Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< July 13 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 15 >
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] July 14

[edit] French night clubs

What is the minimum age to get into night clubs in france? Is it the same as the drinking age?

Seize. Oui. See Legal drinking age. Llamabr 02:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a legal requirement, as specified in the Code of public health L3342-1 to -3. Individual clubs may of course have stronger requirements. David.Monniaux 16:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Was Hitler a weak dictator?

Well, was he?

Physically, perhaps, but Hitler seemed to have total political control, until millions of people were killed to remove him from office. StuRat 05:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I read in what seemed to be somewhat recent notes by an individual close to Hitler whose name I can't remember now (he was male, that's all I can remember) that Hitler wasn't interested in sports at all though he was quite strong physically, if I recall well. --Taraborn 21:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Hitler wasn't technically a dictator as he was elected into office democratically. Serinmort 07:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
"Technically" or not, Hitler was not elected to the position of chancellor but appointed by Hindenburg, the president of Germany. Later the Reichstag, the German parliament, voted to make itself powerless, whereupon all political opposition parties were banned and Hitler (after the death of Hindenburg) was also declared head of state. Regardless of how he came to power, Hitler held and exercised absolute power, which makes him, technically and otherwise, a dictator.  --Lambiam 09:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Was he a strong dictator? That depends on your idea of strength. He certainly had a much stronger grasp on his country than many other dictators had on theirs (e.g. Fulgencio Batista). I doubt whether Hitler could have been overthrown from within. However, he was weak in the sense that he jeopardized himself by pursuing an irresponsible strategy. A more prudent dictator, such as Francisco Franco, would have consolidated his power rather than overextending it. If you measure a dictator's strength by the length of his tenure, his eleven years is pitiful in comparison to Mussolini's 21 years, Alfredo Stroessner's 35 years, Franco's 36 years, Fidel Castro's and Josip Broz Tito's 48 years, etc. Hitler was probably the most destructive and aggressive dictator of the modern era, which wouldn't have been possible if he had been a weak dictator, but his aggression also made his position unstable. Perhaps he was a strong dictator who made himself weak. Had he not invaded anything, he might have ruled Germany for decades, but no one can say. Bhumiya (said/done) 09:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you guys are forgetting Stalin. Although he was the main responsible for the destruction of nazism, we can't omit his killings in Ukraine and his purges. --Taraborn 21:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Legally he was weak. Appointed 30-01-1933, he didn't have a majority in the Reichstag,only a plurality. Only from March, with the help of an election and a coalition with the Nationalists did he get a majority. For the post of Fuhrer he was even weaker: on Hindenburg's death in 1934, he merely assumed the office of President, merged it with Chancellor and arrived at the post of Fuhrer. Actually, the constitution said he should have called an election. Although, no-one would have been capable of prosecuting him for it. It was actually under the new German political constitution that Hitler was able to make all these destructive decisions rather than going to the German parliament. Under article 38 of the constitution it stated that in an emergency the German leader could make decisions without having to consult parliament and THAT is how he was never prosecuted for it. Ultimately, if it wasn't for article 38, Hitler wouldn't have been in power very long!

Only one body was capable of removing him from power: the Army. The failure of Stauffenburg's plot proved that even that was difficult. From 1934, every German soldier had sworn an oath of loyalty to him. And certainly, there was the fear that to do so would have been extremely costly if it had failed. The death of Heydrich cost 5000 Czech lives.

