From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< November 16	<< Oct | November | Dec >>	November 18 >

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 1 November 17 1.1 French Revolution 1.1.1 French Revolution 2 1.1.2 French Revolution 3 1.1.3 French Revolution 4 1.1.4 French Revolution 5 1.1.5 Reign of terror 1.1.6 Robespierre 1.1.7 Strategic questions—and strategic replies 1.2 muntaber 1.3 one volume edition of Shakespeare 1.4 Ten Thousand Swedes 1.5 Help enforcing blog copyright 1.6 Pakistan´s nuclear weapons 1.7 Guinness Book of World Records 2006 UK edition 1.8 Mental health 1.9 Attempted coup in the United Kingdom 1.10 Witch hunting 1.11 Euro vs dollar 1.12 Inquisition 1.13 Antisemitism in France and Italy 1.14 Six Questions to your favorite author 1.15 Creationism

[edit] November 17

[edit] French Revolution

All of them are not homework. I swear. Please, answer them.

In what specific way did the National Assembly dismantle the old regime?

We don't do your homework. --Anon, 02:27 UTC, November 17, 2007.

[edit] French Revolution 2

It's not homework.

Where did the opposition to the French Revolution come from?

We're opposed to doing your homework. --Anon, 02:27 UTC, November 17, 2007.

[edit] French Revolution 3

What was democratic about the revolution?

We're revolting against the idea of doing your homework. --Anon, 02:27 UTC, November 17, 2007.

There's a democratic consensus against it. —Tamfang (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French Revolution 4

What was tyrannical or dictatorial about the revolution?

We're tyrannical about it. We don't do your homework. --Anon, 02:27 UTC, November 17, 2007.

[edit] French Revolution 5

Which of these forces was most important in shaping the course of events in the revolution?

We also don't do incomplete questions from your homework. --Anon, 02:27 UTC, November 17, 2007.

[edit] Reign of terror

What led of the establishment of the committee of public of safety?

We don't do question 6 of your homework either. --Anon, 02:27 UTC, November 17, 2007.

But ve do ev nice articool, m'sieur: French Revolution

[edit] Robespierre

Do you think Robespierre an idealist or terrorist?

Do you think you'll get the idea soon? We don't do your homework. --Anon, 02:33 UTC, November 17, 2007.

Hint: maybe he's an idealist and a terrorist. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It often takes an idealist to rationalize such crimes. —Tamfang (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe this revolutionary deluge is homework; it's a mission, one which I personally am no longer prepared to take seriously; sorry. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A mission? What sort of mission? —Tamfang (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strategic questions—and strategic replies

• Very sorry for harping on the same string again: but does it really matter whether this is a homework question? After all, we can only speculate whether it is or not.
• What matters, rather, is the quality of the question. I would suggest that if the questioner is after facts which (s)he could easily find out for themselves, given some exertion, we shouldn't bother doing their work for them, whether home or garden. Likewise, if the question is so poorly thought out that any sort of answer will do (as a few subheads earlier), help them do their work more properly: tell them how to think, how to rephrase their questions, how to work out what it is they are curious about, and how to develop a proper search strategy.
• Questioners are better helped if they are referred to German literature or to French Revolution than if their shoelaces are tied for them.
• And no, my intentions in saying this are neither discourteous nor mendacious. I may be accused of both, as to my surprise others have been: but why not assume good faith in any circumstances, or at least until the opposite is proven? Even editors reply in good faith, if sometimes somewhat frostily, and none of us are significantly more monstrous than others (are we?). Bessel Dekker (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter if it is homework? Only if they expect us to do their work for them. We've helped plenty of people doing homework in the past, but usually they've put some work into it first, announced their intentions, and asked for steps to help clarify some things. Which is a perfectly good use of a reference desk. Going to a reference desk and saying, "Here are my questions, get me the answers" is completely unacceptable. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all right, but I think you will find that this is more or less exactly what I am saying. In addition, I see no harm in helping people with their question strategy—what used to be called "the art of asking questions". Bessel Dekker (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I check the French Revolution article but, it doesn't say about how democratic it was, it doesn't say about the opposition to the French Revolution, it doesn't say how National Assembly dismantle the old regime, it doesn't say anything to my questions and these questions are my own. So, please answer them and thank you.

