Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 September 12

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.

September 12

Traumerei

I'm planning on learning the arrangement of Traumerei by Schumann to play in front of my orchestra, but I can't seem to find the arrangement of the orchestral accompaniment. I know there is one because I have it on CD. Foxjwill 02:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And I presume you are asking if we could help you find it?martianlostinspace ^{email me} 10:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. Don't be a pedant. Recury 13:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the small print of the CD booklet mention the arranger somewhere? A version by Leopold Stokowski exists, but I don't know if that's the one you're looking for. Skarioffszky 18:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I recommend following Skarioffszky's suggestion. There's also an orchestrated version by Johann von Herbeck (for piano and orchestra) and there might easily be more and even adapted adaptations. On which instrument do you intend to perform, on the piano? I ask because there are also orchestrated versions for solo violin and orchestra etc, Träumerei is such a popular earworm with so many versions on so many "Best of ..." albums, ---Sluzzelin talk 02:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I could have sworn I wrote that I play cello. Ah, well. :) Foxjwill 02:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Gustav Stresemann

I read an article recently that suggested that Gustav Stresemann was the one senior German politician who might have stopped Hitler. The Wikipedia page says that his death further 'tilted the slippery slope towards towards World War II.' Can either of these statements be supported? Captainhardy 07:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sort of and yes, Captain. Hitler's rise to power was, in one way at least, the failure of democratic politicians to solve the crisis of the Great Depression. After Bruning, von Papen and Schleicher (that spelt right?) had come and gone, the Depression was still there. Stresemann, if he had survived to see it, could have been a "fourth lifeline" for Hindenburg before having to resort to Hitler. Other than that, personally I don't think it's fair to say "Gustav Stresemann was the one senior German politician...". Maybe there were other politicians who could have, but circumstances didn't work in their favour.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 10:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tilted the slippery slope?! How on earth does one tilt a slippery slope? Sorry, sorry; please forgive the levity, Captainhardy; this is a good question. Unfortunately, it is not one that can be answered with any real authority, because so much depends on hunch and guesswork. I have seen statements to the effect that Stresemann was the one individual who could have given real leadership to the 'middle ground' in German politics in the crisis that followed the Crash of 1929; that a new form of Protestant Liberalism may have been shaped from the ruins of the DVP, Stresemann's own party, and the DDP. He certainly had the personal and the organisational skills; but there is nothing to suggest that the hemorrhage of votes away from middle towards the Nazis could somehow have been prevented by force of personality alone, even if the personality was Stresemann.

The only possible grounds for serious counter-factual history would have been if Stresemann had stood for the Reich Presidency in 1932. The possibility was certainly discussed before his death. People often assume that Hitler came to power by electoral means; he did not. At no point did he obtain a majority in the Reichstag. He was, rather, 'elevated' to office by a small clique drawing on the constitional powers of President Hindenburg, himself lapsing into a state of senility. The Presidency, therefore, was the crucial political factor in Hitler's Machtergreifung. So, no Hindenburg, no Hitler. Stresemann, as President, is most unlikely to have appointed Hitler as Chancellor. But even then there may have been factors not completely within his control, not least of which was the attitude of the German Army, which had its own political agenda in the winter of 1932-3. Hitler happened; that much we do know. Clio the Muse 02:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thomas More

Thomas More was both a Catholic saint and a knight, so how does one correctly refer to him? St. Sir Thomas More? Sir St. Thomas More? I'm lost, please help! 63.224.137.5 09:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Both Sir Thomas and St. Thomas are acceptable titles. I would probably depend on the context in which he was been discussed as to which would be more apt. You would not, however combine the two. Pedro |  Chat  10:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sainthood would take presedence over knighthood I'd imagine.87.102.16.32 14:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Only if you accept the authority and legitimacy of the Roman Catholic pope in declaring him a saint. Henry VIII and his successors certainly don't. More was executed for the very reason that he refused to accept Henry's authority over that of the pope in spiritual matters. However, I'm sure that, as a mark of courtesy, the British Royals and the British Government would refer to More as Saint Thomas More if they were discussing him with the Vatican, for example. In other contexts, it might be Sir Thomas. As Pedro says, it would never be St Sir Thomas or Sir St Thomas - choose one or the other. -- JackofOz 23:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He's certainly never both, although I've seen Sir (Saint) Thomas More. Xn4 02:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too. That might be acceptable to use in a certain context on a one-off basis, to indicate that he was both a knight and a saint, but in a text with many occurrences of his name, you wouldn't repeatedly refer to him that way. The reason for this is that the general formula for saints' names is "St <given name>" (eg. St Peter) or "St <given name> <surname>" (eg. St Elizabeth Seton). Names such as St Francis of Assisi, St Teresa of Avila, St John of God etc are simply variations of St <given name>, to distinguish them from other saints named Francis, Teresa or John. Whatever other temporal titles the person may have had are ignored for this purpose. King Louis IX of France was canonised, but he's known as either "King Louis IX" or just plain "St Louis", depending on the context. However, popes who've been canonised are often called, for example, Pope St Pius X. I guess the Vatican can make its own rules when it comes to popes. They probably consider that election to the papacy, although achieved via a conclave where human cardinals vote, is the hand of God at work and thus the title "Pope" is not really a temporal one. I'm just guessing here, though. -- JackofOz 06:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've come across "Pope Gregory I (St.)", I think. If so, it was in a reference work on the popes. See something like the Oxford Encyc of Popes (if it exists) or a similar title. 203.221.126.156 07:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Louis is sometimes listed in genealogies as King Louis IX the Saint (the dynasty also includes Louis VI the Fat, Louis VIII the Lion, Louis X the Stubborn), and on the other hand he's also presumably the eponym of San Luis Rey – so called to distinguish him from other Saints Louis. —Tamfang 06:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen Saint Sir Thomas More but not Sir Saint with or without parentheses. The reason may be that Sir Thomas was canonized, but Saint Thomas was not knighted. —Tamfang 06:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Corresponding address of the presidents and the prime ministers of the world

