Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 March 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< March 11 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 13 >
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] March 12

[edit] human flagpoles

A previous questioner's too homework-like query reminded me of something I had got nowhere investigating. I too had heard that (in the 1950s?) the Canadian government had moved a handful of Inuit families hundreds or thousands of kms to an otherwise uninhabited island, for the sole purpose of claiming that this bit of the high Arctic was Canadian by virtue of being lived on by Canadian citizens. They transported and stranded those families there without any real consent and without even sufficient supplies. The phrase that got attached to this scandal was "human flagpoles" -- people moved around like pawns on the geopolitical chessboard.

A) Can anyone substantiate this?

B) Have there been other examples in other countries of a government moving a few people to an empty land in order to claim it? Note that this was in no sense a mass population movement, and nor was there any question of pushing others off their territory. It really was terra nulis.

All of this has increased relevance with the melting of the Northwest Passage. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There are two settlements in northern Canada that originated with the forced relocation of Inuits: Resolute and Grise Fiord. Marco polo (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Marco Polo, for answering A). Your links had references, one of which is a 1994 report in which The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples called the forced relocation “one of the worst human rights violations in the history of Canada.” So can anyone help with B? Any worldwide examples? And where exactly was the phrase used? BrainyBabe (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enjoyable, readable ancient classics?

I enjoyed reading The Golden Ass in translation - it was both interesting and perhaps more importantly of a style easy to read for a modern reader (which may be due to the translation more than the original perhaps). I also enjoyed reading the Satyricon. I found The Odyssey on the other hand, hard work and only got half-way though it. Are there any other clasical texts that are both easy and enjoyable reads please? 80.0.102.233 (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Much of Virgil's stuff is really beautiful, but for a modern reader of English, I suggest off the top of my head Ovid's Metamorphoses . Pallida  Mors 00:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Bits of Herodotus are fun, if you skip the battles. Ancient Greek comedies like Aristophanes are very amusing if you have a good translation (The Frogs and The Birds, for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
If you liked the Golden Ass and Satyricon, you will definitely like the Metamorphoses suggested by Pallida. You might also like the Apocolocyntosis (The Pumpkinification of Claudius). And along a different line, the poems of Catullus. - Nunh-huh 01:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, pumpkinification - what a word! I must remember to use "apocolocyntosis" in my imminent rewriting of Cinderella. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Lucian... --- AnonMoos (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You might also enjoy the plays by Plautus and Terentius and the Misopogon by Julian the Apostate - the latter is one of the most entertaining texts from antiquity I've ever read. -- Ferkelparade π 10:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you have another bash using the E.V.Rieu translation (available from Penguin).--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. It is very readable: gripping, even. SaundersW (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
A similar question was asked on Feb 10 and archived here, with some very tempting suggestions. [1]BrainyBabe (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
While not strictly Classical, but certainly a classic, I'd recommend Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf. I'd also suggest 1 and 2 Samuel in the Bible - King David is perhaps the most vividly drawn character in all ancient literature. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Another suggestion: Christopher Logue's modern take on the Illiad.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, Robert Fagles' translations of both the Odyssey and Iliad are excellent and readable. Tacitus is very fluid and pleasant in the translations I've read, particularly the Agricola and Germania. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Water Margin. Other side of the land mass, but enjoyable (at least to me). bibliomaniac15 05:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yet another off-kilter option might be Paradise Lost with its classical forms and allusions.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When someone pulls your credit report, what do they see? (For USA)