Okay, I'll assume that you're fairly new to the mysteries of how to research topics using the internet. All of us were new at some point, although for me that was so long ago that the process now seems natural. There are more advanced techniques, but here are two quick and simple pointers. 1) Follow links that sound like they might relate to the topic. For instance, in the article French Revolution there is a section on the National Assembly. Notice that there is a link provided for the main article, National Assembly (French Revolution). That means there is more detailed information on another page and someone has provided a link to that page. Click on that link. 2) If you don't find the information you're looking for on one site, search for others. Google is a great tool for this job. Just type in the key words of the topic. Sometimes you'll have to sift through some pages that aren't related all that closely, but if you've chosen good key words you should soon find what you're looking for. For instance, you could search on "opposition to the French Revolution" or "French Revolution reign terror committee public safety" or some such. Finally, when a question asks for an opinion, that means the teacher expects you to read the material and draw your own conclusions. The reason for this type of question is that, in order to answer it honestly (and by yourself), you must have read the material and given it some thought. That is why we don't do homework for others. Doing so would deprive them of an opportunity to learn. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if I misjudged you, anon, but I confess my suspicions were aroused by the machine-gun like rapidity of your questions. It might help if you slowed down somewhat and thought a little more about the subject. I've looked over the article on the French Revolution and am fairly confident that it, and the associated links, covers all of the matters you have raised in the above. As far as democracy and the role of the National Assembly is concerned just think about it for a moment. Under the old absolutist regime there was no popular representation at all, no way for people to express a view on the actions of the state. Any National Assembly, no matter how limited the franchise, is, I would say almost by definition alone, bound to be more democratic than that. The National Assembly and all of its variations were thus the very antithesis of the Ancien Regime. The problem came with the incompatibility of continuing revolutionary violence and stable government. Hence the institutionalised Terror; hence the rule of the executive committees; hence the evolving dictatorship. I hope this is enough for you, but if you do have any more questions, please, one at a time! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, but really, it didn't help either because none of you read the questions seriously.

[edit] muntaber

saya perlu bantuan data tentang muntaber untuk penugasan FKM. Artinya, akibatnya, pencegahannya & perawatannya.

Yes, but take at closer look at the muntaber and you will see it isn't rally akibatnya. Hope that helps! 161.222.160.8 (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What??? Esskater11 04:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Online translation tools for Indonesian to English give this as (approximately) "I need help finding the data about muntaber for an assignment I have to do for FKM. And information on it's prevention & treatment." muntaber is defined as "diarrhoea and vomiting, especially as cholera symptoms" in translation dictionaries. So all in all a homework question not in English. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• The translation should run: "I need help finding data on diarrhoea-cum-vomiting as an FKM assignment. This means: its causes, prevention, and treatment". It is true that muntaber is especially associated with cholera. So in line with my sermon above, I suggest, not answering the question, but pointing the way, as follows.
• Kepada penanya yang terhormat: Pertanyaan itu tak bisa kami menjawabkan dengan pasti, akan tetapi biasanya, muntaber itu berhubungan dengan penyakit kolera. Apakah Saudara sudah membaca artikel ttg Cholera, baik dalam wiki Inggris dan Indonesia? (Ada pranala disana juga.) Dan apakah Saudara sudah memakai Google memasuk perkataan-perkataan muntaber bersama treatment atau perawatan? Harap berhasil! Bessel Dekker (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• (This refers them to the article indicated, to its external links, and to a Google strategy.) Bessel Dekker (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] one volume edition of Shakespeare

Hi folks. I recently (last 4-6 months) came across a one volume edition of Shakespeare complete, which had both major versions of Lear (the History and the Tragedy, I think from the Quarto and Folio texts) side by side for the first 2 or 3 acts, after which they were conflated into a single text. Does anyone know what this edition is? I live in Perth Western Australia, if that's any help, though I expect it's probably a relatively recent worldwide release. 203.221.126.137 (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The title page will tell you the editor, publisher, place of publication and date. --Wetman (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that 203.221 does not possess the copy, and would like to find out its vital statistics in order to retrieve it. How about consulting a specialist library, whose staff are pre-eminently equipped to answer this sort of retrieval questions? Bessel Dekker (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which edition you saw. Apparently Wells&Taylor's Oxford Complete Works contains both versions of King Lear, though, if that helps. AndyJones (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those suggestions. I'm surprised no one seems to have come across the exact version (I was, of course, interested in retrieval, thanx Bessel). I'll look for that Oxford version, but the one I'm interested in doesn't have the complete text of both, just the two side by side for comparison for the first three acts or so. 203.221.126.252 (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ten Thousand Swedes

What are the rest of the words for the poem/song: "Ten Thousand Swedes ran through the weeds, chased by one Norwegian [Naarvagan], but it twerent no use, coz they spit the juice in the Battle of Copenhagen."???

