From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< February 23	<< Jan | February | Mar >>	February 25 >

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 February 24 1.1 In camera proceedings in the USA 1.2 Chomsky as junk scientist 1.3 Very famous piece of classical music 1.4 What TV news/current affairs programmes can be watched live on the internet? 1.5 why is there the discrepancy between the economically liberal/laissez faire but socialy conservative policies of the US Republicans and the UK Conservatives 1.6 What is it that Hillary Clinton is freaking out about? 1.7 Why are the people of Tanna (island) so nice? 1.8 Stupid question from a stupid person 1.9 Dante 1.10 How do I get extradited? 1.11 Incorrect reference in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anat 1.12 Over 65s as Percent of Population in United States / Europe Historical Data? 1.13 Commonly heard classical music piece -- what's it called? 1.14 Rivers of Blood 1.15 English in Scotland 1.16 Soviet Anthem 1.17 Italian unification 1.18 Was the U.S. Constitution originally written on hemp paper? 1.19 Source for Quote Wanted 1.20 Information please 1.21 African American History 1.22 Tom Wait's "Buzz Fledderjohn". 1.23 what makes a faux turtleneck faux? 1.24 Wolsey and the supremacy 1.25 why is boxing legal? 1.26 a gentleman in every parish 1.27 Israel daily life 1.28 historical account

[edit] February 24

[edit] In camera proceedings in the USA

I'm looking to learn a bit more about the history of in camera legal proceedings in the US, and the various legal issues involved. Can anyone recommend a good source? My brief JSTORing about hasn't provided anything that really looked at them comprehensively. I'm interested in finding a sort of general account of what legal thought about in camera proceedings (including entire trials held in camera, including evidence introduced in camera, including the compatibility of in camera proceedings with the idea of a jury trial, in constitutional questions involved, etc.) have been in the 20th century in particular. Can anyone point me in a useful direction? I'm happy with looking up published monographs, articles, etc., if they are on topic. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chomsky as junk scientist

How many linguists perceive Chomsky as a junk scientist and how many like/adore him?217.168.3.246 (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This question is more suitable for the Language reference desk. AnonMoos (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually not, since the Language RD is more about using of words and Chomsky has plenty of non-linguistic publications.217.168.3.246 (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

However, there are probably more people who know about linguistics monitoring the language desk than here, and the question seemed to be about Chomsky's linguistic work. AnonMoos (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not a linguist, but I remember studying transformational grammars in my college linguistic class, and thinking to myself, my God, this seems like such a kludge. He creates this formal grammar, and when he finds out that it doesn't actually describe real world languages that humans actually speak, he does a little presto magic (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain), and "transforms" the sentences to fit them into real world syntax. The whole process struck me as the linguistic version of pre-Copernican epicycles, where all sorts of magic had to be done to make the geocentric system work. Then again, with what purpose? Probably to keep alive in the world of appearance loving academia. There, he will have enough followers that will not dare to discuss too much its scientific method - or the absence of it. Hopes of tenure, fear of negative peer-reviews make the system go round). Probably, always when you try to solve a problem, you will have to use other theories. Old plain structural linguistics for dealing with people or computational linguistics for huge amounts of data. Resuming: people that want to keep their face, probalby abide to his teachings, people trying to solve problems, follow a different path. WikiWiking (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that Chomsky is not at all seen as the only scientific approach these days (I took classes at UC Berkeley in Linguistics as an undergrad where the professor openly objected to Chomsky's approach) but that nobody thinks his linguistic work is "junk science." They just think it is wrong or a bad approach, but "junk science" implies that it is politically motivated or something like that. He is not the vogue of linguistic work anymore in any case, but that doesn't make his work "junk." Chomsky's linguistic work has little to no political implications; it is not the basis of his political views, if that is what you are asking. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Unhappily, there are mainstream scientits who call Chomsky's work literally "junk linguistics". An example is Paul Postal of the NYU in his Skeptical Linguistic Essays. Junk science is not only politically motivated. Any unscientific motivation for the use of spurious data or dubious analysis can be called "junk science." Mr.K. (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you guys are aware that Lakoff and Postal were leading names in the Generative Semantics movement, the late-1960's anti-Chomskyite secession within generative linguistics... AnonMoos (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but my point was that I don't recall Lakoff arguing that Chomsky's work was somehow not really science. He just thought it was wrong. It's perfectly normal for scientists to disagree with the approaches of others; it's another thing to say, in one way or another, that you don't think the other's work is not actually science. (I should note that quite some time—though still less than decade ago—has passed since I took a class with Lakoff, so maybe I'm remembering his stance incorrectly.) --98.217.18.109 (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would not dismiss their criticism just because Lakoff and Postal were previously Chomskian. Anyway, for a thorough analysis of the political and linguistic work of Chomsky try the The Anti-Chomsky Reader. The book focuses heavily on his political conceptions, but there is plenty of information in it about Chomsky's twisted methodology. Mr.K. (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There's only one essay in that book about Chomsky's linguistic ideas, so I assume your use of "twisted methodology" refers to his political ideas. Otherwise that book isn't a particularly good citation.--droptone (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two essays about linguistics in this book. However, since it seems that the questioner was actually searching information about its linguistics work, I suppose that Paul Postal's work (cited above) is a better choice. It is online for free. My use of "twisted methodology" refers to the whole work of Chomsky. Chomsky himself related his political ideals to his theories about language. So, if you are seriously analyzing Chomsky you will have to consider his political essays too.Mr.K. (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Very famous piece of classical music

I feel rather foolish asking this, and I'm kicking myself for not being able to place it, but what's the extremely famous piece of classical orchestral music that starts: rhythm: (crochet=c, quaver=q, quaver rest=qr crochet rest=cr) c qr q c qr q | q q q q c cr melody: (probably not in right key) F C F C | F C F A C

Sorry for not doing the whole writing and uploading thing, or giving more than the first 2 bars, but I think you'll know the one I mean. I can hear the entire thing all the way through, but can't for the life of me remember what it is. (And the rhythm probably isn't how it's actually written, but should suffice). Thanks in advance. Skittle (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Guess - this. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, wrong piece of extremely famous music :) which doesn't sound like the thing I put up here. If it helps, I don't think anyone's asked about this piece recently on the desks (as far as I could see), unlike the dance of the knights. Skittle (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Eine kleine nachtmusik. Video here. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Duh! Thanks Milkbreath, you're a star. I shall slink away to mourn my inability to place it, while at the same time feeling terribly relieved that it has been placed! It was eating away at me. Skittle (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't feel bad. The priest at the beginning of Amadeus thought Salieri wrote it. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Mayhaps your confusion came about because you listened to it during the day. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What TV news/current affairs programmes can be watched live on the internet?

