Humanities desk
< October 30	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	November 1 >

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.

October 31

hitler's eye/hair color

what color were his eyes and hair? all the pics are black and white that's why I ask.

Light blue eyes, brown hair Clio the Muse 01:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is funny considering the fact that the "superior" Aryan race he was trying to create consisted of blond haired, blue eyed people. --AstoVidatu 02:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a color pic of a painting of Hitler: [1]. StuRat 02:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His eyes look rather like mine: green!--Light current 03:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that something to boast about so proudly? Ya look just like the Gröfaz himself! is not a compliment you know. :D Hyenaste ^(tell) 03:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt boasting but they dont look blue to me.--Light current 09:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the Nazi leadership in general: the Aryan type is not the exception that proves the rule-it's the exception. In this regard it might be interesting for all of you to note that soon after the Nazi seizure of power Joseph Goebbels (very small, dark man with a big head and a club foot) visited Switzerland. A cartoon appeared in a local newspaper, showing him being received by two bemused men-Who is that? Why, he's a representative of the Master Race. I make no comment, of course, on the implied racism that this displays. Clio the Muse 06:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, such propaganda is prone to backfire... =S I think I saw another cartoon of Goebbels once, where he looked like Mickey Mouse, btw... 惑乱分からん 11:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elected Assemblies and Canada

What is an elected assembly, and how would it benefit citizens of Canada?

An "elected assembly" is a legislature whose members are chosen in elections. Canada already has such an assembly, its House of Commons. Lately, there has been talk in Canada about making the Canadian Senate an elected body as well. The usual argument in favour of elected governments is that elected officials represent and promote the interests of the people who elect them. Marco polo 02:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also talk of proportional representation. So in that case people would really be voting for the political party and not the individuals. --The Dark Side 03:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An "elected assembly" already exists Canada, in our House of Commons, and it benefits us nicely. Loomis 08:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really? Last I heard they had only just finished the whole Belinda is a dog thing. --The Dark Side 21:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think laughing at our elected officials benefits us? --Charlene 05:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, what can be better than a little "Romance and Betrayal" to spice up what is otherwise that excruciatingly boring thing that is Canadian politics. Loomis 16:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sword history

What is the first recorded major battle that involved sword usage by the winning side? By major I don't mean some tribal battle with twenty people involved that established some country. I mean major as in lots of people, something more on the scale of the Roman legions. --The Dark Side 03:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you go back much before the Romans you will likely find that only the rich would have owned swords, with commoners using much more basic weapons, like clubs and spears. I believe this situation also resumed after the fall of Rome. StuRat 06:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be impossible to pinpoint such a battle. Swords have been in use for almost 3000 years, since the Bronze Age. Clio the Muse 06:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The scale of which Roman legions? Early ones or later ones? The Roman Empire lasted almost a milennium (although not allways as an empire, I believe) and the Roman legion says "The size of a typical legion varied widely throughout the history of ancient Rome". Then again, it ranged from 1000 to 6000, so if you say 'a few thousand' men that would still be beyond tribal battles. (Or would it?) DirkvdM 08:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swords were in use well before Romulous and Remus drew milk from the wolf. Tribal battles could involve thousands of men. Clio the Muse 08:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Megiddo might be a contender. 202.50.252.202 21:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has there ever been a movie entirely produced by children that was shown in theaters???

The heading speaks for itself answer plz

Perhaps, if we're talking 17 year olds. However, young children, say under 12, just don't have all the skills needed to produce a movie, unassisted. StuRat 06:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of that movie in which a bunch of kids make a school documentary about a bewitched forest? It presents itself as made just by the kids, but of course it wasn't. But my point is that it would have to be something like that, made with simple equipment that kids can operate. DirkvdM 08:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Blair Witch Project, but it wasn't made by kids. It was only advertised as such to make the video seem real. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't kids in the film. They were in their early twenties. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there has been some movies where all the main cast has been kids, though, such as War Babies @_@ and that gangster movie parody (slipped my name...). As a footnote, I recently saw a trailer for a children's show on Swedish public television, where there were kids behind the camera, in the soundroom, etc. Obviously fake... 惑乱分からん 11:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gangster movie with all-child cast: Bugsy Malone. Cheers, Sam Clark 12:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's it! 惑乱分からん 13:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that was written/directed by a 32-year-old, and produced by a 35-year-old. Only the cast was entirely made up of children. In that sense, the movie wasn't unique at all. Except for a scene or two, the cast of the film based on Golding's Lord of the Flies was entirey made up of children. And what about those Little Rascals movies? Loomis 01:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to the original question, many movies appear to have been produced by children. JChap2006 03:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Theatre

How did Victorian Theatre develop???I searched for any info but could not find any Any help that you can give will be very helpful Thank you in advance!!!

