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.
I think that this website it great but we could add a little more to the site's articles about colonial America. It's not of the upmost importance, but I think it would help tremendously. I have tried to find colonial info on the internet before, and have not been successful. I think people can benifit a lot by learning about the old world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace.out.42 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are your opinions about the media and celebrity stuff you see all over the tabloids like in grocery stores and other places? Do you enjoy it or thing it's wrong and stupid? or otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace.out.42 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, the ref desk is for asking factual questions, not for taking opinion surveys. Potentially, one might be able to find an opinion survey on that subject, somewhere on the internet. But the best opinion survey there is, is the free market. Obviously, enough members of the public like these tabloids that it keeps them in business. And those who don't like them are free not to buy them. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots01:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was Philosophy-related: I first found it when I was poking around articles on Existentialist writers. It was relatively short. There was a picture in the top right corner, a mid-sized swath of red with a caption. If anyone could link me to this article, I'd really appreciate it. The subject matter might help me with an essay that I'm writing for an Epistemology course. Thank you.
Overachiever (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overachiever (talk • contribs) 02:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been considering what the largest privately owned tracts of land are, and how visible they'd be on a world map (say 4ft x 6ft). Any clues? Steewi (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember right Lou Paiis was the second largest private land owner in Colorado. 77k+ acres will show up on a reasonably sized map. Other billionaire types own large tracts of land; Ted Turner supposedly owns large portions of the American west as well. If you're looking for a list of "Largest private land owners" or something like that, I don't know where it'd exist. Land record registration is surprisingly local in the U.S., although with the proper access one might be able to derive similar information from state tax returns. If someone else knows of a centralized record of land ownership I'd be interested too. This is the sort of thing that Reed Elsevier might have a database of, but if they do I don't know where it is. Shadowjams (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Creek station in Australia is 24,000 km² (6,000,000 acres) (according to the Wikipedia article, which says it's bigger than Israel), but it's not clear whether the land is owned or leased from the government. Jørgen (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Also look at other large countries, especially Canada, Australia and Brazil. There must be large areas of unsettled tundra, desert, rangeland, forest and jungle that might be visible from a satellite without too great a magnification. Nowadays, even Russia must have some moderately-large privately-owned tracts. And it depends on whether you're thinking about tracts owned by one individual or family, or also of ones owned by corporations or institutions.—— Shakescene (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Australian, so no. I meant on a worldwide scale. I had a thought that the biggest one might be Australian, but couldn't be sure. I'd think there might be a list somewhere on WP, but nothing comes up on a cursory search. Corporate and individual are interesting to know. Steewi (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extra - I was thinking particularly in terms of a single continuous piece of land, rather than the world's largest land-owners (although that's interesting as well). Steewi (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some areas look bigger than othersIf you're specifically looking for land that would show up on a world map, you could see if there are any private land-owners in the far north of Greenland or Ellesmere Island, as those areas look very big indeed on some map projections... Jørgen (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the OP did talk about visibility on world maps, so being near a pole would help for many maps. The required actual size to be visible is smaller the nearer a pole you are. Greenland is closer to the North Pole than mainland Russia. --Tango (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have also heard before that Ted Turner is the largest American land owner. His wikipedia article says this, and is referenced to this article saying he owns 2 million acres (3100 square miles, an area the size of somewhere between Delaware and Connecticut)in 12 states. I doubt one of the huge arctic areas (Greenland or northern Canada) is home to a larger land holder, since there is not really any point in owning a whole bunch of tundra, so most of the land remains in government hands. My money would be on some absolute monarch somewhere that "technically" owns a whole country. TastyCakes (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Queen Elizabeth then; in Canada the government owns all the biggest chunks of land, but technically they are just representing the Queen, and I suppose it works that way in Australia and wherever else there is crown land. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between crown land and land owned by the Queen. Crown land is just held by trust by the Queen, she can't sell it, it is automatically inherited by the next monarch. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a debate about Anna Creek station, there is little debate about King Ranch. It is cited as the largest ranch in the U.S., and is noted to be 85% the size of the state of Rhode Island So, basically, picture the mainland portion of Rhode Island, and that gives you about the size of it. --Jayron3221:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1,045 square miles (2,710 km2) in land area, which is smaller than the King Ranch's 825,000 acres (3,340 square kilometres; 1,289 square miles). But another 500 square miles (1,300 km2) (chiefly Narragansett Bay) is water area for a total of 1,545 square miles (4,000 km2). I'm a Rhode Islander and we're always amused by the use of our state as a ready-to-hand all-purpose measuring unit, in the same way that "football field" is used, as in "the fire threatens an area two and a half times the size of Rhode Island". In almost all cases, the author is thinking of the land area only. Since about a million people live in Rhode Island, our population density is about 1,000 for each square mile of land. (Wyoming spreads about half of Rhode Island's population over nearly 100 times its area, for a density of about 5 per square mile, or about 1/200 of Rhode Island's. A thousand artificially-averaged square miles of Wyoming would hold only 5,000 people. But we each get two United States Senators, although Rhode Island still has two U.S. Representatives, including Patrick Kennedy, and Wyoming only one—who was once Richard Cheney.) Most of the 254 counties in Texas and over half of California's 58 counties have a land area greater than Rhode Island's. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The loathsome Leopold may not have been a 'private person', but prior to 15 November 1908 he did indeed hold the Congo Free State as his personal possession (through a "wholly owned, single-shareholder 'philanthropic' organisation"), not in his capacity as Head of State. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it legal for a witness for the prosecution to refuse to testify in cases where the defendant would receive the death penalty if convicted? ----J4\/4 <talk> 13:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I searched for information in my local telephone book, I encountered the following notice: "This publication contains certain licensed materials as well as material developed independently by the publisher. It may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form without permission." It sounds to me as if the telephone company is asserting copyright over the entirety of the contents, for it's easy to copy the information in the book without copying the photographs and advertisements. How is this possibly in accord with Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service? Don't take this as a request for legal advice; I have no reason to copy the telephone book, whether or not it's legal. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a complex issue. Essentially, Feist opens up the information but closes the presentation. The classic recipe example is a good one, and is used in that article. No one owns the copyright to the actual phone numbers, but the way they are listed (alphabetical by last name, along with address, family members listed as well, etc.) along with which numbers are even included (residential, commercial, everyone except "Doe," etc.) and the style in which they are presented (Yellow pages, font, etc.) are. All of that is a choice made by the producers of the work, and they retain the rights. All that being said, their presentation has to display some sort of creativity, as a simple alphabetical list is pretty generic. ~ Amory(u • t • c)14:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the way of listing the numbers by last name is considered copyrighted. The page design, sure. But not alphabetical listings, which have been common to all such books for as long as they have been around. Most telephone books often have funny little "extra" sections, like stylized listings of emergency numbers, special discounts, etc., which are probably copyrighted. Anyway, there is really no enforced penalty for claiming more copyright rights than one actually has (even though it is technically illegal), so they're doing the standard thing of claiming total copyright, even well beyond fair use. They aren't correct on a number of levels, but that's pretty standard... --Mr.98 (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanations. I was aware that certain layouts could be copyrighted (thus I said "entirety of"); I simply didn't expect that they'd effectively be making empty threats. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Plantagenet, a daughter of Edward I of England