Im aware of BBC news 24, but im getting a bit bored of it. I also listen to the BBC world service, but want pictures. Preferably it would have a global perspective, and not be moronic (anything associated with Rupert Murdoch therefore being excluded) Willy turner (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

For a different view of the world, you might want to check out Russia Today (click the "Watch RT Now" button on the page). Hmm, I just watched the story that was on when I clicked just now: "Novelty Drink: Phallus-shaped vodka bottle is a big hit" - Russian tv is not as straight-laced as it used to be in Communist times! There's also France 24, but I don't think the videos there are live. -- Arwel (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe you can watch Al Jazeera English online [1] although I hardly ever watch online TV so I don't know Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] why is there the discrepancy between the economically liberal/laissez faire but socialy conservative policies of the US Republicans and the UK Conservatives

Here is what Norman Tebbit, a prominent Conservative and economic liberal/socially conservative politician, has to say on that question:

Few Conservatives seem to be thoroughgoing liberals, both socially and economically; and not many are both social paternalists and economic dirigistes. Most of those faithful to Thatcherite economics are social paternalists, while soggy economic interventionists tend to be soggy social liberals. The apparent paradox of the belief of many Conservatives in economic liberalism and social paternalism reflects the paradox in the nature of man - one which has made him the dominant species on Earth. He is a social - indeed a pack - animal, co-operating to achieve what he could not do alone. But he also carries the 'freedom gene' and is so besotted with both freedom and with loyalty to the pack that millions of his kind have died in their names...Excessive social liberalism, attacks on hierarchy itself, and the promotion of a value-free society have not extended freedom within the pack. Instead they threaten to create a permanent dogfight. There is no such thing as a multicultural pack; and a pack without hierarchy, shared values, a common identity, a single set of rules and a system of punishment for transgressors cannot survive. Our human packs are built of family units which share, with schools, responsibility for the transmission of the common culture. So the advocates of multiculturalism and of sexual licence, which undermines the family, are advocates not of tolerance or freedom but of perpetual instability and disorder. The current controversies within the Tory party centre on the argument that private behaviour - especially sexual behaviour is no business of the state. It is a powerful argument, but when licence undermines the family, and the mutual obligations between citizens are threatened, it is the state that is called upon to 'do something'. Family breakdown shifts responsibility for the maintenance of children to the state. Promiscuous parents pass their responsibilities to the taxpayer, and the welfare budget spirals out of control. Children reared without discipline or awareness of their obligations to society or its culture become yobs, forming predatory criminal packs of their own. Dependence on drugs is a retreat from the obligations of society into irresponsibility at best, and all too often into a sick, degraded criminal world. What Tory social permissives fail to heed is that the systems for transmission and reinforcement of culture and values - the family, school and Church - have been gravely weakened over the last 40 years. So, too, have the pressures for conformity to standards exerted by agencies other than the state. The collapse of the Christian Church has left us with laws based upon JudaeoChristian ethics but without any belief in those ethics. The Church scarcely recognises any sins but racism, sexism and homophobia. A flood of human-rights legislation is left unbalanced by any human-responsibilities legislation - except tax laws. We economic liberals have been so bedazzled by the success of economic freedom that we have failed to see the scale of social disintegration brought about by the permissives. A rising tide of crime, vice and pornography threatens society. The pressure for responsible behaviour within the pack is so weakened that it is ceasing to function. If dog eats dog, there will be a call for the restitution of discipline. If it is not answered, then freedom will be threatened by either social disorder or authoritarianism. In either case liberal economics would be but one of the casualties.

Apologies for the cut-and-paste but I have wondered the same question and it is one of the few explanations I've seen!--Johnbull (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you giving me an answer. However an answer that has some logical cohesiveness, some evidence to support it, and one that is not from a racist, reactionary, homophobic, religious/insane cunt, would be preferable. There is no such thing as a "freedom gene". Social liberalism is not an attack on "hierarchy itself", or the promotion of a "value free society" God i was going to challenge every dubious thing in the quote but i cant be bothered. It is self evidently bullshit, however a good example of the 'common sense' views, totally disproven by public policy academics, that are common amongst Republicans and Tories, so thanks.Willy turner (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's quite simple: the political right and the political left see different ways to promote the overall welfare of their constituency. For the conservatives, the interests of the eonomically more advanced should be given priority, which promotes overall economic prosperity and thus prosperity for everyone. Thus, they represent the views of what might be called the "establishment", the rich, the upper middle class - who tend to have socially conservative views because they favour maintaining the social status quo, and also be economically liberal because that facilitates economically efficient trade and commerce. Depending on your definition of "conservative", this can be seen as conservative in the sense that most liberal democracies are fairly liberal capitalist economies, and so favouring a liberalised economy is maintaining the status quo.

By contrast, the left would advocate changes to the system: socially, advocating liberal social views and laws. For example, advocating gay marriages or equal rights for women is trying to advocate the interests of the disadvantaged in society. Eonomically, advocating better protection of domestic economies or workers' rights, etc. Seen in the sense of "conservative = status quo" and "liberal = change", or "conservative = interests of the upper crust" and "liberal = interests of the lower rump", then their views on society vs economy is actually fairly consistent.

Is there any way in which the warning "Do not start debates or post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox" does not apply to this question? Malcolm Starkey (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I gave the answer in good faith but it's clear that he asked the question to make a political point and wanted an answer that would confirm his prejudices. Oh well.--Johnbull (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, John. This 'question' was laid down as an attempt to draw me into a battle, as you will see if you read the British Identity Card thread above. It was a challenge that I had no intention of accepting. I have to say, though, in counter to the distasteful remarks made above about Norman Tebbit, that he was one of the finest Parliamentarians of his generation, incisive and cutting in debate, a man with a rapier-like wit. Not a person to be tangled with lightly! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is it that Hillary Clinton is freaking out about?

ie "shame on you Barrack Obama"..."Out of Karl Roves playbook" Apparently do do with leaflets Obama produced regarding Clintons healthcare policies that she deemed inaccurate. But what did the leaflets say that was innacurate? Is any of the U.S media saying Hillary may have overreacted slightly? Willy turner (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago. Malcolm Starkey (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why are the people of Tanna (island) so nice?

