Humanities desk
< April 5	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 7 >

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 6

a la Victor Frankl

Inspired by Victor Frankl, A day in the life of Ivan Denisovich, and even stories of people who made photographs, kept and developed film or watercolour sketches say, throughout their time in concentration camps, how did they preserve their material against all odds? Were there cases of camp supervisors who turned a blind eye or helped them to conceal their projects or were people with a purpose just determinedly clever at it? Is there an article on wikipedia? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head (i.e. from my day job): photodocumentation by Nazi-era ghetto and camp inmates, requiring the use of a camera, was far less common than artwork in media using available tools and materials. Some of the latter were improvised (e.g. sticks of charred wood, purloined paper, etc.), others supplied by camp staff in the case of recognized artists being exploited by their captors to produce decorative works, portraits, and even counterfeiting. There were two main ways of preserving the works (other than those extant at the time of a camp's liberation): smuggling them out with a sympathetic collaborator among the captors or fellow captives who succeeded in escaping, or hiding them in structures (under floorboards, recesses in walls, etc.) or buried in the ground. A good deal of documentation has been published in English, Hebrew, and assorted European languages, though not much seems to have made it (yet) to Wikipedia. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Deborahjay. It would be good to see it in Wikipedia – because it's a kind of hidden achievement that would have cost lives and when you see examples iin a war memorial say, it's easy to underestimate what it took for that (or those) documents to be produced and preserved. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about history.

When was the war of 1812? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.44.178 (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About 1812 I think.--Artjo (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The War of 1812 as you might think, started in 1812 and according to our article lasted til 1815, although a peace treaty was signed in 1814. Mhicaoidh (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were at least two big wars in 1812: Britain vs US and France vs Russia. Which one are you asking about? — Kpalion^(talk) 09:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly a quarter past six hotclaws 10:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ab urbe condita 2565

Armenian calendar 1261

ԹՎ ՌՄԿԱ

Bahá'í calendar -31

Berber calendar 2762

Buddhist calendar 2356

Burmese calendar 1174

Chinese calendar 4449/4509-11-28

(壬申年十一月廿八日)

Coptic calendar 1528

Ethiopian calendar 1804

Hebrew calendar 5572

Hindu calendars

- Vikram Samvat 1868

- Shaka Samvat 1735

- Kali Yuga 4914

Holocene calendar 11812

Iranian calendar 1191

Islamic calendar 1226/1227

Japanese calendar Bunka 9

(文化9年)

- Imperial Year Kōki 2472

(皇紀2472年)

Korean calendar 4145

Thai solar calendar 2355

HS7 (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graduate school admission criteria

What criteria is admission to a graduate school based on? The prestige of your undergraduate school? Your grades? Your GRE? I’m particularly interested in music composition PhD programs in Europe and the UK. How do schools like the Conservatoire de Paris judge an American applicant? (Don’t worry; I’m planning to talk with professors and others as well. I just wanted to hear your take on it.) Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for European schools but my own experience was importance placed on how interesting, challenging and far-reaching were the ideas in my proposal. (Oh I forgot, and the first that backed me up. So, yep, grad grade as well. Another thing was that I went to the competition who quite liked the idea of the uni I was from, by reputation. Looks like it's prestige as well. But there's nothing like what you have to offer them research-wise, I naively believe.) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me it was essentially the same as applying to university as an undergraduate. We don't have GREs here so it was all based on marks (and I even took an extra year of easy classes as a part-time student after I graduated, to boost my average!). The biggest difference was that I was expected to know what sort of area I wanted to research, and it helped to contact professors before applying, and I had to take some tests to prove I knew various relevant languages. The prestige of the undergraduate school didn't have anything to do with (in Canada there are relatively few universities to begin with - there are "old" and "new" ones but they are all basically equal, in the end). For music, wouldn't you need to submit some sort of portfolio as proof of competency, or audition for them? I don't know about Europe but I think that was the case with people I know in music programs here. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure graduate programs like composition at the CNMSDP[1] actually confer Ph.D. degrees. --Lambiam 15:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian questions

I have some questions about Russia after the revolution of 1917.

a) What were the political consequences of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk? b) Why did the Communists move the capital from Petrograd to Moscow? c) What form exactly did the railway war take? d) Why were the white armies so often violently anti-semitic? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.185.231 (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, taking them in turn, the answers to your questions are as follows;

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk caused serious divisions within the Bolshevik government, with Nikolai Bukharin heading the left opposition. The position taken by Lenin-that it was a necessary retreat-eventually prevailed, though, in fact, the retreat went further in more ways than he may have imagined. The acceptance of diplomatic and political reality meant the programme of world revolution lost all of its purity. Bit by bit Realpolitik would replace Revolution.