Is there not any information on Mary Plantagenet, a daughter of Edward I of England. Seem to be none in Wikipedia. For example, was she close to her sisters of Margaret and Elizabeth? What is the history of Mary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.106.45 (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 97.83.106.45. There are two reasons why Wikipedia might not cover a topic. (1) People might have decided that Mary is not notable, meaning that she wasn't important enough to history to warrant having a page all her own. However, if you have information on her life, you can still add it - perhaps to the page on her father, mother, or sisters. (2) No one has yet got around to writing an entry about her. If you have enough information on her to make a good stand-alone article, you can write it yourself and add it to Wikipedia. The Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0 page should have all the info you need to learn how to do this. (P.S. one source you might look for at the library if you are looking up Mary: Index to women of the world from ancient to modern times: biographies and portraits, by Norma Olin Ireland (F. W. Faxon Co., 1970), ISBN9780873050975.) Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even fairly minor aristocrats have articles, so I expect a daughter of a king would be considered notable. There may just not be enough information available to justify an article, though. --Tango (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The daughter of a thirteenth-century king might not be notable at all, especially since Edward had so many other children and this one was just a nun. There are a few articles about important medieval nuns, but most of them didn't really do anything. However, the person to ask about this is probably Lampman (talk·contribs), who is currently trying to make Edward I a featured article. He'll probably know, or at least know where to look. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not much information. Born at Woodstock the 11th or 12th of March, 1279, veiled as a nun at Amesbury in 1291, died 29 May 1332, buried in the Benedictine convent at Amesbury. <Richardson, Douglas (2004). Plantagenet Ancestry: a Study in Colonial and Medieval Families. City: Genealogical Publishing Company. p. 20. ISBN0806317507.> - Nunh-huh18:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the show of confidence :) Prestwich writes a few lines on her in his Edward I biography, which can be looked up on Amazon (page 128.) He also points to two other sources; Green's Lives of the Princesses of England (on Google books, page 405) and Fairbank's YAJ article on the earl of Warenne. If anyone wants to use these sources, there seems to be enough information on her for a stand-alone article. Lampman (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a bit more here in The Queen Mary Psalter - apparently she travelled fairly widely as a representative of her order and possibly for pleasure, regularly attending court and running up gambling debts. According to Sources and analogues of the Canterbury tales, Volume 2, Nicolas Trevet's Les Cronicles - an important source for several widely read works of the period - was dedicated to her. A further source notes that she managed Grove Priory and has a couple of details of her veiling, and another notes that Edward visited her at the convent and gave her frequent gifts. Sounds like plenty for an article. Warofdreamstalk21:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised - there's an ODNB article on her as Mary of Woodstock ([1], if you have access). With regard to the original question, there's no sign of her being particularly close to her sisters, but it does suggest that she was close to her brother, the future King Edward II. Warofdreamstalk21:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding the information and writing an article on the virgin Mary. Does that mean then that in Edward I she should be listed as Mary of Woodstock instead of Mary Plantagenet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.106.165 (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. "Plantagenet" was certainly not her surname: it was first used as a surname in 1448; historians have applied it to people who never used it as a sort of shorthand. _ Nunh-huh12:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She is not listed as either in Edward I; for simplicity, the children are all listed only by first name, with piped links where articles exist. Mary was the only child who lived into adulthood and still did not have her own article, so good job on that. Warofdreams, you might want to put it up for DYK. Lampman (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tata_Corus_acquisition#Proposed_funding_of_the_deal - please explain how this works : "..by deciding to raise $6.17bn of debt for the deal through a new subsidiary of Corus called 'Tata Steel UK', rather than by raising the debt itself"