Did anyone in the UK see the TV programme 'Meet the Natives'? The people were just so nice, so good, so happy, so generous. It brought a lump to my throat. Can anyone with a knowledge of that part of the world explain why this seems to be so? Willy turner (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And again, this is not really what I would call a factual question. Do not start debates etc etc. Malcolm Starkey (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they have their own problems too! AllenHansen (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not about to speculate about Tanna in particular, but there are a number of proposed reasons why a particular people may have a propensity toward "kindness". First, in certain areas where life is hard and potentially dangerous, there may be cultural norms to be kind and generous to travelers and guests. The concept behind this is reciprocity - if you are kind to strangers who travel through your village, you can potentially expect others to be kind to you when you're a stranger traveling through their village. (This is a social contract which, of course, is susceptible to freeloaders.) Another is the reverse situation. When conditions are very favorable and there are no external threats, one may be generous with what you have, as there is no cost to you for sharing, and you have the benefits of reducing strife. A human example escapes my mind, but you see it in animal species, such as the dodo. When separated from predators, animals may loose their natural hesitancy to approach when something dangerous actually does show up. Yet another is when you have the presence of an external threat. You may become generous to your in-group, to help them with the common cause. Visiting outsiders may be seen as part of the in-group simply because "you're not them" (that you have nice weapons which could help, doesn't hurt either). Alternatively, a society may develop into a gift culture, where wealth and power are not measured by what you have, but what you give away. Such a society may also develop to the point where the giving of gifts may turn into a manipulative ploy, obligating the recipient for reciprocation of the gift giving, and shaming them when they can't. Naive westerners may miss this subtlety, and see simple generosity, when the natives are actually trying to demonstrate their power and assert their dominance. Note that these are possibilities only - if they are applicable for any culture is probably still heavily debated among experts. -- 128.104.112.47 (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that in any TV show, you only see what the producers want you to see. I'm not saying the people of Tanna are not nice, but you may very well have a very selective view of how nice they are from the show. Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid question from a stupid person

Hi, excuse me if this is dumb, but I was wondering what the copyright status is for old classical music, like Mozart, Beethoven or Bach. Is it public domain since the artists have been dead for so long, or is there something I'm missing? The Dominator (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a stupid question. The music itself is public domain, but specific recordings of the music are usually copyrighted. —Kevin Myers 06:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it not true that a specific volume of the music, rendered and notated in a specific way by editors, is copyrighted, even if the music itself is public domain? I mean, you can't legally photocopy classical sheet music purchased from a specialty publisher and resell it. –Outriggr § 06:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the claim (this does not constitute legal advice) that when someone prints up a new edition of say Mozart, the copyright is not for the notes on the page, as mechanically arranges, but for the added information. If the original music had no notations, and the new edition added dynamic markings, tempos, legato, etc those additions would be the copyrighted property of the publisher, but if they and any other comments or editorial additions were whited out, the resulting raw copy would not be copyrighted. I do not assert the legal right to do this, and copyrights differe around the world. It is also good to reward publishers for providing the availability of music by more obscure composers which otherwise would languish in archives. A related questin: suppose I bought an old book and in it I found a "missing" piece of music by Beethoven, which had been referred to in old books but was considered lost, which had enough provenance to prove it was really by him, and which had never been published. Could I, as the owner, copyright it, even though it was a couple of hundred years old? Edison (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In the US, for republishing things the public domain, the most relevant caselaw is Feist v. Rural—strict "mechanical copying" is not copyrightable, but additional content, presentation, selection, etc., can be. It's a very fine and subjective line and publishers of course try to claim as much copyright coverage as they can, even if they are entirely incorrect (false copyright claims for public domain material are basically never prosecuted). As for your last question, Edison, no, because in the US, at least, for unpublished-but-not-anonymous works the copyright term is life of the author + 70 years. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your answers, sort of a related question, when old classical music is used in movies or TV shows, do the makers usually pay for copyright, or do they find some way to get around paying. I know that TV shows often try to get around paying royalties if they can. The Dominator (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

They are usually paying money in order to use the recording, through a licensing agency like ASCAP. I don't know about other deals they might make but I would find it surprising if there was any way to get around it for older recordings, as there is little incentive for the artist to agree to such an arrangement. For new recordings, new singles, etc., the potential benefits of being featured on a hit TV show could easily outweigh such considerations (for example, I am sure many new artists would be thrilled to have their works showcased on a show like Grey's Anatomy, as it provides them with incredible exposure and has a track record for hitmaking). --98.217.18.109 (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, but do lesser known shows have to pay for copyright on more modern songs? What about songs that are more famous than the show itself even if the show is mainstream? The Dominator (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether a show is well known or not has nothing tyo do with whether it has to adhere to copyright law. —Nricardo (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking whether it has to adhere to it or not, I'm asking whether it has to pay for it, since some artists would give away their rights for free to a well-known show to gain exposure and publicity. The Dominator (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It would seem then that you have it in reverse. Artists are not going to 'give away' their songs to lesser known shows or mainstream shows that are less famous then the show itself. Clearly in both cases they already have more exposure then whatever the show is going to give them. If you actually meant do well known shows have to pay royalities for using lesser known songs, the answer is usually yes since the studios who in most cases have a say are probably not going to give a damn about exposure. Independent artists will of course usually have completely control and may very well agree to do so but it will depend a lot on the artist and the show Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dante

