Humanities desk
< April 3	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 5 >

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

April 4

fraud and copyright

Over on Wikisource, a sister project, a false start at putting the Dossiers Secrets online (s:Dossiers secrets d'Henri Lobineau) has me wondering ... if a document is purported to be of a certain date that would put it out of copyright, by way of fraud, does the author regain the copyright after the mystery has been unravelled and the fraudster has been identified?

In order to host these documents on the English Wikipedia and English Wikisource, only the US law is involved. In order to host them on Commons, both the US and French laws come into play. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an assumption here in the use of the term "regain" that the author at some point lost the copyright. I don't see a legal basis for that, though. --Lambiam 20:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Journal and science

Does the Wall Street Journal have a science editor? If not, have they ever? --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This recent text suggest that Jerry E. Bishop, winner of the Science writing award in 1990, was the WSJ's last science editor, and he left "A Black Hole In The WSJ" since his retirement in 1996. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton

Why is she a candidate for US president? The US isn't supposed to have a female president. 58.168.128.66 (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't? Where is this rule, please? Julia Rossi (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps by inductive logic, since all Presidents have been white men. Previous results would seem to favor a rich old white protestant male in a contest against an opponent lacking any of those characteristics. Being tall and having a full head of hair have also been characteristics of winners in general in Presidential elections. Hillary seems to have ample hair, money, age, and to be a protestant. Edison (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there are exceptions. Bill Clinton, among others, was not particularly rich at the time he was elected President (although he is now), nor was he old. John F. Kennedy was not a Protestant and did not live long enough to become old. James Madison was only 5'4" (1.63 m) tall, and Dwight Eisenhower's head was not full of hair during his presidency. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Two of the United States Constitution list only three qualifications for President: being a natural-born citizen, being at least thirty-five years old and being an inhabitant of the United States for at least fourteen years. Even though all previous US Presidents have been male, there is no law requiring this trend to continue. Thomprod (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget that Hillary Clinton is not the first or only female candidate, though no woman has come this close before. Victoria Woodhull was the first female presidential candidate in the 1872 elections, though she wouldn't have been eligible because of her age (see above) not because of her gender! Carol Moseley Braun, Cathy Gordon Brown, Elaine Brown, Shirley Chisholm, Elizabeth Dole, Marsha Feinland, Lenora Fulani, Linda Jenness, Gloria La Riva, Belva Ann Lockwood, Ellen McCormack, Charlene Mitchell, Evelyn Reed, Patricia Schroeder, and Margaret Chase Smith would not all have entered the race if the U.S. wasn't "supposed to have a female president". Democratic candidate Walter Mondale wouldn't have chosen Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate in 1984, if she couldn't have also become president. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address has been blocked for vandalism.[1] --Lambiam 20:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2] - Akamad (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tito and the crisis of 1956

What role did Tito play? How did he view the uprising in Hungary and Soviet action there? Was he opposed?Stefan Dusan (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on this, but from what I can gather, Tito may have been ambivalent about the uprising, but he ended up supporting the Soviet action. Here are a couple of references: [3] [4] Hopefully Clio will come to the rescue with a nuanced explanation of Tito's position. Marco polo (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She can but try!

It might be possible to argue, Stefan, that Tito shared some indirect responsibility for the events that lead to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the subsequent Soviet reaction. After the death of Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev began a charm offensive, attempting to win Yugoslavia back into the Soviet bloc. He held talks with Tito in Belgrade in May 1955, blaming Lavrenti Beria for the hard-line policy adopted in 1948. Tito rejected this, emphasising the attitude of Stalin. But much more crucially he told Khrushchev that it would be easier to convince the Yugoslavs that Soviet policy had really changed if Stalin and Stalinism were publicly repudiated. I have little doubt that such action was already in Khrushchev’s mind, but the timing of his famous speech at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in February 1956 was in part due to Yugoslav pressure.

