Humanities desk
< January 1	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 3 >

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.

January 2

employment with US Park Systems

How does one apply for employment with the United States Park Systems? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karen Hawkins (talk • contribs) 01:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Try the top few links here. Wareh 02:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try here. - Patricknoddy 8:25am, January 2, 2007 (EST)

John Smith

In the U.S., if John Smith, M.D. names his son John Smith, Jr., does he need to change his name to John Smith, Sr. to the government and the American Medical Association?

If his child hates the name and changed his name to Tom Smith, does his father need to change his name back? -- Toytoy 02:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Sr." is only used by third parties in contexts where disambiguation is necessary. In the US, however, personal preference rules, so there are bound to be exceptions. --Wetman 03:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Sr." is generally not a legal part of a person's name. Nor is the "Jr." in any case that I can think of. If someone was really anal and they wanted the Sr. on their name, they would probably use "John Smith Sr., M.D." Though this might lead some people to think that the son is also a doctor. Dismas|^(talk) 05:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Caesar

Hi there

I wonder if you could help my daughter who is 9 years old.

She was set a 100 question test from school for the Xmas period and we have managed to answer every question with 1 exception:

What unusual pet did the Roman, Julius Caesar, have?

Your help would be greatly appreciated

Many thanks

Elise

After searching Google for "pet of julius caesar", I found this. Apparently, Caesar liked gigantic pets. --Bowlhover 09:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. "The first giraffe exhibited was in Rome in 46 B.C. by Julius Caesar. It was thought to have a camel for a mother and a leopard of a father. The ancient Romans called it a "camel-leopard". (From this, its scientific name - camelopardalis)." The second exhibition of a giraffe to the Italians was by Lorenzo d'Medici, in a conscious echo of Caesar's exhibition. - Nunh-huh 20:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

music,piano playing glossary.

i was not able to find the above subject,as i did with violin & ballet.please help!thanks!

you want a glossary of terms relating to piano playing? --194.176.105.40 09:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if so, and you don't need one that's too comprehensive, this should help: Piano Glossary --194.176.105.40 09:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Wycliffe English translation of New Testament

From John Wycliff comes the first translation of the New Testament off Latin into any language about 1382. The whole was revised by Wycliffe's younger contemporary John Purvey in 1388. The "Early Version" of the "Wycliffe Bible", hand-printed about 1382, can be found online here. About how long would it have taken Wycliffe and Purvey to have translated only the New Testament, which was hand-printed?

Probably a year or two. - Patricknoddy 8:26am, January 2, 2007 (EST)

That is almost impossible to estimate; all we can do is give somewhat plausible bounds. The New Testament contains roughly 200,000 words in translation. Just to write it down, hand-copying an existing text, might take about 200,000 seconds for a quick writer, or 7 days each of 8 hours continual labour – after which the copyist would have carpal tunnel syndrome :(. So it cannot have been faster than that. One order of magnitude more, say 3 months, would seem just feasible if no research of any kind is needed (for example to further the consistency of translation) and the translator does not particularly care whether the translation is clunky – Wycliffe's translation was a literal almost word-by-word translation of the Latin text, with little consideration for the differences between Latin and English grammar. But 4 to 6 months is more plausible as a lower bound. One could easily spend a year or two on the task, though, constantly and steadily working, without idling. What I don't know is to what extent he made use of extant partial translations, and whether this was all done single-handedly. Also, it is unlikely that Wycliffe did nothing else during the months or years he was working on the translation; he did possibly not devote more than half his time on the project, and then we get to 4 calendar years, say, or more. How long it took Purvey to produce his revision would mainly depend on how thorough and extensive the revision was, which I don't know. Assuming it was fairly thorough, though, it would have required a similar amount of time as a de novo translation. However, we know the revision was ready by 1388, and the article on John Purvey states: "He was probably in the midst of this undertaking when Wycliffe died in 1384." This would have started while he was at Lutterworth, which was since 1382. This suggests that, had his labour not been interrupted, it might have taken him a calendar time of about 4 years, which in actual life became more like 6 years. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding answers on this time. Lambiam: Appreciate the analysis. This helps me a lot..... --Doug 14:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam: Is there a particular reason (could be a good reason, I just don't know) why this list is not run in reverse chronological order? It would seem to be easier IF the most current subjects were at the top first, then the ones that have been answered and old history and about to fall off the list, as the last on the list. This way then one would not have to go to the bottom of the list each time and go through the entire list to see the most current ones. Perhaps there is a way I can set up my browser to make it do this. Can you give me some help or an answer on this? Thanks again --Doug 16:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about how to use Wikipedia are best asked at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Some keyboards have [Home] and [End] keys, which may transmit something like ESC [ 1 ~ and ESC [ 4 ~, and which some browsers (for example Mozilla Firefox and Internet Explorer) understand as "take me to the beginning or end of the <active area>". Otherwise keeping [Page Down] pressed may bring you there quickly. I don't know what keyboard, OS, and browser you use, and are in general as clueless about using computers as the next 68-year old person, so I may be unable to help you further here. Fortunately we also have Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, staffed with knowledgeable volunteers who are eager to help. --Lambiam ^Talk 18:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middle English Bible translations

