Humanities desk
< May 16	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 18 >

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.

May 17

castle in Roman

What is the name of the castle or a fort that is found in in the middle of Jodan's desert and it was build by the Romans? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.130.17 (talk • contribs).

Assuming by "Jodan" you mean "Jordan", there are several Roman forts surviving in that country. Bshir ([1]) is one possibility. FiggyBee 02:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qasr Azraq and Al Karak were both used by the Romans (although not built by them). However, you are most likely looking for Petra (which was also not built by the Romans, but was the capital of their province of Arabia Petraea. Adam Bishop 07:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You shall not kill

According to the Roman Catholic Church doctrine, is it right to kill one person in order to save others? For example, shooting a criminal who is undoubtedly about to end lives of hostages.

That's definitely a loaded question, and from what my brief searching online shows, isn't a well-decided question. I first start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1997. See ¶¶ 2263-2267 on "Legitimate defense." The implication is that self-defense is still a grave killing (¶ 2263), but defense of self is permitted, so long as it is used in moderation and not excessively (¶ 2264), and those who have the responsibility to defend others have a "grave duty" to do so (¶ 2265).

Other Internet sources various positions; some will use Biblical citations to imply that a greater latitude for self-defense is permitted while others will say that little latitude for self-defense exists. I'm not really going to summarize these areas as I probably can't do the arguments justice. –Pakman044 05:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a loaded question? --Lambiam ^Talk 09:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Lambiam on this, definitely not a loaded question. A set of constraints were set forth in the first part, "According to RCC doctrine..." and a clear question was asked. Dismas|^(talk) 10:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a related discussion here. JackofOz 05:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a "loaded question" in that it is a fraught or freighted question. I.e. it carries with it a large emotional context and the result of answering it is likely to be emotionalism. In other words, it might sound innocent to ask, "Should someone who kills a pregnant woman be guilty of two murders," the actuality is that the question may get the abortion debate (in the US) in it. Killing one to save others very well could be an Eric Rudolph sort of question. Geogre 12:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that books like Angels and Demons have been blowing this fundamentalist-killing stuff out of proportion. But yes, it's quite a loaded question. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should like to think it overblown, myself, except that the Republican Candidates' Debate (held on Fox News) had a variety of questions about torture that were designed to elicit the responses they got: "self-defense" justifies all, even when it is abstracted. I cannot see the justifications currently bandied about without thinking that there is a justification by moral purity and divine election lurking behind them, and therefore a question like the one above has altogether too much force these days in the United States. Geogre 13:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the answer to this question depends on a person's underlying ethical principles (often not explicitly stated or known to the person). The two "opposing" ethical systems in regard to this question are Deontological (also known as Kantian) and Utilitarian (aka Consequentialism). Ultimately, even with a faith group like the Roman Catholic Church, individual members may not agree on which of these approaches is correct -- indeed, it is one of the characteristics of Catholicism (in my reading) that it has often gone back and forth between these two opposing ethical systems. Pastordavid 15:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking up Iraq

Why is Iraq not now being broken up into three territories for the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds? - 84.70.67.231 08:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey is adamantly opposed to an independent Kurdish state neighbouring its territory, and would most likely militarily intervene if such a state threatened to become reality. Iran presumably wouldn't be charmed by the idea either. Although some areas are predominantly Sunni and others predominantly Shi'a, there is no clear territorial separation of the groups, and if you want to prevent ethnic cleansing, this would involve moving millions of people, a logistic, economic, and human nightmare. And these three groups are the largest, but not the only sizable ethnic or religious groups. See also Demography of Iraq. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness knows how well this approach has worked in the past. Also, there are significant ideological barriers to such a division; dividing the country up along religious lines would abandon all pretense of establishing secular democracy in Iraq. It would also create another three borders in the Middle East for insurgents to cross and sabres to be rattled at. FiggyBee 10:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When a country is breaking up, nobody wants to be on the wrong side of the border. Take a look at this map of Iraq and see how homogeneous most regions are :[2] How would you create those borders? Even the capital Baghdad is a mixed city! Should Samarrah be part of the Sunni part, or should it be a Shia enclave? The sunnis and shias in that city would probably give you a different answer... The same thing with that Sunni part in the south. As of now, the Kurdish autonomous part is smaller than that blue region, should Iraq fall apart, then the Kurds would probably try to get Kirkuk as well.

