Humanities desk
< February 23	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 25 >

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.

February 24

Recovery from Narcisstic Nurturing (or lack of)

I do not have a "sense of myself". When I'm alone, I am not able to decide to do/or not do- anything. After changing out of my work clothes, I may simply sit on a chair for hours, until someone comes home, or phones. "No sense of myself" is the best term I can think of to describe this. I'm 53, and recently come to realize my mother was an extreme narcississt. How do I outgrow or overcome this lack. Is it something I devlop - or create? Is there a universally recognized form of therapy or treatment for this condition?NotaFiffle (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should see a neurologist. You're not going to get sound medical advice here. This is just a bull session. Bus stop (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly see a therapist, but in any case see someone. As usual your doctor is a good person to start with. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with the above comment -- one's own doctor is probably the best place to start. I should have said that in the first place. Bus stop (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be suffering from depression - as others have said, you must see a doctor. Apart from that, get some interests - do evening classes or night school, join a social group of some kind such as dancing, get into the habit of reading a quality newspaper everyday, start painting, gardening, investing, cycling, running, dancing, sailing, playing cards, skating, bowling, acting, etc etc. 78.146.52.210 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maslow's hierarchy of needs

Why is sex in the physiological portion of Maslow's hierarchy? It's not necessary for life. Well, not for an individual to remain living. It's not directly necessary to be able to fulfill the safety needs. And it's redundant given the love/belonging needs. Dismas|^(talk) 04:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex is a physiological event, and under Maslow's theory of human actualization, ALL physiological processes of the body are at the bottom of the pyramid. Sex, that is the physiological event of sexual release (i.e. orgasm), is distinct from the emotional processes such as love or belonging higher on the pyramid. Sexual release occurs even in the absense of love (masturbation, sexual dreams, nocturnal emissions, etc.) and in order to complete the lowest level of the pyramid, an individual must have an outlet of sexual release. It's important to note that the lowest level of the pyramid is not merely about "you will die if you don't get these things", its that you cannot fully reallize your potential as a human (i.e. be fully actualized) unless these needs are met.

Maslow draws a distinction between several human experiences which we conflate with sex.

Orgasm is on the lowest level.
Being in a sexual relationship with another would be on the second level (this makes sense, since you cannot have a full sexual relationship if you are incapable of orgasm).
Being in an intimate sexual relationship, where sex is intertwined with love (i.e. marriage or its equivalent) is on the third level (being in a working marriage requires a healthy sexual relationship, so this rests on the second level being complete first)
Feeling good about your marriage and being content in your family life would be on the fourth level.(Having esteem in your marriage requires a healthy sex life with your partner)
Feeling the need to place the needs of your marriage ahead of your personal needs; having a morally committed relationship to your partner, etc. etc. would be the fifth level.(Having a moral committment to monogamy in your relationship requires that you have esteem in it).

Hope this spells it out a bit better for you. Its not the entire of sex and all that comes with it that Maslow places on the lowest level, its the mere physiological process of orgasm that belongs there. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which all sounds fine in theory, but reality is somewhat different. There are many people who, through disability, injury, infirmity and so forth, are incapable of sex (level 1) but have a very emotionally and intellectually rewarding marriage/relationship (levels 4 and 5). Gwinva (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maslow's hierarchy is somewhat arbitrary, since he revised it himself later. It is an interesting, but not 100% full proof layer scheme. At first glance physiological needs should be a the bottom, since without that layer, other layers are often disregarded. And sex is physiological, but not nearly as necessary as food. It would just tear up a neat structure to move sex to any other layer. And "... and thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner " DanielDemaret (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allegory of the cave

In Plato's allegory of the cave, how do I determine whether I'm one of the prisoners in the cave or whether I'm one of the shadows being cast on the wall? Neon Merlin 05:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you take the red pill or the blue pill? bibliomaniac 1 5 05:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To explain a bit more about Biblio's oblique reference, the 1999 film The Matrix is essentially a sci-fi version of the allegory of the cave. The whole point of the allegory is that, unless you are specifically shown the real world (i.e. offered the red pill) you can never know whether or not the world you experience is "real". You can only assume what you experience is the totality of experience until someone leads you out of the cave/offers you the red pill. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, shadows aren't sentient, so you must be a prisoner. On a separate note, William Poundstone's interesting book Labyrinths of Reason posits the ultimate allegory of the cave -- a single bit of information -- in which a single red LED taps out a depiction of reality in Morse Code. The subject would have just as rich an experience of the world as Plato's prisoners or we in our own cave. --Sean 13:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean's point being summed up as I think therefore I am. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the observers are the prisoners, you are a prisoner in that allegory. The shadows are only a reflection of a higher reality. DanielDemaret (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plato believes that we are ALL prisoners in the cave. By this he means that we do not see the true nature of reality. The objects that cast the shadows are the objects of reality. But we see only the shadows and not the real objects. So everything in this world is a mere ‘shadow’ of its corresponding Form. The only way to escape from the cave, and the only way to see the true reality, is by studying the Forms. See Plato’s theory of Forms Theory_of_Forms. WillMall (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

