Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< May 12 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 14 >
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] May 13

[edit] Mapp v Ohio case

I've chosen to write a report about the Mapp v. Ohio case and there was a couple of things I need to know before I start. Is it a criminal or civil matter and why? and what laws would apply to the case?

Thankyou for any help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kachi (talk • contribs) 01:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Have you read the article you have linked to?  --LambiamTalk 01:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but i'm not the slightest bit law savvy and I just wanted to clarify a few points
Well, the first sentence states that the case was in the area of U.S. criminal procedure. Now guess, is this a criminal or a civil matter? All the relevant laws are mentioned in the article; the most important being the Constitution of the United States, and particularly the Fourth Amendment. My advice is that you study the article well, and come back with specific questions about points you do not understand. Otherwise, in all likelihood, you will not understand what we answer here either, not learn anything, and not be able to write a good report.  --LambiamTalk 01:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
All right, will do. I see where you're coming from. Thanks
Actually no, it wasn't a criminal matter at all. According to the US Constitution, criminal matters are the exclusive jurisdiction of the States. If it were indeed a criminal matter, that would imply that the Supreme Court was acting ultra vires its jurisdiction, and in doing so, violating the Constitution. To be precise, it was a Constitutional matter, only tangentially connected to a Criminal matter. Yes, the original trial was a criminal trial, but the Supreme Court Appeal was a pure Constitutional matter, based entirely on the proper interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Lewis 12:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC
It's simply not true that "according to the US Constitution, criminal matters are the exclusive jurisdiction of the States". There are federal crimes, prosecuted in federal courts, and the Mapp case extended the principle that "a conviction in the federal courts, the foundation of which is evidence obtained in disregard of liberties deemed fundamental by the Constitution, cannot stand" to the state courts. Mapp v. Ohio is clearly about criminal law, not civil. - Nunh-huh 13:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You're correct, there does exist a rather small category of what are called "federal offences", I was indeed in error by using the term "exclusive". Still, the crime in question in Mapp was an offense against the State of Ohio, not a federal offense. In hearing the appeal, the US Supreme Court wasn't deciding a criminal matter, rather it was handing down an interpretation of the Constitution. Lewis 15:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the Supreme Court was deciding a constitutional issue has no effect on the distinction between criminal and civil matters. Mapp v. Ohio remains a criminal case, regardless of the appeals process. I'm sure you're aware of this, Loomis, I just wanted to provide some clarification. GreatManTheory 15:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
No of course, by all means it definititely is NOT a civil case, that's for sure. It's just that not all non-civil cases are criminal cases. Cases that decide Constitutional matters, for example, are neither. I suppose I'm splitting hairs a bit too much by insisting it was a Constitutional, rather than a criminal case. It certainly involved a criminal matter, so for all intents and purposes I suppose you can call it a criminal case. Still, my point was that had it not involved the Constitution, the SC would be out of its jurisdiction to hear it. In other words, had the appellant not brought up a Constitutional issue, but merely argued that the appeals court of Ohio had misinterpreted Ohio law, the SC would have no jurisdiction to hear it. Lewis 22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification Lewis. I'd like to propose that this entire sub-thread be erased, and replaced with the last sentence of your clarification, (with "in other words" replaced with "As a side note: ") ... Why? Because this entire tangent is almost certainly irrelevant to the original poster, and because, until you made that clarification, it looked like you were entirely making this stuff up for your own amusement. dr.ef.tymac 23:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
What if this forum enabled participants to vote on answers ... hmmm. That might help emphasize the irony that the most helpful, succinct and context-appropriate responses to this question were the ones already provided by the mathematician. :/ dr.ef.tymac 14:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Mapp v. Ohio was clearly a criminal case. It was an appeal from a criminal conviction, on direct appeal from the Supreme Court of Ohio. The case was within the U.S. Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction because application of a provision of the Constitution of the United States was involved. Newyorkbrad 23:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The case of Mapp v Ohio is a criminal constitutional case due to the fact that it is an appeal of an a constitutional issue from a state criminal court. The case revolves around the exclusionary principle, as first set forward in Weeks v United States in 1914. The law of importance is the Exclusionary rule and the Fourth Amendment. ~Lexington Hunter Esq.~