Maybe we could try Victorian theatre or Victorian theater--Light current 10:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear! Drawn a big blank it seems.--Light current 10:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can avoid that sort of thing by previewing your edits before saving them. :) JackofOz 11:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but it shows I have been trying. Some people say very trying! 8-)--Light current 11:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is rather too broad. Did you have in mind any particular countries or theatrical styles? I'm not aware of any style called Victorian as such. Try starting with history of theatre and music hall. --Shantavira 11:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian is a historical period, not a style. Thus, the questioner is asking about the history of theatre in the Victorian era (1837-1901). I agree a country would be useful, but the questioner is probably asking about Britain. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's dreadful stuff, generally. Drama during the Victorian era in general seems rather a low point across Europe. There are exceptions, of course, and out of it would come Henrik Ibsen and August Strindberg and then American naturalism, etc., but it's quite given over to melodrama in most nations, and melodrama is doggerel most of the time. The economics of the playhouses tell the tale more than anything literary, but political censorship is a factor as well. Geogre 18:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.victorianweb.org/mt/mtov.html MeltBanana 22:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Victorian era was over sixty years long. It contained everything from Edward Bulwer-Lytton's Richelieu to Tom Taylor's farce Our American Cousin and Oscar Wilde's light comedy The Importance of Being Earnest. It was not all (or mostly) dreadful; we just have different tastes than people in the 19th century. They would likely universally think that the majority of 20th century plays were dreadful. --Charlene 06:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poland and Adriatic Sea

Has once Poland access to Adriatic Sea?

No. You can see various historic maps of Europe here. - Nunh-huh 09:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably thinking of Hungary. --BluePlatypus 14:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add something to this discussion :).. I would like to point out that it is still hard to find decent maps on the Internet. One of the main things I hated about history is that we were always talking about Alsace-Lorraine, Schleswig-Holstein, Prussia (Prussia has a weird history!!), Holy Roman Empire without knowing where exactly they were. Euratlas only gives maps for each xy00 year. It might be interesting to have some sort of WikiMaps where people can come together to discuss and create maps in very specific yearqs.

Why am I saying all this? It popped up in my mind because I never really understood, it seems every corner in Eastern Europe had something to do with Poland at one point.Evilbu 18:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you're confused doesn't give much of an answer. The answer here is that Poland never had an Adriatic coast. Nor were they in union with any country on the Adriatic or anything like that. Not to mention that for a good part of the last 1000 years there hasn't existed a Poland to speak of. Poland and Hungary are in Central Europe, not Eastern Europe, BTW. --BluePlatypus 16:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a category, Category:Maps_of_the_history_of_Poland -- AnonMoos 21:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it was a close thing. See Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A close thing? Well, not really. The whole of the Austrian Empire was rather inconveniently in the way. Clio the Muse 23:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary doesnt have a sea at all...Poland does. YXYX 02:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary (or The Austro-Hungarian Empire) did before 1918. This is why Baron Von Trapp in the Sound of Music could be in the Austrian Navy. Borders do change over the years, sometimes enormously. --Charlene 04:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well,Serbia also had the acces to the sea,all the way to the Solun.But he asked about Poland. YXYX 05:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poland and the Adriatic Sea. Have a look at a map. Clio the Muse 06:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music Suggestion Request

If I like this music > [2], can similar music be suggested that I might also like? I like to listen to music according what mood I feel, and the melancholic tone of this peice is thus suitable for when I feel so. --Username132 (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's an extract from the theme to Chinatown. So you would probably like other soundtracks by its composer, Jerry Goldsmith. I would also look at other famous film composers such as Ennio Morricone and Michael Nyman, both of whom can be quite melancholic at times. (In particular, check out Nyman's score for Michael Winterbottom's Wonderland, which is very melancholic indeed.) You might want to type some of these names into this site, which gives similar artists to the ones you type in. The results can be a bit odd sometimes, but it can also throw up some useful associations. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At pandora.com you can download a program that will help you find the sort of music you like. I haven't tried it, but I've heard it's very good. --Grace 23:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Literary Criticism

Okay, so Google isn't helping, or maybe I'm jut not typing in the right thing. But I'm looking for something along the lines of a definition of what "New Historical/Cultural" Literary Criticism is. Or a website it about it. Anything. (Tried Google. Google didn't turn up anything useful.)

