Humanities desk
< December 2	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 4 >

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.

December 3

Wa-wa-wa sound effect

Is there a name for the brass instrument sound effect that goes wa-wa-waaa and is sometimes played for comedic effect after a joke? --Dgies 00:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its just called a wa wa effect. Played with a mute (music) or plunger closed(WW) then open(AAAH). Its sometimes written on the music as + for closed and o for open--Light current 00:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also used in the trombone section through the Glenn Miller tune: Tuxedo junction to give that DO- WAHH, DO-WAHH sound.--Light current 00:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comedic version is usually a Trumpet, with a mute, as above :) - cohesion 02:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Wah-wah. —Keenan Pepper 02:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

its not a trumpet..its a trombone. sorry band geek..had to comment. --Kittycat rox 02:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpets have been used with "wah-wah" mutes (a special metal mute), or a plunger (like used to unjam a toilet) since the 1920's or earlier. King Oliver, who was Louis Armstrong's mentor was noted for it, as was Bubber Miley in the early Duke Ellington band. Clyde McCoy was a pop musician from the 1930's on who used it a lot, as in "Sugar Blues." Many others have used the effect up to the present, and most concert band trumpeters have a plunger must in their instrument case, since it is sometimes called for in scores. Edison 03:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THere is one mute that is used with a plunger. I dont know if that is the wah wah mute. 8-?--Light current 03:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Hm. I've never seen one, though I've occasionally used a plunger over a straight mute. Wah-wah mutes are their own thing; Image:TrumpetMutes.jpg is blurry, but the one in the middle on the bottom is the wah-wah mute. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well I call that a Harmon mute. Maybe Im thinkig of a pixie mute used with a plunger.--Light current 16:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Harmon" is just a brand name. Oh, here's your mute-with-plunger pic: the great Ray Nance doing exactly that! And it might be a pixie mute, according to the caption -- is that what you were looking at? (I'm bloody amazed that, though I've been a trumpet player for forty years, there are still mutes I've never heard of...) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a sample of the trumpet version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo0bYDUsTis (or http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/summary/play.cfm/sound_iid.34146) and here's the Trombone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMpXAknykeg

Cara Black

TTWITE:

Has someone already asked the question I'm asking: I'm kind of a newbie around here, but I want to be able to split the Cara Black entries. How do I do that?

Thanks.

William D. (Rick) Razo

It's a bad idea to do something like that without general consensus. First, bring it up for discussion on the article's talk page. 惑乱分からん 02:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Black is only what we call a stub (a very short article), so presumably you don't mean to split it into separate articles. We would only do that if the article was becoming too long. If you want to split it into sections, see the above question (1 December) about creating sections.--Shantavira 08:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiro Agnew Science Fiction

Does anybody know about a sci-fi novel about the cancelled super-collider in texas?

A brief plot outline:

The supercollider was built, and opened up a time portal. Evil creatures came into the present, as they inevitably will when a time portal is opened. The scientists who discovered the portal went into the past. They brought almanacs.

The scientists became fabulously rich, fabulously influential and fabulously republican. They use their influence to get Spiro Agnew Nixon's Vice Presidency. Spiro Agnew, a modern-day Luddite is the one responsible for cancelling the collider's construction.

Oh the irony.

Can't find anything about it through Google, maybe you could give us a hand

You might be referring to Einstein's Bridge by John Cramer.--Charm quark 13:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saladin and Europe

Did Saladin ever voice a desire to invade Europe? 70.17.247.111 02:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the page on Saladin. To my knowledge he never expressed any such desire. He had far too much business closer to home to deal with. Clio the Muse 02:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I thought, and what the article page seemed to suggest. I was making sure, because a friend said he did indeed want to invade Europe. It's good to know I haven't neglected such a part of history. Thank you! 70.17.247.111 03:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have been of some help to you. Clio the Muse 03:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how you define "Europe". For example, if you take it according to the Eurovision criteria, or those of FIFA/UEFA, he not only desired to but actually did (successfully) invade a part of Europe. --Dweller 09:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary: by those criteria he never left Europe. However, as Saladin was fortunate enough to live centuries before those august bodies were conceived, and before the world was subject to the horrors of the Eurovision song contest, Europe for him was merely a 'geographical expression.' Clio the Muse 23:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for neglecting a part of history, by "history" do you mean what actually happened, or what historians have recorded as having happened? JackofOz 00:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clio, even by those (bonkers) criteria, Egypt is not Europe. Yet. I seem to recall Saladin spent quite a bit of time in Egypt. --Dweller 13:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dweller; he did indeed. But did he invade it? For him to have made war on the Muslim Mamelukes and the Crusaders at the same time hardly makes much sense; does it? After all, he was no George Bush. Clio the Muse 01:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to "by those criteria he never left Europe", rather than the OP. --Dweller 10:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are quite right; I beg your pardon. So Egypt is not part of Eurovision? Lucky Egypt! Clio the Muse 10:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Question