Another thing is that the interesting things like the oil field would be controlled by the Shias, while the Kurds could be in control of the Tigris river, which the sunnis wouldn't like.

And like other people said, there are many Kurds living in Turkey, Syria and Iran as well, once the Iraqi Kurds have their own country, those Kurds might try to do the same thing, and Iraqi Kurdestan could even be used as a launching base for military operations...Evilbu 13:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnis and Shi'as both claim Baghdad, and both would fight rather than abandon it. A three-way partition would also leave Sunnis with very little oil, and they are not prepared to lose out on their share of Iraq's oil without a big fight. In short, partition could not be accomplished without bloodshed. That said, I think that there is an understanding among Iraqis that if the Americans go, partition is all but inevitable, and a fair amount of the current bloodshed has to do with ethnic cleansing and other maneuvers by each group to optimize its position in advance of the war that would accompany partition. Marco polo 01:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The proportion of Iraqis willing to fight and die for Iraq is quite low, while those willing to fight or die for their religious sect, ethnic group, warlord, militia, etc., is quite high. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the nation of Iraq can not survive intact. StuRat 02:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq was invented by French and British diplomats following the collapse of the Ottoman empire. To the extent that the Ottomans governed the region at all, it was divided in three vilayets, Mosul, Baghdad and Basra: see Subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire#Administrative reform, 1864. David Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace: Creating the Modern Middle East, 1914-1922 presents the diplomatic context. As an editor has mentioned above, modern purely external pressures continue to hold the region together. --Wetman 02:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When there was talk of splitting Ukraine after a highly polar election, some US diplomat said the unity of Ukraine – which had no history as a unit, other than as an administrative division of the USSR, until 1992 – is "fundamental" (to what??). The political establishment, by its nature, has a bias against devolution. Still, I was a bit surprised that I never heard a hint of discussion of the possibility of holding a series of plebiscites in Iraq, asking something like "Shall [your province] join in federation with [each neighboring province]?". —Tamfang 02:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rudyard Kipling

Was Kipling truly the 'poet of imperialism'? He who must be obeyed 10:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am no expert, but I have a few comments, I am sure others will add more, and I am sure you have already seen the article on Rudyard Kipling. Firstly I will add a similar description (by none other than George Orwell) described him as the 'prophet of British Imperialism'

There is no doubt that his poetry (and prose of course) was informed by his experiences as a Briton in the Empire, particularly India. However he is often categorised simply as an evil imperialist. He did support the Empire, and believed it to be a force for good, so if anything was more patronising than supporting the Empire purely for Britain's benefit. See The White Man's Burden. And of course he was a man of his time, it is very easy to look back now and criticise.

Kipling was fascinated by the culture of India, and did much to open it up to Westerner's through his literature (of course the most famous are The Jungle Book and Kim. Although these portrayals are often called racist now, making the effort to portray these characters and culture at all, and I think with some affection, was not typical of the imperialist outlook at the time.

Often quoted lines like

OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,

can be made to sound imperialist, but the verse continues

Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;

But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,

When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the ends of the earth!

So in summary yes, Kipling was an imperialist poet, and possibly the major poet of the Empire, but not in a simplistic politically correct sense. Cyta 11:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that he was the poet of the British Empire, if not the poet of imperialism. Part of being a poet of imperialism is to be aware of the evil of imperialism and to move into skepticism about its claims, and Kipling certainly did that. However, he really didn't have much to say about whether or not he was going to be the rhyming voice of the Raj. That came from critical reception and the uses people made of his writings, and that is what made him the poet of imperialism. Those who knew him later in life never seemed to regard him as believing in the racist rot that his contemporaries had, but the horse was out of the barn. Geogre 12:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have only one or two minor points to add to the excellent contributions here by Cyta and Geogre. Now, I should preface my remarks with the observation that I am interpreting the word 'poet' in the widest possible sense, to include his prose fiction, and to visualise him as an interpreter and defender of a particular form of British imperialism. I cannot think of any other individual who more perfectly captured the mood of a particular moment in British history. He moved from writing for a narrow Anglo-Indian audience to a wider British public, appealing to the consciousness of the 1890s, with all of its enthusiasm for the whole of the Imperial project. Inevitably there was a price to be paid, which has had a lasting effect on his literary reputation. Never has any single English writer been more misunderstood than Kipling. Edmund Wilson called him a racist who made Kim, the eponymous hero of his only novel, turn away from his native mentors towards the white conquerors. Lionel Trilling was to write of his 'lower middle-class snarl.' But anyone who has actually read and, more important, understood, his writing will conclude that his relationship with imperialism was far more complex and subtle than is normally allowed. He may have been dismissive of aspects of Hinduism, but he admired Buddhism. He defended the legitimacy of the Raj, but he could be bitingly critical about the Anglo-Indian establishment, as well as Christian missionaries. But also, at a deeper level, his work is concerned with the human condition, with people seeking to give meaning to existence, anticipating, it has rightly been said, many of the themes later explored by Josef Conrad.