I agree with the preceding comments by Newyorkbrad and Lexington Hunter. I do not agree with Lewis's statement that "not all non-civil cases are criminal cases." In fact, I would define a civil action as "a non-criminal lawsuit". JamesMLane t c 04:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Update: I am withdrawing the proposal for deletion, pursuant to relevant guidelines, actions taken by User:StuRat, and credible feedback from informed Reference Desk participants.
Relatedly, I also consider it superfluous for me (or anyone else) to concur with yet another "I am also a lawyer, and Newyorkbrad is clearly correct," since: 1) Lewis recanted; and 2) Lambiam provided a well-considered and appropriate response that was sufficient from the beginning.
Nevertheless, superfluous content does not in itself justify hasty deletion. In light of the circumstances, I withdraw the proposal. dr.ef.tymac 07:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I admitted that I was splitting hairs and that for all intents and purposes the entire case (from trial, to state appeal, and finally to the SC appeal), was on the whole, a criminal case. My only point was, once again, that at the SC level, it was completely a constitutional issue, as the SC has no jurisdiction to correct the Ohio State Courts' misinterpretation of Ohio Criminal Law. But if all that is tangential, I have no problem with deleting the entire thread.
I'd just like to note, though, that an action involving the Judicial Review of legislation is neither a civil nor a criminal action. A civil action is an action taken between two private individuals regarding a private matter (i.e. a "lawsuit"). I therefore disagree with James' disagreement. Brown v. Board of Education, Plessy v. Ferguson, all the way back to Marbury v. Madison were all neither civil nor criminal cases. And it doesn't even have to be a Constitutional issue. Any case involving an action in mandamus, quo warranto etc. are neither civil nor criminal in nature. But again, if this entire thread is superfluous, by all means, feel free to delete it. (Personally, though, I don't see why it's so necessary to delete the discussion, as it only helps to further elucidate the matter, but I bow to consensus on this one.) Lewis 11:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Report

Is either or both of the Bruce Report obtainable anywhere online? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.193.219.164 (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

I haven't had any luck in locating either online. All I can offer is this illustration from the First Planning Report of the city's "inner core", as it might be "developed".  --LambiamTalk 15:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-evaluating Rostow

Requesting critique of Walt Rostow's writings on economic development, particularly The Stages of Economic Growth from anyone familiar with his work or one of his former students. Particularly, what is the relative influence of Rostow's legacy as an economist versus that as a political advisor. Not homework, just soliciting opinions that may be useful in reforming my own views, which may be biased. dr.ef.tymac 06:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not qualified to answer this question, but you may find this In Memoriam of interest.  --LambiamTalk 15:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Authors in the olden days

After buying a used copy of Don Quixote today at a library book sale, the wife and I started discussing what it would have taken to write such a book in the old days without modern conveniences. The discussion led to how authors made any money back then. Not as many people could read, so there weren't as many people to buy the books. Plus they cost more to make due to typesetting and binding and such. So did authors generally make their money by putting on plays? Did they get some sort of royalty (or the equivalent of that day whatever that was) for each book sold? How often did these writers work for kings where they were the court appointed playwright or whatever? I don't want to turn this into a discussion as this isn't a discussion board but if you have any related info that we hadn't considered, could you reply with that as well as any answers to the questions that you might have? Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 08:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

...a much too subtly nuanced question for encyclopia entries, but read Grub Street; there will be numerous suggestive hints in the biographies of writers: see what John Milton sold Paradise Lost for. Copyright infringement wasn't even a question until the late 19th century: Dickens' work was pirated in the US as fast as it was published. --Wetman 09:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Authors sold their manuscripts to the book seller. They would be paid a single fee for the book, and that is all that they would get. Therefore, if you could make a second part or sell the book by subscription, you could do a great deal better. Most authors, therefore, had to write quite frequently or had to have income from another source. Another famous case, by the way, of a rip off in publishing history comes from late in the game. Oliver Goldsmith's The Vicar of Wakefield was sold for ₤10 to pay his rent (just his back rent). In fact, Samuel Johnson had to sell it for him, and apparently he got a better deal than if Goldsmith had gone in person. Geogre 12:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I believe the inflation-adjusted price for books used to be much higher, before modern techniques of mass production lowered the cost. StuRat 13:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Princess in the tower

