Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 June 29

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

June 29

Jesus as myth?

I believe in Jesus as depicted in the New Testament, but no, this isn't an attempt to start a debate about the reliability of the canonical gospels, of the noncanonical gospels, of Jesus' actual personality, etc. — I'm curious about the application of the word "myth" as defined in our article on the topic: "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form". In this sense, are the New Testament accounts of Jesus properly to be considered myths? I recently ran across someone making such a claim, and clearly intending the academic meaning, not saying that Jesus never existed. This definition sounded rather incorrect, because the gospels clearly depict Jesus in a world very much like our own, minus technology and miracles done by Jesus' power. To my mind, biblical myths appear only in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, where we can read accounts of creation, the first humans, etc., all with God working directly in the situation rather frequently. Do I understand rightly? Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say the New Testament fits the definition of a myth. I don't see anything in the definition that requires the most powerful character to play an active role. A lot of Ancient Greek mythology revolves around fair minor gods and even some mortal heroes and they are certainly considered myths. I'd say any story that is claimed to have really happened but doesn't have the kind of supporting evidence required to be considered a historical event is a myth. --Tango (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

By deciding on your definition of myth you decide whether Jesus is a myth or not. Notice that the definition you gave above can apply to the Gospels, even if they are true.

I strongly suggest you read C.S. Lewis on this matter. He spent a lot of his life studying mythology, and among other things came to the conclusion that the Gospels were in a completely different style to every other kind of "traditional myth", such as the Greeks. However he also eventually said that he considered the story of Jesus to be a "true myth" - i.e. that it was mythological in character but also true. For the rest of his explanation you'll have to read it yourself. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You might also be interested in Christ myth theory, an article about the view that Jesus never existed. For a discussion of the mythological elements of Jesus, see Jesus Christ and comparative mythology. For a list of related articles, see Jesus and history. // BL \\ (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The idea of a "true myth" isn't strange to me; I've read Tolkien writing about biblical accounts as true myths, so hearing that a close friend had the same idea. Confused, though — most of your answers seem to attempt to help me to come to an understanding of whether the biblical accounts are historically accurate, but that's not what I was asking: I'm simply trying to get at the literary/sociological/otherscholarly sense of "myth". Nevertheless, thanks for the insights: I have a strong respect for Lewis that this is a very useful answer. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There's clearly a good deal of overlap in the ways "myth" and "legend" are used; and both are vague enough to admit a variety of applications. Personally, being somewhat old-fashioned, I'd say that the Gospels (except for the beginning of John) partake more of the qualities of the legendary than of the mythical. Deor (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. From my perspective, another yardstick for something being a "myth" rather than a "legend" is the age of the story when it was recorded: the Gospels were written comparatively soon after the events they describe, while myths tend to tell stories of very remote times. There's a different feel to those two perspectives. 24.172.156.74 (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The main CS Lewis essay on the subject is "Myth became fact" in God in the Dock. You might also be interested in "Myth Matters" - a discussion on Lewis's views on myth, imagination and Christianity. Gwinva (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to take a look at The Hero with a Thousand Faces, a work of comparative mythology by Joseph Campbell, which studies Jesus -and many others like Apollo, Buddha- as a mythological hero.ProteanEd (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's worth keeping in mind that scholars of myth tend not to take Cambell's work very seriously, the charge being that he's imposed a uniform interpretation upon what are diverse mythological elements, and thus assumed what he set out to demonstrate. 24.172.156.74 (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Might not the Gospels be more properly described as legend? After all, many of the historical events in the Bible are known to have actually happened, and most historians agree Jesus actually existed. Unlike myths, which tend to have more of a pure-fantasy feel to them, legends tend to have a basis in the history of a people and draw on mythic elements in recounting (more or less) what actually happened. In terms of Greek lore, we would say that the story of Arachne is a myth because we know that spiders weren't created from a woman who challenged a goddess to a weaving contest, but the story of the Trojan War is a legend because archaeologists have excavated a place that matches the description of Troy and was completely burned to the ground at around the right historical time - but scheming goddesses trying to win some poor schmuck's favor to get a golden apple probably wasn't what started it! (Notice, you always hear larger-than-life figures described as "living legends" all the time - but have you ever heard someone called a "living myth"? Myths represent our spiritual truths; legends are where the spiritual meets the physical in the halls of memory.) Likewise, the Gospel narratives are rooted solidly in time and place, but some matters such as Jesus' miracles remain a matter of personal belief. - Aletheia James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.139.75 (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Colloquially, the term "myth" means a false story. Academically, "myth" means any traditional story, including sacred narratives.ProteanEd (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As Deor suggests, the categories of (hi)story, legend and myth need not be mutually exclusive; a given "traditional narrative" can contain various proportions of all three. I would suggest that academically (in ProteanEd's sense), traditional stories (which might be historically true, partly true or entirely untrue) are in addition myths if they have important cultural (in which I include religious) significance regardless of their actual degree of truth or untruth.

