Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 8

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

April 8

"Freest" society ever

Throughout human history, what civilizations/societies have had the least government? Not counting communes unless they lasted for at least 10 years and had over 100 people, but including nomadic/tribal societies. On a side note, when did systems of government first start to emerge in humanity? What sort of heirarchy did a nomadic band of humans have 10,000 years ago? Thanks 81.96.161.104 (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note to point out that a lack of government is not necessarily freedom. As Hobbes pointed out, to be exposed to the tyranny of nature—of other men, of predatory beasts, of the whims of weather—is not freedom in any true Enlightenment sense of being able to do as one pleases, to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, etc. The mere presence of government does not mean tyranny; the mere absence does not mean freedom. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, I didn't mean to imply it was. That's why I put the quote marks up there. I'm of the opinion that a definite degree of government is required for there to be truly guaranteed freedom. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Lord of the Flies illustrates that point well. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 21:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Primitive Communism supposedly demonstrated by Hunter-gatherer communities, I suppose. Can this be defined as civilization? Probably not; for civilization entails hierarchy and the division of labour; both entail government, and government entails curtailment of freedom, to greater or lesser degrees. Government is thus as old as civilization. Alas, even the most perfect freedom entailed a watchful form of government! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My sense is that sometimes in the wake of major culture shock governmental structures have often broken down for relatively long periods of time. It is often said of Native Americans that they had a very free form of government, and that seems to have been generally true. But it would be a mistake, I think, to assume their societies were always the way they appeared to the newcomers. Pfly (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also dubious that their societies were anything like what you and I would consider "freedom". It wasn't like a member of a Native American tribe could (or would even think to) say, "Gosh, I really disagree with how things are run around here, and I'm going to make a bid for a massive change in how we do things. Heck, while I'm at it, I think I'm going to dress differently, marry whomever I want, and spend my time however I want." The notion that "primitive" societies were free and open-minded is a Rousseau-derived fantasy. There is no more socially conservative place in the world than a small band of people (barely) living off of the land, even if they don't have much by means of a formalized government. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the freest society ever would probably be the Spartans: they oppressed the Helots to do their work at home, so they could concentrate on war. · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

AndonicO, the Helots were part of Spartan society; they cannot be abstracted out, like androids! By your measure the ante bellum South must also have been high among the 'free' societies of the world, freer for some than even ancient Sparta. Does servitude make people invisible? I suppose, by some measures, it must, in a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I probably confused them for the Messenians, who (unless I'm wrong again :P) were "enslaved" (though more like "enserfed") by the Spartans. · AndonicO ^Hail! 22:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You cannot speak of a 'freest society ever' because society is not a homogenous entity, it is a word to lump together all sorts of different people. There's always going to be kings and noblemen at the top of the social hierarchy and peons and peasants at the bottom. Furthemore I wouldn't be too sure that the rich and famous are more 'free' than the poor and desperate. Under close scrutiny the whole notion of freedom dissappears entirely. Everyone is always bound to do what is in their best interest. Defining 'best interest' then becomes the problem, and so on and so forth... Vranak (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers so far guys. If we can safely say that the degree of social freedom allowed by primitive society was incomparable to that of a modern democracy, then I may well have to ask "What has been society that has existed with the least government interference/coercion in private life?". I know that words like freedom make objectivity hard, but surely we can arrive at the least governed/most self-regulated societies that have existed since the Enlightenment. I'm not using freest in a necessarily positive way here, it just is the word that best expresses the concept of a governmentless society. Thanks for any suggestions 81.96.161.104 (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading on the Samizdat blog a few years ago the comment that Britain was probably at its most freest in around 1870. I'm also reminded by A. J. P. Taylor's famous first words to his English History: "Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service."--Johnbull (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

For a fairly modern example of a stateless society, you may be interested in reading our (surprisingly good) article on Anarchy in Somalia. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

civil rights acts of 1957 and 1960

are the civil rights acts of 1957 and 1960 concerned black voting rights?202.70.124.98 (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Civil Rights Act of 1957 and Civil Rights Act of 1960? Corvus cornix_talk 02:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Les Misérables Quotation

I stumbled upon this quotation while reading the abridged version of Les Misérables and found it very interesting...I'm not sure whether I agree with it or not...and now that I think about it, I'm not even completely sure what it means. So basically I was wondering what the quotation really means so I can better judge whether I agree with it or not.