For the USA... I am submitting an application to a new landlord and they charge $15 for a "credit check". Do you have any idea what information they get back. Now if in the case they don't merely do a FICO score but a hard credit card, what do they see--do they just see my debts and payments of them or do they see things like how much income I make and all kinds of other things? William Ortiz (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk about deja vu. I got turned down when I tried to rent an apartment way back when, which confused me completely since I didn't have any credit problems. So the manager showed me my Equifax report. This was in Canada over ten years ago, but you get the idea. It listed my current and previous address, birthdate, employer, and all my credit cards, including credit limit, balance, account no. and how long I had the card. As it turned out, half the info was for someone else. He didn't charge me for the report though. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You can take a look yourself here. They try to sell you credit monitoring, but one credit report per year (without FICO score) is supposed to be free (in CO at least) so that you can make sure there's nothing that isn't supposed to be there. A credit report just lists addresses and credit accounts with credit limits and average balance. So far as payments, it will only say if you make payments or not (usually you have to be more a little late several times for them to report it). — Laura Scudder ☎ 12:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
To extend the statement a little bit, one credit report per bureau per year is free for any US resident. With three bureaus, this means you can freely cross-check your credit once-yearly (if you're really concerned that something has slipped in) or freely spot-check your credit every four months. FICO scores appear to be $5-$10 extra. And yes, annualcreditreport (as linked above) is the official one, not the "free as in sign up for an entirely un-free product" one advertised relentlessly. — Lomn 13:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Document on American perceptions of federalism

I need a reliable document detailing how Americans currently feel about their statehood (specifically, whether they feel there is any significant difference between citizens of two different states) compared to how they felt around 1787 ASAP.Tuesday42 (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sex, drugs, and ethics

If I slip a woman a drug and take advantage of the state it induces to have sex with her, then that's date rape and it's immoral. But what if I ask her if she wants to try a drug, I explain what it does, she says yes and takes it, and then we have consensual sex while she (or we both) are intoxicated? Is that immoral? If we were already in a sexual relationship, then it obviously wouldn't be immoral, but what if that's not the case? Does it matter at all ethically what kind of drug it is?

Note that I'm intentionally not asking about any legal matters, and I'm not really looking for yes or no answers either. I'm looking for ethical arguments I can use to make up my own mind. 216.162.144.18 (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be ethically, and probably legally, very wrong to take advantage of a person when his/her judgment is altered by drugs. Let me make an analogy. Suppose you and a friend got drunk, and he gets the notion to do something foolhardy such as swim across a river. Your duty is to stop him. It doesn't matter whether or not he got drunk voluntarily. Rhinoracer (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Ethically and morally, it's a grey spot. Note that consent must be given while both parties are sober, or all bets are off. If permission is explicitly given to both use the drug and have consensual sex during its effects, I would think it's ethical. However, there are problems beyond that, namely the emotional repercussions of being "taken advantage of" in such a state, and the possible consequences if the drugged partner changed their mind later and decided to press charges. Plus, there's always the chance of an adverse reaction to the drug. I'd say the risks outweigh the benefits, but it's an ethically complex situation. -- Kesh (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Part of the problem with the types of drugs you describe is that they tend to reduce any rational control over their decision making process. Ethically this means that the consent the person gives right before the act is in question since it is unlikely they'd change their mind. Of course this depends on the type of drug that is involved. Ecstasy would be more problematic, whereas cannabis would be less so. To achieve a relative degree of confidence in the morality of the action, the best solution would be to only engage in this sort of activity with a person who you have an established relationship with thus you can be more sure of what the person would want in the situation.--droptone (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Saying "If we were already in a sexual relationship, then it obviously wouldn't be immoral" is not quite as clear cut as it sounds.
(a) According to some religious beliefs, it is always wrong to engage in sexual relations outside of marriage. To those religions, the fact that you were already in a relationship with the person is irrelevant; every single time you have ever had or will ever have sex with a person who is not your different-sex spouse (same-sex spouses aren't recognised as spouses, except perhaps by Bishop Gene whatsisname), you're committing a sin. To them, this is a deeply immoral relationship already, and you'd be digging your spiritual grave with your penis if you continued. Clearly, you don't share their moral views, or you wouldn't be in a non-marital relationship in the first place; but this is just to demonstrate there is a bigger picture where morality is concerned, and there's no such thing as absolute morality.
Don't care. This is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for good ethical arguments, and the ethical argument here boils down to "because the Bible says so" or "because the Pope says so". 216.162.144.18 (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(b) If you have doubts about the morality of what you're proposing, what difference would it make whether you're already in a relationship with her or whether she's someone you might pick up at a bar for a one-night stand. Do her rights vary depending on this? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This makes no sense to me. If she's already my girlfriend and I'm regularly having sex with her, it's a completely different situation. For example, I could give my girlfriend my Dick in a Box, but if I tried to do that to a girl who wasn't my girlfriend, it would just be disgusting and wrong. So yes, it makes a big difference. 216.162.144.18 (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with JackofOz. Each sexual encounter with each person must be agreed. Just because your girlfriend usually performs act X with you does not mean she wishes to perform act Y. Likewise, just because she usually does X with you when sober does not mean that she will want to when under the influence of something she has never tried before, even -- and this might be the difficult part to accept -- if she says she does while under the influence. Kesh also makes this point: consent to taking the drug, and consent to sex, must be talked through before taking the drug. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stability: most stable country or culture, for longest time?

