Humanities desk
< June 28	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 29

Hispanics in California don't support pot legalization

I found a surprising poll result here California Proposition 19 (2010)#Race.2FEthnicity
Supported the legalization of marijuana

Hispanics - 45%
Whites - 59%

What's the cause Hispanics being so negative on pot? --mboverload @ 05:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that you want to focus on the Hispanic response. I'd be more interested in why the "Whites" are so into pot. In any case, Hispanics in California tend to have strong Christian beliefs, which categorically frowns upon illicit drug use. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A thoroughly unsatisfying (and unreferenced) answer. Notice that Blacks overwhelmingly support it, even though they too have "strong Christian beliefs" generally speaking. The answer is probably not something you can just waive around and grab a common stereotype to adequately understand. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot categorically generalize "strong Christian beliefs". A lot of people throw us in one box, and believe that we all are out on a Crusade to convert you, and therefore should be written off as crazy zealots that should be avoided. Believe me, Christianity is extremely diverse, and the people that make themselves known best are not always representative of majority Christian values. There are over 2 million people in my church, for example, and never once have they said in my presence that drugs and alcohol are against Christian values. Hispanics are often Roman Catholic, if I believe, so if you want to cite Roman Catholic theology, then that would be slightly more plausible (even though not all Catholics have identical beliefs), but citing Christianity as a whole really doesn't work for much of anything.

If you want to know the official Roman Catholic view, it is summed up in the Catechism, here:

2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

Where Scandal is defined as "an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil". I honestly don't know how relevant this actually is to the original question. For one thing, official Catholic teaching doesn't always match the behaviour of Catholic populations. 86.164.57.20 (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to note that just because a church disapproves of something doesn't necessarily mean that people think it should be illegal. I mean, the Roman Catholics don't support trying to make gluttony illegal, or tobacco, or alcohol, in particular. They sometimes want to throw up roadblocks in the way of at least alcohol, but prohibition's not very popular, even if they think it's a sin. As for what motivates Hispanics (assuming the poll is accurate), I still think we need more information than just speculation based on their religion. (We could also speculate about the cultural experience of drugs in Mexico, or on their specific political alliances, or on their particular opinions on crime in general, and so on. We could speculate all day, and it wouldn't be worth much without actually checking the facts of it.)--Mr.98 (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help finding a photograph?

Hello, I was wondering if anyone knew where I could find a photograph of the White House guards in Richard Nixon's specially designed costumes? If I'm not mistaken, they were only worn once in 1970 there have to be photos of this, right? There's plenty of news and magazine articles on the internet covering it, but I can't find any photos whatsoever. Could anyone possibly help with this? Swarm^Talk 08:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you're looking for? (See the entry entitled "Living like a Republican") Dismas|^(talk) 08:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Eskimos

Is it right that when Eskimos provide shelter to strangers in their land, along with food etc. they also, sometimes, let them have sex with their womenfolk ? Jon Ascton (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find this reference in the following publication:

Author: De Coccola, Raymond, 1912- King, Paul, 1912- Houston, James

Title: The incredible Eskimo: life among the barren land Eskimo

Publisher: Surrey, B.C. ; Blaine, Wash.: Hancock House, 1986.

(quote begins on page 65, and continues to page 66)

While more tea was being poured, Otokreak told his friend Paoktok, “I've been traveling for a long time, but nobody has offered me his wife.” Paoktok's reaction was immediate: “You Page: 66 are my friend and Nuitek likes you. She will be glad to share your krepik with you tonight,” he said levelly. This casual arrangement, made openly in front of others, is a matter of everyday convenience, a part of necessary sharing, and did not in any way disrupt the conversation in the igloo. Amatory jealousies exist, of course, among the Eskimos, but in the main they know that sharing their food, abode, and other creature comforts is an integral part of their daily struggle for survival.

