Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 July 17

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.

< July 16 Humanities desk archive July 18 >

Adolf III. Von Berg

I am a Descendant of the German Von Berg family and i was looking for a more detailed description of his involvement in the crusades such as how much command power he had and what crusader sect was he part of and if he was in command of any territory in the crusader kingdoms

Well we seem to have some varying numbers and dates for the Adolfs of Berg...our Adolf III is not the same as Adolf I, Adolf II, or Adolf III in the German Wikipedia. Adolf III in German is numbered Adolf VI in the English Wikipedia, for some reason, and we have no Adolf V. Off the top of my head I can't think of any Counts of Berg who had any major involvement in the crusades or the crusader states, so he probably didn't have much power. Adolf III/VI seems to have been on the Fifth Crusade, but he died fighting in Egypt. Adam Bishop 15:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

16th century Japanese culture

What impact did European technology have on Japanese culture, specifically, Bushido, and warfare in general?

We have searched and cannot find any links or sites to research.

Any help would be greatly appreciated...Thank You.

The article Nanban trade period discusses many of the technological and cultural impacts of the contact between Europeans and the Japanese during this period. Road Wizard 13:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 - 1 AD : 1 - ## BC

If you or I were alive in the years 1 BC and 1 AD, what years would we have known it as? And why wasn't there a year 0?

The "nativity era" wasn't used until over 500 years later -- see Dionysius Exiguus . At the time, 1 A.D. was known as 753 ab urbe condita (among other things). AnonMoos 14:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What you would have known it as depends strongly on where you were. 1 AD has a handy sidelist of alternate terminology, though a common practice was also to use regnal years (ie, "the year is the fifth in the reign of Emperor X"), which aren't listed there and will strongly depend on location. See Year zero for the no-year-0 issue Shimgray | talk | 14:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

P.G. Wodehouse "Good Morning Bill"

Hello

Does anyone know the song that Tidmouth is singing at the top of Act 2 with the line "though his lance be swift and keen" & to what the tune might be?

WW1 Calendar Confusion

A long time ago I was told that during the 1st world war the Russians turned up to some campaigns on a different day, because they were using the Julian calendar and not the Gregorian calendar used by the rest of the allies.

Is this true or have I been mislead?

Aside from the obvious October Revolution having occured in November according to the Gregorian calendar, I can't find any such confusion over differences in calendar systems around the time. Were there any more specifics (e.g. which campaigns) that could help the search? Ziggurat 03:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Russians used the old calendar - I have a suspicion the Orthodox Church did even after the Revolution - but the Eastern Front was pretty much the Russians alone. There'd have been confusion, certainly, but I doubt it would have extended to major campaigning-level clashes - there just wasn't that scale of cooperation with their allies. Shimgray | talk | 11:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Russian Orthodox Church still uses the old calendar internally (for reasons that have to do with not recognising the authority of the Catholic pope). Christmas, for example, is celebrated on what the Julian calendar calls "25 December" but the Gregorian calendar calls "7 January". JackofOz 04:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Religions opposed to medicine

Scientologists are famous for abominating psychiatry. Do they hold the same views on non-psychiatric medicine? If a devout Scientologist had cancer, would he refuse conventional treatment?

On a related note: although Christian Scientists normally eschew treatment for all ailments, would they draw the line at a broken leg? Bhumiya (said/done) 15:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

For Scientology try Medical claims in Scientology doctrine, it seems they draw the line at drugs that influence the brain, but their definition of that may be different than what most would call psychiatric drugs. See Christian Scientists, the article doesn't seem to clear up your question but some of the external links might. Nowimnthing 16:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Scientologists and Christian Scientists are not in any way related and should NOT be confused! It's the Scientologists that are the nut-jobs, not the Christian Scientists, who established their church in the late 19th century (almost a century before the Scientologists), and are really no more, as far as I know, than another bona fide Christian denomination. The article on Christian Scientists doesn't seem to clear up the question because it's about an entirely different subject than Scientology! (Just felt I HAD to say that for all those Christian Scientists who must be irritated to all hell with constantly being confused with Scientologists! Then again, I really don't know all that much about Christian Scientism, so I shouldn't really take any position about their faith, except to say that they are by no means Scientologists!)

