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.
I heard something on NPR about a documentary about a group of archeologists who say they may have found the remnants of Atlantis in marshland in Spain. Do we have an article on that site whose name I can't remember? RJFJR (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And there it is. I must have type Spain wrong when I searched the Atlantis article for it and I didn't spot it when I checked the headings. Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I heard that the chief accuser of William Tyndale said something like "it doesn't matter if the accused is innocent or guilty, so long as it inspires terror in the people." I am having troubling sourcing this claim. Is it true? Does anyone know the primary source? Thanks. 129.120.4.2 (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Found the following in "William Tyndale: The Translator of the English Bible, by William Dallmann.
"It is no great matter whether they that die on account of religion be guilty or innocent, provided we terrify the people by such examples; which generally succeeds best when persons eminent for learning, riches, nobility, or high station are thus sacrificed," said Ruwart Tapper, Doctor of Theology, Chancellor of the University of Louvain, one of the judges, fore-most among the accusers of Tyndale and
most relentless in opposition to him.
Looking at this BBC video, beginning at about 1:47 Andy North is shown in front of one of those backgrounds that are supposed to make it seem as though the reporter is standing in front of the place. However, the camera is at an angle such that the background is crooked revealing the wall and it is obvious he is in a studio and not in front of the White House. Is this a mistake? If intentional why would they do this? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're just using it as a general prop, rather than expecting the viewer to think he's actually there; after all, the angle of the shot is highly unlikely. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 08:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly a screen. I don't think there are any buildings in the right position to have windows like that - it's looking down on the White House, which would make it a fairly tall building. I think it's just supposed to be a visual aid to demonstrate that he's in Washington DC in the same way that you see St. Stephen's Tower ("Big Ben") behind newsreaders in London studios. --Tango (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they wanted you to think it's a real view, the frame either would be hidden or would look more like a real window-frame. In my humble judgement. —Tamfang (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The view is the north side of the White House, the Pennsylvania Avenue side. The building is set more than 200 feet back from the street, on the opposite side of which is Lafayette Park. My guess is that BBC image is a long shot from at least a block further away from the park (e.g., north of H and 17th Streets). If I'm right, the flags in the upper right of the over-the-shoulder shot are those at the base of the Washington Monument, which is roughly half a mile directly south of the White House. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys,
I was wondering if any of you knew where I could find a dataset with the Democrat/Republican breakdown for state legislatures, preferably going back to 1997. Wikipedia has it back to 2004, but I need it farther back for a paper I'm writing. (Also, if any of you could think of a variable that's correlated with observed effective tax rates but uncorrelated with GDP growth, that'd also be helpful)
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.109.170 (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could try the legislature websites for the individual states. alternaatively a website on elections may have it (CNN?) or some indiv source.
for the 2nd question those details will probably need someone to do it (your paper perhaps?), unless its done in adademia somewhere.Lihaas (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well, I would prefer not to have to collect the data myself. First it would be much more prone to error than if i got it pre-collated from somewhere else, second, it would obviously be quite time consuming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.35.175 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
¶ Keep in mind that four states (Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey and Virginia) elect their state legislatures in odd-numbered years, and also that the single-chamber (unicameral) Nebraska Legislature is not elected on a partisan basis.