I need some help in interpreting a passage of Dantes Divine Comedy in the context of the rest of the poem. Its lines 118-23 in Book XXVII of the Inferno, beginning "For absolution is for the repentant." Please reply soon. Thanks. Hank Pank (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Ch'assolver non si puo chi non si pente, né pentere e volere ensieme puossi per la contradizion che nol consente", says Guido da Montefeltro who adviced Pope Boniface VIII to promise the Colonna family amnesty but to renege on the promise as soon as they no longer defended themselves at Palestrina. Guido knew this betrayal was a sin, so he only helped the Pope after he was promised absolution. As it turns out, this forgiveness by the Pope was not valid and Guido ended up in hell anyway, because he did not truly regret what he did; it is a contradiction to repent for a sin, while at the same time benefiting from it (cf. Hamlet, Act III: "May one be pardon'd and retain the offence?"). In the context of the rest of the poem it is indeed an important passage, because it shows how for Dante personal repentence is of far greater importance than anything else. This is perhaps most clear in his view of Purgatory: "For he regards the pains of the souls in Purgatory not as a price they have to pay for entry into Heaven, but as a medium through which they can vitally utter their repudiation of their own past and assert their loyalty to the things they had once denied and betrayed. Thus, the pains of Purgatory are not endured, but are welcomed and embraced as a solace and support which relieves the else intolerable sense of discord in the soul between the things it loves and the things it has actively stood for" (P. H. Wicksteed, From Vita Nuova to Paradiso [2]) David Šenek (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How do I get extradited?

I haven't done anything, but I think it would be interesting to get extradited. What are the steps?

Note: I'm not asking for legal advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.10.127 (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be very interesting at all; you'd spend most of your time sitting in a prison cell. But I'd say the steps are 1, commit a serious crime in a country, leaving enough clues so the police can work out it was you what done it. 2, flee to another country which has an extradition treaty with the first country. 3, get caught by the police in the second country. This is assuming you really mean extradition, rather than just deportation. FiggyBee (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a great way of shooting yourself in the foot when it comes to future travel abroad! 192.117.101.209 (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You may even be executed depending on what crime you commited that you are being extradited for Nil Einne (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably don't worry too much about leaving clues. (You're not The Riddler.) The danger is that you'll leave so many clues that they figure it out so fast you can't get out of the country easily. If you don't accidentally leave enough clues for them to find you, you could always just commit a new crime in the country you're hiding in and move onto a another country. Keep trying. Good luck. 72.10.110.107 (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you aren't American you can do it without even leaving your own country. Work for a bank that finances a corrupt US company and turn a blind eye NatWest Three. Or incite people to attack the USA on the web. The danger of the latter is that instead of extradition you may be subjected to Extraordinary rendition by the United States instead, and probably never get back to tell us how it went. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect reference in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anat

In the above article Bet Shan is cited to be in Palestine, where in fact it's ruins are located in Northern Israel. How can the entry be modified? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.48.141 (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what is meant by Palestine. I assume the name, in use since the Romans, for the territory that the state of Israel is in, is what is ment, not the Palestinian Authority. 192.117.101.209 (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Beth-Shan article mentioned in the article existed during the Bronze Age, many centuries before the founding of modern Israel in 1948. Therefore, "Palestine" is an appropriate term.

A lot of people seem to think that "Palestine" is the name of the West Bank and Gaza Strip together. In fact, "Palestine" is the traditional name of a geographic region that encompasses what is today called Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Because the Arabs of the region now call themselves "Palestinians," the word "Palestine" has taken on certain political connotations. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "Palaistine" (Παλαιστινη) / "Palaestina" / "Pelesheth" (פלשת) originally meant Land of the Philistines, and for a thousand years or more referred almost exclusively to the southern coastal plain (a kind of extended Gaza strip area including the Philistine city-states of Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, and a few others) -- until ca. 135 A.D., when the Roman emperor Hadrian somewhat arbitrarily chose to rename the Roman province of Judea with the name Palaestina -- for the specific purpose of spiting the Jews (in the aftermath of the Second Jewish Revolt). The town of Beth-Shan is northern and inland, and so is not in the land of the Philistines (which is the true original meaning of the word "Palestine")... AnonMoos (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no Palestine in the Bronze Age, either, so why would it be the more appropriate place name than Israel? Corvus cornix_talk 21:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Archaeologists typically use the term "Palestine" to refer to the region all the way up to 1948. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What Mwalcoff says is true, but that use of the term has become somewhat controversial both because it dates from the brutal and almost genocidal Roman repression of the Jewish rebellions and because "Palestine" is now widely understood as a name for the territories under the control of the Palestinian Authority. I would change "Palestine" to "present-day Israel" in this case. Marco polo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestine was also the name of the Ummayad/Abbasid/Fatimid province, including inland territory (and it was administered from Lydda, Ramla, Nablus, Jerusaem, etc). The crusaders also sometimes called the whole thing Palestine. In both cases, of course, it stems from the Roman usage. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ummayad/Abbasid/Fatimid sub-province didn't include the Galilee -- see Jund Filastin, and the external map linked there... AnonMoos (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a Zionist, I think it would be a shame to erase the name "Palestine" from history. When concentration-camp inmates longed to go to the Promised Land, they didn't call it "Judea" -- they called it "Palestine." The Jewish community of pre-1948 Palestine read The Palestine Post, cheered on the Palestine soccer team and referred to themselves as Palestinian Jews. It's only since the 1960s that the Palestinian Arabs have appropriated the name for themselves, and the word has developed connotations accrodingly. Now even the Palestinian Talmud is sometimes called the "Talmud of the Land of Israel." "Palestine" should be a neutral, geographic term applicable to any of the peoples that have lived between the Mediterranean and the Jordan through history. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you face an uphill battle, since the time when the word "Palestine" had an overall positive connotation to Jews lasted only about thirty years, while the times when the word "Palestine" had an overall negative connotation to Jews include several periods of ancient history, as well as the last fifty years or so down to the current moment. Not to mention that the actions of the British in the last few years of the mandate period cast a retrospective shadow over the whole mandate experience in the eyes of some. AnonMoos (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a common problem in Wikipedia articles, where names and jurisdictions have changed over time. The usual line taken is that where ambiguity may mislead, to use the modern fact-on-the-ground jurisdiction/country name, sometimes alongside the historical name. The Emperor Trajan was born in Hispania (modern day Spain) would be the model I'd suggest. --Dweller (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Over 65s as Percent of Population in United States / Europe Historical Data?

Hello,

I'm trying to find historical data on the percent of people over the age of 65 in the United States and Europe. I've been looking through the census data for the US but with no luck -- I can only find information on the current percentage, not any value for past dates.

The information does not need to be for exactly 65, just the general senior citizen population.