In terms of propaganda, I think he did extremely well. He was a master of convincing the masses and - given that Trade Unions were destroyed, living conditions probably didn't improve as much as the would have if he didn't spend so much on the Armed Forces, and wages were frozen at 1932 level despite longer working hours - he seems to have remained immensely popular with many Germans of the time. His foreign policy success (at least until 1941) must have compensated well for above ^ problems for workers.martianlostinspace 10:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hitler did not need to execute a lot of power personally as he re-structured the functioning of the government to be a highly-organized and centralized hierarchy, all flowing back to him. Basically he built a bureaucracy which magnified his power and eliminated aspects of it which compromised it, and he had that bureaucracy spread far outside of what we would consider the normal limits of government (professional organizations, for example). See Gleichschaltung. --24.147.86.187 17:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all a word or two of clarification in relation to to the truly absurd contention that Hitler was not 'technically' a dictator 'as he was elected into office democratically'. Dictatorship is a form of political practice. I know of nothing in theory or example that proves dictatorship and democracy to be mutually exclusive; dictatorships can, and have, emerged through the ballot box. Second, as the contention that Hitler was 'democratically' elected tends to appear from time time, I would like to add some more data in support of Lambiam's rebuttal. At its electoral peak the NSDAP obtained 37.4% of the popular vote in Germany. By November 1932, the last free election to the Reichstag, this had declined to 33.1%. So, even at their most popular the Nazis failed to impress 62.6% of the electorate, and they never achieved a majority in the Reichstag. As Lambian says, Hitler was appointed Chancellor by some shady political manoeuvring amongst the cabal surrounding President Hindenburg. More than that, he was appointed precisely because the NSDAP was showing signs of serious electoral decline. The fear shared by Franz von Papen and his reactionary clique, the real power brokers in January 1933, was that former Nazi voters would move en mass to the Communists, a fear given some support in the November elections, which saw the KPD gaining ground, just as the Nazis lost. So, please, please, no more 'Hitler was elected' rubbish.

Now to the point of the question. Was Hitler a weak dictator? This has been the subject of detailed scholarly debate, and is by no means easy to answer. Hitler's style of dictatorship was so different from, say, that of Stalin or Mussolini in a way that makes comparison all but impossible. For one thing he was personally lazy, a vice for which he had been criticised in the early days of the Nazi movement by Gottfried Feder. Other than the exercise of power for its own sake, the Nazi Party, moreover, had little in the way of an organised programme, more a series of vague goals. It was also Hitler's practice to appoint people to office with overlapping areas of authority, which turned the Nazi State into a jungle of competing interest groups and personalities. Hitler intervened rarely to sort out the ensuing mess. All of this contributed to Hans Mommsen's contention that Hitler was "in many ways a weak dictator." (Ian Kershaw, The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, 1999 p. 60) From the opposite political perspective David Irving even suggests that Hitler was "probably the weakest leader Germany has known this century" (Hitler's War, 1977, introduction). This view conflicts with others, from Alan Bullock to Klaus Hildebrand, who say that Hitler had both a programme and the power to carry it out.

So, what did the people who knew him best think of the Führer and his working habits? You can have this from the Memoirs of Albert Speer, the man who, perhaps, knew him best of all;

I would often ask myself did he really work? Little was left of the day; he rose late in the morning and conducted one or two official conferences; but from the subsequent dinner on he more or less wasted his time until the early hours of the evening. His rare appointments in the late afternoon were imperilled by his passion for looking at building plans. The adjutants often asked me 'please don't show any plans today'. (1970, p.131)

This lack of a systematic approach to work was made even worse in February 1938, after which cabinet meetings were no longer held. Germany, in a very real sense, ceased to have an effective government machine, with decisions being taken in a manner that allowed civil servants to act. Quite often Hitler was incommunicado in his remote mountain chalet near Berchtesgaden, so that "Ministers in charge of departments might for months on end, and even for years, have no opportunity of speaking to Hitler...Ministerial skill consisted in making the most of a favourable hour or minute when Hitler made a decision, this often taking the form of a remark thrown out casually, which then went its way as an order of the Führer." (J. Noakes and G. Pridham (eds.), Nazism, 1919-1945, vol. 2, State Economy and Society, 1933-1939, 1984, p. 200)