As far as his specific relationship to the Empire is concerned, he seems to me to be in the same mould as the historian Edward Gibbon, possessing a comparable attitude towards British India as Gibbon had towards Rome: that Empires are created through dedication and duty, and destroyed through negligence, withdrawal and abdication. The real message of Kim is that the Empire can only be preserved through sympathy and understanding. The vision is paternalist, not racist. British India was built on force, yes, and who can forget the image of Kim sitting on the Zamzammah Gun at the outset of the novel; but force is not a sufficient condition for its preservation-it is Kim's journey through the world of India, and the understanding this helps to bring.

In the end Kipling's tragedy was that his poetic and literary vision, as George Orwell contends, was bound up with a very narrow phase of British history, one that was coming to an end even before the Great War. For him the 'last phase' of Empire, British India at its height, has much the same ideal-and unrealistic-vision as Gibbon has towards the age of the Antonine Emperors. Kipling was outgrown both by his audience and by history. After Passchendaele the soldiers depicted in Barrack-Room Ballads have about as much verisimilitude as Dicken's Sam Weller has to real domestic servants. For a great writer there can be nothing worse than to sink into irrelevance in the course of one's own lifetime. Clio the Muse 01:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That mention of Barrack-Room Ballads reminds me of yet another quote

You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din

And though his poems may have seemed outdated by the very different world of WWI, Kipling (after the death of his son in the Trenches in 1915) started to produce anti-war poetry, which was certainly of it's time, even if it wasn't what he was remembered for. If— and his war poetry the only Kipling that made it onto my school sylabus though. Cyta 07:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's overly simplistic to call it purely anti-war, I think; much of it treated the War as an absolute necessity - one he hated and regretted, but one that had to be done... he never ceased to assert that the War was the right thing. A stupidly handled thing - look at the condemnations in Mesopotamia - and a horrifically wasteful one - "but who shall return us the children?" - but he never called for an end to the fighting, not until the "Evil Incarnate" of Germany would be "held at last / to answer to Mankind". Shimgray | talk | 00:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical information on Greater Rosario, Argentina.

Hello -

I will soon begin a novel which is mostly set in modern day Rosario, in Argentina. It was wondering if you could provide me with any information about the following (Wikipedia will of course be credited and thanked in the event of publication:

1. Photograph galleries of Rosario/surrounding areas 2. Place names/descriptions in rural areas of greater Rosario (specifically small villages/areas of natural beauty.) 3. Locations in Rosario/ surrounding area connected to the Cuban Revolutionary, Che Guevara.

Many thanks,

Miss M. Pope.

See the articles on Rosario and Che Guevara. --Tugbug 18:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being obvious, wouldn't you do better to write about a place you know? Not only are you less likely to make mistakes related to the setting, but you are more likley to get the ambiance right. "Write about what you know" is the advice most successful writers give. Bielle 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The UK's next Prime Minister

