Humanities desk
< April 29	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	May 1 >

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

April 30

Military brat (U.S. subculture)

The lead section of today's Featured Article, Military brat (U.S. subculture), says: "Military brats typically have a love for their country, and have been raised in a culture that emphasizes loyalty, honesty, discipline, and responsibility. Sometimes these values are so strong that they cease to be virtues and become weaknesses." I have no access to the reference for this assertion, and I'm not a social scientist. I would like to know what constitutes a weakness, and what those weaknesses are in this particular case. A ecis^Brievenbus 01:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive patriotism can give way to jingoism. An overly-developed sense of discipline can lead to a lack of empathy for others with weaker constitutions (children, say). It seems like a flimsy statement to not have a reference, but these are some things that came to mind. --TotoBaggins 01:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a really bizarre statement, but the FAC people have been haywire for a while now. ("We don't know what any of them say, but they must have footnotes, whether to legitimate things or not.") In fact, children have a tendency to adopt and then reject the atmosphere of their parents' cultures, no matter the job. The "preacher's son" is the wildest. The "military brat" is the most anti-military, etc. In other words, it's the old, old story of differentiation of ego. When a child adopts his or her parents' ideology, the child will do so without the life experiences and nuances of the parents (if any), and so they tend to be the same, only moreso. This is the case with the child of the religious, the child of the intellectual, the child of the soldier, etc. Then, when the child begins to experience ego differentiation (i.e. "teen rebellion"), the more constraining the previous expectations had been, the more noticeably or violently the child reacts. So far as I have seen, this is not unique to the children of soldiers. Then again, I only have life experience to draw upon, and not a footnote to a website. Geogre 02:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, what is (nearly) unique to this case is that not only does the child have parent(s) in the military, but all the child's friends also have the same, and the teacher is provided by the military, etc. The uniformity of the culture is unusual, perhaps being mirrored in children raised in communes. StuRat 04:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, I was concerned about the following quote violating wikipedia's suggestion of Avoiding weasel words: ``Many are typically highly educated, outgoing and patriotic, and they have been raised in a culture that emphasizes loyalty, honesty, discipline, and responsibility. Many struggle to develop and maintain deep lasting relationships, feeling like outsiders to U.S. civilian culture.Llamabr 11:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed what I thought was least defensible in the lead (namely, the sentence quoted in the original question here). The material below is quite unbalanced, but at least gives (eventually and slightly) a more nuanced view. Wareh 13:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper question

When did the practise of printing a big edition one day a week start? Why is it Saturday in Canada and Sunday in the US? What is it in other countries? Clarityfiend 02:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually Saturday in Australia. The Weekend Australian is published on Saturdays but the title acknowledges it's meant to keep the reader happy for the whole weekend. Most Sunday papers have inserts that increase their bulk too, but I literally put 50% of my Saturday paper straight into the recycling. JackofOz 03:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's meant to provide more "entertainment" when readers presumably are off work on the weekends. Note that expanded comics, crossword puzzles, etc., are often included. StuRat 03:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually Sunday in Brazil (if anyone cares). A.Z. 04:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Clarityfiend cares; he did ask about other countries. -- JackofOz 04:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just remembered an interesting fact: the Sunday newspaper can be bought already on Saturday afternoon here. I don't know how it is in other countries. The newspapers on other days of the week are impressed on the same day that they are sold. Is is like that in all countries? (added later: I just saw StuRat's comment below... Now I wonder if they sell the papers on Saturday with or without the part containing the news) A.Z. 06:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are both Saturday and Sunday newspapers, each containing that day's news, which are still delivered on the proper day. Only the "non-news" portion of the Sunday paper is often delivered a day early (but the dates on them still say Sunday). Specifically, I think the non-news parts of the Sunday paper are delivered to the paper boys on Saturday morning, and they may opt to deliver that portion early or leave it for the Sunday paper. Most opt to deliver those right away. StuRat 15:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette used to deliver the entire "Sunday" paper on Saturday to some areas. This "Sunday" paper contained only feature stories, with no daily news. Other parts of the delivery area received a regular Sunday paper with both feature stories and daily news from Saturday. I don't know if they still do this. -- Mwalcoff 02:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the US, even though the big paper is officially on Sunday, they often deliver the comics, magazines, coupons, ads, etc., on Saturday, instead, making the Saturday paper the biggest. StuRat 05:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For history: "1861, April 21: Responding to the thirst for Civil War news, major dailies, including The Times, start Sunday Issues." (From The New York Times website. It doesn't say anything about quantity or other parts of the world. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Saturday in France. According to the fact that most papers sellers are closed on Sunday. -- DLL ^{.. T} 07:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While in Britain, most national newspapers have a big saturday edition and a semi-independent sunday sister paper with a different staff. Algebraist 10:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's mostly the case in Australia, too. JackofOz 00:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear that it's Saturday here in Canada because the idea of doing business on Sundays was much slower to develop here than in the U.S., so most cities didn't have Sunday papers until relatively recently, if they even do now. The Toronto Star didn't publish on Sunday until 1977, for instance. Hence the "big paper" on Saturday was traditional. --Anonymous, April 30, 2007, 23:17 (UTC).