The capital was moved to Moscow precisely because the territorial concessions of Brest-Litovsk brought the Germans dangerously close to Petrograd. This was another concession to strategic realities. Before the October Revolution the Bolsheviks had criticised the Provisional Government for considering such a move.

The Railway or Eshelonia War is a term generally used to describe the opening stages of the Russian Civil War because there was no static front. The whole thing was fluid and mobile, the outcome of particular battles being determined by the movement of troops from here to there on the railroads.

Well, for one thing the White Guard often-though not always-attracted those who already had some anti-Semitic inclinations, nurtured by such publications as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For another, much of the Bolshevik leadership had a Jewish background, fitting in with assumptions that the Revolution had been born of a Jewish conspiracy. The other factor is that a good many of the White troops were Cossacks, whose anti-Semitic passions went as far back as the time of the Khmelnytsky Uprising. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing Kruger

What case can be made against Paul Kruger for starting the second Boer War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shako Z (talk • contribs) 13:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should begin by analysing your pre-formed perception that "someone" "starts' a war. --Wetman (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the causes of wars are always complex, nowhere more so than with the Second Boer War, but if I were to draw up a prosecution case against Paul Kruger it would be formed as follows. His government denied basic political rights to the Uitlanders while taxing them heavily, using the money obtained to stockpile weapons of the latest design, purchased from such manufactures as Creusots and Krupps. This was not just for reasons of self-defence. In October 1899 he sent a telegram demanding the removal of British troops from the Transvaal borders within forty-eight hours, an ultimatum he knew the British would never accept. He then declared war and immediately launched offensive operations. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of a Lady

Hello, everybody. I've just finished reading Henry James "Portrait of a Lady" and am not quite sure what to make of it. Have any of you read it and what did you think? Dee Young (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like Henry James, but here goes. He's part of an artistic realism movement. His story illustrates the advantages of painting art from "reality", and how different art can be from reality at times. It's basically a disguised discussion of the philosophies behind realism. Wrad (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read The Portrait of a Lady last year, Dee, my first serious introduction to the work of Henry James. Did I enjoy it? Well, yes, I suppose I did; I certainly admired James' craftsmanship. More to the point, did I believe it; did I believe in the people he created? Here I have more difficulty. There was something so terribly cerebral and bloodless about the whole thing. I simply cannot conceive of people like Isobel and Gilbert existing in any real sense, outwith, it might be said, ghostly forms of Platonic consciousness. They are like icebergs, drifting to no particular end. I close the book, I turn away, and they are no longer there. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Question

Something I have not done any real research on until now, but what were the Jews before Exodus? In the Bible it says they all worshiped idols and a large variety of different gods, which prompted Moses to go up to the mountain and come back with the Ten Commandments. They can't have been 'Jews' as we know the term today, so was it just the name of a particular tribe living in the area (i.e. 'nationality' in modern terms) and the religion (as we know it) came about on the way out of Egypt? --ChokinBako (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were the Hebrews, the ancestors of the Israelites, the forerunners of the Jewish People. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did all the different names originate? And why are there no Egyptian records whatsoever of this mass exodus of slaves? --ChokinBako (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answers to the origin of the terms are largely to be found in the links given by Captain RD.

There is very little undisputed evidence on the historical factuality of the major part of the Torah / Pentateuch. Until an Egyptologist / Biblical scholar / modern day Maimonides wanders past this question you may want to check the references above. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance at the above links yields a lot of information, and it might be hard to make sense of it all, so I shall attempt a summary for you, ChokinBako. Firstly, the Israelites were not idolators prior to the Exodus and Moses's ascent up Mt Sinai, which is why their construction of the golden calf was seen in such a bad light: they had wilfully turned their back on a God who had displayed his faithfulness to them. In order to understand this (and the use of the differing terms) we need to backtrack a little.

