Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 March 1

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.

March 1

United States Citizenship Policy

In the US right now, it's ok for even illegal immigrants to come into the US, have a child "anchor baby", and then the entire family becomes entitled to stay in the US. What's preventing us from passing legistlation redifining citizenship to those with ATLEAST ONE American parent? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The 14th amendment to the Constitution states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." A redefinition would thus probably require a constitutional amendment, not mere legislation. - Nunh-huh 00:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. What I mean is, are there any reasons why we SHOULDN'T pass an Ammendment to redefine citizenship to those with ATLEAST ONE American parent? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak to the should, or shouldn't. But the fact that an amendment is needed means such a change is very unlikely; amendments are very hard to pass. Because of this, opponents of birthright citizenship have focused on the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". They have proposed that Congress could exercise its Section 5 powers to prevent the children of illegal aliens from automatically becoming citizens of the United States. For details of their argument, you can take a look at this page. Any such attempt would probably be reviewed by the Supreme Court. - Nunh-huh 01:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. This is what I found on wikipedia: Congress first extended citizenship to children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." I'm wondering why they stopped allowing children of citizens born out of the US from being natural born citizens. thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

They didn't. Children born abroad to American parents are natural born citizens. That's why George Romney and John McCain could run for president. - 01:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I thought they were born in US territories, and that's why they could run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, Romney was born in Mexico. - Nunh-huh 01:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It was Barry Goldwater whose citizenship was questioned, because he was born in Arizona Territory before it became a state. Corvus cornix_talk 23:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Marxist analysis of the Pacific War

Does anyone know of any good books that give a good Marxist analysis of the causes and origins of the 1941-1945 Pacific War between Japan and the USA? --Jacobin1949 (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Age restrictions on drinking alcohol

When were the first age restrictions put on drinking alcohol? Was it before or after we really knew the effects that it has on the body from a scientific viewpoint? Dismas|^(talk) 01:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that even in Ellada they used to frown upon youngsters consuming alcohol. But then, it was thought that wine makes people reckless and moderation was a social value. Asthmor (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Songs about drugs and rehabilitation

I'm searching for inspirational songs about recovering from a drug problem, but I'm having a difficult time finding some good ones. It's for my brother who just recently entered rehab for a drug addiction. He's a young adult, so music targeted at his age would be nice, but any era or type of song suggestion is appreciated. Heck, any inspirational song at all is welcome. Thanks for all of your help and suggestions! --71.117.36.209 (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I recommend "No More" by Neil Young, from his album Freedom. --Allen (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Life by the Drop by Stevie Ray Vaughan and Doyle Bramhall is about recovery from alcoholism. Very touching. It's twelve-string guitar and voice and was released on The Sky Is Crying (album). –Outriggr § 03:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Other songs by Stevie Ray Vaughan that are somewhat on the subject are "Wall of Denial", "Tightrope", and maybe even "Crossfire", from In Step. "We've all had our demons, from the garden of white lies/Dressed them, amused them, pulled the wool over our eyes/Go so far as to love them to keep from letting them go/All the while they were killin' us, but we couldn't let it show". This album was his first after rehab from cocaine and alcohol addictions, and these songs aren't necessarily literal in their mention of SRV's addictions, but they're on theme. –Outriggr § 04:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"Lonesome Day" by Bruce Springsteen is my go-to song for anyone getting over a personal trauma. It's not about drugs, but your brother might appreciate the melancholy but encouraging lyrics and rousing melody. For something a little more heart-wrenching, you might consider "I See a Darkness" by Will Oldham, which was movingly covered by Johnny Cash in 2000 (I slightly prefer the Cash version). It's a great song to send to your brother--with its themes of fraternal love and redemption from destructive impulses.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Although not about addiction, Dido's "See The Sun" may be a good choice. "Don't Leave Home" is about addiction as well but it's written from the point of view of the drug and being sung to the user. May not have the effect you're looking for though. I'm not sure if this is actually what the song is about but David Gilmour's "There's No Way Out of Here" could be about addiction. Also, you might want to give a listen to Neil Young's "The Needle and the Damage Done". And finally, Google has a number of results related to this, just search for "songs about drug addiction". Dismas|^(talk) 05:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thought of a few more... Lynard Skynrd (never could spell it) "The Needle and the Spoon", and "That Smell". Red Hot Chili Pepper's "Under the Bridge". "The Pusher", not sure who originally wrote it but Steppenwolf has an excellent version of it. Dismas|^(talk) 05:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fall to Pieces by Velvet Revolver, and probably many other songs written by Scott Weiland. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Depeche Mode's Clean is a celebration of recovery. SaundersW (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Premature, as it turned out. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ringo Starr had a song about not doing any more drugs which was a minor hit in the 1970s, but I don't remember its title. AnonMoos (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Tne Ringo Starr song is "No No Song." I am a Beatles fan so I thought it was a major hit. It is so typically Ringo Starr with a very catchy, fun tune. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 15:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you everyone so much for your responses thus far! They've been very helpful. Keep 'em coming! --71.117.35.80 (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How many Nazis, how many Allies?

