Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 October 17

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 17

bangladesh iran

Was it true that some historians say that Bangladesh was part of Persia in the ancient times?

Oh, some 'historians' will say just about anything! As far as I am aware the Persian Empire, in its many guises, never stretched that much further east than the banks of the Indus River. Clio the Muse 00:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• In pre-Muslim times, Greeks and Persians made it about as far as Delhi. After the Muslims arrived, the most likely candidate is the Mughal Empire, which did extend to Bangaladesh. "Some historians" might call the Mughals Persian because they spoke Persian. I say no -- Babur, the first Mughal, was a Timurid, and while the Timurids did rule Persia, they were Mongols, not Persians. The name Mughal means Mongol, and neither Persia nor India nor Bangladesh should feel ashamed for having fallen to the same Mongol family -- the Timurids and the rest of the Mongol Empires were by some measures the largest the world has ever seen. --M@rēino 22:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Beginning of Christian liturgical calendar day?

At what time of day would the liturgical calendar day begin for Christians? I am aware that the civil Gregorian calendar day is considered to begin at midnight local civil time, whenever that might be, but what about the time that the day is considered to begin for religious purposes?

It would start at sunrise, wouldn't it? So the specific time of day would change throughout the year. Perhaps canonical hours might help. Adam Bishop 06:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So what do they do if they're really far north? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.229.240 (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if there is a different ruling buried in church statutes, but local practice here is that the liturgical day of the Church of England begins at midnight. Thus Midnight Mass celebrates the beginning of Christmas from midnight on December 25th, and the new fire is brought into the church to light the Paschal candle at midnight on Easter Sunday. (It's rather a high church.)SaundersW 08:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly ignorant about this, but in a book I can check later at home (and may be misremembering) I thought it was mentioned that vespers (?) services sometimes include readings relating to the feasts celebrated on the two adjacent days, and thus serve as the pivot. All I find online is here ("At Vespers, the prokeimenon functions as the turning point of the service: liturgically, the old day (Saturday) ends, and the new day (Sunday) begins..."), and perhaps that can be explained by what I read at Midnight Office: "an All-Night Vigil is celebrated every Sunday (commencing in the evening on Saturday), and so the Midnight Office and Compline are usually omitted." If no one more knowledgeable can help, I'll consult my source at home this evening. Wareh 18:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me add some more confusion. This site (http://www.catholicliturgy.com) states that The liturgical day runs from midnight to midnight, but the observance of Sunday and solemnities begins with the evening of the preceding day. Also Solemnities are counted as the principal days in the calendar and their observance begins with evening prayer I of the preceding day. Some also have their own vigil Mass for use when Mass is celebrated in the evening of the preceding day. This Catholic site shows the two stats being used together. For Sundays and Solemnities, the liturgical day runs from 4:00 p.m. of the calendar day before to midnight of. the day itself – a period of 32 hours. It appears that the calendar change in the Catholic Church in 1960 is behind this. From ancient times, the day was understood to begin and end at dusk. ... Now the liturgical day began with Matins. [1]

However this site (The orthodox church in America) says Transition to a New Liturgical Day. It should be noted that the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts takes place at the end of a liturgical day. Thus, if the Liturgy of the Presanctified is to be celebrated on a Wednesday, the stichera for the saint commemorated on Wednesday will be chanted, as is customary, at vespers on the eve of that day (Tuesday evening). Another Orthodox site states In the Orthodox Church the liturgical day begins in the evening with the setting of the sun. This practice follows the Biblical account of creation: "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Gen 1:5). SaundersW 18:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The confusion here is understandable, because what we have is a meeting-point between two traditions. In the Jewish system, the day begins at sunset, so a "day" is a period of darkness and then light. This is therefore true for all the sacred days of the Hebrew calendar, including the weekly Sabbaths (that begin Friday nights) and the annual Day of Atonement (that begins the sunset before what modern calendars would consider the real "day"). In the later systems such as the Roman calendar, the day begins at midnight, and Roman Catholicism and most forms of Protestantism have adopted this reckoning - for the most part. Some groups continue to use the sunset-to-sunset reckoning, and some elements of those that don't (as with the aforementioned Vespers) reflect this earlier thinking. Since the question is about the "Christian" reckoning, we do have to fall back on the age-old filters of: "What groups do you mean?" and "What events are you considering?" ◄Zahakiel► 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, and one I'd never thought about. As you say, Zahakiel, there is an older tradition that follows from Judaism with the day beginning at sunset, and a later one with some hangovers. The Catholic liturgical calendar adopted a changeover at midnight far later than the adoption of the Gregorian calendar, and now I am wondering when the Anglican church, or Church of England, or whatever it was at the time, made the change. Fascinating... thanks! SaundersW 21:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely some traditions consider the "new day" to begin at dawn, extending through the period of light and period of darkness until the following dawn? -- !! ?? 09:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There may well be some, but an intensive internet search failed to find reference to it, and Zahakiel's reasoning would explain why the day begins at dusk in older traditions. So, your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to find a tradition that does consider dawn the start of the new liturgical day. SaundersW 16:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Caspar Contarini