But from my basic understanding of the quote's meaning, I started to disagree, but when I tried to think of a real life example where it wasn't true I was hard pressed to find one. The quote is: "There are certain natures that cannot have love on one side without hatred on the other (p. 156)."

Thanks for all of your insight and help. --71.98.14.106 (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the context? Wrad (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to know that too. I would say, though, the statement is probably true of a great many natures. Hatred is not the antithesis of love; indifference is. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the context from the book. It's actually page 106 in this version of the text though. But Clio, if hate isn't the antithesis of love, what is the antithesis of hate? --71.98.14.106 (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention that the particular context the quote has in the book doesn't really matter to me; I'm wondering basically how that quotation can apply to life in general. --71.98.14.106 (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That is also indifference. Hate and love will always walk hand-in-hand. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a context I didn't expect, Mrs. Thenardier. I can see what he's saying, though. the Thenardiers are described later in the book to be immoral and uneducated. Immoral because uneducated. They are simple, selfish, minds used to fighting on the streets for every last penny. It seems pretty easy to see how someone with that background could gain the assumption that giving love to someone means you have to take it from someone else. Wrad (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Visualize the continuum as a circle instead of a line and it is easier to see indifference being farther from love and hate than each other. -Gwguffey (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, it's not about love and hate as such but describes a manipulative, even calculating nature; a personality at war with itself even – a type the author is trying to make a point about. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the operative words in this quote are "certain natures," i.e. bad people. Hugo wasn't indicting humanity as a whole, just the Thernadier mother who is a pretty despicable character. She contrasts with Valjean who loves Cosette without reservation yet doesn't seem to hate anyone, even Javert who he arguably has good reason to hate. --D. Monack | talk 20:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

London borough coat-of-arms

Borough of Paddington roundel - 1900

Can anyone help with the history of the coat-of-arms of the Metropolitan Borough of Paddington in London, UK? The image at right, of a roundel marker on a bridge over the Grand Union Canal, shows a form of the coat-of-arms (granted in 1902), but the date given here is 1900 (the date the metropolitan borough was founded). Would the coat-of-arms of 1902 have been in use earlier, or is the 1900 date here referring to something else (the building of the bridge? building of the canal? incorporation of the borough?). Is it possible the roundel was placed here later, even much later, than 1900? Those are the main questions, but another question is whether (as I said in the photo caption in the article) the VR bit refers to Queen Victoria's reign (which ended in 1901)? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The date "discrepancy" is actually not too worrisome -- a lot of civic coats of arms have been used before any formal grant was received from the College of Arms (sometimes centuries before). AnonMoos (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Our Metropolitan Borough of Paddington article says that the crossed swords come from the arms of the Diocese of London, by way of the "vestry seal" - that is, the seal of the Church vestry of Paddington. The 'vestry' was an element of the Church of England which for hundreds of years carried out some local government functions before the elected bodies came along everywhere. The mural crown is very common in civic heraldry, combining the ideas of authority and city walls, so is a natural choice as an extra device. I see the arms in the middle of the roundel you show us aren't identical to those granted a few years later - our Metropolitan Borough of Paddington article says something about where the wolves' heads may have come from. As AnonMoos says, there were informal heraldic devices around in Victorian times, just as there are now. See, for example, Derby School. Xn4 20:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

equity share in standerd medicals and pharmasuticals ltd (question moved from help desk)

i have 240 shares in the above mentioned co.the compny was delisted from NSC/BSC .i have came to know that this company is trading in hydrabad stock exchange .i live in kolkata .what can i do to sell out thease equity share —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.203.101 (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the firm but try contacting them (http://www.medinovaindia.com/feedback.htm) asking about the above. ny156uk (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fransisco de Miranda in France

I read on your page on Fransisco de Miranda, the South American patriot, that he had some involvement with the French Revolution, and that he was arrested several times during the Terror. What was he accused of and how did he manage to escape the guillotine? TheLostPrince (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Francisco de Miranda was first arrested in April 1793 on the orders of Antoine Quentin Fouquier-Tinville, Chief Prosecutor of the Revolution, and accused of conspiring against the republic with Charles François Dumouriez, the renegade general. Though indicted before the Revolutionary Tribunal-and under attack in Jean-Paul Marat's L'Ami du peuple-he conducted his defence with such calm eloquence that he was declared innocent. Even so, the campaign of Marat and rest of the Jacobins against him did not weaken. He was arrested again in July 1793, when he was incarcerated in La Force prison, effectively one of the ante-chambers of death during the prevailing Reign of Terror. Appearing again before the tribunal, and mustering all his soldierly courage, he accused the Committee of Public Safety of tyranny, in disregarding his previous acquittal.

