Humanities desk
< June 9	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 11 >

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.

June 10

Occupation

What is the easiest occupation of one's life (eating? drinking?) ? What is the hardest occupation of one's life (hard feelings?) ? 69.218.200.129 02:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breathing?...M.A.D.M.D. 05:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "occupation" is not normally used for eating or drinking, and even less so for having hard feelings. Is existing also an occupation? It is unclear what the range of activities is that should be considered candidates for being easiest or hardest. Normally we only use the term "occupation" for an activity someone is engaged in if they are regularly engaged in that activity for extended periods, and the activity requires their attention. For some people, solving the Sunday crossword puzzle may be the hardest occupation of the week. But what is hard for one person may be easy for the next. Even assuming a clearer notion of occupation than the fuzzy one we have, the question is not answerable in general. --Lambiam ^Talk 06:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean as in full time job - eg estate agent, cleaner, etc? I believe that in this case, prostitution would be the answer. No doubt in the most primitive societies, a farmer just might be slightly important as well, though.martianlostinspace 13:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between socialism and communism

I have always been intrigued by the synonymous use of communism and socialism. Are they really synonymous or is there any difference in the concepts of socialism and communism ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.255.251 (talk • contribs)

No, they are not synonymous. Socialism is a wider term than communism - it is possible to be a socialist without being a communist. Our article on socialism says "The various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformist socialists and communists". Out article on communism says that communism "can be considered a branch of the broader socialist movement". Gandalf61 09:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put simply, socialism is a more moderate version of communism. The British Labour party were, at least in part, socialist for decades (not so much now). For example, the 1949- government of Clement Attlee would have been, he set up the welfare state, and introduced free health care via the National Health Service, etc. Hardly a capitalist idea. There have been many socialist governments in power in liberal democracies all around the world. Although they might strive to nationalise industry, etc. they don't want to set up a dictatorship of the proletariat, as hard-line communists like Lenin and Stalin wanted. Communist countries today include N. Korea, China, Cuba, and Vietnam. You would not call politicians like Tony Benn communists, even though he is definitely a leftwinger. BJ Elliot, the historian, said that the technical difference is that socialism seeks an equal society where money, wages and payment of goods still exists - but in communism, you work for nothing, and you pay nothing for goods either - money would be completely abolished. As (probably) no communist country has ever actually reached that stage, you can assume that means little in practice. Can anyone add a strictly Marxist perspective on this?martianlostinspace 13:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a humorous summary of the socialism/communism distinction see You have two cows:

Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to someone else.

