sarajevo in the year 1914. Clio the Muse 00:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Another model of balance and concision! I note how Clio makes each word count.--Wetman 00:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
x Clio the Muse 01:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Clio's reply has been incorporated into the article Austria-Hungary. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What was this guy's name?

I think I remember seeing this image on Wikipedia in a featured article a few months ago, and a few weeks ago the image appeared again in a music video somewhere. I captured the image and tried to see if anybody knew about it here: http://forums.galbijim.com/index.php?showtopic=2605&st=0&gopid=12438

Though that's pretty much just a thread of all of us saying that we don't know who the guy is (and after 13 days I've given up hope of finding the answer on that small board), so really the only important link is this one, to the image:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v180/mithridates/forgothisname.png

All I can remember is that I think this person was a Louis Riel type character, and maybe that he was born into wealth but later decided to become the leader of a rebel army, but then again that could all be wrong as well. Mithridates 15:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The second picture is Huey P. Newton. Bhumiya (said/done) 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I feel so much better know knowing where the picture came from. Thank you so much. My thirteen days of pain are now over. ^^ Mithridates 17:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does "presential" exist?

Does the word "presential" (as in non-online, face to face -> presence) exist in English? There are some google hits, a rather odd M-W entry... but nothing very conclusive and a suspicious percentage of hits from obviously foreign pages. (The word does exist in other Roman languages.) Native speakers to the rescue!? --Ibn Battuta 16:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to be too definitive, but no. We sometimes say "real presence" or "face to face," but not generally any form of "presential." It forms up oddly for English rules. We'd normally do something like "present" and extend it to cover the adjective we need. Utgard Loki 16:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The "New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary" includes "presential," saying it is "now rare." It came from Latin in the 15th century. There is also "presentially" and "presentiality." The American Heritage Dictionary (1973) does not have it. Edison 16:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It seem that you are simply looking for the counterpart of virtual as in virtual reality. You have actual, and present is already an adjective in English: present company excepted. --Wetman 16:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Chambers Dictionary, 1983 ed, has adj. relating to presence: having or implying actual presence: present: as if present: formed from the present tense. - n. presentiality - adv. presentially. Hope this is helpful. DuncanHill 16:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Praesental exists, but that's something else, and real presence also has a specific technical meaning. As well as the suggested face to face (or f2f as they say), "in the flesh" would also do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone! Wikipedia rocks!! :o) --Ibn Battuta 17:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This would be an excellent question for the Language Ref Desk. StuRat 20:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The "rather odd M-W entry" is because the free online M-W is not the unabridged version. That's the screen you get if you search for a word that's in the unabridged but not in the free one. --Anonymous, August 20, 2007, 22:22 (UTC).

Thanks again, incl. the comment on the language desk. Apparently I hadn't looked close enough when choosing the forum--I had thought I *was" posting to the language desk. All the more thanks to those language-savvy non-language-desk-respondents! :o) --Ibn Battuta 07:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Bought In"

In the context of auction houses, what does "bought in" mean? Altonparks 17:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In general, it means "unsold", but usually means "unsold because the minimum asking price was not met." -- Kainaw(what?) 17:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This would be an excellent question for the Language Ref Desk. StuRat 20:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Auction house practice is to "find" bids in the room, nodding to Mr. Chandelier or Mr. Potted Palm, in executing bids that have been left with the house, or in bidding on the part of the house up to the pre-established minimum acceptable to the vendor. As the gavel comes down with "Sold!" few in the room realize what has been "bought in". --Wetman 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Custody of children who's parents never wed

2 adults had a child, and never wed. Parent A took cutody of the child without a cutody battle in court. Years later, could parent B legally "take" custody of the child? could the child decide who she wants to live with?

There should be no issue with custody if both parents agree. The child could go from one to the other. Custody battles in court handle issues where parents do not come to an agreement. -- Kainaw(what?) 17:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a legal question, and if the case is real, no one here can advise you, you need good legal advice on the matter. If it isn't real and you're asking a general question, then you don't give enough details - for instance, of the legal jurisdiction and of the age of the child. It's also not clear whether your question "could parent B legally 'take' custody of the child" means 'take by legal action' or 'take by direct action' (viz., by kidnapping). Whichever it is, the answer must depend on what country (or state) they are all in, supposing they are all in the same country (or state). Nearly everywhere, there's a distinction between legal custody (broadly, the right of someone to take decisions affecting a child) and day-to-day 'custody' (broadly, doing the actual looking after). In some countries, the rights of the father are greater than those of the mother, and in others it's the other way around. In the US, family law varies from state to atate. Most countries do have a concept that the wishes of mature children are important and should be taken into account in decisions about their custody, but when these matters end up in court, the court must have the final say. Many countries (but far from all) are parties to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and that may come into play if a parent takes a child to another country without getting the necessary consents first. Some countries have their own laws which aim to control parental child abduction within the country itself. Having said all that, if one parent fails to pursue the legal remedies open to him or her, the other parent can get away with murder! Xn4 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It could depend on which parent took them in the first place. I doubt the law of all countries treats mothers and fathers strictly the same way in this regard.martianlostinspace email me 19:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sophia Alekseyevna

was she a capable ruler? 86.131.255.19020:36 20:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

For your start, Sophia Alekseyevna. Xn4 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sophia was the first effective female ruler of Russia, but there is, arguably, only one person capable of passing judgement here: the Empress Catherine, the greatest of them all. In 1772 she was to write of Sophia "A great deal has been said about this princess, but I do not think in general that authors have done her justice...We cannot but own that she was very capable of governing." Clio the Muse 00:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tsar Alexi

what was significance of tsar alexis polish campaign of 1654? 86.131.255.19020:36 20:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please consult Treaty of Pereyaslav and Russo-Polish War, 1654-1667. As for its significance, it's enough to say that the Russians held the capital of their centuries-old rival and enemy, Great Duchy of Lithuania, for six years. Neither Lithuania nor Poland would ever pose a threat to Moscow again. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's the beginning of a series of campaigns that marks Russia's emergence as a European power, though at the outset the Smolensk offensive was draped in the mantle of an Orthodox crusade. Alexis pushed the Russian border westwards, recapturing Smolensk and other ancient Russian towns that had previously fallen to the Poles during the Time of Troubles. But the real significance of the offensive was that it opened the Tsar to a whole range of new ideas, practices and styles that were to provide the foundations for a systematic programme of westernisation, afterwards pursued by Peter the Great. All sorts of western craftsmen and experts were brought to Moscow by Alexis. He acquired an interest in a number of things, from interior design, to craftsmanship, to military technology. He also began to reshape the Russian army along European lines, ordering books from the west, covering anything from fortifications to artillery, and made moves towards building a navy and a merchant fleet. As a result of his experiences on campaign Alexis started the modernisation of the Russian economy, making improvements in agricultural practices, and founding new industries. He also set up a school of medicine in the Kremlin, where Russians were educated in western methods. It has been said that by the time the Tsar died in 1676 he had "steered his people away from Byzantine exclusivness and stagnation." It is perhaps not too much of an exaggeration to say that under Alexis Moscovy was truly becoming Russia. Clio the Muse 01:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)