...and this one, in:

Author: Damas, David

Title: The Copper Eskimo

Published in: Hunters and gatherers today: a socioeconomic study of eleven such cultures in the twentieth century, edited by M. G. Bicchieri

Publisher: New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1972:

(quote begins on page 31)

Another means of extending the network of kinship was through spouse exchange, a practice found throughout most of the Eskimo area. This traditional practice appears to have served several purposes in the social life of the Copper Eskimo. During travel it was advantageous for men to exchange wives when visiting foreign camps, especially those in which the traveler had no kin. At other times a man might leave his wife behind on a journey while being accompanied by another's wife. In these cases the traveler would be visiting the band of the latter woman's kin. It is also probable that an unattached male who served as a kivgaq or servant for another might also share the favors of the latter's wife. The sociological result of the formalized spouse exchange relationship was extension of kinship both terminologically

...and finally, in:

Author: Pryde, Duncan, 1937-

Title: Nunaga: my land, my country

Publisher: Edmonton, Alta.: M.G. Hurtig Ltd., 1972.

(quote begins page 95):

At Perry Island, two men who share one wife are called angutauqatigiik, and they will become as close as brothers. They will share every confidence with each other, all of each other's problems and troubles. When Nasarlulik was worried by anything, he usually came and told me. Once he confided that he was glad he had agreed to share Niksaaktuq with me; before she fooled around with too many men, but now she had settled down. She knew that other girls around the settlement, like Kuptana, would like to have me and that if she flirted elsewhere, I might look for another girl.

Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SJOTI has done an excellent job with references; I would only caution that the situation is now changing somewhat as "Western" material culture becomes more assimilated into the Inuit lifestyle.
The door also swings both ways, however - one of my profs at WLU related this story to us regarding some of the Inuit he got to know during his studies on and around Baffin Island: he, his wife, and their two kids had gone up north and were spending time with various friends and also doing normal research (my prof studied the various Inuit groups there). There was an older lady there, maybe in her forties or fifties, who hadn't married and had no children. After complimenting my prof on how good looking his kids were, she asked in all seriousness whether it would be okay if she could have one since they had two and could have more if they wanted (implying, I guess, that she had been unable to conceive). Being an anthropologist, my prof knew about this kind of thing already, so he wasn't as taken aback as most folks would be, but he obviously had no intention of just leaving a kid behind. So, he kind of laughed it off and said they were going to keep both, hoping that she would take the hint. Unfortunately, she didn't and got quite upset when he said she couldn't have one of his kids and that was final. From what he related to us, the others in the group saw nothing strange about her request, only about her insistence and they just chalked that up to her being unable to have her own kids. No big deal. Matt Deres (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Inuit take a fairly cooperative approach to raising children I think - they go to whoever is best able to nurture them as the family size grows, within or outside of clans. That's how I ended up with a little adopted Inuit nephew here in Vancouver, who visits with his extended family when my sister does medical stints in his home town (he has more air miles in 3 years than I have lifetime). The "have my wife for the night" thing, I'm fairly sure is now at the "standard" level of normal human whatever-ness. The descriptions cited above are from the early days of Western contact when the Inuit lived entirely off the land in a completely different way than they do now. Survival depended totally on cooperation then and opportunities for genetic mixing between clans would be very limited. Everything in the North is a long way apart, if a woman got pregnant it wouldn't particularly matter who the father was: either it's a healthy baby who can eventually start hunting (for a boy) and contribute to the gene pool, or it's a sickly baby who dies and you move on. In any case, Inuit life is completely and absolutely different from those days, they access the Internet at the same speed I do now. Note the complete lack of sourcing I've helpfully provided. Franamax (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's my understanding as well and I've heard that the plural of anecdote is evidence.:-) My prof would have been talking about sometime in the late 70s, early 80s. Matt Deres (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The timing I believe puts your anecdote into a particularly dark age for the Inuit. the first "Western-oriented" dark age being of course when white people showed up and spread measles, polio and diptheria without even knowing it. In the 40's/50's the federal government settled all the nomadic peoples of the north in arbitrary villages and I'd imagine that over the next 20-30 years the old knowledge and traditions would have died progressively with the old people - who lived much longer lives due to medical care even as their traditional ways were lost and welfare payments set in firmly. Then there was the abuse in the residential schools the kids were sent to. It's not a pretty picture. Franamax (talk)

"Bombs bursting in air"

Thinking about the US national anthem recently I realised that as far as I know bombs which were used around the time of US independence all exploded on impact other than small grenades and so on. How did this line still appear, or am I simply mistaken about the weaponry of the time?