What is the constitutional position in the UK regarding the resignation of a party leader and Prime Minister, as is currently happening? It seems dysfunctional to me that the governing party can simply choose a replacement leader and that person is able to assume the office of Prime Minister without having to seek a renewed mandate from the electorate. It has happened twice before in recent times, first when Callaghan took over from Wilson and then again when Major took over from Thatcher. In my opinion - and hey, I know the RD is not a place for opinions - the resignation of a governing party leader should automatically trigger a general election. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Gordon Brown believed the same when he was in opposition. The answer is that we have a parliamentary system, not a presidential one. We elect our local members of parliament and they are the only thing we have a say in. It is in fact the head of state, the Queen, who chooses the Prime Minister officially, inviting him to form a government. For practical and historical reasons this is almost always the leader of the largest party, as noone else would be able to pass any laws, the House of Commons would simply vote against them. I believe, once Tony Blair resigns and Labour select Gordon Brown as their new leader, the Queen will have to formally ask Gordon Brown to form a new government, although I am not sure on this point. This is of course a contraversial practice, as a large number, probably the majority vote on their local constituency MP based on which party they want in power. And the leader of that Party can influence this vote. But basically the party already has a mandate both to lead the country and select it's own representative as leader. Cyta 13:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds comparable to the Speaker of the House in the U.S. We elect Representatives, and they elect the Speaker. If the Speaker resigns, they elect a replacement. Except, of course, for the Speaker not being our executive branch leader. Edison 14:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Prime Minister is not the leader of the executive branch. He is the leader of the legislative branch only. The Queen is the leader of the executive branch. It's common for Americans to assume that the executive branch is the most powerful branch of government in all forms of government, but in Westminster democracies the head of the legislative branch is typically the most powerful. --Charlene 14:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the head of the executive (which to all intents and purposes Blair is) commands a supine majority of the legislature and appoints the head of the judiciary, I'd call him pretty powerful. Algebraist 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a parliamentary system of government, the executive is derived from the legislature. So contrary to what Charlene says, the PM is indeed the head of the executive. The Queen has no executive power at all except in very unusual circumstances. FiggyBee 16:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the government might be considered the executive branch, and Tony Blair may be it's Prime Minister, it is still, officially Her Majesty's Government. Cyta 08:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever speaking of the Westminster system, there are always two answers to every such question: the de jure answer and the de facto answer. Even if we're speaking in de jure terms, I'm not sure why Charlene is making a distinction between the executive and the legislative branches. Technically, the Queen is the head of both the executive and the legislative branches. The Queen is the one who technically enacts legislation "with the advice and consent" of Parliament.

With regard to the original question, here in Canada that sort of thing happens all the time, at both the Provincial and Federal levels. For example, Paul Martin became PM upon the resignation of Jean Chretien and his party's election as replacement. Similarly Kim Campbell became leader upon the resignation of Brian Mulroney, as did John Turner upon the resignation of Pierre Trudeau. None of these new PMs came to power as a result of a general election. It would be interesting to note though, that in all three of these events, the new PMs' administrations were rather short lived. Perhaps this is unique to Canada, as John Major's Prime Ministership, which began in a similar fashion (upon the resignation of Margaret Thatcher but with no General Election) was a rather long and successful one. Lewis 02:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black death in Britain

I read on this page answers to a recent question which mentioned the impact of the Black death in Britain. I would be pleased for some more information on this subject. Thanks in advance. Janesimon 16:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May we recommend the Wiki articles Black Death and the Great Plague of London? If you then have specific questions that are not answered in these articles, we will do our best to provide answers here. Bielle 17:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with we know that in the period from 1348-50 the disease killed at least one third of the total poulation of the British Isles. To give you some idea of the relative impact, the population of London was reduced from 100,000 in 1300 to 40,000 in 1370. Many of the monkish chroniclers of the time bemoan the fact that they cannot get labourers to attend to the land. Some people, though not many, took up the Continental practice of public flagellation, as a penance for their sins, in the belief that the plague was a punishment sent by God. Much more common from 1350 onwards, in typically English fashion, was the practice of founding and joining religious guilds, which became early forms of mutual aid societies. The poet John Gower noted of the peasants, all too ready to take advantage of the acute labour shortage, that "they are sluggish, they are scarce, and they are grasping." In 1349 Parliament introduced the Ordinance of Labourers in a futile attempt to bring soaring wage-rates back under control. For more details on these trends see The Black Death in England by Mark Ormond and Philip Lindley, eds. Clio the Muse 07:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charge of the Light Brigade

How accurate is the traditional view of the Charge of the Light Brigade? General joffe 16:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The charge itself is generally well-documented and not factually disputed. Since I'm not sure what you mean by the "traditional view", why not just compare it with our article? — Lomn 17:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a child with an overactive imagination, I assumed that the "Light Brigade" was an infantry unit that wielded laser weapons. I was very disappointed with the traditional view. :( --TotoBaggins 18:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, you see, theirs was to reason why, and there is, indeed, another possible perspective on the famous charge, which tends to be completely overlooked: namely, that of the troopers themselves. It was not a question of blind obedience to an impossible order. Cardigan, commanding the Light Brigade, could very well have refused to obey for the simple reason that senior officers were expected to exercise wide discretion in interpreting orders that might have been based on out-of-date information. However, both Cardigan and Lord Lucan, his superior officer, were aware of serious discontent among the ranks, which could very well have had a direct bearing on their conduct that day.