Hi Friends. Can anyone suggest where/what I could read to understand more about the mores of the English upper class pre Second World War. I have looked at upper class and landed gentry without success. Question is sparked because of a paragraph in The Mysterious Affair at Styles, which Agatha Christie wrote in 1916. She writes: "John practiced for some time as a barrister, but had finally settled down to the more congenial life of a country squire. He had married two years ago, and had taken his wife to live at Styles, though I entertained a shrewd suspicion that he would have preferred his mother to increase his allowance, which would have enabled him to have a home of his own. Mrs. Cavendish, however, was a lady who liked to make her own plans, and expected other people to fall in with them, and in this case she certainly had the whip hand, namely: the purse strings." As a modern reader, I don't get why John wouldn't just restart his law practice and earn enough to have a house of his own. Thanks all, WikiJedits (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Old Money might be interesting to you? I would think maybe John doesn't want to be a lawyer because it's a lot of work, he's settled in the countryside with a wife that probably doesn't want to put up with ridiculous working hours and city living and he's looking to inherit a large amount of money "as soon as the old bag kicks it", or however Agatha Christie would put it. Is his mother a murder victim in the book? TastyCakes (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another detail to point out here is that, while present-day English barristers can live on a country estate and still make a decent living due to car ownership and a relatively modern infrastructure of roads that allow them to visit clients and courts of law easily, in 1916 it would have been difficult to earn a lot of money as a barrister in the English countryside because of the relative expense of cars (then affordable only to rich Britons) and a lack of roads that would have offered timely access to clients and legal venues. At that time, there were only rough dirt or gravel tracks in most parts of the English countryside, better suited to travel on foot or by horse than by car. Marco polo (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that is true nowadays. Remember that in the past the population was a fraction of what it is now, and the countryside started much closer to the city- or town-centre than it does now, so there would be less far to travel. And incidently none of the road congestion we have now. Parts of what are now the commuter belt around London would be like what only the deep and remote countryside would be now. It is still common for high-earners to have a week-day home in the city and another in the country. 78.146.29.77 (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, he would probably have had to get a "townhouse" to live in during the week, which would be another expense. --Tango (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His mother might not have given him an allowance at all if he was working - I know members of the royal family have to give up their share of the civil list if they want to get a job (eg Prince Michael of Kent, although apparently he never got any civil list payments). That could mean he would actually be financially worse off with a job (his mother may have tolerated him working before he was married). --Tango (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even a career as a barrister was infra dig if he really wanted to be part of the squirearchy, and to make a fortune would have made him a self-made man. England was well-served in 1916, not by tarred roads, but by a railroad network. Even an upper middle-class family would have someone who could drive him to the station. In 1916, though, everyu able-bodied gentleman was at the Front, where they died like flies.--Wetman (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there were railways, but not every country estate was within a short drive of a railway station, especially given the state of the roads, and not every station was on a line with quick or frequent service to a town where a barrister could make a living sufficient to pay for the car, driver, etc. Marco polo (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There would have been pony and traps, which could have been quite fast. When did tarmacadaming of roads become common? The trains in Victorian britain were said to be almost as fast as most modern ones. I expect in those days they stopped more frequently in stations that are now closed, but they also had expresses. 78.146.29.77 (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Daily commuting was pretty common, although far more for the middle and (by the early C20) working classes. But it would only have been realistic if they were fairly close to a major city - while some services ran at similar speeds to today, longer distance trains were much slower than now. Warofdreamstalk21:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for the replies so far, they are helping me understand the implication in the book. I hope people will keep replying though, as I'm still looking for references, so I haven't used that resolved thingy yet.
TastyCakes, Old Money was interesting, but unfortunately all about America. Do we have anything on the English idea? His mother was murdered in Chapter 2!
Marco polo, 78.146.29.77 and Tango, the house in the book was three miles from the railway station and they had a car, though petrol was in short supply because of the war. They also had a pony and trap. My thinking, though, was that because he wanted a house of his own it would naturally be elsewhere.
Wetman, thanks for the info about social attitude towards him earning his own living! That is the kind of thing I wanted to find out more about. FYI, squirearchy redirects to landed gentry, unfortunately. John was 45. So far the book hasn't given any reason for him not being an active soldier; maybe it was age.