¶ While in the last couple of decades there has been a concerted effort to co-ordinate the conservative/Republican caucuses in different legislatures (American Legislative Exchange Council), and a less-disciplined counter-effort to co-ordinate progressive, liberal and Democratic legislators (Progressive States Network), it's still not easy, for a number of reasons, to align state lawmakers into cohesive ideological blocs. A moderate Democratic legislator in a state such as Montana or Utah, who campaigned for Barack Obama in 2008, might still be slightly to the "right" of a moderate Republican legislator in New England on many issues, including taxes and social spending. And most legislatures are still part-time: convening in January, passing a budget by July 1st (in theory) and then dispersing (in some states for 18 months) until or unless called back by their leaders or the governor. Some legislatures are very tightly controlled by the leaders of their majority-party caucuses (the Speaker of the lower house and the president or majority leader of the upper one), while in others, the legislators only identify very loosely with parties and are essentially independent, concentrating on issues that concern their own districts or professions. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want the 120 legislators of the most populous state to be weighted equally with the much more numerous legislators of some smaller states? —Tamfang (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s an interesting (possible) correlation: unemployment rate and retention / dismissal of majority party. Maybe check that against national trends, too. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for good, succinct accounts of the issue of examining historical periods from the perspective of the time versus the perspective of the historians time. i.e. the meta-debate behind "George Washington was an evil man for treating black people like property" vs "George Washington had quite liberal views on slavery for his time". I skimmed through historiography but couldn't see anything, and to my surprise the name(s) of this debate elude(s) me. Can anyone link me? Grazi, Skomorokh05:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good question, and I would like to know the answer so I could label it when I hear it. I think of it in connection with Lincoln, for one. In Don't Know Much about the Civil War, the author Davis says, "By today's standards, Lincoln was a racist. But by standards of his day, he was a liberal." Also the ones who look at the expressive letters men wrote to each other (as Lincoln did, and as women did to each other also) and conclude that they were gay, just because they were much more effusive than folks write nowadays. I call it "trying to apply 20th/21st century mores to the 19th century." It's kind of like "recentism", but I would think there's a better term for it. Notice how we still have a vestige of that flowery prose when writing letters, or even e-mails, when we say "Dear Sir/Madam" to someone we've never met or even heard of before. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This idea is also satirized in Peanuts, when Lucy tells Schroeder that his idol, Beethoven "wasn't so great - because he never got his picture on a bubble-gum card." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC
Many years ago, David Hackett Fischer wrote a very readable book about the pitfalls of historiographical research, verification, interpretation and expression, called Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (Harper, 1970; ISBN0-06-131545-1). It discusses various variations of your question about recentism or "presentism", although I can't at the moment recall precisely in which sections. You could start with pages 133-141 (discussing presentism and other forms of anachronism) in the Google Books preview, if you don't have ready, convenient access to a printed copy. See also the Wikipedia articles on presentism and historian's fallacy. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of those links also leads to the related topic of "Hindsight bias". The article you mentioned, which redirects to Presentism (literary and historical analysis), I think yields the best answer to the OP's question. "Presentism" zeroes in on just the kind of thing the OP was talking about. I recall in Ken Burns' lengthy film essay about baseball, there was a lot of time spent criticizing the color line. While he was not necessarily wrong, as baseball apartheid was controversial in its day, just as slavery was in its day, this is still "presentism". The Historian's fallacy mentions "hindsight bias" and uses Pearl Harbor as an example. There are a number of parallels between Pearl Harbor and 9/11, which goes unmentioned in the article probably because it could, ironically, precipitate a war (of the editing variety). But consider this: Opponents of the subsequent war, learning that there were signals that were apparently ignored, theorized that it was at least incompetency, and at worst it was deliberate ignoring for the purpose of dragging us into war. Many 9/11 conspiracy theorists take it a step further by claiming that the US not only knew it was coming, but were part of the operation. I don't think that claim was made about Pearl Harbor, but I can't swear to that. However, that fallacy is at the root of many of the conspiracy theories. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 08:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although it might seem more remote, the deepest discussion in Wikipedia of anachronistic historical misinterpretations seems to be at Whig history, which is more than a history of or by the historical British Whigs. Whig interpretations of history, according to the article, have even been ascribed to histories of natural science. Also see James Loewen's book Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong (1995 & 2008, ISBN1595583262 ; Google Books preview), which criticizes those textbooks for the way they trivialize some very troubling and difficult questions in America's past. PBS in Rhode Island is currently rebroadcasting Ken Burns' history of Baseball, so I did see "Shadow Ball", his account of the Gentlemen's Agreement (to exclude colored players from the major leagues), the Negro Leagues, and Jackie Robinson's integration of the Dodgers. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that term "Whiggish", and it certainly could fit, it's just kind of obscure unless you already know what it is. To my mind, "presentism" is probably the better general term since it doesn't necessarily require looking something up. Regarding "shadow ball", it's important to keep Branch Rickey in the story prominently, because it was his vision and force of personality that smoothed the way for bringing Jackie in. Rickey, like Bill Veeck, saw an untapped pool of talent, and being good businessmen, they wanted to use that resource and not be bound by precedents set 60 years earlier thanks to Cap Anson. (And I admit that talking about Anson also betrays some "presentism". He's a good scapegoat.) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shakescene: nailed it, thanks so much. I'm surprised at how poor our coverage of the topic is, but I'll definitely check out Historians’ Fallacies. BB: yes, recentism was the project-context that moved me to think about the issue, and that's interesting about Lincoln. Arigato, Skomorokh11:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I don't think I'd heard of "presentism" before this discussion! I've always heard the "Whig interpretation" used generally to describe this kind of fallacy - perhaps it's a UK-US difference, and we never picked up Fisher's new phrase? Shimgray | talk | 13:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given your example of George Washington, you may be interested in a collection of reviews by Gordon S. Wood entitled The purpose of the past: reflections on the uses of history (2008). Wood is a frequent critic of historians who don't distinguish present-day perspectives from past ones. —KevinMyers16:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A similar concept sometimes used in the context of Science Fiction litery criticism is "time binding", a term taken from General semantics (popularised within SF by A. E. van Vogt and others). In SF circles it refers to a reader's conscious awareness that because knowledge, cultural contexts and values have varied over time, one should interpret a text in the light of where and when it was written, not purely by one's own contemporary knowledge and values: it may also signify such an awareness by the author of a text; for example, in avoiding the logical error of having a 16th-century character perceiving a situation with 21st-century sensibilities. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a guess... but they are probably there so someone playing the game can more easily see which way the animated tank's gun is pointed. I don't think real life tiger tanks had such stripes (but I could be wrong). Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some similar stripes, although a lot smaller, can be seen on this photo from WWII. But that was the only example on a contemporary photo I could find on a Google image search of Tiger tanks, so it does not look like they were mandatory. I don't know what the purpose of the stripes are, though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Kill markings" or "kill rings"; pretty much what they sound like! They would have been unofficial and down to the whims of the crew, presumably getting overpainted every now and again (hence why they don't appear in many pictures). A picture of a vehicle with most of the gun barrel covered is here. Some crews used small symbols painted on the side of the vehicle instead; this is often seen on aircraft. Shimgray | talk | 13:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of sizeable, overlapping fan fiction communities on livejournal.com. That might be a good place to start. fanfiction.net is also a huge site, but maybe more as a repository than as a writing community. I'm not a participant so I don't know too much about exactly what's going on where, but I've read some of the stuff and know a few of the writers. I'd also say use google to find sites related to fanfic in the universes you want to write in. I'd never heard of fanstory and am frankly kind of appalled to hear about it. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
During WW1 a number of British people got shot for cowardice. Does the power to order someone to do something, and them kill them if they don't, mean that they are slaves? Thanks 92.15.4.2 (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it means that they were soldiers, and thus under military law (and thus subject to the penalties for breaking that law). Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cowardice is a charge applied to enlisted soldiers who have (for example) deserted their post, or surrendered to the enemy against orders. If one did not want to be a soldier, there were other options available (e.g. conscientious objector, or simple imprisonment). Now you may view this as tyrannical, but it is not slavery — slavery is when a human being is legal property of another. You are not legal property of the state, even though you may be (in your eyes) oppressed by the state. They may be mutually unagreeable states, but they are not the same thing. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that's true. You couldn't just refuse to contribute to the war effort, but you could request a non-combat role (although one of the main ones was stretcher-bearing, which was at least as dangerous as being a solider - there were alternatives, though). --Tango (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, our article conscientious objector gives some numbers. 6,000 people that applied to conscientious objector status in Britain between 1916 and 1918, out of 16,000, were refused. That is a large number, but not remotely "nearly all". --Tango (talk)
You ommitted to say that the article also says there were 750000 tribunal cases, that some COs were sent to the front and sentenced to death (later reprived), that COing only started in 1916, that the criteria for successfully COing was very narrow, and that COs were treated very badly. 92.24.182.118 (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly says that on 16,000 of the 750,000 cases were to do with conscientious objectors. Conscription only started in 1916, so there was nothing to object to before then. I'm not going to debate the merits of conscription with you. I have given you the facts. What you do with those facts is up to you. --Tango (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you are conscripted to the military. You try to apply to be a conscientious objector, but are refused. Now what? And why should only a CO be excused from likely death? 92.24.182.118 (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You fight or you go to prison. The argument for conscription is that you need soldiers to defend the country so, if there aren't enough volunteers, you have to force people. You may or may not agree with that, but the elected leaders of the country agreed with it in 1916 and everything else had to go along with it. That's the nature of governance. --Tango (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add they were either all or mostly conscripted. So, back in WW1, you are conscripted with the threat of punishment into the army. During battle, in fear of death, you run away. You are then shot for cowardice. You have no choice in any of the steps of that process. Is that not being a slave, owned by the state?