What culture / country can be said to have remained the most 'the same' for the longest period of time? I'm thinking of things like quality and nature of daily life of the people, type of government, etc. 70.162.25.53 (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Easy: HanChina. Rhinoracer (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right.. But what does 'han china' mean exactly, Han Dynasty lasted only 400 years. When did han china finish? - communism? or is it still the same??87.102.17.32 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Also thinking beyond the obvious I'm sure there are many aboriginal cultures that have been unchanged (up till recently) from th very dawn of time.87.102.17.32 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Mmm, probably not. It's easy to assume that their cultures are static but there's a lot of evidence that those types of cultures change fairly rapidly too. I doubt there's any culture that is "unchanged from the very dawn of time", considering the wide variety of major climatic and ecological change that has happened over the course of human history. You simply don't have the same culture in an Ice age that you do when you are not in an ice age, and no culture has ever always been truly isolated from other cultures. Everybody trades, kills, etc. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creative Commons: license for van Gogh letters

I looked at the copyright for the van Gogh letters here. It's a Creative Commons license and it says that you are “free to make commercial use of the letters” but “If you alter, transform, or build upon the letters, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one.” Wouldn’t these stipulations be mutually exclusive? --S.dedalus (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No. It is fairly standard for an open license to say a) you can use the product as is and b) if you change the product, you allow other people to use the changed product under the same license conditions under which you accessed the originals. The two are just not exclusive; the second prevents you seeking to impose a more restrictive license on thing which you acquired under a more relaxed license. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And aren't they public domain, anyway? Rhinoracer (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. The compilation itself can be copyrighted, and it looks as if they are annotated and have some new translations in them as well. Those can be copyrighted. The original letters and their original translations by van Gogh's sister-in-law are no longer in copyright (at least in the US). --98.217.18.109 (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And CC doesn't mean you can't use something commercial. Just because it is a "free" (in the sense of freedom) license doesn't mean the product has to be "free" (in the sense of libre). You could put Wikipedia on a disk and sell it—but you're selling the disk+labor, not the intellectual property, which you don't own. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Smith and intellectual property

What did Adam Smith think about patents and copyrights? Jacob Lundberg (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. He rallied against monopolies, and both patents and copyrights are monopolies of a sort. On the other hand, they do provide protections that encourage free trade and private innovation. Those two aspects of IP law have always been in tension. An article in The Economist from three years ago notes that "Adam Smith had described [patents] as necessary evils, to be handed out sparingly, and many other economists have since echoed his reservations. Patents amount to temporary monopolies on useful new inventions."[2] I'm not intimately familiar with Smith's writings so I'm not sure where one would find such a thing in his actual works, but it seems plausible. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur, earl of Essex