I'm hoping to write an article on the mentioned person, but I really can't find many substantial sources. Can anybody help fill me in on this figure or at least point the way to a good source? bibliomaniac15 05:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Gasparo Contarini?—eric 05:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If you re still looking for a source, Bibliomaniac, I would suggest The History of the Popes: Their Church and State by Leopold von Ranke. Clio the Muse 22:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wetman built a redirect from Caspar Contarini, but shouldn't that be Caspar/Gaspar Contarinus/Contarenus? For more sources, John Patrick S. J. Donnelly in his translation of The Office of a Bishop lists in the bibliography:

• Gilbert, Felix (1969) "Religion and Politics in the Thought of Gasparo Contarini" in Action and Conviction in Early Modern Europe OCLC 164536949
• Gleason, Elisabeth G. (1993) Gasparo Contarini: Venice, Rome, and Reform OCLC 44954863
• Logan, Oliver (1978) "The Ideal Bishop and the Venetian Patriciate: c. 1430– c. 1630." Journal of Ecclesiastical History 29: 415–50.
• Logan, Oliver (1996) The Venetian Upper Clergy in the 16th and Early 17th Centuries: A Study of Religious Culture OCLC 59649652
• Matheson, Peter (1972) Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg OCLC 350831
• Ross, James Bruce (1972) "The Emergence of Gasparo Contarini: A Bibliographical Essay." Church History 41: 1–24.
• Ross, James Bruce (1970) "Gasparo Contarini and His Friends." Studies in the Renaissance 17: 192–232.
• Minnich, Nelson H., Elisabeth G. Gleason (1989) "Vocational Choices: An Unknown Letter of Pietro Querini to Gasparo Contarini and Niccolò Tiepolo (April, 1512)." Catholic Historical Review 75:1–20.

—eric 23:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the Somme

What did the British army learn, if anything, from the battle of the Somme and how were these lessons applied? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.13.61 (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Why, the Battle of the Somme was the sharpest learning curve in British military history. What did the army learn? It learned how to be an army in the modern sense, in the first place; and in the second, it learned how to beat the Germans, a lesson applied not immediately but in the Hundred Days Offensive, the centre piece of which was the Battle of Amiens in 1918.

On 1 July 1916, the opening day of the offensive, the generals did not know their business and the soldiers did not know their business. There were too few heavy guns, and they were given too many targets. The initial bombardment, moreover, was too prolonged, giving the Germans time and opportunity to prepare a counter-response. Infantry tactics were amateurish and wasteful, with too many casualties for virtually no gain. But some units, under more imaginative command, were developing system in the midst of chaos. Major General Frederick Ivor Maxse, the commander of the 18th Division, noted for his skill in the training of infantry, experimented with the creeping barrage, allowing his men to advance under artillery cover, thus capturing all of his major objectives. Afterwards he wrote "With sufficient time to prepare an assault on a definite and limited objective, I believe that a well trained division can capture almost and 'impregnable' stronghold..."

This and other lessons were absorbed into the new tactical manuels, issued in February 1917. The creeping barrage; realistic and co-ordinated infantry attacks; effective support by tanks; concentrated machine gun fire; aircraft used in close support of ground troops; keeping the enemy off balance, and again off balance-here were the elements of the British Blitzkrieg. The first signs of the application of the new methods came with the Battle of Arras in 1917. At Amiens in 1918 they were the cause of the 'Black Day of the German Army.' Not at all bad for a country with little in the way of a professional military tradition, one that had been able only to field four divisions in 1914, dismissed as a 'contempable little force' by none other than the Kaiser himself. Clio the Muse 23:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Success and failure

Why did the Communists succeed in Russia in 1917 and all the other European revolutions that followed their example fail? 81.129.82.68 10:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You have to consider that in 1917 the Bolsheviks effectively seized power in a vacuum, quickly gaining the support of Russia's vast peasant population with the promise of peace and of land. In controlling central Russia they had the three ingrediants of victory: space, space and yet more space. Even when they were on the retreat they could fall back on a hinterland which still alowed them to absorb each and every shock. Trotsky, and the new Red Army, controlled the railway system and the interior lines of communication. The counter-revoltion, in contrast, in the shape of the Volunteer Army, suffered from problems of leadership, of popular appeal, of communication, and of co-ordination. Though the Whites attracted some foreign intervention this was too little to make a difference, with forces landing on the periphery of the old Russian Empire, too far away from the Bolshevik centres of power.

