Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 November 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< November 6 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 8 >
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] November 7

[edit] Empowering Women

Hello. As sad as it is, in many parts of the world today, men are considered superior to women. While it is getting better, there is still a gender-bias coming from a lot of people. Does anyone have any unique ideas that could work to empower women throughout the world? Whether it's incorporating them into important roles or society or anything else, can you please share them. Thankyou!

-Jennifer

Jennifer, education is the route to all power, coupled with the removal of social disabilities, including removal of structural barriers to employment opportunities. I was reluctant to write this because these are not 'unique ideas'. They do, however, lie at the heart of all progress. Clio the Muse 01:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Each of us must free his or her own mind. We cannot control what others do or think. Become yourself the new human, and others will learn by your example. --Milkbreath 02:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Does anyone have anything else?

Not particularly "unique" as an idea, but legislation can help. --Dweller 13:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Repeal of legislation sometimes helps more. I'm just sayin'. —Tamfang 03:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A helpful tool to help describe foreign policy

"Hard & soft (smart)foriegn policy" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.119.46 (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there are specialists to whom this is clear, but I am not one of them. Could you re--phrase your question, please? Thanks Bielle 05:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There is an article on Soft power... AnonMoos 10:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian Document

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_language_struggle#Background says in the 3rd paragraph: "The last example found of an original Middle Norwegian document is from 1583.".

I was wondering who is the author of the quoted document, which dialect did he speak, where did he write this document, and which dialect did he write in. Thanks.70.74.35.144 05:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is just a wild guess, since i see that the question went unanswered last time around, maybe Hamarkrøniken (The Hamar Chronicle) which has been dated between 1550 and 1624, by an unknown author?—eric 07:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I've asked User: Leifern, who added that info last year if he could comment here.—eric 17:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
He's replied on the article's talk page.—eric 17:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catherine the Great

How is she viewed in Russia today?Plekhanov 06:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

By whom? Who would decide the official "view"? --Wetman 07:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Ideally, you need a Russian to answer this, but I think we can say that most Russians see Catherine as a strong and successful ruler and a great patron of the arts. She's also well remembered as a woman of many lovers and as a foreigner. Xn4 12:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There has, Plekhanov, been a major re-evaluation of a great many aspects of Russian history since the fall of the old Soviet Union, which freed academics from the Marxist 'burden of interpretation', which shaped and conditioned the views they were allowed to express. In Soviet days Catherine was perceived as little better than a foreign adventuress, indifferent to the needs of the people. Now a whole variety of new lines of research have opened up, a process that has quickened ever since the international conference held at St. Petersburg in 1996 to mark the bicentenary of her death. The chief tendency now is to see Catherine, though a German by birth, as more Russian than the Russians; a ruler who brought prolonged stability to the country; a ruler who was second to none in her management of both people and power; a ruler who continued a process of modernisation and development begun by Peter the Great. Clio the Muse 00:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia as a research tool