Best, WikiJedits (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the answer to your original question is simply that most people do not like working, particularly when they do not have to. It would probably be a large house, and (without having read the story) he did some work managing the estate (ie some tenanted farms, perhaps also a farm directly run) from which the family got their income. The income may have been as much or more than that earnt as a barrister, as I understand that in at least contemporary times only a small proportion of people can make a living at it. Although written in 1916 it may have been set before WW1, and also in those times people were thought to age much more rapidly than they do now, so 45 may have been seen as being far too old to be a soldier. 78.144.250.124 (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barristers did not appear for clients in local courts or before local magistrates (Justices of the Peace); that was done by local solicitors. As a barrister, he would have been hired (given a brief) and "instructed" by a client's solicitor to advocate the client's case before higher courts in London or the Assizes in large provincial towns. So, rather than at Styles, he would have spent the working week either at a club or in a pied-à-terre (second house) in town. To get an idea of how much or how little time it took to travel into and out of town (London), see the Sherlock Holmes stories. Partly to advance his plot-line, Conan Doyle often has Holmes or Watson stranded in some country inn or estate waiting for the next train into town (or alternatively finding some way of getting to a country or suburban scene before the first train left Paddington or Waterloo). The Holmes stories also give some idea of different attitudes towards work among different classes. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're right. I was thinking more of first appearances before magistrates, justices of the peace, etc., and I honestly don't know what the lowest court would be that would see many barristers. Don't count on me as a Reliable Source about this question. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our only source of information on most Wikipedians is their user page, and few Wikipedians discuss their net worth on that page. Those with the greatest net worth are unlikely to want to reveal it. So we really can't know, but given the number of Wikipedians and the potential attraction of contributing to Wikipedia to someone with no need to earn a living, it is fair to assume that we have some multimillionaires. Marco polo (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also I think "wikipedian" is a bit of a fuzzy term. What if someone has just made a single edit? Two edits? Where is the line drawn? What if that person has only ever corrected typos? What if that person was very active and now is not? I'm sure some very rich people have made some kind of edit to Wikipedia. But I doubt we'll ever know the richest with any accuracy. TastyCakes (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Søren Kierkegaard, "When one has once fully entered the realm of Love, the world — no matter how imperfect — becomes rich and beautiful," which clearly indicates that I am the richest Wikipedian. ~ Amory(u • t • c)15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(My apologies, but I have removed a slew of indenting colons from the next 15 entries. By the fifteenth, the format was one word per line, jammed up at the right of the screen. B00P (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
In that case, there is absolutely no way we can even guess at the answer. We simply don't have that information about the vast majority of Wikipedians and have no way of getting it. --Tango (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would be nice to engage war edit with him. We have to find the smartest and the most influential wikipedian, I have the hunch they could help!--Gilisa (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was (is?) a famous wikipedia vandal who used to rename articles "article name on wheels!" or some variation of that. I'm a little surprised there isn't a wikipedia article about him, urban dictionary has a pretty brief description. TastyCakes (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't make articles on vandals. Not only are not they not notable by any of our definitions, generally speaking, but it would only encourage more vandalism. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like how there's a warning on Famous Wikipedians that says, "This listing may contain errors and should NOT be used as a source for any page in Wikipedia or publication outside of Wikipedia without doing some independent checking.". Isn't that true for every article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some years ago, I had a huge belly laugh when someone suggested Queen Elizabeth II might edit Wikipedia in her spare time. (Well, it's possible.) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd be curious too. The Queen certainly does a lot of public walking, wearing clothes that many people comment on. But I'm not aware that she ever attempts to impersonate a giant stick insect, with her shoulder blades almost touching each other behind her back, or walk in an utterly unhuman fashion, or have a look on her face that's a cross between contempt and clear evidence of some form of insanity. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that as she was irritated by her believe that Scottish people don't share satisfying respect to the royal family she impersonate the the Loch Ness monster.