homosexual

Who were some people in the 19th century who opposed homosexual activity? This is homework but I just need a starting point. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that might be helpful: Paragraph 175, Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, Cleveland Street scandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I forgot to specify this mainly for England during the 19th century, although other world sources are welcome for background context. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of respected public figures who were willing to make any kind of public statement on the matter viewed it negatively. It would have been quite scandalous to do otherwise, except in rather subtly coded language when discussing ancient Greek society, anthropological comparisons of customs, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One starting point: read about Oscar Wilde's trial and follow the links to the person whose accusations precipitated the charges. WikiJedits (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Labouchère is one individual who would interest you. DuncanHill (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation wrongly attributed to Paul Valéry

The quotation

"Mettons en commun ce que nous avons de meilleur et enrichissons-nous de nos différences mutuelles [French] = Let us each put in common the best that we have and enrich ourselves with our mutual differences."

has been attributed to the French writer and poet Paul Valéry by a number of quotation guides, without a precise reference. According to specialists on Valéry, the phrase is nowhere to be found in his works. A search through electronic editions of his works did not uncover it either.

Who did originate this oft-quoted phrase? Vossius (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vossius (talk • contribs) 13:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I poked around the Internet and my bookshelves, and nada, not that my bookshelves are worth much. (Isn't that more like "Let us bring together the best..."?) I wouldn't be satisfied that it wasn't his unless I'd actually read every word he ever wrote, and even then it might have been oral. The absence of a work cited is suspicious, though. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just speculation: it could have been a saying that he invented and used in conversations so that it eventually became known with his family, friends or colleagues. On the other hand, he liked to ponder a lot about wise sentences and their formulations, so I wonder why it's not in one of his Cahiers. At any rate, it's not so unusal that quotations are attributed to writers but no refernce can be found. -- 95.112.166.243 (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leviathan

Why did Hobbes call his book/commonwealth Leviathan? It seems that the huge monster of the bible was regarded as a demon and probably wasn't the nicest name for anything, let alone a sprawling totalitarian state. So why the demonic name? Thanks 86.8.176.85 (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one more question: were Hobbes' views about the subordination of church to state controversial? Thanks 86.8.176.85 (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Hobbes's reason:

Hitherto I have set forth the nature of Man, (whose Pride and other Passions have compelled him to submit himselfe to Government;) together with the great power of his Governour, whom I compared to Leviathan, taking that comparison out of the two last verses of the one and fortieth of Job; where God having set forth the great power of Leviathan, called him King of the Proud. "There is nothing," saith he, "on earth, to be compared with him. He is made so as not be afraid. Hee seeth every high thing below him; and is King of all the children of pride." But because he is mortall, and subject to decay, as all other Earthly creatures are; and because there is that in heaven, (though not on earth) that he should stand in fear of, and whose Lawes he ought to obey; I shall in the next following Chapters speak of his Diseases, and the causes of his Mortality; and of what Lawes of Nature he is bound to obey. -- Part 2, Ch. 28

All pretty opaque but I think Hobbes's point is that the state is a huge powerful creature akin to Leviathan, and Leviathan isn't really a daemon anyway rather just one of god's biggest creations. The question of the church's subordination to the state was one of the main impulses of the Reformation, particularly in England, so it wasn't hugely controversial for that reason in many protestant parts of Europe but all of Hobbes's works were placed upon the the catholic church's Index Librorum Prohibitorum meltBanana 21:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant answer, thank you! 86.8.176.85 (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Leader's role in 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War

What was the role of the world leaders including United Kingdom, U.S.A. and Saudi Arabia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh's Foreign Policy

What is Bangladesh's foreign policy toward to Muslim nations and Commonwealth nations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Banglai Gan Gai

Who originally sang the song "Ami Banglai Gan Gai"?