I've read your article on Ingeborg of Denmark, wife of Philip Augustus of France, but it does not really explain why Philip took the attitude towards her that he did. Is there any information on the politics of this affair? Thanks Janesimon 11:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ingeborg of Denmark, perhaps the least fortunate of all the Medieval brides, a woman whose life was blighted for reasons that are still not entirely clear. Those familar with the tribulations of Katherine of Aragon may be interested to know just how 'fortunate' she was compared with Ingeborg, married to Philp Augustus on August 15, 1193, only to be rejected a day later. At the time Philip's only declaration was that he wished the marriage dissolved for 'bodily reasons'. His assumption is likely to have been that the whole matter would be over quickly; but he reckoned without the determination of the Danish princess, which had the effect of dragging the whole business out for twenty years, involving France in a dispute with the Papacy in the person of Innocent III, not a man to be tangled with lightly. Ingeborg was to be held prisoner in the castle of Étampes for more than ten years, from whence she wrote a heart-breaking letter to Innocent;
:...Set me free, from those who hate me, so that I shall not drown in the deep waters since I am being pursued for no reason. It is my master and husband, Philip, the famous king of the French...who wishes to scoff at my youth. Through isolation in prison he continues to torment me through his men...so that I shall conform to his wishes against the law of marriage and the law of Christ...I suffer from innumerable and unendurable indignities. No one dares to visit me, not even monks or nuns in order to comfort me, neither can I hear the word of God to strengthen my soul nor confess to a priest...I do not get sufficient food...I have no medicines to bear the weakness of humankind...I am not allowed to have a bath...I do not have enough clothes, and those I do have do not befit a queen...the detestable people who surround me, by order of the king, never give me any kind words, but torture me with sneering and offensive words...these things and others...make me tired of living.
History abhors a vacuum, and the gaps in this story have been filled with a variety of explanations. Amongst other things, it has been suggested that Philip may have suffered from temporary impotence on his wedding night, and developed an aversion to Ingeborg as a result, though she was always to adhere to her claim that the marriage had been consumated. We do know, though, that Philip came back from the Third Crusade with some unspecified disease, which seems to have affected his mental condition, bringing on periodic panic attacks. He even convinced himself that Richard I had arranged with the Assassins of Syria to have him murdered. However, the specific cause of his sudden rejection of Ingeborg cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.
Politically Philip's actions weakened his realtionship with the Vatican, at the very apogee of its Medieval greatness. In 1213 Ingeborg was finally reinstated as Queen of France, although not as Philip's wife, thus ensuring he could be reconciled with Innocent. The Wikipedia article says that the reason for his action was to allow him to press his claim to the throne of England through his connection with the Danish crown, though no source is given for this statement. Besides, he had earlier tried to get the Danes to accept this claim as part of the marriage negotiations, though this was rejected by Canute VI, Ingeborg's brother. Clio the Muse 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Perhaps it should be mentioned that Pope Celestine III was the Pope at the time of the marriage, with Innocent taking over in 1198, in time to really fall out with Philip, who was excomunicated at one point.Cyta 12:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Britian in 1800

Ok, ok, so this is a homework question but i am really only looking for some leads. I need information on britain in the year 1800. 86.154.188.151 11:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, it was the year in which the Act of Union 1800 was passed – although the Act took effect only the next year. Perhaps you will find some more leads in our articles on the History of the United Kingdom and the year 1800.  --LambiamTalk 12:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first and most obvious point is that Britain was at war with France, which impinged far more on everyday life than a reading of Jane Austen would suggest. Taxes were high, trade disrupted, manufacturing diverted to the war effort, and men were being killed. While the war at sea had been going well, especially after Nelson's victory at the Battle of the Nile two years before, things were not so good with the war on land. By 1800 the French had control of the Low Countries. An attempt by Frederick, Duke of York, the king's son, to dislodge them had been a miserable failure, a misadventure that is though to be a source for the nursery rhyme, The Grand Old Duke of York. Attempted landings at Belle Isle, Ferol and Cadiz had also failed, causing Charles, Marquess Cornwallis to describe the army as the 'laughing stock of Europe.' Waterloo was still a long way away!