The pre-history in the early part of Genesis shows a number of faithful men interacting with God (eg Adam, Abel, Noah, Enoch). One of these is Shem, a son of Noah. God's blessing lay on Shem, and his descendents (see Gen 9:26): the Shemites or Semites. A later descendant of these, Eber, gives rise to the term "Hebrew" (ie. descendant of Eber). The story gains impetus in Gen 12 with the calling of Abraham, and the original covenant between God and man (hence Old Covenant → Old Testament in Christian thought). Basically, this covenant between God and Abraham (on behalf of his descendants) was that God would be their God, and Abraham's descendents would be His people. With the covenant comes a birth of a people, the "sons of Abraham". He was known as "Abraham the Hebrew", and thus that name is also used for the people, particularly during their exile in Egypt.

But before we get there, Abraham has a son Isaac, and Isaac two sons, Esau and Jacob (Gen 25). Jacob is given a second name: "Israel". Jacob, in turn, has twelve sons: the ancestors of the "twelve Tribes of Israel". It is the 11th son Joseph (of technicolour coat fame) who first goes to Egypt; the rest of the family join him there, and over time the family (the Hebrews/sons of Abraham/Semites) become oppressed and legislated into slavery. But God remembers his people and call them out of Egypt: we see the plagues, the first passover, and the escape through the Red Sea, into the wilderness, where the Hebrews forget God's faithfulness and provision and build themselves an idol to while away the time while Moses is climbing mountains. Moses gains the Law of God (more than just the Ten Commandments), but the relationship had been there prior to that.

And so, the People of God move on into Canaan (interestingly, Canaan was a grandson of Noah, through Ham), where they conquer a nation and create "Israel" the country for "Israel" the people. Skipping ahead through various political activities, Israel is split into two kingdoms: Israel and Judah (after one of the sons of Abraham). Israel collapses, and Judah is left: the Jews. Judah eventually metamorphises, through various conquered and assimilated incarnations, into the Roman province of Judea, in which Jesus was born.

A rather potted history, but I hope it helps. As to your second question about historical authenticity, that opens up another large debate, which has kept academics busy for many years! If I get a chance, and no one else answers in the meantime, I will hunt out some sources for you. Gwinva (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The correct name for the above is historicised narrative. It should not be taken as history, no matter how it presents itself. The Egyptian name-element Moses, "son of" as in Thutmose, is discussed at Moses#Moses' name, but you'll have to read with critical attention (as you should always). --Wetman (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. A lot of information there. I know about the name Moses being possibly of an Egyptian root 'msw', meaning 'born of' or 'birth', hence 'son of'. I studied Ancient Egyptian history and language, and that is why I am interested in this particular story. However, I would never call myself an Egyptologist! I don't knwo that much. :) --ChokinBako (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am no Egytologist in any form but it is, indeed, intriguing. I agree entirely with Wetman that all history (as everything else) should be read critically. Historical record is of necessity selective: it is impossible to write down everything. Men choose to record certain things for a purpose; they are influenced by politics, faith, self-aggrandisement, greed. They make mistakes, misinterpret, record hearsay, or – sometimes – deliberately mislead. Only some of what they record survives. And it is not always recorded in the same manner. Some narrative is historicised; some history is told through narrative. Dry facts are listed in some documents, others use poetry to portray deep truths. I wonder if, in the future, some will debate the historicity of The Silmarillion, or suspect that the WWII movies are cultural fantastical inventions. What I wrote above was from a literary/cultural angle, in an effort to trace terms; it begins with the story-based pre-history narratives, and ends with easily-attested historical fact. Where the one merges into the other is the cause of much debate. But narrative (of any kind) is not to be ignored: historical truth is more than minutes of what occured, but also covers thoughts, ideas, morals, culture, theology, philosophy, folk-lore, sociology. But, I digress.