It was in consequence of this that Stalinism began to lose its icy hold of parts of the Soviet imperium. In Hungary Imre Nagy advocated a more liberal policy in opposition to Mátyás Rákosi, the hard-line premier. Again Tito played a part, urging Khrushchev to get rid of Rákosi, who was duly replaced by Erno Gero. Under pressure from Tito, Gero announced that László Rajk, a leading Hungarian Communist executed in 1949 as a Titoist spy, had been wrongly convicted. The memorial meeting held in his memory in Budapest in late October 1956 turned into a full-scale anti-Russian and anti-Communist riot. In the political avalanche that followed Gero gave way to Nagy. Tito sent a note of support, but warned him not to allow the situation to slip into 'counter-revolution.'

Tito continued to believe that that the Hungarian emergency would never have arisen but for the brutal incompetence of Stalin and Rákosi, but agreed with Khrushchev at a secret meeting in early November that the country was indeed in the grip of a 'counter-revolution', which, if allowed to proceed, would destroy Socialism throughout Eastern Europe. In these circumstances the Soviets had no choice but to send in the Red Army. It was on Tito's suggestion, moreover, that Khrushchev decided to replace Nagy with János Kádár, who had formerly been imprisoned by Rákosi as a 'Titoist.'

Khrushchev was pleased by the outcome of the this meeting, expecting the same kind of opposition to Soviet intervention as expressed by Gomulka and the Polish Communists;

But we were pleasantly surprised. Tito said we were absolutely right and that we should send our soldiers into action as quickly as possible. He said we had an obligation to help Hungary crush the counter-revolution...We had been ready for resistance, but instead we received his whole-hearted support. I would even say he went further that we did in urging a speedy and decisive resolution of the problem.

After the suppression of the Hungarian patriots Tito gave a speech at the military college in Pula, in which he said that people had been so enraged by the Stalinists that the right-wing supporters of Admiral Horthy, the pre-war dictator of Hungary, were able to take advantage of the situation:

The justified uprising against the Rákosi clique turned into an insurrection against Socialism and the Soviet Union, and the Communists who found themselves in the ranks of the rebels saw that their objective, whether they wanted it or not, was no longer the fight for Socialism but for a return of the old order after the reaction had taken things in hand. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are great. Stefan Dusan (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are you! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and terrorism