The only argument here against the notion of a weak dictatorship is that this lack of system and structure somehow magnified Hitler's personal power; but it still reduced the effectiveness of the whole Nazi system. Charisma is a card that should never be overplayed. Decisions could and were made, sometimes quickly; but these tended to be in areas of immediate concern to the dictator, particularly over matters of foreign policy. However, on the Jewish question, a matter seemingly central to the whole Nazi programme, the policy was marked by muddle and confusion, until very late in the day. The very best that can be said of Hitler is that, if not weak, he was, as Ian Kershaw has argued, not "master of the Reich" in the sense of being all omnipotent. Clio the Muse 00:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

May wish to see [1]. The fact he had to get rid of the communists first might help prove how weak he was in the earliest days. ie. if he were strong enough, he could have stood up to more opposition.martianlostinspace 10:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HEPA = Humanist group ?

The last sentence in Diclofenac#Ecological_problems is currently:

"Humanist groups such as HEPA have declined the use of Diclofenac."

However, I can find no such group. The closest I can find is the phrase used as an acronym for Health Enhancing Physical Activity: [2].

Can you help me to filter this Wikipedia entry ? StuRat 05:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove as uncited possibly hoax? 68.39.174.238 16:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] poem/riddle Castaway (anon)

Where was the poem Castaway first published? Its first line is "He grabbed me by my slender neck". It is known to be anonymous.Violabelle 08:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wycliffe Bible dating

In our article on Wyclif's Bible it says that it appeared over a period from approximately 1380 to 1390. In the John Wycliffe article it says the entire Bible (Old Testament + New Testament) was done about 1388. In research that I do on the web, it shows an "early addition" of the Wyclife Bible being done in 1384 and a later addition done in 1395. Some sites even say that Wyclif's Bible of the New Testament came out actually in 1380. When did very first version of the Wycliffe Bible containing the New Testament really come out? Was there first just the New Testament translation into English of a Wycliffe Bible (circa 1380 - 1384), then that was followed later (circa 1388 - 1395) with the complete Bible containing the Old Testament?--Doug talk 13:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the NT came first. That was pretty typical with many early Bible translations given the doctrinal primacy of the NT to Christians along with the fact that it was considerably shorter. Donald Hosek 20:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you know exactly (+/- 1 year) when the very first version of the New Testament version of Wyclif's Bible came out: was it 1384 or 1388?--Doug talk 21:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Metzger's The Bible in Translation states the "first version" was produced in 1382. Metzger seems to interfer that this was the whole Bible. - Thanks, Hoshie 23:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It's rather hard to get an exact date since the Wyclif Bible originally existed only in surreptitiously hand-copied manuscripts. I think you're seeing ranges of dates largely because more precise dating isn't possible. The NT is largely based on Wyclif's sermons from which, it is claimed, a complete English translation could be derived. But both it and the OT are largely the work of Wyclif's followers in the end. Donald Hosek 03:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these great answers. Now that I have a clue of a date of 1382 (thanks to Hoshie above), this seems to be the consenses on the web also, like this example. Most web sites that I have come across also seem to think this was for the complete Bible (NT + OT). Then there was other versions by Wycliffe's associates (i.e. John Purvey) in 1395 and later. Then later (1525 - 1526) Tyndale did a complete English version. Interesting that Tyndale was also a professor at Oxford, like Wycliffe. Apparently also the King James Version of the Bible was done at least in part by several scholars and professors of University of Oxford.--Doug talk 14:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Doug, you may like to now edit those articles to clarify the issue, so it doesn't pop up again. Also, while I'm on the subject, we really need a tag that we can add to pairs/sets of pages to say they are inconsistent with each other. 203.221.126.197 16:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The template you're looking for is {{Contradict other}}. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea! This seems to be the consenses, not only by librarians and reference books I found on this, but is consistant as to what dozens of websites say on this issue. I'll go ahead and corrected this to reflect 1382 as to when Wyclif's Bible first came out as the first English translation.--Doug talk 17:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop saying "came out"! Whenever they were completed, none of the versions were "available in all good bookshops". All had to be copied by hand, although they certainly were. Also please add references to the changes you have made. Johnbod 18:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope I didn't start an edit war just now :), since I've never engaged in one myself. I don't know how anyone can find the patience for them. Thanks for following my suggestion Doug, and thanks for pointing me to the template, Laura - I knew it had to be out there somewhere :). 203.221.127.6 21:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interpreting old music