Sir, I want the corresponding official address the the country heads ( presidents and priministers) of the world. How do I get ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.144.65 (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You realize, of course, that your correspondence will be answered by some sort of combination of intern and computer, not be at all personal, and not have any influence on the person you send it to, who will never personally come anywhere near your letter? --72.83.170.138 12:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom lives at 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA. DuncanHill 12:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Queen of the United Kingdom lives at Buckingham Palace, London, SW1A 1AA —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs) 12:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Amnesty International used to include many such addresses as part of its regular "appeals". I often found the recommended style of exalted honorifics ("His Honorable Excellency" or whatever) + name of third-world scummy dictator (such as Idi Amin) to be somewhat incongruous... AnonMoos 13:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Amnesty International was my first thought too, but searching their various chapters and websites, I only found addresses for specific campaigns (along with their very specific instructions on how to address it, what to write, what not to write etc.), I didn't find a comprehensive list of nations' leaders. Another way to get these addresses: Go to Wikipedia's corresponding articles (on Russia, Liechtenstein, or Uruguay e.g.) and click on the official government or presidential websites featured in the External links sections. It didn't take me Iong to find official mail addresses for sending letters to leaders or their office. . ---Sluzzelin talk 01:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You can get the names of the office holders from the CIA. With that information, you could then write to the embassy for each country. 152.16.16.75 01:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The address for the President of the United States is: The White House / 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW / Washington, DC 20500 Again, as stated above, don't expect a personal reply. Dismas|^(talk) 05:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Man in the iron mask

who was the man in the iron mask? Charles Ironside 12:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We have an article (Man in the Iron Mask), but it reaches no definite conclusion. DuncanHill 12:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's because we're not supposed to reach our own conclusions. We report what others have published, and there are many published theories, none of which has received general acceptance in the outside world. -- JackofOz 06:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Map

Is there a map which shows places where hostile action is being performed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.29.132 (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is one at the top of Ongoing conflicts. Adam Bishop 13:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Which does not include Zimbabwe. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because there isn't significant military armed conflict in Zimbabwe now. AnonMoos 16:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Garibaldi and South America

Hello. I have very good answers here when I asked early questions about South America, for which I am very thankful. Please, I now wish to know a liitle more about the experience and the influence of the Italian patriot Garibaldi on the continent. There is a little on his encyclopedia page here, not as much as I would like though. What lessons did he draw? How did it effect his future actions? Did he leave any political legacy in South America? Was he an inspiration for local radicals. Sorry so many questions. TheLostPrince 17:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And hello to you!

You will find much of what you need here in Garibaldi's own memoirs, The Life of General Garibaldi Written by Himself with Sketches of his Companions in Arms, a large part of which is concerned with his experiences in South America. What did he learn from his time there? First and foremost, he learned to handle men; learned how to make the best use of soldiers who could not be moulded in terms of conventional military discipline, an experience he later carried to Europe. He learned that if he was to expect obedience and constancy in battle he had to relax the rules of formal military etiquette, relying much more on personal charisma and leadership by example. He learned the first lesson of all great commanders: adapt to circumstances and make the most effective use of the resources to hand. Above all, he learned versitility and resiliance. He was to be an inspiration for many, including Bartolome Mitre, who fought alongside him in Uraguay, and was later to become President of Argentina. Garibaldi's example was also important to people like Eloy Alfaro, the great Ecuadorian Liberal, who was to adopt many of the same political causes. He was also an inspiration for Benito Juarez in Mexico and Antonio Maceo Grajalesin Cuba. In Joseph Conrad's novel Nostromo Don Jose Avellanos speaks the words of Garibaldi when he says that Costaguana must take 'her proper place among the nations of the earth.' And who can conceive of Fidel Castro and the Granma expedition without bringing to mind the example of Garibaldi? Clio the Muse 01:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The 'average' Wikipedia user