Now, look at Germany and Hungary, where revolution was attempted on the basis of the Soviet model. In Germany the political revolution of November 1918 failed to transform into a full-scale social revolution for the simple reason that there was never a power vacuum; that the old elites, including the military, were not swept aside, merely stunned for a time. The left, moreover, was divided, with the moderate SDP, fearful of the extreme Spartacist League, willing to enter into an alliance of convenience with the conservative right. Communist attacks on the new state were fitful and badly co-ordinated, quickly delt with by the emergence of the new Freikorps formations, which had the support and encouragement of Gustav Noske, the Socialist Minister of Defence. The Uprising of January 1919 was quickly crushed, and its leaders Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht killed. Even the formation of the Bavarian Soviet Republic in April, yet another disastrous political adventure, had no chance at all against the forces of the organised right.

The formation of the Hungarian Soviet Republic came about under very specific political circumstances: the Communists under Bela Kun did not seize power; it was handed to them by those, including the majority Socialist party, who felt that Russian support was the one sure way to save Hungary from the demands of the victorious allies. But Lenin was in no position to aid his fellow revolutionaries. Surrounded by hostile powers-and facing a counter-revolution in Hungary itself-the Soviet Republic fell to an invasion by professional Romanian forces. In political terms it was never more than an illusion. Clio the Muse 00:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Russia was ripe for a revolution. Any revolution. The primary goal was to get rid of the bloodsucking Tsars. Later that year, it turned communist/state socialist (whatever). For any revolution to succeed you need a highly disgruntled population. Russia had that. Other European countries didn't because they had already disabled their royal oppressors (in various ways). Had communism been a current ideology around the French revolution, then France might have become a Socialist State. Actually, one might possibly argue it did, but under a different name. But that notion just popped up in my head, just something to ponder on. DirkvdM 08:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, one more factor was of course WWI. Royalty had been gotten rid of, but now this terrible war had broken out, so maybe this new experiment called democracy wasn't such a good idea after all. Even in a moderate country like the Netherlands, Pieter Jelles Troelstra thought that a revolution was imminent (which came to be known as his big mistake). I suppose it failed because the misery wasn't as bad as in Russia, despite the war (especially in the neutral Netherlands of course). And then stories came through about atrocities in Russia, so that cured any desires to adopt that system (which isn't communism, by the way, but that's a different discussion). Yet another ideology made inroads, which led to WWII. That was even worse than WWI in many ways, so that alternative was out the window too. Communism saw some rise in popularity as a result, but that faded in the next decade. So, in a funny way, we have Stalin and Hitler to thank for the democracies we live in. DirkvdM 08:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

One or two points of clarification. There was no possibility of France becoming a 'Socialist State' during the Great Revolution, even if the doctrine had been in currency, for the simple reason that the political procees at work was dominated by bourgeois notions of the rights of property and the responsibilities of the citizen. Even the most radical leaders, men like Robespierre, placed definite limits on the state's right to interfere with private property, or to attempt unwarranted regulation of the economy. Those who went too far in their radicalism; those who defied notions of what was right and proper, men like Jacques Hebert, to take an obvious example, went to the guillotine. Communism and Socialism, in the modern sense of the term, only begin to take shape with Babeuf onwards to Saint-Simon and then to Marx.