As Lambiam has said the Act of Union was passed, following the defeat of the Irish Rebellion of 1798, which was to add the saltire of St. Patrick to the Union Flag. The war also had a serious impact on the national economy, causing inflation and the collapse of the gold standard. Real wages declined in value, resulting in much industrial and social unrest. Concerns about labour activism led the government of William Pitt the Younger to pass the Combination Acts of 1799 and 1800, outlawing trade unions. Britain was also still in the middle of its great Industrial Revolution, which was transforming both rural and urban life. By 1800 London had a population of more than a million people, making it the biggest city in Europe. In 1700 there were only five English towns with more than 10,000 inhabitants. This number rose to twenty-seven in 1800. The system of communication was greatly improving, with many new roads and bridges. Coal production had increased markedly, some 15 million tons being mined in 1800, attracting new industry to the coalfields in Scotland, Wales and northern England. Bit by bit the Dark Satanic Mills were begining to cover much of the country, as Jerusalem was builded here, in England's Green and Pleasant Land. Clio the Muse 00:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Bell-Lancaster method of teaching began to be popular, as Britain struggled to introduce education to all to a year 7 standard, sustainably, without teachers. Nelson was looking at proteges to carry on with his derring do. One such daring raid on a French port had one such protege mortally wounded, dying some six months after, tended at Nelson's House. Nelson's personal life crystallised with the birth of his only child, a daughter named Horatia, to his second wife. Horatia grew up not knowing who her mother was, although she lived with her until her mother died, when Horatia was 12. (check out Pococks' Nelson Biography for Nelson's references) DDB 12:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In later years, it was popular to attribute English success at Waterloo to the adoption of game play (team sport) at schools. However, such sport did not really take off until later in the first half of the 1800's. (Delderfield) DDB 12:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deaths in space

Another morbid question... Is there a list anywhere of people who have died in space? Carcharoth 12:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that anybody had, so it might be a very short list (I don't count the Space Shuttles, as they both were destroyed within Earth's atmosphere). I suppose there might have been some cosmonauts to die in space, perhaps even some kept secret to this day. StuRat 13:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
All humans that are presently known to have been in space are listed here. An asterisk next to the name denotes those who died during spaceflight. Dr_Dima.
Thanks for that. That allows a complete list of space disasters, though some of those listed there died on the launchpad (Apollo 1), or on impact with the Earth after re-entry (Soyuz 1). So the final list I have is:
So the Soyuz 11 disaster comes closest to what I was looking for, and Komarov's cursing of the designers of the spacecraft as he plummeted to his death is a classic (if very sad) moment. Still doesn't top the sad story of the drowning of Prather. See Victor Prather for details.
In addition, if you widen the remit of the question to cover the entire space industry, one of the biggest disasters was the Nedelin catastrophe, where it seems over 100 people died when a large Soviet rocket exploded in 1960. And expanding to include animals, you have Gordo (space monkey) and Laika and others. Carcharoth 14:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've removed the *'s from the Apollo 1 victims. Crashing into the ground at the end of a spaceflight can reasonably be counted as a death during the flight, so Komarov (Soyuz 1) keeps his *. --Anonymous, May 13, 2007, 20:24 (UTC).

[edit] National Identity in Hawai'i

Hello. I am looking for some insight as to how Hawaiians (presently and historically) view their identity. Can Hawaiian be considered a fully fledged national identity? Or is it considered merely a sub-identity of American? How do opinions vary among different groups? I would greatly appreciate some citable resources. Thanks in advance. Ninebucks 13:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That likely depends on which Hawaiians you mean. I'm guessing you mean native Hawaiians of Polynesian descent, but there are also many of European, Japanese, and Filipino descent living there, each likely having different, distinct identities. StuRat 13:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in all Hawaiian groups, but especially the indigenous people, yes. And is it really the case that these identities are completely distinct? Is there not a strain of collective identity? Ninebucks 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not sure what is meant by a "national identity". If national identity means identification with a nation-state, then Hawaiians lack this. If instead it means ethnic identity (see the heading "Alternative usage" in Nationality), then again, Hawaiians other than Native Hawaiians lack an ethnic identity specific to the state.
You might take a peek at the article Haole. The politics of identity in Hawaii are very complex. There is some group feeling among people born and raised in Hawaii that might amount to a regional identity, and particularly an identity in contrast to mainlanders. But the differences among these ethnic groups are considerable, and I'm not sure that the Hawaiian state or regional identity is really any stronger than that of other distinctive American states such as Maine or Texas. The articles Haole and Native Hawaiians list some citable sources that might lead you to other sources as well. Marco polo 02:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Read Hawaiian Independence Movement for an account of a group of indigenous people there who apparently retain a strong native identity. StuRat 05:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Mongols.