Communism: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and gives you a share of the milk. Gandalf61 13:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian joke: "Capitalism is the exploitation of Man by Man and Communism is the exact opposite."203.21.40.253 02:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communism is an economic system. Socialism is a political one. Llamabr 15:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also important to note that the man-on-the-street's definitions of these very politically charged terms will not necessarily have anything to do with technical definitions from Marx, etc. In my part of the world, the common definition is something like "socialism: democratic with a strong social safety net and concommitant high taxes; communism: repressive regime with varying adherence, but always lip service, to socialism", but I'm sure this varies widely. --TotoBaggins 16:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Careful... for most of the 20th century, "socialism" meant public ownership of the means of production. The nationalization of the British iron, steel, railroad and healthcare industries by the Labour Party after WWII was in line with the party's officially socialist orientation. "Communism" meant one of two things. As used in "communist" countries, it meant a utopia in which the state and social classes faded away after the triumph of socialism. But the word also referred to the system of government developed in countries ruled by "Communist" parties -- one-party socialist rule. -- Mwalcoff 21:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a strictly Marxist interpretation from one, she rushes to add, who is not a Marxist! First of all, I am not at all surprised by some of the intellectual confusion here, because 'socialism' has come to mean such a wide variety of things, from political reformism, on the one hand, to the abolition of capitalism, on the other. It has also been appropriated, in some cases, by the extreme right, in a bogus attempt to appeal to the working-class. However, for Marx socialism was a stage in a historical process, the outcome of which would be full blown communism, the ultimate ideal, where the management of people has been replaced by the management of things-"From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs." One should never underestimate the extent to which Marx was influenced intellectually, contrary to his protestations, by a whole variety of earlier 'utopian' ideals. But classic Marxism, especially after the failure of the 1848 revolutions, becomes more a critique of capitalism than a path towards socialism and communism. It was left to others to fill in the gaps, and they did so in a huge variety of ways, from the 'purist' Lenin to the 'reformist' Eduard Bernstein. The Leninist path entailed the creation of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and the imposition of socialism, not, it has to be stressed, communism. The state, in other words, and the whole political system, was socialist. Full communism could only be achieved, so the doctrine goes, when the state itself, with all of its coercive power, 'withered away.' Therefore, while there have been Communist Parties, there have never been Communist states, which is a contradiction in terms. The political reformists, from the German Social Democrats to the British Labour Party, attempted to implement policies after winning elections which could loosely be described as 'socialism'; but the state itself was not socialist, only the government. Socialism was no longer a political process, merely a political tool. Clio the Muse 13:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the Bolshevik Party renamed itself the "Communist Party" in 1918, and other Marxist-Leninist parties later followed that lead. So you wound up with a bunch of countries run by a "Communist Party." True, according to the orthodox definition of "communist," a "communist state" is indeed an oxymoron. But if the adjective "Communist" refers to a Communist party, one can indeed refer to the Soviet Union and its satellites as "Communist states." It then follows to use "communist state," with or without a capital "C," to refer to countries with governments similar to that of the USSR, whether the governing party calls itself "Communist." Technically, these states were not "communist" but "socialist," but then, so was (largely) Clement Attlee's Britain, and you didn't want to put the UK and the USSR in the same boat simply because they both nationalized industries. So "communist" became shorthand for "single-party socialist state based more or less on Marxist ideals." Such is the history of language. -- Mwalcoff 23:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and the shorthand usage was perfectly legitimate. (Is it still? Does anyone refer now to China as a 'Communist' State?). However, I was approaching the question from the perspective of Marxist theory, in response to the request from martainlostinspace. Soviet-style states only ever referred to their political processes as 'socialist', as in Socialism in One Country. They would, of course, not have accepted that the reformist parties of the west were socialist to any degree. But in matters like this one could go round in endless semantic circles! And as far as Clement Attlee is concerned, his 'mixed economy' style of socialism was far closer, to use a Russian analogy, to the pre-socialist New Economic Policy of the 1920s. Not, of course, that they were very close. Clio the Muse 23:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Clio. "It has also been appropriated, in some cases, by the extreme right, in a bogus attempt to appeal to the working-class." An example of this might be the Nazis. For several years, it had a socialist faction led by Ernst Rohm, which Hitler never really intended to take seriously. At any rate, socialism was totally incompatible with Nazism, and it was probably nothing more than an electoral tool. In Feb. 1933 Rohm publicly expressed his disappointment that the Nazi "Social Revolution" hadn't occured yet. Hitler soon got rid of them at the Night of the Long Knives.martianlostinspace 14:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So this would explain why Nazis were the National Socialist party. I was always confused as to why they would call themselves socialists, when they were so opposed to the communists. Czmtzc 15:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ni'ihau and the United Nations