Miranda seems to have survived by a combination of good luck and political expediency: the revolutionary government simply could not agree what to do with him. He remained in La Force even after the fall of Robespierre in July 1794, and was not finally released until the January of the following year. Now convinced that the whole direction taken by the Revolution had been wrong, he started to conspire with the moderate royalists against the Directory, and was even named as the possible leader of a military coup. He was arrested and ordered out of the country, only to escape and go into hiding.

He reappeared after being given permission to remain in France, though that did not stop his involvement in yet another monarchist plot in September 1797. The police were ordered to arrest the 'Peruvian general', as the said general submerged himself yet again in the underground. With no more illusions about France, or the Revolution, he left for England in Danish boat, arriving in Dover in January 1798. A remarkable man and a remarkable career. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And that's now in his article. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Suleiman the clot?

Following up the FA on main page, it seemed Suleiman was off to a good start and middle, but the way he handled palace plots seemed very below par[1], especially the way he treated Mustafa who was a model of his younger self (not to mention treatment of his old best friend the Pasha), until the least likely Selim the Sot landed the best job. Was this ineptitude S the M's weakness for a powerful wife, or was he mentally losing the plot by the time the lads were heir-apparent? It seems such a contrast yet nothing mentions a mental decline. Thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, all political careers end in failure, and the magnificence of noon invariably gives way to the disappointment of twilight, does it not?! The important thing to understand here, Julia, is that while every royal court had a share of political intrigue, there were those in the Topkapi Palace, concubines and eunuchs, who existed for nothing but intrigue. There is, however, no reason why Suleiman would see any great virtue in Sehzade Mustafa, or any great weakness in Selim, who incidentally did not turn into 'the Sot' until after he gained the throne. Roxelana almost certainly intrigued against Mustafa, all too aware of the consequences to her own sons if he succeeded. While this cannot be proved conclusively, it seems likely that she persuaded Suleiman that Mustafa intended to force him from power, drawing on the precedent set by Selim I, the Sultan's father, in the deposition of Bayezid II, his grandfather. Indeed, this was not beyond all possibility, and Suleiman would have been mindful that, following the death of Prince Mehmet some years before, the army had considered demanding his retirement. But, in essence, it made no difference to Suleiman, in a typically callous Ottoman way, if Mustafa lived or died, because there were plenty of others to take his place.

Yes, it is true that Suleiman was getting old at the time of Mustafa's execution, and, yes, Roxelana had always been a powerful influence; but there is nothing to prove that she worked specifically on behalf of Selim. Indeed, it seems certain that she would have preferred Prince Bayezid, her favourite son, to succeed to the throne on the death of his father. As it was, her death in 1558 ended all moderating influence on the ambitions of Bayezid and Selim, allowing them to descend into fratricidal conflict. In the end Bayezid lost out by singular lack of judgement, particularly in calling on the support of the partisans of Mustafa and in attempting to draw Safavid Iran into the conflict. It was because of this that Suleiman threw all of his weight behind Selim. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Complicated then (with kismet too), thanks Clio. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome, Julia. I see people on the Miscellaneous Desk are exercising themselves over his headgear! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As they are. I wonder when someone will notice his obvious hat fetish, unleashing more speculation on the royal bod.  ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A Wise King?