There were two things uppermost in the troopers mind on the day of the Battle of Balaclava: cholera and Cossacks. Since September cholera had been cutting its way through the ranks, to such an extent that disease had become the main enemy, not the Russians. According to one officer: ...the men and officers are getting daily more disgusted with their fate. They do nothing but bury their comrades. They say loudly that they have not been brought out to fight, but to waste away and die in this country of cholera and fever. Those who died of disease could not, of course, expect any pensions to be paid to their dependants. The war, moreover, was beginning to settle down to one of siege and entrenchment, with little prospect for further cavalry action. In the end, far more men of the Light Brigade were to die of disease than in the Charge.

Unlike the men of the Heavy Brigade, the Light Brigade had seen no action. As a result they had been insulted both by the enemy Cossacks, and their own infantry, accused of being afraid of the Russian cavalry. One the day of the charge itself the Brigade had been close to mutiny because they had been ordered to hold back while the Cossacks killed Turkish soldiers attempting to surrender. It was the same Cossack units that had taken shelter behind the guns that Lord Raglan, the army commmander, had ordered them to attack. What is remarkable about that day is the number of men who disobediently joined the ranks after Lucan approved the order to attack, including one who was flogged for this afterwards. Also, if it was a question of merely obeying orders the men would have ridden at the regulation pace, but they did not; they rode too fast, and Cardigan was even placed in danger of being being ridden down as he tried to slow the pace. One man in the 13th Light Dragoons even shouted to a comrade "Come on; don't let those bastards [the 17th Lancers] get ahead of us." Some 500 of the Brigade galloped through the guns right into the Cossacks, who fled in panic, even shooting through their own ranks in their attempt to get to the rear. The whole of the Russian cavalry, 2000 strong, broke and fled. Raglans's order had been to hold some guns, effectively disobeyed by the Light Brigade in their eagerness to close with the Russians. It was magnificent; and it was war. Honour the Light Brigade/Noble six hundred! Clio the Muse 02:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked at the level of old-fashioned Russophobia exhibited in the above post. During the Crimean War, all Europe united to invade Russia (for the umpteenth time), but imperialist aggression is not a valid basis for national pride. We should learn to control our Schadenfreude. It is a nasty emotion in a civilised society. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure I have lots of 'nasty emotions', but Russophobia is not one of them. My intention was to present a novel interpretation, based on neglected evidence, of an episode in the Crimean War. I am sorry you do not like this, but, well, I shall just have to live with your disapproval. Might I suggest that you actually read the article on the Crimean War, which will, I think, serve to aid your understanding of the simple facts. All Europe, as you put it, consisted of Great Britain, France, the Kingdom of Sardinia and, of course, the Ottoman Empire. And as far as imperialist aggression is concerned, I rather thought the war was caused, in part, by the Russian invasion of Ottoman provinces in the Balkans. I am a historian, I try to think objectively, I am not interested in fighting crusades over damaged national pride. I am more than happy to leave that to you, Ghirla. Clio the Muse 12:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forget about the dubious stance of the Habsburg Empire. Contrary to your ideas about my editing history, I'm happy to report that I have never been interested in fighting crusades. As for the Crimean War articles, I like to think of myself as one of its authors. At least I'm responsible for Siege of Petropavlovsk, Siege of Kars and most of Battle of Eupatoria. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal immigrants and university scholarships

