Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 March 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< March 15 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 17 >
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 16

[edit] Trial court procedures: documents and their filing?

in civil litigation when a case settles..what are the settlement documents that will be required and where are these filed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.185.161 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous poster, are you talking about US federal law, the law of some US state, or some other law? Please note that anything looking like a request for legal advice is not answered here.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 09:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No Legal Advice - Just A General Fact Outline: But, generally speaking, (in the USA) ... when a case "settles", this simply means that both sides / parties have come to an agreement by themselves (not through the court). And, part of that agreement / settlement is to withdraw the lawsuit that had been filed in the court. In short, the document is simply an agreement / contract agreed / signed by both parties. In some cases, (not all, and not most) a court may have to approve of the settlement. Otherwise, a settlement is tantamount to Party A saying to Party B, "I agree to drop this lawsuit if you agree to do such and such (e.g., pay me $10,000)". Party B says, "OK". Then, Party A withdraws the lawsuit that they had originally filed against Party B to begin with. And the case is now closed. From the judge's (court's) standpoint, he just knows that the Party A dropped their suit and it's off of his (the judge's) plate. He doesn't much care how or why. Parties can withdraw suits for lots of reasons. Settlement is just one. It's really not the judge's concern or interest, for the most part ... the judge / court simply knows that the case is gone. In fact, the term you usually hear is that "they settled out of court" ... meaning that the two parties were able to mutually agree and resolve the case without the court's help / intervention. Hope this was of some general help. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC))
Sometimes the settlement forbids the parties to make its terms public. This would obviously be impossible if it were filed in the public record. —Tamfang (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
True. And good point. Sometimes, settlements between the parties are indeed confidential (if both sides agree to this stipulation). Which is fancy legal mumbo-jumbo that essentially allows big shots (large corporations, rich people, etc.) to get away with murder. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC))
... over and over again. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC))
In the United States, where the parties to a case are private individuals or corporations, generally all that must be filed is a form stating that the case has been resolved and the litigation is discontinued. Where the parties to a case are under a legal disability (minors or mentally disabled individuals) or where the case involves absent parties (class or derivative actions), the procedure is more complicated as court approval is required. In addition, if a party to the case is a public company and the outcome of the litigation may have a material effect on its financial condition, disclosure may be required in the company's SEC filings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Peloponnesian War

hi, i am a year 10 student in need of information about the Peloponnesian War, and i find wikipedia gives the best results however your artical about The Peloponnesian War says that it was a military conflict. but i cant see what the conflict was exactly about. i have read through it and just got confused. sorry about this, but i just cant find the answer

thankyou.

Courtney Stringer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.79.4 (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote from Thucydides that begins section 1. Prelude of the Peloponnesian Wars is unusually clear, I would have thought. There may be experts here who disagree, of course. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Courtney, Bielle is absolutely right: the section headed Prelude could not make the causes of the war any clearer. In essence it was brought on by concerns in the rest of Greece over the growth of Athenian power. Have another look, and if it's still not clear come back with a fresh question. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Courtney: As Bielle and Clio suggest: Re-read the Wikipedia article, then ask another question, and you will doubtless get another answer. Edison (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] College football season: US and Canada

When is the next college football season coming for both U.S. and Canada? I am a big football fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 02:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Football like American football? Those seasons generally start in early fall. If you mean soccer, I don't know. Paragon12321 (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
ESPN's first 2008 CFB broadcast is Thursday, Aug. 28: NC State at South Carolina and Oregon State at Stanford. Most teams start their season two days later. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The Canadian Interuniversity Sport football season stars on September 1, according to the official website. (With my old school playing the opening game!) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The Canadian Football League season starts around June. If you are looking for the NFL then you've just missed it. Soccer in Canada starts when the snow melts, because it's not a rich enough sport to afford indoor stadiums yet. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From my textbook: Hitler, racism, and "Anglo-Saxon supremacy"?

"Hitler was driven by a virulent form of racism and Anglo-Saxon supremacy."

Should I be scratching my head?

