Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 7

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.

April 7

Saints Lives

So, I know there are websites which collect texts, like the Internet Sacred Text Archive, Project Gutenberg, and Early Christian Writings. Is there anywhere where I could find something like these for Lives of Saints, or at least a list of Vitae and their authors? 138.192.86.254 (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Also; I know I mentioned Early Christian Writings, which has a few, but I'm looking for medieval saints, particularly the women. I have some names already, but I figure that I must be missing a lot. 138.192.86.254 (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My first google hit (search for list vitae saints –curriculum) came up with this: Hagiography Database WikiJedits (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's only the 8th-10th centuries, though, and very few women. 138.192.86.254 (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What is this Jimi Hendrix song

what ios the title of this song Play here [http://www.last.fm/music/Jimi+Hendrix/_/House+of+the+Rising+Sun ] i know it says its "House of the Rising Sun" but i cant find anything on wikipeda about jimi writing a song called "House of the Rising Sun" nor can i find any information on what album said song is from and if its not a Hendrix song who is the performer?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.108.39 (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hendrix certainly didn't write the song; our article states that it's a traditional and oft-covered folk tune. According to LastFM, it's from an extraordinarily (and I suspect mediocre) Hendrix 2-disc compilation called A Musical Legacy. I searched for it on Amazon and a couple other places and found nothing. The most interesting thing I did find was an article discussing stating how much garbage there is floating around out there Hendrix's name on it:

"WARNING WARNING WARNING: There are lots of records with Jimi Hendrix listed on the cover that aren't Jimi Hendrix records at all. Some are recordings he played on as a sideman for Curtis Knight or Little Richard in 1964-1965, songs like "Sweet Thing," "Gloomy Monday." There are many, many songs included on these records that Hendrix doesn't appear on at all ("Odd Ball," "Whoa Ech," "Hang On Sloopy," "House Of The Rising Sun")."

I'm not sure that's the case with the recording you linked to, but you can read more about Hendrix's vast recorded oeuvre here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Try House of the Rising Sun. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus in the Bible

Whatpercentage, roughly, of the Bible is quotes of Jesus? Direct quotes of hima talking? Is there a site that has a list of verses that are Jesus rather than Paul's letters or somebody else or whatever? Do the others in the Bible ever contradict Jesus' words? Thanks a lot 81.96.161.104 (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, by Bible, you mean the New Testament, right? Since he's not mentioned ever in the Old. Neal (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

Depends on whether or not you believe that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament, as some denominations do. I'm guessing the questioner is just talking New Testament, though. 01:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay, so it's clearly not what the authors of the Old Testament thought. But more of what the readers thought. Neal (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

Or you can believe that it is what God thought... What does this have to do with the question? Wrad (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Or you can believe that's what the authors thought God thought. Nothing. Neal (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

OK, the New Testament. But I'd quite like the stats including the Old testament, too. Christians use that with as much authority, but surely the teaching of Jesus overrule what camebefore him. Is this how it's treated? How much of Christian thought is directly derived from quotes of Jesus? 81.96.161.104 (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say all of the quotes of Jesus attributes to Christian thought. Neal (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

There are fairly widely-distributed Bibles that have words directly quoted from Jesus printed in red; why not just flip through one of those editions, and see directly how much of the New Testament is printed in red? AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Even there it's not clear-cut. Many red-letter Bibles (as they're called) also print the words attributed to Jesus in Revalation in red letters. Very chancy, that. And I'm not going near the attempt of the Jesus Project to guess which recorded words were really his! -- BPMullins | Talk 03:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are 181,253 words in the NT. That's a start... Christ's teachings do overrule what came before, for most Christians. I really don't know how to answer that last question. Do you mean percentag-wise? If you believe in direct revelation from God to his prophets, then the words of the prophets are the same as the words of God himself, because they were given to the Prophets directly from God. This makes these calculations tricky. Wrad (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand it's a difficult question. The percentage thing I only meant as a rough estimate of a figure, if anyone knows. If you assume that as Jesus was the last prophet, and was God Himself, then everything he said is really the final word. If someone who via direct revelation said something which Jesus later contradicts, Jesus is right every time. Taking this view, how consistent are Protestantism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy with the direct teachings of Christ? How much of Church law was decided later, conflicts with Jesus or is based on pre-Christ direct revelation? I hope that makes sense 81.96.161.104 (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There are only four books telling specifically of Jesus' life - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - and I would say no more than a third of them are actually Jesus quotes (and I'm being generous there). There are sporadic quotes through the rest of the new testament, but not much. I would *guess* (note - guess!) that the number wold be of a 1% sort of magnitude. Steewi (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying that Jesus is a "prophet" is actually more Muslim terminology than Christian... AnonMoos (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You could find one of those red letter Bibles, and just copy out the red bits. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is an online version: http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/JBPRed.htm. I think you can skip the Book of Revelation.  --Lambiam 18:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a program to grab a red-letter Bible from here and count up all the red bits, and got the numbers below. --Sean 19:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

NT                  Words             Characters
Total             190,791                965,223
Jesus              41,985 (22.0%)        210,678 (21.8%)

Mat                 Words             Characters
Total              25,073                126,317
Jesus              13,704 (54.7%)         69,605 (55.1%)

Mark                Words             Characters
Total              16,045                 80,323
Jesus               5,474 (34.1%)         27,591 (34.4%)

Luke                Words             Characters
Total              27,425                136,744
Jesus              12,482 (45.5%)         62,864 (46.0%)

John                Words             Characters
Total              20,180                 99,601
Jesus               8,121 (40.2%)         39,483 (39.6%)

Acts                Words             Characters
Total              25,732                131,598
Jesus                 489 ( 1.9%)          2,482 ( 1.9%)

Rev                 Words             Characters
Total              12,569                 62,683
Jesus               1,715 (13.6%)          8,653 (13.8%)

Here's the program in case anyone's interested. --Sean 19:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

use HTML::Parser ();
use strict;

sub commafy
{
    my $exp = shift;
    return scalar reverse join ',', grep /./, split /(...)/, reverse $exp;
}

my $in_jesus_talk;
my $in_verse;
my $prev_tag;
my $total_chars;
my $total_words;
my $jesus_chars = 0;
my $jesus_words = 0;

sub start
{
    my ($tag, $attr) = @_;
    if ($prev_tag = 'p' && $tag eq 'a' && $attr->{class}
        && $attr->{class} eq 'verse')
    {
        $in_verse = 1;
    }
    elsif ($in_verse && $tag eq 'font' && $attr->{color}
           && $attr->{color} eq 'red')
    {
        $in_jesus_talk = 1;
    }
    $prev_tag = $tag;
}

sub end
{
    my $tag = shift;
    if ($in_jesus_talk && $tag eq 'font')
    {
        $in_jesus_talk = 0;
    }
    elsif ($in_verse && $tag eq 'p')
    {
        $in_verse = 0;
    }
}

sub text
{
    my $text = shift;
    if ($in_verse)
    {
        $text =~ s/\s+/ /g;
        my $num_chars = length $text;
        my @num_words = split ' ', $text;
        my $num_words = @num_words;