I was wondering how reliable the historians among you consider Wikipedia to be as a research tool? The reason I ask is because earlier this year students at a college in Vermont were banned from citing the big W after several produced papers on the seventeenth century Shimabara Rebellion in Japan, all containing the same errors, subsequently found to have come from your encyclopedia.217.43.15.248 08:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The question is invalid because you don't cite any encyclopedia/tertiary source. Anyone citing Wikipedia as a reference instead of the secondary sources it cites deserves what comes to them. It's a research beginning point, nothing more. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 08:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a historian, but I know one. Wikipedia is worthless as a source, but it has value for quick look-up, for example, what was the Fabian Society? But to read past the lead sentence is dangerous; you run the risk of being exposed to misinformation. Even the links and references are suspect and would require time-wasting winnowing. That goes for any non-peer-reviewed material, not just our humble hodgepodge. I'm surprised to hear that not all colleges everywhere have already forbidden citing any general encyclopedia. --Milkbreath 12:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I am a historian (of sorts) and have taught classes where undergraduates used Wikipedia for both good and ill effect. The fact is that Wikipedia is just unpredictable. In some cases its contents are entirely reliable and wonderful. In some it has errors or amazing lacunae. There's really no way to know which is which in what you are reading, and the presence of citations or consensus among editors has nothing to do with it. I tell students they should feel free to use Wikipedia to look up innocuous things like dates and places for what could be considered items of common knowledge—these sorts of easily verifiable things are usually correct—but getting far beyond that one should try and double-check anything you read in Wikipedia somewhere else before using it in a paper. Presumably they should do this with any encyclopedia as well, though I think it would be dishonest to imply that authors of "traditional" encyclopedias did not have more riding on their factual accuracy (where their careers are in part tied to their name and their work) than the authors of Wikipedia (where there are absolutely no real consequences for errors or falsifications).
The danger of Wikipedia for students is that it has become a one-stop source for information and that its content can be highly variable in quality. If students used it as one of many sources, or used it as a jumping-off point, it wouldn't be a problem—it would be pretty much the same as any internet resource out there. When students use any source uncritically, they suffer; it is the easy access to Wikipedia and its ubiquity on the web which makes it a particularly large and pressing target.
I like Wikipedia a lot. I think academics give it too hard a time. There are some areas on here which are better than many books published by academic presses. This is not surprising, since the standards of academic presses—as any academic can attest—are often quite variable in and of themselves, and peer review can sometimes fail utterly (there are books in my field which I can't believe actually went through peer review, as they contain dozens of outright errors and falsifications—in fact, the major source for misinformation in a class I helped teach was a book published just this year by Harvard University Press; it caused far more damage than Wikipedia!). The only thing that makes it different than any other source, in my opinion, is that it is what comes up first for everyone. In the past students might have used one of a dozen sources as their starting points; now they turn to Wikipedia to start and often to finish. Which is a problem with the students, but also a problem with the way information is distributed these days. --24.147.86.187 15:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I teach college students and think that Wikipedia is unfairly scorned. The fact is, there is plenty of good information that is more readily available here than anywhere else. I have been teaching a Medieval Latin literature course to students with very little background in the history of late antiquity & the Middle Ages. I'd much rather they be curious enough to get a general orientation from Wikipedia than not. That said, I was somewhat chagrined when, on an assignment where I'd explicitly advised the use of Wikipedia, many students were confused enough to tell me that the Roman Curia, thoroughly satirized and criticized by the 9th and 12th century poems they'd read for the assignment, came into existence in 1588! (I am the one who, afterwards, added the heading for the still-missing section on the history of the Curia in the Middle Ages & reworded so the article no longer claims simpliciter, "The Roman Curia was originally established in the 16th Century by Pope Sixtus V...") Anyway, it's obviously foolish to regard Wikipedia as infallible, and our students are too often uncritical readers of Wikipedia, but I remain positive about Wikipedia's value for students, since I myself have learned so much from it & have myself added plenty that college students could well learn from. I tell my stick-in-the-mud colleagues who are scandalized by errors that they should quit complaining and click on the edit tab; it's really quite satisfying to improve the material that pops up at the top of the world's Google searches. Finally, let me take this occasion to say that I think Wikipedia is great because of its constant openness to change by all comers & its fundamental egalitarianism. Usually, when there's a proposal around here (like "Flagged revisions/Sighted versions") meant to make Wikipedia more acceptable to academia (& more like the laughable Citizendium), I think it inadvertently harms Wikipedia by making it less Wikipedia-like. Wareh 18:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a dangerous terminus but an excellent point of departure. For a student to rely on one source, and one source only, is a sign of personal and intellectual laziness: an inexcusable vice, one that, I should add, is very easy to detect. So, be warned: take nothing for granted; question everything; cross-reference, and check, check and check again! Clio the Muse 00:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Dunbar