--Gilisa (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely I'm the richest wikipedian around: a few days ago I received an e-mail telling me that I have won 740.000 euros. I just need to give them my credit card numbers and pay them a lawyer for dealing with the technical legal details, and I will receive the money very soon. MBelgrano (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to tell you this but you guys are really poor sods when it comes to advanced fee scammers. I chose 5 scams at random from a search of my email for 'died' and I got $2,775,000, 25% of US$26M (i.e. $6.5M), 20% of US$12.5M (i.e. $2.5M), I think 40% of $18.5M (i.e. $7.4M) and I think 40% of US$44.5M (i.e. $17.8M). I guess if you guys are getting lotteries and diamonds that's the problem. When these dictators die they usually leave at least US$10million in their bank accounts and you seem to often get at least 20% so it's good money. Winning the lottery isn't as good, for example I got €1M, €558784.83, €572183, US$1.5M, €500k, €1M, US$1M and US$1M. However if you're mathematically challenged the lottery guys appear to usually tell you clearly how much you've won (even if it's a shared payment) whereas the dead person's money guys give you the amount in the bank and your 'commission' and you have to work it out yourself usually. Also I have the idea I may have won $50 million or something once but maybe it was a shared $50 million lottery.And I can buy a lot of generic drugs and penis enlargement pills and pirated software and watches with all that Nil Einne (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
During a documentary on the History Channel, the presenter showed some of the trenches that were used by Turkish troops and Commonwealth troops during the battle. At one point, he stands between two trenches which were facing each other and were at such proximity to each other that it only took him literally three steps to get from one to the other. He also said, 'This is how close the troops were to each other'. I find this completely incredulous, but forgive me if my common sense is getting in the way here. I can understand that trenches may be close to each other, as after enemy trenches have been cleared, troops may (for any number of reasons) decide to dig new ones rather than occupy the existing ones, but I cannot believe that the troops would be so close. For one thing, it would be very hard to miss an enemy unit digging a trench a few feet in front of you. Can anyone corroborate what this presenter was saying? --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen that program, but how big were his steps? I suppose this means the trenches were between 3 and 10 feet apart? It's possible that they were part of the same trench system for one side or the other; or maybe that the different sides occupied trenches that close together but not at the same time. Who was the presenter? (I would be incredulous too...the History Channel is not interested in history as much as it is interested in being entertaining and making money.) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His steps were not overly-exaggerated (or even exaggerated at all), so I would take a rough guess at the trenches being around 6 to 10 feet apart. He specifically said, though, that 'this is how close the troops were to each other' and there was no implication of them being trench systems from different times in the 8+ month campaign. I understand the History Channel likes to spice up its presentations, but it's generally pretty reliable with the raw facts, so this is why it threw me. I can't remember the presenter's name, but I have seen him on plenty of military history programs. All I can say is, he has dark wavy hair, a moustache, and glasses. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The presenter was telling the truth: some of the trenches were exceedingly close; however, he was also selective: not all the trench systems in Gallipoli were so close. If you google, you will find a broad range of given distances. Our own trench warfare gives 15m between trenches at Quinn's Post. Philip Haythornthwaite suggests [3] 5 yards in places; Christopher Pugsley mentions 5-15 metres at Quinn's Post in a book of his I have to hand. You might enjoy this history of sappers (engineers) at Gallipoli, describing the hand bombs lobbed into the opposing trench. Why do you find such a situation difficult to believe? They did not miss noticing the presence of the enemy, and did their best to lob bombs (etc), but they could not shell them with heavy artillery without risk to their own lines. Partly, the terrain was steep, so the trenches were by necessity close together; sometimes it was deliberate sapping through to try and reach the enemy's trench, to take it. Sometimes that happened, and they shared the same trench, with hastly erected blast walls dividing them. Gwinva (talk)
Mr Occam would suggest one side (likely the Turks) dug both sets of trenches, and after losing one trench, found themselves some 10 feet from the enemy. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Mr Occam would be wrong ;) Commonwealth and Turskish troops were often that close in terms of their trenches; the Gallipoli offensive rapidly ran out of steam due to Turkish resistance and ineptitude on the part of British planning, and the terrain made it difficult to dig a trench wherever one wanted; hence the very close trenches the documentary saw. But it's not just in Gallipoli; similar circumstances can be found in French battlefields of the same conflict; although the location escapes me now, during a trip to a preserved set of Canadian and German trenches, our guide illustrated how, at their closest, it would take only a few seconds to walk between both trenches. Skinny87 (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Associated Press calling Charles Kao American?