Thus, for example, the (European, well-known in Britain) story of Cinderella is a traditional one, and like many folk tales carries social/cultural messages, but is neither a legend (since no-one supposes it's based on any particular and actual historical events) nor a myth, since it does not significantly contribute to the self-perception of a particular culture.

The traditional story of Robin Hood is a legend (since many do believe it to be based on some historical events, though in reality these are likely to be minimal), but not really a myth, since it contributes only slightly to (British) cultural identity.

The traditional story of King Arthur is both a legend (since many people do believe it originates in historical events, which is possible though currently unverifiable) and a myth, because it does form a significant element in the cultural identity of "the British."

The traditional story of The Battle of Britain is not a legend, since it is a verifiable recent historic event, but it is a myth since, although some popular beliefs about it (such as it being won mainly by Spitfire pilots - "The Few") are distortions of actuality, their contribution to British cultural identity transcends their strict historical (lack of) accuracy. (I accept others may differ with me over the history/legend/myth quotients of these four examples: they're meant more as illustrations of the principle than as definitive judgements.)

It's therefore important to realise that often, when people discuss stories which have religious significance for themselves or others, their characterisation of those stories as "myths" or "mythical" does not mean that they are explicitly denying those stories' historical truth, or insulting other's beliefs in them: it means that they're discussing aspects of those stories for which their literal truth is irrelevant, such as how belief in their truth has influenced subsequent history and cultures. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Visual Bible

There have been some movies made that use books of the Bible word for word as the script called The Visual Bible; I know they have made Matthew, Acts, John - are there any others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.131.33 (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought the recent The Passion of the Christ was supposed to be fairly loyal to the Bible (wouldn't know myself, haven't seen the movie nor read the New Testament...) TomorrowTime (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not movies, but visual narrative-- Robert Crumb is bringing out a graphic novel adaptation of Genesis from Norton books this September. Extracts in the New Yorker seem to show a very literal take. Rhinoracer (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The well-known film The Gospel According to Matthew is not part of that series, but was made with a somewhat similar intention (even though the director was a homosexual communist atheist )... AnonMoos (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You've also posted this question on the Entertainment desk. Please don't crosspost. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Witch trials in Ortodox countries

The witch trials in Catholic and Protestant states are known, but can anyone tell me about the witch trials in the ortodox countries, in Russia and South Eastern Europe? It seems that this subject simply isn't very well known. --Aciram (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a search and came across V. Kivelson paper on the subject, but you need a university subscription to access it. What it says, in a nutshell, is that yes, there were witch trials in Muscovy in late XVII and in XVIII century, but nowhere near the scale of the Western European ones. Typically there were 1 or 2 accused, and the largest recorded number of accused in a single trial was 8. Also, 75% of the accused were men, in stark contrast to Western Europe where women were more likely to be accused of witchcraft. --Dr Dima (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot the link. You need to do a Google Scholar search for "author:kivelson Witches and Gendered Categories in Seventeenth-Century Russia" and it will come up. --Dr Dima (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see now that Russian wiki does mention this : [[1]]. How about the other Ortohodox countries, such as Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece? It is a shame that English Wikipedia does not mention this. It should at least be mentioned in the articles Witch hunt, witch trial etc, who does mention Catholic and Protestant withc trials. Perhaps someone with access to this information would like to create an article, or at least a stub? It would be better with more available links for that. The most famous case, the biggest case, or the latest case would be a good choice. Thank's for your reply!--Aciram (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

contemporary classical music question

ok, so I am a huge fan of 'classical' classical music, up to and including Mahler, Bernstein, Copland etc, but who has been writing in the last 50 years who is comparable in style and quality? I am not interested in minimalism, or other directions that classical music has taken, I want things that have the same emotional resonances (for me, I recognize that tastes are subjective) as the historical greats - any ideas? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.100.62 (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Howard Shore? John Williams?--Wetman (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Karl Jenkins. Steewi (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