Why did the Scots lose the battle of Dunbar in 1650? Donald Paterson 08:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this might help. The Updater would like to talk to you! 10:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHaquinator (talk • contribs)
(No, the OP is asking about the civil war battle.)
In a word, overconfidence. The Scots weren't so well trained and led as the men of the New Model Army under Cromwell, and they were also less well disciplined. The English, after giving up their seige of Edinburgh, seemed to be in retreat, and the Scottish commander, Leslie, overestimated Cromwell's weakness. When the Scots got to Dunbar before the English, Leslie took up a strong position on a hill away from the town, but he then misjudged Cromwell's intentions and brought his men down from the hill and camped them nearer to Dunbar. Leslie had poor intelligence and didn't know that Cromwell's response to this had been to move part of his army up towards the Scottish camp, intending to attack while it was still dark. The Scots were badly prepared for the possibility of an English attack, and many of them were literally caught napping. Then, when the English broke through on one of their flanks, the Scots panicked prematurely and started to flee. It was a rout. Xn4 10:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
We have an article. Algebraist 13:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not forget, Donald, Cromwell's natural genius as a soldier. Keeping a close eye on Leslie's deployment, he spotted a serious weakness in his line, pinned between Doon Hill and the ravine of Brock Burn. In practice this meant that if the right wing of the army got into trouble the regiments on the left would not be able to assist. What we are dealing with here is essentially the same strategy Cromwell had previously employed against another Scots host at the Preston in 1648: that an army, stronger in numbers, could be defeated in detail by a weaker foe concentrated at a crucial point. After consulting with John Lambert and George Monck, his senior commanders, the Lord-General decided to launch what was effectively a powerful left-hook across the Brock Burn, smashing into Leslie's right flank and thus rolling up the whole Scottish army from right to left.

Final preparations were made under cover of dark. The artillery, which Leslie thought had already been shipped, was brought to the centre of the field to pin down the Scots on the left wing while the right was under attack. The Scots left was to be further occupied by fire from John Okey's dragoons. Cromwell, providing light cover for the artillery in the centre, concentrated heavily on his own left, where the cavalry regiments of Lambert and Charles Fleetwood were positioned, backed up by Monck's infantry, as well as further formations of horse and foot led by Thomas Pride and Robert Overton. The attack began at 4am, when the Scots were taken by complete surprise. The English were aided by the fact that many of the enemy musketers, owing to the continuous rain, had extinguished their match, the long smoldering cord used to ignite their powder, which would have been very difficult to relight in the damp conditions. Unsupported and under attack in both flank and front, the Scottish cavalry fled, leaving the infantry completely exposed. The army was destroyed with breathtaking speed in what was, perhaps, Cromwell's masterpiece. And, the sun appearing upon the sea, I heard Noll say 'Now let God arise and his enemies be scattered'.... Clio the Muse 01:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE

Qn1:The territorial of the world between the imperialists states and struggle for its real division of the world ,stated by imperialist seeking for colonies.Discuss.....Please i beg your assistance.Georgekalusanga 10:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think what you're most interested in is the Scramble for Africa. Xn4 11:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Qn2:How did the export of capital has opposed the export of commodity affected Africa industrial and economy in general.Georgekalusanga 10:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

See Economic history of Africa. Xn4 11:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian steam roller

In the First World War Russian manpower was initialy considered to offer a huge advantage to the allies. In 1914 the Germans launched a major offensive in the west leaving the east only lightly covered. Why did the Russians not use their advanced positions in Poland to march directly on Berlin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.87.243 (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Eastern Front (World War I)? One significant factor appears to have been the inability of the Russian arms industry to keep up with demand. Corvus cornix 19:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
In terms of the immediate 1914 situation, the Russians did use their advanced position to quickly invade Germany (more quickly than Germany expected), but were utterly defeated by the small German force holding the eastern front. However, the Russian invasion had already forced Germany to redeploy troops from west to east. This is sometimes advanced as one of the reasons for the failure of the Schlieffen Plan. Algebraist 20:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, 81.129. If I understand you correctly you are suggesting that the Russain army could have made a thrust westwards in the direction of Berlin from the forward sections of the Polish salient? If so, they would have faced a defeat of Cannae proporions. A co-ordinated scissors movement to the rear, with the Germans advancing south from East Prussia, and the Austrians north from Galicia, would have cut the Russian offensive off between the Polish border and the River Oder. The defeat would have been total, and it is difficult to see how the Russians could have continued in the war. In any forward advance the Russians would first have to clear the northern flank, the difficult terrain in East Prussia around the Masurian Lakes. The tried; they failed. Numbers are sometimes as much a burden in battle as an advantage. I should make one small point clear, though. The German force in East Prussia, the Eighth Army, was not, perhaps, as small as Algebraist's point may lead you to assume, even before the additional corps arrived from the west. The way Alexander Samsonov and Paul von Rennenkampf, the Russian commanders deployed their forces meant that they had sixteen divisions between them to face nine on the enemy side. But lack of co-ordination in attacking across the forests and lakes of East Prussia allowed the Germans to switch from one wing to the other, defeating the enemy in detail in the style of Chancerllorsville. Clio the Muse 02:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare, Cromwell, Pepys