I read somewhere, probably here, that it took the combined might of Britian, the British Empire, and the United States to conqure Nazi Germany. So just how may soldiers were on the German side, and how many on the British side? German allies would include Italy (some of the time) and other countries. 80.0.127.106 (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, you seem to have left out a major member of the Allied countries, and by far the most populous one: the Soviet Union. And the problem with exactly this sort of reasoning is made all the more clear by this omission: the Soviet army vastly outnumbered the Germans, but were poorly trained, poorly equipped, and poorly led. As a result they suffered many, many defeats—it was not an issue of numerical superiority at all. The Americans and British had much better equipment, training, technology, etc. than the Soviets did, and saw many more victories on account of it. Simple weighing of numbers tells very little by itself.

Anyway, some of the the numbers are are World_War_II_casualties#Casualties_by_branch_of_service. The Allies vastly outnumbered the Axis powers (due largely to the USSR's +34 million man strong army), but, again, numbers ain't everything. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget that the Allies had to deal with the empire of Japan at the same time, and that Nazi Germany had to help Fascist Italy from its military incompetence at least twice, resulting in two extra campaigns. Flamarande (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I should correct some possible misconceptions made here about Soviet military strength. It is quite wrong to say that the Soviets had an army in excess of 34 million, an absurdly high figure. Just imagine the logistical problems! That particular figure obviously relates to all those who were processed through all branches of the Soviet armed forces between 1941 and 1945. Indeed, at the outset of Operation Barbarossa the Germans outnumbered the Russian forces in the west by more than a million men. The great battles of envelopment in the summer and autumn of 1941 severely decimated the Soviet army, so much so that by the time of the fighting around Moscow the only significant reserve left was the Siberian divisions transferred from the Far East.

Also, it is quite, quite wrong to say the Soviet Army was 'poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly led', if by that direct military leadership is meant. Russian soldiers were as well trained as their German counterparts; they had more artillery, and more and better tanks, including the incomparable T-34. The problem to begin with was not one of military but political leadership, with Stalin insisting on a static defence, which simply allowed the Germans to by-pass strongpoints and envelop enemy forces in wide-sweeping pincer movements. By the summer of 1942 even Stalin had come to recognise that 'defence at all costs' was a mistake, as the Soviets traded territory for strategic advantage. As for Soviet military leadership there are few to parallel the likes of Konstantin Rokossovsky, Ivan Konev, Andrei Yeremenko and, above all, Georgy Zhukov, arguably the best soldier of the war on any side. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Versailles

how did the boxes containing the Treaty of Versailles entered into the Philippines?Jelien paul (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's a reliable source, but this article may answer your question. Bovlb (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Upon first reading, I didn't understand the question. Now I still don't understand the question, and I also don't understand the answer. If the Treaty of Versailles appears in that blog, I can't see it. ៛ Bielle (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand either, but the article mentions a '"chest, with the words 'Treaty of Versailles' emblazoned on its lid, [that] contained a metal scroll" which some people tried to ship from the Philippines to Switzerland. And it cites three web sources which I haven't read. Bovlb (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sport - Currie Cup Cricket Statistics

Can anyone please tell me, or give me the link to a good website that has all the various batting, bowling & fielding statistics for both individual players and teams that have played in South Africa's Currie Cup cricket competition (now known as the SuperSport Series). My current query concerns the various batting partnership records (the sixth in particular) in the competition but I am constantly needing information of this nature for a potential book of my own.