I just started research on the island of Niihau in the Hawaiian Islands. Author Ruth M. Tabrah claims that around 1944 the island was considered by FDR as a potential candidate for the HQ of the United Nations and that this was documented in his notes. I would love to add this to the article on Niihau, but I would like to find other sources to substaniate it. Can anyone point me in the right direction? —Viriditas | Talk 11:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This review by Samuel Flagg Bemis of The memoirs of Cordell Hull, which appeared in The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Dec., 1949), pp. 317-320, contains the phrase "The sea-minded Roosevelt had quite serious but fantastic ideas of having the pro- posed United Nations council meet alternately in the Azores and the ...". I don't have JSTOR or library access, but perhaps some other reader can expand the tantalizing ellipsis. --Lambiam ^Talk 17:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam's quote continued: "The sea-minded Roosevelt had quite serious but fantastic ideas of having the proposed United Nations council meet alternately in the Azores and the Hawaiian Islands (at Niihau Island), and the state department had to work up exhaustive geographical studies about those proposed locations." --mglg_(talk) 21:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing, thank you. Does anyone know if those state department studies are available to the public? —Viriditas | Talk 08:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Freedom of information in the United States laws, I would presume so, assuming the studies haven't been lost. You may have to put in a request assuming this information hasn't already been released Nil Einne 18:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleopatra

I've just read your page on Cleopatra, and was wandering why a person of relatively minor historical importance had such lasting influence on writers and film-makers of all sorts? The section on her influence on the arts is huge. Janesimon 12:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's the queen of Egypt. She's married to Mark Antony and Julius Caesar ~~Salad~~. Julius Caesar is the Roman emperor.

Being the Queen of Egypt is no small job... You're right that her own historical impact has been overestimated, but the romanticised image of her and her relations with two immensely important historical figures, Cæsar and Marc Antony, captured the imagination of writers from Plutarch to Shakespeare and Dryden and still does...

Best wishes,

--It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, She married her brothers, Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV for power's sake as she needed a consort. Although she had relations with Marc Antony and Caesar, under Roman laws, it was not considered plausible for a Roman and non-Roman citizen to get married.)

The marriage of brothers was a commonplace among the Egyptian queens, and to some degree the Seleucian dynastic heads as well. Not many were like Arsione Philadelphoi (children by brother, marriage to son), but at least a titular marriage was common. Cleopatra is the tail end of a very important family and an important kingdom. Many of the Hellenistic era's kingdoms went down in flames beneath Rome, and their death struggles were sometimes pathetic (the aforementioned Seleucids), sometimes scary (the Herodian line), and sometimes tragic. Cleopatra is a person whose actual life shows all the marks of tragedy. Therefore, although she did not manage to save her kingdom or maintain sovereignty (and therefore is a minor historical figure), her story is perfect for telling. It presents forces that are inexorably pitted against each other, politics on an international scale ("let's get Caesarian recognized as legitimate!"), the conflict of monarchy and republicanism, the politics of personality, and, ultimately, a person unable to do anything to save herself or her kingdom. The Romans loved the story because Egypt was, for them, like China is to some westerners today: home of all things mystical and mysterious, where they do weird things that we wish we could do but denounce as immoral, etc. So, perfectly tragic, sex, mystery, and the end of the only major player in the ancient world that scared the Romans -- great stuff for history. Geogre 14:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, other things being equal, a title character in a play by William Shakespeare will inevitably be better known in the modern world than another figure of similar historical importance. AndyJones 14:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that she would appear to be a 2000 year-old bigamist? (Sorry; I could not resist that, and no offence was intended!) Actually, the legend of Cleopatra, the great seductress, was born as part of a piece of political spin, of which she is not even the main subject. We all know that history is written by the victors, and this was never more true than at the end of the Roman Civil Wars. Octavian-later Augustus-prevailed over his great rival, Mark Anthony, who after his death was depicted in the propaganda of the day as a Roman who had been unmanned by his flirtation with the 'degenerate' east. Cleopatra was cast as the very symbol of that degeneracy, the whore of the Canopus, irredeemably foreign, exotic and profoundly un-Roman.

When Antony's descendants, the emperors Caligula, Claudius and Nero, showed signs of adopting the 'eastern fashion' at court, the negative images of Cleopatra were revived in various art forms, as the great seductress, dangerous not just to individual men, but the traditional Roman conception of republican virtue. According to the historian, Dio Cassius, it was because of her that Anthony became an effeminate creature, who lost all of his virile and manly skills. Cleopatra, in other words, was a warning against the dangers of allowing a woman to become too powerful, in politics or in love. In the fourth century Aurelius Victor added to her corrupting and seductive image when he wrote, "She was so lustful that she often prostituted herself and so beautiful that with their lives for a night with her."