You are probably looking for New Historicism. Hope that helps. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's just what I needed.

Japanese Art

what is the resemblance of the colour red in japanese art? eg. clothing, signatures on paintings etc. thanks

You mean the symbolic meaning? Well, as an archetype, red can mean death. (Blood=red=death). It can also mean passion, or sacrifice. The specific meaning depends on what the specific piece of art is. ..If that helps at all. :)

See red for a bit more symbolism. Dismas|^(talk) 14:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Companies Buying Shares In Other Companies

In 1999 (I think), Johnson and Johnson bought Centocor (at the time, a publicly traded company) which is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of J&J. Does this mean that J&J owns all shares of Centocor? What if some people didn't want to sell their Centocor shares? After J&J buy more than 50% and have a majority share, are they allowed to do something special to get the rest of the shares they don't own or do peoples Centocor shares turn into J&J shares? --Username132 (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are different ways it can work. See Mergers and acquisitions. Here's the news release for this particular merger. This was a "friendly" takeover. The Boards of Directors of both companies and the shareholders of Centocor approved the transaction and Centocor shares were exchanged for those of Johnson and Johnson with no cash to the shareholders.

Generally, if someone holds a controlling number of shares in a company in the US (which in practice does not need to be 50.000001% if there are multiple shareholders), they can control the BOD and voting on mergers and such. Frequently with pharmaceutical companies a larger company will have a stake in a smaller one for a while and then make a tender offer for the rest of the shares. -THB 17:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't answer all your questions. Johnson and Johnson does own all shares in Centocor--actually there are no longer shares in Centocor, strictly speaking, but J&J did "get" all of them. All shares held in brokerage accounts are automatically exchanged. If someone held actual physical shares in Centocor (assuming they had issued physical shares) and did not exchange them, they would be legally equivalent to the appropriate fraction of J&J shares as if they had exchanged the actual paper. (The paper is just a physical representation of the partial ownership of the company.) Once the merger has been approved, no shareholder has a choice. -THB 17:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The takeover rules require that anyone wishing to purchase control of a corporation must make the same offer to all of the target corporation's shareholders, not simply to the fraction necessary to obtain control. That's why the takeover bid price per-share is always substantially higher than the market price (well, I suppose not always, I suppose there could be exceptions). The extra bit is for what they call the "control premium". Nevertheless, certain shareholders may refuse to sell even at the higher price. There's a remedy for this, though. It depends on the jurisdiction, but once one entity owns somewhere around 90% of a corporation, the owners of the remaining 10% may be forced to sell (at a fair price of course) their remaining ownership, through what I believe is usually termed a "squeeze-out" provision in the relevant securities act. Loomis 10:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey Pop Out

What is the name of the whit plastic device that pops out when the turkey is done?

It's just called a pop-up timer. [3] Laurə n^whisper 16:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though a popular name would just be a "turkey timer". --Bearbear 16:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't necessarily have to be used for turkeys, though. Laurə n^whisper 16:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, you can also tell that a pregnant woman is ready to give birth when their belly-button pops out. :-) StuRat 19:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done doing what? Or are you talking about a dead turkey? (Obviously not a cold turkey.) Amusingly, Turkey (bird) says that in Turkey a turkey is called 'hindi'. It doesn't say what it is called in Hindi. :) In Portuguese it's called 'peru', in Arabic it's called 'Ethiopian bird', in Egypt it's called 'Greek bird', in Greek and Scottish it's called 'French chick(en)', in Malay it's 'Dutch chicken', and the Dutch word 'kalkoen' refers to Calcutta. When all the while it's from America. Which Columbus thought was India. So there you are. DirkvdM 13:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, he thunk it was the Indies. Different. Meleagis gallopavo isn't any better, though; it means, essentially, "Guinea hen chicken peacock". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: This question says that in Hindi a Turkey is called a Teeter. DirkvdM 09:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. State Issued Marriage Licenses

What was the first U.S. state requiring a state issued marriage license? When?