Hi everyone, guess what, I just woke up... behold my attitude about history at these early hours !

I've just updated an article about Orda Ichen, basically I've had so much problems with that article that I might need assistance with it. I couldn't copy/paste the text I'd written to my desktop cause every letter had spaces, so I was forced to post the text on wiki to safe it cause I was getting so tired at 3'o clock in the morning.

So anyone have some information about Orda Khan and the white horde, yeah I know that Batu took over but that article is about Orda so no need to discuss the entire story of the blue horde while it is infact meant about the white horde. So what I want to know what are the relations between Kublai & Orda, cause everyone know how badly Kublai messed up in Japan etc.

But anyway there is very little known about Orda Khan and the White Horde while there were 8 Khans of the white horde, so remember the white horde had 8 Khans at least so there is no point in saying they were swallowed (overstatement) or shortlived cause that is bullcrap to me and I am a taurus don't you ever forget !

I did my homework about Orda, what were his relations to the high council of the blue wolf ? Like there was a discussion or something about the forming of the white horde, all things so please don't begn issues about blue horde swallowing or white horde being shortlived cause I don't accept that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phalanxpursos (talk • contribs) 13:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Richard Cobden

I'm looking for some information on the later career of the British politician Richard Cobden, in particular his opposition to the Crimean War. Secret seven 13:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the article on Richard Cobden, especially the section titled "Peace campaigner"? Clarityfiend 16:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a useful article on this very subject by Professor Anthony Howe entitled Richard Cobden and the Crimean War, which you will find in in the June 2004 issue of History Today. As the Wikipedia page indicates, Cobden saw international peace as the corollary of his campaign for free trade. He did not share the popular distrust of Russia, and was deeply opposed to the interventionist foreign policy pursued by Lord Palmerston. However, his oppoosition to the Crimean War undermined the great coalition he had built up in the Anti-Corn Law League; it even earned him a snub in Anthony Trollope's 1855 novel The Warden. You will also find him and his political ally, John Bright, in a cartoon of April 1854 by the satirical magazine Punch, showing them dangling a 'little Turk' as the plaything of Tsar Nicholas I. Cobden went on to publish an anti-war paphlet, What Next-and Next?, in January 1856, but, given the mood of the times, it made little impact. However, in the long run, it was Cobden's views on international peace and non-interventionism that were to gain the upper hand in the Liberal Party, over the adventurism of Palmerston, especially following the emergence of William Ewart Gladstone, his friend and political ally. Clio the Muse 02:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statue of Liberty

When was the Statue of Liberty built? Was it built in France before it was brought to USA? Did they build it here? How long did it take to make? Please answer before Tuesday. Thanks. ~~Amy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.169.160.91 (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC). Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Statue of Liberty. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title.

Algebraist 17:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sack of Rome 1527

I would like some detailed information, please, on the Archduke Charles and the sack of Rome. Judithspencer 18:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As a start, you could read our articles Charles III, Duke of Bourbon and Sack of Rome (1527). If you have more specific questions, please do not hesitate to ask them.  --LambiamTalk 20:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] world evolution

in christianity we believe that god created the world in 7 days. do any other relegions have a beliefe of world evolution? 19:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Creation within belief systems might interest you. 213.201.189.242 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is worth reminding you and everyone else that a seven day creation is not one of the basic tenets of Christianity. You wont find it in any of the Christian creeds. Only in the twentieth century in the United States has anyone attempted to make it some sort of fundamentalist shibboleth. alteripse 20:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Last time I checked, Genesis is part of the Biblical canon.--Kirby♥time 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A follower of Ancient Greek Religion

Hello:

What is a follower of Ancient Greek Religion called?