I came across a rare treasure: an electronic copy of Thomas Ravenscroft's "The Whole Booke of Psalmes", one of the first Psalters in the English language. I'm just having trouble sounding out the tunes. Here's a screenshot I took of the 58th Psalm from it:

Image:Ravenscroft58.png

I have figured out that you use the "Tenor or Playnsong" as the melody, and that the thing is likely in cut time...what I'm wondering is how I determine clefs and key signatures. It looks awfully like three flats there, but three flats make no sense musically. Perhaps the odd design of boxes at the beginning indicates a clef, but I have no idea which one.

Thanks in advance! X.spasitel 14:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The clef sign is a C clef, with the box around the line corresponding to middle C. The cantus part is in the soprano clef, with middle C on the bottom line. The tenor part is in the tenor clef. The key signature is two flats, with the B flat repeated an octave higher in the cantus part, and the E flat repeated an octave higher in the tenor part. The time signature would be 4/1 in modern notation (4 breves per bar). Gdr 15:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Now it makes perfect sense! I forgot all about tenor clef, had no idea it was used back then -- but it makes perfect sense now. The seeming multiple flats are just in octaves, that's all. Thanks for your help, this is all greatly appreciated. If anyone is interested, by the way, the place where I got it was http://www.pbm.com/%7Elindahl/ravenscroft/psalter/ -- link at top to download the whole book, or Whole Booke as the case may be. Thanks again. X.spasitel 17:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Note that the dotted notes can cross the bar line in the old notation; in the modern day we'd tie a whole note (semibreve) to a half note. This can be a bit confusing when reading it through. In these old psalters, most of the time the tune is in the tenor voice (I'm pretty sure Ravenscroft always did it that way). By the way, I think there's two more parts: another high and the bass. Antandrus (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
One more thing -- if you look in the "Cantus" part there are peculiar boxes in front of some notes that resemble the modern double-sharp sign. Am I correct in assuming this is the ancient symbol for a simple sharp? That makes the most sense, as it produces a harmonic minor. X.spasitel 20:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes: those are sharps. Also, the third-to-last note in the cantus line is an E natural. That old symbol for a sharp is called a "croix" (cross) and looks like an "X"; it was in use from around the end of the 13th century to the end of the Baroque era (mid-18th century). Sometimes it was placed below rather than in front of a note. Happy sight-reading! Antandrus (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! X.spasitel 01:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speeding Penalties (and other fines)

Further to the question above about disproportionate speeding fines, does the US impose any other penalties with regards to speeding, similar to the UK which impose a point system, and speeding 3 times can get your license revoked? This of course means that rich people would avoid it anyway, regardless of the ability to pay the fine.

Also I remember seeing on one of the first episodes of [My name is Earl], that Earl went and paid some fines for offenses at some local government office. These "fines" did not seem to taken as any criminal action what are they called and what are the status in law? Do they count as criminal convictions? Caffm8 16:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The jurisdiction for speeding and other traffic violations largely belongs to the States, so there is no one uniform procedure. In some areas a point system is used (see Point system#United States of America), and that is up to the State in question.
As for fines, some fines can be assessed as civil penalties, while some fines may be criminal in nature. Often times, it can appear that fines are civil penalties when they are actually criminal (for example, for some kinds of traffic tickets, depending on the State, you can either pay the fine or go to court to dispute the charge. In either case, it would be a conviction of sorts, but almost certainly a minor misdemenor). The reality is that the actual options available vary depending on the State, and it is up to that State legislature's discretion (soemtimes municipalities if they have been delegated the authority) when passing laws. –Pakman044 17:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
For a few more tidbits in line with Pakman044's answer, see Traffic ticket. (the article itself is a bit shabby). dr.ef.tymac 20:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
There are also non-judicial penalties for speeding: the more speeding tickets and other moving violations you accumulate, the higher your insurance rates will be. --Carnildo 22:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Wycliffe