Why doesn't it seem complete to you as it stands? See Quatrain. --Wetman (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

While reading these lines does instil in the reader a sense of closure, at the same time not all quatrains, or indeed four-liners, are complete in themselves. If that were true, no sonnet would be possible, to name the most obvious example. Unfortunately, Google seems unwilling to provide further information. Bessel Dekker (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a few variants, all keeping to the same form and length, such as "Ten thousand Swedes ran through the weeds, Chased by one Norwegian. Ten thousand more ran to the shore, In the battle of Copenhagen." The ditty is based on events of The assault on Copenhagen. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help enforcing blog copyright

[edit] Pakistan´s nuclear weapons

I heard that Musharraf is defending his emergency rule saying that Pakistan´s nuclear weapons could fall into the wrong hands. Just how easily could control of the nuclear weaponry they have really fall into eg: fundamentalists´ or even terrorists´ hands (or is he exaggerating), and what kind of damage could be done here (could they reach Europe?). Also, which bright spark sold Pakistan WMDs in the first place??? Thanks for info. --AlexSuricata (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

At least some background can be found here: Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. --Edcolins (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would be terrible if they fell into the hands of a military dictator who suspends the constitution and locks up judges and democracy campaigners and... oh... whoops! DuncanHill (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Edcolins' link is a good one. As to your final question: no sale was concluded, but Dr Khan "imported" knowledge from the Netherlands (as a Dutchman, this fails to make my bosom swell with pride). This knowledge is now alleged to have been sold to buyers willing to pay enough, so that would suggest that the technology could easily fall into hands in need of washing. As for their ability to reach Europe, the question would be: Why not? Of course all of this leaves wide open yet another question: With all due respect, is President Musharraf to be trusted, more so than any alternative rulers, politicians and soldiers? This is a political question, and seems legitimate, but not one to be answered by an encyclopaedia, I should think. Bessel Dekker (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody sold Pakistan nuclear weapons on purpose; the road to their nukes is a long and twisted one, going over decades of time and involving a good deal of subterfuge. You might take a look at our page on A. Q. Khan, the "father" of the Pakistani nuclear program (as well as the "father" of the nuclear black market), for more information—it's a fascinating story.

As for Musharraf—it's clear that martial law is not improving the stability of the country in either the short or long term. And it is also clear that he has focused his efforts under martial law in oppressing his liberal political opponents, not terrorists or fundamentalists. Personally I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

As for the safety of the nukes—it's really hard to say without knowing technical details. If they have Permissive Action Links then they are presumably difficult to use in an unauthorized fashion. In any case though the unauthorized acquisition of nuclear weapons by anybody is a bad, bad thing. They needn't be able to hit Europe with them by rockets to smuggle one in. Depending on the type of fuel used in the weapon, they might not even need to detonate it using its preexisting hardware—they could extract the fissile material and just re-fashion it into a crude nuke, which would be bad enough (something like this occurs in the movie Sum of All Fears). Anyway, it's hard to say exactly how hard it would be for someone to re-use Pakistan's nukes without knowing more about them, but the fact that they are likely made out of enriched uranium bodes ill in any case, as that is the easiest fissile material to re-use.

Now, is that a justification for the martial law? Certainly not. Musharraf put in martial law not because of his fear of fundamentalists or terrorists—he's actually been scarily lenient with them—he put it into place because the Supreme Court was going to rule against his ability to run rigged elections. As noted he has used it primarily to suppress lawyers and the judiciary branch, not radicals. The current Pakistani military government is formed out of the conspiracies of the Pakistani ISI (secret service), one of the more notorious state-funded terrorist organizations. I wouldn't trust them at all, personally—I'm not sure it is any less scary that they are the ones who have control of the nuclear weapons at the moment! There is little doubt in my mind that the Pakistani military government had something to do with the suicide attack against of Benazir Bhutto last month—it is entirely keeping in character with the style and history of the ISI, and the lack of any serious investigation into the incident makes it especially clear who is behind it. (And if the Taliban goes to the trouble of denying complicity in a successful attack, you know something is up.) --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: It seems that Pakistani nukes do not have PALs; meaning, in non-wonkese, that they would not be hard to detonate. Bad news. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the U.S. government shares at least some concerns over the security of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal [1]. Azi Like a Fox (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guinness Book of World Records 2006 UK edition

Relisted to generate more input. --Edcolins (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

In the article on Maurizio Giuliano, "Guinness Book of World Records 2006 (UK edition), page 126" is given as source for supporting that he was "the youngest person to visit all independent nations" at 23. I cannot verify this though. I have no access to this book. If anybody has such book, could he check what it is the precise wording of the alleged record, so that the article can be verified and improved? Thanks a lot. (Google Books does not offer to search inside this version). --Edcolins 19:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The exact name of the book might rather be Guinness World Records. --Edcolins (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You can search The Guiness World Records on-line and the name of Maurizio Giuliano does not appear in the GWR web-site through the site search engine. I have just read an article written in 2004 saying that he was on his way to the GWR to present his claim to the adjudicators. Either he is taking the pretty route or his claim has not been accepted, (or possibly the search engine is faulty!!) Richard Avery (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the search engine is not exhaustive. It seems to be limited to some entries (otherwise many wouldn't buy the book...). Does anyone possess the book Guiness World Records 2006 UK edition? (or just page 126 of this book? - that would be sufficient!) Please... For the sake of verifying unverified claims on Wikipedia. --Edcolins (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mental health

I have to write an essay (2500 words) on the following question and would be very greatful if someone could discuss with me how they would tackle this question?