Lotsofissues 07:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Could we have the name of the textbook, so we know which to avoid? AllenHansen (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the confusion? Okay, sure, we usually use the term Aryan, but Aryan, Nordic, Anglo-Saxon—they're imprecise terms (at best) for racial/linguistic groups that have a shared Germanic origins, and the Nazi racial theorists used them all at different points. I don't think it's too far from the mark, as far as textbook simplifications go. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Anglo-Saxon is a historic/political term, not a racial one. There was never a Nordic Kingdom, or an Aryan Empire, but there were several states that were Anglo-Saxon, that possessed laws and beaurocracies and that have modern successors. Ninebucks (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The central tenet of the sort of racial categorization that the Nazis (and others) used was that the historical and political (and hence the linguistic, even though they were well aware that anyone raised in a given culture will pick up the language) were linked to the racial, the biological. For this reason the terms are often used interchangeably and can't be easily extricated. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the compiler thought that Anglo-Saxon was simply a synonym for White? Likewise, I have sometimes heard Nelson Mandela refered to as an African American. Ninebucks (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hitler did not just believe in "white" supremacy. Check out the links I gave above. He considered many groups of "whites" to be inferior (Poles, Slavs, probably the Irish, etc.) That particular brand of European racial theory subdivides "white" up very finely, unlike racial theories in the modern USA which tend to see things as white v. colored (bi-racialism). "Anglo-Saxon supremacy" is closer to Hitler's view than is "white supremacy," though both are simplifications. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
But Anglo-Saxon is used to refer to England and people descending from the English. AllenHansen (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The Anglo-Saxons were a Germanic people (see Anglo-Saxons). Hitler had no racial problem with the Anglo-Saxon British, except towards the way they operated their societies, if they had diluted their "blood", etc. Most of the internal (that is, meant for Germans to read) Nazi racial propaganda at the time argued that the "white" societies of France, UK, and USA had allowed themselves to become diluted from their original strong stock by allowing too much immigration, interbreeding, etc. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
But he wasn't driven by a virulent form of Anglo-Saxon supremacy!!!! AllenHansen (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this is right. A friend of mine recently went to the Saxon Museum in Berlin (I think), where they had a display board with lights to show the historical spread of the Saxons. The first lights are around (modern day) northern Germany, and then on the East coast of England (which is why the Romans built the Forts of the Saxon Shore). When I was at school, I was taught that 'the English' are supposed to be a melting pot of Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Celts, Norman Franks, Romans (whatever that means), etc., although modern genetic research [1] apparently contradicts this happy mythology (which, in its way, is as hopeless as the belief that Brutus fought Gog and Magog). As I understand it, Germans wouldn't see themselves as Anglo-Saxon; Saxon, perhaps, or Prussian, or Bavarian; the Angles came from what we would consider modern-day Denmark. The Angles (or, more correctly, the Anglo-Saxons, ie. used as a synonym for 'the English') were renowned (then as now) for their great physical attractiveness.
The Germans are (or were, until the 20h. century) traditional allies of the British: both nations united in a shared and understandable dislike of their common French neighbour!--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Allen, you are absolutely right: it's a bizarre and absurd contention. I can just envisage the Führer chewing the carpets of hell in his frustration! Clio the Muse (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Really tacky synthetic carpets, one hopes, in vile colors. —Tamfang (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Reminds of something in Mad magazine, I think, where two sweet little old ladies didn't realise that Hitler was dictator over most of Europe, but thought he was the interior decorator. AllenHansen (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glorious Revolution

What was so glorious about the Glorious Revolution? Horace Morris (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Glorious triumph of parliamentarianism and Protestant religion, trouncing of absolute monarchy.--Wetman (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It was largely bloodless. In England, at any rate, the amount of bloodshed was astonishingly small. You also need to see it in terms of the seesawing Catholic-Protestant-Catholic-Protestant history of the recent centuries since Henry VIII's break with Rome, and the perception that stability at last was assured. --Dweller (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It was glorious because no one died.--nessup (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
That is quite untrue. Some died in England, more in Scotland, and lots in Ireland.
Horace, it was glorious because the victors said it was glorious: it's really as simple as that! It was an expression first coined by John Hampden, a leading Whig, formerly implicated in the Rye House Plot. In essence, it became a way of justifying what was, in simple terms, an act of treason against the reigning monarch, subsequently enshrined in Whig folklore from Gilbert Burnet onwards. Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You don't approve? I think you must be a Jacobite, Clio. Horace Morris (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I neither approve nor disapprove, Horace; my opinions are always guided by the facts. Clio, a Jacobite? Of course not! Clio the Muse (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Syrfia

Syrfia appears on sixteenth-century maps, on the right bank of the Danube at its mouth, between Bulgaria and Moldavia. There's nothing on the Internet under this spelling. What was Syrfia? Does it needs a Wikipedia article?--Wetman (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, there's Syrfia on Abraham Ortelius maps, between Varna and Danube delta. My guess is that it is a variation of spelling of Servia (Serbia), but it is obviously misplaced quite a bit :) . But this is just a guess. Hope this helps, anyway. --Dr Dima (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking that too, or maybe a misplaced and misspelled Sofia? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so I've added the following at Varna: "In the sixteenth<ref>A map of Ortelius, Romania, Bulgaria, Walachia et Syrfia (Antwerp 1602) shows the small territory of Syrfia south of the mouths of the Danube.</ref> and seventeenth century<ref>In a document of 1630 the Greek Orthodox metropolitan of Ternovo was in charge of numerous bishoprics, including Varna in Syrfia (A. d'Avril, "Bulgarie chrétienne", Revue de l'Orient chrétien 2 (1897:39).</ref> Varna was situated in a region called Syrfia."

[edit] Practice for Lawyers, Doctors, Etc. - Derivation of Term

I am curious as to why lawyers, doctors and others refer to their practice instead of work. I do not believe it is the same as practice makes perfect.75Janice (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A practicing lawyer or doctor is one who is currently putting their training to practical use. The distinction is needed because people with professional qualifications are politely referred to as a lawyer, doctor, etc, even if they're retired or not currently working. FiggyBee (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Architects, too, have a practice whereas painters and sculptors have patrons. --Wetman (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Although one could also argue that, because law and medicine are always changing, they are continuing to get better at their trade and therefore practicing new ideas; however, that sort of breaks down with architecture, which I didn't realize was also considered a "ractice."4.68.248.130 (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fragrence ın Sultan Ahmed Mosque, Istanbul

Can anyone help me fınd out what the ıncense or fragrence used ın the Blue mosque ( Sultan Ahmed Mosque, Istanbul), as ıt ıs really famılıar but I couldn,t fınd anyone who could tell me what ıncense\fragrence ıs used. Thanks 85.105.17.138 (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankincense? myrrh? Chanel No. 5? --Wetman (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
If you find it, please add it to the so beautiful article. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I got a chuckle from the use of the Turkish 'ı' throughout. Thought at first it was a flaw on my monitor! —Tamfang (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Athiest pope