Suppose A and B are legally married, and co-own a house. They live together with their child, C (aged above 13 but under 18).

A and B's marriage is on bad terms, and they are contemplating divorce (but have not started proceedings yet). B has filed a personal protection order against A because A threw a book at B.

At 12.30am, B returns home, when A and C are sleeping. The door is locked, and B does not have the key. B knocks on the door and rings the bell, waking A and C up. A refuses to unlock the door for B. When C goes to unlock the door for B, A issues verbal and profane threats at C.

Because B has filed a PPO against A, B threathens to call the police if A does not unlock the door.

Under Singapore law, what can the police do? Can they demand A open the door for B? Can they take legal action against A for violating the PPO?

Did I miss out any important information?

Singapore is waaaay out of my jurisdiction, and I (nor likely anyone else) couldn't even offer an educated guess without having the details of the PPO. Nonetheless, assuming it's like most PPO's and at the very least it requires A to maintain a certain physical distance from B (eg. 100 metres,) B's certainly violated that and this alone would certainly invite some sort of at least quasi-criminal penalty against A. That much I can say with reasonable certainty. Unfortunately, I can't be any more specific than that. Fortunately, a quick call to the police with a brief description of the situtation and the details of the PPO would likely yield a definitive answer to your question (i.e. no costly lawyers necessary!). Loomis 09:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Especially in a situation that could involve physical violence, you must obtain professional assistance with legal matters, whether it be from an attorney or the police. Legal advice cannot be given at the reference desk. -THB 14:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THB, do you know any website where I can ask for professional assistance? It would be great if you find one about Singapore law, as many such sites would focus on Americans.

Maybe here. -THB 17:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can queenEII be sued under the law of Tort in a matter in which she personally had direct involvment

we have all heard that in a constitutional monarchy like uk the sovereign can not be sued as they are the one who created the courts. but since second world war many issues has been resolved and government or ministers are sued. and now in uk we have human rights bill which is a law now.

i would like to know currently if anyone who claims has suffered losses as result of negligence by queen herself (not ministers or government departments)can sue her (i.e to put her name down as the defendant)in a civil law suit. as far as i am concern i believe yes she can be sued as but i don't know to what act of parliament or law that i can refer to. bearing in mind by not allowing a law suit against her the government would have breached the human rights bill!!! can any lawyer help me. or source i can refer to. many thanks for your assistance

The Queen can not be sued personally. Any legal action would have to be against the Crown; in other words, against the state. Clio the Muse 09:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if the Queen herself hurts you (through slander, whatever)? I suspect it would be a scandal, but I suppose you could sue her. Flamarande 16:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't sue the Queen, but given a good lawyer and the right circumstances, you might be able to sue Elizabeth Windsor. --Carnildo 22:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or Elizabeth Saxe Coburg to give her the proper name.--Light current 23:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a) You mean Saxe-Coburg; b) you're still wrong. Shimgray | talk | 23:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that "the government" won't let you sue her; the structure of the law won't let you sue her. The Human Rights Act is a bit of a distraction here... Shimgray | talk | 23:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen cannot be sued, neither can Elizabeth Windsor, no matter how smart the lawyer. And there is no such person as Elizabeth Saxe Coburg Gotha, a name abandoned by George V, the present Queen's grandfather, in 1917. Clio the Muse 23:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here I am, once again, to irritate you all by injecting a dose of reality into the question. Though I'd prefer to put some more research into the quesion as to whether the Queen is indeed immune from being sued in tort, for now I'll assume that she is. Still, it has to be understood that UK constitutional law is, for the uninitiated, extremely dificult to understand. It's basically a delightful combination of quaint symbolism and cold reality; in so many areas of the law there are two answers: the technically accurate yet completely unrealistic answer, and the real answer.