And thus it is that she progressed down the centuries, refashioned in accordance with contemporary taste. In the Medieval and Renaissance periods she was depicted as a great beauty; and, as we all know, since great beauties are always blonde, Cleopatra became a blonde! The traditional image only changed somewhat with the publication in France and England in the sixteenth centuries of translations of Plutarch's Parallel Lives, which gives a slightly more sympathetic, and accurate, depiction of the real woman, and was to be the chief source for Shakespeare's Anthony and Cleopatra. But it was really only in the nineteenth century that it became fashionable to depict her as non-European, as in Delecroix's painting Cleopatra. She was by now the great femme fatale, portrayed as such in a whole range of artistic media, cruel, exotic, insatiable. For puritan societies, whether Roman or Victorian, she titillated and stimulated every prurient instinct; and in this shape she made her way to Hollywood. No tedious 'Little Woman' or 'Good Wife' she! When Cecil B. De Mille offered the part in his movie Cleopatra to Claudette Colbert he asked "How would you like to be the wickedest woman in history?" What female could possibly resist an offer like that?

Why has she had such a lasting impact? Because she has become a cultural symbol, the ultimate male erotic fanasy. As such she will probably never be replaced. My favourite reference to her comes from none other than John Keats, who wrote "She makes an impression the same as the Beauty of a Leopardess...I should like her to ruin me." Clio the Muse 00:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Pics

Does anyone recogize the six dragon pictures here? They look old. Black Carrot 14:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us only have dial-up Internet access and a site with 6 pictures can tie up the computer for a long time. I tried, but no pictures appeared on the page. Could you describe the pictures and tell us something about them? Bielle 14:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're from different sources at least (one appears to be fabric, while the others are painted or done with markers). Why not just email the webmaster and ask? The guy who uploaded them is probably the best source of info... Matt Deres 15:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teeyan Da mela

What is Teeyan da Mela?

See What is this Teeyan da Mela all about? Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luya Province

Where can I find the answer to my questions?...Thanks

You find answers to your questions here, or one of the relative reference desks. By the way: Luya Province is located in the south and west part of the department of Amazonas. Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are here:

--Lambiam ^Talk 16:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam gave you a fish for today, and here's a quick Fishing lesson that will help you in the future. Go to Google.com and type in the following query:

   site:wiki.riteme.site "luya province" "reference desk"

then carefully sift through whatever gets caught in your net, dilligently separating the bad from the good. HTH. dr.ef.tymac 20:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copying video and throwing it away - Law question.

If I buy a video, use a video dvd recorder to record it on disc, and then sell or give the video away, is the resulting dvd illegal? Similarly with cd single, if I buy one, put it on my compiter, and then throw the single away, is the file on my computer illegal? DevAlt 15:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See "Copying is Theft ..." And other legal myths in the looming battle over peer-to-peer. Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in England, but it looks like I might have to keep the originals. Do you think if I took a photo of the video before throwing it away this would prove I once owned it? DevAlt 16:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry wikipedia doesn't give legal advice, but if your worried about getting caught by the police, keep the videos. Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, if you no longer have the original you're not entitled to use the backup. If you've sold or returned the original, then using the backup would likely be illegal. If you've simply lost or thrown away the original, you could perhaps argue that you weren't doing anything illegal (although this would be difficult to prove). I don't quite get why you would throw away the original though. Even if it's broken there's no reason not to keep it. Note that even if you keep a photo of the original, this doesn't really affect the legal situation at all. The issue is not proving you once owned a copy. This doesn't matter. A backup is only intended to be a backup. You still have to own the original. Nil Einne 18:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination ?