In Britain, it's the Sunday paper that's the biggest, although the Saturday papers tend to be pretty big too. In fact, the Sunday editions tend to be produced by different teams, and used to (don't know if this is still the case) have a different distribution network. I believe the papers didn't used to produce Sunday editions (once upon a time). In fact, the Sunday papers and the daily papers of the same company are often called 'sister papers' rather than the same newspaper. They also tend to have different names. So the sister paper of The Times is The Sunday Times, the sister paper of The Daily Mail is The Mail on Sunday, the sister paper of The Sun is The News of the World, the sister paper of The Guardian is The Observer. Skittle 16:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Side of the Moon

On Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon, the song Any Colour You Like has a very different sound from any of the other tracks on that album. Are there any other Pink Floyd songs that have the same kind of funky, trippy feel? (I apologize; this question is an opinion question and I know it's not really appropriate for the reference desk.) Jolb

Answering on your talk page since this is opinion. Dismas|^(talk) 05:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for me to see what the Humanities desk is for if not for asking about things like the stylistic connections among artists' works. The question is completely appropriate and could obviously be answered by someone in no danger of spewing mere opinion but possessing authoritative knowledge of Pink Floyd's works and styles. Wareh 13:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I own every Pink Floyd official release (plus a few more, wink, wink) and have been listening to them my entire adult life. I have been a member of discussion groups about the band and have read books on the band's history. Though any thoughts that I would give on what songs sound "trippy" would be my opinion. I know of no quote from the band members or critics who espoused on this song in particular as it's one of the least written about. And the only time it has been played in concert, that I can think of off the top of my head, is when the band was doing a full Dark Side show. And because of that, I didn't want the editors who feel that the Ref Desk should be devoid of opinion to start chanting "Hammer, Hammer, Hammer..." Dismas|^(talk) 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pax Romana

Could someone explain how the very first sentence of the Pax Romana article could need a cite? Is it the dates that could be called into question? Dismas|^(talk) 08:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question may be better asked at the article's talk page, but the present article has not a single reference, and the editor who added the tag remarks on the talk page: "It is modern, disputed term that is retroactively applied. I wonder who came with it." --Lambiam ^Talk 09:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least the person who tagged wrote on the talk page. The term is disputed, but this is partly due to allegations of ethnocentrism. The point in that case is that the term has a huge, huge, huge cultural life, so there is every justification for having an article on it. Of course it's a retroactively applied label. Augustus didn't say, "My fellow Romans, I plan to begin the Pax Romana today. Let's all work together." It's just a label applied a long time ago and discussed for a while. It's very important for Christology for example. Geogre 10:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so (the importance of Pax Romana for Christology)? --Lambiam ^Talk 10:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one of the prophetic settings of the incarnation, the Messiah must appear in a time of global peace. I cannot recall now which of the Church Fathers first made the point about the "100 years of global peace" of the Pax Romana being coincident with the birth of Jesus, but, of course, as we know and the critics point out, "global peace" did not occur. It was peace in the west, and then only in the sense of peace between nation states. There were plenty of rebellions and civil wars and fully fledged wars in other parts o fhte world. Geogre 11:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The son of David will come only in a generation that is either altogether righteous or altogether wicked" - see Jewish eschatology Dr Zak 12:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus made much of the fact that there was finally peace (after two generations of uninterrupted civil war). In the Res Gestae he wrote "Our ancestors wanted Janus Quirinus to be closed when throughout the all the rule of the Roman people, by land and sea, peace had been secured through victory. Although before my birth it had been closed twice in all in recorded memory from the founding of the city, the senate voted three times in my principate that it be closed." Well, he is allowed to. The Res Gestae amongst other things report that he rebuilt the bridges of Rome (thirty in all) and fixed the failing water supply. The infrastructure must have been totally in ruins. Dr Zak 12:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case it is a mis-use of the citation requested tag. No citation is requested. --24.147.86.187 02:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers offered to God