Thanks, Prokhorovka (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the last entry in Naval artillery in the Age of Sail#Shot. Deor (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, more likely given the text, Congreve rocket#War of 1812. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the historical inspiration, you want the Battle of Baltimore, where 5 British bomb vessels were present. Those vessels carried naval mortars, which fired incendiary and explosive shot. The explosive shot, particularly, was often on a timed fuse. If the fuse is set short (or, being a burning fuse, if the explosive charge is prematurely ignited by the fuse), the bomb explodes before it reaches the target -- that is, "in air". I imagine that incendiary shot could also explode prematurely. And for reference, the "rockets' red glare" was provided by Congreve rockets. — Lomn 13:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And just to state it explicitly, the Battle of Baltimore was part of the War of 1812, several decades after US independence. --LarryMac | Talk 16:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, as I suspected/feared I am simply mistaken. Thanks all. Prokhorovka (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To get a better perspective on the attitude of the U.S. toward both the British and themselves at that time, read all four verses of "The Star-Spangled Banner". I especially like the part about the blood of the British having washed out their foul footsteps' pollution. I'd like to hear Celine Dione singing that someday. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Lomn's comments about the premature ignition of shells; it is more likely that it was intentional. Major Henry Shrapnel developed shells filled with musket balls which would air-burst, showering the area beyond. His invention was first used in 1804 against the Dutch at Fort Amsterdam in Surinam. One can imagine that it would have a devestating effect on gunners or infantry sheltering behind the parapet of a fort. This is supported by the link given by Deor above. Also, shot is made of solid iron, while shell is hollow and filled (generally) with explosive. A bomb is a shell fired from a mortar, however our Bomb page doesn't even mention this. Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fuses which exploded the shell on impact were apparently a later development. Edison (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an early fuse was a piece of impregnated cord which was ignited by the flash of the gun (or mortar) being fired - just like the classic cartoon bomb. They hit the ground and sizzled for a while before going off. There were standard lengths of fuse for different flight times. Early impact fuses used fulminate of mercury percussion caps, the first entering Royal Navy service in 1861. Artillery fuze#Early history has the full details. Alansplodge (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More information about War of 1812 artillery here[1]. Alansplodge (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

interest groups

is there a website where a Canadian interest group have any contributions to Bill C-62 "An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.78 (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the Harmonized Sales Tax in BC and Ontario? Oh yes, there are websites. :) You could try http://fighthst.com/ for one, or search for "vander zalm and the hst". It always amazes me when a government changes a hidden tax that people are already paying into a visible tax with a line-item you can see, the incredible uproar that results. Like it's a surprise that we pay tax, and it's a surprise that roads get built and ambulances come when you need them. Relax, it will happen in two days, it's revenue-neutral, it will all go away and you'll pay two dollars more for the guy who mows your lawn (but nothing more if you buy a lawnmower). Franamax (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FDR in a wheelchair