No, sorry, Dirk; we do not have Hitler and Stalin to thank for the 'democracies we live in', a truly bizarre suggestion! Where there was a strong civic tradition; a strong system of public law and forms of representation, democracy remained strong, even during the most difficult years. It remained strong throughout western Europe; in Scandinavia; in Czechoslovakia, up until the Munich Agreement of 1938; in the United Kingdom and in the British Dominions; and in the United States. It was weak where it was associated with defeat, as in Germany; or in feelings of defeat, as in Italy. It was weak throughout much of eastern Europe because of the absence of a democratic tradition; because of economic backwardness; because of ethnic tensions; because small, self-interested and corrupt elites stood isolated against the mass of the uneducated peasantry. The only fully democratic body in Russian history, the Constituent Assembly of 1918, was killed off by the Bolshevik dictatorship. People like the English, with centuries of parliamentary development behind them, were never, ever going to fall for the 'smelly little orthodoxies', as George Orwell puts it, promoted by the likes of Hitler and Stalin. Clio the Muse 23:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

About the first bit: you say that communist/socialist ideals were not in vogue at the time, which is also what I said. About the second bit, you say that there was never a real threat to democracies in western Europe, which is also what I say. I just addressed the question why that might be (despite the two world wars) and it occurred to me that if there hadn't been the horror stories associated with the alternatives, they might have gained more momentum. (It would have been interesting to see how communism would have worked out in the Netherlands.) Btw, I got this notion that democracy was still regarded as something rather experimental in the first half of the 20th century and that communism and fascism were seen as alternatives from Geert Mak, and although I value your knowledge, he is a recognised historian/writer, so of course he has more authority on the subject than you. Ah, I see in the article that the book I read, 'In Europa', has been translated into English. So here's my second book tip to you. :) As for "people like the English, with centuries of parliamentary development behind them", what other such people are there? Isn't England quite unique in that respect? DirkvdM 06:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear, dear; Geert Mak, the man who combines historical analysis with travelogue, making sweeping generalisations about the past, liberally seasoned with factual errors! I am not saying that Travels Through the Twentieth Century is a bad book; I am saying that it bears all the marks of journalese, the stable in which it was born. It lacks weight; it lacks depth; it lacks substance. There must surely be a higher standard of scholarly analysis in the Netherlands than that! His point about communism, fascism and democracy is, quite simply, muddle-headed nonsense. Politics, and political choices, are not a question of experimentation and fashion. One has to consider the specific circumstances which led to a given set of outcomes; what objective factors, what structural factors, in other words, were behind the failure of forms of extremism in, say, the Netherlands and their success in Austria, another small country.

Look, Dirk, its obvious that history is not your 'specialist subject', if I might so express it, meaning no disrespect. But there is an issue here going beyond that of expertise. When I was an undergraduate, precocious and opinionated in every way, I was told by one of my professors to take nothing for granted; to question everything; to interrogate and dissect sources; to consider all judgements suspect until they could be cross-referenced and proved; to weigh, to analyse, to think. Above all, not to accept authority as authority, little more than a brick wall of the intellect. You may question anything I write here; you may seek to prove me wrong by pointing at alternative ways of looking at things, or drawing attention to some facts that I may have passed over in haste. But please, please do not assume that publication is the measure of wisdom. Many more bad books have made their way into print than good ones. We need to acquire the wit, the judgement, the skill and the maturity to tell which is which. Can I suggest-again with all due respect-that the truly important thing, the only important thing, is to think for youself; to move out of the box, to reach your own considered and unique conclusions, and not to believe something because Geert Mak, or any other author, says so. Oh, and finally, Dirk, Clio is also a published author; so you are at prefect liberty to disregard all of this! Clio the Muse 23:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely that one should always question everything - after all you're talking to a philosopher. :) That is actually one of my credi (hmmm, which source to believe now - my spell checker says 'credos', but Wiktionary says 'credi'). But if that is all you do you'll go nuts (I speak from experience - feeling all (all!) certainties slip away from under you is a pretty scary experience). You also have to 'for the moment' assume to be true which is most likely to be true. So I have to make a judgement about which sources are most likely correct. You're certainly well-informed, because else your assertions would have been attacked much more often. But even with a lot of knowledge you can still make mistakes when you start interpreting. For that you don't only need knowledge, but also experience (knowledge can be found in a book, but insight comes with the years), and Geert Mak has the advantage of age over you. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that as far as I can judge Mak is a more reliable source. But a better way to be certain is to have two independent (the tricky part) sources. And I also heard in Andere Tijden (one of my favourite tv shows, with a lot of historical footage and stories by people who had first-hand experience, rather like Mak's book) that in the 1930s in Germany there was a split in society between the nazis and the commies. Complete with images of their marches (I mentioned those before).