Ellen

"In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act" [4] Laurə n^whisper 16:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question was about the first state, which likely would have predated that 1923 date. StuRat 19:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hostory; kings with names Rudolph

For a series of articles I am writing, I found a small medieval song ~1100, in which a king Rudolph was mentioned. I expect this man with king in Bohemen/Tsjechie, but I would like to know for "about" sure. The language in which the song was written looks like medieval German. This of course feed my suspicion. Can somebody give me some information?

Thanks in advance,

Bert Kotterink Eindhoven, Netherlands <email removed for Bert's safety>

There were Rudolph, Dukes of Austria, who were also Kings of Bohemia. The very first of them was also Holy Roman Emperor; but his reign dates to the thirteenth century, well after the period you mention. There were some earlier Germanic Rudolphs who were kings of Burgundy, though the last of these died in 1032. Anyway have a look at Rudolph I of Germany or Rudolph I, King of Burgundy and take it from there. Clio the Muse 23:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Rudolph you can furthermore see a list of kings named Rudolph. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nautical Poetry

Am trying to find the words of a poem published in the 1940's or thereabouts in the Boston Sunday Globe. The title was "A Nautical Extravaganza", and the first few lines were,

"I stood one day by the breezy bay,

Watching the ships go by,

When a tired tar, with a shake of his head said,

"I wish I could tell a lie. Ive seen some sights,

that would jigger yer lights, and they'be jiggered me own

forsooth. But I aint worth a darn, at telling a yarn,

that wanders away from the truth."

I like the meter in this poem. It's called "A Nautical Extravagance" by Wallace Irwin, and a copy is available here. Hyenaste ^(tell) 19:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can a person who has entered the country illegally become legal by marriage to a U.S. citizen?

I have contacted the INS with this question; without my actually calling the Immigration Tip Line and reporting this person, they could not give me an exact answer.

The situation is this: I know someone who paid a company in New York $5,000 to bring her from China and to provide her with a fake business visa and fake tax forms at the end of the year. As soon as she got into the country, she had studio portraits taken and registered on Match.com, the singles site. She found a U.S. citizen who helped her get her student visa (because the company which was supposed to provide the fake tax forms had disappeared!). She has now received some sort of computer training and is working. She is also living with the U.S. citizen. I do not know if they have gotten married yet, but I would assume that requires a birth certificate and/or a social security number even if they are not married in a church.

My question is this: If she came in as an illegal, now has a job, and if reported to the INS will immediately marry the U.S. citizen with whom she is living, will that make her legal? Or will it simply make the U.S. citizen a felon for helping her in the deception -- he has known since the beginning -- ??? I would appreciate any information anyone can give me.

Cicely5A

Marrying a US citizen does not automatically confer legal residence status in the US. Start with Immigration to the United States. Marrying someone is not a felony and it would be next to impossible to prove that her spouse has known since the beginning. The INS or whatever they call it now investigates marriages to see if they are "white marriages" for immigration purposes where the couple don't actually live together but if they are actually living together and they're married, the purpose of the marriage is between the two married people.

I give my sincere good wishes that someone who so obviously wants to become a US citizen will be able to do so. -THB 20:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope that a person who broke the laws of the United States by illegally entering the country is rounded up and sent back where they came from. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I sincerely hope they round up all those people you believe that illegal immigrants should be rounded up Downunda 22:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have lots of sympathy for people who come to the US to be an American, even if they break the law. I have no sympathy, however, for those who come to the US, legally or not, with the intention of changing it into "little (Insert name of foreign capital here)". StuRat 05:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Romanisation?--Light current 13:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can get an American citizenship without actually learning the American culture. Or you can choose to remain Chinese but still follow U.S. traditions. --Bowlhover 05:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, are you including those who came to certain regions of America with the intention of changing it to New England, New Hampshire, New Jersey or New York? (Or in my case, New Brunswick, British Columbia or Nova Scotia (Latin for New Scotland). Still, I half agree with you. Certain of the features of (North) American culture are more important than others. Colour and race, on their own, cetainly have no importance whatsoever. At the other end of the spectrum, the ideology that one imports is of enormous importance. Both our countries are founded on the fundamental twin principles of freedom and democracy. With a population that just recently exceeded 300 million, I don't think that Americans have much to worry about in this regard. However if you think about it, if just 3% of the population of China were to be allowed to immigrate to Canada, (and I'm sure at least that many would love to, and we certainly have the room for them,) the majority of Canada would be Chinese born. While that wouldn't bother me in the slightest in a racial sense, still, with a majority of citizens having little to no comprehension of freedom and democracy, Canada would certainly lose those fundamental ideological characteristics that make it the free and democratic society it is. All that with only 3% of the population of China. 2% for Australia. Loomis 00:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instrument learning!