Building on the tremendous answers I have had to the various questions I have posed here on Scottish history I would like to hazard another, this time, arguably, of a slightly controversial nature. James IV (r. 1488-1513) is often portrayed as one of the best, most enlightened, of the Scottish kings, but is this an accurate assessment? Hamish MacLean (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all POV really at the end of the day. Its certainly fair to say he was an enlightened king and talented scholar. I dont know whether you are familiar with his works but he was the author of Daemonologie (1596) and Basilikon Doron (1599). More about him can be found at his page...--Cameron (t|p|c) 11:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The question seems to have been about IV, not "the wisest fool in Christendom"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! It was James VI, the great-grandson of James IV, who was the said author of those books, Cameron. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear! I seem to have muddled my numerals! And completely overlook the dates! *goes red*...--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I always enjoy your questions, Hamish. As to whether James IV of Scotland is the most enlightened king well, as Cameron says above, these things are always subjective. Historians and laymen alike have their favourites and defend them quite strenuously. Certainly, we know that James was well-educated, intelligent, interested in both the arts and developing technologies. He was also hopelessly romantic, and rather headstrong (witness the disaster at Flodden Field). The article about James linked above is very brief and does not do justice to this interesting period. Perhaps you could encourage your students to research him and improve the article? It would certainly be a rewarding class project.

James was obviously a strong individual; he inherited the throne at 15 and assumed the rule without any talk of a regent, bringing the country to order quite successfully and winning the support of most nobles. He was noted for his clemency towards those who had rebelled against his father (and later rebels), and walked a fairly steady line in his relations with England, negotiating the Treaty of Perpetual Peace (1502) and marrying henry VII's daughter Margaret Tudor, who was some years his junior, despite his interest in prettier women. The romance of the French queen's invitation to support the Auld Alliance proved too much, of course, and he invaded England, risking the Pope's disapproval, and was soundly trounced at Flodden.

The king was renowned for his knowledge of languages (and was the last Scots king to speak Gaelic), the Bible and history, and was a patron of the arts. He provided a pension for poet William Dunbar, funded the first printing press in Scotland, and instituted an act to make education compulsory for all boys of barons and gentlemen (possibly the first act of its kind). He was fascinated by dentistry and surgery (performing some dental operations himself) and founded King's College, Aberdeen (which taught medicine along with other subjects), and the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh. Interested in ships, cannon and other developing technologies, he oversaw the rise of the Scottish navy under Andrew Wood of Largo. He banned football (but apparently played it himself) and loved the tournament and other hastiludes, held to a chivalric ideal, admired bravery (he even rewarded the defeated English naval captain after a naval battle near Dunbar), and was enthusiastic to go on crusade. He also enjoyed fine clothes, music and other courtly pursuits.

And of course, his love of the fine gesture, and his obsession with those French pikes brought his reign to a rather abrupt end. But his legacy lived on; as we discussed some weeks ago, James's overhaul of the government and general straightening of the country's affairs meant it survived and recovered from the Flodden disaster. So, that is a brief summary; there is more that might be said, and perhaps another (such as Clio) will do so. Gwinva (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No point repeating what Gwinva said. His reputation is good. In Lynch's Oxford Companion to Scottish History we read: "James IV ... is widely regarded today as the most successful of the nine Stewart rulers of Scotland. This was also the view of his own contemporaries" One of the those contemporaries, Pedro de Ayala, Spanish ambassador to England, described him in 1498 as follows: "He is twenty-five years and some months old. He is of noble stature, neither tall nor short, and as handsome in complexion and shape as a man can be." But was he wise? Well, he was much more than conventionally devout, well educated, brave, had a good conceit of himself, cut a regal figure, had a reputation for justice and good rule, but that's not wisdom.

Sir David Lyndsay's Testament and Complaint of Our Soverane Lordis Papingo has a somewhat different view. Lyndsay says that James IV's death was "Nocht be the vertew of Inglis ordinance Bot be his awin wilfull mysgovernance. Alace! that day had he been counsolabill [had he taken advice], He had obtenit laud, glore, and victorie". That doesn't sound very wise at all. Norman Macdougall's book on James is well worth a read. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... he was certainly enlightened, yes, but was he one of the best of the Scottish kings? Well, in general terms, it would have to be said that his reign stands up well when contrasted with that of his predecessor and that of his successor. However, standing aside from this, and assessing the matter objectively, James seems to me to be singularly lacking not just in judgement but in imagination. So, Hamish, let me be controversial in return; if James is to be considered as one of the 'best' of the Scottish monarchs it is really only because they were generally a fairly pedestrian bunch!