Looking under Middle English Bible translations it shows John Wycliff produced the first complete English language Bible in the late 1300s with the New Testament completed about 1380 (perhaps 1382). To translate the complete Bible how long would it have taken him (with associates)? Also I do NOT see any New Testament translations into any language before the Fourteenth Century (being Wyclif's Bible). Where is there a record or documentation of the Vulgate Latin translations of the New Testament hand copied (a.k.a. hand-printed) by a Copyist with a known name before the Fourteenth Century? Looking for good documented evidence that the New Testament (not the Old Testament) was in wide spread circulation in Europe before the Fourteenth Century in any language (i.e. the Vulgate Latin, English, Italian, French, Greek). Have looked under the following Wikipedia titles with no luck: Bible, Renaissance, Italian Renaissance, Holy Roman Empire, Papal States, Holy See, Avignon Papacy, Early Christian church, Christianity, History of theology, Christian theology, Christianity in the British isles 410-1066, History of the Church of England, and World Council of Churches. Where is there such documented records that the New Testament itself (or in combination with the Old Testament as a complete Bible) was in wide spread circulation in Europe (or elsewhere) before the Fourteenth Century? --Doug 14:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try Bible translations although it seems that you have already arrived at your own opinion and are seeking only to support it. Rmhermen 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have studied this much and came to this conclusion since I can not find good evidence that the New Testament was actually in wide spread circulation in Europe before the Fourteenth Century. I can not find that it ever was in circulation at all before the Fourteenth Century. That's why I am asking a large audience that in hopes maybe someone out of these thousands should be able to show me of this supposed evidence this to be true. Its not in any of these Wikipedia articles. If you know, please show me. I would really appreciate it. Maybe others can also show me. Should be several places for excellent evidence of this. Could you show me a few? I'm asking for help. Thanks! --Doug 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The suppression of the New Testament wouldn't surprise me, as many of it's teachings were at odds with those of the Catholic Church of the time. For example, the New Testament emphasized that everyone should have a personal relationship with God, while the Church claimed that only the Pope and saints had a personal relationship with God. The Church was also far more into "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" than they were into "turn the other cheek". StuRat 16:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right another conspiracy, well perhaps it has more to do with the fact that the overwhelming majority of the ppl (perhaps 99%) during the Middle Ages was simply iliterate and that the bible was written in Latin. Doug asked for "good evidence that the New Testament was actually in wide spread circulation in Europe before the Fourteenth Century". I have found the Book of Kells which has the 4 gospels of the New Testament. Written around 800 AD. Flamarande 18:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book printing in Europe become possible only when paper became relatively easily available, around 1400. It took till around 1450 before so-called block-books, woodcut books with both text and images, appeared, at about the same time as Gutenberg's invention of moveable type. Before that, a copy of the New Testament would typically be a lavishly illustrated manuscript, painstakingly calligraphed by monks on fine vellum. In terms of current value, such a book might easily be worth more than $100,000, more than most people could scrape together in a lifetime. You bet they were not in "widespread circulation", at least not how I would understand and use that term. And, as pointed out by Flamarande, the overwhelming majority of people could not read and did not understand the language this was written in. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copies of the Bible in Latin would have been in every monastery and major church even if every parish church or minor shrine/chapel didn't.have one. Recopying was a major effort of monks and wasn't confined to Biblical texts - some classical texts exist only because of monastic copying. Latin copies were so common, unknown priests could go mark up their copies in local dialects as shown in the interlineal glosses mentioned, for instance, in Old English Bible translations. Rmhermen 20:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin Vulgate Bible was translated by Jerome in the 5th century. Accordinging to this section of the article, it was copied so much that variants arose and attempts were made to re-standardise it in the 6th, 8th 9th, 11th, 12th and 13th centuries by named individuals, which should give you some avenues for research. --Nicknack009 21:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Carolingian Renaissance may also be of interest. Apparently in the 8th century there were plenty of Bibles, but not enough priests capable of reading them. --Nicknack009 21:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the many answers. I have read them over and I am going to read them again to make sure I got all the information from all these great Wikipedia articles.
Nicknack: know you left multiple answers, got them all. Thanks. --Doug 00:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capital crimes in Iraq before 2003 and in China today