Could you also explain to me what the Currie Bowl competition is or was. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adscm (talk • contribs) 09:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

CricketArchive.com has records of this from 1889 here, whether complete or useful for your purposes I don't know. You may find more help by asking at WikiProject Cricket who may have better sources than this and cricinfo. Nanonic (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Britain and the EU

Was joining the EU a historical catastrophe for Britain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.38.105 (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes though catastrophe might be putting it a bit strong-Artjo (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to let into a secret: the United Kingdom joined the EU in order to delay everything as far as they are able, and if possible turn the EU into something negligible. "When you can't beat them, join them, and destroy them from the inside." Flamarande (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this was the aim when we joined. It has been our practice in recent years, however, with one notable exception, which is expansion. I sometimes wonder whether the support for expansion was because the Euro, etc. was going really well without us and maybe a few poor countries added to the pot would wreck it. -- Q Chris (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My friends, you have been watching far too much Yes, Minister. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What gives you that idea?. - Gwinva (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Impossible! There's no such thing as too much Yes, Minister. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to watch too much Yes Minister? Well, if you ask me for a straight answer, then I shall say that, as far as I can see, looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another in terms of the average of programmes, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably isn't very much in it one way or the other. As far as one can see, at this stage. Gwinva (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah ha-more polemics! Catastrophe? Possibly. Mistake? Certainly. What has membership achieved? Well, it has made Britain part of a bureaucratic pseudo-state, one marked by unimaginable degrees of corruption, waste and inefficiency. It lacks any kind of popular legitimacy, judging by the numbers who bother to vote for the peripatetic 'parliament'. Even when people are allowed a direct voice, as over the question of the constitution, they are simply ignored. The said constitution has simply walked in the back door. The British people have been continually misled over Europe by government after government. Harold Macmillan deliberately suppressed a report on the legal consequences of membership, one that warned of the loss of national sovereignty. Edward Heath continued the deception by saying that there would be 'no loss of essential national sovereignty', when the whole European project could not exist but for this surrender. Both the Labour and the Liberal parties denied that European integration had anything to do with federalism, though both happily associated themselves with Jean Monnet's Action Committee for the United States of Europe (ugh!). In the 1975 Referendum on British membership Harold Wilson said that European Monetary Union would never occur. Well, it has!

Deception followed hard upon deception, as the Common Fisheries Policy has all but destroyed the British fishing fleet, as the absurd and wasteful Common Agricultural Policy has meant dearer and dearer food. Membership of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism induced arguably the greatest British economic recession since the 1930s, and cost billions to exit. Peter Mandelson went on record not so long ago, saying the idea of a European superstate was dead. Who now believes that? I would like to see my country take the bold step and get out, once again asserting full sovereignty over our affairs in a truly meaningful declaration of independence. Alas, the truth is the iron law of oligarchy is likely to take an even deeper hold. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wanda Coleman Poet

Out of curiosity and and concern how does anonymous user can be at liberty to butcher an article and get away with it? It seems to me that the last anonymous user tinkering with the article on Wanda Coleman really did a job of truncating the article without any juridiction. Pjt48 (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you could have taken care of vandalism yourself, as Krator has just done. --Wetman (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

;) User:Krator (t c) 18:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Wetman I wanted to thank you and Kator for emending the Coleman article. I'm a bit of a tyro when coming to rectifying possible vandalism. I imagine it is an easy task to do but I'm at the stage of sensing out possible vandalism and bringing it to the attention of wiki's humanity ref. Thanks again Pjt48 (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of Irish Catholics compared to that of other people in the mid-1800s?

From the article about the Irish Potato Famine is the following quote:

"Irish Catholic citizens were prohibited by law from owning land, from leasing land, from voting, from holding political office, from living in a corporate town or within five miles of a corporate town, from obtaining education, from entering a profession, and from doing many other things that are necessary in order to succeed and prosper in life."

Just how true is this, especially when compared with Irish Protestants, or English people? Did non-landowners in England for example have the right to vote at that time? 80.0.121.148 (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your last question, 80, 0, is yes, there were non-landowners in England who had the right to vote, as you will see if you look at the page on the Reform Act of 1832. Even before this the 'property qualification', such as it was, had been established for the counties during the reign of Henry VI, when the franchise had been limited to 'forty shilling freeholders', that is to say those who held land or property worth at least forty shillings. This sum was never adjusted for inflation, so the amount of property in question became ever more modest over time. The boroughs, in contrast, operated a much more varied franchise qualification. In some cases all those not in receipt of poor relief had the right to vote. The situation in Catholic Ireland was altogether different. The defeat of the Jacobite Rebellion in 1691 led to the Protestant Ascendancy and the imposition of the fiercely discriminatory Penal Laws, which had the effect outlined in your quotation. Matters only improved gradually with the eventual emergence of the movement for Catholic Emancipation. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of retirement: did any European monarchs return after abdicating?