It also makes a lot of sense. That democracy was a fairly recent experiment in most European countries is true (right?). And that despite that the two (or two of the) most horrible wars in history took place after about a century is also true (right? - just tell me where you think this goes wrong). And communism and fascism/nazism were fairly recent 'inventions'. That people were divided and struggling as to which road to take makes a lot of sense. The old order that had ruled for centuries had been gotten rid of and now the alternative(s) (democracy and capitalism) had led to all this misery (first WWI and then the stock exchange crash and then there was also the Spanish Flu, which had little to do with it, but tell that to the people). This is why I find the interbellum such a fascinating period in history. The future of whole world (quite literally) hung in the balance - it was rather a chaotic situation that could have spinned off in a completely different direction. Also, the fast changing society that we live in now had been prepared for for centuries with the rise of the true sciences, but the social change that was needed to let that have its full effect only came in the first half of the 20th century, with some preparatory moves in the preceding century, such as a first taste of democracy and capitalism (and even socialism already to some extent), but also with the theories of evolution that told us that the world we live in is nothing special and that everything can change. I suppose that last phrase is the most essential. That was to a large extent a new insight - if we don't like something, we can get rid of it. The two world wars each shuffled the cards and out came the society we live in now (in the West) - liberalism with a socialist 'correction'. Decolonisation and the sixties and such were just 'finishing touches'. DirkvdM 07:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Age and wisdom; not even Clio can beat that! Some of the issues you have raised would demand a lengthy response, that cannot really be justified here. I would just ask you to reflect on two things: German democracy was tainted from the outset by association with defeat, a point I have already made, but even so it was killed in the end by a stab in the back, not by frontal attack. Clio the Muse 23:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I should try to avoid making a Latin plural of credo, which is of course a verb and not a noun. If you need a plural of credo then perhaps credos... the only reason for preferring credi would be if it were the historic plural, but it isn't, except possibly in Italian. Xn4 20:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Foreign policy of Elizabeth of England

What were the main factors shaping the foreign policy of Elizabeth I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abe Goldberg (talk • contribs) 12:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This sounbds too much like a homework question to be answered here. Can you focus your question more narrowly?--Wetman 18:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Spain, France, Scotland, the Netherlands, the Pope and the marriage question. That should get you started. --Dweller 22:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There are other factors, Dweller, that you have not touched on which give Elizabeth's foreign policy a unique piquancy, factors which come far closer to home; namely, the question of the Queen's legitimacy and the question of her succession. And both of these found substance and expression in the person of Mary Queen of Scots, her greatest and most dangerous rival. But for this Elizabeth may not have intervened in Scotland in 1560, thus securing the victory of the Reformation; and but for this she may not have intervened in France in 1562, giving support to the Huguenots against Mary's Guise relatives in the Wars of Religion.

Although Mary's execution in 1587 removed a source of friction with the French it only served to increase that with Spain. In need of an alliance with the French, she pursued this end with a high degree of consistency, not deflected by the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre. She even used the question of her possible marriage in a quite calculating and cynical attempt to ensure the continuation of the French connection. For the great task, that which surpassed all others, was to keep Philip II from re-establishing control of the Netherlands. And what a remarkable act it was: even after the execution of Mary-which put her at variance with most of Catholic Europe-Elizabeth managed to preserve good relations with France and Scotland, despite their connections with her dead rival, thus reversing centuries of antagonism under the most unpromising of circumstances. Philip was kept at bay, out of the Netherlands and out of England. It truly was the Golden Age! Clio the Muse 01:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguably, all of that's covered in my list, lol. I think we both forgot to mention Ireland. But more fundamentally, Abe, you need to consider time. Elizabeth reigned for a very very long time and over such an epoch the themes, pressures and urgencies ebbed and flowed. New problems arose as old were dispensed with, alliances were made and broken. And don't forget, as her reign wound up, the marriage question diminished in favour of the succession problem. There, between my grudging terseness and Clio's generosity, I think you have plenty of material to get delving into the books with. :-) --Dweller 09:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, both. I now have a good idea of the areas and themes I should be looking at. Have you seen that movie, Clio the Muse? Is it any good? Abe Goldberg 18:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been released in the UK yet, Abe. I did see Elizabeth, though: great drama; terrible history. I do not suppose the sequel will be any different. Clio the Muse 23:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Citing a historical marker

How do you properly cite information from a historical marker, monument or plaque? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.137.222.48 (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Wouldn't you just cite it like any other real-world artifact? --Sean 17:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• "George Washington Slept Here". (1974). Pennsylvania Board on Landmarks. Historical marker, corner of Maple and Broom Streets, Podunk, Pennsylvania.--Pharos 19:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