Suppose, as a very silly example, you're at a cocktail party attended by Queen Elizabeth II, and for reasons only she could explain, she loses her temper and gives you a swift kick into your own "family jewels", so to speak. Do you have an action in tort? I suppose not. Will you be compensated many, many, many times better than you would have been were she not immune to a tort action? You'd better believe it! Loomis 01:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That will be the same day, Loomis, when Elvis rides down Whitehall on the back of Shergar, while being chased by Jim Morrison, all by the blue light of the moon! Clio the Muse 01:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what would happen if Queen Elizabeth II, or Elizabeth Windsor, were driving her Range Rover and hit somebody? Would she not be liable for civil or criminal charges? Is the Queen insured? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another hypothetical, Zoe, though I admit a little more plausible! As far as I am aware the Queen, since she became Queen, has not driven on public highways; but in the case you have given action would still have to be against the Crown. The Queen cannot be cited to appear in her own courts. Clio the Muse 23:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is all hypothetical, imagine a scenario where the Queen, in full view of many witnesses, pulls out a gun and murders one of her subjects. No amount of $$ compensation would be enough to placate the grieving family; they would want justice. What could be done to get it, and what action could be taken against HM? JackofOz 00:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Jack: this is all getting too silly for me. As I have no more useful contribution to make I will just decamp elsewhere. Nil desperandum-I'm sure an 'answer' will wing its way towards you in due course, in the terms in which you have pitched your question. The boring answer, though, is that such a monarch would be ushered away in the same fashion of George III. Clio the Muse 00:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's silly, but musing about silly things that are extremely unlikely to ever happen can have its benefits. I do not flinch from such matters. But then, I've always lived in a fairy-tale hypothetical world, the so-called "real world" being a far too dangerous place for me ever to visit. :) JackofOz 01:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silly? Well I suppose the hypotheticals Jack and I presented were silly indeed. Nevertheless my point remains dead serious. Sure, the Queen may "technically" be immune from tort action, nevertheless, should she commit any serious tort, she'd be held accountable, one way or another. Recall how Edward VIII was forced to abdicate the throne by that mere commoner, Stanley Baldwin. Of course Baldwin had absolutely no "black-letter" legal right to demand Edward's abdication, just as no hypothetical victim of a tort committed by her majesty has any "black-letter" legal right to demand compensation. Yet, despite the "letter of the law", overwhelming public sentiment left Edward with no realistic choice. Similarly, Queen Elizabeth, should she commit a serious tort, despite whatever "black-letter" immunity she may have, overwhelming public sentiment would demand that she compensate any hypothetical victim. And of course she would undoubtedly obey the demands of public sentiment. Imagine if she would stick to her technical immunity and basically take the position: "Bug off! I'm Queen! I'm immune from any and all forms of legal lability!"...Enter the "Republic of Great Britain". Loomis 04:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Loomis, the Lord, in his wisdom, has delivered you into my hands! Stanley Baldwin did not 'force' Edward to abdicate: it was merely one of the options presented to him should he insist on marrying Wallis Simpson against government advice. In the event the king abdicated of his own volition. Throughout the whole crisis, moreover, he had the overwhelming support of public opinion, as you will discover if you look deeper into the matter. The point remains that a British monarch cannot be brought before a British court, with any justification or basis in law. To date only attempt to do so was the 'trial' of Charles I in 1649, when the king properly demanded; I would know by what power I am called hither, I would know by what authority, I mean lawful; there are many unlawful authorities...Remember I am your king, your lawful king, and what sins you bring upon your heads, and the judgement of God upon this land. Parliament has the power, not the right, to carry out any enormity; but this is one road we are never likely to travel again. Clio the Muse 06:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How the English people never cease to charm and impress me with their uncanny talent for doublespeak, and the polite and understated manner by which they conduct themselves in times of great crisis. The government was threatening to resign, and the rest of the commonwealth made it clear they couldn't live with the marriage. But it would be so utterly un-English for the King's Prime Minister to so arrogantly and irreverently "demand" the King's abdication. Rather, again with such charmingly humble pretence, Baldwin offered his majesty "Three sugestions". Cutting through all the pretence though, Edward had only one real option, and both he and Baldwin knew it. Still, arranging it in such a manner so as to allow the King, apparently of his own volition to "choose" to abdicate, not only saved face for Edward, but served to maintain as much dignity as possible for the monarchy. How charmingly English. But Clio, as I'm sure you're well aware, here on the other side of the Atlantic, even in Canada, our speech tends to be far more irreverent, blunt, and to the point. In other words Clio, get real. Loomis 13:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I always appreciate your candour! But I am English; and while I am not sure if this is a national characteristic, I do place great emphasis on factual and linguistic accuracy; my dear old school would expect no less. Baldwin did indeed make it clear that the marriage was unacceptable, and if the king went ahead it would be the cause of a grave political crisis, both at home and in the Commonwealth. But this is still a long way from 'demanding' abdication: it was always open to Edward to retreat from the brink. And that, Loomis, is about as 'real' as I am prepared to get! But on the question of 'double speak' this brings to mind one of my favourite essayists. Please read George Orwell's Politics and the English Language. It might help to understand me a little better! And, yes; I still love you colonials! Clio the Muse 19:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Clio, don't you see the terrible injury that your approach has the posibility of inflicting on future generations' understanding of history? Historians, I firmly believe, are duty-bound to concern themselves first and foremost with relating what really happened. I absolutely adore all of those JCPC judgments wherein, after stating their reasons, rather than have the audacity to state the clear "factual" truth of the matter; that is, that they've decided to reject the appeal, their lordships choose to torture the reality of the situation into such an utter fiction by so charmingly stating that they "humbly advise her majesty to dispose of the appeal". Now while of course those trained in British Constitutional Law may understand what's really going on, and why it's being done in such an utterly bizarre fashion, don't you believe that it's the responsiblity of historians to make sure that some poor teenage history student of the 26th century isn't actually fooled into believing that her majesty actually has any practical say in the matter? I can't even imagine how badly my own knowledge of what was actually going on back in the 16th century was so terribly distorted by what you yourself somewhat curiously consider to be a "great emphasis on factual and linguistic accuracy". Loomis 22:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know from hard experience, Loomis, including many hours in British and foreign archives, that history seldom if ever presents clear routes and simple choices. History should indeed be concerned with what really happened; but outcomes are rarely predetermined. In analysing the Abdication it is important to embrace all of the casual factors, including the motivations of the King. Baldwin may very well have wanted to get rid of Edward; but that is still a long way from saying that he presented him with an ultimatium. The suggestion that he did is the one sure way to 'mislead' future generations of historians, even teenage ones. Edward did indeed have a say: he could have abandoned Mrs. Simpson, and thus upset all of the Prime Minister's calculations. But in the end history is a business concerned with the intelligent interpretation of conflicting pieces of evidence; and that is how I have always approached the subject. I'm always mindful of the warning of Cocteau; History becomes legend, and legend history. Or you might be inclined to agree with Arthur Schopenhauer, my favourite philosopher; Clio, the muse of history, is as thoroughly infected with lies as a street whore with syphilis. Ouch! Clio the Muse 23:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're now referring (a street whore with syphilis) to Wallis Simpson, Clio. JackofOz 01:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood me straight from the begining. The discussion began with a question as to whether the Queen can be sued in tort. You gave what I consider to be half an answer, and a particularly inadequate one. You merely said: "No, she can't", and left it at that. Yes, that was the "technically correct" answer, yet an inevitably misleading one. The full answer would be "technically, no, she can't, however, for political reasons, she would ultimately have no other realistic choice but to compensate the victim rather lavishly, in order to maintain her image as a fair and noble Queen".