Were the Hashashin the world's first terrorists? Is terrorism, then, an integeral part of the Islamic world view? No polemic, no soap-boxing, no trolling. I think this is a valid set of questions and I am genuinely interested in some dispassionate answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.0.128 (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do recall in an episode of West Wing that they mentioned them as one of the earliest terrorist groups. But if we go by this definition of terrorism [5]: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives," then I imagine that terrorism has been around for a few millenia, long before the Hashashins. - Akamad (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The earliest example mentioned in our history of terrorism article is the Sicarii zealots who were reisiting the Roman occupation of Judea. That article also sagely notes that "underground resistance groups are often branded terrorists by the authorities they oppose". It lists numerous historical examples of what we would now call terrorism, including the Gunpowder Plot, the Sons of Liberty, John Brown, the Ku Klux Klan and the Suffragette movement. Very few of these examples have any connection with the Muslim world. Based on the evidence in this article, a dispassionate conclusion would be that terrorism is an integral part of the Western world view. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hashshashin are one of the oldest group of people that I know of that used acts of terrorism as an identity. They are not, in any way, the first terrorists. Formed in 1090, they simply didn't exists for the many earlier years in which groups would perform "hit and run" attacks on enemies. However, they are not in any way an integral part of the Islamic world view. They are a small offshoot of Islam. To put in perspective, the KKK claims to Christian. Does that mean that white supremacy is an integral part of Christianity? Of course not. You cannot judge a large group of people by the actions of a minority. The problem we have is that the American media has not interest in interviewing the millions of people in the Islamic world who condemn terrorism. They only want to show us the small group that applaud it. -- kainaw ™ 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read a book about Muhammad and how he preached, converted, and united the Arab tribes. I remember that during a battle over a certain water well he was telling his warriors that if they died for Islam they would go immediately to heaven. A warrior asked if this was really so easy, and Muhammad answered affirmatively. The warrior immediately charged the enemy and died (anyone's guess if he went to heaven or not). And to be honest Muhammad united the Arab tribes by converting them but also using military might, force, and simple violence and No, he wasn't a pacifist. Some British historian commented that "Islam came with a sword" (later Christianity is also guilty of that, but I don't recall Jesus or even Buddha advocating violence). Flamarande (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although ironically during WWII most of the involved were christian people. Not only that but catholics kill catholics and protestants killing protestants on both sides. Sorry had to add that! --Cameron (t|p|c) 21:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From our article on the Crusades: "In 1063, Pope Alexander II had given his blessing to Iberian Christians in their wars against the Muslims, granting both a papal standard (the vexillum sancti Petri) and an indulgence to those who were killed in battle ... Most <crusaders> believed that by retaking Jerusalem they would go straight to heaven after death". The history of militant Christianity, from the Crusades through the Inquisition to The Troubles, is sadly as full of dubious motivations and flimsy rationalisations of violence as that of any other ideology. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BAH! I think we can all agree that all violence (wars, massacres, forced coversions, etc) committed by Christians was done despite (and even against) the words and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (love thy enemy). However AFAIK Muhammad in fact preached war against Non-believers (you will go to heaven if you fight for Islam). Flamarande (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure what your point is, Flamarande. Islam is not the only religion whose founder was not a pacifist - some of the founders of Sikhism, for example, were equally militant. And many religions have been used to justify ends that were far from the intentions of their founding fathers - the Shinto religion, for example, was used to justify Japanese militarism in the first half of the 20th century. One could conceivably argue that all acts or violence, agression or intolerance are morally wrong, even if they appear to be justified by religious beliefs - is that perhaps your point ? Gandalf61 (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

81.156, on a point of information the Hashashins were not the first group in the Islamic world to make use of terror as a political weapon; they were predated by several hundred years by the Kharijites, a movement which is almost as old as Islam itself. It was they who were responsible for the assassination of the Caliph Ali in 661AD, and caused severe problems for centuries thereafter. These 'withdrawers', former supporters of Ali, took a particularly strict interpretation of Islam, considering those who did not support their position to be worse than infidels, and thus deserving of death. Recognising only the first two caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar, they offered a challenge to all subsequent 'usurpers.'