        $total_chars += $num_chars;
        $total_words += $num_words;

        if ($in_jesus_talk)
        {
            $jesus_chars += $num_chars;
            $jesus_words += $num_words;
        }
    }
}

my $p = HTML::Parser->new( api_version => 3,
                           start_h => [\&start, "tagname, attr"],
                           end_h   => [\&end,   "tagname"],
                           text_h  => [\&text,  "text"]);
for (@ARGV)
{
    $p->parse_file($_);
}

exit unless $jesus_words;

printf "%-10s          Words             Characters\n"
     . "Total          %10s             %10s\n"
     . "Jesus          %10s (%4.1f%%)     %10s (%4.1f%%)\n\n",
     ucfirst($ENV{BOOK}), commafy($total_words), commafy($total_chars),
     commafy($jesus_words), 100 * $jesus_words/$total_words,
     commafy($jesus_chars), 100 * $jesus_chars/$total_chars;

Wow, Sean, thank you, that's incredible! If I knew anything about computer code I'd probably ask why you decided to do a specific thing but instead I'll just say thank you for your technowizardry! Nice one. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The red text in the Book of Revelation does not consist of words allegedly spoken by Jesus while on Earth. This is about what was revealed to the author in a vision: I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, ....  --Lambiam 07:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

US and free markets

The US is based on free-market principles and the overwhelming majority of politicians in America advocate free markets. How truthful is the American government to these stated economic beliefs? It seems to often advocate protectionist poices such as tariffs and obviously there's political funding from business. On a scale of 1 to 10, how free market is the US? 1 being China under Mao, and 10 being some insanely near-anarchistic libertarian skeleton government. Or even more extreme at each end, perhaps. Thanks in advance 81.96.161.104 (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The United States is based on a Mixed economy, comprising both free-market and social policies, which would put it at about a 5 to a 7 on your scale. While it was more of a free-market in the beginning, obvious problems arose such as Standard Oil, Company towns and government corruption like the Tammany Hall ring under Boss Tweed. This led to more regulation of business and government, plus the desire for more social programs on the part of many citizens.

The short version is that a pure free-market economy begets corruption and abuse of workers, so the US came to implement some regulation and social programs to help compensate, while keeping industry as free as possible. There's still debate as to what the proper balance is but, overall, it seems to have stabilized for the most part. -- Kesh (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There have certainly been tariffs since the beginning of the United States. The Hamilton tariff was the second statute ever enacted. Tariffs were a major issue in early American politics, the Tariff of 1828, so-called "Tariff of Abominations" being perhaps the most famous. For more see Tariff in American history. I don't think it is accurate to say the US government is "based" on free-market principles. Pfly (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps not based on free-market principles, but it certainly has "freedom of enterprise". How far has the US historically taken this freedom? 81.96.161.104 (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Standard Oil was about the best example of free enterprise (which went horribly wrong). They were allowed to take control over so many other oil companies that, by 1904, Standard Oil controlled 91% of the nation's oil production. It was only when folks realized they were entirely at the mercy of a single company for oil that regulators began clamping down on its monopolistic practices. -- Kesh (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Renewable energy

What countries have a very high rate of using renewable energy as a percentage of their energy consumption? 220.244.104.213 (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Renewable energy in Iceland provides for over 70% of their total usage. --Sean 13:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And according to this factsheet (which leaves off Iceland), Sweden, Finland, Austria and Portugal all top 10 per cent. It's EU data only. This page estimates 6 per cent of global energy use is renewables. WikiJedits (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Brazil uses a lot of biofuel from sugarcane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of poor countries use wood, charcoal, animal dung, etc. as the main domestic fuel source, and not exclusively in rural areas. Of course, this does not mean that the forests are harvested sustainably, but they are in theory renewable. Draft animals still plough the fields in Romania, on the edge of the European Union. People (mostly women) still hoe the fields by hand in Kenya. If by "energy" you mean "electricity", that is a different question. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! 220.244.104.4 (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Tibet and Palestine

Both regions have been occupied by an outside force, and their homelands have been deliberately flooded with foreigners in order to make them minorities in their own land... how come one of them is loved yet the other is hated? Why do the poor have to suffer for the rich?--Goon Noot (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Which one is loved and which one is hated? (Not everyone loves Tibet and not everyone hates Palestine, if that's what you mean.) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Some would say that any difference might be due to the fact that Tibetans don't make a habit of blowing up random Chinese women and children in suicide attacks in the streets and pizza parlors of Beijing and Shanghai... AnonMoos (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the main reason the Palestinians are loved while the Tibetan separatists are hated in China is because the Dalai Lama represents a feudal and religious system contrary to the Communist ideology - and his vision for a "Greater Tibet" would see one quarter of Chinese territory, including large portions of the historical Chinese heartland, divided from the rest of China and incorporated into an "autonomous" Greater Tibet.

By contrast, Palestine and China have given each other mutual support over the last 50 years, especially as both struggled to be recognised by the international community until China's admission to the UN in the 1970s.

Confused? It's all about perspective. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect many people (perhaps most) who cry "free Tibet" do not realizing they are supporting a feudal theocracy. I suppose it would be better than Chinese oppression, but it's still a little weird. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine that the Tibetans themselves understand. Almost any form of feudalism may very well be a more attractive option than rule by those gangsters in Beijing! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying "Free Tibet" is not the same thing as saying "Restore conditions in Tibet to exactly those that existed in 1950". I don't think that most of the Tibetans living in exile dream of restoring theocracy and feudalism to their homeland. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think AnonMoos' point is fair: the Palestinians have never rallied around a Ghandi, Martin Luther King or Dalai Lama who had the patience and courage to win through non-violence. Of course, the Dalai Lama seems unlikely to win anytime soon, but that's where the patience comes in. The Palestinians are certainly in a much better position for non-violence to succeed than the Tibetans are, due to Israel's dependent relationship with the liberal democracies. --Sean 13:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an important point, I think. To many Westerners, Tibet is seen as a peaceful nation being oppressed by a larger, more war-like nation. Palestine, on the other hand, is seen as a war-hungry nation attacking an ally that wants to be left alone in peace. Note that neither assumption is truly correct with regards to the situation, but the popular perceptions fall along those lines. -- Kesh (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

China is not a force external to Tibet, Chinese dynasties have controlled Tibet on-and-off for centuries and only lost control during the 'century of shame' when European Imperialists challenged the sovereignty of the Chinese Empire on every front. And in regards to modern settlement, there is very little active encouragement on behalf of the Beijing government to bring Han Chinese into Tibet, you could hardly call it 'being flooded'. 82.36.179.20 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Isidor?