Thank you in advance for any help,

-Grey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.10.44 (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Europe is going to be a pain, since there's no centralised census, but these data for the US are available at the census website. They might be available in one of the summary documents, but if not you can certainly find them in the full reports here. Algebraist 13:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commonly heard classical music piece -- what's it called?

I'd like to know the name of an intense-sounding classical music piece heard often in TV commercials and sporting events. When played in these circumstances, it consists mainly of a choir singing notes as follows:

C-C-B-B (rest) C-C-B-B (rest) C-C-B-C-D-C-B

The 12th and 13th notes are double the length of the others

The chorus is then repeated a bit higher and louder.

I have no idea what the words of the chorus are. The tune is sometimes played by marching bands at basketball games with instruments instead of singing. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's "O Fortuna" from Carmina Burana by Carl Orff. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The music sounds decisively less enthralling when one learns it was a favorite in Nazi Germany. (Goebbels was particularly fond: [3].) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Conversely, is the music of Felix Mendelssohn better because it was banned in Nazi Germany? Anyone who remained in Germany after 1933 and had a career that impinged at all on public life was tainted with collaboration afterwards. --Wetman (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore...etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And is the music of Wagner bad either because he was Hitler's favourite composer, or because Israel has had a long-running ban on him, or both (they're not unconnected, obviously)? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a funny old world. O Fortuna was used in a wartime cartoon urging Donald Duck to sign up for income tax withholding, the better to buy stuff to blow up Nazis. – I saw this at an anti-tax gathering, and one of the audience piped up afterward that the music was from a movie made in the USSR; I assumed he meant Alexander Nevsky, though I interrupted him before he could say so. I wish I'd asked which part of Nevsky he had in mind. —Tamfang (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I too am curious where in Prokofiev your audience member heard Orff. For an incomplete list of more recent films featuring "O Fortuna": Excalibur for its mythical appeal, Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma where it is used brutally, The Doors and Detroit Rock City reflecting rock music's affinity toward this composition, and, to top it off, Jackass: The Movie. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Nazis liked O Fortuna doesn't change the quality of the music. But it does make me think about in a less-cheery way. It's not just a song used to psyche up college basketball fans and get people to buy tennis shoes anymore. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, take your mind off the Nazis and drink some beer. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In the US and Canada, you can't show alcohol being consumed in an ad. I wonder if that would count. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what I'd like to hear more of (or some of, actually, since I've never heard a single note of his, despite some efforts), is the music of Carl Orff's student Karl Marx, preferably played to an audience of McCarthyite music critics. It's be interesting to see if they could review it dispassionately, simply as music. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rivers of Blood

I'ts near on forty years since Enoch Powell gave his infamous Rivers of Blood speech. I was wondering what the rection to it revealed about race relations in Britain at the time? Was Powell a racist himself? 81.152.105.180 (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Powell denied being a racist, but then, who doesn't? The article Enoch Powell and the works cited therein discuss whether he actually was a racist. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Powell article is surprisingly good, particularly the 'Criticisms' section, which shows a high degree of balanced and mature insight. No, I do not think he was a racist. He was, rather, an angry man; angry at his party and angry at the leadership. His anger, his alienation, it is probably better to say, took him down a dangerous road, a road marked by insensitivity and misjudgment

The essential point to note, 81.152, was that the Rivers of Blood speech had the immediate effect of turning Powell into a kind of folk hero, even as he was being cast into the wilderness by the then leadership of the Conservative Party. London Dockers marched on Parliament to demonstrate their support, as workers in Wolverhampton and the Black Country demanded his reinstatement. Opinion polls taken at the time gave him an approval rating in excess of 70 per cent. He also received thousands of letters of support.

So, as far as race relations in the late 1960s are concerned, the picture revealed is not very attractive. On the basis if the measures I have given, one has to conclude that most of the British people harboured some form of racial prejudice. Powell did not create this; he simply gave shape and direction to underlying emotions, feelings that had slowly been building up ever since the arrival of the Empire Windrush from Jamaica twenty years before, beginning the first wave of post-war black immigration to England. At the time Labour back-benchers wrote to Prime Minister Clement Atlee, saying that "an influx of coloured people would cause discord and unhappiness among all concerned." By the late 1950s, with the rate of arrivals averaging 50,000 a year, this 'discord and unhappiness' achieved open expression in the Notting Hill race riots.

Although racism at this time was probably best explained as a kind of post-imperial hangover, it took on new and more worrying forms in the 1960s, the time just prior to Powell's speech. In sociological terms it was also becoming a largely working-class and, indeed, a regional phenomenon. There were two basic reasons for this. There was a large constituency of people, former Labour voters in the main, concentrated for the most part in the West Midlands, Powell's own political hunting ground, who felt they were being increasingly neglected by the government of Harold Wilson. This was the area, moreover, where black immigration was heaviest, leading to competition for housing and jobs. During one particularly notorious by-election for the Smethwick constituency, the successful candidate, Peter Griffiths, beat Patrick Gordon Walker, a senior Labour politician, by, amongst other things, the distribution of the most scurrilous forms of campaign literature, including one leaflet saying "Vote Labour for more nigger-type neighbours." This key event in British electoral politics showed that black immigrants had become scapegoats for more deep-rooted social ills. It really only needed the 'Rivers of Blood' to turn this from a local into a national phenomenon.

Racism is still with us; it will always be with us. But so much has changed since 1968. In general people are much more accepting; open discrimination is disallowed by law and black people arre to be found at all levels of public life. There have been tragedies, there has been violence; but Powell was a poor profit. The Tiber is not foaming with much blood, and is never likely to. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Clio, and I'm only slightly influenced by having met Powell. Like all politicians, he had faults, but he was a man (as C. S. Lewis said of Sir Walter Scott) "civilized to the centre of his heart". There was nothing so crass or boorish as racism about Enoch Powell. I well remember the generous tribute paid to him, when he died, by Michael Foot, who surely is one of the tribunes of racial equality. Xn4 03:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just found Powell's own reply to the question of whether he was a racialist. He said on 3 January, 1969 -

“

It depends on how you define the word "racialist". If you mean being conscious of the differences between men and nations, and from that, races, then we are all racialists. However, if you mean a man who despises a human being because he belongs to another race, or a man who believes that one race is inherently superior to another, then the answer is emphatically "No".