Amazingly, Judiasm and Who is a Jew? don't really help with this, so I'm turning to the reference deskers for help. What is the preferred term for a religious Jew? Is it simply "Religious Jew"? Or "Observant Jew"? Or something else? The linked articles seem to say that Judaism doesn't distinguish between religious and non-religious Jews, but surely there's some generally-recognised term, even if it isn't used within Judaism itself. --85.210.115.126 (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the most common term is "secular Jew". At least in Israel it's and at least from what I heard from American Jews it's also applicable in USA. Besides, there are no further distinctions by at least large majority of Jewish people.--Gilisa (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend, it's nice but I guess that in your family the terms you use may be mixed with definitions from the non Jewish world even when it comes to Jews (i.e., this definition). I have Jewish relatives in USA and they use to say "secular"--Gilisa (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have always assumed that "secular Jew" meant a "non-observant" Jew, and thus that Nyttend is describing a practising Jew and Gilisa a non-practising one. However, this article says: The word secular in secular Jewish culture, therefore, refers not to the type of Jew but rather to the type of culture. For example, religiously observant Jews who write literature and music or produce films with non-religious themes are participating in secular Jewish culture, even if they are not secular themselves.Bielle (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Secular refers to nonobservant. Dictionary dot com:
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred ): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular ).
5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.
6. going on from age to age; continuing through long ages.
Bielle, I'm sorry to have to say this but that is an example of why Wikipedia has a reputation for not being trustworthy. That assertion is not sourced. Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that it's not the most politically correct answer, but trust me on this that this is the correct one: The definitions you read on such articles represent much of the views of those who wrote them. For minority of ultra orthodox Jews many religious Jews may seem secular. This is exatly the difference betweem ultra orthodox and just orthodox -ultra orthodox (espcially in Israel, and very different in USA where they are more affected from the secular culture and adopt things they don't recognize as contradicting with their believes or "secular" by definition) reject almost all aspects of secular society (e.g., T.V. as it include immodest content and gossip, many kinds of music and etc) while orthodox adopt anything that is not secular by definition (they all have TV at their house but they skip gossip or sexual content, some even use special internet and media companies that choose the contents for them so no sexual or immoral content would escape filtering). I guess that the cultural context of part of the ultra orthodox is more incorrigible (depened which kind) and this of the orthodox is always reshaping itself while like ultraorthodox they strictly keep the Jewish law (unlike Reforms and Conservatives who are not considerd as secular nor as religious by many religious or even secular Jews). But many times when you orthodox Jew in the world you won't recognize that he's Jewish unless you ask him (not relevant for her) as mostly when outside Israel they don't wear skullcap (wearing a cap instead is common solution) to avoid Anti Semitism, while you would always recognize ultra orthodox. --Gilisa (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I'm pretty damn sure that the preferred term is "Jew." There's only a need to disambiguate if you're comparing two different Jews. You wouldn't call the general American populace "secular Christians" unless comparing them to the Pope, a "religious Christian," and even then that sounds weird. ~ Amory(u • t • c)19:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amory, the original questioner asked what would be the most appropriate term for describing, or designating, that Jewish person who was religiously observant. Bus stop (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The basic, mainstream term for what the questioner is asking about is one of the terms that the questioner mentioned himself/herself, and that is "observant." Bus stop (talk) 04:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a fair comparison. "Christian" refers only to a practicing christian. "Jew" can refer to someone whose family is ethnically Jewish, but who does not practice the religion in any way. APL (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amory, I agree with APL. The Hebrew Bible commanded "And you shell be my nation" (this translation is pretty awkward, but my English is not fluent) so even non Jewish who convert to Judaism is fully immersed within the Jewish community in almost all aspects and in most cases his offsprings would be hard to distinguish from the rest of Jewish people who are Jewish for generations on generations. In early times, before the time of church and before Jewish people were exiled from Israel converts were common among Jewish people, but after they were expelled, they were forbidden to convert by the orders of the church in Europe and a bit later by Muslim regimes. So, today most Jewish people heritage could be tracked down to the middle east using methods from the genetic research. They also share different extents