'Consider the extent to which the admission and discharge provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983 safeguard the patient’s right to protection from arbitrary detention as required by Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.'

My starting point would be article 5, and stating what the admission and discharge provisions are.

But I don't know what else to include aside from analysing the extent to which these provisions safeguard a patients protection. Should I be considering for example, why it is so important to uphold article 5 so far as possible, and should I include an brief analysis of the extent to which article 5 is upheld once an individual is detained? Treatment for example can be forced upon an individual with capacity or not if compulsarily detained, so therefore it is vitally important that the provisions of admission and discharge safeguard the patients rights, and that there is a high threshold in order to detain, and a lower one to release once detained?

I would be very grateful if you could suggest some pertinent articles for me to have a look at, i'm finding it difficult to find relevant reading

Many thanks xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.138.54 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 17 November 2007

No doubt someone will be along soon to suggest that we can't do your homework for you. However, I think you have raised your question in an appropriate way, asking for some feedback and pointers to information.

I think you are on the right track. Your starting point seems like the right one; you need to clearly define the two things you are comparing. Then you should analyze them to determine to what extent - if any - the A&D provisions represent arbitrary detention. If you decide that they do, you may want to then consider the extent to which such a detention is justifiable in order to protect the public, or - as is sometimes the case with mental illness - the detained person herself. This is one of those areas where rights come into conflict.

I don't know what level of schooling you are in right now, but 2500 words isn't really a lot - you don't want to try and cover too many points because you won't be able to do all of them justice.

You might want to read the articles here on Mental illness and European Convention on Human Rights, but only as a starting point. Use them to find external links and sources. I am not sure you need a whole lot beyond the the Act and the Convention you are studying, to be honest - perhaps a couple of analysis pieces, or reports on detentions that have taken place under the Act. But the question is looking for your analysis.

I hope these comments are helpful. - Eron^Talk 14:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Im university level so I need to read some journal articles really, but im finding it hard to get any relevant ones. I dont want someone to answer the question for me, just point me in the right direction!

Really I need to know which specific provisions of A&D to focus on, as they are both wide concepts and with the word limit so low I wont have the time to look at everything! Thanks xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.138.54 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 17 November 2007

As it turns out we also have an article on the Mental Health Act 1983 which includes some journal articles in the references section. Those will probably be a good starting point. - Eron^Talk 15:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This, of course, has little to do with a homework question. That said, what is the assignment about? It seems to me, a complete layman, that two aspects stand out:

• the admission and discharge provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983
• the patient’s right to protection from arbitrary detention as required by Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This would suggest (1) listing the relevant provisions in the Act (2) formulating how the Convention defines "arbitrary detention" (so that the reader knows what it is we are talking about) (3) examining each provision to see whether it safeguards (or perhaps easier: infringes) the definition. This could be succinct, descriptive, no prescriptive additions on your part needed. (Of course, there could be a spate of other approaches, and your suggestion that you depart from art. 5 is equally tenable, in fact rather similar.) Bessel Dekker (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are at the university level and need journal articles, take advantage of the subscription resources at your institution's library. You pay for them with your tuition, and you can register to access them online. --Jowitono (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attempted coup in the United Kingdom

I remember reading something once about an attempted military coup in Britain, some time in the 1970's and I think under Harold Wilson's second government. I don't remember anything else, so I've not been able to find any details about it. Could someone help me find out if this is fiction, or just well concealed? Moyabrit (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to be a matter of (pleasantly heated) debate whether this is a conspiracy theory or a cover up. We can, of course, provide you with our own private and very interesting views, but at the end of the day, you would have to make up your own mind in view of the rather extensive literature. It might be interesting to plough through a number of enjoyable publications found here: [2]. One cautionary remark: conspiracy theories are often much more attractive than sober analysis, so do exercise your critical faculties. Have fun. Bessel Dekker Bessel Dekker (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do read and enjoy A Very British Coup. As for the conspiracy theories, best treat these with a considerable degree of critical detachment. Such rare plants tend to be forced in intelligence hothouses, like that of MI5 and, I suppose, in the minds of paranoid Prime Ministers! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 50 of Philip Ziegler's life of Mountbatten may be of help to Moyabrit. It involved Mountbatten, Solly Zuckerman, Cecil King and Hugh Cudlipp. Accounts of what was said differ, but Mountbatten's diary refers to the talk as "dangerous nonsense!" DuncanHill (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Try David Leigh's book The Wilson Plot, Beckett's Pinochet in Piccadilly and the article on Walter Walker.--Johnbull (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Witch hunting

When and why did mass witch Hunting come to an end in Europe? 86.147.191.76 (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Have you consulted the Wikipedia article on the subject? Bessel Dekker (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I can help/start you with this. In the UK one of the key people was

Francis Hutchinson (1660-1739), bishop of Down and Connor, second son of Edward Hitchinson, was born on 2 Jan. 1660 at Carsington, Derbyshire. He had his career held back because he published books about how witchcraft was hocum.