Well, I figured since I am going to learn how to play the piano, electric guitar, and accordian, then this question came to mind. What instruments are the most difficult and easiest to learn how to play? I mean well-known musical instruments, and I know different people are better at different things. And we're excluding kazoos, whistles, triangles, gongs, etc.. :) X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve) 19:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the instrument. It is reading music that you need to overcome. Once you can read the music, instruments have evolved over a long period of time to make the production of music as easy as possible. If they were difficult to use, people would opt for an instrument that is easier and produces the same sound. For example, if I made a trumpet with eight valves, it would be nearly impossible to play, but it wouldn't sound any better than the standard 3-valve trumpet. --Kainaw ^(talk) 21:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With something like the piano, the hardest part will be learning the music, since actually making sound with it is a simple as pushing a key. At higher levels, you will need to learn to press the key's a certain way, and make use of a few pedals, but unless the song is espeacially demanding of manual dexterity (Flight of the bumblebee anyone?) the greatest challenge will be learning how to quickly read the music. Whereas an instrument like a trumpet's music is easier to read, and harder to produce, essentially because of the same problems you likely encounterd when first trying to learn to whistle. Razma Dreizehn 23:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Razma Dreizehn[reply]

Reading two lines or chords amd melody lines is bound to be more difficult then reading one line. So IMO any keyboard instrument or Spanish guitar played properly is going to present more music reading challenges. On the practical and physical side, it is widely accepted that brass instruments are the most difficult things to play properly. Also I would say: study the piano to learn music, learn the guitar for fun and learn the accordian to develop your chest 8-)--Light current 01:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the violin family; it seems to me they're among the most difficult instruments to learn. I'd say, with a violin or cello, learning how to make it sound decent is more of a challenge than learning to read the music. But of course that's subjective. --Allen 03:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that the French horn, harmonica, and the oboe were the hardest instruments to learn, and that the ukelele was the easiest to learn. bibliomaniac15 Review? 03:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The harmonica is considered a difficult instrument to learn? I've got a pretty good ear for music, but awful instrumental abilties. To me, the harmonica is by far the easiest instrument to learn. But everyone's different. I'm ok on the keyboard, but I can't play any stringed instrument for my life. I can read music, but I can't "sight-read". Everyone's different. Loomis 00:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there isn't much virtuosic music written for the ukelele; it's typically an accompaniment instrument, so it's not all that hard.

I (and many experts) would append Shakuhachi to the "hardest" list

Anyway, to address Mac, I wouldn't recommend choosing the instrument based on how easy it is to play; I would choose the instrument based on how much you like the music most commonly associated with it, and how much you like its texture (the tone color). Also, what do you want to do? Do you want to play accompaniment? If so, do you want to provide chordal support or play the bass line? Or perhaps you want to be the soloist in front of everyone else?

Answer those questions, and I'll recommend an instrument to you. Piano is generally an instrument that can do anything, from accompaniment to solo pieces, in any genre, and is a good starting point (and rather easy to physically play in comparison to brass and woodwind instruments, as others have mentioned, but it most certainly has its challenges, such as reading independent melodic lines). I can tell you that I myself play guitar, which is rather versatile. I also play electric bass, which is great if you generally want to be behind the scenes and like the low end of the spectrum (double bass is better though, and I want to learn it!). Guitar and other stringed instruments definitely have steeper learning curves than piano, though. -- Ci e lomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some anecdotal evidence. I used to play the french horn, and they're hard even to get a noise out of, let alone a nice noise. The main problem is that once you've done so, there isn't much interesting stuff to play. If you can find an amateur orchestra, they'll be very pleased to have you, but you'll spend a lot of time playing one-parp-parp, one-parp-parp, one-parp-parp followed by 87 bars rest. I now play guitar and electric bass, which are much easier, and more importantly more fun: get a band together, play the kind of thing you enjoy. If I were choosing from scratch now, I'd probably pick the saxophone, but that's because I've become obsessed with John Coltrane. I suppose I'm really just echoing Cielomobile above - pick an instrument based on the sounds and music you like. Cheers, Sam Clark 08:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is well accepted that out of all the brass instruments, the F Horn is the most difficult to play. But it can sound very nice!--Light current 12:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t need to learn music at all – it just helps. If you have a good enough ear, you could play something from memory after hearing it a few times just.