I looked up the birth and death dates of these three recently as I had a vague idea that they may have lived at about the same time. In fact they overlapped - Shakespeare 1564-1616, Oliver Cromwell 1599-1658, Pepys 1633-1703. My question is - did any of them refer to any of the others in their writings etc? 80.0.123.78 14:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • This wonderfully annotated version of Pepys' diaries shows 29 references to Cromwell, but none to Shakespeare. --Sean 14:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

By coincidence on the page your link took me to, is an entry for Saturday 5 November 1664 "and so with my wife to the Duke’s house to a play, “Macbeth,” a pretty good play, but admirably acted." 80.2.214.75 15:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

we saw “Midsummer’s Night’s Dream,” which I had never seen before, nor shall ever again, for it is the most insipid ridiculous play that ever I saw in my life. I saw, I confess, some good dancing and some handsome women, which was all my pleasure.

He's not big on Shakespeare! --Sean 18:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe because it was generally understood in those days that "Shake-speare" (and it was hyphenated back then; the hyphen appears in many of the first publications of the plays and the poems) was a pseudonym (and not for an illiterate person with a similar name from Stratford). Pepys also referred, in December 1663, to Henry VIII as a "new " play. -- JackofOz 22:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't spread Baconian gibberish here as if it were fact.
Moreover, the assertion that the hyphenated version of the name is the "right" one is a little disingenuous, given that spelling was not standardised in the 17th century and Shakespeare himself is recorded as having spelt his name in at least 18 different ways. 80.254.147.52 10:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm no Baconian, my friend, but a proud Oxfordian. I'm aware of 6 known signatures, all spelled differently. If you're up for reasoned argument, can you give me a reference for 18, and can you tell me which part/s of my post were "gibberish"? -- JackofOz 11:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
As Richard Dawkins said, on why he refuses to debate with Creationists: "Creationists don't need to win debates with evolutionists. It is sufficient for them that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't." 80.254.147.52 12:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Then all that remains for me to do is to note that you too have asserted something "as if it were fact". I am able to counter that assertion with numerous citations, yet you are not prepared to defend it (because, I strongly suspect, it's indefensible). Did someone say something about gibberish? Farewell. -- JackofOz 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] great american authors

209.175.189.2 15:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)who are some great american authors from the 1970s until now?

See List of novelists from the United States -- kainaw™ 17:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
And how do you define "from the 1970s until now?" Is that restricted to those authors who wrote nothing prior to 1970 or is it inclusive of any author who has published new work in the timeframe 1970-present? Donald Hosek 18:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
... or authors born after 1970? -- kainaw™ 20:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Destruction of Professor Machulka's Academy of Plays

J. Brzechwu, a Slovakian (or a Czech?) author, wrote a children's story (or a group of connected stories?) titled The Destruction of Professor Machulka's Academy of Plays. Adolf Born illustrated the book, and Juraj Bindzár adapted it to the stage. Please help me find some details about the authors named above (Wikipedia already has a short article about artist Adolf Born), and, more importantly, an on-line English version of the story, or at least a good summary thereof. I am especially interested in some of the leading characters, like Professor Machulka, Doctor Logossum Moros and Vrana Anastazia (according to Wiktionary Vrana means "a crow" in both Czech and Slovak). THANK YOU! --Bergeronz 17:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a short biography of the author. http://www.diapozytyw.pl/en/site/ludzie/jan_brzechwa . I think that "Brzechwu" may be his name in another case, possibly vocative or dative, but that is guessing wildly! SaundersW 17:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
http://www.ksiegarenka.pl/product_info.php/products_id/600 Here is a page with a picture of the front cover with the professor and the crow. And here is the page from IMDB anout the film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086863/SaundersW 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Jan Brzechwa was a Polish poet of Jewish origin. He wrote a number of poems and books for children. Akademia Pana Kleksa ("Mr. Inkblot's Academy") is one of the most successful. Sequels to the book are Podróże Pana Kleksa ("Mr. Inkblot's Travels") and Tryumf Pana Kleksa ("Mr. Inkblot's Triumph"). "Brzechwu" is the genitive case of "Brzechwa" in the Slovak language.