Thanks,

-- Vikramkr 19:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be the case that no term for this exists. The issue here is that worship in ancient Greece was not a matter of a well-delineated religion, with an authority that worshippers could follow. Some quotes from our article Religion in ancient Greece may clarify this:
  • It is perhaps misleading to speak of 'Greek religion.' In the first place, the Greeks did not have a term for "religion" in the sense of a dimension of existence distinct from all others, and grounded in the belief that the gods exercise authority over the fortunes of human beings and demand recognition as a condition for salvation.
  • Indeed, the Greeks did not have a word for "belief" in either of the two senses familiar to us. Since the existence of the gods was a given, it would have made no sense to ask whether someone "believed" that the gods existed.
  • First, there was no single truth about the gods. Although the different Greek peoples all recognized the 12 major gods ... in different locations these gods had such different histories with the local peoples as often to make them rather distinct gods or goddesses. ... Second, there was no single true way to live in dealing with the gods. ... Third, individuals had a great deal of autonomy in dealing with the gods. After some particularly striking experience, they could bestow a new title upon a god, or declare some particular site as sacred... No authority accrued to the individual who did such a thing, and no obligation fell upon anyone else--only a new opportunity or possibility was added to the already vast and ill-defined repertoire for nomizeining [i.e., paying respect to] the gods.
  • In the context of the Greek traditions, there was no theology in the sense of a rationalized exposition of the normative understanding of the gods.
Worshipping or paying respect to the gods was in a sense a matter of "common sense" to the ancient Greeks; just like we put lightning rods on our houses to deal with the risks of lightning strikes, they might give Zeus his due to avoid being struck by his bolts or otherwise incur his wrath. So ancient Greek religion was not an "ism".  --LambiamTalk 21:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Olympianism is the closest I can get. This strikes me as the worship of the gods residing on Mount Olympus, encompassing most of the Ancient Greek gods. Martinp23 21:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
A modern follower of the Greek gods might call himself a Hellenic pagan or a Hellenic polytheist. [1][2] --Charlene 22:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if the words "pagan" or "polytheist" were in use at the time. My guess is that a "Hellene," by definition, would follow a given set of religious practices. In Against Apion, Josephus' defense of Judaism against Greek objections, the author refers to paganism as simply "the laws of other nations." It was, I'd say, the Jews who introduced the concept of "religion" as distinct from "nationality" in the Western World. The Jews stood out by partially assimilating into the Greco-Roman world while maintaining the faith of their Israelite homeland. This infuriated many Greeks and led to the invention of antisemitism. Even today, there is no distinct term for the indigineous religious practices of many Third World ethnic groups, such as the Yoruba and Luba -- it's just the traditional religion of the Yorubas or the Lubas or whoever, as the case may be. -- Mwalcoff 23:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
If it would have made no sense in ancient Greece to ask whether someone believed that the gods existence, why did that come up as an issue in the Trial of Socrates? According to the Apology (Plato), Meletus claimed that Socrates was an atheist. (Although Meletus soon afterward admitted that Socrates believed in divine activities, thus contradicting his previous accusation, the Apology indicates that the Greeks did have a concept of what atheism was.) --Metropolitan90 08:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course you could say, in ancient Greek: I do not believe that X exist, where for X you can substitute Flying Pastry Monsters or gods. But the charge against Socrates, as put down in the deposition of the accusers, was not so much not believing in the existence of gods, but (according to Plato, in Socrates' words in the Apology) that of Socrates' θεοὺς οὓς ἡ πόλις νομίζει οὐ νομίζοντα, ἕτερα δὲ δαιμόνια καινά not "nomizei-ing" [paying respect to] the gods that the City [Athens] "nomizeis" [and thereby "officially" recognizes], but other new/strange divinities. Taken together with the charge of subverting Athens' youth, the essence of this charge was not so much atheism, but undermining the moral fabric of Athenian society by defiance of the state's customs.  --LambiamTalk 12:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spherical rocks on Mars

NASA named this soil target on Mars after Laika during the Mars Exploration Rover mission
NASA named this soil target on Mars after Laika during the Mars Exploration Rover mission

What would cause these relatively uniform size spherical rocks (mixed in with a few sharp rocks) on Mars ? I would guess they were blown around on the surface and thus eroded into spheres. Due to the thin atmosphere, this would require very high winds, however. The far less likely (but far more interesting) speculation, of course, is that they could be fossilized eggs. StuRat 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Or some Martians lost their marbles.  --LambiamTalk 20:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
This NASA page [3] says that scientists aren't sure. They could be droplets of cooled lava, or they could be concretions around a seed. --Charlene 22:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I assume you mean "seed" as in nucleation site, not as in plant seeds. StuRat 05:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Our article on Martian spherules discusses various possible origins of these objects. Gandalf61 10:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that link (is "spherules" actually a word ?). StuRat 15:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)