James MacMillan perhaps? See also some of the more recent examples featured in the article on neoromanticism. I have noticed that people who generally only enjoy styles up to the romantic period are quite accepting of many of Tōru Takemitsu's works (featured article, btw!), particularly his later ones. And I have also noticed that the same people are more open toward "contemporary" styles when accompanied by motion pictures. Which brings us back to the point Wetman is making (I think): Film music is a special, perhaps less "elitist" genre in that it more free to reach back into mothballed styles of yesteryear (Shore and Williams) without having to worry about being dated or passé, but can also use its functional aspect of accompaniment to sneak in more radical styles and present contemporary composers to a wider audience (e.g. Ligeti and Penderecki in The Shining) without anyone complaining or making statements such as "that's what it sounds like when my cat runs over the piano keyboard". ---Sluzzelin talk 05:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Shore, Williams and in particular the execrable Jenkins are not serious composers and certainly not worthy of being considered part of a lineage with people like Bernstein and Copland. The OP should investigate the genre known as Holy Minimalism (dang, we don't have an article), principally John Tavener, Arvo Part and Henryk Gorecki (whose 3rd Symphony has more emotional resonance than pretty much anything I've ever heard). --Richardrj ^{talk email} 06:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

John Williams is not a "serious composer"?! Bite your tongue, heathen! 89.168.19.118 (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Part and Gorecki, certainly. But don't forget the Finish composer Einojuhani Rautavaara. As a lover of nature, I find his Cantus Arcticus one of the most beautiful and moving pieces of music from any era.--Eriastrum (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Truman = War Criminal?

What was the justification for Truman dropping a nuke on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Would the results have been different if he had instead nuked a military base? Or why not a warning shot off the coast instead of right in the middle of the city? Why was it necessary to kill 140,000 civilians? (Yes, I have read Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it doesn't really shed light on why this was necessary). TheFutureAwaits (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you also read Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have now, it still doesn't explain why it was deemed necessary to drop the bomb directly over cities. This page seems to be more involved in debate on whether it was necessary to drop the bomb at all. I want to know if there was debate and what justification was given for nuking a city versus a military target or a warning shot over the ocean. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The main reason to not do a warning shot over the ocean was that at that time, the US nuclear arsenal was 2. Since Japan did not surrender after the first hit, it is obvious that a warning shot would not have caused them to quit either. And contrary to your statements that it was not a military target, Hiroshima was a regional army base, as well as a storage site for large amounts of war materials. I would state that due to these circumstances, Truman as a war criminal because of the nuclear strikes is not a widely held belief. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are considering immediate deaths, then the bombing of Tokyo had a much higher casualty count. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an argument that a weapon is only effective if you are willing to use it. It's fairly pointless keeping a gun if you are not prepared to shoot an intruder. Exxolon (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The "military target" objection also requires you to suggest what such a target would have been -- by and large, there wasn't one. Military bases, airfields, factories, and other such acknowledged military targets are almost invariably near cities, inseparably so when you're looking at nuclear weaponry. A naval fleet might be sufficiently isolated but Japan's navy had already been swept from the sea. Our article on the strategic bombing of Japan notes that "by July 1945, only a fraction of the planned strategic bombing force had been deployed yet there were few targets left worth the effort." Of course, as Gadget notes, conventional bombing was just as deadly as nuclear and was far more sustainable. Further, the primary reason that Hiroshima and Nagasaki hadn't already been bombed was to preserve worthwhile targets for nuclear weapons. The value of the atomic bomb was shock -- a single bomber carrying the destructive power of a thousand. It is exceedingly difficult to make a cogent argument that the use of nuclear weapons caused more fatalities than an equivalent conventional campaign. My personal opinion is that there's no moral ground to be gained unless you go all the way back to arguing the Allies' stated goal of unconditional surrender, which has been cogently argued by many historians as prolonging the war in both theaters. — Lomn 20:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As is pointed out above, the firebombing of Japan achieved similar results (and even more explicit targeting of civilians, arguably) than the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Whatever one concludes about the atomic bombs, if anyone was to be a war criminal they would have been one some time before nuclear arms came into play. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

One small correction of fact: the US did not have any more bombs assembled after the Nagasaki attack, but they had enough nuclear material for at least one more. They didn't continue with the attacks because Truman decided after the second one that that was enough. This is covered in The Making of the Atomic Bomb. --Anonymous, 05:47 UTC, June 30, 2009.