Please tell me which flowers and leaves are offered to hindu gods and goddesses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.71.137.235 (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

From what I could discover there do not seem to be any specific requirements for what types of flowers and leaves should be offered to the Hindu deities, though I'd imagine that those "traditionally" offered would be ones native to the areas where it has been widely practiced the longest. So apparently they are not picky about the exact type, although I did find something that says not to "sniff" the flowers to be offered, as the smell is all for the gods, and to not use flowers that have fallen to the ground, along with some other helpful tips and hints.[1] Also the Lotus flower seems to be important to Hinduism in general and Vishnu in particular, so he might be partial to those.--Azi Like a Fox 11:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lotuses?--Lerdthenerd 11:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marigold blossoms are used extensively for this in Nepal, and I assume India. Many houses have marigolds growing in pots or small gardens to use for daily puja (worship), and you see many people of all walks of life with the flower petals in their hair in the morning on the way to work or school or market. The flower heads are also strung in garlands over doors and window frames for a certain festival but I can't remember which one. You also see what I think are poinsietta blossoms being sold outside temples for offerings, but marigolds are the most common.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 00:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every flower Offered to (Hindu)God or Goddess has a reason behind it. e.g. To kill the demon angarsura, Lord Ganesh had to swallow him and his body started burning but to stop the burning even the water from the lotus feet of Lord Vishnu was not enough. Hence, the Devas offered him 21 Dhurvas which calmede his body.

Scottish War of Independence-also a civil war?

Hello Wikipedia. I need an urgent answer to the question why was the Scottish War of Independence also a civil war? SeanScotland 09:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Second War of Scottish Independence explains how this war became also a civil war. --Lambiam ^Talk 10:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly the article also refers to, "a civil war within a civil war" occurring. Also worth noting, as the article Civil War alludes to, the definition and application of the term "civil war" is often hotly debated and inconsistently applied; one person's civil war is another's Sectarian strife.--Azi Like a Fox 10:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, SeanScotland. This is a complex issue that goes back to the demise of the Canmore dynasty in the person of Alexander III and his infant grand-daughter, Margaret, Maid of Norway. The death of Margaret in 1290 left no generally accepted successor to the Scottish throne. Unable to solve this deadlock by any internal process, the Scottish political community, fearful of a dynastic war, appealed to Edward I of England to resolve the matter by arbitration. There were thirteen Competitors for the Crown of Scotland in all, but only two of real significance: John Balliol of Galloway and Robert Bruce of Annandale, the grandfather of the future king. At a feudal court held at Berwick-upon-Tweed, then the chief port of Scotland, the matter was decided in favour of John Balliol. The Bruce family accepted this with an ill-grace, keeping alive their claim to be the rightful heirs to the Scottish crown. When war broke out between England and Scotland in 1296 the Bruces, also subjects of the English crown, sided with King Edward, despite their Scottish connections. Though John was duly deposed they were disappointed when Edward refused to recognise their claim.

The Scottish Wars of Independence broke out in 1297, with the Bruces sometimes being on one side, and sometimes the other. However, in 1306 Robert Bruce of Carrick, the grandson of the Competitor, killed John Comyn, a leading rival, and the nephew of the former King John Balliol. Bruce went on to gather a party and have himself crowned king of Scots at Scone. This caused a huge earthquake in Scottish politics: men with Balliol and Comyn associations, who hitherto had been in the forefront of the war of national liberation, now began to side with the English against the Bruce monarchy. Well before his great victory in 1314 at the Battle of Bannockburn, King Robert had spent time in defeating his domestic enemies in a short, but intense phase of civil war, with victories at the Battle of Inverurie and the Battle of the Pass of Brander. This seemed to settle the matter, though the latent hostility of the Comyns and Balliols-now largely living in English exile-to the Bruce monarchy never entirely went away.