First Zeppelin Flight

I noticed that for June 22, 1910 we have recorded the first Zeppelin flight. There is significant amounts of conflicting data in the actual Zeppelin page. It says the first flight was on July 2, 1900. The closest date to the one listed here is in the "Pre World War I" section and states;

"Prior to World War I, a total of 21 Zeppelin airships (LZ5 to LZ 25) were manufactured. In 1909, LZ6 became the first Zeppelin used for commercial passenger transport. The world's first airline, the newly founded DELAG, bought seven LZ6s by 1914. The airships were given names in addition to their production numbers, three of which are LZ8 Deutschland II (1911), LZ11 Viktoria Luise (1912), and LZ17 Sachsen (1913). Seven of these twenty-seven ships were destroyed in accidents, mostly while being transferred into their halls. There were no casualties. One of them was LZ7 Deutschland which started for its maiden voyage on June 19th 1910. On June 28th it began a pleasure trip to make Zeppelins more popular. Among other aboard were 19 journalists, two of which were reporters of well known British newspapers. LZ7 crashed in bad weather at Mount Limberg near Bad Iburg in Lower Saxony. Nobody was injured.[8]"

I would like to know which one is correct. Thank you! Beekone 13:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You could try asking User:Skysmith who added that "fact" in July 2004. Rmhermen 19:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Beekone, the Zeppelin made its maiden flight on 2 July 1900 at Friedrichshaven on Lake Constance in southern Germany (Cassell's Chronology of World History, 2005 p.458.) The 1910 date would seem only to refer to the first commercial flight of the LZ7 Deutschland. Clio the Muse 22:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to be totally clear this wasn't the first commercial flight of any Zeppelin, just th efirst commercial flight of that particular model? Thanks, Clio. Beekone 13:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume it was that particular model, though on this I have, like you, only the Wikipedia page to draw on for information. You might be advised, depending how serious you are, Beekone, to do some further research. Clio the Muse 22:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

aaawwwwwwwww, man Beekone 13:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Beekone! By way of compensation I can offer you two sources: Zepplin: Germany and the Airship, 1900-1939 by Guillaume de Syon, and Airships in International Affairs, 1890-1940 by J. Duggan and C. Meyer. Clio the Muse 23:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone...?

I'm finding someone scholar in ancient (I know his creed and tenets ,I just don't know his greek name) ,before plato ,from north africa ,(perhaps egypt) who was accepted by greek philosophers and scientists and was known among them,also they accepted him one of theirselfs,. maybe he was philosophy teacher of Empedocles... .Flakture 16:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The only North African philosopher that I can find who was known to the Greeks and who (slightly) predates Plato is Aristippus, who was a Greek from the Greek North African colony of Cyrene. Marco polo 18:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The details you've provided don't suggest much; it would be helpful if you'd spell out the "creed and tenets" you say you know about. Works like West's Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient, when discussing Egyptian influences, usually compare, say, the eschatological ideas of the Book of the Dead to what we find in the Orphic gold plates. There's not a named Egyptian authority. The relevant side of Empedocles' thinking is probably most directly treated in Peter Kingsley's book, but I don't remember anything relevant in the Empedocles testimonia. Wareh 18:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe a tangent, but -- Moses was a North African philosopher known to the Greeks who predated Plato. Since he maintained that his philosophy was taught to him by a monotheistic God, though, I doubt the Greeks of Plato's time accepted him as one of their own. --M@rēino 18:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Another tangent, maybe closer to what you want -- the goddess Ma'at of Egypt was generally considered to be the equivalent of Plato's Logos. --M@rēino 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dalai Lama

So what, aside from denying the Communist Party sovereignty, has the Dalai Lama done to incite the wrath and bad will of the Communists for those also who can appreciate him? Clem 17:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