What languages did Wycliffe know?--Doug talk 19:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll bite: English? Bielle 00:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, Wycliffe was an Oxford man, and like all educated people of the day he would have a good knowledge of Latin. All university tuition was in this language. Clio the Muse 00:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is more interesting to ask what languages he didn't know - Greek and Hebrew. Adam Bishop 17:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The article on Wycliffe is said to be too long and maybe confusing or unclear for some readers. So be it. It says he probably translated the four gospels, and maybe all of the New Testament. He surely had the Latin, but the question is, did he have any Greek sources? I would guess so; the fact that the Renaissance didn't reach England until a hundred years after his death is probably irrelevant. I assume some Western monks copied Greek as well as Latin biblical texts and that they would have been available at Oxford. --Halcatalyst 04:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
According to Wyclif's_Bible He (with the possible help of others) translated the Latin Vulgate Bible into Middle English. Greek and Hebrew were not involved. -Czmtzc 15:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think Greek was pretty rarely copied in the west...what would be the point? Hardly anyone knew any Greek. I'm sure there were Greek texts at Oxford and elsewhere in England, but, well, they would have been all Greek to Wycliffe. (That sounded so much funnier in my head.) Adam Bishop 17:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the consenses then is that he knew (besides English) Latin - however did not know Greek or Hebrew. Would he have known Italian or French?--Doug talk 13:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why he would have known Italian; he wasn't from a noble background so he probably didn't know French either (and even among the aristocracy, English was the everyday language in Wycliffe's time). Adam Bishop 17:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Wycliffe was an Oxford scholar then he would have known Latin very well, perhaps as much as English. My understanding is that if a person knew Latin, that it not only was a language the Church used in it writings (i.e. Bible), but that it would have been spoken among the European scholars of the Fourteenth Century.--Doug talk 13:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, or at least they would have tried speaking Latin, perhaps very poorly, and in many incomprehensible accents! Adam Bishop 21:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrator abuse

Hi! What can one read to learn more about administrator abuse? I tried to start an article about it, but I couldn't find any references. A.Z. 20:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't tell you much about what one can do, but perhaps about two or three? As far as wikipedia is concerned, you could start with the Essjay Controversy.martianlostinspace 20:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'll try to read it. A.Z. 21:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you please briefly explain how the Essjay controversy relates to administrator abuse? A.Z. 21:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Writing articles on Wikipedia about Wikipedia is almost always a sure-fire bet to be deleted. If you want to write it as a personal essay in your own article space, you're more likely going to be able to keep it. Corvus cornix 20:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It ain't just about Wikipedia. It was just supposed to be about administrator abuse. It could be a section of the article abuse of authority as well, though this article doesn't exist yet. A.Z. 21:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
(Not really a reference desk issue, but since we're already talking about it here..) Abuse of authority is such a wide topic- I bet the reason we don't have an article on it is that we instead have specific stuff like police brutality. Talking about abuse of authority in online spaces narrows it down a bit, but I bet there's still not a huge amount of proper sources for writing about it. Friday (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with Essjay, I think, was that he forged his ID, which is abuse, albeit not admin abuse but it isn't far off: he abused supposed "authority" that academic qualifications (even nonexistant ones) gave him in disputes. But at least one user [3] will tell you (the strength of his view is impossible to overestimate) that he did abuse admin power. His perspective is that he was blocked for participating in a legal discussion, which Essjay apparently confused with giving legal advice - not for Wikipedia. So he was banned.martianlostinspace 22:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I should have been more explicit in my first reply, as to admin abuse, and not general abuse.martianlostinspace 22:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wider still and wider. This would have exactly what to do with Humanities? Oh, never mind. Clio the Muse 22:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could trace the old organizational dichotomy of more efficiency vs less abuse all the way back to Max Weber, who saw placing charismatic leaders at the head of bureaucratic enterprises as a remedy, reasoning that the implementation of these leaders' personal values would obliterate the proliferation of a bureaucratic apparatus. I admit that organizational theories have come a long way since then, but maybe not all organizations have. ---Sluzzelin talk