By the way by all accounts from what I've read the trenches in WW1 were like slaughter houses, literally, with the probability that you would soon be killed and lots of unburied bodies and body parts strewn about. Would anyone else but slaves tolerate such conditions? 92.24.182.118 (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has to follow laws. Am I a slave because I am forced, with threat of punishment, to pay my taxes? No. Neither that the law in question involves risking your life or that the punishment is death changes that. You may feel the law was unjust and a lot of people would agree with you (especially since a lot of people shot as cowards were actually suffering from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder) but that doesn't mean that people subject to that law were slaves. --Tango (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using that kind of reasoning, you would say that even plantation slaves were not slaves, as they were following the plantation laws and rules, and many of them were born in slavery. 92.24.182.118 (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has all the earmarks of trolling, where the questioner is more interested in debating with the respondents than in an answer. I suggest it stop now. Bielle (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, its trying to find the truth among a tangle of different posibilities. Not every question has a yes-or-no unambiguous answer. I think we have previously discussed that one is entitled to discuss the truth or relevance of the answers offered. 92.24.182.118 (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question is what sort of answer are you looking for here? If you are looking for our opinions or arguments, you've come to the wrong place Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping for reference to some philosophical discussion of this issue, but havnt got any yet. I had expected that some philosopher(s) somewhere would have already considered this question. 92.24.182.118 (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we can find loads of philosophical treatise on the thesis that conscription is slavery. We could find just as many that argue the opposite, though. Philosophical arguments aren't particularly useful... --Tango (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, The Social Contract (at wikisource) would be a good start for this sort apparently pointless discussion. The difference he draws, as I remember is about force; slavery, he says, is like a mugging by thieves. He goes on to say that, ideally, everyone should give everything to society and the combined benefits be split back apart for maximum effect (like soldiers). Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 18:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see why you think it is pointless, I found your description of the Social Contract moderately interesting. Is Tango correct in saying that many philosophers have considered this? If so, can more details be provided? 92.28.252.136 (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing it to slavery is just misleading. The UK government couldn't buy or sell people. They paid the actual soldiers. The soldiers themselves could vote. You can call it oppressive, you can call it tyrannical, and so on. But calling it slavery is just not right — you undersell what it means to be a "slave." It doesn't just mean you are oppressed. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The soldiers could vote? In 1914? Are you sure about that? Anyway, the OP is either a determined troll or a very boring person with no desire to actually process any answers that disagree with them (they're the one obsessed with the British monarchy, among other things), so I'm not sure what purpose answering really serves. 86.163.212.179 (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's an interesting dynamic in Last of the Mohicans (the 1992 film) where a British soldier expects Hawkeye to aid his cause, while Hawkeye doesn't see much use in that. Vranak (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried collapsing the thread (WP:NOTFORUM) but 92 uncollapsed it.[2] Maybe someone else can recollapse it and suggest 92 try some other site if s/he wants to continue debating these topics. Reference desk is for questions with answers, not for debates and extended discussions. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is some difference of opinion here on the definition of a slave. According to the article, slaves are defined as property and forced to work. But is that private property, or does public property suffice? I would lean toward defining it even as public property, because kings and nobles could own slaves. We call what concentration camp inmates were forced to do, "slave labor". Additionally, one can say that the World War soldier was in a sense a private property, at wager for the aristocratic officer class to win or lose great glory. Unlike members of an underclass, for example, the soldiers couldn't decide to leave a vainglorious officer in favor of someone more level-headed. While this can be termed a legal duty, it was not a legal duty for the wealthy - it was just a continuation of an effort to get rid of surplus low-classed men, often by means of tuberculosis, elsewhere pursued via the Corn Laws and simultaneous removals of grains produced in Ireland during the Potato Famine, in workhouses, and in concentration camps.