I can't help but be reminded of that scene in one of those Peter Sellers "Pink Panther" movies. My memory is hazy on it, but I do remember the essence: Inspector Clouseau walks into a room where there is present a man and a dog. The adorably clumsy inspector asks: "Monsieur, does your dog bite"? "No, the man responds. He's the gentlest of dogs, he wouldn't bite a soul". Reassured, Clouseau bends down to pet the dog gently, only to have the viscious animal chomp down on his finger quite mercilessly. "But Monsieur, did you not assure me that your dog does not bite"? "But of course Monsieur. My dog does not bite...however that is not my dog". Loomis 03:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all court cases against the governments (in which the Queen is the head of state), the usual method of proceeding with a Statement of Claim is by naming for example: "Her Majesty the Queen" as the defendant. Sometime they name the defendant "Her Majesty the Queen, in the Right of Canada". Usually the Plaintiff lawyers do this, but other times they name "The Attorney General of Canada" or the respective cabinet minister. However be warned if you plan to sue the government, they have smart well paid lawyers. Unless you can prove to the judge you have a legimate cause of action, your case will be thrown out by the Defendant motion to dismiss the case. --Poorman1 09:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot give the answers you are looking for, and in the style you desire; I am not Alice and this is not Wonderland. I deal in factual matters, which is my true task here, not imponderables or what might might happen in this, that or the other unlikely event. I have little interest in debate for the sake of debate, and none at all in polemics. Nobody is under any obligation to accept what I say on this or any other point; and my answers, adequate or not, will always strive to be technically correct. If anyone has any doubts about this I urge them to check the raw data for themselves, which is good practice in any case. No one should ever take anything for granted. But, to round this whole thing off, on the assumption that the original OP is still around, the Queen cannot be summoned to appear before her own courts. The rest is silence. Clio the Muse 09:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the duty of any professional, in any matter, to give an accurate, yes, but far more importantly, a full answer to all questions posed, with the inclusion of all reasonably expectable alternate scenarios. Anything less would be considered professional negligence, falling below the so-called "standard of care". Unfortunately, here, you've fallen below that standard. Now there will be silence. Loomis 11:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online Translations