So, am I being too hard on James? Let's consider the facts. His father, for all his faults, had been open to the view that the old conflict between England and Scotland had run its course; that nothing further was to be gained by perpetuating ancient quarrels, and everything to be lost by incurring English anger. But no sooner had he taken the throne than James prepared to travel down that old weary road. The Auld Alliance with France-which by this time more often worked against Scottish interests-was renewed in 1491 and almost immediately drew Scotland into a conflict in which it had no interest whatsoever-the dispute between England and France over Brittany. No sooner had James ratified the defensive alliance than Charles VIII made peace with Henry VII at the Treaty of Etaples, not troubling to consult his ally. A wiser man would have taken note of this duplicity. James did not.

James enjoyed, it has to be said, one great advantage that most of his predecessors did not. Henry VII was a practical man for whom war was bad business. Despite all James' provocations Henry wanted peace in the north; not just a temporary arrangement but a permanent or perpetual peace, a term he first used in the diplomatic exchanges of 1494. Two years later he made the proposal even more attractive by offering his eldest daughter, Margaret, as a bride for the Scottish king, which meant that any children they had would be brought directly into the English succession, an attractive prospect, by any reasonable measure. But James demurred, instead offering comfort and support to Perkin Warbeck, the clownish Yorkist pretender, even embarking on a pointless and destructive chevauchee in northern England on his behalf. This might so very easily have ended in complete disaster, for Henry, angered by this breach of good-faith, abandoned his usual caution, calling for full-scale mobilisation against Scotland, a campaign that was only frustrated by the West-Country rising against Henry in 1497. It was the men of Devon and Cornwall who saved James from the consequences of his pointless war.

He did finally have the good sense to make his 'Perpetual Peace', but it was only as perpetual for as long as Henry was alive. The succession in 1509 of the dangerously ambitious Henry VIII, a young king in a hurry, was a time for ever greater stability and calm reflection. Henry was provocative, yes, but James should have the good sense to avoid his provocations, especially as his ambitions were directed not at Scotland but at France. James had a simple choice before him: a Perpetual Peace or an Old Alliance. He chose the latter, with disastrous consequences for him and for his country. I simply cannot bring myself to admire James, a poor politician and an even poorer general. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff. Thank you all. I hope, Clio, your view is not conditioned by some residual anti-Scottish sentiment! Hamish MacLean (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course...not! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy questions

What is the precise relationship between Henri Bergson's vitalism, Edmund Husserl's development of time-consciousness and Martin Heidegger's Dasein? Thank you.F Hebert (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just how precise? --Wetman (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Any answer here is potentially one of prodigious complexity. So, let's try to keep matters simple, if anything connected with Martin Heidegger can ever be made simple!

The starting point is the publication of Henry Bergson's seminal Time and Free Will, in which he distinguishes scientific knowledge of ourselves from our own experience of ourselves. The division here is between time as a spatial concept, a succession of separate and distinct events, and time as a living experience, a flow or a stream, uniting the present with the past and the future. According to Bergson, this flow resists any kind of measurement. The notion of 'time experience' was to be highly influential, used by Marcel Proust, among others in À la recherché du temps perdu.

In his work on phenomenology, Edmund Husserl deepened Bergson's work by analysing exactly how time appeared in consciousness. Under the influence of both Bergson and Husserl, in 1927 Martin Heidegger advanced the notion that Dasein-subjective existence-has its being in all three temporalities; its past, its present and its possible futures. You will find all of this and more, F Hebert, in Being and Time, the Everest of philosophical tracts! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Clio. I cannot say just how impressed I am. It is understandable to me now, and with such economy of words. You have a stunning lucidity. Can you please tell me if you think Heidegger's work truly offers support for Sartre's views on existential humanism? F Hebert (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you see, for Sartre Existentialism is a Humanism, as he makes clear in his publication of 1946. That is to say, the existential human subject becomes philosophically central, part of an ongoing quest for meaning and freedom. Heidegger had no interest in this human-centered subjectivity. He is first and foremost an ontologist, not an existentialist. Being and Time, Heidegger insisted, does not advance an anthropocentric philosophy. The central concern is with being, not human subjectivity. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible Islamic Influences In The Design of Sleeping Beauty Castle