Thanks for the answers to my previous question on Lorna Doone. I've now had a read around your articles on the Rye House Plot, something I knew nothing about. In the page on Arthur Capell, one of those arrested on discovery of the plot, it says that his suicide in prison was wrongly attributed to the Stuarts. Why was this? Was it just more Whig propaganda directed against the crown? Is it not possible that he was murdered, just to keep him silent? Myra McCartney (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Why?" and "is it possible?" questions are the purlieu of the Muse, who, having been there at the time, can sort all difficulties. SaundersW (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
In spirit she descends!
This is a question, Myra that will never be answered in any conclusive fashion. One should begin, I suppose, by asking Cui bono-who benefited from Essex's death? In other words, what political purpose did it serve? Well, the evidence against the Plotters was very weak. Essex supposed suicide was taken by a good many people as a direct admission of guilt. In the trial of Lord William Russell, two of the prosecutors, Francis North and the infamous George Jeffreys, immediately argued that proved the guilt of the accused. On that basis, and on that basis alone, Russell was convicted and condemned to death.
Essex, moreover, had formerly been involved in the highest reaches of government, a royal minister and servant of the king, and thus not at all in the same class as the conspirators with whom he was associated. It is possible that a trial would have revealed dealings of the inner workings of government, which would hardly have been welcome to Charles or his brother James. It is also not entirely immaterial that Essex's servant, Paul Bromley, who served him in the Tower, and was the first to discover the earl's body, was paid £50-a huge sum at the time-after the inquest delivered a verdict of suicide.
But more than anything else the manner of Essex's death helped to discredit the Whigs, even those who had no association at all with the Rye House Plot. One has to remember the horror with which 'self-murder' was viewed at the time. But for the king's clemency, Essex's body could, by practiced custom, have been buried outwith hallowed ground, usually by a cross-road or on a highway, with a stake driven through his heart. The Whigs immediately raised questions, saying that the earl could not possibly have committed so loathsome an act, and looking for royal complicity. Pamphlets began to circulate in London saying that Essex had been murdered, and documents were intercepted accusing James of ordering the crime in person. None other than John Locke, a close associate of Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, the greatest of the Whigs, wrote a paper promoting the murder theory. Robert Ferguson, another Whig exile, wrote a pamphlet detailing supposed irregularities at the inquest, which was published in 1684 and smuggled into England. The government was so alarmed by this that it took the unusual step of publishing a transcript of the inquest in full.
After the Glorious Revolution in 1688 the victorious Whigs began a serious search for evidence that Essex was murdered, a quest approved by the Convention Parliament and supported by Gilbert Burnet. One Captain John Holland was arrested an accused of participating in the crime. It is likely that, in the political circumstances of the day, the verdict of the 1683 inquest would have been overturned but for the intervention of the dowager Countess of Essex, who asked that proceedings be stopped. Thus the official inquiry ended, though the speculation did not. Burnet himself began to doubt that Essex had been murdered; and when his History of My Own Times was published in 1724 he supported the suicide theory.
But, as I have said, this is a matter that will never be resolved. It still continues to divide historians, right down to the present day. Do I think he was murdered? No, I do not; but then I am no Whig! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow! Wow! You really seem to know what you are talking about, Clio. This is brilliant. Are you a historian? Myra McCartney (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, very English kind of historian! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greatest political leader, last century?