Is there a good free online English to Vietnamese block text translator out there? Crisco_1492

Chào, Crisco: as far as I know of, no. (Then again, I can't point to any machine translator that does not mutilate the language in one way or another.) For an accurate translation, your best bet is probably pasting the block of text that you want to translate here, or on a Vietnamese Wikipedian Community board, if there is one. Chúc may mắn (Best of luck!) --It's-is-not-a-genitive 19:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I wouldn't like to be a bother for anyone here (I'm planning a comic strip,and the text could possibly be pretty long,) I'll just change the nationality of the protaganist to Korean. Babelfish has that one, although my past experiences with babelfish aren't the best... oh well, c'est la vie. Crisco 1492 04:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Kuhn/History of Scientific Development

I am looking for material concerning how Thomas Kuhn's ideas in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions can be applied to the development of an aspect of science. In other words, I need to use Kuhn's ideas to show how an area of science developed. Thanks!

Hve you tried reading him? It's a long time since I did so, but as far as I remember, he gives many examples. --ColinFine 23:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He does indeed, and the book itself is highly readable. But for an alternative view of scientific methodology you might have a look at Karl Popper, particularly Conjectures and Refutations. Clio the Muse 00:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music from Bedazzled

In the 2000 remake of the film bedazzled, there is a scene where the so called devil is dressed as a parking attendant, and she changes the lights so that there is a massive pile-up. My question is what is the upbeat drum track that plays in the background?

I'm so sorry that i cant find anyone a sample video it just seems that youtube is all out of bedazzled clips, plus i dont know if that would be totally legal. Since it is a small part of the film's soundtrack it won't be featured on its soundtrack cd, but i have heard it featured in many places before. Anyone with a DVD and good musical knowledge able to check up on this for me? -J

It's probably listed in this page ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 18:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'd like to think so, but how can i preview those tracks? -J

As a digression, there's some wonderful songs in the original. I love the concept of the devil as a pop singer... ;) 惑乱分からん 19:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the original for about 15 minutes when it was shown on tv, but after seeing the remake, i couldnt sit and watch that one. -J

Were wheels known in ancient Egypt?

Pre-thanks --Ulisse0 20:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. They had chariots.