What was the 114 capital crimes in Iraq under Saddam? What are capital crimes in the People's Repucblic of China today? --Vess 16:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq under Saddam didn't have the rule of law. If they decided to kill someone, they usually wouldn't bother with a trial. The majority of those killed by Saddam died because they were Kurds or Shia, not because they committed any crime. StuRat 16:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless 'being born' were one of the 114 capital crimes, which would be crazy. Vranak 16:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Being born' as kurds, an important distinction... @_@ 惑乱分からん 18:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is so reasurring to see that things in Iraq haven't changed much then. Ppl still keep on being killed despite the new "rule of Law" and according to some are dying more these days.

Well, I guess they are being killed unlawfully... Must be soothing for the victims to ponder... 惑乱分からん 19:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, really sothing. Whereas formely they were killed by the will of Sadam - "lawfully", today they are being killed unlawfully by their neighbours. That small detail really makes all the diffrence for the widows and orphans. Flamarande 19:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the capital crimes in China, I looked around and found out that around 68 types of crime recieve capital punishment there. Couldn't find a specific list of these crimes. Best I found was this [1]. Read point: "2.3 The number of capital crimes". Flamarande 19:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capital punishment in China mentions a couple (but only more unusual ones - like killing a panda) Rmhermen 19:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of unanimity in juries

Hello all - I'm curious about the origin of two norms for juries (at least in the U.S.). When did it originate that juries had to reach a unanimous decision, rather than a simple majority (or anything else)? Have they always been this way? Was another way considered? Also, juries deliberate by discussing the case with each other, rather than each deliberating privately. Is there a story behind this norm as well? I have read jury and jury trial, but to no avail. Thanks in advance! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of a jury of peers already occurs in early Germanic law; see for example Salic law. I don't know any details of Saxon law, but since it was issued by Charlemagne, it was at least partially based on Salic law, and quite likely to have involved juries. I do not know if unanimity was already required for a guilty verdict in the early Germanic days, but it seems a possibility. With the Conquest another wave of "Salicism" entered Anglo-Saxon law. However, by that time the jury system was no longer commonly operational in England, until reinstated by Henry II of England. Again, I don't know whether unanimity was required, but this seems like a good starting point to look at. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kevin. This is an interesting problem you have set, and as with all such matters there is no simple answer. To begin with, practices have varied quite widely throughout the English-speaking world, and while a unanimous verdict in jury trials was long established in English common law, in Scotland, which draws on a different set of legal traditions, majority verdicts were accepted, even in in capital crimes. The practice in England was changed in 1967 to allow a majority verdict, where at least ten of the jurors are in agreement. As far as I am aware the United States adopted most of the precedents set by the common law of England, including unanimous verdict in jury trails, though this has also been subject to change and amendment. On your second point, juries were selected as arbiters of fact, and as justice had not only to be done, but to be seen to be done, this would inevitably entail that decisions be reached in open discussion. There is also the requirement of speedy justice. Just imagine how much longer trials would take if each of the twelve jurors were allowed to weigh the evidence in isolation! There was a time when jurors were not allowed to leave their room-even for sleep-until such time as they reached a verdict. On this you might be intrested in the example set in early colonial Virginia: When a case was given to the jury, it was locked up without food or water until it reached a verdict. A juryman could not leave his fellows until a verdict was reached, which, as one writer noted, made prolonged disagreement practically unknown. ( Quotation in J. W. Glichrist, South Carolina Trial Lawyer's Bulletin, Winter, 1989). Now, that's the way to do it! Clio the Muse 00:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks to you both. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you concerned only with criminal trials? Loomis 03:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several jurisdictions allow majority verdicts in non-capital cases. See http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=929396 . Superm401 - Talk 08:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciphers and Codes