Is saying he acted like a 12-year-old, when what you mean is he acted immaturely, an act of discrimination? A.Z. 20:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a stubby section on age discrimination, by the way. Maybe the answers here could help improve it. A.Z. 20:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a rather short article on intergenerational equity... Wikipedia could really cover these topics better. A.Z. 20:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question could stand some refinement: 1) Is it entirely obvious from the context that the remark was intended that way, or was the hearer simply inferring the meaning of "immature"; 2) some 12-year-olds are actually quite mature and responsible. It could have been a compliment; 3) ill-considered, invidious and even intentionally demeaning remarks do not necessarily constitute discrimination (as narrowly defined by the WP article linked here); and 5) not all "discrimination" (as broadly defined in any run-of-the-mill abridged English dictionary) constitutes unfairly prejudicial treatment. So the short answer is no, not necessarily. dr.ef.tymac 20:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the statement implies that the person speaking and/or the person being spoken to does not know the definition of "immature". Therefore, a "like" phrase is required. What is "like immature"? Obviously, someone who is not at least a teenager, such as a 12 year old. Of course, a 12 year old will claim to be mature - even more so than his or her parents. But, that in itself is a result of immaturity. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dr.ef.tymac: Yes, the remark was definitely intended that way, as admitted by the person who spoke it.

Kainaw: Is someone who is not at least a teenager "like immature"? If the one you're talking to does not know the meaning of the word immature, I guess you could define immature in simpler terms, like a dictionary does. A.Z. 21:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - dictionary definition: "emotionally undeveloped; juvenile; childish." A 12 year old is emotionally undeveloped - that is well documented in teen psychology. A 12 year old is a juvenile, or are all things "juvenile" misnamed? A 12 year old should be nearing the end of childishness, but not completely. There are many childish things that teenagers and young adults do. When a person in their 30's, 40's or 50's does childish things, it is considered immature. --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that all 12-year-olds tend to be immature? A.Z. 22:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to physical, emotional, or physical maturity? You appear to imply that you cannot differentiate between them - is that the case? --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are talking about maturity in the psychological sense (by the way, Wikipedia's disambiguation page called Maturity links to it, but Maturity (psychological) is still a red link). A.Z. 23:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological maturity is difficult to measure, but there is a clear psychological profile for the average preteen (12 year old). Claiming "all 12 year olds fit the psychological profile of a 12 year old" would be immature - or like a 12 year old - as it implies that the speaker has not had the life experiences required to realize that "all" and "none" are not clarifiers that should be used when referring to humans, unless it is something like "all living humans breath oxygen." Of course, someone is going to dig up some rare article about a human who was allergic to oxygen and was kept in a bubble of some other gas that replaced the function of oxygen. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll not encounter he acted like an 11-year-old or he acted like a 13-year-old, so this is idiom and not meant as a serious comparison of a person's behaviour with that of a typical X-year old one, where X is selected to produce the best match. You will also hear he acted like a baby and he acted like a little kid. The fact is, nevertheless, that there are certain kinds of behaviours that may be considered normal for babies, little kids and 12-year olds, but are unacceptable when displayed by grown-ups in the full possession of their mental capacities. This does not imply the judgement that all babies, little kids, or 12-year olds, as the case may be, tend to behave that way, but only that it is not untypical for that age class. It only becomes discrimination if someone judges a 12-year old, not based on their actual behaviour, but on the prejudice that the person in question conforms to the stereotypical behaviour of 12-year olds. Note that, for this to be discrimination, it is not actually relevant whether the stereotype is accurate for the "typical" 12-year old or not. It is only more stupid if the stereotype is also wrong in general. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading what you wrote over and over again and trying to find out where I disagree with you. Even after trying, I simply can't picture myself ever usign the phrase "like a 12-year-old" to mean "immaturely" without feeling really ashamed. I can only guess, so far, that the phrase, to me, does imply that all people of that age class tend to be immature. A.Z. 22:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of them tending to be immature; they are immature. Immature in this sense is not a pejorative term; it means they are not fully developed in a range of ways, compared with adults. It would be extraordinary to ever expect a 12-year old to be as developed as an adult. There are good reasons why 12-year olds are not generally permitted to vote, drive cars, marry, or drink alcohol, for example. -- JackofOz 01:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination? Huh? Discrimination applies to opportunities at work or applicability for a duty. If I say that you're acting like a 12 year old, I'm insulting you, and there's no discrimination involved. Now, if the question is, "Is it bad form and showing prejudice toward 12 year olds," then other people are answering. I think, though, that they've missed the point, rather. The linguistic formulation turns on "acting like a" rather than "12 year olds act like you did." In other words, it summons up the general cultural image of the 12 year old, not any specific one. If the culture regards 12 year olds as ignorant, emotional, and clumsy, then it's an active insult. If the culture's image of a 12 year old is a marriage age individual working for a living, then it's not an operative insult. So, does your society regard 12 year olds as childish? If so, that's a problem you have with your culture, not the speaker. Geogre 02:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond District in Lynn, Massachusetts