I know there are examples of European monarchs who have abdicated in favour of a younger successor but are there any who have returned from retirement? R U Dunn (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The case of Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha would stand as one of the weirder examples of this. The man has been the monarch of Bulgaria and, 55 years later, became its Prime Minister. As he never abdicated, he still bears the title "Zsar", even if the monarchy was abolished donkey´s long ago. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I think Nechtan mac Der-Ilei would fit. There are other examples of kings abdicating and then coming out of retirement to fight, but Nechtan probably, but not certainly, succeeded in regaining power whereas the others I can think of (e.g. Selbach mac Ferchair) didn't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The one figure who leaps to mind here is Philip V, the first of Spain's Bourbon monarchs. He abdicated in January 1724, after a reign of twenty-three years, in favour of his son, Louis. But Louis died of smallpox in August of the same year, forcing his father eventually to resume the throne.

Philip had taken the unusual step of abdication because he suffered from bi-polar disorder all of his life, a condition that became particularly acute in the early 1720s. It had been his intention to devote himself to religious matters, initially refusing to break the oath of abdication even after Louis' death, telling a friend "I don't want to go to hell, so I'm leaving. They can do what they like, as for me I'm going to save my soul." It was only after the Pope intervened was he persuaded to change his mind. Philip continued to rule until July 1746, though he fostered the desire to abdicate for a second time, right to the end of his life. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If one can call a Roman emperor "European", then Maximian would fit the description. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 04:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Constantine I of Greece abdicated in favor of his son, and eventually returned to the throne after his son died. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In 1706, King Augustus II of Poland formally abdicated, under the terms of the Treaty of Altranstädt, in favor of a Swedish-backed antiking, Stanislaus I. Three years later, however, the Swedes were defeated by Russians at Poltava, Stanislaus was exiled and Augustus came back to the Polish throne as if he never had abdicated. I'm not sure if this is an answer to your question, R U Dunn, as Polish monarchy was elective rather than hereditary, but certainly Stanislaus was younger (by 7 years) than Augustus. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Carol II of Romania renounced his right to the throne in favor of his son, Michael of Romania, who subsequently ruled from 1927, when his grandfather died, to 1930, when he was forced to abdicate. He was succeeded by his father, Carol II, who reigned from 1930 to 1940, then abdicating in favor of his son, who ruled again from 1940 until the monarchy was abolished in 1947. - Nunh-huh 19:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

When sultan Murad II abdicated in 1444 in favour of his 12-year-old son Mehmed II, the Ottoman Empire had conquered the larger part of the Balkans, forming about half of the territory of the Empire, and the capital at the time was the European city of Edirne. So you can consider him a European monarch. He came out of retirement only 2 years later, in 1446.  --Lambiam 22:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Although this obviously didn't happen, the Duke of Windsor, the ex-king Edward VIII of the UK, was said to have favoured a plan whereby Germany would conquer Britain and re-install him as a puppet king. Why anyone at all, and particularly the former monarch, would actually want to be a puppet king subservient to a foreign power is beyond me, but there you go. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if he can really be considered European, but Hetoum II, King of Armenia (Cilician Armenia, that is) abdicated in favor of his brother in 1293, but returned to the throne in 1295. Choess (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Purgegate

If Mukasey is "required by federal law [to] convene a grand jury" [1], then why can't Pelosi seek a Writ of Mandamus? Bovlb (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If Mukasey refuses to do his duty the only remedy is impeachment, with the hope that who ever is appointed after him will do his duty, or through a right of mandamus, a court order for him to do his job. An of mandamus would be a faster and more efficent way to get him to do his job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.239.144 (talk • contribs) 2008-03-03T02:18:16

Strasser, Goebbels and the Nazi left

I read they represented a serious challenge to the domination of hitler in the mid 1920's. Is this true. Also is it true that goebbels continued to push for a socialist direction in party policy. If yes how was this demonstrated before the party took power in 1933. Thank you. John James. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.38.105 (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, John, it is not true. After the movement was reformed on Hitler’s release from Landsberg, Gregor Strasser, responsible for organisation in the north, formed an Arbeitsgemeinschaft-Working Community-of the North and West German Gaue of the NSDAP. A newspaper, Nationalsozialistiche Briefe, was launched, edited by Josef Goebbels, which took a slightly more 'leftward' stand to that of party headquarters in Munich. But first, second and last the principle loyalty was to Hitler, despite marginal ideological differences. When Strasser drafted a programme in November 1925, hoping to replace that of 1920, he failed to achieve consensus, even among his own supporters. At a meeting held in Bamberg in February 1926, Hitler reasserted his authority over the northern Gaue with ease. The Bamberg meeting, which conformed the established priorities of the Party, had the effect of temporarily unsettling Goebbels, possibly the most radical of the northern group; but he was soon reconciled, becoming Gauleiter of Berlin in November 1926.