Is it possible that the pope (present or any previous pope) does not believe in the existence of a God (which of course would be inadmissible), but does everything that he does, because he believes that it's in the overall interest of humanity, or is that just crazy-talk? ----Seans Potato Business 17:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible? Of course. One's private beliefs might have nothing to do with one's public actions. I have known a least one atheist priest, who saw his job as being about community primarily. There are other reasons, mind you, that one might act as a Pope other than believing in the "overall interest of humanity"—I tend to regard the positions of the Catholic Church as often being more about enforcement of power than much else, but I am rather cynical about that particular organization. (My suspicions come not from any doctrinal aspect of it, but the way in which is centralizes power. In my experience any organization which centralizes power too rigidly in a hierarchy ends up becoming an organization whose primary purpose is to consolidate and maintain that power, whatever the original or ostensible "true" purpose is. I speak here about the organization, not the followers.)
Is it likely is another question—that would require a very in-depth knowledge of any given pope to make sense of. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The Grand Inquisitor is an excellent "short story" discussing such a person. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Three popes met by chance in a pub and they got to discussing athy-ism. They all freely acknowledged that they were athy, but to different degrees, and they couldn't decide who was the athiest, who was merely athier, and who was just athy. Then in walked Sisters Mary Benedicta, Perpetua and Vaticana for their daily rum and coke. They espied the popes and came over to join them; fortunately they were sitting in the smoking section, so they could all pull out their Havanas with impunity. Sister Benedicta pulled out her personal brass cuspidor from her generous bag and placed it on the floor near her feet. One of the popes turned to the nuns, explained their quandary, and asked them to help them decide. Sister Perpetua, the youngest and most highly-strung of the three, said "Oh, Your Holiness, it's not for the likes of one such as I to comment". Sister Vaticana said "Well, since you ask, Your Holiness, I have a view on the matter, but it's best left unspoken". The popes then turned as one, resembling a very small group of tennis spectators, to Sister Benedicta, the eldest. She pulled herself up to her full height, had 2 puffs on her cigar, and downed the remaining three-quarters of her drink in one gulp. She appeared to be about to speak, but she removed her spectacles, breathed on them, slowly rubbed them with her cassock, and carefully replaced them on her head. She took another deep breath, then opened her mouth, and said "
(To Be Continued). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sean, you might very well be interested in San Manuel Bueno, Mártir by Miguel de Unamuno, which offers a fictitious treatment of the kind of situation you describe, with a possible outcome, though on a much humbler scale. I would hope that your atheist Pope would have the courage to act in the same manner as Don Manuel! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

But -- in short -- yes, that's just crazy talk. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC))
It is unlikely because of the amount of dedication and sacrifice (cost of entry) to becoming a high ranking member of the church and eventually the Pope. In addition, as the Pope is, through all stages of the process, chosen by his peers, he would have to do a damn good job of convincing his fellows of his religious conviction.
I would say it might have been more likely had the Pope retatined more temporal power: cast in the present day, it is not hard to conceive that an atheist Medici might be pushed to the Papacy simply in order to cement his uncle's legacy and his family's influence in the papal territories.
I say "cast in the present day", because back in the 15th century everyone was Catholic, which reduces the probability of the Pope being atheist. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Titanic

I'm sortof watching Raise the Titanic (OMG is a crap film!), and they think the Titanit in one piece and therefore "raisable". But in reality it split in two. How come they didn't realise that it split in two until they found the two bits? Kate Winslet was hanging onto one end as the bow went down then got in the water and hanging onto some flotsam until found by a lifeboat, - didn't she survive tell them, or if anyone didn't actually do that, then surely someone must have seen it go under? Bobble hobble dobble (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

zou do realise that raise the titanic predates the titanic movie by decades...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.41.220 (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And whatever you're watching, if Kate Winslet is in it, it sure ain't "Raise the Titanic". She was in "Titanic", a somewhat different movie. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Now it makes perfect sense. The makers of "raise the titanic" couldn't know that the ship was in two pieces because they hadn't seen the 1997 Titanic film yet! -- (OR MAYBE NOT). Read the question. Now can I have the real answer pls, thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobble hobble dobble (talk • contribs) 20:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If your reference to Kate Winslet is actually meant to be a reference to her appearance in "Titanic", a movie of which you make no mention in your question, then can I suggest the question is very poorly formulated and ambiguous. We're not mind readers. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't the makers of raise the titanit know the ship broke its back and sunk in two bits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobble hobble dobble (talk • contribs) 20:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The straightforward answer is that, at the time of the publication of the novel (1975) and the production of the movie (1980), it was widely held that the wreck of the Titanic was relatively intact (or at least, that the hull was in one piece). Although some passengers reported that the ship had broken in two as it sank, the official inquest determined that the evidence provided by others (namely surviving officers and some first-class passengers) more believable, and consequently concluded that the ship had sunk in one piece. It was not until 1985, when Robert Ballard and others discovered the wreck (in two pieces) that this belief was upended. In short, the makers of the movie simply didn't know the condition of the wreck; any research that they may have done would have led them to the conclusion that the ship was probably in one piece. Carom (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, basically, everyone always thought that it went down as one piece --- not broken in two. No one knew the truth until the wreck was discovered many years later (over 70 years later) in 1985. As far as the survivors witnessing the event, there were probably many factors. There would be lots of confusion and panic and unclear thinking. Some observers were (in life boats) quite a distance away. It was pitch black in the middle of the night, if I recall. The sinking of a huge ship would cause a great splash, obscuring much of the view. Ultimately, a lot of conditions made it hard to see perfectly clearly that night, I'd imagine. Also, perhaps from an engineering perspective, the Titanic should not have cracked in two (just like it should not have sunk). Maybe from an engineering / physics point of view, the ship was deemed that it would have / should have / could have withstood this pressure and the material was strong enough to survive and not crack in these conditions. But, they were wrong. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC))
Also, see this section of the Wikipedia article on the Titanic ---> RMS Titanic#Rediscovery ... it goes into detail about why people thought it sunk as one piece or broke in two. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Do religious israelis in israel think god gave them the land they're settling?