have you read Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama? That goes into detail as to his activities. Corvus cornix 20:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read the majority of it but found no answer to my question there. Clem 00:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Denying the Communist party 'sovereignty', as you have put it, Clem, is sufficient cause for Beijing's wrath and resentment. Beyond that, the Dalai Lama is not just a spiritual leader but a symbol of Tibetan national identity, a symbol of Tibet itself, of an ancient tradition that the Communists have systematically tried to destroy ever since the failed uprising of 1959. Clio the Muse 22:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So what reason do the Communists have for not granting Tibet autonomy, at least to the extent suggested by the Dalai Lama of dealing with matters of territorial defense and foreign affairs but leaving the Tibetan people to otherwise rule themselves? Clem 00:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a degree of autonomy, if you can call it that, in the administration of the Tibet Autonomous Region. But the Communist Party has a very clear idea of what it considers to be China, and Tibet is part of China. The return of the Dalai Lama would give rise to unacceptable political forces, representing a challenge to the integrity of the unitary state. Clio the Muse 00:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Political forces in what respect? I can not imagine it would be economic political forces since the business men I deal with everyday in and around Shanghai exhibit the absolute worst possible example of "...unacceptable political forces,..." in regard to the integrity of the unitary state that I can possibly imagine. Clem 01:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Tibetan nationalism; any kind of nationalism that threatens the integrity of the Chinese state, the domination of the Han and the control of the Communist Party; any political force, in other words, that would undermine the unity of China. I am merely laying out the bare political facts; I am not attempting to justify them. I would be happy to clarify any empirical matters, but I have no interest at all in debate for the sake of debate. I have no comment to make on your business contacts, or indeed what they tell you about the political health of modern China. As far as the broader issues are concerned I suggest you take the matter up with the authorities in Beijing...or read a good history. Clio the Muse 01:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not mean to debate either... just an impromptu observation. Just seems misplaced all the concern over Tibet given the situation in and around Shanghai in terms of upholding the Communist ideal, the complaint being that under capitalism the advantages Communism is said to represent are far better implemented and expressed by governing and regulating bodies as a reality rather than as an ideal. Kind of makes one laugh at what Communism is really (by fact of demonstration) all about. Clem 02:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So according to some Dalai lama should be the leader of an independant tibet - would that be democratic? - since it wouldn't would US/UK then have to invade?87.102.3.9 12:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Clem, to be quite honest, I think you are best not to attempt to unravel the mysteries of Chinese Communism. I certainly have no idea what it stands for, other than to perpetuate the monopoly of power by a corrupt and self-regarding oligarchy. Traditionally Communism, even in the midst of its bleakest excesses, paid lip-service to an ideal of human liberation; to a notion of justice and the greater good. The Chinese Communist system merely seems to provide the setting for forms of unregulated capitalist development not seen in England since the 1840s, a period the historian Eric Hobsbawm refers to as the 'bleak age of the bourgeosie'; a time when there was little or no help for the 'casualties' of progress; the time of Gradgrind and the Work house. Communism seems to have brought most of the Chinese people nothing; no social security; no state health system; no guarantee of employment; no decent housing-nothing, not even the Work House. Beijing, at the present, is being turned into a huge Potemkin village in preparation for the Olympic games, with the poor and the helpless being swept aside, many into privately run 'black prisons.' Yikes....I must have been bitten by the soapbox bug tonight, so I will stop just there! Clio the Muse 22:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's quite alright. Sometimes Most of the time I likewise can not help but to let a constructive (hopefully) opinion grab an opportunity to be heard. If we can stave off WWIII long enough then I have hope that Beijing will finally see the light and come around. Clem 03:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Islamic calendar and agriculture

Something puzzles me about the Islamic calendar, which is the only pure lunar calendar in widespread use, and so totally out of synch with the seasons of the agricultural year. How could the timing of vital agricultural events (plantings, harvests etc.) be maintained under a purely lunar calendar? Was there traditionally widespread use of alternative calendars or other season-determining methods for agricultural purposes in Islamic communities?--Pharos 19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the details of Middle Eastern calendars, but harvests, plantings, etc, can still be judged by the changes in the weather, without specific reference to a particular date on a lunar or sidereal calendar. This would result in a reference such as "planting occurs one month after the main thaw" (timing is arbitrary, not sourced). Harvest, of course, happens when the plants to be harvested are ripe to be picked. The offset between a lunar calendar and a siderial calendar is only a few weeks, so, although the name of the month may be different every year, you can still use the month as a reference - for example, planting occurs 4 lunar months after harvest.Steewi 01:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, pre-Islamic solar calendars have remained in use among the populace in some Muslim countries. See, for example, Iranian calendar and Egyptian calendar. During some web searching, I found hints that the Julian calendar may have remained in use in Syria and Lebanon. As Steewi points out, farmers the world over have used cues from the local environment such as the flowering of wild plants, the return of migratory birds, and so on. Marco polo 01:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If you go to Islamic calendar, it says that it is currently 1428AH. Yet the algorithm explained at Kuwaiti algorithm says it is now 1431AH. Which is correct, and could someone who knows fix whatever is broken please. -- SGBailey 15:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A comment on Talk:Islamic calendar says: Islamic Calendar is used only for Ramzan Fasting, Haj pilgrimage and Eid festivities. For all other purposes Gregorian calendar is used. Another, in repsonse to the question of whether a Muslim's age is given in lunar or solar terms says: most Muslims state their age in solar years. And see especially the section Talk:Islamic calendar#Seasons and farming. Pfly 07:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, guys. It's helped me find a good source on the subject, and I've added a small section at Islamic calendar#Uses. Feel free to help improve it.--Pharos 23:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ghosts