As for instrument, it might help if you can get something that anyone can get a decent tone out of. For example, sit down at a piano, hit one note. It is in tune, and it sounds perfect. If it isn’t, then that’s not your fault. On the clarinet, you could expect 4-5 weeks of squeaks and spluttering on your top lip, because your ombiture isn’t strong enough (don’t ask what that is). On the violin, that period would last at least 6 months.martianlostinspace 10:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youo mean embouchure Im sure 8-0--Light current 12:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2006_October_20#Guitar for an answer I gave 2 weeks ago. DirkvdM 13:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movements that dispute the legitimacy of a reigning monarch

Can anyone think of examples of the above? This is in part a desperate attempt on my part to save List of movements that dispute the legitimacy of a reigning monarch. Currently it has two items: Jacobitism and sedevacantism. I could cheat and add conclavism, a minor variant of sedevacantism, I suppose. I created the list, but it has sat with two items for a few months now and if it cannot be expanded should probably be deleted. JChap2006 21:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just leave it? Maybe there aren't a lot of Wikipedia users with an interest in the subject and with time, maybe it will expand. The only problem is that I don't envisage someone typing in "Movements that dispute the legitimacy of a reigning monarch" in the first place... --Username132 (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Carlism in Spain? Current pretender is Sixto Enrique de Borbón. Lisiate 22:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may find others at Pretender, which list a large number of pretenders to various thrones. Rmhermen 01:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you're only looking for instances where the institution of the monarchy in itself is not what is claimed to be illegitimate, but rather instances where one particular would-be monarch is favoured by a certain movement over the de facto reigning monarch. Otherwise, it would go without saying that republicanism would be the most obvious movement. I just checked your article and apparently the above doesn't apply. I'm also assuming that you're not looking for instances where one monarchy conquers another, and the conquering monarch thereby proclaims him/herself as the new monarch of the conquered. Of those I'm sure the list would be endless. Loomis 21:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, republicanism would be right out. And your struck out language actually describes exactly what I am looking for. Instances where one monarchy conquers another would also qualify, but I have not found too many (really, only one; well, sort of one) instances of movements that assert a currently reigning monarch is illegitimate because that monarch (or his/her predecessors on the throne) took control by force. JChap2006 03:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the list is nowhere near as endless as I had thought. Nontheless, two candidates stick out in my mind: The Royal House of Saud, and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Actually, come to think of it, pretty much any monarchy in the Muslim world could be a possibility. Many terrorist groups would no doubt love to topple these monarchies and turn them into Muslim caliphates. And if the Pope can be considered a monarch (which he apparently is, according to your article), I don't see why a Muslim theocracy can't have its own "monarch". I've even heard the term "anti-Hashemite" being used for those Jordanians who oppose the Hashemites as legitimate rulers. Unfortunately I know extremely little of them, especially as to whether they assert that a different monarch should reign or whether they have something completely different in mind. But I'm grasping at straws here. I hope it helps! (Btw, I'm curious as to the "sort of one" movement you have in mind). Loomis 13:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of the Muslim caliphate angle, although when the Iranian fundamentalists deposed the Shah, they set up a republic (even if the Supreme Leader was an ayatollah chosen for life like the pope) and I'm excluding republicanism. The papacy is generally considered an elective monarchy. The "sort of one" refers to the Bloodless Revolution, which really wasn't completely bloodless. JChap2006 02:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot also has to do with what you'd consider a "movement". I'm sure there are at least some, very few, rather peculiar Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish (and even, for that matter Cornish,) who would dispute the legitimacy of the House of Windsor and would assert some more ancient monarchy as more legitimate. Similarly, here in my home province of Quebec, there must be a few odd "French Monarchist" individuals who would argue that the true "Monarch of Quebec" is not Queen Elizabeth II but rather some decendant of the French House of Bourbon. In fact, I wouldn't be all that surprised if there actually were individuals who dispute the legitimacy of the entire English monarchy dating all the way back to 1066, when Harold II was deposed by William the Conqueror. I wouldn't be surprised in the least bit if some individual somewhere has actually spent the time to actually identify the curent living heir to Harold II's throne. I guess it all depends on how far you're willing to go into the "world of the truly wacky." :)