Is my understanding accurate that the Israelis think God gave them the land they have been settling for the past few decades? -- Thank you!79.122.42.52 (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

update: I have been told by a roommate that no, it's just because israel is a place they were historically. the story in the bible that I'm thinking of, she says, is in modern-day iran. Could I get a reference for this? Is there any movement of jewish people who want to go to the actual place god gave them (in modern-day iran? Is that true??)? where in the bible is the whole god giving them thing anyway? Refernces, please :)79.122.42.52 (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
If you'd look at that article link I posted in the answer which you removed — do not, if you please, remove the responses of others, even if they are informing you that your etiquette is off, and being told that your approach is "rude" is not, under Wikipedia definitions, an "attack" — you'd see that 1. your roommate is wrong and 2. the precise Old Testament citations regarding this issue. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position but I don't appreciate being given the run-around. You linked a page which, as short as it is, is gibberish to me, and you carefully refrained from answering my question. So what's the answer, please, is my understanding that Israelis think God gave them the land they have been settling correct or incorrect?79.122.42.52 (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, here's a map, to make it extra simple. The red and the blue borders correspond to dimensions specified in the Bible; the specific locations are those citations on the right in the legend (Numbers 32:1-2, Ezekiel 47:13-20). The answer is clearly "Yes, the Old Testament says that God gave the Jews some land, and much of that land corresponds to the boundaries of modern Israel." I hardly think linking you to a concise article with both references (which you requested) and images (to make it super-clear) is a "run-around." The first line of the article I linked to answered your question: "In Jewish belief, The Land of Israel is the region of land given to the Jewish people, according to the Hebrew Bible," and the illustrations clearly show that this is in the area of the modern day Israeli state, not in Iran. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You're STILL carefully refraining from answering my question!!! It is my IMPRESSION that your answer "Yes, the Old Testament says that God gave the Jews some land, and much of that land corresponds to the boundaries of modern Israel" means "Yes, the religious Israelis in Israel think God gave them the land they have been settling", but if you carefully compare the previous two quotations in this sentence you will see that, in fact, they don't mean the same thing at all!!! So does that make the answer to my actual question "no" instead? I asked about what religious israelis think, and you answered about what the Old Testament says. Is it one and the same? Could I read your answer ("Yes, the old testament...") for my proposed answer ("Yes, the religious Israelis..."), or is there some important difference? If not, could you answer my question in the same terms, rather than different, confusingly similar, but perhaps in reality quite different, terms? Thank you!! And sorry to be trying :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.41.220 (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Dweller (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you add it to our Land of Israel article?79.122.42.52 (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've added it myself, we'll see if it's reverted, and with what explanation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.42.52 (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No. --Dweller (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems to contradict the above. Can you explain (BRIEFLY) why not??? Please be very very brief, I can already read the linked articles, but I don't see HOW they contradict my statement above. Thank you!!79.122.42.52 (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if the above pair of posts seem contradictory, but to explain the apparent contradiction will take more than one word. Sadly, in this world, complex issues rarely can be boiled down to one or two words without losing more than could possibly be gained. --Dweller (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Modern Israel is full of many people of many different religious beliefs. If you are asking, "Do the practicing Jews in Israel believe that God gave them the Promised Land, a territory which includes the borders of modern Israel and also some additional land on all sides?" the answer is "Yes." If you mean "Do all citizens of Israel believe this," the answer is clearly no. If you are asking, "Do most citizens of Israel believe this," the answer is probably yes, if you are asking "Does the current government of Israel believe this," the answer is, in that case, "I'm not sure, but probably." All around your problem here has not been with the answering, but with the asking. Going to a forum where people take their time to answer your questions and then berating them, before they've answered, about how they answer, is, in a word, rude. And it certainly won't get you useful results unless they have incredible patience. Had you just been a bit more deferent at the beginning, and simply asked for help clarifying the specific points you were having confusion with, we could have sped this along much quicker, couldn't we? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer! It confirms what I thought -- of course, I meant your first interpretation "Do the practicing Jews in Israel believe...", that's why I phrased it as "do religious israelis" in israel... As for the rest of your points, I think it's sufficient to say that I don't think you would have given these wonderful answers if i hadn't asked for this brief answer. Even as it is, until your post, the other ones had been handwaving and links to complete articles!79.122.42.52 (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it fair characterize one of your answers as: "The Israelis that practice Judaism in Israel believe that God gave them the territory which includes the borders of modern Israel and then some" ?79.122.42.52 (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this part of why practicing Jews in israel have been settling the land, or are the two things independent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.42.52 (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is part of the reason why Jews have been trying to re-settle that area (and not, say, Alaska) for a very long time. There are more reasons than just that, though—historical, political, etc. To characterize all of that activity as being solely because of a few lines in the Old Testament would be an oversimplification. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Was there a movement to settle a different area, for example Alaska as you mention, a part of Africa, etc, or from the beginning did it focus on modern-day Israel?79.122.42.52 (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
See British_Uganda_Program. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

you say it's part of the reason why that area was chosen. I'd like to read more analysis for why that area was chosen to settle, can you point me to a resource? Thank you.79.122.42.52 (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The concept is discussed in Judaism 101, Level 1, here: [2] ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

okay, I'm reading it. Can other people here read it too and tell me if there are any glaring NPOV issues I shoudl know about since, it's a jewish site... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.42.52 (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What did you jews do to this guy? he seems to have some 'issues'