Although if one went back far enough, there would be a point where nobody had wheels, but I'm assuming that you meant Dynastic Egypt under the Pharaohs. B00P 20:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im sure power brokers and administrators were in evidence then as now! 8-(--Light current 21:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used to think they didn't have wheels because they didn't use them to transpor the stone blocks for the pyramids, but it is simply that the wheels of the time were not strong enough for that. Making a strong wheel is not as simple as it may seem. DirkvdM 08:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They had chariots by Biblical times. Anyone know when / from where they derived them? Is it one of the things they picked up from the Hyksos? --Dweller 09:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read over the page on Chariots. Like so many innovations in technology and design they probably emerged in different places, and among different cultures, at roughly the same time. Clio the Muse 23:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life in Japan immediately following Japanese Surrender (under American Occupation)

I am interested to find out about the post war experience of the Japanese people post ww2.

At the least you can begin with Douglas MacArthur as well as Hibakusha and maybe someone like Soichiro Honda whose business practices defied many pre-war Japanese conceptions of how a company should be run.Wolfgangus 20:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the book Embracing Defeat by John W. Dower. That would really be the first place to start, I think. -- Mwalcoff 22:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to look at the page on Occupied Japan. Unfortunately, this is not one of the better Wikipedia articles, being a little too schematic; but it at least provides some general indicators. Clio the Muse 01:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antipater

I was just reading the article on Antipater, Alexander the Great's regent. In one part of the article it stated that Memnon had died and in the next paragraph, it stated that Antipater pardoned Memnon. Which is correct or are there two Memnons?

Two Memnons. We have an article on Memnon of Rhodes but no article on Memnon of Thrace. - Nunh-huh 21:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed that when Antipater met Philip II of Macedon, they didn't annihilate each other. :-) StuRat 11:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always assumed that antipater was a reference to Alex's mother. :) JackofOz 01:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How goes the battle?

Who originally said: "How goes the battle?"--129.123.250.135 20:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could this possibly be Went the Day Well?, a British movie from World War II? There was a paper published a few years ago with the title How Goes the Battle? in the New Democrat by John J. Dilulio, but I do not know if this was drawn from an original quotation. However, you will probably find lots of variations of this quotation throughout history. One I do know of dates to the Battle of Killiecrankie, fought in Scotland in July 1689. The victorious general, John Graham of Claverhouse was mortally wounded at the height of the fighting. On the point of death he is said to have asked 'How goes the day?' To which reply was given 'Well for King James, but I am sorry for your lordship' 'If it goes well for him, it matters less for me.' Clio the Muse 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not sure if that is it or not. The man who used to say it me died recently, so I can't ask him.--129.123.250.158 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iliad translation

What are some recommendations for a translation of the Iliad?

My personal favorite modern translation is the one by Robert Fagles (he's also done a nice job on the Odyssey, as well as on the Oresteia of Aeschylus). I guess it depends on your taste: some are more colloquial and idiomatic, some attempt to reproduce the original text more literally, and there are even a few prose translations (I have an old one by W.D.Rouse) Antandrus (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second Antandrus's recommendation: the Fagles translation is top notch. My alternative was Richmond Lattimore, which was technically accurate but rather dull compared to Fagles. Geogre 21:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fagles makes a trade-off: he milks every line for as much dramatic vividness as possible, even if it's not true to the original. There is no question that Lattimore's translation will give you a better idea of what the Iliad is like in Greek than any other translation. It's therefore a great translation if you already know that you love the Iliad (and why), or are otherwise devoted to getting a direct acquaintance with a beautiful kind of poetry in all its foreignness. Once you decide you don't want this, you might want to go a few steps beyond Fagles and get the page-turning, fast-moving, colloquial verse of Stanley Lombardo (or even whiz through the abridgement in Lombardo's Essential Homer—but avoid the Essential Iliad which is an even more severe abridgement, to the point of overall faithlessness). But if you ever want to go back to the Iliad, deeper into the Iliad, etc., you need Lattimore (or a good course in Homeric Greek, possibly online and for free). Wareh 03:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of you all have an opinion on Robert Fitzgerald's translation? It seems to me like a good option.

"Achilles' wrath, to Greece the direful spring

Of woes unnumber'd, heavenly goddess, sing!"

Skarioffszky 09:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzgerald has a greater claim to be an English poet than any of the others whose names have been mentioned (explicitly, not counting Pope!). His translations are certainly generally excellent, so if you're attracted to them, I recommend them. He sometimes makes striking use of English verse forms—I'm thinking of some very ballad-like sequences in his Odyssey. (Both of his Homeric translations are good, but his Odyssey in particular has lots of admirers.) Wareh 00:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]