Who is the Isidor that Goebbels was forever harping on about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes, I believe it (talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bernhard Weiss, the Jewish Berlin police chief (and not this Bernhard Weiss). Since most of the info on Google seems to come from the Institute for Historical Review and other such nonsense, I'll leave it to others to point you in a better direction! Adam Bishop (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, thanks. But why did he call him Isidor if his name was Bernhard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes, I believe it (talk • contribs) 07:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon further Googling, this book gives the reason ("Isidor" means "gift of Egypt" and the Jews came from Egypt, etc). Adam Bishop (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You only have to glance through the pages of Der Angriff to see just how relentless Joseph Goebbels' onslaught was on poor old Dr Weiss. And it was also highly effective, producing just the reaction that he wanted. The little Doctor, described by one of his own party comrades, as a 'poisonous dwarf', was the kind of man whose vile provocations were best ignored. But Weiss, a fairly typical example, in many ways, of the humourless Prussian bureaucrat, was forever taking him and Der Angriff to court over their merciless libels. In every case he was awarded damages and costs, just as the circulation of Der Angriff-and membership of the Berlin NSDAP-went up and up. On one occasion the paper published a cartoon by Hans Schweitzer-who went by the pen name of Mjölnir-in which Weiss is depicted as a donkey. Once again Goebbels was summoned to court, and once again found liable. The following day Der Angriff appeared with banner headlines-"JUDGE AGREES-ISIDOR DOES LOOK LIKE A DONKEY!." Indeed, a man best ignored. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tax Question (claiming a student)

Can I claim a half time student on my taxes?

How many hours must a student have to become deductible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatdrums (talk • contribs) 05:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't give legal advice... and you never told us what jurisdiction you were in. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the questioner is requesting clarification of tax rules rather than legal advice. It's likely that the questioner is in the United States, as the annual deadline for U.S. income tax forms is a week away, and his question is consistent with the language used in U.S. tax forms. The instructions for Form 1040 state that a student must have been full-time during some part of at least 5 calendar months during 2007 and must meet other qualifications to be claimed as a dependent on the basis of student status. However, if this person was a relative with a gross income of less than $3,400 and you provided most of the support for this person, then you may be able to claim the person as a dependent relative, provided that other qualifications are met. Have a look at the instructions and work through the various tests that it provides. Marco polo (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

..."What is the law" is legal advice... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. "What is the law on X" is a factual question about law. "Can I do X?" or "Can I get away with doing Y?" or "Should I do Z?" are asking for legal advice. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Chaucer and Boccacccio

What impact, if any, did Boccaccio have on Chaucer? Alisoun of Bath (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

From his visit to Italy in 1378 Chaucer brought back copies of Boccaccio's two great poems, Filostrato and Tesida, which he subsequently translated and paraphrased. Looking over the whole body of Chaucer's work it is possible to see just how profound Boccaccio's influence was. The themes used in Tesida appear in Anelida and Arcite, the Parlement of Foules, Troilus and Criseyde and The Knight's Tale. Filostrato also provides material for Troilus. The structure of the Canterbury Tales itself would seem to indicate that Boccaccio’s own Decameron cycle was also known to Chaucer. I would suggest, Alisoun, that if you have any more inquiries along these lines that you may care to consult The Life of Chaucer by Derek Pearsall (Blackwell, 1992). It's very good, if perhaps a little speculative at points. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Magda Goebbels

How much did Magda Goebbels know about the crimes of the Nazi regime? Did she kill herself for fear of retribution? It seems a strange thing for her to have done considering that none of the other senior Nazi wives did so. Did she ever explain why she and Goebbels decided to kill their children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes, I believe it (talk • contribs) 07:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Magda Goebbels was far more than the wife of Joseph Goebbels. For some years she was the Fist Lady of the Third Reich and was styled to be seen as an icon of Germanic woman- and motherhood. She and her family, in numerous news reels of the time, were depicted as Aryan demi-gods.

It seems that she was totally convinced of the superiority of the ideals of the era, of the "superhuman" heroic status of the Fuehrer and could not imagine a life for herself and her children after the collapse of Nazi-Germany. Strangely enough, Magda Goebbels was described as an emancipated, headstrong and intelligent woman.

Possibly, it is best compared to the self-sacrifice of deluded sect members who have lost all perception of an external reality. There is a fitting German term, "Kadavergehorsam", which has no semantic equivalent in English. Maybe this explains her decisions, maybe it does not. Like much of the Third Reich, this, too, will remain a mystery to me. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear to me, Cookatoo, why you should find it 'strange' that Magda was described as 'headstrong and intelligent'. You may not approve of her, but she was headstrong and intelligent, notwithstanding. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I should air the thought that Goebbels and the Hitlers were the only ones present in the Führerbunker - apart from the other staff. No other "senior Nazi wives" were present. Also, to note that several of those in the bunker had committed suicide, according to information from the russians. The bunker, and its atmosphere, are therefore not factors to be ignored. Without meaning to delve into a bizarre and unencyclopedic post-mortem psychoanalysis, it isn't unlikely that the confinement felt by each inhabitant played a role. 81.93.102.185 (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In many ways Magda Goebbels was the most intriguing woman who came to prominence during the Third Reich, with an odd amalgam of qualities; at once intimate and remote, knowable and unknown. You will find her at her most revealing in her correspondence with Ello Quandt, her one time sister-in-law and close friend. She certainly had knowledge of what was happening to the Jews because she continued be her husband’s most intimate confident. On one occasion she wrote to Ello, "It's terrible all the things he's telling me now. I simply can't bear it any more...You can't imagine the awful things he's tormenting me with...I'm not supposed to talk to anyone...He unloads everything on to me because it's getting too much for him." She later told Ello of the decision she and her husband had taken to kill themselves and all of their children. When the horrified Ello objected that she was guilty of no crime, Magda wrote back;

I was there, I believed in Hitler and Joseph Goebbels for long enough. I am part of the Third Reich that is now being destroyed. You don't understand my situation...what am I to do? If I stay alive, I will be arrested immediately and interrogated about Joseph. If I were to tell the truth, I would have to portray him as he was...I would have to describe what went on behind the scenes. Then any respectable person would turn from me in revulsion. Everyone would think that, since my husband was dead or in prison, I was now most terribly traducing the father of my six children. As far as the outside world is concerned I have lived by his side amidst brilliance and luxury, I have enjoyed all his power. As his wife I have stayed with him to the bitter end. No one would believe me if I said I had really stopped loving him, and...perhaps I still do love him, against my reason, in the face of all my experience with him. Regardless of what is behind me, Joseph is my husband, and I owe him loyalty, real loyalty...and comradeship beyond death. For that reason I could never say anything against him. After all this, after this plunge into the abyss, I could not do that!

When Ello asked about the children, Magda said that she would take them with her, 'because they are too beautiful and good for the world that's coming'. She also took comfort in notions of rebirth-"They won't die, none of us will die...we just go through an apparently dark portal into the next life." Clio the Muse (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Cookatoo, would "blind obedience" cover it? Julia Rossi (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but German does have blinder Gehorsam for blind obedience, while Kadavergehorsam adds the notion of complete self-abnegation and passivity. Glossary of German military terms defines it as "absolute duty and blind obedience till death." The term seems to have possibly originated in a misconception of the Latin translation of Ignacio de Loyola's Constitutions. In original Spanish, he compared the passive obedience to that of a cuerpo muerto, which can also mean an inanimate object, like an old man's staff which Ignacius even added as an example. The Latin translation "perinde ac si cadaver essent" led to the corpse-interpretation. Even WP's article has "well-disciplined like a corpse" as Ignatius put it" too.