87.102.124.155 (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about "you jews" but I can explain what "you reference desk people" did. I asked for a simple summary of the history of israel/palestine, and you blasted me with links and detailed instructions of what to read while avoiding answering my question. In fact, the same thing is happening here with the notable exception of 98.217.8.46, who is the only person to actually answer my question (and did so with "If you are asking, "Do the practicing Jews in Israel believe that God gave them the Promised Land, a territory which includes the borders of modern Israel and also some additional land on all sides?" the answer is "Yes.", though a reference that states just that would be nice) 79.122.42.52 (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Is someone not signing with four of these things ~? It's getting hard to follow first thing in the morning here. Thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I went back and signed. 79.122.42.52 (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


Dear Julia Rossi, The original question was whether RELIGIOUS Israelis in Israel (not all people, not the Israeli government, etc) believe that the land they have been settling for the past few decades has been given to them by God. What is your answer (about the religious israelis' beliefs). To me, it seems like a pretty clear "yes, they believe that" but as you can see the only person to give a clear "yes" (Dweller) as a response followed it with a clear "no" as a response! Can you weigh in as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.42.52 (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Religious Jews think that God promised a land to the Jewish people, a promise the Bible has God making directly to Abraham, and reiterated to Isaac, Jacob and Moses. Religious Jews consider themselves the inheriters of that line. However, how that simple promise manifests itself is profoundly complicated and cannot be simplified by a "yes, no" question. Is it promised to them for them to receive now? Is 100% of modern day Israel "promised land"? Is Israel 100% of the Promised Land? These and a multiplicity of other questions are inherent in your question and the answers to every one will vary from individual to individual. Judaism is notorious for the climate it creates of a lack of uniformity of approach (2 Jews, 3 opinions is the joke). Chuck in the political overtones of the term "settling" in your question (a vast preponderance of religious Israelis are not "settlers", but live within the undisputed pre-1967 borders of Israel) and it becomes harder still to take your question with the simplicity you wish us to answer it. --Dweller (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

All right, now I seriously need some education (BRIEFLY) because I thought the whole country of israel didn't exist before 1945 or whenever, and now you're saying it had an undisputed old part? Since when? Thank you! (please please please don't link to dense text I'm barely literate). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.42.52 (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
<excuse inaccuracies caused by trying to simplify> After WWI, the Brits (who owned that bit of the world at the time) said the Jews should have a country in that bit of the world. Shortly afterwards, they chopped off 2/3 of it and called it Jordan. Then, after WWII, the United Nations voted to grant the Jews a hunk of land and the Palestinians a hunk of land. The motion was carried by the necessary margin. Consequently, when the British "mandate" expired in 1948, the Jews declared an independent state, called Israel. The surrounding Arab nations invaded both the Jewish bit and the Palestinian bit. They lost the fight against the Israelis, but took the Palestinians' land. Then, in 1967, Israel won an overwhelming victory known as the Six Day War. Israel conquered chunks of land - Gaza, the Sinai desert, the Golan heights, Jerusalem and the West Bank. Since then, the various territories have had different fates. Gaza is now under Palestinian control. Sinai was returned to Egypt as part of the 1979 peace deal. Golan was annexed by Israel. Jerusalem and the West Bank? Well, they're an awful mess and let's avoid the bluelink plague you say you don't want. But in essence the "pre 1967 borders" are uncontroversial in all but the most extreme circles (Hamas, for example, by documentation, deny Israel's right to exist at all... similarly, you'll find if you look hard enough, Jewish extremists who wistfully make comments about territory east of the Jordan being parts of biblical "Israel"). Hope that helps. It's a horrible tangly mess that some of the brightest minds of the last 50 years haven't come close to solving. And I strongly advise you that any explanations that take a paragraph or two are probably misleading in one way or another... the more you delve into this one, the more you'll understand. --Dweller (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thank you. Much better than your "yes. no." above :) Thank you for not bluelining it to death either. I read your paragraph carefully, jeez, it's like a soap opera. But I don't see why you say one or two paragraph summaries are misleading in some way or another. Granted, they won't include all the nitty-gritty, but that's hardly misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.42.52 (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Dweller's answer above is an OK simplification except for two major errors. The first is the story that Jordan was chopped off from the country (the mandate) the Brits said the Jews should have. Many books says this, but it is just a very successful fabrication; Jordan was added to the smaller original mandate in the 20s, not chopped off from it. See the long note in Transjordan. The second is that it wasn't just the Arab states that took the land of the Palestinian bit in 1948. There was a 50-50 split of the Palestinian bit between Israel and the Arab states (Egypt and Jordan).John Z (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
And thank you guys because I didn't expect you to go to so much trouble. I know what tl:dr means with some of this stuff. I learned the diff between an Israeli and Jew by ignorantly assuming they were the same thing and the Israel person bluntly put me straight. It is well worth understanding if you can be patient. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
and what is that difference please? Love you Julia. 79.122.42.52 (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of showing even more of my ignorance, the Israeli is a citizen of Israel (which includes Arabs) and the like. This can include someone Jewish by birth yet not religious in the least (added: as in ethnic Jew).
Also living in Israel is the religious Jew who upholds the common values and sacred texts of Judaism, claims the lineage and keeps observance in the Judaic faith. This can be someone who ranges from a liberal "open" type that believes and keeps the calendar and goes to Temple, to more fundamentalist "closed" sects such as Hasidic Jews (pious ones) and all the little splinter groups within that. Getting clunky here, so I'll stop. Hope this helps Julia Rossi (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This is not directed to the questioner who has the guts to admit to semi-literacy, but to anyone else who is interested in further reading: there is an OK-ish article at Proposals for a Jewish state which includes plans (some no more than wishful thinking, some fairly evolved proposals) for Jewish settlement in Alaska (Slattery Report), Australia (Kimberley Plan), Japanese Manchuria (Fugu Plan), Madagascar (Madagascar Plan). There was a settlement in C17 in Suriname (Jodensavanne). And wasn't there an early C20 one in southern South America? BrainyBabe (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