True, though they wouldn't have had the third bomb ready to go anyway by the time Japan surrendered... (if Japan had not surrendered, then yes.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The interesting and brief book "Prompt and Utter Destruction" makes the case that Truman barely had any decision to make: the US was engaged in total war with Japan and it had a weapon that could bring that war to an end, so to not use it would have been an absurdity which was hardly considered at all. The book dismantles the widely-repeated nonsense that it would cost 1 million American lives to take the Japanese homeland, but it also does away with any realistic notion of a "nuclear demonstration". --Sean 21:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, it is interesting to note that only two nuclear bombs have ever been used, as compared to conventional bombing and other methods of mayhem. Perhaps humanity has learned something. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, other countries have learned how to make nuclear weapons, if that counts. What has stopped further uses of nuclear weapons isn't any kind of morality, it's the principle of mutually assured destruction. The only nuclear weapons used in anger were used when only one country had nuclear weapons. Now many do, it isn't likely to happen again (although, if you back Kim Jong-il into a corner, all bets are off). --Tango (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the attacks were justified, he won the war. That means he isn't a war criminal. That's how it works. (Unless, I suppose, he loses a future war, but that doesn't seem likely, what with him having been dead for over 30 years.) --Tango (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There was Korea, but that was more a draw then a loss. I don't know if draws create war crims. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Woman giving virginity to another woman

Is there any accepted standard on what constitutes a woman having given her virginity, when her partner is another woman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.139.75 (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Modern usage of the word virgin simply means not having had sex. That can be with man and man, man and woman or woman and woman. The old school years ago term only used to apply to men and woman penetration sex, but no one uses it in that narrow minded way anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Some people still do. It will depends who you ask (quite possibly depending what country they live in). Vimescarrot (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not having had intercourse....or we're back to debating with Bill Clinton what counts as sex. By extension it is also used for a man who has not had intercourse. Medically it's called virgo intacta which means the hymen has not been broken, a definition which leaves a lot more leeway for related activities. - KoolerStill (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could equally debate what counts as intercourse. 'Sex' is more straightforward, with 'penetrative sex' being more specific when needed. 'Intercourse' is rather euphemistic. 89.168.19.118 (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In the same vein as sexual "relations" or "congress".

I'm curious about the wording of the question. To "lose one's virginity (to someone)" is quite common, but I've never heard of "giving one's virginity to someone". It almost suggests the other party has to be someone who was not a virgin themselves, but now gets their virginity back. Is this a common expression in your part of the world, questioner? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This strikes me as a bit odd, too. I think "give one's virginity away *to* someone" is what was intended. I believe in certain contexts, a man (and perhaps a woman) can be counted as a virgin if he has not been anally penetrated. Wakablogger2 (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not suggesting that vaginal, or penetrative, sex is the only real kind of sex. I'd say what Clinton did absolutely counts as sex - not "[vaginal] intercourse" perhaps, but certainly sex. However, not all activities that fall in the realm of the sexual can be considered "having sex." Tongue-kissing is certainly sexual, but by no stretch of the imagination would most of us consider a tongue-kissing couple to be "having sex." I guess what I'm really asking is, since a woman can't penetrate her partner's vagina with a (real) penis, at what point can they say they've had sex, as opposed to just engaging in foreplay or heavy petting? I suppose this would apply to any sexual encounter, whether it was a woman's first time ever, her first time with a new partner, or just making the distinction between different kinds of amorous encounters . . . but I do believe that the first time ever is rather more fraught with significance for most folks, no?