I'm just writing an article on him although there is stuff out there. In western Europe there is a guy called Cornelius Loos who was involved towards the end. Do note that witchcraft was invented and ended over a few hundred years. The Salem trials in America is where they went crazy about the idea. Victuallers (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Mass witch-hunting was largely over by 1700, though it is important to understand that it always had a local or a regional rather than continental character. There was never, in other words, a European witch-hunt as such. The reasons for decline are really to do with official attitudes, the growing belief in both church and state that the whole thing was socially disruptive and counter-productive. In England by the middle of the eighteenth century people were more likely to be prosecuted for attacks on alleged witches than for being witches themselves. The decline in interest is further evidenced by the actions of the Paris parlement, which increasingly upheld appeals against witchcraft. In Spain the Inquisition set a standard of proof so high that prosecutions all but ended in the early part of the seventeenth century. In Germany the mass witch-hunt was a phenomenon closely related to the economic, social and political upheavals that followed from the Thirty Years War. The return to normality, and the establishment of more settled religious boundaries, ended the need for the pursuit of scapegoats. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well...not entirely... GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Helen Duncan was indicted under the Witchcraft Act of 1735, which shifted the emphasis in law away from prosecutions for witchcraft to prosecutions for fraudulent claims of witchcraft, or extraordinary powers of any kind. Duncan, moreover, was perceived less as a scapegoat and more as a security risk. Besides, GeeJo, I hardly think she can be said to constitute a 'mass'! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing Gee Jo was thinking along the lines of Arthur Miller, Clio. 203.221.126.252 (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Euro vs dollar

Nowadays the dollar is falling like a stone against the euro. It peaked at a crazy 1.47$ = 1€. What are the expectations? Will the dollar recover somewhat in a period of 6-12 months or is this considered to be unlikely? Thanks. --Taraborn (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Whose expectations? Any experts I have read/heard would answer your questions as follows: Negative. No it won't and yes it is. Then of course, nothing is more unpredictable than the future. Bessel Dekker (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely the past and the present are more unpredictable than the future? Xn4 02:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really, Xn4, not really. Who can predict what supernova will tomorrow be seen to have exploded aeons ago? Bessel Dekker (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a truly brilliant escape, Bessel Dekker! It leaves Houdini standing. Xn4 14:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Aha, so nobody's got a clue. I thought that, perhaps, our knowledge of economy was applicable to predict, with a certain margin of error, of course, those things. --[[User:Tarabornhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&action=submit

Editing Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities - Preview - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia|Taraborn]] (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, some people think they have a clue. That is the basis of trading currency on a Forward market, those that are skilled (or lucky) can make money, those are are not lose money.

David Ignatius' explains the possibilities from different market perspectives:

The Adam Smith version: As the dollar falls, China and other Asian nations will begin adjusting their portfolios so that they accumulate fewer dollars. The value of their artificially pegged currencies will finally rise against the dollar. Over time, the U.S. trade deficit will shrink, and the dollar eventually will begin to rise again. Then there's the Jim Cramer version: As the dollar falls, the gradual adjustment will turn into a stampede, with investors fleeing dollars for the safety of other currencies. The Fed will have to raise interest rates, consumers will stop spending and America will sink into recession. [3] Do you trust Smith or Cramer's interpretation of market behaviour? Rockpocket 21:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do so few laypeople seem to have heard of the Efficient Markets Hypothesis, which makes it clear that you cannot predict the value of currencies or stocks in the future? 80.0.102.131 (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"Clear" if you believe Fama's theory. Others promote a behavioral finance paradigm that suggests human biases permit insight into market decisions, which would then be predictable (to some extent). Rockpocket 23:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm with our friend from Hampshire. The markets are efficient. If the dollar were certain to continue falling, it would have fallen already. --M@rēino 03:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Most laypeople have heard of the EMH, I believe. This does not necessarily mean that they agree with vague concepts such as "all known information". BTW, if the dollar had fallen already, it would be certain to have reached its bottom by now. Which once more opens the door to behavioural finance, or, for that matter, technical analysis. Bessel Dekker (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha... Just passing by, I will point at a famous phrase: "There are two kinds of economist: The ones that don't know how to make predictions, and the ones that don't know that they don't know kow to make predictions..." Pallida  Mors 03:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inquisition