The following is reported of Francis of Assisi:

One day he was sitting with his companions, when he began to groan and say: "There is hardly a monk upon earth who perfectly obeys his superior." His companions, much astonished, said: "Explain to us, father, what is perfect and supreme obedience." Then, comparing him who obeys to a corpse, he replied: "Take a dead body, and put it where you will, it will make no resistance; when it is in one place it will not murmur, when you take it away - 261 - from there it will not object; put it in a pulpit, it will not look up but down; wrap it in purple, it will only be doubly pale." (Paul Sabatier and Louise Seymour Houghton, Life of St. Francis of Assisi). ---Sluzzelin talk 12:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So, not just obedience to the death, but obedience of the dead sort of thing. Being like a dead subject is quite an idea. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Arabic has a term Taqlid تقليد which is similarly hard to translate exactly into English (though it doesn't exactly mean "obedience"); the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic gives "blind unquestioning adoption of concepts or ideas, uncritical faith"... AnonMoos (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

James Watt’s date of death

Hello, historians. We have a conundrum about when exactly James Watt died. Some sources say 19 August 1819, others say 25 August 1819. Is there any material out there that will settle this? I don’t want yet another highly reputable source that simply gives one or other date without explaining why it’s accurate. I want, for example, a report of his death that was published before 25 August 1819 – this, if it exists, would prove he couldn’t have died on 25 August and would be very strong evidence that 19 August is correct. Or whatever incontrovertible evidence there is for either date. Over to you. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the ODNB has the date of death 25 August. His will was proved 13 October. The dates will be a matter of record, so you might contact the Public Record Office to find out how to get a copy of the death record. That'll be evidence enough for most people. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The book "James Watt: An Oration Delivered in the University of Glasgow on the..." by William Thomson Kelvin(1901) says (p3) "19th August, 1819." It is not quite the contemporary source you sought, but not one to be quickly dismissed. From 1819, there is "The Annals of Philosophy" by Richard Phillips, [1] which says August 25. It quotes the Birmingham Gazette of August 30, 1819. "The Gentleman's Magazine (p275) from 1819 says August 25. It is always possible that one erroneous report could have been parroted by succeeding magazines. Edison (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh indeed, Edison. Obviously, whichever date is the correct one, the other one got in there through some error, and it's been repeated ad nauseam. This was much more possible in the pre-internet era when there wasn't a capacity to quickly check facts like this. Those relying on secondary sources would have to assume that if the limited number of sources they had happened to be in agreement, they'd all corroborate each other. They'd never even know if they were all wrong, which is a shame. Still, it's fascinating to find cases like this, where there seem two schools of thought who seem oblivious of the existence of the other. Surely, the interested parties on James Watt's WP talk page can't be the first people to have ever noticed this discrepancy between sources - it's not as if James Watt is exactly a minor footnote of history - and it's odd that some industrious soul has not only established the true date but also explicitly debunked the other date by explaining how it entered the record. Maybe it's out there somewhere, but I haven't tracked it down yet. Thanks for the replies so far; they're interesting but they don't prove either date correct. If anything, they seem to perpetuate the discrepancy. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the Times Digital Archive and I have his obit which states 25 August. I'll post a snippet to the talk page. Jooler (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jooler, I've responded at Talk:James Watt#Date of death. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All the sources I have seen, including some contemporary obituries, give 25 August as the date of his death, which I think is fairly conclusive. I can only guess where the other date came from, perhaps some confusion with his birth date (19 January)? Clio the Muse (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And 1819. Online sources that have 19 August include BBC.co.uk and MSN Encarta.  --Lambiam 09:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The magazines of 1819 said Aug 25 and cited the Birmingham Gazette of August 30, 1819. If he had died on the 19th, why would the Birmingham Gazette have waited until the 30th to write it up? Was it a weekly? When did the 19th first appear as a claimed date of death? It's not as if they found his remains in an isolated cabin and had to infer the date of death. Edison (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess communications in those days were a little slower than they are these days. Eleven days may not have been unusual between death and obituary, for a non-metropolitan journal. Even these days, papers often publish obits of people who died weeks or even months ago. Watt may have been out of the public limelight for some years prior to his death - just speculating here. I have no idea when 19 August first appeared in the literature but, as you discovered, it was at least as far back as 1901. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Late thought. I've been wondering if it's possible that he really did die on the 19th and was buried on the 25th, and the original obit writer mixed up the date. How would we check that out? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, then, Jack, here below is the opening paragraph of an obituary headed The Late Mr Watt, and published by The Scotsman, the main Scottish daily, on page five of the edition for 4 September 1819:

Death is still busy in our high places:-And it is with great pain that we find ourselves called upon so soon after the death of Mr Playfair, to record the decease of another of our illustrious countrymen,-and one to whom mankind has been still more largely indebted. Mr James Watt, the great improver of the steam-engine, died on the 25 ult.[ultimo], at his seat of Heathfield, near Birmingham, in the 84th year of his age.

You can call the page up on The Scotsman's digital archive, though at a price, I'm sorry to say!

This date is repeated in Watt's entry in The Scottish Nation, a three volume biographical dictionary published in 1868, where it says on page 199;

Mr Watt died at his residence, on his estate at Heathfield, near Soho, August 25 1819, at the age of eighty-three years and seven months, and was interred in the chancel of the adjoining parish church of Handsworth...

James Watt: Craftsman and Engineer, a scholarly monograph by H. W. Dickinson, published in 1936, likewise gives the date of death as 25 August with burial following on 2 September at Handsworth. The earliest I have been able to trace the erroneous 19 August date-and it is erroneous- is to James Watt by William Jacks, a rather light-weight work, published in Glasgow in 1901.

I'll post all of this also on the James Watt talk page. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks greatly, Clio. I've updated the article with the correct date. It had been wrong ever since its inception on (you guessed it) 25 August 2006. I'm rather surprised it took till less than 2 years ago to create an article on this important scientific and eponymous figure, but there you go. Do we have a list of world-famous people for whom we don't yet have articles? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethical food?

A kind person on this desk recently pointed me towards an article in the Economist which made very interesting reading. It attempted to debunk three commonly held truisms of the environmental/eco-friendly movement, all relating to food: organic, fairtrade and local. I would be very interested to know what arguments the environmental movement might put forward to counter the following points made in the article (I'm paraphrasing):

• Organic farming methods are less environmentally friendly than conventional intensive methods. Farming is inherently bad for the environment, since cultivation leads to deforestation. Organic methods require a far greater area of land to be cultivated, hence are more damaging to the rainforest.

• Fairtrade food lowers, rather than raises, the income of poor farmers. Because Fairtrade commodities are sold at an artificially high price, farmers are encouraged to produce more of them. In turn, this depresses the price.