How did the Diamond District in Lynn, Massachusetts get its name? How long has it been known as the Diamond District? What have the demographics of the area been over time? I know there is an orthodox synagogue there that has dwindled in membership (and perhaps one or two others that have closed entirely in the general area); was it once a Jewish neighborhood? Thank you, J66.30.42.7 20:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more onfo. on 400 yr. old stained glass church clock tower blank from France

I have a stained glass church clock tower blank approx. 400 yrs. old, 52" diamater,iron frame,I would like to know maby who crafted it, what it may be worth? I can send pics. Thanks! 65.140.214.201 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite make out what a "stained glass church clock tower blank" is. Presumably it is a blank of (or for) the clock tower of a church that consists of stained glass, but what is "a blank" in this context? The meanings of "blank" I'm aware of don't fit. An image would help; can you upload it on a site like flickr? Further questions: what is the provenance? France is large. And how did obtain the age estimate? If it is truly four centuries old, that is from around 1600, in those days craftsmen producing such objects would often be anonymous. In any case, unless the piece was obtained in a famous church robbery, the maker is unlikely to have been important enough to still be known today. At the best you could expect a certain style to be identified. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stained glass is used for windows; I don't see how it could be incorporated into a clock. Possibly the questioner means a leaded light (i.e. not coloured) such as that used in the Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster, where there are pictures, but I doubt whether any clocks were made like that 400 years ago. These opalescent faces are common in 19th-century church clocks as they enable the clock to be illuminated from the inside. A picture would be useful. Quite frankly, though, it's probably worthless, as it cannot really be used for anything else other than a church clock, unless it's a work of art.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A clock tower might have stained-glass windows, although this was more common in the Gothic period and not so much in late Renaissance and early Baroque architecture. A possible use for the piece is to be part of someone's collection, and then it is worth whatever a collector is willing to pay for it. Basically any well-preserved early 17th-century artifact, especially if it is not very common and also pleasing to behold, is bound to be worth something. But we'll have to wait for further clarification. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese war crimes