Can the Spanish Inquisition be seen as an early modern form of a secret police force? 86.147.191.76 (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Have you consulted the Wikipedia article Inquisition on the subject? Bessel Dekker (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If he's asking here it's because he has. That applies to every question which doesn't obviously imply otherwise. If you don't know the answer, don't reply. --Taraborn (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can assume the questionner has read the article, but neither can you assume that he/she hasn't. This would be true with almost any question on the Ref Desk, absent any specific information to the contrary, unless the questionner is recognized as a long-time or sophisticated user of Wikipedia. Politely asking the question helps to qualify the questionner and may save the respondent considerable time in drafting an answer. I can't see that Bessel Dekker deserves Taraborn's chastisement here. Bielle (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Inasmuch as it was an agency of state power which often operated in an inscrutable fashion, yes, I suppose it can. Yet, despite its fearsome reputation, the Inquisition did not have the resources to create a nation-wide apparatus of terror. Its purges, if anything, had a partial and peripatetic character. They were also uneven, worse at some periods than at others. Now compare that with the techniques, practices and omnipresence of police forces in modern totalitarian states. I can only agree with Charles Petrie, who said in his Philip II of Spain that the "Inquisition was a very mild affair by contrast with the NKVD or the Gestapo." Clio the Muse (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Taraborn is completely ignorant of the fact that the answer to the question was implied in the article (as was the case in an earlier question, two subheads above). He also misses the point that I wrote my comment in light of previous discussions. All this, I suppose, is his prerogative. In light of this, however, his inference that I should not "know the answer" is quite bizarre.

That said, Clio the Muse's explanation is admirably generous. Bessel Dekker (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To you two: First, it's "questioner", not "*questionner", unless you wanted to spell it in French. On the other hand, I guess you are not familiar with Presumption of innocence. Read the article. I assume people are doing their best unless the contrary is suggested by evidence. And no, you do not need to be a renowned benefactor to deserve this treatment. By the way, don't expect me to reply again, I don't feel it's worth my time. --Taraborn (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you had presumed "innocence" (what a misapplication here) you would not have typed "If you don't know the answer, don't reply." And it doesn't get any lamer than pointing out typos. 77.56.97.105 (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations... but you have just proven yourself to be a moron, because you have understood nothing, but don't take this as a personal attack, this is just my opinion of you, don't hate me for this. And yeah, making 3 times the same typo in a paragraph is indeed "just a typo", which is even more suspicious when you mistake a double consonant for a single one. Well, at least you guys gave me a big laugh. --Taraborn (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, "questionner" is a misspelling of "questioner". The original mistake was mine, repeated three times, as Taraborn has so carefully counted for us. Mea culpa; mea culpa; mea maxima culpa. I think I was in fourth grade the last time a spelling mistake was the focus of such derision, and I am sorry that 77.56.97.105, who was doubtless intending to be kind to me in sggesting it was a typo, took the brunt of Taraborn's sarcastic "congratulations". There is a singular absence of WP:AGF in these exchanges. I am hoping the questioner can just skip around the "friendly fire" to find Clio's answer. Bielle (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said Bielle. DuncanHill (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's particularly bizarre, as I didn't think 'questioner' was a standard word; rather I thought it was a handy creation we sometimes use on these desks. In that sense, can it have an incorrect spelling, provided the meaning is clear? If someone has created a word to convey a clear meaning, could they not make different decisions as to how it should best be represented? 'Questioner' and 'questionner' both look 'right' to me, with the double-n ensuring the 'o' is short (something that might be assumed, knowing the root of the word). Skittle (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody expected this question!199.76.174.112 (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antisemitism in France and Italy

In the Second World War why was the official policy towards the Jews so much worse in Vichy than in Fascist Italy? Pere Duchesne (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pere. The simple answer is ideology. Vichy was under the control of Nazi Germany, and feared for its own people if it did not comply with German orders. Nazism is a peculiar brand of Fascism which emphasises the importance of eugenics and race; in most other 'brands' of fascism this is not so much the case. If you were to contrast Nazism with Italian fascism then you will see the difference. Mussolini sought to create an antithesis to the ideal 'Italian man', and came to light on the Jews. By contrast, Hitler fervently believed in the intrinsic genetic inferiority of the Jewish people, and sought to destroy them absolutely.

Vichy, with Nazi rather than Italian fascist masters, was therefore more involved in the 'Final Solution to the Jewish Problem' than Italy.

Chrisfow (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no; ideology is only part of the answer; the full answer is politics. There was indeed a strong ideological underpinning to anti-semitism in France, going back to the Dreyfus Affair and before. Even so, the conduct of the Vichy state cannot be explained simply by reference to a pre-history of a prejudice, nor, indeed, by the presence of German troops on French soil. This question raises a complex set of issues, but let me simplify it to this: the action of the Petain government in relation to the Jews was conditioned, more than anything else, by a determination to preserve French autonomy and freedom of action, paradoxical as it sounds. For example, the first Jewish Statute of October 1940 owed nothing whatsoever to German pressure. More than this, when the Germans started to adopt their own policy in the Occupied Zone Vichy followed closely on, not because it 'feared' for its own people, but because of concerns over the disunity of France, over divergence between the free and the occupied zones.