For years, I've been seeing this picture described as "One of only two pictures of Franklin Roosevelt in a wheelchair". That's how we describe it, also. So where's the other one? I've never seen it.—Chowbok ☠ 15:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes it rather differently.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that says "one of a few", so, again, where are the rest?—Chowbok ☠ 16:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to a Time magazine article from 1995, "only two pictures of him in a wheelchair are among the 125,000 in the Roosevelt library", which isn't quite the same as two total in the world, but is a fairly good indicator of how rare photographs of him in the wheelchair are. According to this book, Life ran a photo of Roosevelt in his chair in 1937, but it was taken from such a distance that you couldn't make out who was in it without captions. It appears to be this photo. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks. That's probably the "other" photo generally being referred to.—Chowbok ☠ 17:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was also able to find this picture, where he is photographed from behind. As in the Life photo, it's also difficult to tell it's him. Here is the page it was on (about halfway down). Brian the Editor (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, my 88-year-old grandfather says it's a myth that people didn't know he was disabled. Everyone knew back then, he says. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My parents, of similar vintage, said the same thing. I also recall seeing a clip in which FDR casually mentioned something about "several pounds of iron around my legs", referring to the leg braces that polio victims would wear. I suspect he was more comfortable with his condition than his handlers were. I've also seen occasional film footage of him "walking", which consisted of keeping a firm grip on his assistant and kind of forcing his body to move in a walking motion by moving mostly his upper half (as also described in the History Channel's program on FDR). One famous clip, of course, is his request for a declaration of war on Japan, in which (as with other filmed press speeches) he maintains a firm grip on the podium and gesticulates with his head and shoulders. Most everyone knew, it just wasn't discussed much in the media, for any number of imaginable reasons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)He addressed Congress March 1, 1945, right after the Yalta Big Three conference, and apologized for sitting down to speak, and mentioned the "several pounds of iron." He was dying and quite weak(he died April ,1945), and some reports said he had not been on top of things at the conference. Here (at 4:40 in the film) is a Youtube video of the newsreel showing that address, but they edited out the prefatory comments about the braces. The complete audio is available at [2]. At campaign appearances, the wheelchair would be kept out of sight behind the stage, and his son and another aid would support him on each side as he swung his paralyzed legs forward one at a time in a semblance of walking, with the braces preventing him from collapsing. Then he would hold onto the podium. He was a sponsor of the March of Dimes, and people knew he had had polio. Maybe some just thought his leg muscles were weak, but in general the people at the time knew he had to use a wheel chair/crutches/braces.Edison (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book I linked to discusses this in some detail. It wasn't that it wasn't known, but the goal was to keep it from being a common "image" that people had in their minds when they thought of FDR. FDR himself joked about it, but the joking itself did work to undermine its seriousness. As for why it wasn't discussed in the media, again, see the book I linked to—it discusses the very explicit strategy the FDR administration took towards minimizing media coverage of his disability in ways that would actually draw a lot of conscious attention to it. In a way it is perhaps comparable to Obama's smoking—yes, most of us "know" he smokes, but it's not the common image of him, and it doesn't fit very well with that image. If he smoked a lot in photographs or in public it would probably have a noticeable effect on his overall public image. (What exactly that would be would probably vary between people.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The public knew he had had polio or "infantile paralysis" and that he frequently went to Warm Springs Georgia for rehab. I searched Google News Archive for mention of Roosevelt and wheelchair from 1932 through the day he died. An article from 1932 said that voters were impressed that he looked vigorous, since "Many Western voters, I believe, had the impression he was a wheelchair candidate who could not move." There were not many mentions during his presidency that his legs were paralyzed and he had to be carried or use a wheelchair. Edison (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many public figures, especially politicians, try to avoid being depicted in ways that indicate vulnerability. I think most Americans either knew about it or inferred it, for reasons discussed above, but probably most didn't know how serious his condition was, until some years after he had died. I've heard it suggested that had the public known how poor his health was overall, he wouldn't have stood a chance in 1944, and the insulation of his condition from the public probably accounts for a lot of the shock and grief that came in 1945. A somewhat parallel example concerning vulnerability is that when Reagan was shot in 1981, it was played down, with jokes about, "I forgot to duck", and such. However, years later it was revealed that he nearly died from his wound. And you can go back to TR, after being attacked, said publicly, "I'm as strong as a bull moose!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of WW II

i,

on the page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/British_Expeditionary_Force_%28World_War_II%29 you see in the centre some maps with the text underneath: 11. - 16. May 1939 ......

Those presented events happened in 1940, not in 1939. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.128.85.116 (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks. --Tango (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giants in Greece.