• Food produced close to the point of sale is heavier on carbon emissions than food produced far away from the point of sale. It is more energy efficient to move food around the place in big lorries than it is for consumers to buy their food locally, since the sum total of the lorries' energy consumption is less than that of consumers in driving to the shops. The difference in energy consumption is even greater if one takes the energy used in producing the food into account as well. Producing lamb in New Zealand and shipping it to Britain, for example, uses less energy overall than producing lamb in Britain.

Many thanks, Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The tricky thing about these arguments is their vague and generalising language. In the first, there've been some experiments in Victoria (Aust) to combine farming and re-forestation that claim to be working; "a far greater area of land" so it's a matter of commitment to change – does it necessarily impinge on/damage rainforest specifically? unless the said rainforest is in direct competition/under threat, to me it sounds a bit like rhetoric. The second brings up the Fair trade debate where it's argued that the ones suffering are the non-fair trade farmers which makes sense. Eg, the non-ft farmers remain poor since they are excluded from certain markets, options and practices. In the third, the people driving to market are going to be driving somewhere they might as well drive to one (produce market) as to the other (shops) though it could hurt the trucking industry. And the option of producing lamb in Britain – is that as well as lamb in NZ? or is it just putting the burden of production at a distance. Since the amount would be about the same, does it matter where it is carried out? unless it hurts the freight industry. It's almost a centralisation (monopoly) versus diversity (choice) debate – that was fun, Julia Rossi (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I like buying locally-produced meat because I've seen the critters running around and feel confident that they've had a decent life which does not utterly ignore their natural instincts. The certainly-more-efficient centralized factory farm is an affront to the conscience. I don't really care where my veggies come from. --Sean 13:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Briefly, the three arguments you present take three questionable aspects of organic farming, and ignore all others; hardly a useful way to go forwards.

• Your rainforest argument applies only where there are rainforests, and hence does not apply to all other places that are settled agricultural production areas. The argument that organic method produce less produce per unit area can always be made; in general, efficiency is good and organic will tend to be less efficient per unit area. However there are a substantial set of arguments for organic which as yet arr not factored into this, such as land exhaustion, fertiliser runoff, chemical residue in end product, &c.
• The fairtrade argument illustrates a risk associated with intervening in markets: markets have a way of acting against the intervention. However it ignores a range of factors, and makes other possibly unwarranted assumptions. Examples: it may take some time - years - for the price to come down as a result of new entrants to the market, during which time the premium is enjoyed. It may not be that the price comes down at all, since in the time that producers have moved from non-organic to organic, demand may have risen, or the substitution effect may just be too small to influence pricing.
• The way in which you have phrased the third point, at best, confuses two issues. The first half of your paragraph implies that it is more efficient for one lorry to travel from A to B, than for 200 cars to travel from B to A. Which might indeed be the case, but is besides the point ... we are not about to drive to NZ to get out lambs. The second half is more familiar, though I doubt it applies to lambs, which in the UK get scant energy input other than through sunlight & grass. A better example might be produce in hothouses in the UK versus flying in produce from a hot country, where you are looking at the difference between the heating cost and the transport cost. Clearly there will be examples on both sides.

In sum, the arguments fall short of a demolition of the organic / fairtrade movement. They illustrate areas where the impact of organics / fairtrade may not be positive, but as they fall short of a complete impact assessment, they represent no more than cherry-picking. They may be used, but only dishonestly - to make a bigger case against organics & fairtrade. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

See Sophism. Edison (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fairtrade food has always been a personal concern of mine. The way it conducts business is, while not necessarily unfair, at least a little off. It encourages farmers to grow products which have low profit margins and a vast number of growers, thus, as you said, driving the price down even lower. Although they pay more, they simply charge more to cover this shortfall and the profit made by companies in the process is near-identical with non-Fairtrade food. Fairtrade is, realistically speaking, a luxury that Westerners are able to afford and enjoy becuase it makes it feel like they are helping, when in fact the investment in the low-returns agricultural sector hampers economic development. And then, in the UK at least, there's the issue of local farmers whose prices are driven down by huge supermarkets but who do not have a Fairtrade organisation to protect theor prices. The Fairtrade movement is similar to protectionism, in my opinion, and in reality it sustains an economic unfreedom by hindering the advancement of freer markets. All of these arguments end up being highly political. I support the moral cause of Fairtrade, but I think it is a poor piece of short-term thinking.

Organic food is another of my gripes, simply because it is produced in order to con people into the idea that they are tasting "real" food. Often organic farmers suffer heavy losses due to their inability to use pesticisdes and occasionally even medicine on their crops and animals. But if people want to pay a heavy premium for almost identical food then go ahead.

I really think that most environmentalist causes (notice most) in the West these days are simply the result of a desire to be seen 'helping the earth' or 'giving back'. Many of the causes groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth endorse they appearto have little actual knowledge of. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[2] This is the article if anyone wants to read it, although you'll need a subscription to the Economist to read the whole thing. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Economist's three claims summarised above are, quite frankly, absolute nonsense. They bear little relation to objective journalism or a desire to engage with the subject. Rather, it reeks of propoganda: a simple message repeated frequently enough until people believe it. "I read somewhere that organics and fairtrade is wrong..." etc. Of course, the RD is not somewhere to engage in debate, but it is somewhere to investigate facts and consider resources. Of necessity, the answers are brief, but I hope indicate the issues are not simple.

1. The argument against organics gets emotive by bringing up the "rainforest" argument. This ignores two factors: first, deforestation alone is a poor measure of environmental effect. We need to consider the use of pesticides, fertilisers, intensive farming methods, routine administration of antibiotics, growth enhancers, battery farming and so forth. Secondly, it presupposes that farmers approach agriculture from a "I need to grow two hundred cabbages" standpoint, and will clear the land they need for that. In fact, they look at their land and decide what they can do with it. Intensive farmers want to maximise stocking/planting, and will clear "unproductive" land. Organic (and other ethical/traditional) farmers want sustainable farming; they re-introduce hedgerows, meadows, forestation to improve natural pest control, reduce fertiliser use, and for erosion management. Organic farming may take up more space, yes, but has less overall impact. For example, organic cotton growers in India now grow legumes between cotton plants: the cotton yield is down, but they now have a secondary harvest, and there is no longer the massive pesticide run-off into local waterways (which was casuing poisoning of both people and land). The argument that produce must be maximised from minimum land to feed the starving world is nonsense, as I shall discuss below.
2. Fair trade is not about artificially inflating prices, but preventing artificial depression of prices. In effect, it is applying the concept of a "minimum wage", which is present in most Western countries. If tea costs X to produce when we pay tea-pickers a decent salary, then that is what we as consumers should pay. If we want clothes, we should not be subjecting workers to slave-like conditions in sweatshops, but paying workers a decent wage. To argue that it encourages everyone to grow lots of coffee is rubbish. Check out, for example, www.fairtrade.org.uk ; the aim is that all products, all foods are certified. In other words, whatever we buy should be bought at a fair price. Fair trade debate is worth reading as is the Fairtrade Foundation's FAQs. The system might not be perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than what we've got otherwise: a wage and subsidy protected western world, with a free-for-all in the third world.
3. There is a case to be made for flying in sun-grown tomatoes in preference to buying hot-house tomatoes in Norway, but once again energy-use cannot be the sole criteria for considering trade impacts. Buying locally is a responsible act. We can ensure food is grown or raised to our moral/philosophical criteria, and we support our local economy. There is little comfort in importing onions if our local ex-onion growers and pickers are now sitting at home claiming the unemployment benefit. The Economist writer needed to get out and investigate his own little world (the UK). What environmental or ethical or financial kudos is there in buying cheap imported meat when local farmers are shooting male calves at birth because they're not worth rearing, or market gardeners are having their entire year's (contracted) harvest returned (unpaid for) by the supermarket chain because it's surplus to requirements? That is not empty rhetoric; been there, seen both. Fields are lying fallow in Britain, farmers are forced to "diversify" (ie run a second, non-agricultural, business), and the EU are growing beet sugar and dumping it in the third world, while importing the depressed-price better-quality cane sugar. Buying locally introduces accountability. Gwinva (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to address your point about the environmental impact because I don't know enough to comment. Fairtrade IS artifically inflating prices. Sort of. People are freely willing to pay the extra here to 'help out', but this is based on poor assumptions that Fairtrade will actually help. It certainly does not establish a minimum wage in the farms that grow it as there is no guaranteed price for the farmers, just a fair one. But this means that people who farm the 4 main products Fairtrade applies to (bananas, cocoa, coffee and tea) will all switch to Fairtrade, thus making the higher prices unsustainable as Fairtrade-certified brands start to compete with each other. Incentivising farmers into growing high export crops for a pittance when there may be developing industrial jobs in a city or something with more potenial for economic development than banana farming. There are already huge established world 'centres' of all these crops. The location is often part of the sale. Economically they need major industrial and educational development, for which they will only have the money if their economies develop.