In 1329 the death of Robert Bruce opened up a fresh opportunity. Scotland's king was now the infant David II. John Balliol was long dead, but his son, Edward Balliol, grown to manhood, was ready to renew his claim to Scotland, which he did in 1332 with the support of Edward III of England, winning a remarkable victory at the Battle of Dupplin Moor. Soon after he was crowned king of Scotland, though the Bruce faction, refusing to accept this, began a fresh civil war, that engulfed Scotland in the years to come. Although King David eventually prevailed, the matter did not finally come to an end until 1356, when King Edward Balliol finally resigned all of his regal claims. Clio the Muse 12:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Haig

Was Douglas Haig a great soldier or a butcher? SeanScotland 09:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To read about various views on this issue, see Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig#Controversy. --Lambiam ^Talk 10:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of abiding controversy, Sean, that I do not suppose will ever be settled one way or the other, though I have a feeling that the pendulum is beginning to swing in Haig's favour. I have long been of the view that only the English could have developed such a negative view of arguably one of the nation's greatest commanders. His contribution in defeating the Germans was widley recognised at the time, by both the people of Britain and a number of foreign observers, including General Pershing. It was several years later when the true extent of the sacrifice involved in winning the Great War began to sink in that a new mood of hostility and revisionism began to emerge. This developed over the years, finding popular expression in John Littlewood's stage production of Oh! What a Lovely War, as well as support in several academic monographs. The whole campaign of vilification seemed to be based on the assumption that Haig sacrificed men unneccesarily; that battles were fought simply for reasons of attrition, and nothing besides; that there was somehow another, less bloody, road to victory that Haig and his collegues did not take. But wars cannot be won without confronting the main enemy army in battle; and this, sad to say, is inevitably a gruesome process. Consider the example of U. S. Grant, who in his campaign from the Wilderness to Petersburg in 1864 and 1865 was arguably responsible for the death of more Americans than any other man in history. At one battle alone, that at Cold Harbour in the early summer of 1864, the Union losses, as a proportion of the total strength of the Army of the Potomac, were as great as some of the battle losses on the western front. Grant could have taken the same road as McLellan, Burnside, Hooker and so many others before him and retreated back to his start line; but he pushed on, to Richmond and victory. Likewise, in the Second World War, Georgy Zhukov, the greatest of all the Soviet commanders, sustained losses at Stalingrad and Kursk quite as dreadful as those at the Somme and Passchendale. What other way was there of defeating the Germans?

Haig, like all other commanders at the time, began without really knowing what the new warfare, the great battle of men and materials, was really about: heavy prolonged artillery barrages were followed by unsupported and uncordinated assaults on enemy positions, with the inevitable consequences in casualties. However, by 1918, Haig had moved through a sharp learning curve, turning the British Army into one of the best in the world, a remarkable achievment when one considers that the country had little in the way of a military tradition, and in 1914 was only able to field four 'contemptible' divisions in France. In the final offensive of 1918 Haig, in carefully co-ordinating a creeping artillery barrage with measured and discreet infantry attacks, was able to advance in relentless stages against the German positions, covering more ground than the rest of the Allied armies. It was this that broke the back of the German army and assured victory. For further information on this subject I would urge you to read John Terraine's Douglas Haig: the Educated Soldier, which, despite its age, is still the best treatment of the subject. Clio the Muse 12:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GREAT! Thank you Clio Muse for giving such complete answers to my questions. I have two more. How can an english girl know so much about Scottish history, and how can a girl knows so much about about militry history? SeanScotland 17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Sean, this 'girl' knows quite a lot about this, that and some of the other. Clio the Muse 18:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are new Sean, stay a while and you'll get used to her :) If you read her user page you'll see she's completing a history PhD, and if you search back in RefDesk archives you will find a lot of thorough and researched answers by Clio. Reading her replies is always educational. Shinhan 18:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some other reading that you may find interesting is a fairly recent edition of Haig's war diaries and letters, edited by Gary Sheffield and John Bourne. It is, I believe simply titled 'War diaries and letters," and also contains a fair amount of (rather good) scholarly analysis.