I was just wondering,does anybody know of possible islamic influences in the design of Disneyland`s sleeping beauty castle,I know it sounds stupid if you ask Me it sort of looks like The Taj Mahal,and the Moghuls were Muslims right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.147.235 (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on Sleeping Beauty Castle, which is littered with citation-needed tags, but it mentions that the design is based on Neuschwanstein Castle. To my eye, the Disney concoction looks nothing like the Taj Mahal, but that's just one man's opinion. --LarryMac | Talk 14:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) You mean with those pointy towers and all ? Hey look - I've found the same thing in the Russia and Scotland and France and Germany and a really pointy one in Australia. It's a goddamn international architectural consipracy, I tell you ! (Actually, I think they are all phallic symbols). Gandalf61 (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean general pointed arches or onion domes (which are not really exclusive to Islamic architecture), or something more specific? AnonMoos (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This site shows a black-and-white sketch of Herb Ryman's castle design in 1953, and a black-and-white photograph of Neuschwanstein in the 1950s. The likeness is hard to miss. When viewed in color, the Sleeping Beauty Castle maybe appears more Russian or Asian because of its vivid use of gold, turquoise and other colors. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It has to be added, for those who are not aware of it, that Neuschwanstein itself is a faux castle, commissioned by Ludwig II and planned by a theatrical stage designer. As such, it is about as authentic as the Mickey Mouse version. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But then, Ludwig II was not only a bit Goofy, one may even say he had a Gearloose. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

...and more pointy towers appear in Greece, Mexico, Ireland, Canada, Japan ... the pointy-tower architects are taking over and resistance is futile. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall being told that an architect from Disney visited Carcassonne and took some drawings/inspiration from there. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

According to a Disney fan site, "Herbert Ryman began with a charcoal sketch, which he developed into a painting. He used several French castles for his inspiration, among them Chambord, Usse, and Chenonceau. Inspiration also came from the classic Walt Disney animated feature Cinderella." Another site states "Inspiration for the castle, designed by Herb Ryman, came from a few influences. Neuschwanstein (New Swan Stone) castle in southern Germany and France's château d'Chambord,and château d'Chenonceau." —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaundersW (talk • contribs) 11:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

When did "Nice to meet you" replace "Glad to know you" as the preferred introductory reply?

Recently, I've been immersing myself in a lot of old media. Specifically, TV shows from 1950-1970 and written works from 1850-1980. I've noticed that you rarely -if ever- see "Nice to meet you" used. By far, the most common phrase I see is: "Glad to know you". I know the latter isn't really that different; but honestly, I've never heard it used in real life. So, I'm assuming at some point in our history, there was a shift. I'd like to know when. Bonus points if you also know why. My guess was "nice to meet you" being somewhat less intimate just appeals more to today's less-trusting society. Kel - Ex-web.god (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if a single data point is of any use at all, but my parent's were pretty careful about teaching us proper behavior. "Pleased to meet you" is the response I was taught in the 60s. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This all seems to be specific to the US? I can't think many people would teach children to use either of those expressions here in the UK. When I was a little boy, I was supposed to say "How do you do?" But I'd only say it now to be ceremonious. Xn4 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

These clichés are more accurate as class indicators rather than period indicators. --Wetman (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As for period indicators, see our article on jam rag. Appropriately, it is a red link. And I hope this is all sufficiently cryptic. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is specific to the US. I've seen equivalent phrases in French, British-English and even Brazilian-Portuguese literature (not the exact phrase, rather, similar degrees of formality/intimacy). Good catch by BPmullins, i.e. "Pleased to meet you" being the formal counterpart to "Nice.." I guess to simplify, I could narrow it down to US TV shows. Pre-1980, you hear "Glad..." Post-1980, it's "Nice/Pleased". Just wondering if anyone had any insight into the shift. After all, I realize it's a completely trivial question :) Kel - Ex-web.god (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching I Love Lucy. The characters in the mid-1950s show invariably say, "How do you do." It always sound strange to me (I'm in my early 30s). --Nricardo (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's funny, I was watching Lucy yesterday and heard "Glad to know you". You're right, though. I did hear "How.." a few times as well. Lucy says that, and sounds quite proper in doing so. Kel - Ex-web.god (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am reminded of National Lampoon's Animal House where playboy Eric Stratton's line was "Damn glad to meet you!". Then there was "Belles on their Toes" (1952) set in 1924 by the Gilbreths (of "Cheaper by the Dozen" where Ernestine's line was "Meased to pleat you." Edison (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sartre's drug induced crisis