”

Xn4 03:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also concur with Clio. As an indication of how things have changes I can remember singing openly racist songs in the playground (which I am ashamed of now) and the teachers just smiling. Also, at the time I had never actually met a non-white, I can remember seeing a coloured person for the first time in Windsor (at the age of 9) and being as surprised as if I had seen an elephant in the street. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English in Scotland

We often hear about Scottish migration to England but very little about the reverse movement of English people to Scotland. Speaking from personal experience there are quite a lot of English children in the school where I teach, and some of my neighbours are from England. I would like to know how significant English migration has been over the years and in what way it has contributed to life in Scotland? Thank you very much. Hamish MacLean (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a long-term phenomenon, Hector. English people have been settling in Scotland for more than a thousand years, ever since 685AD, when Constantine of Cornwall became Abbot of Govan. By 1841 there were as many as 39,000 English migrants living in Scotland, many of them skilled workers, traders and manufacturers, all making an important contribution to the Industrial Revolution in the north. By the 1920s the English had in fact overtaken the Irish as the largest minority group in Scotland. By the time of the census of 2001 the 'newcomers' made up as much as one twelfth of the total population of Scotland. In some parts of the country they even outnumber the natives! Did you know, for example, that as many as one in nine of the Members of the Scottish Parliament were born in England? Well, you do now! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Clio, I owe you my thanks. Hamish MacLean (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine that Anglo-Scots are much more likely to assimilate into 'Scottish culture' than Scottish settlers in England, for the simple reason being that being Scottish seems more fun. Ninebucks (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who has spent any time in the New Town can attest to the number of English people in that particular area of Edinburgh, itself the most English town or city in Scotland (in contrast, Greenock has the least English born residents). There are currently around 400,000 English born adults living north of the border (as Clio notes, thats around 8% of the population.) The average English person moved to Scotland at the age of 28 and has been in Scotland for 18 years, and despite popular belief that that are over-represented in the middle classes, it would appear there is no such bias.

According to a survey of them, 94% say they have not encountered significant anti-English feeling personally. But research (wonderfully titled We Hate the English, Except for You, Cos You’re Our Pal [4]) found "they face strongly negative attitudes towards them as a group, while often being welcomed as individuals."

As for what they have contributed to life in Scotland? Well, at the very least they make Scotland's heart attack statistics look marginally better! [5] and one of them brought a lot of money to the country. The only serious study of the subject appears to be Being English in Scotland by Murray Watson, Edinburgh University Press, 2003, ISBN 0748618597 (a limited preview, courtesy of Google and an interview about it). See also [6][7][8] Rockpocket 00:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Anthem

I've been trying to identity some of the leaders shown in the Soviet anthem video linked above by Clio [9]. The quality is quite poor at points, but I can get Stalin (obviously), Molotov and Khruschev. Any others? Zinoviev4 (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

All leaders or just Soviet leaders? Those you didn't mention, I saw Lenin, Churchill, Roosevelt, and I think I saw Fidel Castro in a quick shot. The Dominator (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, Castro is not there. The scenes depicted are no later than 1953, a time when young Fidel was singing other songs! Those who do appear-those I am able to recognise-include Mikhail Kalinin-the one with the Trotsky-like goatee-Kliment Voroshilov, Semyon Budyonny, Georgy Malenkov, Georgy Zhukov, and Anastas Mikoyan. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I did find it strange that Castro would be in a Stalin video, I just assumed that there was a clip from a different time period, but yeah, that doesn't make much sense. The Dominator (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I also spotted Ordzhonikidze, Beria and Kaganovich. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santegeezhe (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Italian unification

Was Cavour the most important character in itialian unification when compared with Garibaldi, Napoleon III and Mazzini? Thanks..King Alaric (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Assess the role of Cavour in relation to Garibaldi, Napoleon III and Mazzini" (20 minutes, 40 points). Yes it will be on the mid-term. --Wetman (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

They were, each in their own individual ways, of importance, but, yes, Count Cavour was by far the most signoficant. He was a far greater political realist than the idealistic Giuseppe Mazzini and a far better strategist than the flamboyant Giuseppe Garibaldi. Conservative and Machiavellian, he understood from an early stage that the Risorgimento had to be worked towards gradually. If anything he takes on the mantle of an Italian Bismarck; for while Bismarck's Germany served the interests of Prussia, Cavour's Italy served the interests of Piedmont.

But Piedmont had not the power of Prussia, and Italian unity could never have been achieved in the face of the opposition from France and Austria, the most important regional powers. He had to play a clever diplomatic game; for what he was seeking, in essence, was a complete revision of the settlement of 1815. It was a difficult road, not helped by the vacillation and the duplicity of Napoleon III. It is almost certain that if it had not been for Cavour Garibaldi's legendary March on Rome, romantic and unrestrained, would have led to French intervention on behalf of the papacy, and the same kind of defeat and setback the Risorgimento had suffered in 1848-9. But for the Fox of Piedmont Italian unity is likely to have taken another generation. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Was the U.S. Constitution originally written on hemp paper?

Nope, it was made from Angel ass skin. Written by the noodly appendiges of the spagetti God.

Was the U.S. Constitution written on paper made of hemp? I've found conflicting sources on this.

Government website [10]:

WHEREAS, two of the most important documents in the history of the United States, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, were drafted on hemp paper;

Columbia University news article: [11]

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written on hemp paper.

From usconstitution.net [12]:

Q145. "What kind of paper was the Constitution written on?"

A. Urban legend is that the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights were written on hemp paper, hemp being the industrial name for the fiber of the marijuana plant. For some reason, this "fact" is touted by those who seek to legalize marijuana for recreational use. First, it is not clear why the use of hemp as a fiber should mean it should be legalized for recreational use. Second, the "fact" is not a fact.

The Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are currently housed in the National Archives. All three are written on parchment, not hemp paper. Parchment is treated animal skin, typically sheepskin. The Declaration was inked with iron gall ink. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory was commissioned to create a system to monitor the physical status of all three. The Charters of Freedom Monitoring System took digital photos of each sheet of parchment in 1987, each document divided into one-inch squares. Over time, the photos are retaken and compared to the original to look for signs of deterioration. Before the charters were recently reencased for display, a small tear in the Declaration was repaired by adding Japanese paper to the gap. This is the only paper in any of the documents. This is not to say that a copy of any of the documents was never written on hemp paper - just not the copies we see in the Archives Rotunda.