As for Scientology (or any other religion) eschewing drugs that "influence the brain", sadly for them, ALL drugs influence the brain. You stub your toe and your brain is involved in the painful reaction. Break a leg and it's your brain that's telling you that it hurts. Likewise, take a pill to stop your leg from hurting and what you're actually doing is telling your brain (or perhaps "tricking" it) to ignore the pain.

Same goes for non-medicinal substances. Have a glass of wine and you're "influencing your brain". Same goes with a cup of coffee, a piece of chocolate, or a simple can of Coke. All contain caffeine, which, strictly speaking, is a "mind altering drug", which "influences the brain".

I can go even further into absurdity. Eat a piece of candy, and the sugar in it will "influence your brain". Even simpler, eat an apple and its sugar will "influence your brain". In short, all food "influences the brain". Even further, all sensory input of any kind "influences the brain". Go out into the sunshine and the sun will, literally, change your brain chemistry.

Ok, I realize I'm being silly here, but then again, the subject was Scientology, right? Loomis 23:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought they were connected. They are most definitely not. But it is funny that people freely deride the weird practices of Scientology while giving a free pass to older, more "Christiany" religions with the same tendencies, then bristle at the suggestion of a parallel. Christian Scientists, guided by faith, have frequently killed their children by refusing to give them basic medical care. As far as I'm concerned, this is substantially worse than bilking consenting adult idiots out of money. I'm no fan of Scientology, but neither do I accept the view that cults founded before 1900 are beyond reproach. The Christian Scientists might be offended if I compared them to Scientologists, and vice versa, but as Arthur Miller said, the comparison is inevitable. Bhumiya (said/done) 04:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Bhumiya, it was Nowimnthing who seemed to be making the obvious confusion, not you. As for the difference between bona fide groups, and nut-jobs, the line has to be drawn somewhere, To take an extreme hypothetical example, if all one religion basically tells you is "be a good person and you'll go to heaven", while another tells you "to go to heaven you must all gather together and throw a virgin into a volcano", well, I'm afraid I'd be forced to make a distinction. It's not a matter of age, as the former religion may have been been established yesterday, and the latter may have existed since antiquity, yet I'd feel the same.

As for the real-life example of Scientology vs. Christian Science, many people near and dear to me require psychiatric treatment to lead more productive, more functional, happier lives. To date, I've never been told by any Christian Scientist that these people should be denied this treatment and that psychiatry is a farce, as Scientologists seem so unhesitant to spout at any possible opportunity. Perhaps Christian Scientists believe that even psychotherapy, without the involvement of drugs is against their religion. However, to the best of my understanding 1) this is not their position, and 2) even it is, they seem to be satisfied in merely following this tenet of their faith themselves, without ridiculing those non-Christian Scientists who are in dire need of psychiatric attention. These remarks (the ones by Scientologists, that psychiatry is a farce and that they're fools for using it to better their lives) are hurtful to the mentally ill, and that's where I draw MY line. Loomis 12:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

BBC quote "Lebanese Shia Sunni union would make Bin Laden proud"

Hello,

yesterday (the night between sunday 16 july and monday 17 july 2006) I was watching the news on BBC (1 or 2) and a reporter said there is a union in Lebanon of Sunni and Shia muslims that would make Bin Laden proud.

I didn't really get that comment, I mean, is Bin Laden truly the symbol of union between Sunni and Shia muslims? Isn't his organisation completely sunni, and hasn't Al Qaeda even targeted Shia muslims?