Of course no one is a slave unless he submits to compulsions; to editorialize a moment, the military draft for an unjust war presents the individual with a decision of whether just war is possible. One decision demands pacifism at any price; the other leaves no alternative but that the draftee take up arms and murder those seeking to kill him, which is to say, those who commanded or benefit by the draft. Wnt (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's why JW's go to jail, because they refuse to serve their country in any way. Alternative service is possible for those who can demonstrate sincerity as conscientious objectors. What it comes down to is the question of whether a citizen has any responsibility to defend his own country when called upon to do so. Legalistically in the U.S., the answer to that question is "Yes", as the Supreme Court ruled a few decades back that the "slavery or involuntary servitude" amendment did not apply to the draft, because the government has the constitutional right "to raise armies". And by the way, war is not necessarily "murder". Murder is the unlawful taking of life. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Bugs, that hasn't been strictly true since 1996: JWs are allowed to serve their country now, although presumably in a way that doesn't kill people. [3]82.24.248.137 (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JW's have always been allowed by law to serve their country. They were not allowed by their own faith to serve their country, as that was putting the will of man above the will of God, in their viewpoint, as noted here:[4] There's nothing there about the church changing its stance in 1996, so you'll need to explain that comment in more detail. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I need to explain this in more detail? If you followed the link I provided, it gives the reference and quote from their own official publication, The Watchtower, from 1996, as well as earlier quotes that say the opposite. Things written in The Watchtower are automatically What Jehovah's Witnesses Are Supposed To Believe until 'the light gets brighter' and The Watchtower prints an opposite view: since 1996, it has said that JWs can serve their country if their conscience allows. It is sometimes difficult to get this information on Wikipedia, because Jehovah's Witnesses are fairly driven when it comes to articles about their organisation: for example, check out our article Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse. If you had never read anything about it in the newspapers, or in studies into the prevalence of abuse in various communities, would you even understand from our article that there had been a problem? Would you understand why someone had created the article in the first place, or why statements had been issued? Would you know that practices (and teaching) have, in the recent past, been appalling on this issue, and that this is why official policy changed?
Since changes in policy are something JWs don't really like outsiders to see about themselves, and even internally 'the light gets brighter' isn't really meant to be dwelt on too much, they aren't going to want a change laid out on Wikipedia. Unless a handful of editors armed with references cares enough about a JW thing to maintain an article, it basically won't be in the encyclopedia. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JW's previously eschewed any kind of service to country. Their allowing their members to seek conscientious objector status, instead of going to jail, is indeed a seismic shift in their thinking. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The less charitable have linked it with negotiations to reclaim their 'registered religion' status in Bulgaria, which they lost in 1994 on the grounds of not participating in military service and shunning members who sought blood transfusions for themselves or their children, and regained in 1998 after this seismic shift in policy, declaring that accepting blood transfusions would be 'without control or sanctions', and the Bulgarian government introducing a non-combat option for military service. How bad that really is depends on your perspective (I think it's a good thing that Bulgaria now offers a non-combat option), but they did renege on the blood thing, sort of (instead of being disfellowshipped - Elders declare everyone must shun you - you are declared to have disassociated yourself - Elders declare everyone must shun you). I suspect I am getting less relevant and must go to bed... 82.24.248.137 (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I expect the founders would be shocked at this development, as it goes against the very core of their teachings. In the context of the OP's question, the JW's have given themselves the right to become tools of man instead of God. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to this BBC news item, more than 20,000 British servicemen were convicted of capital offenses between 1914 and 1920. 3,000 were sentenced to death, with 10% of them actually executed. The Shot at Dawn Memorial has 306 wooden stakes representing those executed on charges like desertion or cowardice. U.S. private Eddie Slovik in 1945 became the only American soldier executed for desertion since the Civil War. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the name of the French general who was probably suffering from heat stroke who suggested that trees be planted along the roads in Algeria?Smallman12q (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure but Napoleon Bonaparte ordered fast-growing London plane trees to be planted along main roads in France a) so that troops could march in the shade and b) so that the sun wouldn't dry the road surface so quickly and help prevent its loss in clouds of dust. Not quite as barmy as it first appears. In England, because of different agricultural techniques, nearly all lowland roads have traditionally been bounded by hedges, and it isn't so hot, so the need for such grandiose schemes never arose. Alansplodge (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
President Kennedy supposedly told the story of a French general in Algeria who wanted to plant a special kind of tree to line the road to his chateau. "But, mon general," protested his gardener, "that tree takes one hundred years to bloom." The general smiled and said, "Then we have no time to lose. Start planting today."