Clio, more than it would have to do with any other RD, except possibly Computing.martianlostinspace 22:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Martian, it has nothing to do with any of the reference desks. As far as I am concerned it is a non-question about a non-issue. Clio the Muse 00:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Here are some examples of administrator abuse:
Rockpocket 00:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
My view on admin abuse: Admins work hard, and users should refrain from abusing them. Edison 21:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You may also want to read wheel war; it's what happens if two powerful systems administrators online get into an argument. Laïka 21:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
So there's an article on wheel war! That's great, because the existence of such an article may help keeping the article on administrator abuse when it gets nominated for deletion (It hasn't been nominated for deletion yet because an user deleted it, but this decision is currently being reconsidered here). Thanks a lot for the link. A.Z. 22:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've got an idea! Instead of writing an article about it, which I would speedy delete, if none other did, how about actually document a particular case on one of the two noticeboards dedicated to the purpose: WP:AN and WP:AN/I. If there is no consensus in your favor there, then it might just be that you're wrong, or that you couldn't state your case effectively, or Wikipedia really is a vast conspiracy to silence you. If it's the last of these, you really shouldn't waste your time on it. Geogre 04:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, it was an article about the concept of administrator abuse, not about a particular case of abuse. There was no case. A.Z. 04:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Then create a redirect to the Administrator's Noticeboard. That could stand. Rather than talking about it, we should be dealing with any particular grievance so that there is nothing to talk about. It takes very, very little time to find out what the general classes of "admin abuse" are. Generally, actual abuse is very rare and reverted, but misunderstandings, impoliteness, and exasperation are common enough among admins, while politicking, proselytizing, advertising, and petulance are common enough among non-admins. Geogre 13:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

True; so very true! Perhaps there should be an article about this important subject? Clio the Muse 23:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Inquisition