So, it was drafted with hemp paper, but the final copy was regular parchment? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We can say with certainty that the final copy was parchment, but I don't think the sources you quote lend validity to concluding with any certainty what they were drafted on. Your "government website" is a State (not Federal) website, and the only references to hemp are on a proposed (no note if it passed) resolution by a state senator. Although they try to be accurate, legislators are not always 100% accurate in the bills they introduce. Also note that the Columbia University article is written by a student - again, not always 100% accurate in their facts. Our article on Hemp points to this website [13], which claims: "George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both grew hemp. Ben Franklin owned a mill that made hemp paper. Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence on hemp paper." However, that page is a list of "hemp facts" made by the North American Industrial Hemp Council, with no original sources given. I have no prior knowledge of the NAIHC, but I would guess that they are not a completely unbiased source. -- 128.104.112.47 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The real truth is GOD gave it to us written on angel skin. The spagetti God of course. He wrote the words with his noodly appendiges.

[edit] Source for Quote Wanted

I need a soure for "All translations are commentary" or any variation thereof. Thank you. Phil Burnstein (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"All translation is commentary" is apparently from Pharisees by Leo Baeck. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Adam Bishop, thank you so much. How on earth did you find it? Phil Burnstein (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find any results in the plural so I googled the singular :) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Information please

I am searching for history of Soviet secret police and need information, please, on Romauld Pilchau. I I Oblomov (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell you an awful lot about him, I Oblomov, but his full name-and title-was Baron Romauld Pillar von Pilchau, a Baltic German and, so far as I am aware, the only aristocrat ever to serve in the newly-formed Cheka and its various successors. He was arrested in 1937 during the Great Purge as a Polish spy. Nothing further is known. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Romuald Pillar von Pilchau was head of the NKVD in Saratov guberniya at the time of his arrest in 1937. Other spellings of his name occur, for example Piliar von Pilkhau. He is mentioned in Stalin and his Hangmen by Donald Rayfield, where there is a photo of him. Also mentioned in Stalinist Terror edited by J. Arch Getty and Roberta T. Manning. This quotes from a conversation that he had with Nikolai Yezhov three days before his arrest, as communicated by his wife T. A. Baranova. By the way, he was not the only aristocrat in the Cheka, indeed the first head of the Cheka, Felix Dzerzhinsky, was a Polish nobleman. M. Overholt

[edit] African American History

Where can I find information about the enlistment of African American soldiers in the American Revolutionay War including how long the average soldier would serve in comparison to other races? ---- G. Will

A book for general readers that you might want to start with is Michael Lee Lanning's African Americans in the Revolutionary War (New York: Citadel Press, 2005). The usual estimate for the number of black soldiers on the Revolutionary side is 5000 men, including militia, Continentals, and sailors, although I don't think there's much solid data to support this educated guess. There were a variety of ways in which black soldiers entered the ranks on the American side: militia participation (where it was allowed), direct enlistment (where it was allowed), as substitutes for drafted white owners, etc. Slaves who signed up as regulars usually enlisted for the duration of war in exchange for their freedom, which meant they served longer than some of their white counterparts, who could often enlist for one or three years. Militiamen of all races, not being regular soldiers, only served for weeks or months at a time.

Tens of thousands of blacks used the war as a chance to escape to British lines, but the British were more reluctant to arm them, so probably 1000 fought as soldiers, and many others served as laborers behind the lines. —Kevin Myers 22:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Wait's "Buzz Fledderjohn".

What exactly is the meaning of the song, if any? Is it just another nonsensical LSD-fueled rambling, or does it have some meaning? Please don't sign my comment for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/meow (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, lots of Waits' songs are, um, "evocative" more than they are meant to have any direct and literal meaning. As for what fuels the ramblings, they are probably just artistically-fueled ramblings; I seem to recall reading somewhere that despite the large role that alcohol plays in Waits' lyrics, he didn't imbibe in anything stronger than cigarettes and coffee anymore, but I don't recall the source of that and it might not be accurate. If you think people need hallucinogens to write bizarre ramblings, well, that's just not the case. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he already sobered up considerably when he got married in 1980 [14], and hasn't touched alcohol at all in over a decade, before 1999 when he wrote the song [15]. I basically agree with 98.217's analysis, you can choose to read a lot into it, or not. One Waits line, forever stuck in my head, is "Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, never drive a car when you're dead." (from "Telephone Call from Istanbul") ---Sluzzelin talk 09:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] what makes a faux turtleneck faux?

what makes a faux turtleneck faux? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.46.214 (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The faux turtleneck is also called a "mock" turtleneck, and is a variant on the Polo neck. The first two paragraphs of the linked article appear to answer the question. I have learned something new from them. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's made from Mock Turtle. ;-) AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wolsey and the supremacy

Had he lived do you think that Cardinal Wolsey would have accepted Henry's break with rome and his declaration of supremacy?Holy Rude (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We can obviously never be certain, but Thomas Wolsey was always a better servant of the state than he was of the church. More than that, he was not the stuff of which martyrs are made, and I simply cannot see him taking the same road as John Fisher and Thomas More. By his own admission Wolsey "owed his whole advancement to our lord the king". He further admitted that he "would assent to nothing that would tend to annul or derogate from his royal authority for all the world", a reasonable summary, perhaps, of the whole course of the Cardinal's public life. On the balance of probability I would say that he would have followed his master, with no great enthusiasm, perhaps, but he would still have followed. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[after edit conflict]

He would have had a terrible dilemma, as many others did, and he wasn't another Thomas More. If Wolsey had backed Henry, no doubt Pope Clement VII would have excommunicated him, as he did Thomas Cranmer. We can only speculate, and my suggestion is that you read about the other senior churchmen who faced the same choice. Most of the English and Welsh bishops, like Cranmer and William Warham, did accept the break with Rome, though there were exceptions, such as Reginald Pole and Thomas Goldwell. Xn4 03:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] why is boxing legal?

participants get seriously injured, I mean it consists in people pummeling each other, knocking each other out even. Why is it legal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.46.214 (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In some places, it's not legal. Maybe it's a question of the other places needing to catch up; the laws on drink-driving and public smoking have generally tightened up in most places, but not at the same speed everywhere. Or maybe there's money to be made. Smoking is far more serious to public health than boxing, but there's a buck in it for the government, so they keep raking in the excise revenue and pay lip service to warning people off smoking. They could hardly ban boxing on health grounds while not banning smoking. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