This sounds like the story I heard...though I remember it with 25 years...(and the general's name as latou...but I haven't gotten any hits for that name)...if anyone could find who the actual general was, it'd be much appreciated!Smallman12q (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the specific job and what the potential employer is looking for. For example, "Very weird" might be an excellent answer if you are interviewing for a job that requires artistic creativity (say at an ad agency)... it might be a terrible answer if you are interviewing for a job in sales. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been better if you had followed the instruction and used a scale of 1 to 10... I agree that it's probably better to avoid an employer that asks that kind of question. If won't tell them anything useful. If they want weird employees, they would be better off asking you to describe a weird characteristic you have rather than asking you for an arbitrary number. --Tango (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Oh I dunno. If the job was one that might favour weirdness, as Blueboar suggests, then "very" might have been a doubly good answer, because it was demonstrating additional weirdness by not adhering to the 1-10 default. Something to remember is that questions like these do not necessarily have a "right" answer, rather the answers you give (usually in lists of a hundred or so) may say a lot about your individual personality provided they are composed and assessed by someone competent in Psychometrics. It's also pointless trying to guess what answers the employer might favour, because this will show up as inconsistencies and the assessors will know you're trying to cheat the system. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked in a written university entrance exam whether I preferred a square or a circle. I'm still agonizing over the "right" answer to that one forty years later.--Shantavira|feed me16:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a right answer. The point of the question will have been your reasons for your answer, not the answer itself. --Tango (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tango, the correct answer to "Do you prefer a square or a circle" is: "Actually, it's funny that you should ask. I prefer a square with a circle inscribed in it. The circle represents those creative ideas that only a background as diverse and multifaceted as mine can prepare a person to come up with, and the square represents follow-through on these ideas in the way that best serves the fundamental mission of this company/institution. I think that mine is the correct approach for true, innovative results - I don't know if you have other candidates like that, but anyone who is as creative, driven, yet also disciplined as me, but who would have the square on the inside with the circle on the outside, is, I would argue, really thinking of possibilities external to the company. They might have creative ideas, but there is no guarantee that they will keep them with the company. I like the rigor and dependability of being an employee with clear career goals within the company - like those who would answer "square" - but I also have sufficient creativity to be a real innovative power and key player here; like those who would answer "circle". And as you can see from the resume in front of you, I have a proven track record of combining the two in a way that has served my previous employers outstandingly, as you can also see from the recognitions I received at my previous company. Finally, you will note that some of the positions I stuck with could be considered monotonous or lacking in possibility. Whenever I've had to choose only one of a square or a circle, you can see that I've always put the interests of the company ahead of my own." 94.27.134.222 (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago I attended a course on legal and other compliance issues in interviewing and hiring. Questions like this were absolutely forbidden; they insisted we ask questions which had right answers that had objective, repeatable criteria. (That doesn't mean every question had to have a definite, yes/no/42 answer, but questions like "how would you implement XYZ" had to have some written points that the candidate was supposed to be able to cover, to show they had the necessary knowledge and understanding of the topic in hand.) The trouble with questions which have no objective answer, the lawyer giving the class explained, is that if a candidate is asked such a question and is then not hired, you run the risk of them suing and claiming the impossible question is a smokescreen, and that they were really not hired because they were a member of some protected class; and because the question can't be answered "correctly", you can't stand up in court and say that the candidate got the question "wrong", just that you didn't like their answer. There was pretty much unanimity, anyway, among the hiring managers present (all of whom had more experience in interviewing than I) that these kind of questions were bullshit, and always elicited bullshit answers. I think that class would agree with 92.24.182.118's sentiment. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk17:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to agree with 92's sentiment on this. Although a good answer might be, "How weird do you want me to be, on a scale of 1 to 10?" However, interview questions are usually more along the lines of (1) do you have the skills for this job? and (2) how do you get along with others? And the general clincher, "Why should we hire you?" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What were the survival rates for soldiers in the trenches of WW1 please? I believe it varied according to rank, and was surprisingly short. Thanks 92.24.182.118 (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure of the average length of time a soldier would survive at the front, they were regularly moved to and from the front all the time so the "exposure time" to the enemey varied. They didnt all move into the trenches and then stay. We have an article on World War I casualties but a quick bit of original research on British figures indicates about 42% of those involved were killed, about 6% were officers. I dont know the total split of those in the trenches but I suspect the soldier/officer ratio may well reflect the numbers of each involved. Shell and gun fire didnt really take into account rank. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It varied quite a lot by "cohort," if I recall. E.g. the early cohorts (e.g. the soldier who start up in 1914) in particular end up with extremely awful survival rates, while the later ones average out a bit better. But I don't have the statistics handy. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the vast majority of WWI casualties came during offensives. Being in a trench was no doubt very unpleasant but not all that deadly. It was when the soldiers were forced to come up out of the trenches and charge through barbed wire and machine gun fire toward the opposing trenches that the real carnage occurred. (Although the highest rate of casualties of all actually came during the Battle of the Frontiers at the start of the war, before any trenches existed.) Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A widespread but often misunderstood feature of the war was the way a lot of it was fairly passive, a situation tacitly encouraged by the soldiers themselves. (We have a short article at live and let live (World War I), which doesn't go into much detail but does give the general idea; the book it's drawn from, Trench Warfare 1914–1918, is quite eye-opening, given we usually think of the war as a series of violent offensives punctuated by low-level aggressive raiding! I strongly recommend it.)
As a result, in some sectors - Ashworth particularly highlighted some of the British "New Army" divisions - there was little or no hostile violence; some units even record gardening or grazing animals near the front lines. Combat activity was limited and often ritualised - there would be an unspoken understanding that the day's artillery fire would always happen at one o'clock, say, or that there would not be any shooting during mealtimes or laundry days. The system died out towards the end of the war, in part because of the high command focusing on raiding and continual harrassment of the enemy; you can't reach a passive understanding if you don't get a chance to be passive.
Which is not to say that the trenches weren't violent places with high casualty rates - if a major offensive was taking place, then an infantryman quite often had less than even chances of being alive to see the next morning. But outside of those, depending on the time and the place and the participants, it was quite often a lot calmer than you might expect. Shimgray | talk | 16:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doubtful the soldiers would have gardened adjacent to the front line, as they were rotated away every few days, plus the lines were shelled and machine gunned etc. There may have been civilian gardens left over in quieter parts at the rear of the lines out of range of normal shelling. See for example http://www.1914-1918.net/intrenches.htm92.15.21.174 (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have any idea who this statue is? It's in Zbraslav on the outskirts of Prague, and the text reads "for truth". I have a feeling it's probably a scientist who got burned for saying the Earth goes around the Sun or something but it doesn't look anything like Giordano Bruno... - filelakeshoe17:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the christians view about the event one year before the birth of Prophet Muhammad.The destuction of army of the negus Abraha who want to attacked on kaaba.This event is also mentioned in Qurran . — Preceding unsigned comment added by True path finder (talk • contribs) 18:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that many individual Christians are familiar with the event, and the event does not enter into Christianity in any institutional sense; i.e. Christian theology does not deal with it. --Jayron3219:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The writings of the New Testament were completed around the end of the 1st century, so obviously there is nothing directly about Islam in it. Revelation is often taken to be talking about the Roman Empire in a highly disguised way. And to be blunt, many strict Christians regard Islam as a false religion (although it's fair to say that many Muslims probably regard Christianity the same way). ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I see. See Wikipedia's articles on Abraha and the Year of the Elephant. And the answer to the original question is that Western Christians in general know nothing about this event. Many of them know about the Ka'aba and perhaps a few other prominent events in and just after Mohammed's life on earth, but this isn't one of them. On the other hand, I can't say what Christians (and Jews) in the Middle East, or Christian and Jewish scholars and theologians familiar with Islam, might think. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, keep up. Its the Century of the Anchovy now. The Century of the Fruit Bat ended some years ago. Didn't you get the clacks? --Jayron3223:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the OP wants Abraha's side of the story, or that of Christian historians friendly to his cause. I don't know how easy that is to find - we need a real scholar of history here to tell us if it exists. The idea that an elephant would refuse the suicide mission of going first through the gate doesn't seem implausible - they're not stupid. I don't know what to make of the rock-throwing birds, but it is known that birds can drop objects from a great height, and birds can be trained ... I can't rule it out (though it would make more sense for them to use something sharp and pointed!). Wnt (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between a monarchical title and a vassal is often context dependent, just about any title of nobility becomes a title of monarchy when the holder of the title is (either de jure or de facto) ruling a territory independently. For example, the Lord of the Isles was essentially an independent monarch; though at times they were nominally vassals of the King of Scotland, they operated as an independent state at other times. There have been monarchical dukes (Duchy of Benevento), monarchical counts (County of Burgundy), and there have also been Kings who were not truly independent monarchs (the Kingdom of Bohemia was a vassal of the Holy Roman Empire). So, before one can answer the question, one needs to consider what the relationship is between the title and other titles; that is if it is treated like an independent title or one which is a vassal of a higher title. --Jayron3219:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Lord of Ireland was the King of England. I think you are thinking of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. According to some the Lordship of Ireland was a fief of the Pope, but does that make the Lord of Ireland not an Irish monarch especially since the Pope probably had absolutely no secular power in Ireland at the time. Please discuss some more..--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally Wikipedia has an article on Lord. I found it when looking for the Christian use of "Lord" to refer to God. Lord#Religion covers this, and the way a whole lot of other religions use it too. In the religious context it certainly overlaps the idea of King at times. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why and when was it decided that Asia and Europe, which are virtually all on the same landmass that they should be two different continents? If its all on the same piece of earth shouldnt it be just one? --Thanks, Hadseys22:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of Asia being separate from Europe comes from what the ancient Greeks and Romans knew about geography... to them "Asia" was separated from "Europe" by the Ionian sea, the Dardanelles-Bosporus straits, and the Black Sea and so was a separate continent. They had no real concept of what the land was like north of the Danube and thought the Black Sea might be connected to a world circling Ocean. By the time we knew better, the idea of Europe and Asia being separate continents had become stuck in European minds. Blueboar (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes for a tricky definitional problem - see continent. It's even worse when we look at places like Australia, often referred to as an "island continent", but it may not be either of those things, depending on which Australia you're talking about: Australia; or Australia (continent), which includes the separate island of New Guinea, which is partly occupied by Indonesia. Just don't tell any Indonesians that they occupy part of Australia. Don't tell any Australians either. But one thing's for sure: under current definitional conventions, if a place is a continent, it can't also be an island. Next year, who knows what the geographers will have decided amongst themselves? -- Jack of Oz[your turn]01:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's any consolation, finding the line that divides North and South America has proven somewhat elusive as well. Some maps use the Panama Canal, some use the border between Panama and Colombia, and some use the plate boundary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A set of continents consisting only of Eurasia and Africa wouldn't be exceptionally useful. ;) Besides, the Ural Mountains actually do mark an old continental boundary, the east edge of Laurussia during the Uralian orogeny. Wnt (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hadseys -- When the Greeks first used these terms, they were very local to Greece, and didn't really refer to continents: "Asia" meant Anatolia (now called "Asia minor"), "Europa" meant mainly Greece and the immediately neighboring areas to the north, and "Libya" meant distant regions all the way across the Mediterranean... AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My informal survey of about 100 people living in East Asia defined “Asia” as the area and people from Mongolia and Japan in the North to Indonesia in the South, the Philippines in the East (but, not Papua New Guinea) and somewhere in mid-Burma / Indian Ocean in the West. As one fellow remarked, “Asians are people who don’t shave [daily].” DOR (HK) (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