You may disagreee with some of my conclusions as it is all theoretical. As I said, I support the overall 'helping' agenda of Fairtrade, I just think that Fairtrade is a short-sighted way to avoid the issue and it will at best not help. Your final point about the support of local business is purely sentimental and is, ironically, economically terrible for the farmers 'supported' by Fairtrade. The point of a global market is that it makes it possible for people to trade around the world, freely spreading human wealth, as has happebed slowly but steadily throughout the past century or two. Buying local produce is commendable in that you are indeed helping a local business ut at the same time, if that business needs'pity-help' then perhaps it is uncompetitive and not worth helping? I don't really care too much about local produce, to be honest. It's good when it's cheap but there's a tendency for it to be really expensive now as it's become trendy (that's the market at work for you!). Oh and, to be controversial, here's an article I found about why sweatshops are good, or at least better than the alternative [3]. I've read a few studies that claim the same thing, but I still think if there's labour anywhere, especially if regulated by an enormous global corporation, it should be safe and (relative to local income) well-paid. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Then let's all pat ourselves on the back for our kindness in inventing sweatshops. And, while we're at it, whack everyone across the head, since that's better than shooting them. Sweatshops are better than starving in a ditch, yes, but not as good as a good wage in a good business. Forcing sweatshops to close is not the answer; providing better workplaces is. I'm not going to get into a debate, but let's not hide the truth. Companies don't run sweatshops for the good of their employees, but for their own profit. Buy what you want, but don't kid yourself you're doing it to make someone else's life better. If you believe in survival of the fittest, then say that, and don't try and clothe it in pseudo-ethical niceness. I'd have more respect for that view (or any other) if it was intellectually and philosophically rigorous, rather than weaselly clap-trap or emotive rhetoric. (That's a generic "you" not you specifically, 81.96; this was inspired by that link, not your thoughts) Gwinva (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing I (and i've just read that small bit and decided to add "or the Economist") wrote endorsed sweatshops. I just found the article an illuminating way of illustrating a point. Even though we may not like it, bad working conditions and poor pay ARE the first steps towards true economic development. The main key is to ensure philantropic/governmental distrubusion of commercial wealth as soon as possible, building schools and hospitals and ways of ensuring the region will develop and continue to compete. Your argument is far more emotive: "poor conditions are bad because they're demeaning". This much is true, and as I said, "I still think if there's labour anywhere...it should be safe and (relative to local income) well-paid", as this ensures global development. However, the fact is that low wages represent the real market value of labour in the "Third world", as local demand for the jobs is huge. The amounts of money paid, while pittances, are not as bad as 50p and hour would be here, and will eventually be redistributed in the local economy, building service industries and infrastructure. I respect your point, but there are published papers that suggest that sweatshops overseas are better than keeping the labour in the West. Of course sweatshops aren't run for the good of their employees, they're run for the good of the consumer. Obviously as the human rights of the consumer are rarely violated and the employee's are at serious risk, and we are at least indirectly responsible for these sweatshops, we wish to get rid of them. But the low wages are, unfortunately, fair, and will lead to economic development, especially in the case of overseas investment. We forget that working conditions in the West were once at the very least as appalling, and that it is perhaps a natural stage in industrialisation and thus social and economic development. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

John Locke's Theories of Government

John Locke's political theories now have a wide base of support, both on the left and the right. But he was at one time a highly controversial figure. His theories on the sovereignty of the people and representative government must have been a cause of concern to the English political establishment, especially at the time of the French Revolution. I assume there must have been some published rebuttals to his work, and would be interested to know what they are? Does Edmund Burke, for example, have anything to say about him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.0.62 (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the extreme pro-slavery defenders in the American South in the 1850's, such as George Fitzhugh, were anti-Lockeans... AnonMoos (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right to suggest, 81.156, that Locke's political theories began to alarm the English political establishment at the time of the French Revolution, and prior to this in the American Revolution, though for a good bit of the eighteenth century he had, so to say, been 'tamed' and 'domesticated.' But as radical times demand radical ideas, so Locke was rescued from a wooly consensus and revivified as a champion of liberty. In a debate in the House of Commons in 1776, John Wilkes recited from Two Treatises of Government, demanding 'fair and equal representation.' In the 1790s Thomas Erskine, a radical Scottish lawyer, drew on the Second Treatise in his arguments for universal manhood suffrage. Locke also underpinned some of the great political testaments of the day, including Joseph Priestly's Essay on the First Principles of Government and Richard Price's On the Nature of Civil Liberty. His thought was also reinterpreted in a crypto-socialist light, in such works as The Real Rights of Man by Thomas Spence and the Complaint of the Poor People of England by George Dyer.

Given all this it comes as no surprise that there was a conservative back-lash, which grew steadily in intensity. It really begins with Josiah Tucker's The Notions of Mr Locke and his Followers, extended and republished in the 1780s as the Treatise Concerning Civil Government. Like a dog in pursuit of a bone, dear old Josiah simply refused to let go, later publishing The Evil Consequences Arising from the Propagation of Mr Locke's Democratic Principles. Phew!

And so it went on. Edmund Burke himself makes no mention of Locke in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, though others made good his omission. Writing in 1798 William Jones described Locke as '...the oracle of those who began and conducted the American Revolution, which led to the French Revolution; which will lead (unless God and his mercy interfere) to the total overthrow of religion and government in this kingdom, perhaps the whole Christian world.'