I came across a brief reference to the fact that Jean-Paul Sartre had some kind of drug induced crisis after his return from Germany in 1934, but can find nothing further, no reference to this in his published work. Any leads here would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.185.81 (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In February of 1935, Sartre, interested in dreams and anomalies of perception, was injected with mescaline at a hospital. At the time he was also suffering a bout of depression. Reporting on the experience to Simone de Beauvoir by telephone, he reported battling with several "devil fish". Over the next few months he began to suffer hallucinations, at first a he believed a single giant lobster was following him, and later more and more of the creatures. A doctor prescribed belladonna, which only made Sartre's problems worse, but by then end of summer he declared that, as far as lobsters were concerned, he had "sent them packing." Fullbrook, K., & Fullbrook, E. (1994). Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre: the remaking of a twentieth-century legend. New York, N.Y.: BasicBooks. pp. 86-7. OCLC 29028752. The authors cite Beauvoir's The Prime of Life.—eric 00:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You will find all of the details in Simone de Beauvoir's memoir, The Prime of Life. Sartre's experience reminds me somewhat of that of Thomas de Quincy in his Confessions of an English Opium Eater. Both men ended being pursued by demons, though Sartre's took a particularly disturbing form. The effects of the mescaline, he told de Beauvoir, were like being trapped in a surrealist text. He wasn't just pursued by the giant lobster mentioned by eric. Huge devil-fish swarmed over his body; de Beauvoir’s shoes turned into beetles; an umbrella became a vulture. These hallucinations lasted for four months, during which time Sartre was convinced he was going mad-"I'm on the edge of a chronic hallucinatory psychosis." Ah, well; just fancy: being pursued down the streets of Paris by a lobster! Makes a change, I suppose, from the usual Lotharios! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the lobster following him had some association with Gerard de Nerval, another writer who lived in Paris, and had experiences with mental illness, and probably with hallucinogenic substances. SaundersW (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps see also The Doors of Perception. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Jacques Chirac on Iraq

The article about the former president of France briefly mentions his anti-war stance. I am, however, looking for any article which in more depth reveals Chirac's stance, in particular post-war (most of which is on Google is either very old, or very much in French). Among other things that interest me, is that France's stand against the invasion of Iraq seems based on some degree of (hard-earned (for them and others)) experience (Algerie, dealings in Africa, so forth). Tony Blair, I remember, would recite the president as having predicted the shiite-sunni problems, and that'd strike me as a rather brutally clever notion for a country's leader to have. Finishing off what is increasingly looking like praise of mr Chirac, I am hoping you can help me to either a Wikipedia article that deals more thoroughly with the subject, or perhaps something external. My search is coming up empty, anyway. Thank you. 81.93.102.185 (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is what I found. In a documentary made for the BBC by Michael Cockerell, Sir Stephen Wall - one of Blair's former policy advisers - has described a meeting between Blair and Chirac in October 2002 during which Chirac made three points about a possible invasion: (1) war is generally not a good thing, as Chirac experienced when he fought as a conscript in Algeria, (2) the US and the UK should not count on being welcomed with flowers, and (3) having the Shia majority take over the country is not the same thing as "democracy". Sources: [2], [3] DAVID ŠENEK 09:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the OP. Thank you, but this is not the information I seek. The program in question does not interest me, it merely went ahead and mentioned Chirac's advice, something I thought I'd briefly mention in my own post. Primarily of interest to me are the opinions that Chirac currently has on what should be done in the Iraq war, possibly before Sarkozy became president. 213.161.190.228 (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bavarian Flask from Bavaria with grasshopper holding a hat trademark

I am wondering if you can find any information about a flask from Bavaria. I have contacted many flask dealers on the internet and none of them have seen this flask before. It is in the shape of a little girl and is about 5 3/4 inches tall and the cork is also the back of her had. On the back there is a grasshoper holding a hat molded into the porcelain and the letters and numbers " K.L. 806" at the bottom of the back. There is also a little butterfly looking emblem stamped into it just before "K.L.". The front is painted, blond hair, blue eyes, pink cheeks, red lips, brown eyebrows, red hat with 3 white flowers, blue scallops on a white dress and pink shoes. She's holding a bouquet of flowers, 3 purple, 1 white, green leaves, yellow centers in the flowers. On the bottom it says "Made in Bavaria" in a circle and the initials "dv" are off to the side. I can send pictures upon request. I appreciate any information you can give me on this flask. Thanks, Martha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary1942 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ma'alaya