And on a separate note, "religious Israelis" are citizens of Israel who take their religion as a defining part of their identity: that could be Jewish, Muslim, Christian or any other religion. Jewish Israelis (as non-Jewish Israelis) may be secular, somewhat religious, or very religious -- I have heard them explain this tripartite division as "serves in the army, girls don't serve in the army, neither sex serves in the army". BrainyBabe (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Secular, Hiloni, means that they aren't religious, observant or believing. By somewhat religious, you mean shomrei masoret, followers of the tradition. They are fairly religious, believing and observe most of Judaism, especially holidays, but not as strictly as the very religious, or Orthodox.

Hilonim are just as likely to avoid serving as Orthodox Jews, but for different reasons. I know many Shomrei Masoret girls who serve. AllenHansen (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail and the law

Moved to Computing

[edit] request for summary of suicide bombings by palestinians.

when did they start and why? why don't israelis, the other side in the arab-israeli conflict, also suicide bomb? (or do they, please correct me if I'm wrong).

i'm looking for a neutral explanation, ie one that doesn't assume one of the faiths is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.42.52 (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the Israel/Palestine conflict, there is a conflict, and each side inflicts strategic damage on the other in the hope of achieving their objectives. The Palestinians use suicide bombing as a tactic because they have few other weapons, and because their religion encourages them to see themselves as martyrs in a righteous cause. The Israelis don't because they have more and better weapons and the power of a state to deliver them. The Israelis can, if they wish, send helicopter gunships into Gaza, but the Palestinians have no helicopter gunships to send into Israel. Both sides are using the weapons available to them. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Ironically (or perhaps appropriately) it was Zionist extremists who started the bombing trend over there in the 1940s, first by bombing the British (who were occupying the area at the time), and then bombing the Palestinians (see Stern gang, Irgun, etc.). The radical Palestinians responded in kind after awhile of this medicine. But this was "just" car bombing—the use of vehicles to transport massive amounts of explosives to a target and detonating them—not suicide bombing. Suicide bombing didn't really take off in the Middle East until the late-1980s, when it was shown to be very effective in Beirut when used by Hezbollah in attacks against Israelis and Americans.
As for why the Israeli state doesn't use suicide bombings, a few reasons could be given: 1. they don't need to (suicide bombings are used because it is difficult for the Palestinians to otherwise penetrate "soft" targets with their weapons; the Israelis have much more advanced weaponry and can do so quite easily), 2. there is less of any sort of tradition of martyrdom in Judaism, at least to that degree, and you'd have a much harder time finding volunteers amongst the more affluent Israelis, and 3. suicide attacks, while they have a strong propaganda effect in terrorizing the enemy, also rob those who use them of moral legitimacy. While it could be debated whether the Israelis have a lot of moral legitimacy at the moment, their use of conventional arms makes them, at least in world affairs, taken seriously as a conventional player. The use of unconventional arms would make this more difficult, in the way that many countries will not deal with the current Palestinian government after the suicide-bombing group Hamas took over. It would be impossible for Israel to maintain its current relations with the USA if it started using suicide attacks, for example, as the USA has centered almost all of its criticism of the Palestinians on the tactics they have used. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The Israelis and the Palestinians are two different cultures with two different senses of morality. Many Palestinians think it is a good thing to strap bombs to yourself and blow up a shopping mall. Palestinians actually celebrate when these things happen. You'll be hard-pressed to find Israelis dancing for joy should someone blow up a Palestinian school. Israelis don't [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1423506/posts dress their kids up like terrorists and suicide bombers] or use TV kids shows to indoctrinate children into terrorism. There are, of course, practical considerations, as 98.217 mentions. But I can't see the Israelis ever developing a suicide-bomber culture like that of the Palestinians under any considerations. There weren't any American kamikaze pilots, either. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
They celebrate not because they think blowing up a shopping mall is inherently good but because they think it is accomplishing a great goal, attacking a greater evil. The Israelis blow up things and sometimes people celebrate; when the United States atomic bombed two cities their citizens celebrated. It is not a case of having "different senses of morality" so much as it is "in the given context they saw this particular action as being necessary to win the particular war they were fighting." It's hard to find nations that have not, at various times in their history, targeted "soft" targets (malls, markets, etc.) because they felt that instrumentally that would help them at the time. I do agree, however, that the use of self-sacrificing tactics is relatively rare and requires a strong cultural component that would allow such a thing. But I think this is separate from the issue of targeting civilians in general, which is not at all unique. (By the the way, those children pictures are primarily just dressed up like warriors. Lots of countries dress their children up like warriors. I think it's gross, but it's hardly a sign of a culture of death. Palestinians hardly have a monopoly on violence in this world. It might be worth noting that I am not, in particular, pro-Palestinian, so much as I am generally unwilling to divide the world up into "good guys" and "bad guys" simply because one side is, at the moment, not targeting civilians as directly as they did before when they felt it was their best way to victory.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
One other note: that Islamic fanatics used specifically suicide attacks is actually somewhat unexpected. They were not common before the 1980s. They were not used against the Soviets in Afghanistan, for example. It is very interesting that as a tactic it has made remarkable truck with Muslim extremists, but it's not like Muslims (of any nationality) have been doing that for hundreds of years, like it is some permanent part of their religion and culture. (Making war, sure. Like most people. But not suicide attacks.) It is also very interesting how something that has only been really used for the last 20 years or so (really making its first real show with the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing) is now taken to be a major part of their culture. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
There clearly are practical considerations to suicide terrorism (good for dedalus for mentioning Pape's book). However, when asking why one group does it and another doesn't, we shouldn't discount cultural considerations. To do so is to assume a deterministic view of history that doesn't square with reality. There are differences between cultures, just as there are differences between individuals. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, but we shouldn't assume cultural statics. It is easy (as even S.ded does) to say things like "X is almost never" as if this were a very common thing throughout history, as if the cultures themselves had allowed for this from the beginning. There's a lot of historical contingency there, much of this is much more recent than it is made to look. The final assessment is going to be a mix of practical and cultural—if it becomes excessively practical, the cultural (if it has the slack) will bend around it, they will mutually reinforce. Again, the atomic bomb example: quizzed on whether it is a moral act to slaughter hundreds of thousands of non-combatants most Americans would probably say "no", but in the context of "what is moral to have dropped the atomic bomb in World War II?" most would probably say "yes". Without being too cynical about that, it is clear that the culture has come up with many ways to support this "practical" action, some of which are what I would call "legitimate", some of which are less so. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Suicide bombing is almost never a tactic employed by a state (the kamikazes being the exception). It is a last resort tactic used in asymmetric warfare. Suicide bombing is also used almost exclusively against democracies. A suicide resistance depends on the understanding that the target nation will use at least some restraint. A dictatorship might simply exterminate the ethnic or religus group carrying out the bombings. Read Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Robert Pape for a more detailed explanation. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be useful to remember that Palestinians were not the first to use suicide attacks. The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka predated them. The Tigers are a secular Marxist group, drawn from a Hindu culture -- not Arab, not Muslim at all. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May you live in interesting times of Chinese origins?