In Cryptography ("study of secrets") I would like to know what below each would be called, a Cipher or Code?
1. When a set of words uses identically the same vowels and has the same number of letters total, i.e.:
"The Da Vinci Code" -vs- "I’m a movie critic"
Each of these both use only the vowels a, e, i, and o. They both have 14 letters.

2. These words start and end using the same letter.
"Universal Studios" -vs- "unilateral studies"

I don't think either of these would be considered a cipher or code. These terms are used for secret methods to hide messages, but in such a way that people who know those secret methods can reconstruct the original message from the coded form. Your Da Vinci Code examples leaves too many possibilities, like "I love pineapple", "You will eat meat", "Submarines come", etc. Same for number 2. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can just about see these methods being used to select code words, which are then shared with everyone who needs to know them. However, this would make a more easily broken code than just selecting words than sound innocent ("The bananas are in the bowl"), and, given the possible solutions (as per Lambian), wouldn't be a lot of help to someone you want to know the code who has forgotten. If I said to you "Cabbages are green", using your second method, do I mean "Catch a goblin", "Creep away, gambling", "Catherine ate goose"...? Skittle 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points. Let me see if I could refine further on "the Code" and answer these very good points. First, these two would be entirely two different examples, not to be mixed into each other. Now for Example 1 more refined: Lets now say that from "The Da Vinci Code" there are a finite number of word possibilities to selsect from so that it is not infinite. This finite group then being a set of preselected words (known only to both parties involved as a set of "keys) so that it turns out there can only be a possible few word group set that it could then be (i.e. 6 or less sets). One of these sets then making perfect sense between the two and the hidden message intended. This then I believe would make it more plausable.
Example 2 would also be only a few possible set of words to be able to select from make it also more plausable.
I understand your points and will think more about this. Otherwise then with these refinments would this then be a Code or a "cipher"? Thanks again......... --Doug 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Given, as I understand it, a cipher is when you swap symbols for letters, if anything it would be a code.~~ That was roughly, according to my old books. But our article suggests that anything following an algorithm is a cipher, anything simply replacing the words is a code. So I suppose you're sort of setting up a cipher, although with the exchange of codebooks/lists it's also pretty much a flexible code. More than anything, it sounds to me like a word-puzzle that you would create for the fun of solving it more than its use. But I still don't see why you would do this, rather than just have the words/phrases mean set words/phrases, given you're already having to exchange lists of words. Your way still sounds like there could be potential ambiguity for the chosen translator, and it would take much longer for the coder and decoder while lowering the security of the code. Perhaps if your 'list' of possible words was very short, and the list of possible codewords was very long, then I can see it being useful (flexibility of plaintext meaning it could look less suspicious), but only once or twice. More than that and it's easily cracked with the short list of codewords. Skittle 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional ideas. Lets say I came across an acient manuscript (i.e. from the Middle Ages) and it used for example the word "Tarsus", which turned out to mean Taras, this then probably would be closer to the term "Code" (replacement of one word for another) than that of a cipher (anything following an algorithm). Now lets say this ancient manuscript was not intended to be for a particular person but for posterity instead. Now the way that one would know then that in this medieval manuscript it meant, by the usage of "the Code", the town of Taras and not actually Tarsus (city) is that there is also a reference to a Straight Street. In Tarsus (city) in Turkey there is no well known Straight Street, however in Taras there is. It is called the Appian Way. Now setting religion aside for the moment, this might be an example then of the usage of a Code (not a cipher), correct? --Doug 14:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound like a code to me, it sounds like a typo :-) But seriously, I don't see anything in that quote to suggest the street was a well-known street that was straight rather than 'the street called Straight'. Do you have real reason to believe that there was no street in Tarsus that was called 'Straight' (as a name) at the time? Onto this method of communicating: why would you use such a method of communicating with posterity rather than just writing what you meant? Or using a clearer code? If the aim is to disseminate the knowledge, what is gained by writing false things in the hope that people will work out what you mean? It doesn't really feel like a code, because you are not decoding the word 'Tarsus' and finding it to mean 'Taras', rather you are solving the geography puzzle to find a location. But what does my gut count on this? Skittle 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a typo! It definitely sounds like a Code to me. It suggests that it is a well known street with the nick name of "Straight Street" called Appian Way because:
1. Appian Way went to Taras. This is modern day Taranto, Italy. The Greek colonists from Sparta called the city Taras.
2. All great Roman roads went as straight as possible, for fast movement of troops. Look at Map of Roman roads here.
3. The Appian Way was called the Queen of the Roman Roads. It could easily have been called a "Straight Straight".
4. There is no road now or in the last 2000 years that had notoriety of being called a Straight Street in or around Tarsus, Turkey.
5. Why not to posterity? Francesco Petrarch (famous scholar), Father of the Renaissance, wrote a Letter to Posterity, here. --Doug 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As all great Roman roads were straight, why would a road acquire the nickname 'Straight'? Secondly, notoriety does not seem to be involved anywhere in the quote; all that is required is that the street is called 'Straight'. Many street names have not survived the centuries. Thirdly, I did not suggest you would not want to communicate with posterity, but that if you did there would be no reason to encode your message, making it harder for posterity to understand it! On top of this, it doesn't sound like a code because you are not decoding words. Rather, you are solving a geographical puzzle. Skittle 17:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical name meanings as codes