The problem with establishing the historicity of Exodus is that it is not written as a historical record, but rather a theological text. It fits within history but does not set out to record it. And there is little evidence to prove it. That said, a number of attempts have been made to place it in context, and there is nothing, either, to disprove it. Perhaps it happened just as recorded; perhaps it happened on a smaller scale, or in a slightly different manner, or perhaps the story represents something else. If you are interested in slotting the narrative into a historical period, then The Exodus covers a few theories, but as one commentary has it: "no case is any more convincing than the case for the later date most frequently proposed, at the beginning of the nineteenth dynasty of Egypt (with Seti I as the Pharaoh of the oppression, Raamses II as the Pharaoh of the exodus, and Merneptah as the Pharaoh of Israel’s early forays into Canaan)" Durham, J. I. 2002. Vol. 3: Word Biblical Commentary : Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary . Word, Incorporated: Dallas – Gwinva (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends whether you are asking this as a theological, or a historical perspective. If the former, then I can't help you, if the latter, then, in my opinion, nothing remotely resembling the story of Exodus ever happened. The Egyptian state never kept any quantity of Jewish slaves, the biblical Moses never existed, modern-day Israel was not settled by a migratory people from Egypt at any point in this period of history, and God certainly didn't give said people a set of ten commandments. 82.36.179.20 (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Build the Titanic magazine

Hey all, a magazine came out in 2001 called build the titanic. It was published by Hachette publications. At the time I was too young to build it properly, I was just wondering if anybody knew where I could get all of the issues from, that is numbers 1-100. Will the company be able to sell them to me? --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 15:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost no information on the net about ordering back issues. Strange. But someone is selling all 100 issues with "only the first few ... opened" on ebay, but you'd have to pick it up from the United Kingdom. link Additionally, this site gives the publishers contact details as email: Titanic@jacklinservice.com, tel: 0870 920 1138 D0762 (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OP lives in London, UK (not the one in Ontario), so picking the stuff up in Essex, UK (not the one in Massachusetts) may be OK :) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beware though, it's a premium number (0870) so it'll cost you 50p a minute. Best email him. --ChokinBako (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"From his cold dead hands"

The death of Charlton Heston (famous, among other things, for claiming that the government would need to pry his right to bear arms "from my cold, dead hands") has gotten me thinking about the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and its real role in the 20th century, particularly in the interpretations about the right of the private individual to bear arms (and specifically not in reference to the question about having a well-regulated militia, etc.). I have been trying to think about ways in which the right to bear arms has really been beneficial in modern times. I admit to not being able to come up with anything plausible.

It does not seem to have guaranteed a government that respects its people. Indeed, the US government seems to have felt quite free over the last 100 years to spy on dissidents of all stripes, suspend basic concepts of justice when it saw fit, to rather explicitly undermine the intention and will of the electorate, and so forth. At one point it even saw fit to round up a large group of its people and send them to internment camps, the textbook fear of government intervention. The right to a possession of arms seems to have deterred it not one bit at any point. And even those sub-groups who did attempt to resist the government with force—here I think of the Black Panthers, the religious cultists, etc.—found nothing but more deadly force thrown at them from the other side. Whether these things were justified or not does not matter for my thinking on this, the point is that their being armed got them the opposite of leniency.

And what of crime? The US does quite poorly when it comes to crime rates, with a homicide rate some five times the level of other Western countries. Our gun possession seems not to have made criminals more wary, our streets any safer, our schools any safer. I won't bother trying to parse out whether they have made them more dangerous—there is a strong argument there—but even from the question of just making them safer, the guns don't seem to have helped. Yes, there is occasionally the story of some homeowner serving as judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to defending their property from the rare invader, but other than providing some sort of psychological benefit I don't see the free availability of arms as having much of an actual deterrent effect for crime. It seems telling to me that the areas known for high possession of weapons are also known for their high crime rates; even without getting into causality questions, I think it is clear that the presence of privately owned guns does not lower crime rates by itself, which is all I am trying to point to here.

(Of course, there is also hunting for sport and pleasure. I have nothing against it, but by itself it seems a feeble argument for free ownership of all manners of weapons.)

If not those two main things, the common arguments, then what can be said for it? I solicit your thoughts and opinions. I am not wedded to my views. And this is not meant to be a soapbox rant, and I am not trying to spark a "debate" per se. Let us proceed in the spirit of open inquiry, assuming good faith and all that—I have tried (albeit at length, I apologize) to take you through my reasoning, and I'm interested in your takes of it, whether you find it plausible. Even if you find it reprehensible, I am interested to hear specifically why. Thank you. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Removed soapboxing invitation to debate.~~ See talk. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored question. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to tidy up some of the language/examples and cite more explicitly some of the things I was indicating, should anyone be confused of the sorts of things I am referring to. Hopefully this will make more clear that I am not trying to be specifically inflammatory. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's regretable, Captain, that your inquiry was removed, because I believe it raises important philosophical and moral issues, issues which can be adressed on an empirical basis. Anyway, that is how I intend to tackle the matter.