And then of course there are the monarchies of Canada and Australia, where perhaps there may be some aboriginal peoples who have maintained their own "monarchy" of sorts, in contradiction with Elizabeth II's claim of sovereignty over the particular land they claim. Loomis 04:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usefulness

Why do some people feel a need to be of use to society, while others are happy to lark about or even to feed off of society without contributing? I'm trying to write what my motivation is, and it includes a desire to be an asset to society, but I aside from that short statement, I don't know how to expand upon or explain it. --Username132 (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Start with motivation. -THB 22:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that even in our most jaded moments, when we look down upon humanity as a whole, we humans are extraordinary social creatures who absolutely crave validation by others. Being a 'useful' person, whatever that might involve, will bring pleasing feelings of validation at regular intervals.

It's infinitely easier to go along with mainstream perceptions of what it means to be a 'good', 'useful' person, than coming up with your own value system. All of us are indoctrinated from our earliest moments as to what 'good' and 'bad', 'right' and 'wrong'. Moreover, most of us will lead our lives without ever really being aware of these values, let alone questioning them. As an Irish poet once wrote: "Your parents, they fuck you up they do. They don't mean to, but they do."

It takes years of painful, solitary examination to overcome that indoctrination, to create your own system of values. And even that isn't the half of it. Once you've made your own judgements on good and bad, you'll find you'll need to let those go too, or you'll continually come into conflict with other people. The only sustainable value system is one with no preconceived judgements at all: just deal with matters as they come up, and resist intellectual laziness by using certain words -- most notably 'evil'.

So, to answer your question, the common man will follow whatever value system their parents were raised in. For most of us English-speakers, that will be a Judeo-Christian value system. Nietzsche's the guy you want to look to if you want to start digging through that horrible mess. Since the Sixties, however, there's been a lot more free-thinking than there ever was before. So now you've got plenty of folks raised 'proper', and plenty who've been raised 'hippy'. As of Novemever 2004, there would seem to be a slight majority of 'properly' raised individuals in the US&A, judging by the result of the last Presidential election. -- Chris 23:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have only one small point of information to add to the above. The poet in question was Philip Larkin, and he was English, not Irish. The poem-misquoted-is This Be The Verse, which proceeds as follows;

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.

They may not mean to, but they do.

They fill you with the faults they had

And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn

By fools in old-style hats and coats,

Who half the time were soppy-stern

And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.

It deepens like a coastal shelf.

Get out as early as you can,

And don't have any kids yourself.

Clio the Muse 01:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, this deserves a counter-view. Chris' comments are adolescent nonsense (no offense, Chris). Your urge to be useful is more likely to be exactly what your parents taught you. Selfishness comes from the self and a lack of connection and empathy; we all have it. In order to separate from your parents' home and join society, you have to develop an independent identity, and you should re-examine the values you have been taught by your parents. While young, we rationalize our independent choosing of social values, but what we eventually choose depends mainly on what we were taught when young, no matter how much we (like Chris) like to pretend we re-invent our values de novo. Your parents have flaws and you can learn from those-- but you probably can learn also that even flawed people can care for others and contribute to society, and as you get older you will realize that you too are flawed but able to contribute to society, to love and be loved. We used to be brought up with those basics as our catechism-- selfishness and separateness are the inescapable original sin, while love and connectness are gifts of our parents, those who raise and educate us, and maybe God. Now people are embarrassed to teach this to teenagers but they shouldn't be, and the dichotomy is not between people who were raised "proper" versus "hippy" but those who were raised with love and taught connectedness and those who have to learn it on their own. alteripse 01:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offended -- of course not!

I would add only one further thought:

"Seen through the eye of compassion, there is no one to be disliked."