The 'prophet armed' is, of course, part of Islamic tradition. A militant defence of the faith had to be grafted on to Christianity by St. Augustine of Hippo, amongst others, in the notion of the just war. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of terrorism is an amorphous one. Perhaps you should be more specific. Do you mean bombing of civilians? Radical Zionists did this in Israel long before the Muslims did, and it had been practiced by anarchists long before that. Do you mean suicide bombing? That came about only in the last two decades and can hardly be thought of as an integral part of Islam (and was a tactic originated by radical Hindus). Do you just mean violence, including towards civilians? It's no more a part of Islam than it is a part of Christianity; which is to say, it has been a common tactic throughout human history, the sort of thing that everyone justifies as righteous when done in desperate times and deplores whenever they're on the other side of it. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Clio - explicit military imagery has, of course, also been part of Christian tradition, from the New Testament (in the Armor of God, for example) through to the present day, in denominations such as the Salvation Army and interdenominational organisations such as the Boys' Brigade/Girls' Brigade. Sadly, Christian pacifism has always been a minority position within all branches of Christianity, with only a small number of denominations (the peace churches) officially embracing absolute pacificism. The idea that Christ Himself was an absolute pacificist is plausible, but very few of His followers have conformed to that particular aspect of His teachings. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The God of the New Testament may have come with armour, but never with a sword. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article even on that! Adam Bishop (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And the main point here is that His followers often came with a sword, and although that may have been an over-zealous misinterpretation of His will, that is of no comfort to their victims. Those of us in the Western world are in no position to take the moral high grounds and criticise the founders and followers of other religions for not being pacificists when the history of our own mainstream religion is so steeped in bloodshed and violence. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, Gandalf; very noble, very commendable, and utterly and fatuously beside the point! Please forgive me for being so woundingly blunt. I try to avoid polemics here, confining myself to matters of fact, or to constructing interpretations based on fact. But as your remarks are addressed to me, I have no choice but to accept the challenge. Please have the goodness to read again what I wrote. I do not believe that I am in any way traducing or caricaturing Islam in saying that it is born of a militant tradition. It came, so to speak, sword in hand; Christianity did not. This is not to say that Christians have been less bloodthirsty than any other religion, which is manifestly untrue. Nevertheless, Christian militancy could not be justified by reference to the Gospels. It could only achieve retrospective moral and theological validation in the Augustinian concept of the just war. Please do note the stress here. It might very well be argued, if one were of a mind to do so, that such rationalisations, not supported by sacred text, place Christianity in a far more hypocritical light than Islam. And, oh, I never take the 'moral high ground', having no idea of its location. Ha! Ha! Ha! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clio, it may be your opinion that Christian militancy cannot be justified by reference to the Gospels, but not all theologians agree. For example, here is an article from The Plain Truth that uses quotations from the Gospels, including Christ's own words in Matthew 10:34, to argue that there is Biblical support for the "just war" concept. Its conclusion is "although the New Testament has little to say specifically on the subject of war, general principles can be drawn ... those principles support the legitimacy of maintaining armies and waging war". Historically, Thomas Aquinas used similar Biblical arguments in his Summa Theologica. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Aquinas takes Augustine as his point of departure. Honestly, Gandalf, I really do not want to get into the depths of hermeneutics and Biblical exegesis. All I will say is that it is possible to twist words to prove absolutely anything. The truly important thing is always to interpret and define meaning in context: and the context of the Gospels, the ever present background, is a message of peace. The whole concept of the just war is a later rationalisation, an importation with the thinnest of supports in sacred text. I can say no more on this; and thus my message stands. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clio, I respect your opinions and personal convictions. However, the clear evidence is that the "just war" concept has been and still is justified by some mainstream theologians from New Testament principles, including Christ's own words in Matthew 10:34 and elsewhere. You may disagree with their reasoning, but that is beside the point. Our responses here on the Reference Desks should be based on verifiable facts and the reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from those facts. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foch quote

While attending a lecture today, the speaker presented a slide which said "the airplane has no military value" and he attributed this as a quote from Marshall Foch 1910. Is this an accurate quote? I find it hard to believe given his position in the French Military as his anaylsis of military history.24.224.215.10 (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Corpen[reply]