Does anybody know what is ma'alaya mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 21:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It would nice to have some approximate context to go on (perhaps the spelling of the word in its original form, if it comes from a language which does not use the Latin alphabet)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this relevant – Sri Lankan language film, "Ma Alaya Kala Tharuniya (The Girl I Loved,) director, Sirisena Wimalaweera, February 20, 1959" from our article List of Sinhala-language films. You could ask at the language refdesk for specifics. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We had this before in January; maybe Don is the same user? It might mean "highness" as in "your highness." Adam Bishop (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So this dance means that the ladies are dressing up as princesses and shaking their butts. Isn't some prostitution in U.A.E.? Don Mustafa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.21 (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Signet Rings

(Another) Random Question: why are signet rings traditionally worn on one's pinkie finger in the UK/US? The article says that its primarily a tradition, but doesn't go into further detail. I have speculated that it might be as signet rings are family heirlooms (thus very old), and when they rings were first cast the initial wearer had thinner fingers due to nutrition. As such, the ring no longer fit on the ring finger, and had to be moved on to the pinkie etc. etc. This is pure speculation however, and I would appreciate an answer in greater detail. As always, thank you. :) Zidel333 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you use a signet ring for its proper purpose - to create an imprint in soft sealing wax before it solidifies- the little finger is the only practical locus. If you were to wear it on any other finger you would get the hot sticky stuff all over your digits and get blisters on your fingers. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not just take the ring off, and use it by holding the circlet between two fingers? That way there will be zero chance of blisters. In light of this usage of signet rings (and I have actually seen a person use it thus, whether or not it is the "proper form"), you answer is only partway satisfactory. Zidel333 (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But why take the ring off, and run the risk of losing it, when a quick twist of the hand suffices? And there is certainly nothing to suggest that mens' hands were thinner in the past. The classes who owned and used signet rings were better known for over-indulgence than for poor nutrition. Rings were frequently worn all fingers, not just the "ring finger". And what is that, but another tradition? Gwinva (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Name of a Hindu God

I was ruminating about names of Indian, Hindu Gods, and have been unable to come up with the name of a Hindu God that starts with the letter F. I have asked a number of people and researched as much as I could but unable to unearth a name. Its probably so obvious that it escapes me, or there is something more linguistically inherent in the letter F and its translation from Sanskrit or other Indian languages. Of course I could be blowing a lot of smoke here. Anyway, for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.103.226 (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably it's because Sanskrit doesn't have an F sound in it. 69.156.126.7 (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The closest to "f" is the फ or "ph". -- Q Chris (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Parvathi.... did u pronounce Farvathi... Slmking (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Slmking

High school band bus crash

Shouldn't there be any updates on the victims who are still hospitalized following that crash which claimed one life on April 5, 2008?72.229.136.18 (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a news item, not an encyclopedia entry. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

left-handed calligraphers

are there any left-handed calligrapehrs? any famous ones at least? thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.30.122 (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There are, though a quick scan yielded none with a Wikipedia article of its own. Rick Muffler, for example, "the only left-handed calligrapher at the White House". Perhaps there are more famous ones in right-to-left writing systems: I found the 18th century Ottoman calligraphist Mehmed Esad Yesari who "was born paralysed down the right hand side of his body, which gave rise to the nickname "Yesari" (left-handed)". Here is a sample of Yesari's art: "Let man pay heed to the reason for his creation." ---Sluzzelin talk 01:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. In your white house link, if I wanted to write in the same script as Rick Muffler, where could I start? I mean his "font" the way he writes his letters. Where can I find letterings in general? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.13.205 (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For fonts there's dafont.com. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How to serve warm beer?

I was told in school (way back when--I'm well above legal) that beer was served warm in the Colonial period. People would stick a hot poke into their jug and drink the warmed up beer. Is there any truth to that and how may I imitate it? Imagine Reason (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I should've googled (the beer page doesn't have much).[4] Imagine Reason (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The beer page needs you!

You need beergoogles! hotclaws 14:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)