I have to present a proposal for using MediaWiki for a large corporate wiki in a couple weeks. In the list of concerns I've been given is: "Wiki's are too hard for an average user to use." I thought of countering this with a brief list of "average" Wikipedia users (who are not computer experts). I know "what is the average  fill in the blank  of Wikipedia users?" has been asked here (and on the Help Desk) many times. My intention is to describe 5-10 users in a brief bio, such as "JoeX is a hedgehog breeder who just learned to use email last year. He has edited over 30 articles in the last six months." If anyone would be interested in being represented as an average Wikipedia user, I would greatly appreciate it. Just leave a note on my talk page. -- kainaw™ 17:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Think about how many average users will read this. The ref desk in-crowd will probably not qualify. It would make more sense to check out random users and leave a note on their talk page. DirkvdM 19:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding DirkvdM's RefDesk hypothesis, that's probably correct. Nevertheless, asking the same question on the general Help Desk might prove more fruitful, as it probably represents a greater cross-section. Also, I am absolutely certain there are Wikipedia:Userboxes and user categories that specifically provide self-selected ratings of computer skill. You could probably collect this information automatically using a few well-constructed Google queries -- but then the "leave a note on my talk page" strategy may work too. dr.ef.tymac 21:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Help Desk questioners might also not represent the typical Wikipedia user – and there is also a marked difference between "readers" and "editors". For any facility used by people because they want to rather than because they have to, the "average" user of the self-selected group of users of that facility will naturally not consider the facility too hard to use. The average violinist does not find the violin too hard, and the average chess player does not find chess too hard. It does not tell us anything about the "average" user in general. So whatever the outcome of any such survey, do not expect it to be a powerful argument against the hypothesis that wiki's are too hard for an average user.  --Lambiam 23:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Another approach might be to point out that wikis are so easy to use that Wikipedia gets vandalized hundreds of times an hour. Umm... okay, so maybe that isn't a good approach.  :-) You could use Wikipedia as an example, pointing out that the syntax is easy to learn and that Wikipedia has dozens of teen administrators. The fact that Wikipedia has over 2,000,000 articles has to say something about the ease of use. 152.16.16.75 02:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Have them run through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. They'll learn the basics in less than half an hour. Wikipedia is quite complicated due to its sheer size. We need rules and complicated coding to fulfill our needs. If you start a corporate wiki, you don't need any of the complicated stuff. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

When I set up a wiki for my family, several managed to add info to it, half of them also logged in and signed, despite being almost complete computer illiterates, knowing little more than how to use email. However, the concept of indentation to indicate what they were reacting to was too complicated for them all. Mind you, the same goes for more than half the Wikipedians, even experienced ones, who indent all over the place, or not at all, without an apparent plan. So the basics are easy, but there are lots of intricacies that aren't. But the point is that almost anyone can participate because of the simple basics and if they do something wrong, that can be corrected by others, from which they can then learn. That is the great strength of a wiki. DirkvdM 18:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is too hard to use. And I think tutorials in general suck, and should only be used if you're going to learn how to do something that could be potentially dangerous if not properly done. The best way to learn is to do things. To click on the edit button and see what happens, to click on other buttons and see what happens, to change things, click on "Save page", and see what happens. Unfortunately, lots of people seem to be afraid to do this. A.Z. 05:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I just read the Wikipedia tutorial (a part of it, obviously). Besides sucking like other tutorials, in that it makes things look a lot harder than they are, it actually makes it look like people who edit Wikipedia are employees of someone. A.Z. 05:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an article dedicated to that learning-by-trying: Wikipedia:Sandbox. Still better is learning by example. Even after almost three years of editing Wikipedia, often when I want to do a specific thing, I don't look it up in any tutorial (which indeed hasn't helped me often), but instead try to remember where I saw that in another article and then copy it. Or I try to find an article where that feature would likely be used. DirkvdM 08:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do that too. A.Z. 16:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"The Violin"

When I was young, I saw a photo in an encyclopedia under the "art" heading. It was a black and white picture of a back view of a nude woman with dark hair sitting on a desk (or other flat surface). She had f-holes like a violin on her back, and if I remember right, she was turning her head to one side. The picture is called "The Violin", I don't know who it is by. I need to find out who the photographer is, and find a picture of it. Can anyone help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.30.50 (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You must be thinking of Le violon d'Ingres by Man Ray (1924). It shows Kiki de Montparnasse seated from behind, wearing a turban, reminiscent of Jean-Dominique Ingres's famous La Grande Baigneuse (here you can see her in Le Bain Turc), and Man Ray added the F-holes to the image. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. Kudos! --Sean 14:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Toronto neighbourhood

Which Toronto neighborhood has the most Latin Americans, Caribbean people, Central Americans, and African-Canadians(w/ ancestry)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.71 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not for sure, but Little Jamaica is a possibility. 199.71.183.2 22:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)