All sports involve some degree of potential danger to the participant. The question is where the line should be that the government should decide that willing participants should not be allowed to do it if they choose to. If football is fine, is wrestling? If wrestling is fine, is boxing? If boxing is fine, is mixed martial arts and other "freeform" fighting? At what point is it potentially exploitative, if any? Is it the government's role to regulate this sort of activity? If you google "Legality of boxing" you'll find a number of articles on the topic. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why a government should forbid an activity just because it's dangerous, if everyone involved is willing. Boxing is much less dangerous than some extreme sports. Vultur (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Extreme ironing could be very dangerous indeed! ;-) Back on topic... slightly... the same question could be applied to many things such as alcohol, marijuana, or prostitution. Dismas|^(talk) 05:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the arguments are the same (for example, one or the arguments in most cases is if the country has subsidised health care then these people may or may not be extra burden on the system), but there are some additional considerations when it comes to things like alcohol, marijuana and to a lesser extent prostitution. Particularly when it comes to stuff like alcohol and marijuana, one of the arguments (I'm not saying it has merit, in any case this is neither the time or the place) is that at least some of the people who use these substances may harm other people who don't choose to use these substances in a number of ways, ergo limiting or forbidding their use has merit. It's difficult to see how this applies to boxing. Of course activities like sports and prostition also have arguments which don't apply to the use or marijuana or alcohol, for example one of the potential arguments is that even though the participants may consent, it is unfair to allow people to be used in that way (of course whether or not they are being used is an obvious issue). Note that in all countries that I know of, there are limits to what people can consent to. Prostitution was an obvious example but there are a lot of others, some of which may not be obvious. For example, you can't usually consent to be killed (other then for reasons of euthanasia in a few countries). You can't consent to be a slave (in many countries you can't even consent to work for less then a minimum wage). In many countries you can't sell your organs. I'm not arguing that boxing is the same as these or saying that the limitations on consent is right (again, it isn't the time or place) simply pointing out you can't simply say the government has no right to interfere in boxing when participants are willing unless you therefore agree that all limitations of consent are wrong. Otherwise you have to agree that the government has some right to limit what people may consent to but don't feel they should limit consent in boxing for whatever reason (and there are a lot of reasons you could give). Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See Boxing#Medical concerns. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There have been pressures to ban boxing for probably more than 100 years. Medical concerns about boxing have led to many reforms in the sport, going back to the Marquess of Queensberry rules of 1867. More recently, authorities have banned bouts longer than 12 rounds, allowed doctors to stop fights, required bigger gloves and, a couple of years ago, required CT scans after fights ([16]). While boxing no doubt causes medical complications in the short and long term, it is hardly alone in that regard. Many retired NFL players suffer from terrible ailments as a result of the pounding they took during their careers. The statistics on football injuries and deaths are impressive in a bad way. But no one says football should be banned. That said, I do think a sport based on the concept of punching someone in the head until he is prostrate and incapacitated for 10 seconds is pretty stupid, and if anyone invented it today, we'd think he was joking. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a gentleman in every parish

Who said that the main function of the Church of England was to ensure that each parish had at least one gentleman? (The implication being that because the priest was by definition university-educated, he was more humane and far-seeing than the lord of the manor or squire, who could be an unlettered boor, and thus that the priest could be of more help to his parishoners.) BrainyBabe (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Taylor Coleridge [1830] (1839) On the Constitution of the Church and State pp. 56-7. [17]—eric 00:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about his meaning. Before the age of political correctness, to be a gentleman did indeed have a little to do with education, but really nothing with being humane or helpful. The country was run by the nobility and gentry, and another notion Coleridge may have had in mind is "a member of the ruling class in every parish". Xn4 02:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! But wouldn't every parish have already had at least one member of the ruling class, i.e. the squire, or whatever the main local landowner was called? BrainyBabe (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you both miss the mark here, which probably means i was mistaken to point to Coleridge's "Idea of the National Church." He does not use the exact words: "a resident gentleman in every parish," but i'm almost certain the phrase is meant to invoke that essay.

BrainyBabe, while the parson is the "representative and exemplar of the personal character of the community or parish; of their duties and rights, of their hopes, privileges and requisite qualifications, as moral persons," and "the germ and nucleus of the progressive civilization," the beneficiary of his work, according to Coleridge, is the State. The people of the country are trained "to be obedient, free, useful, organizable subjects, citizens, and patriots, living to the benefit of the State, and prepared to die for it's defense."

Xn4, Coleridge's argument is not that "these parochial clerks" are of the ruling class, but that the wealth of the ruling class, the 'Nationality', should foot the bill. A "well calculated self interest" of the State.—eric 00:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Eric. I'm not sure when this question will be shifted to the archives, so perhaps I can squeeze a little more understanding out of this. Assuming Coleridge was the first to state the idea in so many words, in what context was he writing? Was he making comparisons to other countries, or other epochs in England? What was the response to his essay? Did the Church relish this role? Did they ever formally relinquish it? Part of what I am trying to tease out is how a country got to the state at which its established church could be described as the Tories at prayer. There is this fundamental intertwining of church and state, religion and nation, at more than official levels, at psychological or even mythic levels. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Israel daily life

Can anyone recommend books about daily life in Israel in the late fifties and early sixties? I'm interested in non-fiction, but not exclusively. I'm particularly interested in that era's business practices, corporate culture, etc. Lantzy ^talk 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't state whether you want a book in English or in Hebrew. A book in Hebrew ואלה שנות (These are the Years) by Nissim Mishal (Published by Miskal-Publishing Distribution Ltd. in Tel-Aviv in 1997) gives a year by year account of events which occurred each year from 1948-97, together with a number of photographs. Simonschaim (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I should have specified. I'm interested in both English and Hebrew sources. Thanks for the recommendation. Lantzy ^talk 19:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] historical account

This is in regards to "A Memory of Solferino" by Henry Dunant. It's understood that the book has been translated and printed into many different languages. Not long ago, I bought a copy at my local American Red Cross chapter. Where does the money from the book sales go to?72.229.136.18 (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)