Remember, Vichy claimed authority, or attempted to claim authority, over all of France, not just the south. Admiral Darlan, Prime Minister of France from December 1940 to April 1942, created the Commissariat-General for Jewish Affairs in March 1941 entirely on his own initiative, for the simple reason that he wanted to preempt a German plan to set up their own agency, operating in the north alone. Also the General Union of the Israelites of France, a Jewish umbrella organisation on the lines of the Eastern European Judenräte, was established by Vichy in November 1941 solely to steal a march on the Germans. This attempt to keep up with the Germans, to ensure policy that applied to the whole and not the part, meant that anti-semitism moved in an ever more radical spiral. But it was urged on by men like Pierre Laval, who replaced Darlan as Prime Minister in April 1942, and René Bousquet, who had responsibility for the police, men who were not ideologically anti-semitic, for political and organistational reasons; for reasons, in other words, of national prestige and autonomy. This does nothing to lessen the moral turpitude involved in a policy that ensured greater safety for French Jews in areas under the control of the Italian Fascists, areas where they were safe from their own police. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Six Questions to your favorite author

If, you could ask six questions to your favorite author what would they be.

Please do not cross-post the same question to multiple reference desks. -- kainaw™ 21:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, X_____: what would be the six questions that you would ask of your favourite author? Clio the Muse (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• 1)where do you get your ideas from?

2)don't the people around you mind you putting them in your books? 3)which one are you in your books? 4)I could write a book.Will you read my manuscript? 5)will you get it published for me? 6)how much do you get paid?Bet it's loads,eh?..hotclaws 00:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We had this same thread on the desk less than two weeks ago. See Six Questions to your favorite author posted on November 9, 2007. Xn4 01:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The habit of referring questioners to articles where answers may be found seems to go out of fashion, so I'll refrain from mentioning Publishing (which might enlighten him on some of the points he raises). Apologies for this sarcasm, which was inspired by a previous exchange and is in no way directed against the present questioner. But seriously, there is a problem here: These questions cannot be answered sensibly. Experienced authors would reply as follows, if they were honest:

1. Sigh. I've been asked this at every WI meeting and in each library I visited, and I'm sorry but I don't know.
2. I do not write (auto)biographies.
3. All of them.
4. No. Nor will most publishers (they may leaf through it): this may disappoint you but it is a fact.
5. Will you take the risk of bankruptcy for me?
6. Royalties are usually some 10 per cent of sales, and if you want to make "loads", it might be more advisable to find a nine-to-five job, surprising as this may seem.

Unfortunately, these are the general questions that all too often crop up. Understandably. But authors prefer being asked about their work more specifically. A few guidelines might be as follows. Show an interest in their output. Demonstrate that you have read them attentively. Phrase your questions accordingly. Their replies to specific questions might be both polite and instructive. (And after all, if you have not read them, how can you expect them to read your manuscript?) Bessel Dekker (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry,I was being sarcastic..hotclaws 11:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(1)what's it like in the afterlife? (2) bet you didn't see an afterlife coming, did you? (3) now that you're in the hereafter, do you have any insights for us on how to save all those endangered species? (4) are we really mostly harmless, or are we endangering ourselves? (5) what could Wikipedia stand to learn from H2G2? (6) what is The Question? --M@rēino 03:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• And in that case, what is The Answer? Ask not what Wikipedia can learn from the afterlife, ask what the afterlife can learn from Wikipedia. Bessel Dekker (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism

Hey everybody, I just wanna know if I'm crazy, and I'm sure consensus will show that I am. I think, in relation to creationism, that nothing has been created ever. Because I don't understand how anything can be created from nothing, and how G-d can be created also. So is it feesable that all that we experience is the world's greatest illusion. If not, could somebody explain how "creation" can occur when it begins with nothing. Sorry for posing such an awkward question --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 21:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Creationism is, at best, a pseudoscience and hence doesn't follow any strict scientific method or logic. At the very basis of creationist belief is just that, belief. Of course, irrespective of how you believe the multiverse started, its natural to propose that it came from somewhere and before that there was.... what? Nothing (whatever that is)? So unless the multiverse is temporally and spatially infinite, at some point something was created from nothing. The idea that reality is an illusion has been pondered by others, see Nick Bostrom for example. Rockpocket 22:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You might find the article Anthropic principle interesting. It doesn't bear directly on creation itself, but more on our ability to think about it. I take comfort in the thought that I don't even understand relativity or quantum mechanics, so the limits of my math leave me out of the race to find the answer to life, the universe, and everything. The universe has already been shown to be inaccessible to intuition and metaphysics. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian theology (like most other kinds) generally holds that God has always existed. And as I understand it - though no doubt someone else can say more on this than I can - it's arguable in theoretical physics that all sub-atomic particles have always existed in some form. Put those two together with our knowledge, such as it is, of the nature of the universe, and perhaps you aren't crazy? Xn4 01:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Milkbreath's link to Anthropic principle is very enlightening. In addition, all this touches on the idea of solipsism (we can only know our own mind), which comes close to your idea of experience as an illusion. Dr Johnson's famous reply to this, however, was that anyone who kicked a heavy stone would soon come to his senses. And that is the practical counter-argument. If our experience is an illusion, this should not stop us from breathing, for example.