According to the Slovak Wikipedia, Juraj Bindzár (born 24 February 1943) is a Slovak theatrical, film and TV scriptwriter and director. Skaza akadémie hier prof. Machuľku ("The Destruction of Professor Machuľka's Academy of Plays") is a book for children written by Bindzár as an adaptation of Brzechwa's works. The book was also made into a play.

I can't tell how close Bindzár's version of the story is to Brzechwa's original book. "Mr. Inkblot's Academy" is about a fantastical school run by by an eccentric magician, Prof. Inkblot, and attended by boys, all of whose names begin with the letter A. Classes and other activites in the academy are highly surreal (hospital for damaged furniture, hole factory, etc.). Through the wall surrounding the academy building boys may wander off to other stories and tales, like The Little Match Girl or Sleeping Beauty. Mr. Inkblot has a pet starling (apparently changed into a crow in Bindzár's version) which tells the story of his life to one of the boys; the bird turns out to be an enchanted former prince of a faraway land. Meanwhile a new boy appears in the academy. It's in fact a mechanical doll brought to life by Mr. Inkblot. The experiment goes bad when the new boy gets out of control and ultimately leads to destruction of the enitre academy. Other boys escape, Mr. Inkblot turns into a button and the starling reveals itself as the actual author of the entire story. — Kpalion(talk) 22:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gladstone's 1886 Home Rule Bill

Plaese explain the reasons for the failure of Gladstone's 1886 Home Rule Bill for Ireland? Was this a lost opportunity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.101.252 (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Our article cites one Alvin Jackson as thinking 'the Bill was fatally flawed by the secretive manner of its drafting, with Gladstone alienating Liberal figures like Joseph Chamberlain who, along with a colleague, resigned in protest from the ministry, while producing a Bill viewed privately by the Irish as badly drafted and deeply flawed.' Algebraist 14:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

First, the Bill was introduced into Parliament in far too precipitate a manner; second, no attempt was made to persuade the country at large beforehand. Gladstone seems to have felt the principle itself would carry all before it. There were huge questions, practical questions which remained unanswered. What did Home Rule mean constitutionally? What did it entail? What would the exact political relationship be between Ireland and Britain? These were questions that reached right into Gladstone's own cabinet, ensuring serious divisions at the heart of government. The great fear, one that united many shades of Liberal opinion, from Chamberlain and the Radicals to Hartington and the Whigs, was that home rule would lead to independence, and independence would lead to the break up of the British Empire. The whole thing was too rushed, ill-thought out and inadequately argued. Still, it was indeed a 'lost opportunity.' The last word here should be given to George V, not usually noted for his perspecacity, who was to say to Lloyd George, looking back from the heights of 1921, after Britain had been forced to concede virtual independence to most of Ireland, "What fools we were not to have accepted Gladstone's Home Rule Bill." Clio the Muse 02:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cuba and U.S. Wars

Was there ever a war between U.S. and Cuba? what was it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.237.204 (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Specifically see Spanish-American War, in which the US invaded Spanish-controlled Cuba; and Bay of Pigs Invasion, in which CIA-organized Cuban exiles attempted to overthrow the Communist government. --24.147.86.187 00:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complaints GIs had about the French at the Liberation

I recently read an article concerning a booklet that was prepared for GIs in France at the time of the liberation of France in 1945 which aimed to help smooth common misunderstandings, but now I just can't seem to find it again. Anyone? Please?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awien (talk • contribs) 23:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Grand merci! Awien 01:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)