I would say sex has been had when you feel satisfied and content —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's rather vague. I'm feeling satisfied and content right now, but I don't think I've had sex lately. Algebraist 22:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Satisfied and content directly because of a recent sexual activity involving another person is closer. Vimescarrot (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but still clearly wrong. A woman who has been raped has had sex, and (if previously a virgin) has lost her virginity, but is probably neither satisfied nor content. Algebraist 00:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Again we run into that "accepted standard" thing. You say that a woman who has been raped has lost her virginity, and some people would agree with you. Others identify loss of virginity only with a person's first consensual sexual encounter. There doesn't seem to be a hard-and-fast standard as to the meaning existing anywhere. The Wednesday Island (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The question of whether a woman who has been raped can still call herself a virgin gets to the heart of what I'm really asking. Rape would take a woman's virginity in the medical sense, but a raped virgin still hasn't made the choice to give herself to another person that way, and as such she may still consider herself a virgin in a spiritual sense - I'm not referring to any religious view per se here, but to her own sense of dignity and whatever her virginity means to her. A woman can be raped or molested by another woman, and in this sense she would still be a virgin, if she hadn't given herself. . . . But the "satisfied and content from interpersonal sexual activity" is really begging the question, because the question I was asking was, just what IS that "sexual activity" supposed to be in the first place? As I wrote before, I think we can agree that tongue-kissing is definitely sexual - you don't kiss your mom like that - but you can do it and still be a virgin. And making out/petting/foreplay can result in satisfaction, while by definition stopping short of "going all the way." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.139.75 (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You first have to decide on whether you are asking the question on a legal, moral, psychological or medical level. If we are talking law, then in some (more innovative) jurisdictions any penetration of one part of one person's body by any part of another person's body is considered sufficient for "sex", for the purposes of "sexual assault" (i.e. rape) and related concepts. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post apparently does not consider oral sex to end virginity, saying "nearly one in four virgin teens has engaged in oral sex [2]." Various other major newspapers similarly discuss "virgins" who are having oral sex or manual manipulation [3]. Edison (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Acts of parliament/congress - differences between UK and US terminology

On a current AfD, Phil Bridger asked a question I've been wondering about for a while as well. As he puts it more succinctly than I am likely to be able to, I quote him below:

"In the UK, with which I'm more familiar, a proposed piece of legislation is called a bill, and only becomes an act if and when it is passed. Is the terminology not the same in the United States? We seem to get a constant stream of articles from the United States with "act" in their titles (and they nearly always seem to have been proposed by someone called "Ron Paul" - is he famous or something?) that don't appear to be acts by the definition of the word with which I am familiar"

Can any one more familiar with the political systems of the respective nations please help us? Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be answered in the first paragraph of Bill (proposed law). Tempshill (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is just a bill until it becomes law. Only then is it an act. Until then, the name proposed in the legislation, such as PATRIOT Act or Megan's Law, is just the name the legislation would have should it become law. This is all explained in cartoon form here: [4]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul Kagame's master in university

How what deree have Paul Kagame got in unversity. Have he got master of science or major in science. he seems like a philospher, and he is very smart. Does he know alot about astronomy?--69.229.111.118 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything at all about an earned degree for Kagame. There is nothing at the WP article and nothing on his official website. I assume, then, that his last formal schooling was in high school, as the article says. He has a number of honourary degrees, but they have nothing to do with any field of study. None of this speaks to how "smart" the man might be. // BL \\ (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So his degrees doesnot imvolve academics? Kagame looks like he is almost as smart as Barack Obama by his appearance. A thin young-looking-black-man-with glasses. people usually look smart with glasses on 24-7. Robert Mugabe said he won a master in Science, people good in science is usually good in astronomy. John Kufuor majors in Law. Do lawyers usually hve strong astronomy skills?--69.229.111.118 (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

His honourary degrees do not involve any academic knowledge. As for the rest of your comments, I can make no sense of them. Mugabe's article has him with six graduate degrees, most earned in extension courses. So far as I know, all the wearing of glasses indicates is some form of weak eyesight. I can find no correlation between the obtaining of a law degree and competence in astronomy. // BL \\ (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if you're confusing the two meaning of the English word "smart"? It means both "well-dressed" and "clever". However, there is no indication that both senses of the word overlap in meaning. --88.108.233.67 (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)whoops didn't notice I wasn't logged in! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Bangabandhu / Kemal Mustafa Ataturk

Why do I have a feeling that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Bangabandhu was influenced by Kemal Mustafa Ataturk when it came to nationalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.103 (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Only you can answer "why" you have a specific feeling. What question are you asking of the Reference Desk? // BL \\ (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No need to be so childishly literal, the OP is clearly asking if the secular nationalist ideology of Sheikh Mujib was influenced by that of Atatürk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.103 (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.27 (talk)

Do you know in Dhaka, Bangladesh, there is a street named after Kemal Mustafa Ataturk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.27 (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)