As for creation (from nothing) as opposed to making (from something), surely that concept is difficult to grasp. See Existence of God for related ideas: God as the Creator or First Mover raises the question as to whether He had always existed, and what "always" means in the context.

Incidentally, similar questions are raised by the Big Bang theory. We cannot know, apparently, what preceded the Big Bang, nor do we know how many expansions and contractions of the universe preceded it.

It is true, I believe, that particles have always existed—because without matter, there is no time. So when particles did not exist, there was no time, and "always" only began when matter began. And before that? Nothing. Perhaps it is easier to accept the concept of complete nothingness than to grasp it. Bessel Dekker (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins compared asking what was before the Big Bang to asking what's north of the North Pole. When you ask what's before time, you're using a relative measure based on a concept/dimension/what have you that hadn't come into existence yet. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 05:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• You're not crazy. Your ideas remind me of Last Thursdayism. --M@rēino 03:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian theology in a nutshell says that since God is that great of a being, common rules such as "everything has to be created in the beginning" doesn't apply. God breaks all the rules, sort of. This argument is good only if you believed in God in the first place, but it won't convince non-theists or those who are skeptical.128.163.224.198 (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There's the apparent impossibility of matter having always been in existence vs. the apparent impossibility of creating something out of nothing. Either matter always was, or it had to be created by some entity at some point. Science seems happy with the former, believers prefer the latter - and imo nobody will ever know which is true. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And God, of course, can stand outside time, unlike matter. Bessel Dekker doubts the meaning of always, and the same must go for ever. I can't help thinking of those great lines of T. S. Eliot's - "What we call the beginning is often the end. And to make an end is to make a beginning. The end is where we start from." Xn4 14:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I never could understand the notion that God can stand outside time. Sure, He can be outside the 'universe's' time, but God is still bound by "his own" time. While God may not occupy a physical space, the mere idea of existing means that he's occupying some kind of space (again, not a physical space). Any being that exists can't escape time. If time does not apply to God, does that mean the idea of sequentiality does not apply? For example, as a human I can think of, say, ordering Chinese food. But moments later, I change my mind and decide to order pizza. Changing my mind implies that there's sequentiality, and sequentiality implies I'm bound by time. If God is outside any kind of time, then there is no such thing as sequentiality to him. But how is that possible? Wasn't there a "time" where God sat there doing nothing, and wasn't there a moment in "time" that he decided to create the universe? If so, then he doesn't stand outside his own time.199.76.174.112 (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

'One measures a circle, starting anywhere' or whatever the phrase is. Skittle (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

199.76, I understand your problem. You have to factor in the concept that God has always existed. There was never a time before which he didn't exist. This is easier for me to conceptualise than the concept that matter has always existed (which I disagree with) - God isn't made of matter, but was the creator of all matter. The concept that God has always existed is fundamental to a belief in God. If there was ever a time before which he didn't exist, then who or what created him, and precisely when did this happen? If there is an answer to these questions, then this other entity is more powerful than God himself, a contradiction in terms. Hence, God has always existed. Hence, he has no need for time in order to measure things from any particular starting point - because there was no starting point for him. Hence he's outside time. We mere humans try in our feeble way to understand him in human terms, including imposing time on him, which will always fail. Does the painting ever really understand the painter, or insist he use water colours rather than oils? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not my belief that the religion of my fellow humans must be respected. A brief browse in the OT seems to indicate, that the omniscient and omnipotent perfectionist creator is an entity who "smites", murders and kills for rather arbitrary reasons. Barely is Genesis over, are the little kiddies in Egypt killed, the sinners of Sodom and Gomorrah vanish, the vast majority of humankind - including animals and plants - are drowned in a Great Flood, some poor guy who invents coitus interruptus snuffs it, a competitor (the mildly atheistic protagonist of the NT) dies miserably, and, and, and...

If there is a God, then God help us, since the next holocaust to rid humankind of yet more sinners is surely on the horizon. His divine operation "Global Warming" - aka the Great Deluge / Mark II - will presumably be mentioned in Testament Numero 3 as His next attempt at "ethic cleansing".

Any person who believes in this Abrahamic God is either foolish, ignorant or evil. If sanity and reason prevails, we should murder this entity, before He kills us all.

As to creating something out of "nothing" or "living" in an engineered reality, well, some already do it. Religion is a prime example, as it has created a God out of nothing and stages a great holodeck show with devils, saints, heaven, sin, prayer and salvation.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

All fine, except that a belief in the existence of God does not depend on anything whatsover to do with religions of any kind or with any parts of the Christian, Jewish or any other bibles or sacred texts. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)