Thanks to Clio for the poem! Chris 02:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear why what's important here is the motivation to be 'of use to society'. The fundamental question is what reason there is to be altruistic rather than selfish. And that's a huge, philosophical question: start with Normative ethics and pursue the various kinds of answer listed there. (Incidentally, nicely done Clio with Larkin's 'This Be The Verse' - you beat me to it) Cheers, Sam Clark 09:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A simpler answer is that that's a part of being a modern human. People who help other people are valued by other people and have a greater chance of survival and making offspring. People who don't want to be useful to other people have long since mostly died out because nobody wanted to associate with them. There is a theory that the alternative strategy for survival (caring only for yourself and successfully hiding it) has survived in the form of psychopaths. Zocky | picture popups 13:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheists and Halloween

Since today is Halloween, its time to ask a halloween question. How does atheist and atheist organizations deals with Halloween? 202.168.50.40 22:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm actually I don't think Halloween has much to do with christianity. But in Flanders we do have All Saints Day and All Souls Day.Evilbu 22:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a non-denominational secular holiday in the United States. Thus, one's belief in God, or lack of belief in God, is irrelevant. --AstoVidatu 22:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some fundamentalist christians think Halloween is evil. -THB 22:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and some atheists think fundamentalist Christians are evil. StuRat 05:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not a totally pagan ritual?--Light current 23:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain, when great bonfires were lit to celebrate the end of summer and the gathering of the harvest. It is also the festival of the dead. It is no more 'evil' than any other pre-Christian rite. Clio the Muse 23:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's make a holiday when Christ died. I'm handing out candy, this is going better than I expected. ^_^ :) Nowadays in the US it is all in good fun. Give out candy to kids who dress up like people they aren't. I don't remember who those first three girls were but they asked me to go have fun with them sometime. Heh. X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve) 00:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christ died on Good Friday, although I'm not so sure what makes that Friday so good. Personally, any day on which I get executed I would call a bad day. StuRat 05:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he was looking at the bright side of life. (Actually, Good Friday comes from the Middle English "guode Friday", or Holy Friday.) --Charlene 05:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be the bright side of death ? The origin of the "Good" in "Good Friday" is interesting, though. StuRat 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which girls? Sounds interesting... @_@ Btw, Swedish public service television will celebrate Halloween this year with an all-nighter featuring The Exorcist, A Nightmare on Elm Street and Evil Dead. I'll stay up late that night... ;) (Often have trouble sleeping, anyway...) 惑乱分からん 01:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public-service television? What public service, exactly, does The Exorcist provide? -- Mwalcoff 03:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a classic movie, piece of culture. Then, they compete with the commercial channels as well. They could be compared to the British Broadcasting Corporation in that aspect... Public Service has never been exactly defined... ;) 惑乱分からん 03:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do atheists think of Halloween? It's a fun day to wear scary makeup and go out trick-or-treating. What does it have to do with God? --Bowlhover 05:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is seen as satanic by Christians 8-(--Light current 12:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so that's why this Dutch commercial station is showing lots of horror movies these days? Maybe they think halloween will catch on here. Fat chance. We've already got Carnaval. Speaking of which ... If you mean how atheists deal with christian festivals then you had better ask about christmas or carnaval. The answer to which is pretty much the same as how christians dealt with the non-christian ritual of celebrating the lengthening of days during the winter solstice, complete with gifts hung in trees to placate the gods. They simply adapted by changing it into a christian thing. Except that they started chopping the poor trees down to put them in their homes and started giving the gifts to relatives, leaving the gods out in the cold. :) DirkvdM 13:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Carnival? Btw, Halloween has begun to catch on in Sweden... 惑乱分からん 14:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the Mardis Gras, the Fat Tuesday, the last bash before the spring fast. Zocky | picture popups 13:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well many Christian festivals were stolen from the 'pagans'. Not sure about easter 8-?--Light current 13:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, Easter was a celebration of spring and fertility, hence the rabbits and eggs. (I don't recall Jesus being resurrecting by a bunny rabbit and then ascending to heaven surrounded by colored eggs.) :-) StuRat 21:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that just a theory, and there's no sources to how the Germanic *austara (or similar) festival actually was celebrated? 惑乱分からん 22:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not "just a theory," by which you appear to mean "wild guess." Almost all cultures have Summer, Harvest, Winter, and Spring Fertility celebrations. Whatever is being celebrated today, the Easter Bunny and Easter Egg are holdovers from the pagan festival. They have been adapted for other uses, but to deny their origin is disingenuous. B00P 07:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "holdover" theory appears to be pure speculation. It doesn't appear that there are any real references to the Easter bunny prior to 1682... (See German Wikipedia article "Osterhase") 惑乱分からん 19:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 October 31

Contents