I would like to ask someone on the Chinese Reference desk/Humanities (section) whether the curse/blessing May you live in interesting times is of Chinese origin. I do not know Chinese, so I can not do this. Could anyone here, who can write Chinese, do this and tell us/me if there was any reply? DanielDemaret (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The article you linked to above makes it pretty clear that it's somewhat unlikely to really be of Chinese origin. You might try the Language Desk though if you'd like it rendered into modern Chinese. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't have time to dig through my Buddhist history books, but this sounds very much like a poor representation of a common Buddhist "curse" from a story that was popular when Buddhism spread through China. The full curse was (from memory) "May you live in interesting times and die in peaceful times." I'm simply having a great deal of trouble placing the comment with the specific story. My mind keeps trying to place it in Journey to the West, but I know that is incorrect. What I remember is a young guard for a Buddhist master being told this phrase by the Buddhist master. It isn't really a curse or insult. It is really a "I hope you get what you want" type of comment since the young guard wants to fight and become famous in battle. Perhaps sleep will help me remember more. -- kainaw™ 02:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Have never heard of it in Chinese, as with a number of other "an ancient Chinese proverb is..." expressions.
As for your original request... I wouldn't bother, given that the Chinese Wikipedia is blocked in mainland China and is these days frequented only by users from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and overseas communities. I don't hold out much hope of you receiving a credible answer, judging from the general standard of Chinese expression (very poor) in Chinese Wikipedia articles these days. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Despite my cynicism, I've posted the question in Chinese at: zh:Wikipedia:詢問處#英语中的所谓中国谚语"May you live in interesting times". Let me know if you notice a response before anyone here does and need help reading it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
That is very kind of you, PalaceGuard008. Thank you. :) I was sad to hear that the standard of chinese expression is poor in chinese wikipedia due to being blocked. Perhaps the question could be put with better luck at Baidu Baike? I am aware that the current article states that nobody has heard of the quote/curse, but sometimes one gets lucky. The suggestion by Kainaw looks like it thereal thing. DanielDemaret (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pictorial difference between hieroglyphs and cuneiform scripts?