who do you think was the most significant political leader in the history of the past century? please give reasons for your answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.105.239 (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Deng Xiaoping, because he set the world's largest nation on a path to a market economy, astonishing economic growth, and geopolitical ascendancy in the following century. Marco polo (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler, not a nice guy, but definatly a strong leader, and achieved much, and changed much. Then there is Churchill who defeated him, so he may be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hitler became increasingly incompetant as WW2 progressed, which was why there was no Allied assassination attempts, as his replacement would have been a better general. 80.2.193.158 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Churchill defeated him? Whatever happened to Jugashvili? Anyway, reasonable answers above, I'd add Lenin for shaping the twentieth century much as Marco suggests Deng's influence will shape the twenty-first. Algebraist 16:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Woodrow Wilson. Although I don't really like the guy, he set the stage for American power by leading the US into WWI and playing an important role in the establishment of the League of Nations. It kind of snowballed from there, leading to America's "superpower" age. Wrad (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
My own personal preference is for Mohandas Gandhi, primarily because, unlike many other revolutionaries and political leaders, he actively advocated nonviolence as a means to achieve political goals. Not that there's any "right" answer to this. Carom (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
But how influential is the idea of non-violence? In today's world, how many injustices are genuinely combatted through nonviolence? Gandhiism is, in my humble opinion, nothing more than an inspirational sidenote, the majority of the world's problems are solved (or rather, tried to be solved), by RPGs and AK47s. Ninebucks (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think "influence" and "significance" are synonymous. Carom (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a history expert but without the influence of Winston Churchill Britain may have taken the appeasement route with the Nazis, so that the Nazis would have taken and kept Europe, and then started firing nuclear V3s or V4s at New York, and the cruelty, nationalistic selfishness, and barbarity of fascism could have taken over the world. As Winston himself said: "What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."" 80.2.193.158 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It’s always difficult to make assessments of this kind because of all of the variables that have to be taken into consideration; but as far as I am concerned the real political giant of the twentieth century was Joseph Stalin. This does not mean to say that I like him; I do not: not by any measure. But I cannot help but admire him: I admire his ruthlessness, his intelligence, his political skill and his determination. The son of a cobbler, born of the fringes of the old Russian Empire, he outwitted time and again those better placed than him within his own party, not excluding Lenin. Rising to the top, he industrialized his country in a way that surely saved it when the great test came in 1941. He defeated Hitler-and, yes, it was the Soviet Army that bore the brunt of the fighting against the Germans and several of their allies- going on to outplay Churchill, Roosevelt and Truman. He stands across the twentieth century like a true colossus. He may not have been a good man; but he was a great one. Are the great, I have to ask myself, ever good? Clio the Muse (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My vote goes for Stalin too. I agree with all your points but would also add that he perfected the cult of the personality. Surely that's highly influential politics-wise. AllenHansen (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"It's far too soon to tell." The apocryphal answer given by a Chinese statesman when asked his opinion of the French Revolution. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to change my vote to "the guy behind the scenes who has the real power but isn't visible to the public". I've always wondered who that was... Wrad (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Then that must be the smoking man. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A related question is, if politician X had never existed, which politicians non-existance would make the biggest difference to the modern world? If Winston Churchill had never existed, Britain would not have fought the Nazis, Russia would have been overrun as the Nazis only has one front to concentrate on (no need to keep defensive troops in the west for example), and we'd be living in a fascist world. 80.2.200.28 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you looking for a response to this, 80.2? It's not clear to me. However, if you are, I will say that I think you rather overstate your case. Much as I admire Churchill, and I do, greatly, Britain would have fought the Nazis with or without him. Indeed, the country had already been at war for eight months before he became Prime Minister. Neville Chamberlain would have been replaced in May 1940 by some other individual, less inspirational, perhaps, but no less determined. Britain has, throughout its history, had the remarkable ability to produce the right person at just the right historical moment. Also, your assertion that Russia 'would have been overrun' by the Germans is altogether dubious, even with some extra divisions released from the west. Remember, too, that in 1941 all of the best, most effective German forces were committed to the Russian campaign, leaving second-line occupation troops in the west. It is almost certain that Russia would have beaten Hitler with or without Britain. As it was by the time of the major Allied landings in France in 1944 the Soviets were chasing the Germans through central Poland. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
"Britain has, throughout its history, had the remarkable ability to produce the right person at just the right historical moment." A mystical statement with a lot of hindsight bias and not true - for example where was the person we needed to stop us from losing the American colonies? Or to turn around the Suez crisis? A large proportion of the Russian population died repulsing the Nazis - if the Nazis had been able to concentrate on the east then the Russians may easily have been overwhelmed. 80.2.196.223 (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well; we shall just have to agree to disagree. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
"As it was by the time of the major Allied landings in France in 1944 the Soviets were chasing the Germans through central Poland." Sorry, I don't think that is correct either. The invasion of Sicily was in July 1943, followed by invasion of Italian mainland and advance nothwards. So there had been an invasion of Europe for a year previous to the Russians begining to re-take eastern Poland in mid-July 1944, and D Day itself was before this on the 6th. July. Remember also the war against U-boats in the Atlantic was becoming successful in May 1944, which must have diverted a lot of Nazi materials and personnel. 80.2.194.26 (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The stress here should be placed on major. The Italian campaign, for all Churchill's expectations, had turned into a disappointing sideshow; a tough old gut, not a soft underbelly. But, as I already said, we shall just have to agree to disagree; I've taken this as far as I wish, and no useful purpose would be served by further argument. I'm really just writing to draw your attention-and the attention of others-to the fact that D Day was on 6 June, not 6 July. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
If D Day was on the 6th. June, then the Russians were clearly not "chasing the Germans through central Poland" - they may not have actually even been on the edge of Poland at that time. The Italian front meant that a lot of Nazi personnel and resources had to be diverted to there to keep the invaders in place. 80.0.110.219 (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military Covenant