The entire composition (lyrics+tune) is totally by Pratul Mukherjee. There has been subsequent performances of this song by several artistes both in India and Bangladesh, but the original creator and singer of this song is Pratul Mukherjee.

Bengali songs

Where can I find Bengali songs sang by Ghulam Ali, Mehdi Hassan, Mohammed Rafi, Jagjit Singh, Pankaj Udhas and Anup Jalota? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Ali, Mehdi Hassan, Mohammed Rafi, Jagjit Singh, Pankaj Udhas and Anup Jalota. These wikipedia artist pages may be of use to you. MarquisCostello (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi films

Is there website where I can find Bangladeshi films and their sypnosis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian and Pakistani Nationalism

Why do I have feeling that Indian Nationalism is like Hindu Nationalism with its policy that make every Hindu, regardless of its ethnic background, speak Hindi and same thing with Pakistani Nationalism: it is like Muslim Nationalism with its policy that make every Muslim, regardless of its ethnic background, speak Urdu? **If I am wrong, please correct me with some articles on Indian Nationalism and Pakistani Nationalism either from Wikipedia and/or from other websites. Bangladesh is having a cold civil war between two political parties(Awami League and BNP-Jamaat-e-Islami and its supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited your question, not something anyone on the Ref Desk does lightly. You made one statement that appeared to be racist and I have removed it. If you did not intend the remarks to be against a people, but rather against a policy, then I would suggest that you reword it to something like: "I am opposed to Indian nationalism and Pakistani nationalism for these reasons." Thank you. // BL \\ (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC) **The deleted sentence was removed from the position marked by the double asterisk. // BL \\ (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have quite a lot of pages which help to answer this question, for instance, Hindu nationalism, Hindutva, Sangh Parivar, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Hindu Taliban, Bharatiya Janata Party and Saffronization. See also Religious violence in India - and, indeed, Two Nation Theory. Xn4 (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity

I notice that Islam is the religion that has an international organization in the name of Islam (Organization of the Islamic Conference). Why Christianity doesn't have an international organization, even though it is world's largest religion before Islam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It did for a long time, until the 16th century, the Roman Catholic Church claimed to represent all of Christendom (at least the Western parts) and it certainly did before the East-West Schism in the 11th century. Since the Protestant Reformation, western Christendom has become increasingly fragmented. There have, throughout history, been various Ecumenical councils which attempt to bring various elements of Christendom together for mutual understanding. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Ecumenism and World Council of Churches and several other organizations noted in the Ecumenism article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because of the priciple of secular government in the "Christian" world. Christianity concerns itself with saving souls, not making nations. It's Jesus vs. Caesar. And for the many religions, denominations, and sects within Christianity to unite, they would need something to unite against, and they would need their "member states" to be self-described "Christian nations", a hard sell in the developed world. Also, a Christian world organization on a par with the Islamic one would not be able to get away with making pronouncments like that the Jews "invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy, so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong". Even PC has a silver lining. The Pope caught a ton of crap for suggesting that the Moslems might be a bit too shirty for everybody's good; imagine if the Christian world spoke such things with one voice. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The punishment of nuns who broken their celibacy

This is a historical question. I wonder: If a nun in the, for example, 16th century had sexual intercourse with a man, then which punishment would she have? And which would a monk have, who had sex with a woman? --85.226.42.129 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly an answer, but Peter Abelard was castrated and separated from his lover for life. But he became a monk after his affair with Heloise, and she was his student, so there were complicating factors. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 21:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abelard's castration was an act of revenge rather than a standard punishment. - Nunh-huh 22:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether Aldous Huxley's The Devils of Loudun is historically accurate or is in quite the right time frame, but it has some pretty lurid descriptions of punishment for these sorts of things; that's assuming Ken Russell's film version didn't stray too far from reality .... wait ... -- JackofOz (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rule of St Benedict, IIRC, has a section on appropriate punishment for breaking the rule. Actual practice, however, would likely be different to the rule's recommendation. Steewi (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If people will pardon an extended quotation from Barbara Tuchman's book on the 14th century:

[M]onks and itinerant friars...were notorious as the seducers of women. Peddling furs and girdles for wenches and wives, and small gentle dogs "to get love of them," the friar in a 14th century poem "came to our dame when the gode man is from home."