What I understand is that they both represent objects through pictures, but that would mean that the languages would essentially be the same, when clearly a distinction has been drawn between the two. What would that distinction be?--nessup (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean cuneiform from mesopotamia and Egyptian hieroglyphs, or more generally?
The languages they describe are different.
Cuneiform means roughly "wedge shaped" the script is indeed wedge shaped - of the type obtained by pressing a knife blade tip into clay, the heiroglyphs are more pictoral.
Were you asking whether the two scripts were used for both languages or what.?87.102.124.155 (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I was asking what differences there were at all, because initially I was under the impression that they were both pictogram-ical languages.--nessup (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The article says that cuneiform started out as 'pictographs' which has essentially the same meaning as 'heiroglyphs', unfortunately wikipedia doesn't seem to have any examples.
But here are some http://karenswhimsy.com/cuneiform.shtm http://www.britannica.com/eb/art-66036/Examples-illustrating-the-evolution-of-cuneiform-writing that show the evolution of the script.
Hang around for another expert - hopefully they'll be able to tell you if the original cuneiform 'pictographs' are the same as the heiroglyphs (or maybe you can do this yourself.)
"cuneiform" + developement or history or evolution etc seem to be good search terms, also try a picture search.87.102.124.155 (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Neither of the two are true ideographic scripts. Hieroglyphs had an ideographic origin, but quickly became more logographic, where concepts are represented by pictures, but the pictures aren't necessarily representative of the idea. That is, you can't see a picture and know exactly what it means. The changes were based on things like the rebus principle, which in English would use a picture of an eye to represent 'I', because they sound the same. Then they started using elements of alphabetic script, which added more complexity to the writing, but also a lot more flexibility, because they could write things that are difficult to show with just a picture. The same thing happened, more or less with cuneiform, but because they spoke different languages, the ideographic to logographic progression went differently, and they ended up with different analogies between words. Steewi (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This question might have been better asked at the language reference desk. The systems have a somewhat similar internal logic and development -- an early origin as pictographs, the use of some pictographs to write similar-sounding words whose meanings are hard to draw (the "rebus principle"), finally resulting in a mixed system of word-signs, sound-signs, and "determinatives". However, there are some historical differeences between the two systems, such as:
1) Egyptian hieroglyphs only wrote consonant sounds, and basically completely ignored vowels (with only a few very limited partial exceptions), while cuneiform sound signs generally indicated vowels.
2) The Egyptians preserved the original picture-drawing appearance of their writing system until the end (though they did also develop less cumbersome variants for less formal use), while once the Sumerians started to change their original picture drawings to simpler shapes easily formed with stylus-wedges, they quickly abandoned most iconic aspects of their script.
Both scripts were developed to represent their respective languages, and neither attempted to write pure ideas independent of language. There have been some such attempts in modern times, like Blissymbols, but neither hieroglyphic nor cuneiform are really specific precursors to Blissymbols. AnonMoos (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
AnonMoos (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jewmasters

I'm translating the article about Norwich to Norwegian, and then I came to the word Jewmasters here. The sentence is as follows: In 1144, the Jewmasters of Norwich were accused of ritual murder. Does it mean Rabbi, like the 'masters' of the Judaism, or was it just some Jews living in Norwich during the Middle Ages? Or can I translate it with 'some Jews'? Kasschei (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This might be related to Blood libel against Jews. Edison (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It is indeed an example of the blood libel, Edison, relating specifically to the murder of the 12-year-old William of Norwich in March, 1144. Kasschei, I have never come across the term 'Jewmaster'. I can only assume that it refers to prominent members of the community. Perhaps the most apt translation would be 'some leading Jews' Clio the Muse (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It was actually vandalism from back in November (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norwich&diff=174179110&oldid=173308785). I've changed it back to just "Jews". Adam Bishop (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for helping. Kasschei (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Worst military defeat

I am looking for some good examples of the positively worst defeat in a nation's history in a single battle. What I mean is the kind of defeat that extinguished the country's liberty, or its very existence, for several generations or more. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnvater (talk • contribs) 23:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Hastings, 1066. Battle of France 1940, although it was more of a 6 week series of defeats and retreats than a battle. Edison (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The Battle of Hattin in 1187 pretty much destroyed the Kingdom of Jerusalem as an effective state. The Battle of Baghdad (1258) destroyed the Abbasid caliphate. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is the Battle of Alcácer Quibir,-the Battle of the Three Kings-in which Portugal suffered arguably the greatest defeat in its history. The body of King Sebastian was never found, allowing Sebastianism to enter the Portuguese imagination, with the once and future king occupying the same place as King Arthur or Frederick Barbarossa, returning through the mist in the hour of greatest need. In the short term his death was to lead directly to a succession crisis and the long union of Portugal with Spain.

There is also the Battle of Kosovo, so important in Serb national memory, which still resonates today. But my personal 'favourite' has to be the 1526 Battle of Mohacs, in which Suleiman the Magnificent defeated and killed Louis II of Hungary and Bohemia. It was such a disaster for Hungary that for all future generations the response to bad luck or misfortune of any kind was "Never mind; more was lost at Mohacs field." Clio the Muse (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Check out the following articles:
− Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The Battle of Carthage destroyed the state and the civilization of Carthage forever. Marco polo (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Battle of Fallen Timbers, 1794. The Fall of Constantinople, 1453. The fall of Babylon, 539 BCE. The fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE (which History of Jerusalem strangely states happened in 597 BCE???????) Edison (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Battle of Singapore was probably the British Empire's worst ever military defeat. Although the British ended the Second World War on the winning side, the Empire never really recovered from the fallout of what happened at Singapore. Xn4 19:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] did early europeans (colonial times) in America believe America was given to them by God?

So I understnd that the Puritans fled persecution by going to America, did they believe that this land was given to them by God? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.42.52 (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes.--droptone (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that that only refers to Puritans. There were a lot of non-Puritans among Europeans in Colonial times. I doubt there's one easy generalization you could make about it. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Not all the English in North America shared the Puritan sense of being specially favored by God, but when they compared how the land was actually being used by the Indians with a vision of the prosperous English-settled farms and cities that might arise there in the future, only a few of them (such as John Eliot) had true serious regrets... AnonMoos (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)