Does anyone know of an instance where Biblical name meanings were used as a type of a code? Perhaps this may have been used in the Middle Ages or in the Renaissance period. Today something like this would not be used, since it is not very sophiticated compared to computer software. However in a time period where few people could read or write (i.e. Renaissance) it could be useful. This way then the recipient would already have the "keys" to deciper the coded message. This being that, of course, this was prearranged ahead of time as the method used. Then if the message got intercepted, it would look like a jumbled set of words that didn't make much sense.--Doug 21:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but you could look at Atbash... AnonMoos 02:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babylonian Captivity

Petrarch coined the phrase "Babylonian Captivity" as a reference to the moving of the papacy to Avignon. This expression can be found this way in usage in Wikipedia articles of Pope Clement V (the first Avignon pope), Avignon Papacy, and in Avignon. This I found by typing in "Babylonian Captivity Petrarch" in the search box. In these articles then it appears to be the same thing as "Captivity of Avignon", being a reference by Petrarch of the city's corruption. Under the article Avignon Papacy, in the Contents of "Schism: The War of the Eight Saints" under Criticism it says: The period has been called the "Babylonian captivity" of the popes, a term coined by Petrarch[1], an Italian who lamented the absence of the papacy from his native land. This nickname is polemical, in that it refers to the claim by critics that the prosperity of the church at this time was accompanied by a profound compromise of the Papacy's spiritual integrity, especially in the alleged subordination of the powers of the Church to the ambitions of the French kings. Coincidentally, the "captivity" of the popes at Avignon lasted around the same duration as the exile of the Jews in Babylon, making the analogy all the more convenient and rhetorically potent. For this reason, the Avignon papacy has been and is often today depicted as being totally dependent on the French kings, and sometimes as even being treacherous to its spiritual role and its heritage in Rome. Was this time period then somewhere around 70 years and when did this take place? The Jews in Babylon? Would this be correct usage then of term "Captivity of Avignon" since it is a reference to the temporary move ("captivity") to Avignon of the papacy? Wouldn't this then be similar to "Captivity of Babylon", being then the "Babylonian Captivity"? Don't 'Avignon' and 'Babylon' sound similar? --Doug 21:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you have read Babylonian captivity or Avignon papacy. Beyond the information in those articles, can you state more clearly what information you want? If the last question is your main question, I would say that "Avignon" and "Babylon" do not sound similar, although they rhyme in some languages. Marco polo 02:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The neutral term to use, one should emphasize, is "the Avignon papacy". --Wetman 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jews in Babylon reference is to the destruction of the first Temple in Jerusalem in 586 BCE and the subsequent forced migration of the bulk of the Jewish people to Babylon. In 516 BCE, (ie 70 years later) an edict by Cyrus allowed Jews to return to their homeland under the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah, leading to the construction of the second Temple which was to stand until destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. --Dweller 09:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You all have answered my questions very