I recently received an e-mail describing (with pictures) of the uncovering of the skeletons of giants in Greece. They are spoken of in the Bible, and now they, according to the article, are finding the skeletons of the giants (Goliath). I'd like to send you the pictures, and the bible references, but I don't see the means to do so. Is this possible? I'd of course, like to verify the existance of the skeletons, or verification of it being a hoax. Thank you. 68.89.250.12 (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be an urban legend. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sounds familiar. Upload them to a website like Imageshack or Photobucket, and give us the link and we can have a look. Be aware that Wikipedia won't make any articles on such things unless we have reliable sources that we can quote. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible says nothing about giants in Greece. According to the Bible, Goliath was a native of Gath in modern Israel (map links) and died in modern Israel. Nyttend (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll lay money now that they are photoshopped images from the Worth1000 website. There's a really nicely well done one that one of the contestants did a few years ago, featuring an archaeologist digging away near a skull larger than he was. It's been making the rounds for years. Matt Deres (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An archaeologist digging away near a skull? I always assumed this was the offending picture: http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1107/images/giant-grave.jpg. At least that's the one I kept seeing. Sometimes even with the worth1000 watermark, which didn't seem to bother the people who saw it as proof of Nephilim... TomorrowTime (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one I'm thinking of is different. The skeleton appears more or less fetal, though you really only see from the waist up, and it's turned to face the right. IIRC, the archaeologist is somewhere to the left of the skull. It's much more cleanly done; I'll have a look later when I'm not at work - I'm sure Snopes has it. Matt Deres (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I conflated a couple of different pictures together. Here is Snope's article on it, including a few different pictures. Matt Deres (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The inventor of the Cardiff Giant would be proud. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My completely unscientific rule-of-thumb in cases like these are that if they were real and not a hoax, it would have been the top headlines in all the major news corporations. The idea of a giant being discovered and no media interest is a pretty good indication that somebody was playing around with photoshop. Falconus^{p t c} 19:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it interesting, though, how pictures from worth1000 just seem to find their way into debates on religion? Kirk Cameron's (in)famous crocoduck is also from that site. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greek in Gaudy Night

If anyone here has a (preferably older) copy of Gaudy Night, please see my question over at the Language refdesk at WP:RD/L#Greek in Gaudy Night. Thanks! +An gr 19:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

religion

Is there a religion in which cats are holy like cows are in Hinduism. 71.100.2.16 (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might check out Cats in ancient Egypt and Bastet. I don't know of any such contemporary belief. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that was the exact article I was going to link to! I refuse to admit that you beat me to it! The ancient Egyptians had a cat-goddess named Bastet, and Wikipedia has an article on Cats in ancient Egypt. I've met a few neopagans who referenced Bastet and the worship of cats, but they always seemed a bit tongue-in-cheek; I don't know that anyone is still really practicing cat-reverence. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What qualifies as reverence? Most cat lovers/owners I know lavish affection and love on their cat and on the cats of friends through food and comfort responses and other forms of appeasement. Such offerings seem to quality as reverence with some animals being allowed even to sleep in the same bed and have complete freedom inside the dwelling, whereas artifacts like crosses are not escorted from room to room. 71.100.2.98 (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US House Committee on Claims

United States House Committee on Claims is a redirect to United States House Committee on the Judiciary, which doesn't include the words "claim" or "claims" in its text. What did it do? Googling "House Claims Committee" only tells me that Florida's legislature has such a committee, but I'm not sure what it does, let alone whether the federal committee was similar to it. Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well there appears to be 1481 linear feet of something at record group 233 [3], does that look like the same thing? 49 feet are about Revolutionary War pensions. This may be a misdirect, the page only says "additional claims" are in the Judiciary Committe archives. You may want to ask Eastmain directly why it redirects, it seems to have been a separate committee until 1946 then presumably was disbanded. Franamax (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Liszt fans

The German article on the de:Guggisberglied, one of the oldest and most famous Swiss folk song though we have no article or mentioning at en:wikipedia, quotes an newspaper column asserting (or at least implying) that the song somehow found its way into something composed by Liszt. I wasn't able to find any referenced confirmation online, but perhaps someone else can, or perhaps listening to the "Guggisberglied" might ring a bell for some of the Lisztophiles here. Though performed by amateurs, this is the least adultered and least pretentious version I found on youtube (moreover, no copyright worries), but punching "Guggisberglied" into youtube's search box will yield a few more. (Note: this is really for Lisztophiles: my strong suspicion is that the author of the article, Tinu Heiniger an accomplished folk rock poet but probably no expert on Liszt, was being careless. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sluzzelin, the sections "Chapelle de Guillaume Tell" and "Le mal du pays" from "1ère année: Suisse" of Liszt’s Années de pèlerinage use Swiss folk material, and even a Swiss hymn [4], but an inspection of the scores in my library reveals nothing remotely like the Guggisbergerlied as sung on that youtube clip (but I am not a trained or qualified musical analyst, I just recognise melodies if they're there to be recognised).

Another thought is the so-called Mountain symphony, which my hunch – and that’s all it is – tells me might use alpine melodies. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers, Jack. Those sound like reasonable candidates. I will listen to them (and report back to you if I'm proven wrong!). ---Sluzzelin talk 04:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]