of lingustic and cultural similarities, even where lived separated by oceans from each other for generations. So they consist in most cases and in all aspects an ethnic group. So, the most suitible comparison to atheist Jew would be to, let's say, French or Spanish who abandoned the Catholic churce-but you still refer to him as an ethnic French/ Spanish. --Gilisa (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Bus stop The quote from the WP article above is, indeed, not sourced in-line, and I haven't had the time to check the references cited at the end. Not being sourced, however, does not necessarily mean it is wrong. The dictionary definition of "secular" is useful on its own, but my review of "secular Judaism" on the Net suggests that the definiton may not apply as written when the two words are used together. We are wandering away from the question which wanted an English word to describe the opposite, the religious and observant Jews. Bielle (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is not such word in Hebrew nor in Yiddish. There are words which define the exceptionality of a Jew who is not observent such as become licentious or Tinok shenishba or Chiloni (secular) which in Hebrew comes from the stem "Chol" (sand), meaning something like "someone who deals with material life only" even this term is widely used it is not accepted by Rabbnical figures.--Gilisa (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gilisa, I'm confused by your original definition: by "secular Jew", do you mean a Jew who practices his/her religion actively but is involved in what non-Jews call "daily life", or do you mean a Jew who does not actively practice his/her religion? The original question would signify the first of the two answers I gave, but the idea of "secular" makes me think that you may mean the other. Nyttend (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My definition is everything but original. I was meaning to Jew who doesn't actively practice the Jewish religion (or an atheist).--Gilisa (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my personal experience, the appellation "observant" is reserved for the very observant (i.e., do more than just go to services every week), and the term "secular" is reserved for the very secular (i.e., actively reject important tenets of the faith, and no, pork doesn't count as "important"). Since one word, "Jew," covers some rather different practices, from Jews in the U.S. South who tend to avoid outward signalling of faith to Hasidics who are easier to spot than Amish people, it's generally recognized within the tribe that a heterodox approach to faith is normal and unavoidable. Contrast this with Catholics, where about 90% will cheerily refer to themselves as "lapsed." --M@rēino15:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as in the case of Catholics, the majority of Jews are nonobservant. "Secular," by the way means approximately the same thing as nonobservant. Concerning tribe, I think that is a little farfetched, as I don't think I have heard of Jews as comprising a "tribe." Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, you give the OP the wrong impression that Judaism is only religion. You may believe so but it's wrong concept, however understandable in people whose refernce is secular non Jewish people.--Gilisa (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amory, I didn't think we were talking about millennia ago. User:Mareino used the term "tribe" in the context of modern day Jews. He referred to the Jews of the "U.S. South" and the "Hasidic" Jews. The conversation, starting with the originally posed question, concerns terminology that might usefully designate those Jews who are religiously observant and those Jews who are religiously nonobservant. "Tribe" is hardly a term one encounters in normal everyday discourse as applied to Jews in the modern world. By the way, even the origins of the Hassidic Jewish movement are somewhat recent, going back merely 400 years. Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe s/he simply used the term broadly in order to avoid saying "Jewish faith" or some other phrase repeating the word "Jew." ~ Amory(u • t • c)14:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that "playing the music backwards" has two meanings. You can take the sheet music and a suitable instrument and play the notes in reverse order; or you can take a recording of the piece played normally, and play that backwards. I think D.J., talking about fugues above, has the first meaning in mind, while Toto, talking about sounds in general, has the second. As to the second meaning, any sound produced by percussion instruments (including pianos) will sound very different backwards; with many other instruments the difference will be harder to detect. --Anonymous, 23:07 UTC, October 6, 2009.
The earliest example I know is by Guillaume de Machaut, Ma fin est mon commencement (the whole text, if I remember correctly, is "my end is my beginning, and my beginning is my end"), probably written around 1350-1360. One performer reads the melody forward, and another who is singing it rather than playing on an instrument, reads it backwards. Simultaneously, another voice sings a second melody, half as long, which repeats, backwards. If you played this entire composition backwards, it would be essentially the same. (It's a little more complicated than my description, but it's essentially a palindrome.) Antandrus (talk)23:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
![[2]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1IQMEU3GM-s/R9MDIdsGFqI/AAAAAAAAAMw/qtYaW6z-X6s/s320/glasses.jpg){kind=link}