On your original question, I think Clio has the right of it, and Haig is perhaps better thought of now than at any point since his death. It might be argued that he was not the best of the British Empire commander (some historians prefer Herbert Plumer, others Arthur Currie), but he was certainly not as inept and unfeeling as has been claimed in the past. Carom 19:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popish Plot

What was the Popish plot and what effect did it have on the goverment of England. I looked at your page but its not very good. 193.39.159.3 09:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed better or in any case more extensive articles than our Popish Plot at the German Wikipedia (Papisten-Verschwörung) and the Japanese Wikipedia (カトリック陰謀事件). If you google ["popish plot" site:en.wikipedia.org], you will find more material, although unfortunately not in well-organized form. --Lambiam ^Talk 10:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For more information on English Wikipedia, see also Titus_Oates#The_Popish_Plot. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 193.39. You are far too generous. The Wikipedia page on the Popish Plot is truly dire! You will find some additional leads in the articles on Titus Oates, Charles II and James duke of York, though hardly enough to give a complete answer to your question. The Popish Plot itself was a wave of anti-Catholic hysteria that overtook England from 1678 onwards, but the political roots of the crisis go back several years, and has to be viewed against a background of the growing distrust between Parliament and the Crown. It is also important to understand that for English people of the day Catholicism was not simply a set of religious beliefs: it was, rather, an all-embracing ideology, with strong associations with Continental despotism, represented, above all, in the person of Louis XIV. This would have had little bearing on England but for one thing: in the early 1670s James duke of York, the brother and heir of King Charles, who had no legitimate heirs, was known to have converted to Catholicism. The anxiety this caused led to an ever more vocal opposition to royal policy, from the alliance with the Catholic French against the Protestant Dutch, to Charles' attempts to introduce, by royal prerogative, a measure of toleration for Catholics and Protestant Dissenters. It was a highly unstable political mixture that, by the late 1670s, simply needed one spark to cause a major explosion. This came in 1678 when Titus Oates, in collaboration with a half-mad clergyman by the name of Israel Tonge, started to spread rumours that there was a plot by the Jesuits to kill the king. This story went through various metamorphoses; but in the final version the assassination was conceived as part of a grander strategy to replace Charles with the Catholic James. Nothing may have come of these stories but for the mysterious assassination of Edmund Berry Godfrey, a magistrate who had been appointed to look into the whole affair.

It was this murder that really sparked off all that was to follow. It gave substance to the stories of Oates and Tonge, made all the more credible when it was found that Edward Coleman, secretary of the duke of York, was in treasonable correspondence with the French. England was now gripped by collective hysteria. Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, chief among James' enemies, was soon demanding that the Catholic duke be exluded from the succession, thus beginning the Exclusion Crisis. Shaftesbury and his allies, loosly known as the 'Country Party', to distinguish them from the supporters of Charles and James, known as the 'Court Party', formed the Green Ribbon Club, opposed to Catholicism, Absolutism and James in equal measure. Their enemies began to refer to them as Whigs, after a group of extreme Presbyterian rebels in Scotland. The Green Ribbons responded in kind, referring to their enemies in Parliament as Tories, after Irish Catholic bandits. It was on this inauspicious basis that English party politics took shape, which was to be the chief legacy of the Popish Plot. In the end Charles managed to sidestep, though not resolve, the issues that had been raised by dissolving the Oxford Parliament in 1681, bringing the Exclusion Crisis to an end. James duly succeeded to the throne in 1685, held up by a wave of Tory reaction against the Whigs and the murderous excesses of the Popish Plot. But fear of Catholic Absolutism did not go away; and in 1688 sections of the Whig and Tory parties united to remove James from the throne in the so-called Glorious Revolution. Soon after Parliament passed an act outlawing any future Catholic succession, and the Whigs and Tories became a permanent part of the English political landscape. Clio the Muse 11:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good summary. Clio, you ought to rewrite our PP page. The only caution is the objections raised by George Namier in Politics at the Accession of George III (I think that's the name), where he argued that there were no whigs and tories at all, that it was illegal to have a political party, and therefore there weren't any: there was only the king's ministry. Of course the Namierite hypothesis must now be seriously limited. After all, they called each other Tory and Whig in 1737, so, if they didn't pay dues to a central committee and develop united election strategies, they still knew what they meant and still split along country/city, court/country, high/low church. The usefulness, for me, of the Namierite hypothesis is that it reminds us that the evolution of such things as the Patriot Party from a collection of "whig" and "tory" MP's was more flexible than we might assume. Utgard Loki 12:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Utgard Loki. The book you have in mind is, I think, The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III by the brilliant Sir Lewis Namier. Actually, what he argues is that the Whigs and Tories were not tightly organised groups, in the sense we understand political parties today, but highly fluid 'alliances' of like-minded individuals, who could concentrate and disperse as the occasion demanded, often in relation to specific issues. Even so, this great political fracture determined the general shape of English politics from the reign of William III onwards. People at the time would have been very well aware that Walpole was a Whig and Bute was a Tory. But the fluidity of the whole structure is fully demonstrated by the career of William Pitt the Younger, a Tory Prime Minister who came from the Whig political tradition, and always thought of himself as an 'independent Whig.' Clio the Muse 19:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the Patriot Whig article, and it was a revelation to me at the time that such a group came into existence. I'm a naif with the field, but I've been interested for a while in how the "patriot" movements meant what they did in the 30's. Later, with the Pitts, it has a really definable meaning, but it seems to be "anti-Walpole" and "anti-war" in the 30's. This is the period when God Save the King was written, probably by Henry Carey (writer), who seems to be a "patriot" to be an anti-Walpolean. It seems to be an under-discussed era and one that's very hard to stick. Geogre 19:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want information about the Popish Plot, you must have a free google-account, then you find herea lot of e-books -- jlorenz1 02:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC) See also commons:Pictured Cards of the Popish Plot[reply]