Why are people scared of ghosts? I know that if I were ever to see a real ghost (which I find extremely unlikely, as I haven't believed in them for almost two decades), I'd be scared too, but why? Why this irrational fear of the unknown? What can ghosts do to people? In the end, for the fear to make sense, the end result would have to be death, permanent illness, insanity, or a curse (bad luck or something). But it seems it's none of these end effects people fear - it's the ghosts themselves. Can it be that they have so completely rationalised their view of the world that if something completely doesn't fit into it, it's bound to be scary? JIP | Talk 19:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• It's probably a bit more prosaic than that. Ghosts are (obstensibly) dead people and lots of people are afraid of death, dying, dead people, bodies etc. Ghosts are also pretty much an unknown in terms of our understanding and lots of people fear the unknown or things they can't understand. Exxolon 19:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• If people had completely rationalised their worldview, they would be able to fit ghosts into it as well. Wouldn't someone who hadn't (a young child or a caveman or something) be more afraid of ghosts and the unknown than someone who had? Recury 20:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Since when are phobias rational? They're often understandable, but rarely logical. --Dweller 22:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you think it's unreasonable to be afraid of a ghostly apparition. It's not that it doesn't fit into your belief system, it's that you have no basis for predicting what it will do. If you believe in ghosts then you probably also believe that ghosts have a certain appearance and act in a certain way, and depending on those beliefs you might identify the apparition as a ghost and conclude that it was harmless. Absent such information what you're seeing isn't a ghost, but something unrecognizable that's as likely to kill you as give you the time of day. -- BenRG 23:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

First I would like to point out that our cultural mythology, shall I say, includes plenty of examples of people being harmed by the spirits of the dead. There are many examples ghost who for whatever reason try to kill or otherwise harm the living. The example that comes to mind most readily is the Ingmar Bergman film Fanny and Alexander in which the dead antagonist returns at the end to harass his former victims. However, as I do not believe in ghosts, I know that if I saw a ghost I would probably infer that I am mentally ill. This for me would be the major fear; a fear of what might emerge from my own mind. You might also be interested in Sleep paralysis. I had this once, complete with a hypnagogic hallucinations. It is terrifying. The hallucination appears very believable, but much of the fear is created without concuss control. I suspect our fear of such things is instinctive for humans. --S.dedalus 00:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BenRG. A.Z. 02:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Freud's concept of the Uncanny is perhaps relevant here. Basically when something should be familiar but is for some reason very much not it produces horribly awful feelings. Horror movies play on this all the time, and it is a known problem in robotics that robots which appear human-like but don't have the right biological/social cues creep people out a lot more than a robot that looks like a toaster. Things like ghosts, zombies, and vampires—common in many cultures—are all classic examples of the "uncanny", dealing with human forms that are in between life and death, and probably play with our pscyhological/cognitive systems which are trained to recognize healthy vs. sick individuals. --24.147.86.187 00:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

When confronted with a ghost it's best not to instantly assume the supernatural, especially if you happen to be either investigating a mystery that involves a large ghostly dog, or investigating a mystery accompanied by a large dog. Pesky kids!! 38.112.225.84 14:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Tatarstan Airlines logo

Tatarstan Airlines logo

Does anyone knows about the image of the Tatarstan Airlines logo (Tatarstan)? What kind of fictional winged horse is pictured and what's the history behind it? --Scriberius 20:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

the article Aq Bars (the coat of arms of Tatarstan) says it is actually a Snow Leopard 84.67.223.64 21:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks! Scriberius 06:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Old Testament and afterlife

Hi. Someone told me that the OT doesn't mention an afterlife. Is that true? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.150.130 (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No. See our articles on Sheol and Gehenna. Gandalf61 23:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There's more truth to the assertion if you mean the 5 books of Moses, rather than the OT. --Dweller 23:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

...and see Jewish eschatology for detailed discussion. Gandalf61 23:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)