As a specialist in the political struggles of seventeenth century England, of Whigs and Tories and Revolution, I have always had a great respect for the American Constitution, particularly for the Bill of Rights, which seems to me to be a clear and rational summary of a hundred years of English thought and experience! Now, I know that the Constitution is malleable and that it has been amended from time to time; but there is, nevertheless, a tendency to treat the early parts almost as if they had been cast in tablets of stone on Mount Sinai itself. I would say that, in the context of the times, the Second Amendment, was absolutely necessary; an essential democratic right of citizens, many of whom lived, or came to live, on a dangerous frontier. But there is the rural and frontier America of the 1790s and the complex urban society of today; a society where the right to bear arms has, in many respects, turned in on itself, representing a danger to the peace, safety and well-being of most ordinary citizens.

More than that, there are issues about the kind of arms that people have a right to bear: the musket of the eighteenth century has given way to the automatic rifle; to weapons that cannot be justified for either self-defence or for hunting. It is a tragic fact that outrage after outrage has now become the weary corollary of a basic constitutional right. Is there an answer? I genuinely do not know. There are, however, powerful vested interests at work, which might very well serve to undermine the operation of democracy itself. I can offer no answers, merely lodge yet another question. Perhaps the time has come for new forms of moral authority, for a new style of leadership and direction, and-dare I say it-for a new Bill of Rights? Clio the Muse (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Cold, dead hands"? It is outrageous to make a joke here about the death of an old man. I tried to remove this abominable trolling once, but some self-appointed guardian of whatever restored it. Let's hope that Mr. Heston's family and friends never see this. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As shown in the removal of this question, it is very difficult to find a question in the barrage of inflammatory opinions. I am left simply guessing that the "question" is "What is the purpose of the right to bear arms?" That isn't specifically asked. In fact, no question is specifically asked. So, I will answer that question...

The right to bear arms is not intended as a right to carry or own weapons of any particular kind. It is a right to self-defense. There are many examples, not only in history but in the modern world, where the public does not have the right to defend itself from the government. There are also many examples in which this right is given. In many cases, it is just as poorly worded as you can see in right to bear arms. -- kainaw ™ 01:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, what I've read of the American Constitution it doesn't actually expressly permit the possession of handguns for everyone. It says that "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.". This seems to me (and admittedly I'm no Constitutional lawyer, I'm not even a US citizen) to essentially say "guns aren't going to be illegal, because the police, the National Guard and the army will need them". It never expressly says "anyone can own a gun". 81.96.161.104 (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the Second Amendment is not clear, as our article explains. Some interpret the amendment to confer an individual right to bear arms; others believe that the right is only for members of a militia. While I think that the wording suggests the latter, in fact some courts in the United States have taken the former interpretation. Marco polo (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was indeed a question, at the beginning of the questioner's last paragraph: "If not ... the common arguments, then what can be said for it?" It seems to me that very little can be said for it, except that it is a venerable tradition—perhaps a dysfunctional one, as the questioner and Clio suggest. It remains because it has become a matter of faith for its proponents, who believe that it is a safeguard against tyranny, though the questioner cites several cases that suggest otherwise. Contrary to Kainaw's suggestion, the amendment does not confer the right to defend oneself physically against the government. No such right exists, merely the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment is not a defense against charges of assaulting agents of the government such as police officers. Such assaults typically bring greater penalties in the United States than other cases of assault. Marco polo (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a lot can be said for the right to bear (reasonable) arms. I'm not going to make the case for automatic weapons, enormous hand-cannons or RPGs, but generally the government should accept the choices of the individual. It should be difficult to get guns, illegal guns should be very heavily punished and it should be compulsory to lock the guns up, seperately from the ammunition etc etc. But people should be responsible enough to not go round killing each other. It's a very difficult question because of the obvious correlation between gun ownership and homicide/gun crime in the USA. But AFAIK the Swiss have a large number of firearms per head and very low crime rates. So there is perhaps an underlying social problem or a dangerous attitute of carelessness to the ownership of incredibly deadly weapons. Possessing a gun to hunt for sport should be perfectly legal, and there are numerous shooting events at the Olympics which suggests that shooting can be a peaceful pasttime. As horribly cliched as it is; "guns don't kill people...". ut at the same time, it takes a person to kill someone with a gun. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question to the people who say the 2nd amendment only covers the nation guard and police. How can the constitution only grant that right to police and the national guard? you dont grant rights to part of the establishments. police and national guard aren't "the people". "The People" are ordinary citizens not groups authorized by the government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.108.39 (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interesting essay here on claims that gun control (or religion) has killed 56 million people. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a much-debated topic as far as I'm aware. The definition of militia and the purposes for which the right to bear arms was written are contentious to say the least. But I take the view that as the police force in the modern sense didn't exist at the time and often local law enforcement may have been a town militia sort of thing, self-regulated and not really attached to the government, just set up to uphold the laws by "the People". The changes in law enforcement and the ability of a government to effectively police the population mean that perhaps the second Amendment should be interpreted more strictly. And Captain Ref Desk, I'm not denying that there were some major flaws in Bush's election to office, but he did win on the electoral college which is the system the Constituion provides for in order to represent the will of the people. Just a thought. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, the 2nd had exactly zero impact upon gun control legislation in the 20th century. "No federal court in history has overturned a gun law on Second Amendment grounds." (see the fourth paragraph of this section) According to the courts, and as far as the private individual was concerned, there was no right to keep and bear arms enumerated in the Constitution. Y'all really should wait until June to talk of repealing amendments (and in Clio's case presumably reinstating a monarchy and quartering redcoats in our homes, or some such.) Captain, that looks to be a somewhat rickety soapbox you're standing on, maybe you could rephrase?—eric 03:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no matter the outcome of that case i have strong doubts that the 2nd amendment will be repealed