Catholic churches response to criticisms

so how come catholik cherch iz whore of baby lon lol...

Sorry... I had to do it =P. But I have a serious (!) question. What is the current approach to protestants, in terms of evangelism? Do missionaries have a hierarchy to decide who to convert? I know that many protestants send priests to Catholic Africans/Mexicans, but what about the other way around?--Kirby♥time 12:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol :> Perry-mankster 14:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do these Protestant missionaries try to convert Roman Catholics? They're not supposed to, as most churches regard proselytizing as a thing to avoid. It's quite possible that the protestant missionaries are just spreading the word in general, with their interpretation, and aiming at the non-believer and catching members of other faiths. I would assume that the same would be true of those Roman Catholic orders that have missionary branches. They would not intentionally go after protestant believers, but rather go after non-believers and non-practicing. Utgard Loki 12:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many Protestant churches (in particular the evangelicals) who don't consider Catholics "good Christians". I can remember my grandmother calling Catholics "idol worshippers". Many evangelicals, in particular, consider proselytizing as a good thing, bringing in the deluded into the True Church. Corvus cornix 20:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the Campus Crusade for Christ had more of a problem with me being Catholic than with me being an atheist. Also, as far as I remember, Catholic missions do not really proselytize to Protestants, but they do seem to focus on "natives" in the Americas, even if they are already Catholic. Adam Bishop 15:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

air turbulence

What is the most damaging event in the aviation history caused by air turbulence? Also, where can I find some air turbulence related videos, I searched "you tube" but they are mostly irrelevant. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.108.217.130 (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Not a complete answer, but the articles on wind shear and wake turbulence may help you out. - Eron ^Talk 18:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't really defined "damaging" very well, but I presume you equate damaging to loss of life. You may consider looking in Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners and in Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners caused by bad weather, although I wouldn't be enthusiastic about their completeness. In addition, you should definitely look at the above articles, as well as Clear air turbulence. –Pakman044 23:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio's orderal

In Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, if Antonio defended who he thought was Sebastian but was actually Cesario and Cesario denied Antonio, why would Antonio leave a note at the Elephant? I am guessing that Sebastian received Antonio's note, written after Antonio's arrest and before Sebastian arrived at the Elephant. Sebastian was sightseeing at the meanwhile. --Mayfare 19:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen a problem with this: I've always assumed that Antonio went to the Elephant for a few hours, and then left, "leaving word" that he was going to range the town to seek Sebastian out, then ran into Cesario and the knights having their swordfight. Is there a reason why that order of events doesn't work for you? AndyJones 20:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtship Rituals/Dating in the 70's, 80's

I need to know what people did in the 70's and 80's to go out on dates. I am only 20 years old and do not know what people did back then. What did guys take girls to do? 76.202.62.120 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Jack[reply]

Movies, dances, theatre, skating, skiing, bowling, swimming, long walks, bars, long drives, lectures, concerts, parties, lunches and dinners, picnics, beaches, parks . . . Most of the same things that girls took guys to do and that girls and guys do today, I think, in North America, at any rate. Bielle 22:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some things never change! There is a page on Youth culture, though it's not a very good introduction to the subject. Jack, why not just ask your people, your mum and dad, I mean? Clio the Muse 22:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could always watch some of the great romance movies of the time for indications. Say Anything to me implies that guys were fond of holding beatboxes outside of girls' windows, for example, which I'm sure was quite common back in those rowdy times. --24.147.86.187 01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal experience...The movie, Love Story, at a drive-in theatre, if you can't score there::, you've got real problems!