Is it in any way possible for an illegal immigrant to get admission to a private college or university in the United States? Do universities grant scholarships to illegal immigrants? In an episode of Morgan Spurlock's television show "30 Days" this is implied when a modern minuteman or a "border patriot" spends 30 days in a family of 9 illegal immigrants and the eldest daughter has aspirations of getting to Princeton on scholarship. (Eventually Princeton rejects her application, but according to the end credits, she is attending a college in Santa Clara, CA.). However, I have a hard time believing this, since I would imagine at least some form of identification, social security number, proof of citizenship/residency, or at least a student visa would be required before a person can be accepted and attend. However, I wasn't able to find any clear source to confirm this; could there be differences in state legislature etc? Thanks in advance to anyone who can clear it up for me. --Jaakonam 20:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If she succeeded in winning a scholarship at the college in Santa Clara, she may have temporarily returned to her country of residence to obtain a student visa. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal immigrants are generally free to attend any colleges or universities in the United States. There are of course some ways of verifying identity that do not rely on citizenship or immigration papers. Actually, the biggest issue here is the granting of in-state tuition for state universities; some states allow it, and others do not. It is my understanding that getting scholarships can be problematic for students who are undocumented, but I think they are allowed under some programs.--Pharos 21:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Princeton is a private school, I can't see why they would care about the immigration status of a qualified student; they're hardly in the business of immigration enforcement. I recently heard an interview with a kid who got a full ride to Marquette University (also private) despite being undocumented (his parents had moved here illegally when he was a young child). You might enjoy listening to it; it's on the public radio show The Story with Dick Gordon. Link to show. --TotoBaggins 16:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting points, everyone, thanks for these. But here's a follow-up based on your scenario, TotoBaggins: If a person supposedly aces all the requirements, is a desirable prospect for the university and, for example, would be lucky enough to get a full ride as a part of a minority quota, what happens after they graduate? They still would be undocumented, wouldn't they? Surely things would get tougher trying to find a job matching the newfangled education with just a diploma, but with no official papers, ID, etc.? Or is this the part where the employer's discretion is the deciding factor? --Jaakonam 21:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine you're right, and that that's a tough situation for the individual, but it's probably beyond the concern of college admissions officers whose only interest is in building the best student body they can. --TotoBaggins 02:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At some point you'd imagine they would apply for citizenship. If you have a degree from Princeton that's got to grease the wheels a bit. While you are student it is not hard to get a student visa so that's not a big problem, I don't think. --24.147.86.187 03:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian reactions to the rise of Islam

How was the advent of Islam viewed by Christendom in the early Middle Ages? Secret seven 20:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no uniform Christian view on the rise of Islam, which cannot be seen separate from the Muslim conquests. For example, in 638 the Christian population of Jerusalem, mainly Monophysites, welcomed the Muslim conquerors into the Holy City, the reason being that – unlike the Byzantine empire, who viewed them as heretics – the new rulers were not religiously oppressive. When Alexandria was (re)conquered in 646, the Copts there welcomed the Muslim conquerors for the same reason. The conquests were basically geo-political conflicts, not essentially different from wars between Christian states, and in such conflicts Christian parties happily forged alliances with Muslim parties if they thought this to be to their advantage. Inevitably, of course, Christian states under attack by the expanding Arab Empire and later the Ottoman Empire framed the conflict in religious terms, eventually leading to the Crusades. See the historical sections in the Crusades article for more information. This did not stop inter-Christian conflicts, and, for example, the ravages inflicted in the sack of Constantinople by fellow Christians during the Fourth Crusade were far and far worse than the damages resulting from the siege and conquest of Constantinople by Mehmed II. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not entirely certain that Monophysites, for one, welcomed their new Muslim overlords...sometimes they did and sometimes they didn't. I think there was some patriarch or other who both supported and opposed the conqust depending on who he was writing to. The Muslims weren't religiously oppressive but Christians did have to pay a much bigger tax than they did to their fellow Christian Byzantines. Further away from the frontiers, in Byzantium and elsewhere in Europe, and later in southern Europe when the Arabs began pillaging there too, Islam was at first seen as a strange Christian heresy (if they weren't Jews, or pagans, they must be Christian heretics!). By the time of the crusades that was still a common view, and the name Muhammad is almost always preceded by "pseudopropheta", "the false prophet". They realized that Islam claimed descent from Abraham, but an interesting Christian argument was that Muslims were illegitimate heirs because they claimed descent through Ishmael, Abraham's son through his slave-girl Hagar, and in medieval Christian law slaves could not inherit anything. But by then it was also dismissed as simply "paganism", "idolatry", etc etc. --Adam Bishop 01:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this I would particularly recommend The Cross and the Crescent: Christianity and Islam from Muhammad to the Reformation by Richard Fletcher. Among the earliest reactions to the sudden-and it was sudden-erruption of Islam into the Christian world was that it was a sign of divine punishment. This was certainly the view of Patriarch Sophrinius of Jerusalem, who surrendered the city to the victorious Muslim army in 638AD. We also have an early text, probably composed about this time, known as the Doctrina Jocobi-the Teaching of James-with references to a 'false prophet' who has appeared among the Arabs. "Do prophets come with sword and chariot", the text proceeds, "There is no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only bloodshed; for he says that he has the keys to paradise, which is incredible."