america loves guns theres no doubt about that. we have more guns than any other nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.108.39 (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Mr Heston's self-reported case of Alzheimers progressed since 2002 to its conclusion , did he maintain "hands-on" control of his firearms collection until they pried the guns from "his cold dead hands?" Edison (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. after the American Revolution there were state militias but little or no national army. There was deep suspicion of the power of a tyrant to abuse the states and their citizens. The wording of the Second Amendment appears to be a statement of the rights of the states to maintain militias to prevent federal abuses, and in fact for the town to have a militia to limit abuses by the state government. That is literally what it says "a well regulated militia." This is a militia which has muster rolls and which drills. Edison (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central powers and the March Revolution in Russia

How did they respond? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoodeee (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The initial response was quite cautious, as there was no indication that the Russian army was ready to give up arms. Continuing operations by the Central Powers were also made difficult by the spring thaw. Towards the end of March the German High Command announced that they were discontinuing further large-scale campaigning for the time being. However, seemingly acting on his own initiative, Alexander von Linsingen, commanding German and Austrian troops on the Stokhod River, began an attack on the Russian bridgehead in early April. The success was immediate, the Russians driven back across the river, and some 10,000 prisoners taken.

The Battle of the Stokhod Bridgehead had interesting political consequences. The Germans, fearful that the fighting spirit of the Russian soldiers might be revived, issued what was in effect an apology via the neutral press! The Moscow Soviet blamed 'traitors in high places' for the unexpected and sudden reverse, while others drew attention to the relaxation of discipline within the army. Aware of these debates and divisions the Germans realised that propaganda and subversion were going to be the most effective weapons in the east. It was with this in mind that plague bacillus was injected into the heart of Russia. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Child law

Hello, I am a university student and have a piece of Child Law coursework to complete.

The question is; 'How has the concept of the child changed over time, and how has this been reflected in Child Law?'

I have read through the Child article on wikipedia, and one of the questions below concerning the changing concept of the child, but I'm still not sure how to approach the question.

So far I have looked at the work of Aries, and criticised his approach, but I am finding it particularly hard to find journal articles or books which are really of any use, nothing seems to be concise. I am also finding it difficult to find llterature relating to how we currently view children, which I presume is as the possesser of individual rights, as rational human beings capable of decision making.

Also for the second half of the question I have no idea what to focus upon. I was thinking about focusing on Parental responsibility, inline with the idea children are vulnerable and need looking after, but aside from that I would very much appreciate some guidance.