Why did the Japanese behave so badly towards prisoners in WWII? Was sadism a national characteristic? He who must be obeyed 20:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western countries have recently fought wars according to a code or set of conventions, eg the Geneva Convention which deals with prisoners and which Japan was not a signatory to. Other cultures have fought and still fight wars differently. For Japan in WWII start with our article Japanese war crimes which has many references, but also look at Definitions of Japanese war crimes and Bushido though the latter article unfortuately does not address modern wars Mhicaoidh 22:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some countries have signed the Geneva Convention; some of those who have signed it may abide by its conventions, even in the heat of battle and during its chaotic aftermath. To judge a whole culture by the activities of members of its armies in the field of war is limiting, and likely seriously skewed, unless those activities are also a matter of national policy. Bielle 22:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dealt with this subject not so long ago. The short answer is that it has nothing at all to do with Japanese national 'characteristics' or, indeed, the failure to sign the Geneva protocols, and everything to do with the politics of the 1930s, especially as these impacted on socialisation within the army. In both the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5 and later in the First World War, the Japanese behaved impeccably towards their prisoners-of-war, Russian in the first case, German in the second. The general change of attitude came with the advent of new forms of rapacious nationalism in the inter-war period, particularly after the seizure of Manchuria in 1931. The army now became a major player in Japanese politics, driving forward an imperialist agenda. Rapid expansion in military recruitment brought forward new forms of discipline, with orders freely enforced by the liberal use of the boot and the fist. Recruits were brutalised; and brutalised recruits were to become brutal soldiers. Japan retreated from all codes and values that formerly linked the country to the democratic west, and revived ancient Bushido ethics. The weak were despised, and none was weaker than a soldier who surrendered, and thus lost all honour and respect. What happened later was to follow from this process. There are a number of decent texts on this, including Laurence Rees' Horror in the East and Yuki Tanaka's Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War Two. Clio the Muse 00:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that answer Clio, I'm sorry I hadnt realised you had "dealt with this" not so long ago, and plainly neither did the questioner. The point I was making is how we establish standards of "good" or "bad" treatment in the first place. During the Second World War the two sides did not share a common view or code on this and even today interpretations of terms such as "brutality" vary widely in warfare. The Geneva Convention is very relevant to European expectations and subsequent legal events when the victors had prevailed. Mhicaoidh 02:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mhicaoidh. My opening sentence was merely intended as a statement of fact; it was not meant to be dismissive, and my apologies if that is how it read. Anyway, you are quite right that there is no universally accepted set of standards determining conduct in war. However, long before the Geneva Convention of 1929, many nations had observed clear practices of civilized behaviour in relation to the treatment of prisoners, including Japan itself, as I pointed out in the examples that I gave above. Therefore, it is my contention that the brutal treatment to which they subjected captives in the Second World War has nothing at all to do with Japan's non-adherence to the Geneva doctrine, and everything to do with the fundamental shift in political and military attitudes in the 1930s. Clio the Muse 05:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Clio, point taken and Ive admired your contributions to the Ref Desk. Although I do wish the "clear practices of civilised behaviour" in war had extended as far as the various British colonies in our southern hemisphere in the late 19th and early 20th Century : ) Mhicaoidh 05:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed; but the conduct towards those considered to be in a state of 'rebellion' has long been different from the conduct towards those with whom there is a formal state of war. Clio the Muse 12:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree with you! We are very familiar with that out here at the former edge of empire ; ) Mhicaoidh 22:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clio's prior answer is here, but that question focused on discipline within the army and only touched on the treatment of POWs. Tanaka, i think, does identify a national characteristic which contributed to the barbarism. The 'emperor ideology': the absence of a developed sense of human rights, an effectively unlimited concept of duty and the abrogation of any individual responsibility. He also disputes the idea that inhumane conduct arose from within bushidō itself, arguing instead that it was the curruption of bushidō ethics in their subjugation to the emperor ideology.

On the other hand, sadism is William Dennenberg's answer to the title of his poem Was it Bushido?, but i've never seen anything outside of the wartime propaganda which call this a "national characteristic".—eric 17:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not think it was that far back! Thanks, eric. Clio the Muse 22:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of the Queen

Where would one purchase a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II? I'm looking for a portrait similar to one you might find hanging in a school gymnasium or arena. --ER 23:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say where you are, so this may not be of interest to you. The Monarchist League of Canada gives away a Jubilee poster of the Queen. If you go to their website[1] and download the .pdf file of their "catalogue" (which is a one-page sheet), you will see the offer in the fourth column from the left, just above the "Wessex Wedding" photograph. The $5.00 charge is apparently for s&h only. I don't know if the offer is limited to Canadian addresses. There is no preview of the portrait, however, nor is the poster size given in the entry. Bielle 05:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]