So, in short, Islam is an instrument of punishment, and Muhammad is the 'scourge of God', his followers men of violence and blood. It's rise, moreover, could only be explained in Biblical and theological terms. Any understanding of Islam as a 'new' religion was literally inconceivable. Those who were not Christian were either Jews-who had been offered the faith but rejected it-or they were pagans, who would one day all be converted. Beyond that were the deviants, those who had deliberately choosen the wrong path, and were duly labelled 'heretics', from the Greek word heresis, meaning choice. In terms of this model, as Adam has said, Muslims, amazing as it may sound now, were preceived as 'Christian heretics.' The Bible was also used to explain not just the religion, but the very ethnicity of the Arabs, again as Adam points out above. Isidore of Seville, a contemporary of Muhammad, wrote: "The Saracens live in the desert. They are also called Ishmaelites, as the book of Genesis teaches, because they are descended from Ishmael." The Ishmaelites, after their ancestor, were the wild men, the outsiders, against whom every man's hand would be turned. This was a view echoed across the Christian world. As far away as the monastery of Jarrow in north-east England, Bede was to write of the domination of Ismael's clan over the whole of North Africa and the greater part of Asia "...odious and hostile to all." These perceptions were to colour Christian opinion all the way to the eve of the Crusades. Clio the Muse 03:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another fun medieval Christian argument was that "Saracen" was derived from the Latin "Sara sine", "without Sarah", again referring to Islam's descent from Hagar and Ishmael. Naturally no one ever explains why Muslims would refer to themselves in Latin! Adam Bishop 03:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)~[reply]

And bad Latin at that. "Without Sara" would be "sine Sara". --Anon, May 18, 04:10 (UTC).

Latin word order is very variable. Vultur 02:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For many things, but not prepositions. --Anon, May 19, 03:37 (UTC).

I'd just like to point out in case anyone missed it that Clio misspelled "its" as "it's" in her reply. To me, this actually makes her excellent answers all the more impressive, as it shows that she is in fact human, and not the history-bot from the future that I had previously assumed "her" to be. Or else just a very sneaky history-bot. :) --TotoBaggins 02:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You get the million dollar virtual prize, Toto, for spoting the bot's intentional error. I am pleased to inform you that it is in the virtual post. Enjoy! Clio the Muse 02:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be just telling you stuff you know already, since it's very basic, but you should note that Christians had very little to go on in the early Middle Ages as far as Islam was concerned. The Qur'an wasn't translated into Latin until the 12th century, under Peter the Venerable, who subsequently published his "refutation" of the "Saracen heresy". From reading the article on Peter, he held the same opinion that Islam was a Christian heresy, not an independent religion (I refer to Adam's and Clio's answers above). There was also, apparently, little other information. In 1503, Ludovico di Varthema became the first non-Muslim European to enter Mecca as a pilgrim. Until that time, I assume they would have relied on a lot of invention for their understanding of the Muslim world. Unfortunately, I don't know any specifics. The Mad Echidna 17:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Ward's flat in Devonshire Mews

What number was it? - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the BBC website, Ward lived in Bryanston Mews and was charged with living off immoral earnings at his former flat 17 Wimpole Mews. Natalie West 23:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the Louisiana territory

This article tells me loads about the history about the Louisiana territory however nothing about the nature or surroundings.

The Louisiana Territory no longer exists. Normally we cover physical geography in articles about present-day political units. Articles on historical political units such as the Louisiana Territory generally cover the history of those territories only. For details of the geography of the former Louisiana Territory, you might try the articles on Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. Note that the Louisiana Territory did not include the portion of Louisiana east of the Mississippi and north of Lake Pontchartrain, the portion of Minnesota east of the Mississippi, the portions of Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado west of the Continental Divide, the portion of Colorado south of the Arkansas River, the panhandle of Oklahoma, or the southwestern corner of Kansas. Marco polo 01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]