Trying to expand the article Military Covenant and can find little or no historical references to it. In recent times it has come under fire in the UK and I think the article needs to look at why it was introduced etc Boooooom (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy: who are the six greatest philosophers?

Who are the Six greatest philosophers of the world ? 122.163.241.169 (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to define "great" to start us off? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Though this question obviously has no objective answer, I think it would be safe to say that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes would be in as many or more such "greatest" lists as anyone. --Allen (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
How about we add Hume for good measure? --98.217.18.109 (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Why only six? --98.217.18.109 (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Dōgen, Thomas Aquinas, Germaine Greer, Leonard Cohen, Yamamoto Tsunetomo and Lu-Tze. Because. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Mencius Kant Hegel I leave it to the reader to add two more prussians and a frenchman of their choice.87.102.17.32 (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The BBC had a competition & poll a few years ago, which was won by Karl Marx, before David Hume, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Friedrich Nietzsche, Plato and Immanuel Kant. Of course it's hard to take this type of thing seriously, especially if Spinoza doesn't win. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Why six when you only need one? Schopenhauer --S.dedalus (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You are right about needing just one, S.dedalus, but surely the name is Lu-Tze! ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hume could outconsume Hegel. Historical fact. Kant was very rarely stable, whilst Wittgenstein was classified by some as a beery swine. Socrates was permamnently pissed. Hobbes was fond of his dram. Dare we mention John Stuart Mill and his free will? AllenHansen (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Explain more about this hume vs. hegel eating competition, I find it difficult that hegel could be out-eaten without you providing a solid documentation.87.102.17.32 (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Drinking, not eating. FiggyBee (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a pity that as a moral philosopher P. G. Wodehouse is often overlooked. Xn4 00:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For those of you who do not know the words of Bruce's Phlosophers Song here they are:
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, [some versions have 'Schopenhauer and Hegel']
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away--
Half a crate of whisky every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
I drink, therefore I am.
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker.
All sing along now! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
But a bugger when he's pissed! FiggyBee (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Arrgh! I forgot that because I'm pissed just at the moment! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
What a great song. Is it falsifiable? Are any of these philosophers known to have not been drinkers? --Allen (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems that Socrates, at least, was a drinker and a bugger! Adam Bishop 02:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk)
It was "Schopenhauer and Hegel" in its original form, that presented to the world by Monty of Python fame. Has anyone mentioned Woody Allen yet? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
How about we confine our answers to 'philosophers',,, otherwise I must nominate park bench wino man as the greatest philosopher of all time, when he's concious his insights are remarkable, assuming he isn't too busy fighting invisible foes.87.102.8.240 (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
What about religious philosophers? Moses, for example, has had a greater influence than Xeno. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone like to propose a definition of "philosopher" ? Gandalf61 (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone whose thoughts/ideas/concepts have value in themselves, and are presented in a direct manner. I'd probably confine 'direct manner' to spoken or written ideas etc. As such ideas etc presented in the form of a song, or play would not be considered philsophy (as such) even though it may be of great interest or relevence. This would be a very traditional view I'd guess.87.102.8.240 (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Who gets to decide whether they have value? -- JackofOz (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That's up to you of course!87.102.8.240 (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"If you were to ask me to name three geniuses, I probably wouldn't say Einstein, Newton... ... you know ... I'd go Milligan, Cleese, Everett, Sessions!" ---Sluzzelin talk 11:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Why should plays be an inferior form of literature ? Do Tom Stoppard's plays, which deal with some quite profund philosophical issues, somehow have less "value" as philosophy than the novels of Phillip Pullman, C. S. Lewis or Samuel Butler ?
I didn't actually say they were.. But you raise an interesting question .. if you remember it was asked "Would anyone like to propose a definition of philosopher" - so I ask in the case of a play - who is the philosopher - is it the writer, or the audience, or both?87.102.94.198 (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Please just supply a better definition of philospher than the one I gave, I don't enjoy having holes torn in me, and would be interested in a better definition - which I'm absolutely sure exists.87.102.94.198 (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You have to bear in mind that philosophers define what a philosopher is, so it's never going to be a nice easy answer we can all agree on. 81.96.160.6 (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