The quote "Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value" is attributed to him. I'm uncertain of the provenance. I think he was professor of strategy at the Ecole Superiure de Guerre at the time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And French military incompetence in WWI and WWII is simply undeniable. It went as far as the French Army Mutinies (1917). Flamarande (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would deny it. The French fought with incredible tenacity in the Great War, the incompetence of Robert Nivelle notwithstanding. In 1940 there was no country in the world, of similar size and military capacity, that could have withstood the kind of offensive mounted by the Germans. The Soviet Union was able to do so in 1941 because it had the space to absorb the shock of the Blitzkrieg. I know the quotation about airplanes is attributed to Ferdinand Foch, but I would be interested to know the exact context of his remark. Armies had been using observation balloons as far back as the American Civil War. So, airplanes clearly did have some military value. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would deny it? Well I vaguely recall that French officers commented "that this new weapon (machine-gun) would have no major impact upon warfare" (said before the WWI). The French army had to be rescued by the British in the WWI, and the French army nearly mutinied (so much for their incredible tenacity). In WWII France was conquered in a couple of weeks despite the French and the British army having more tanks and more men in continental Europe than the whole German Wehrmacht. In fact AFAIK the French commander-in-chief was directing the French army from a beautiful French castle without a single telephon, thereby ensuring that all reports had to be brought to him (I might be mistaken here). The French officers were simply incompetent. Flamarande (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would deny it. I cannot comment on your vague recollection about French officers and the machine-gun, but I imagine that it would be possible to find such an attitude on all sides prior to 1914. Experience is a great teacher. I am not quite sure what you mean in saying that the 'French Army had to be rescued by the British in WWI.' In any case it is quite, quite wrong. In 1914 the British only deployed four divisions on the Western Front, compared with five French armies. The decisive action in out-maneuvering the Germans, both in the First Battle of the Marne and in the subsequent Race to the Sea, was undertaken by the French. Parts of the French army did mutiny, for reasons that you may understand if you care to read about the Nivelle Offensive and the Second Battle of the Aisne, but even at the height of their 'strike'-a better word than mutiny in this context-they made sure that the front against the Germans was held. French soldiers continued to display tremendous tenacity-and I make absolutely no apology for using that word-after the events of June 1917, playing a crucial part in the Hundred Days Offensive and other actions. Your comment about French officers, moreover, is, quite simply, an ignorant generalisation. Might I suggest that you do just a little bit more research, Flamarande, before making blanket and ill-informed statements? It might help you to understand the experience and mentality of the French soldier in the Great War just a little better if you read Under Fire by Henri Barbusse.

The defeat of 1940 was due to the Blitzkrieg tactics employed by the Germans. As I have said, there was no country in the world of similar size and military capacity that could have resisted such tactics; even the Russians almost gave way in 1941. The important point is not that the French had more men and tanks but how these forces were organised. The Germans had their armour concentrated in panzer divisions, which, closely supported by infantry and air attacks, cut easily through the enemy defences. The French armour-like the Russian armour in 1941-was too widely scattered among the whole army, intended as a defensive support, rather than a cutting-edge offensive weapon. Again,-and with all due respect-you really need to deepen your knowledge and your understanding of these issues. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clio, first of all I already knew (and know) how the much fewer German tanks were much better organized and employed during the invasion of France (I own and have read the book Panzer Leader, but I don't claim to have studied it exaustably). Don't assume merely because I don't give a long explaination like you do that I'm ignorant of such matters. Don't focus yourself upon 1914 (the beginning of WWI). How about all the other years? All the British reinforcements were vital for the Allied war effort. Without it the French would have lost the war. In the last great offensives the French army was being pushed way back and was in real danger of losing its physical connection to the British lines.

Basicly you are explaining in a very detailed fashion how and why the French (and the British) failed to oppose the German Wehrmacht in WWII upon the Battle of France. Explaining why they failed doesn't excuse the failure itself. Fact is that they had failed to understand that the nature of warfare had changed. While certain German officers (like Guderian among others, and certain American officers like Patton) had read and studied books (written by Liddel Hart, a British officer, and others) with new ideas on how to employ tanks French and British officers (the second would learn from their mistakes afterwards) were largely expecting a repetition of WWI warfare. Trenches, barbwire, large and costly infantry offensives supported by tanks, the whole muddy nightmare.

Therefore the French built and expanded the Maginot line on the German border and expected that the German offensives would come from the north through Belgium and the Netherlands. Then they (and the British) would move their best units to the north waiting for the Germans and believing that they would just counter the old Shlieffen plan. They were decieved by the advance of the Germans and then surprised by the Manstein Plan which called for a quick offensive through the Ardennes, catching the best allied armies between two German armies. The allies had to retreat towards the UK through Dunekerk.