"Beatboxes?" "Rowdy times?" I was there, I thought. I don't recall any of this. Bielle 04:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe meant boomboxes and got mixed up with beatboxing? --Azi Like a Fox 09:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only element to have changed, really, is the arcade. In the early 1980's, arcades were popular. Dumb guys might be stupid or addicted enough to believe that going to the arcade was a good date activity. Other than that, nothing has changed. How they met and arranged their activities changed considerably (Internet extremely rare, everyone on VAX's and Usenet; cell phones non-existent, txtng utterly unimaginable (still, if you ask me)), but not what folks did. Geogre 10:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say much about the 70's, i was born in 71, but ah the 80's. Very much designer label era - from a scottish POV - and the smallish town i came from you where - generally speaking - either a 'trendy' or a 'casual' - trendy being brogues, DM's suit/sport jackets jeans = "smert lookin'" casual being V expensive labels on your clothes ('stone island being a perfect example)' rare and expensive trainers, but not necessarily a soccer hooligan (although that's what the image portrayed) as for dating you kept much to your own group, and ergo your own pubs, and that's where you meet, 'chatted up' (fantastic terminology!) girls and generally did what all teenagers do and have done since they where 'invented' in the 50's.... Perry-mankster 12:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took guys to The Factory where I could get them in for free which impressed them, to see punk bands.hotclaws**== 09:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copyright status of PRC propaganda posters

Hi there, I posted this question on 'Can I use' (twice) and 'Media copyright questions' and got no response, so I thought I'd try you. I am trying to determine the copyright status of low-res images of political propaganda posters created in the People's Republic of China during the 1950's. This collection of posters and the site's copyright information and attribution policy seem to say that they would fall under GFDL and that {{Attribution}} would apply, but images from the same site, which are currently being used in Criticize Lin, Criticize Confucius, Propaganda in the People's Republic of China and other Wikipedia articles are used under {{politicalposter}} as fair use. Any ideas on the actual status of these images? AFAIK the image I am looking to use was created in the mid-1950's, probably from artwork done by some artist working for the PRC and then reproduced extensively, the site consists of low-res scans of posters in the siteowner's collection, which are the images I want to use. Thanks!--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 23:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well low-res doesn't matter if you are not talking about fair use. Neither does the fact that it is scanned in. In the end all that matters is whether or not works created by the PRC in the 1950s fall under any sort of copyright protection, or whether they are in the public domain. I don't know much about the issue except that in recent years China has joined various copyright conferences and as such I'm pretty sure its back works should be considered likely copyrighted unless explicitly indicated otherwise. The fact that a website owner has claimed copyright over them (even to proclaim them released as GFDL) has no legal weight. Scanning something surely does not create a new copyright. --24.147.86.187 01:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he doesn't claim copyright, he states that he believes they are not copyrighted on the page listed above, he just wants attribution for the scans if they are used, which I believe then we can use here under GDFL. I thing at the time in China copyright was considered 'capitalist,' and things created were for the 'people'. I just don't know if his claim is correct.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 02:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The GFDL is a copyright license. You can't license something under GFDL unless you own the copyright to it. You can't GFDL things in the public domain. So either the site owner implies he/she owns the copyright, or they don't understand the GFDL. Nevermind, I misunderstood what you were asserting. You're saying that attribution is allowed under the GFDL. His desire for attribution does not read to me like a legal requirement so I don't think you have to worry about that compicating things, and of course we can attribute (in a non-binding legal fashion). In any case as he is in any case not the copyright owner he does not really have any standing to set those sorts of terms in a legal sense; it might be polite to comply but there's no legal mechanism backing it up. ... And claims about their assumed ideological approach do not give any indication of what their copyright law would be. In any case intellectual property is at least as much about control as it is about profit, and in the area of control no one excels like a socialist state. --24.147.86.187 02:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool and thanks for the replies. The images being used on WP are labeled 'fair use' and I think as low-res scans of political posters that were distributed widely that is probably correct. I wanted to use one on my user page and since fair use images are not allowed there I was looking for another way to label them that would be legal and clear. Since the status is not clear I'll just forego the image on my user page. Thanks for all the replies!--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 02:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]