As the Counter-Enlightenment progressed Locke's portrait was taken down from the hall of his old college, Christ Church in Oxford, from whence he had been expelled by order of Charles II in 1684. The Monthly Repository, a dissenting journal, lamented that this was 'Locke's second expulsion from Oxford.' Clio the Muse (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip Mannes in Theresienstadt

I have been looking here for an article on the work of Philip Mannes in Theresienstadt, but there does not seem to be anything. Can someone please help me with some more detail on his life and death. Sincere thanks. David Nelken (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

German Wikipedia has an article. Philipp Manes, born in Elberfeld in 1875, was a Jewish fur trader in Berlin. After his four children had managed to escape Nazi persecution and leave Germany in time, he started keeping a diary in 1939, describing his life in Berlin under Nazi oppression. In 1941, he was forced to labour as a drill operator in a factory; he mentioned, not without satisfaction, that as a 67-year old he still was able to fulfil the required daily units of piecework. On 21 July 1942 Manes and his wife were forced to clear their apartment in the Potsdamer Straße 27. They were transported to the Theresienstadt concentration camp, where Manes continued to write his diary.

Manes organized the Orientierungsdienst ("orientation service") in Theresienstadt, looking for confused or deranged (usually elderly) inmates and returning them to their assigned "Ubikation" (a k.u.k. word for barracks). Manes also wrote about how he tried to maintain a rich cultural program under the most adverse conditions; 500 organized events including a dramatic reading of Goethe's Faust, a performance of Mendelssohn's Elias, and a lecture by Leo Baeck. Manes's Theresienstadt diary ends in mid-sentence. The so-called final train leaving Theresienstadt brought the couple to Auschwitz where they were murdered sometime around late October 1944.

The manuscript of Manes's diary was kept hidden by Lies Klernich, an inmate in Theresienstadt, and made its way to his daughter in England, who tried to get it published, for a long time without success. The manuscript can now be found in the Wiener Library in London. Ullstein-Verlag brought out an edited version, including a long introductory chapter, numerous comments, and a comprehensive biographical appendix including data on many inmates, some of them famous. (Als ob's ein Leben wär - Tatsachenbericht Theresienstadt 1942-1944 Klaus Leist, Ben Barkow (editors), ISBN 9783550076107) ---Sluzzelin talk 12:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As part of his cultural programme, Manes organised a poetry competition in the autumn of 1942, which attracted some two hundred entries, including-fascinatingly enough-work by Georg Kafka, a distant cousin of Franz Kafka, and Otto Brod, the brother of Max Brod, Franz Kafka's friend and biographer. Manes described Georg Kafka as 'the hope for the future.' He died in 1944 aged twenty-three. The Orientation Service itself was finally closed down in February 1944. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Schapelle

Are there any other Schapelles in the world than Schapelle Crow (excuse me, I said "Crow" instead of "Corby" because those words are synonyms)? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 11:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's unlikely to be a unique name. A Google search for "Schapelle -corby -drug -smuggling" turns up a rugby union player. [4] AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I strongly suspect that Schapelle and Chewbacca are not their actual legal names, but latter-day nicknames. I really can't imagine any Australian males, particularly footy players, being called "Schapelle". It sounds ... well, too girly. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

FBI Archives on the Communist Party USA

Where can I find FBI Archives on the Communist Party USA? --Gary123 (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Here? WikiJedits (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

what language did the builders of Stonehenge speak?

With Stonehenge in the news lately, I've been wondering what language its builders would have spoken. The time periods are (1) 3100-3000 BC for the banks and timber structures (2) 2600-1900 BC for the various stone circles (I think it is too early to be Celtic?) Been searching around our articles on proto language and I must be missing what I'm looking for. Much appreciate pointers and help. Feel free to move this to language desk if appropriate – I wasn't sure where to put it. WikiJedits (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If it was non-Indo-European, then we simply don't know anything at all about it. See Windmill Hill culture for the general term... AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, before the Celts were in Britain, the Picts were there. There is some evidence that Pictish was a Semitic language, or at least of North African origin, but evidence of their language is extremely scant, so it is not certain. Better asking on the Language HelpDesk about this. --ChokinBako (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the nature of the Pictish language is extremely disputed, it's not much help to attempt to illuminate other even-less-known languages by comparing them to Pictish -- and it's a large speculative leap (almost pure guesswork) to assume that there was any definite relationship between a language spoken in the north of Scotland after 500 A.D. and whatever languages were spoken in the south of England before 2000 B.C... AnonMoos (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So far as I understand the conventional paleolinguistics take on things, they'd have Celtic languages arrive in Britain and Ireland 1st millennium BC. The intro to Celtic languages is representative. But just like the spread of Indo-European languages, not everyone agrees. Venceslas Kruta, hardly a controversialist, says:

The origins of the Celtic peopling of Ireland, the origins of which have often been sought in continental Halstattian or La Tène migrations, must today be pushed back to a significantly earlier date, probably around the last centuries of the 3rd millennium BC ... [Kruta, Les Celtes, p. 685]

Fair enough, that's well after Stonehenge, but not unthinkably long when the figures on offer are of the order of 2700 to 4500 years ago. This kind of thing should be distinguished from nuttiness such as Basque- or Semitic-speaking Picts (or Germanic-speaking Orcadians, always room for more bizarreness). Wikipedia's coverage of these things seems to be one-sided, representing the views of [most] paleolinguists plus a passing mention of all the crankiness. "Migrating pottery" &c: the one place where we can be fairly sure a Celtic language was ubiquitous, Ireland, is lacking evidence of La Tène "culture".

Who can say? Paleolinguistics is of doubtful reliability, archaeology says nothing about the languages people spoke, and genetic research will not help. Anyone who says they know what language, or even whether it was Indo-European or something else, it was that the builders of Stonehenge spoke is kidding you or, rather more likely, kidding themselves. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Angus McLellan is of course quite right that we don't know what language the builders of Stonehenge spoke. While the builders of the earliest precursor of the megalithic structures that still stand were associated with the Windmill Hill culture, the famous megaliths were most likely put in place by the Beaker people. Again, we do not know their language. Some speculate that they spoke an early precursor of the Celtic languages. This source makes an interesting argument that the Beaker people preceded the Celts in Britain and other parts of northern Europe and that the Beaker people may have spoken another, no longer extant, Indo-European language group. Marco polo (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for the info, comments, links and help! 207.134.250.140 (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If they dropped one of the stones on their foot the language would be unprintable!--Artjo (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking for History and or Pictures of Covered Bridge at Frogtown Road on the Pequea Creek

Ever since purchasing my home in 1994, I have been facinated , and curious about the prior owners and the covered bridge that once stood only a few feet from my home. This area is steeped in historical events and structures. I recently received from one of my neighbors, a book, which contains all the previous owners of my home, dating back to when William Penn was given the property. I was checking out information regarding the previous owners of my historical home located on Pequea Creek and Frogtown Road, Pequea, Pa. 17565. I noticed the listing of all the Covered Bridges and the way they were numbered. In the book, it mentions that there once stood a covered bridge, where now stands a steel/concrete bridge. I have visited the local Historical Societies, and asked many of the neighbors if maybe one of their older relatives had photos of knowledge of this bridge. This has not been successful.