Thanks,

Evilbu 16:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a stupid statement. In the Sunni fundamentalist Islamic movement Bin Laden is part of, Shiites are considered heretics or not muslim at all. David Sneek 21:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Weird, because the BBC usually provides quality in my opinion. Evilbu 21:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a bizarre thing to say. I sure hope this was from some third-party editorializing, not from the official BBC rewsreader. You'd have to be very uninformed or just vehemently anti-Muslim to feel that a Sunni-Shia alliance would necessarily benefit terrorism. Even if it did, as Evilbu says, it would not please Wahhabists like Bin Laden. Bhumiya (said/done) 23:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• We Brits are known for sarcasm and irony;maybe that was it?hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 07:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

I don't know the situation, but maybe the meaning was "[this group are] dedicated terrorists." Such a phrase "makes [well known terrorist] proud" could be used of any terrorist group, without regard to ideologies. Notinasnaid 08:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he meant the average Lebanese feeling that way. It was a broadcast sunday night (monday morning) quite late (at about 2-3 AM GMT) and I think it was a woman in the studio talking to a (male young with white shirt)correspondent in Lebanon. Evilbu 13:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Confused about Iranian Revolution.

I read the Iranian revolution article, but got rather confused. Following are my doubts, if someone could clear them. I think wikipedia is good, but one thing which I have peculiarly noticed about "political" arcticles is that they are quite "messy". In the sense that they cover all the happenings and topics without going into depth. So if anyone wants to really understand the reasons and finer points, then it cannot act as a comprehensive source. But still, I am impressed with whats going on in here. And by the way, I am a regular user of wikipedia, have around 950mb of articles from this free encyclopedia! Now some for my doubts :

Doubt1:

there is this following statement in the forementioned article about iranian revolution.

"In July 1980, the U.S. national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski met Jordan's King Hussein in Amman to discuss detailed plans for Saddam Hussein to sponsor a coup in Iran against Khomeini."

But why did US conspire against khomeini? He was not communist or being supported by Russia. So what were the reasons? And though he (khomeini) was not the best choice for US, as mentioned in the article, there didnt seems any danger in having him in the regime.

Doubt 2:

There is the following statement in the same article.

"Thus, in 1980, Iraq (politically controlled by Sunnis at this time), with financial support from the rulers of the majority of Arab states, invaded Iran in an attempt to destroy the revolution in its infancy"

But which "revolution" are they against? The revolution, which was going on in Iran against Shah, was already successfull with Shah being overthrown, and Khomeini being in control. So where did a new "revolution" come into being?

To answer your first question, by 1980, the Iran Hostage Crisis had already begun. American hostages were being held in the U.S. embassy with the support of Khomeini. The U.S. wanted to rescue the hostages, and (if they could) get rid of a leader (Khomeini) who they saw as radical and dangerous. Iran was also a strategic location at the time, since it was right next to the Soviet Union, and with an anti-US leader in charge, the US would have little to no control over Iran. 69.40.243.177 19:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Taliban leaders weren't communist, either.--Patchouli 00:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As to the second question, the revolution being referred to is the revolution that Khomeini had led the previous year. In some countries, it's not unusual for a revolutionary government to still refer to itself as "revolutionary" for years after taking power. --Metropolitan90 01:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the history of US doing regime changes around the world, starting with Hawaii's monarchy, which was before communism was invented, the vast majority of it, such as in South and Central America, had nothing to do with Communism, and everything to do with Laissez Faire Capitalism, where US firms wished to do as they pleased in nations that wanted them to do nasty things like pay taxes. User:AlMac|^(talk) 05:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Phrase

Where does the phrase, "That's the beauty of it, it doesn't do anything" come from?69.40.243.177 19:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the beauty of it, it doesn't come from anywhere! Try here for example. Adam Bishop 20:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's actually what caused me to come here and ask. Nobody there could find an answer. Maybe there is no answer. 71.31.150.179 00:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything has some origin, but the origin isn't always known. JackofOz 10:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

State Birds

Why do we have state birds? What group is responsible for states having these?

As for why, try the introduction at national symbols, substituting "state" for "national". Various symbols (as noted at lists of U.S. state insignia) are generally designated by the state legislature, generally (I suppose) after someone or some group requests such recognition. The given reasons can vary well beyond the bounds of a quick answer. — Lomn | Talk 20:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is 'we'? DirkvdM 18:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Many places will do all sorts of things to promote tourism. User:AlMac|^(talk) 05:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)