To the end of his life Goebbels was associated with the left-leaning tendency, insofar as that is a meaningful term within an organisation like the Nazi Party. He always believed that the movement should adopt policies that would appeal to the working-class, and his radical instincts were to be most pronounced during the Berlin Transport Strike of November 1932, which saw the Nazis in alliance with the Communists. He was later the one senior Nazi-apart from Ribbentrop-in favour of continuing co-operation under the Nazi-Soviet Pact. But Goebbels, from first to last, was an amoral and neurotic opportunist; loyal to Hitler, to himself, and to no-one besides. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Date of the ordination of Rev. John Williams D.D.

John Williams (1582 - 1650) was created Archdeacon of Cardigan by Archbishop Bancroft in 1609, while he was still at St. John's College77.68.116.158 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC). In the same year he was ordained as a priest. Next year it will be 400 years since then. Is it possible to establish the date of John's ordination, so that it can be respectfully celebrated next year by a serious researcher of his life and times? 77.68.116.158 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

how to refer to the Book of Genesis

Hi, all - if I'm referring to the Book of Genesis, is it italicised, as with normal book titles, or is there some special rule in its case? Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Refering to it in what? I haven't really seen a "standard" way to reference it, but I know I don't remember seeing it italicized very often. ◄Zahakiel► 21:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style indicates that italics are not used for standard works of religion. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks both of you - and for pointing me to the Manual of Style. Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. PS: The manual also states: The titles of articles, chapters, songs and other short works are not italicized, but are enclosed in double quotation marks. I assume this also applies to the Pentateuch and individual books thereof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk • contribs) 22:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

PPS to Adam Browne: And if Adam and Eve are any relatives of yours, don´t forget to mention that the stuff about "an apple a day" may have Biblical consequences. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style wants us to write of the book of Genesis—just so, lowercase "b" and neither italics nor quotes. This goes for all holy stuff. It would be sacrilegious to treat such things as though they were mere writings on a par with other writings, I guess. Our MoS is silent on books of the Bible, I think. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Milkbreath has the reason backwards. We don't write "the Book of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone", so we shouldn't write "the Book of Genesis" either. "Book" isn't part of the title, and just because some people capitalize it for religious reasons (as they might capitalize He when referring to God), that doesn't mean everyone should. At least, that's my guess as to how they're thinking. --Anon, 17:12 UTC, March 2, 2008.

That indeed would backwards be. I was talking about the italics and quotation marks. I was obviously unclear about that, sorry. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Musicianship and IQ: any correlation?

Is there any known link between composers and musicians and a high I.Q. rating —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.157.216 (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Conventional IQ test measure (if, indeed, they do):

• verbal intelligence
• spatial imagination
• logical / mathematical skills

The specific creative intelligence of Amadeus Mozart, of Orson Welles or Pablo Picasso does not rate a measly point. Any correlation may be coincidental. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: The last two, of course, are not musicians. I included their names as the intelligence of actors and painters is not measurable by classic IQ test, either. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree with that hypothesis, composers and musicians are very very intelligent. Not to mention sexy, creative, brave, sympathetic, loyal, sexy, altruistic, modest, and sexy. Especially violinists! Okay, maybe not modest. . . :) --S.dedalus (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There are studies linking exposure to music training with cognitive test scores, but unfortunately for S.dedalus, when a specific instrument is mentioned, it is usually the piano. A study conducted at UC Irvine in 1997, for example, "showed that preschool children who received basic piano keyboard instruction scored an average of 34 percent higher on tests of their reasoning skills than children who were given computer and singing lessons."

They didn't test the violin or any other instrument, but chose the keyboard instruments, because it "gave the children both a linear and audible representation of the relationship between sounds." [2]

A famous earlier study conducted in 1975, showed that a group of children undergoing seven months of Kodály training, 40 minutes a day, scored significantly higher in reading skills than the control group.[3]

This is but a tiny selection, and Music and Cognitive Achievement in Children reviews some more studies, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Darn! I knew my sister had some edge over me at scrabble. . . I guess we can always fall back upon the disputed Mozart effect though. --S.dedalus (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)