If the greatest philosophers are those whose work is of the highest standard then I would suggest that all six of the best are recent philosophers. Philosophy is getting better and more advanced as time passes. This is partly because new philosophers 'stand on the shoulders' of those who have gone before, and modern advances could not have been made were it not for the monumental creativity of previous thinkers. Nevertheless, there is more truth to be found in the writings of David Lewis and Saul Kripke, for example, than in anything written before 1950. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.174.220 (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm highly suspicious that philosophy is a progressive discipline. In any case, there's a lot more to any discipline than up-and-onwards "progress". Which any philosopher of science in particular would know! --98.217.18.109 (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
John Norman and his Chronicles of Gor series! --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
In no particular order: Socrates, Gautama Buddha, Rene Descartes, Bertrand Russell, Laozi, and George Carlin. Matt Deres (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The six greatest philosophers are those whose works are most relevant to you. Any attempt to come up with a 'reasonable and educated' list is nothing more than an insight into the author's own soul.

That said there was one philosopher who sharply critiqued many of his predecessors, some might say with remarkable accuracy: Nietzsche. And I agree with Gandalf61, Yamamoto Tsunetomo's wisdom goes beyond mere intellect and into the realm of the human heart with his recorded sayings of Hagakure. Vranak (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Congressmen in WW II

Some sitting Senators and Congressmen, such as Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., left Congress to serve in WW II. How many, if any, were killed in action? DarkAudit (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm only aware of one, Vincent F. Harrington, U.S. Representative from Iowa 9th District from 1937 to 1942, who died during military service in England on November 29, 1943. But also two former congressmen, Joseph Weldon Bailey, Jr. (d. 1943), who had been a U.S. Representative from Texas at-large, 1933-1935, served in the U.S. Marine Corps died of pneumonia following injuries in a road accident; and Harold C. McGugin, U.S. Representative from Kansas 3rd District, 1931-1935, served in the U.S. Army and "contracted an incurable disease" and died while arguably on active service in France but after the end of the War, in 1946. Also two other US politicians of some kind: Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention from Massachusetts in 1940 and served in the U.S. Navy. He was killed when his Liberator bomber exploded in England in 1944; and Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., Governor of Puerto Rico from 1929 to 1932, was a general in the U.S. Army and took part in the D-Day landings on June 6, 1944, he died in France a month later of exhaustion and heart failure. Xn4 23:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why Isn't Bartholomew Sharp getting credit?