Thank you in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.1.128 (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link for the other ref desk exchange is[2] in case anyone's wondering. Hi 86.1.1, have you seen our article Convention on the Rights of the Child? Fwiw, the concept of the child changes as the concept of what is human changes afaik that's the background. Apart from altruism, there's group consolidation – reducing stress for children and protecting them from exploitation and hunger is likely to produce socially competent adults for any group that cares for the children among them. I guess that's the hoped-for outcome. The rise in the status of the child ideally prepares the group for a better quality of leadership and provides better functioning members, but I don't have material to point you to. I like your focus on adult responsibility to the child because even though children have rights (such as to shelter, nurture, food, clothing, education) it needs legislating for, given that laws are needed for people who wouldn't be nice to others, otherwise. I take it by the idea of "rational human beings capable of decision making", you mean "in the scope of childhood" which is still the immature, socially powerless human, preparing to be the adult who can drive, sign contracts, work for pay etc. Even though many rights are breached routinely, there is recourse when rights are enshrined in the laws and their development. As for children's competency, there's a distinction between capability and culpability and where final responsibility lies which is with the more powerful: parents, guardians or the government. The increasing regard of children as human individuals with choices rather than property or labour is tested all the time by wars, economic conditions and human nature, so Governments just have to agree to throw more resources into what children need, but politicians are not naturally long-term thinkers and require lots of lobbying or as in the case of the UN, peer pressure is applied. Apols if this is too much beside the point, cheers Julia Rossi (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make Money off your land

What are some ways someone could make their money on their land? I prefer things that don't involve the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend planting ash trees and later selling them to make masts for tall ships. --Wetman (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends entirely on what sort of land you have, how it is developed (if at all), and where it is located. Undeveloped land can obviously be planted in trees for timber, but you won't see any money for over 10 years while the trees grow to maturity. The same land could be planted in fruit or nut trees. Again, you'd see no money for several years while the trees matured, but then you'd enjoy an annual yield (after deducting costs for labor, fertilizer, irrigation, and taxes). You could also plant the land in annual crops (also deducting costs) and, assuming the land is well managed and the weather cooperates, see a yield this coming autumn. Alternatively, you could rent the land to a tenant farmer. If your land is developed, you can rent the property to a residential or commercial tenant, depending on the type of development and its location. Marco polo (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, all of the above. Depends what type of land you have. If you don't like the internet, and it depends where you live, there's agistment, you could run chickens, grow veges or hay, store heavy machinery on it or simply lease it to other people who might want to. A leaflet or an ad in the local paper should do it. Some people sell off bits of their land (subdivision), others turn it into a waste centre depending how much land you have. If you're in a city, you can rent garages for cars on it. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could get companies to rent space on the land, say $100 sq/yrd, and you will put a billboard/plaque on the ground facing the sky on that bit of space advertising the company. This would only be seen from the air, so would not disrupt the beauty of the countryside like standing billboards do. This is a novel idea, similar to the Million Dollar Homepage, and may attract a lot of attention, hence revenue. One more thing, I know you said that you don't want it to involve the internet, but if you did this I can guarantee you'd be all over Google Earth and Google Maps. --ChokinBako (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, you can be paid not to grow tobacco. I've always wondered how that worked. Corvus cornix_talk 17:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit convoluted but, in my understanding, farm subsidies are to help keep farms from going bankrupt when there's a surplus of product (as well as keep prices stable). For instance, let's say tobacco has been overproduced the last few years: there's simply too much on the market to sustain it at current prices. If we let the free market take over, farms will fail because they can't pay their bills, and suddenly there are far fewer farms producing it. That leads to a product shortage, as the few farms can't keep up with demand, and the old farms which shut down are unable to start up again due to their loss of money. New farms can step in, but it's a hefty investment. Eventually (luck willing) either new farms step in to help with the demand, or big farming companies usurp the failed farms to take over production. Production goes up… then the product gets overproduced again. And the entire market bounces around like a chihuahua on crack.

Instead, the government pays a few farms to not produce tobacco, which means there is less product on the market; but those farms now still have income, so they won't go out of business. Once the market stabilizes, the farms will be able to continue production, leading to a more stable market.

Of course, there are many, many problems with this model, but that's the basic gist. -- Kesh (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]