Military officers (and generals) who don't understand how the enemy fights, and fail to understand how to use their equipment (tanks and airplanes), to adapt themselves to new tactics, and to discard old strategies are best described in one word: incompetents. Flamarande (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right: I do not see much point continuing this exchange either, Flamarande. I could challenge each of your latest points in detail, but what purpose would be served? I will say, though, that France was on the winning side in both the First and Second World Wars as part of a grand alliance, with each of the elements playing a vital part. My sole object in beginning this debate was to challenge your contention that French incompetence in the wars was 'undeniable', an invitation to a bogus consensus. Now you, and the rest of the Reference Desk Community, know that it is deniable. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airplanes were developing rapidly at the time. The first well-attended demonstration of a reasonably practical airplane was only in 1908. If Foch did say that in 1910, he might well have been correct or nearly so for the planes he had seen or heard about up to then, and nevertheless wrong for the planes of 1914. --Anonymous, 23:24 UTC, April 4, 2008.

Who was the father of science fiction?

Moved question here from wikipedia help desk on behalf of 59.93.74.65. --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most common answer to this question is Jules Verne, the second-most common answer is H. G. Wells. These answers make sense if you accept that "SF proper requires a consciousness of the scientific outlook", and that "a cognitive, scientific way of looking at the world did not emerge until the 17th century, and did not percolate into society at large until the 19th century" (Peter Nicholls, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction) ---Sluzzelin talk 17:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the most common answer I've heard is Mary Shelley, who wrote Frankenstein, often called the first sci-fi novel. It was published a full ten years before Jules Verne was even born, and about 50 years before wells. She wrote at the very beginning of the 17th century, at a time when science was just beginning to make discoveries many saw as frightening, and her book has been emulated in many form of science fiction even to the present day. Shelley is not a man, so she would have to be called the "Mother of science fiction". Other authors who reflected on the day's science at this time include Lord Byron, whose poem "Darkness" is about a world where the sun burns out. All of these authors wrote much earlier than Verne or Wells, and are equally as famous, if not more. Wrad (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finding the source of a literary genre is rarely an exact science, though. See History of science fiction. Wrad (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(After e.c.) Well, I thought the querent was looking for an absolute crossword-puzzle-type answer; an author who was first to specialize in and establish this genre, but of course there are many possible precursors. See history of science fiction. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get carried away when talking about literature :) . Wrad (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To carry us away is one of science fiction's duties! After having read these appetizers I have decided to look for Somnium, Other Worlds (see below), The Blazing World, and also The Last Man when I get one of these. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that there's no single right answer to this. There's a reason why the Hugo award is named after Hugo Gernsback rather than any of those earlier and more literary authors. And hey, look what it says in the first paragraph of his article. --Anonymous, 23:27 UTC, April 4, 2008.

I would nominate Cyrano de Bergerac. From our article:

Bergerac's most prominent work, now known as Other Worlds, is a collection of stories describing journeys to the Moon and Sun. The methods of space travel he described are inventive, often ingenious, and sometimes rooted in science. It should be noted, however, that Bergerac's primary purpose in writing those early science fiction novels was to criticize subtly the anthropocentric view of our place in creation, as well as the social injustices of the 17th century.

Highly recommended, definitely more in the social or soft SF than hard category. To go to the moon, very simple: trap dew in an inverted vase or carafe, attach the carafes around your belt and when it evaporates in the morning, pjiuuu jetpack. Beats any meta-protonic drive. For earlier see Ancient astronaut theories? Keria (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stormy averter of evil, the gracious protector of oaths, fathered all such fictions. I have spoken. Olympian Zeus (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All hail to Thee, great Storm Father! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'Science Fiction' dates back to 1851; see Brian Aldiss's masterly critical history of S.F., "Trillion Year Spree". Rhinoracer (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just point out that Mary Shelley was writing at the beginning of the 19th not the 17th Century, Frankenstein was published in 1818. Lord Foppington (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Daniel Pöppelmann or Matthäus Daniel Pöppelmann