Mm'kay. So a history lover here, and a pirate lover. Infact, descendant of a pirate.

On the Henry Morgan page it talks about Pirates of the Caribbean a little. Infact it says "The pirate code from the movie trilogy Pirates of the Caribbean was said to be created by the pirates Morgan and Bartholomew. "Morgan" clearly refers to Henry Morgan. However, Morgan's actual articles as reported by Exquemelin bear not the slightest resemblance to this code. Furthermore, Barthlomew Roberts (the only person to whom 'Bartholomew' could refer) was only born 6 years before Morgan died. "

This is false information. Bartholomew Roberts isn't the only person it could refer to. Infact, it's not who it refers to at all. It's actually talking about Bartholomew Sharp He was a Pirate, more similar to age of Captain Morgan than Roberts, and also died around more similar times. And him being my ancestor, I do know for a fact he sailed for a little bit with Captain Morgan. So really my question is, why is Bartholomew Roberts getting the credit for being mentioned in this film instead of Sharp?

--Nutsrabbitsandmonkeys (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. The sentence is an uncited assertion, added by someone or other, and to my eye contains speculation. Your thesis seems to fit the bill better. It would be handy if we could find a reference for the whole thing, though. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh - and kudos on your excellent superior pirate bragging rights. V. envious :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SS UNITED STATES Ocean Liner

I share with you of a seemingly little known fact about the SS UNITED STATES which I am attempting to confirm.

Some time when I lived in Philadelphia, Anchorman Jim O'Brien of Channel six Action News did a report on the SS UNITED STATES; that this ship was to be a hospital ship for the United States Navy. I can recall seeing the model of the ship encased in clear plastic in her hospital markings. She was to be named the USS UNITED STATES for the United States Navy, but the plan obviously never materialized. Besides my memory of the event I have enquired about the event and report from the TV station and the SS UNITED STATES Foundation. So far neither have responded to my request.

My compliments and continued success.

Edward C. Zimmerman, Jr. USS UNITED STATES Foundation (frigate) email removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.3.74 (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with SS United States? A later ship, perhaps? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, that was certainly the SS United States. She was designed to be usable as a hospital ship or a troop ship. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Then she would have been named the USNS United States. A civillian ship transferred to the Navy for work with the Military Sealift Command becomes a USNS, since it isn't commissioned as part of the Navy and is operated by civillian crews. Leobold1 (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] London the socialist: was Jack London a socialist?

Ive been reading People of the Abyss and find some of it quite puzzling. Was Jack London a socialist or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes, I believe it (talk • contribs) 21:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack London#Political Views. From the very first line: London joined the Socialist Labor Party in April 1896. -- Kesh (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
See also his essay Revolution (1905), online here. Xn4 22:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind that we are talking about late-19th/early-20th century socialism here. Check your Stalinism at the door. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I can understand your bafflement here. London's socialism was shot through with elements of his racial theory, which do not make comfortable reading for a modern audience. He could express sympathy for the impoverished, on the one hand, while describing those in poverty as 'subhuman' or 'bestial', on the other. He frequently refers to London's East Enders as a 'new race', a symptom of the deterioration of society-"They remind me of gorillas...They are a new species, a breed of city savages...The slum is their jungle, and they live and prey in the jungle." In some ways London's argument is the very antithesis of that of Marx and others of his kin, for whom industrialisation and urbanisation was a necessary stage on the road to socialism. In contrast London is almost reactionary in the doubts he raises over industrial capitalism, which destroys the best human stock; it destroys the family; and it destroys "all the sacredness of motherhood." It's a form of socialism, I suppose, but one that is seen through the prism of eugenics. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

London was widely read in Soviet times. Held up as an example of world-wide socialist talent. AllenHansen (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)