good. This is basically what I was looking for. Now I understand that of the Jewish people and Babylon in the time of Cyrus. Now I can see the relationship meaning of the "70 years" connected to both. In the case of Babylon this time then being 586 BCE to 516 BCE ("70 years"). In the case of Avignon this is 1308 to 1378. Didn't Cyrus also make what is called the Cyrus Cylinder concerning this? It has the first set of Human Rights, written down on this clay cyclinder relating to this edict allowing the Jews to return to their homeland. Do I have this correct? Did this cylinder then have 40 lines of writing on it relating to this of allowing the Jews to return to their homeland?
I believe my main question would be more along the lines of would the term "Captivity of Babylon" be the same as (from Petrarch's viewpoint, whom coined it) "Babylonian Captivity"? They then would be the same to me, is that correct?--Doug 10:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Petrarch didn't write in English, he would have called it neither the "Babylonian Captivity" nor the "Captivity of Babylon". Please see your talk page for a question about your user page, which is along a similar point. --Dweller 15:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of "the Babylonian Captivity" was generally understood, well before Petrarch's time, to refer to the forced exile of Judah to Babylon. (Italian: Cattività babilonese; Latin: Captivitas Babylonica.) Given the right context you could just use "the Captivity", and people would still have understood you, just like "the Nativity" was the nativity of Christ. You can also say "the Captivity in Babylon" or "the Captivity of Babylon"; they all mean the same thing, just like "the American Senate" and "the Senate of the United States" mean the same thing. Petrarch chose this as a catchy metaphor for the "exile" of the papacy to Avignon. To distinguish this from the original Jewish exile, this became "the Babylonian Captivity of Avignon". People tired of repeating this long phrase shorten(ed) it to "the Captivity of Avignon". That's all. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great information on that of "the Babylonian Captivity of Avignon". Thanks again.... --Doug 22:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop background

I'm looking for an image to set as my desktop background. One idea I had was beautiful Latin American cities at night. Does anyone have, or can anyone find, any such images? I know Google Images is my friend, but I haven't had much luck with it. Thanks, anon.

Try www.flickr.com or www.photobucket.com and search for the sort of image you require. To get to larger-versions of the image (in Flickr) click the photo you like and if the user has uploaded a larger version, you will be able to click 'see all sizes'. I often find my desktop backgrounds on there. ny156uk 23:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you search, type the name of a city you find beautiful, surrounded by quotation marks if the city's name has more than one word (e.g. "San Cristobal"), and type the word "night". You should get images of that city at night. You can do a search for each city you find beautiful. Marco polo 02:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hairstyle

if your hair is gelled and spiked are the sides usually cut short(for guiys

Humanities sort of means history and literature. You'd do better putting this question on the Miscelaneous RD, but this also probably isn't as good a place to find out as, say, a google image search for "gelled hair" or something. I think yes, but I don't really know. Sashafklein 06:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, yes. See pictures at Commons as well as Google. Dar-Ape 03:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]