He spares nauther for synne ne shame,

For may he tyl a woman synne

In priveyte, he will not blynne

Er he a childe put hir withinne

And perchance two at ones

In the tales of Boccaccio, in the fabliaux of France, in all literature of the time, clerical celibacy is a joke. Priests lived with mistresses or else went to hunt of them. ... This sense of betrayal explains why the friars were so often the object of active hostility, sometimes even of physical assault, because, as a chronicle of 1327 stated simply, "they did not behave as friars ought."

I'm afraid I can't help with the 16th century and Tuchman says little about nuns. - Banyan Tree 11:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Urbain Grandier. He was severely punished, but the nuns who allegedly fornicated with him were not, although that is particular to this one case. --Xuxl (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His case is at the heart of The Devils of Loudun, mentioned above. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each order had its own rules. As a rule there were no physical punishments for any digression from any of the order rules, since that would go against normal Canon Law. Repentance together with reparation to any injured party was the standard way. DanielDemaret (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Nationalism

I know that Lebanese Nationalism is also called Maronite Nationalism. So, is this mean that Iraqi nationalism is also called Chaldean nationalism and Egyptian nationalism is also called Coptic nationalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. One situation does not necessarily extend to others. The relationship between Maronite Christians and Lebanese society is quite different than that between, say, the Coptics and Egyptian society. To some extent, each situation is a sui generis situation, and must only be understood on its own terms, and not in relation to other superficially similar situations. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly! The Arabic language of the 20th and 21st centuries has two distinct and separate words for "nationalism": wataniyya وطنية and qawmiya قومية. The word qawmiyya refers to pan-Arab nationalism of all Arabs, while wataniyya refers to local patriotism for one's own home area (considered "nationalism" if you think that the Arab states should remain separate countries, but considered mere "regionalism" if you think that the Arab states should be unified into a single pan-Arab nation-state). During the 1950s-1970s, some Maronite circles were very eager for Lebanon not to be sucked into a majority-Muslim Greater Syrian or Pan-Arab state, so they emphasized a local particularistic wataniyya identity (sometimes called "Phoenician"), and preferred local vernacular dialect Arabic to international Modern Standard Arabic (which is based on the language of the Qur'an), etc. However, the Nasserites and Ba`thists in Lebanon claimed to be the greatest nationalists of all (in the qawmiyya sense), and that wataniyya wasn't true nationalism, and in fact was little short of treason to Arab nationalism.

In Egypt, there have been sporadic attempts at a quasi-separatist "Pharaonic" identity distinct from pan-Arabism (based on spontaneous feelings of many Egyptians that they're somewhat different from other Arabs), but these never really amounted to much in practical political terms, and I doubt whether they were always strongly associated with Copts. In Iraq, considering that the Iraqi government celebrated its formal "independence" in 1932 by conducting the Assyrian massacre in 1933, it would rather ludicrous to believe that Iraqi Christians have a strong attachment to Iraqi nationalism. In fact, traditionally there have been no real strong feelings of wataniyya associated with the post-1932 borders of Iraq as a whole -- which was part of the problems in Iraq after 2003... AnonMoos (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland of Lebanon

Mount Lebanon Governorate is considered as "Heartland of Lebanese Christians" and Chouf District is the heartland of Lebanese Druze community. So, what about Sunni and Shi'a Muslims? Which governorate or district is the heartland of Lebanese Sunni Muslim community and which governorate or district is the heartland of Shi'a Muslim community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally the Shi`ites were concentrated in the south and the Baalbek valley, while the Sunnis were in the north. However, a lot of Shi`ites have moved into certain southern suburbs of Beirut... AnonMoos (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland of Syria

Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Maronite Christians? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Greek Catholic? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Greaak Orthodox? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Syriac Catholic? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Syriac Orthodox? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Armenian Catholics? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Armenian Orthodox? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Protestants? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Latin Catholics? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Sunni Muslim community? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Alawite community? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Druze community? Which governorate or district of Syria is the heartland of Shi'a Ithna Ash'ari Muslim community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered this question previously with respect to the Alawites and Druze. What is the point of these monotonously repetitive questions, the answers to which would be frequently rather meaningless? And what is "Greaak"? AnonMoos (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland of Iraq

Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Chaldean Catholic Church? Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Assyrian Church of the East? Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Ancient Church of the East? Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Syriac Catholic Church? Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Syriac Orthodox Church? Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Sunni Muslim community? Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Shi'a Muslim community? Which governorate or district of Iraq is the heartland of Kurdish community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.105 (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main Shi`ite shrine cities in Iraq are Najaf, Karbala, and Samarra (as you could see at Holiest_sites_in_Islam#Tombs_of_Shiite_Imams), while Shi`ite populations are concentrated in southern Iraq and certain neighborhoods of Baghdad (especially Sadr City), as you could have learned by paying perfunctory attention to newspapers a few years back (note that Samarra is not a majority-Shi`ite city). AnonMoos (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you've worked out for yourself that the Kurdish population of Iraq is concentrated in Iraqi Kurdistan. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of restrictions imposed on Jews by Nazis

Is there any website where i can find a list of all of the restrictions imposed on the jews by Nazi Germany in period 1933-38. --Thanks, Hadseys 21:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start with our page, Anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany. May not be as comprehensive as you want, but it'll give you some terms for further searching. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real search result for pre nazi germany. ~ R.T.G 13:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try the Weimar Republic. Exxolon (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we want that? The question is about Nazi Germany only. Algebraist 19:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to the pre-nazi germany non-result - the Weimar republic was the period in german history before the nazis came to power. Exxolon (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George, King of England, Scotland, Ireland, France, etc.

I observed that George III was the last king in London to claim the throne of France, and his article and List of French monarchs note this fact, but all that I can find related to this is that he dropped it at the same time that Ireland was united to England and Scotland. Any idea why he dropped the claim? Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, events in France (the Revolution) meant that after 1792 there was no longer any throne in France to pretend to (though Britain didn't fully recognize this until the Treaty of Amiens in 1802). After 1797 (when Austria reached an accord with France), Britain was left without major allies in its war in America. Britain entered negotiations with France for support; those in charge made such initial demands as return of the Channel Islands. This demand was untenable, but the demand for renunciation of the title of king of France remained, because the revolutionary ministers would "not allow of his retaining a title which would imply the existence in France of an order of things which is at an end." GIven the British need for allies, a decision was made to discretely drop the title "by choice" rather than at the demand of the French, and when George IV ascended the throne, the designation of "King of France" was missing from his accession proclamation. - Nunh-huh 22:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The French Revolution was one reason I was wondering, since surely a George-is-king-of-France partisan could claim that the Revolution had eliminated every other viable de facto candidate, and that the overthrow of the monarchy was just the overthrow of a pretender to the long-improperly-occupied throne. I had not known that Amiens included a recognition of the end of the monarchy, among other things. One bit of confusion, though: in what war in America was Britain involved? I don't remember reading anything about a significant colonial war between the British and the Spanish, I know that there wasn't anything going on with the USA at this time, and I can't imagine any other power that the British would be fighting in the Americas except France; and how would Austria affect that, since they weren't a power in the Americas? Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the more practical point that the claim had been merely theoretical for a significant time- the chance of it actually being realised was minimal. English kings continued to claim the French throne for so long because it was a matter of honour. MarquisCostello (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but claimed titles sometimes hold on so long; otherwise there wouldn't be an alleged King of Jerusalem reigning in Madrid today. I just wondered: why drop it then, as opposed to some other time, which I now understand. Nyttend (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another odd detail: the king of Spain also purports to be king of Corsica, which so far as I can tell was never in fact attached to any Spanish dynasty. —Tamfang (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to dispute the claim that following Louis XVI's execution, theer was no viable candidate for the French throne. Both of the king's younger brothers, the future Louis XVIII and Charles X were alive and in exile at the time, and plotting the restoration. The British claim dating back to the Hundred Years War had become merely symbolic by the late 18th century; in fact the kings of Spain would have had a better claim, being descended in direct male line from Louis XIV. --Xuxl (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that there was no person who could step up and become the king: I remembered the brothers, but I ignored them because they really had no chance without the end of the French state as it was at this time. As far as Spain: I need to get to bed, so I'm not going to look it up lest I get QWERTYitis; but didn't the line that took the Spanish throne after the War of the Spanish Succession publicly renounce their claim to the French throne? Nyttend (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at least according to Treaty of Utrecht. That's why France's most visible pretender is a descendant not of Louis XIV but of his younger brother. —Tamfang (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When and where did judaism begin?