Are these two people the same? They both were alive in the same time period and I'm wondering if one was just an anglicization of the name. Eóin (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same person. Matthäus is the correct spelling. This site, for instance, confirms that Matthäus Daniel Pöppelmann contributed significantly to the Saxon Axis, along with Joachim Daniel Jauch, Johann Christoph Naumann, and later also Carl Friedrich Pöppelmann, one of Matthäus Daniel's notable sons. The other famous son was the painter Johann Adolph Pöppelmann. The Matthias Daniel Pöppelmann article should be redirected or merged. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged Matthias Daniel Pöppelmann into Matthäus Daniel Pöppelmann. Xn4 20:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Apparently Matthes Daniel Pöppelmann can be found occasionally too. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. ~ Eóin (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

historical misconceptions

HI, reading the above thread on medieval childhood reminded me of the subject of historical misconceptions. There is also a book out by an academic called Flat Earth, claiming that, despite the popular wisdom, very few medieval people really thought the earth was flat. Can anyone tell me of any other current misconceptions about earlier times in history, especially on a similar scale to our delusions about flat-earth beliefs? I'm also interested in misconceptions that have been held at earlier times, that people have wised up to, for example any myth that might have been prevalent a century or so ago, even if it has disappeared from the popular imagination today. 203.221.126.95 (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on scientific mythology has a number of these sorts of things (some better cited than others). --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vikings and their horned helmets is always a popular myth. A good one from the past week is that L'Osservatore Romano seems to be under the impression that this year is "the first time in history" that Catholicism has not been the most populous religion. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answers so far. Adam, do you mean just that Vikings never wore horned helmets? Thanks in advance. 143.238.215.40 (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On rare ceremonial occasions their priests may have worn helmets with horns on them but they looked nothing like the kind we know today. There's an article on that here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by APL (talk • contribs) 02:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems our idea of the millenial panic as the year 1000 AD approached is grossly inflated. Rhinoracer (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people might have been alarmed if their local monk told them that it would soon be 1,000 years after the birth (or the death) of Jesus, but at that period extremely few people frequently encountered A.D. dates as part of their ordinary daily lives, so that the widespread spontaneous "odometer" fascination of 1999 A.D. would have had no counterpart in 999 A.D... AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start? There are so many! The following are all myths about the Middle Ages: women were oppressed; women had more children than now (upper classes did, for various reasons, but not lower classes); knights' armour was so heavy they had to be lifted onto a horse and couldn't move if they fell off; destriers were as big as shire horses and could only walk; swords were heavy and unwieldy; medieval men were short; bodkin arrows could pierce armour; any arrows could pierce mail; medieval people didn't wash; medicine was useless and all science superstitious nonsense; and so it goes on... Gwinva (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, questioner. I assumed you were only interested in the grand fictions. I could add many more small ones, if you are interested. And, yes, the Vikings never wore horned helmets! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone again. Clio, I'm interested in the grandest fictions that would fit reasonably into the format of an answer on this ref desk. We have some good ones above; I believe the nature of the question is such that people can try to compete (so to speak) at producing the biggest. I wouldn't expect too many like the Flat Earth one, although someone could take the opposite tack and try to convince me that the Flat Earth is no myth after all, and that they did believe in this. 203.221.127.76 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The West Wing

Move to entertainment desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is going too far, Brainy Babe. I specifically stated that it was here because I trusted the taste of people who read the reference desk, specifically the Humanities desk (though I admit I forgot to mention this bit). It is not an entertainment question, it is about the pedagogical value of the show The West Wing, although I needed to confirm the value according to dramatic criteria as well. Please folks, don't go overboard with moving questions, since they are often here for a good reason. A lot of questions could go on two or even three ref desks, so the fairest standard is simply that no one blatantly violates the purpose of each ref desk, eg asking for a track listing on a rap album on this page would be clearly asking for the question to be shifted. Thanks anyway for answers so far on the entertainment desk. 143.238.215.40 (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have any pedagogical value? I rather thought it was emotional compensation for left-leaning television executives. After all, it seems that the only way to get a liberal-minded Democrat into the White House is in fiction! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]