How accurate is the traditional view of the Spanish Inquisition? Tower Raven 20:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as the header states, we won't do your homework for you, but we will help. Start with [[4]] if you want to know what the traditional view is. Include a brief outline of this in your essay, define accuracy, and then give approximately equal sections saying that it is then is not accurate, make your mind up, and write it down. That will be your conclusion.martianlostinspace 23:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There has been a lot of interesting work on this subject, Tower Raven, and I would suggest, depending how deeply you want to go, that you have a look at H. Kamen's Inquisition and Society in Spain, one of the defining modern texts.
I suppose it's impossible to shift a myth once it takes on an independent life, and most people's understanding of the Inquisition will forever be mediated by the wonderful gothic excesses of stories like "The Pit and the Pendulum". But did you know that in the early seventeenth century the Inquisition introduced such a demanding standard of proof in accusations of witchcraft that brought burning for this crime to an end in Catholic Spain more than a century before the Protestant north? Yes, there were horrors attached to the Inquisition, particularly in the pursuit of religious uniformity in Spain; but the country did thereby avoid the equal and greater horrors that followed from the religious wars in France and Germany. After the excesses of the initial campaign against the Conversos, the Inquisition was transformed bit by bit into an arbiter of public morals more than anything else, a little like the rule of the Major Generals in Cromwellian England. As Kamen says "For most of its existence the Inquisition was far from being the juggernaut of death." For example, approximately 100 people were executed as suspected Protestants in the brief campaign against Lutheranism between 1559 and 1562. Contrast this with the 127 priests executed in England between 1570 and 1603. Yes, Catholic Spain was intolerant, but not more so than the rest of Europe at the time.
The Inquisition in Spain also had a unique relationship to the state, answerable to the crown, not to the Pope in Rome. As such it operated a little like a modern secret police force, always alert to the possibility of dissent. Yet, as Charles Petrie points out in his 1963 biography of Phillip II, it was "a very mild affair compared with the NKVD and the Gestapo." We all, I suppose, associate the Inquisition with the most grusome forms of torture. But it employed no unique methods, nothing that was not already in widespread use. Torture, moreover, was only used in a minority of cases, and only for the most serious offences. A doctor was always present on these occasions, and the process was such that no lasting physical damage ensued. Ugly, yes, but a standard better than that set by other practitioners of the art, both then and since. Clio the Muse 02:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No-body expected that answer.hotclaws 09:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The Holy Office is not at all as is depicted in things like Foxe's Book of Martyrs, in general. However, also look at the Dominican Order. What is often called the "Spanish" Inquisition is the peculiar actions of the Dominicans in the Holy Office during a particular time, and then it was absolutely as bad as we think. In other words: accurate, but not for as long as we think or as many places as we think. Geogre 04:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, see Historical revision of the Inquisition and Black Legend. I recently took an undergraduate class on the Spanish Inquisition which looked at it from a "revisionist" perspective. Henry Kamen's, The Spanish Inquisition: An Historical Revision (1997) was one of the primary texts we used. As Clio alludes to, in terms of pure numbers Spain's inquisition was hardly the unabated slaughter as conceived of in the popular imagination and was certainly no worse, and often less bloody and capricious, than the numerous other inquisitions prosecuted throughout Europe during the same period albeit without the distinction of capitalization.

As to why we have the "traditional" view? Again as Clio mentions, probably in part due to popular portrayals, Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor for one example. The reputation of the Spanish Inquisiton may also suffer from its arising comparatively late in the European inquisition game, being a distinct apparatus of the Spanish Crown and lasting rather long, its visibility and prominence to the modern mind thereby being increased; though, in fact, through much of its life as an institution it was on the whole fairly inactive and unobtrusive, instead seeing spikes of activity when a particular group, offense or region was targeted for whatever reason. Finally, later Protestant polemicist's were more than willing to advance and/or perpetuate the idea of the Spanish Inquistion as an unusually cruel and tyrannical religious/state institution, when in fact it was merely usually cruel and tyrannical. -- Azi Like a Fox 08:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistanis and beaches - did I commit a faux pas?

Hello all,

I live near a military base and go there often. At the local library on base I saw a few troops from Pakistan. When we were talking about the area I live in, I brought up the local beaches. They gave me a weird look like I had had committed a faux pas. After this, i'm wondering if beaches are taboo in Pakistani culture? Also does anyone have any good resources on Pakistani culture, such as the do's don't's in conversation? - Thanks, Hoshie 23:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they misheard you, and thought you were talking about "bitches". DuncanHill 23:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
If they were Muslims, or devouts from almost any fundamentalist religion, I doubt that any beach would be a permitted place to visit: too much skin. Perhaps they thought you were leading them into temptation. Bielle 00:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Not so, Bielle. I have seen Muslim ladies in full costume paddling on the beaches of Singapore! Clio the Muse 00:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, so have I, chador and all! The picture I had in mind as I wrote my first response was of a group of uniformed members of the Pakistani army standing, rigid, at the edge of a Brazilian beach, populated with its usual array of the bare and the beautiful (or sometimes, the barely beautiful).Bielle 00:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't you mean the beautifully bare? Or do the Brazilians really only rate a 6? Clarityfiend 03:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Dem guys -and gals- too; what you said, beeyootifully bear,Clarityfiend! Many 10s! Bielle 04:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
See also burqini. Here for instance. I have no idea why the soldiers gave you a weird look, Pakistan has some nice and lively beaches. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)