I am a amateuer artist and would like to paint my house and this covered bridge historically correct. To do this, I would ultimately like pictures, or the knowledge of what type of bridge that may now exist that I could visit and take my own photos. I was told that this covered bridge existed up to 1938, when a flood took this downstream about 1.5 miles downstream below Loop Road on a farm owned by the Hess family. I was told that Mr. Hess asked if the township wanted it back, the township replied,no they would replace this with a steel bridge. Rumor has it that the rememants were used to built a chicken house. Hopefully there maybe someone that may have pictures by there parents or grandparents that could shed some light as to what this once looked like. My location is very picturesque, it would be very hard to believe that someone doesn't have a photo of this pre-1938.

I am also looking for articles to do with the Aston(Ben & Walter) family that lived in my home. There are articles written court trial,and outcome about the Murder of Alfred Hallman (Feb 6,1909).

Thank you for any assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobrah (talk • contribs) 15:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You say that you have visited historical societies, but have you fully searched the collection of the Lancaster County Historical Society? They apparently have over 10,000 photographs. Perhaps one documents the bridge. They also have archives of county newspapers. Finally, for information about the family that inhabited your house, you might explore the census records detailing names and occupations of family members. These records are kept by the National Archives. Marco polo (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone at the Lancaster County Engineer's office may be able to help you find more information on the bridge. Ask to speak with the guy who's interested in old covered bridges—I'd be surprised if no one in the office answers to that description. —Kevin Myers 18:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fami;y Law Act

This message is for Albertans only. Can anyone tell me is there a bad side to the Family Law Act in this province?Jwking (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why Albertans only? -- Kesh (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Constructing the nation

It's generally held that nationalism and the nation state date no further back than the late eighteenth century, to the period of the French Revolution. Is this really true? Can a phenomenon as complex as nationalism make an appearance literally overnight? There must surely be some antecedents? Your help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marilyn Struthers (talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure someone like Clio can offer a better explanation, but in my layman's understanding: Nationalism means taking one's country as an important aspect of their person or belief system. Up until the late 1700's, most folks were primarily concerned with smaller regions that had a direct impact on themselves. One's kingdom or colony was about as far as their concern went. Nearing the end of the 18th century, communications and travel made the actions and impact of foreign nations much more broadly felt to the individual, making inter-nation conflict something the average citizen could relate to in a more immediate manner. See Nationalism#Origins for a bit more detail on the theories behind this. -- Kesh (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Alas, there is no one like Clio. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Aww, shucks, folks! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've always considered it slightly strange, Marilyn, that the nation state, nationalism itself, seems to have arisen with such historical suddenness, a little like Pallas Athena from the head of Zeus, with no roots or genealogy; a bastard creation, it might be said, of the Industrial and the French Revolutions. But the First French Republic, the prototype of the modern nation state, had to draw into the past for its own sources of inspiration; to the republican communes of Medieval Europe, and back through them to the forms of patriotism, solidarity and civic pride found in Republican Rome and the ancient Greek polis.

There is also a second tradition, no less important, of the seventeenth-century Protestant commonwealths; of England, of Scotland, of the Netherlands and of the Swiss city states, whose people, like new Israelites, were considered to be united by God's Covenant. It was this sense of uniqueness, of being the chosen and the elect, which gave rise to the desire for ever closer forms of unity and identity, the very earliest forms of religious and cultural nationalism. It was these revolutionary principles, of civic identity and religious ideology, which helped overturn the established hierarchies of trans-national empires, of the church and of the state.

So it was that by the late sixteenth and the early seventeenth century that the nation was already taking shape; a community united by a common language, demarcated territories, a dominant set of religious beliefs, a centralised bureaucracy and a uniform legal code. This was the framework that gave rise to nationalism; in covenants, in civic-republics and in new forms of popular sovereignty. As far as I am concerned the first evidence of nationalism as a shared sentiment in the modern sense comes with the Dutch Revolt against the Spanish Empire: a war of the 'elect'; a war of shared loyalties and a common identity; a war against a foreign oppressor. The primary focus of loyalty was no longer a kings, princes or lords in the medieval sense, but much more abstract concepts, focused on a unique sense of national and religious mission. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Native Americans burning people at the stake

In the 1992 film version of The Last of the Mohicans, a Huron tribe is depicted burning a British redcoat at the stake. Is this pure fancy, or is there any record of Native Americans performing this sort of execution? Thanks — Vranak (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Execution_by_burning#Historical_usage says yes. Friday (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Friday, I did go through that article but must have skimmed right past it. Vranak (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Brebeuf was tied to a stake and killed by Iriquois. Fire was part of it. See here. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No real documentation, by I suspect that the first person was executed by burning not long after the use of fire for heat, light and cooking was adopted by humans, when some tribe captured a hated enemy or when some member of the tribe really pissed the others off. It offerd novelty compared to hitting with rocks or poking with sharp sticks. Edison (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, thanks Edison. And Brainy + Kevin. Vranak (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, burning at the stake was practiced by the Iroquois and other Eastern Woodland groups. The film gives just a mild glimpse of the horror. Exceeding perhaps even an English hanging, drawing, and quartering, the process was part of a ritual of excruciating torture that could last for hours and sometimes days. The victim was not usually directly in the flames: a fire was built near the stake, and the person slowly roasted while being otherwise tortured by the people who came to watch. The process was not used on criminals but rather on prisoners of war, who were expected to act a certain role. George Washington's friend William Crawford was burnt at the stake by Delaware and Wyandot Indians in 1782 near the end of the American Revolutionary War, although the practice had nearly died out by then. —Kevin Myers 19:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sawmill

If I started a sawmill business where would I by the logs from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Napier ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably from their owners. Your IP address suggests that you are in Michigan. You might explore the website of the Michigan Forest Association. Marco polo (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Make sure you also have a market for selling the lumber, which you can only expect to do if it has been professionally graded.[5]  --Lambiam 10:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Marriage Annullment in Canada

I'm new to this so please forgive any trangessions. My question is: If a spouse ommitted to inform the other of having a serious mental (but hidable) condition of schitzophrenia before the marriage, is there grounds for an annullment, and what is the time frame from knowledge of said fact, until annullment is not considered for parting? --Dunner9991 (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Aaron.

Sorry, but none of us is qualified to offer legal advice. In Canada, the precise law is likely to vary from one province to another. You should consult with a lawyer in your province. Marco polo (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal advice would be in response to the question "Can I annul my marriage?" The OP did not ask this. Questions about the law are "What are the grounds for annulment of marriage in Canada?" or "How has case law treated applications for annulment based on mental health claims?" Those are purely factual. I think the OP is asking a factual question, entirely within the refdesk remit. Whether it is within our expertise is another matter. I hope someone can help. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually "what is the law" and "application of the law to the facts" are both questions of law - working backwards, anything that you should only trust a lawyer with is "legal advice". And whether one can annul a marriage is, I would think, something that you should only trust a lawyer with. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)