I need to know the date and birthplace......pleaseTiki Tiki girl (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: we don't know. The Bible doesn't specify a single beginning point, and other ancient accounts don't provide such answers, so whether or not you hold a Bible-is-literally-true position, you won't be able to say "this is when and where". Even the definition of "Judaism" would need to be set down firmly. Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It originated as the ethnic religion of the Israelite tribes, but there's not necessarily any abrupt transition point where we can say that Judaism as we know it suddenly began. According to the Bible itself, there was an early glorious patriarchal period when founding figures were often in direct contact with God, a period of fragmentation (see Book of Judges), another glorious period under the united monarchy of David and Solomon (though Solomon himself fell away from monotheism during his later years), a difficult period under the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah when many ordinary Israelites lapsed into idol-worship while the flame of true monotheism was kept alive by the prophets and their relatively few followers, and then the new glorious period of the reigns of the great reforming kings of Judah -- Hezekiah, and especially Josiah (ca. 640-609 B.C.). The doctrine of the "oral law", and the style of religious decision-making by consensus obtained through legal debates, didn't become firmly accepted until the rabbis obtained undisputed leadership of Judaism during the Mishnaic period, ca. the 2nd century A.D. (as alluded to below).

So Judaism is kind of like Hinduism in this respect -- there isn't any exact date and place of origin for Hinduism either, and even within ancient sacred writings, several phases are visible (e.g. there was a "first Hindusm", if I can call it that, of animal herders roaming the Punjab, which was by no means identical with a "second Hinduism" of settled agriculturalists along the Ganges valley, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you cannot talk of Judaism before Judah, for whom it is named. Who as a tribal founder is of course semi-mythical, but the Kingdom of Judah is perfectly historical, established in the 11th century BC. But there wasn't of course any Judaism as we know it at that time. For this you need to look to the 2nd century AD, and Judah haNasi (see also List of founders of religious traditions). Thus your short answer is really, since the 2nd century, but there is a considerable history of developments leading up to that. --dab (𒁳) 23:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the name "Judaism" has no particular strong association with the eponymous tribal ancestor Judah, but refers to the fact that after the fall of the Biblical northern Kingdom of Israel ca. 721 B.C., the only independent Israelite state left standing was the southern Kingdom of Judah (established on the former tribal territories of Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon, and also containing many Levite inhabitants). Eventually, those of Israelite ethnicity or descent who did not accept the leadership of the Israelites of Judah either assimilated into the surrounding populations of Canaanites (later "Syrians"), or ceased to be considered "real" monotheists by those Israelites who were led by Judeans (this is how the Jewish-Samaritan split occurred). So the word Ioudaioi (Greek) or Judaei (Latin) came to be used to refer to those Israelites led by Judeans. AnonMoos (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may want to read Judaism#Origins. Deor (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Mount Sinai, 476 years before the reign of King Solomon (~1500 BC). (1 Kings 6:1)

Of course, that's the traditional, Biblical answer, and as good as any. As with most things, we are dealing with a continuum, and picking one, specific point to divide "before" from "after" is somewhat arbitrary. The real problem is that the question is flawed in making such a demand. Things develop from "less" to "more," but Tiki Tiki girl is looking for a non-existant dividing line between "none" and "all." Note that the Bible, itself, doesn't claim that everything happened all at once. Some traditions came before the Ten Commandments, and others afterwards. Still ... if you insist on one specific place and time ... I've given it to you.

Now, when and where was baseball invented? Do you want to repeat the Abner Doubleday fairy tale, or talk about rounders, the city game, and Chadwick? And, by the way, how about the game Lewis and Clark's Corps of Discovery played against the Nez Perce in 1805? —B00P (talk) 07:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as was said above: if you believe the Bible to be historically accurate, as I do, you still have the problem of defining Judaism specifically. The King James version of the Old Testament (and I'm sure any other translations of the Hebrew Bible likewise) only uses the term "Jew" in the books of Esther, Jeremiah, and Zechariah, all of which were composed hundreds of years after Solomon's day. Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ancient Hebrew language (like all the relevant ancient languages, such as Greek Ιουδαιος, Latin Judaeus etc.) actually had only one word -- יהודי yehudi -- for the following three meanings:

1) "Judahite", i.e. a member of the tribe of Judah by genealogical descent or tribal affiliation.

2) "Judean", i.e. an inhabitant of the geographical region of Judea.

3) "Jew", an adherent of the monotheistic religion largely based in Judea (before the Second Jewish Revolt).

A form of the Hebrew word yehudi actually appears as early in the Bible as Genesis 26:34 (see also 2 Kings 18:26 etc.), but the third meaning was not fully developed until rather late in the Biblical period, as the English translation indicates... AnonMoos (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, Abraham is considered the first Jew. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]