Humanities desk
< May 3	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 4

British in WWI

Is there anything that explains the sheer tenacity of the English army in WWI when the Russians cracked, and the French and Italians came close to cracking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo McGoogle III (talk • contribs) 05:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were of course English regiments, but probably you mean the British Army, together with forces from the Dominions and the rest of the Empire. Clearly, the willingness of the British to die in huge numbers in a war of attrition (lions led by donkeys) was remarkable, but there's a lot more to the comparison you suggest than tenacity. The real difference wasn't between the capabilities of the British and Russian armies but between the strength of the economies supporting them. In 1917, the Russian economy, increasingly devoted to the war effort, was near collapse. There were also severe food shortages in Russia, on a scale which the British never faced. After the abdication of the Tsar the new Russian Provisional Government undermined what military discipline was left by abolishing the death penalty in the army, setting up soldier committees to take many decisions out of the hands of commanding officers, and so forth. It's better not to compare the courage or tenacity of the Russian fighting men unfavourably with those of the British. Xn4 10:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were also serious problems of morale in both the Italian and French armies that the senior command simply neglected. Contrary to the usual 'Lions and Donkey's myth, the British Army was well-led and morale generally very high, even in the worst of circumstances. But, I agree, the transformation over a four-year period of what was, in essence, a small imperial police force, backed up by part-time soldiers, into arguably the best fighting force in the world was a remarkable achievement by any standard. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, given the rate of turnover at the front, that "transformation" was institutional rather than personal.

The myth of the "small imperial police force" persists to this day, I see. It is instructive to remember the level of experience that the professionals of that "police force" had to go on, especially as compared to the others; if, indeed, the two hundred thousand of the Indian Armies and the three-quarters of a million of the home army can ever be called "small". It is that prior institutional experience that helps explain the relative resilience of the imperial corps. --Relata refero (disp.) 02:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it was no myth, and I hardly think the Boer War or the fighting on the North-West Frontier compares in any way with the Somme or Passchendaele. But I was, of course, referring to the British Army, not the Indian Army, two quite different things. The fact remains that this force, which was able to field only four divisions in 1914, this 'contemptible little army', was, by 1918, driving back across Flanders one of the strongest professional armies in the world. Its soldiers had learned a new style of war under one of the best general officers the army ever had. I've made my point, and intend to say no more. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is generally understood that the experience of the backbone of those armies - especially NCOs - in other combat situations was crucial to their resilience. Trying to compare such experiences is of, course, doomed to failure.

Otherwise, a somewhat ahistorical caricature. However, as a card-carrying Walpoleian Richard III revisionist, I can understand the heartfelt need to rehabilitate one of pop history's villains. --Relata refero (disp.) 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for Zoroastrianism as the One True Religion

I’ve heard Christians claim that there are proofs and evidences for Christianity to be the “one true religion”. Those evidences include evidences that what the Bible says is true and evidences that Jesus Christ is God and the son of God.

But what about Zoroastrians? Do they also have, or claim to have, any proofs or evidences for their religion, Zoroastrianism, to be the one true religion? If so, then what are they?

Don’t tell me if those proofs and evidences of Zoroastrianism are true or false, right or wrong, really proofs or evidences of them or not. Just tell me if they have so or claim to have so.

Bowei Huang (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bowei, why do you think you would get the answers you want in this 'pedia? It is not a forum and you have been told this in many ways. Julia Rossi 08:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he wants to know if Zoroastrianism is the "One True Religion." Rather, he wants to know if Zoroastrians claim their religion is the OTR the same way many Christians do. I don't know the answer to the question, but it's certainly a legitimate one with a clear answer. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of being the true religion - the revealed truth - was in fact, invented by Zoroastrianism. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may find of interest that there are those who believe in a flat earth, and hold up proof of same. They're just a substantial minority these days, for some reason. Not that I intend such a comparison to invite any reflection on Zoroastrianism or Christianity, beyond allowing a comment on popularity versus validity. Please have a look at the article, and see if what you're looking for is there or in a related link. -- Ironmandius (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion is as inaccessible to words and logics as is Mozart´s Reqiem or Picasso´s Guernica. It is futile to deploy incompatible tools to a matter which is on a different level of human perception.

There are people to whom Mozart is noise and Picasso is blobs of grey paint, there are people (like me) to whom religion is utterly useless, not as a philosophy but as a "real" entity of creation and sin and heaven and hell and what not.

There is simply no answer to your question because language is the wrong tool to both ask and answer it. Like other folks on the WP:RD, I don´t have this one true answer. Maybe you find it someplace in your mind or in the rest of the universe. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bowei, sweetie, this is getting really boring. It’s time to get your mind out of the groove. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At best a religion can only ever claim to be the one true religion. They can never prove it - because if they could prove such a claim, there'd be nothing to believe in anymore since the subject of those beliefs would have become established facts, and there is no need to believe in established facts. Belief is confined to claims that haven't yet been proven, or can't be proven. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, evidence is different from proof. Evidence suggests that a particular theory could be true without actually giving 100% proof that it is.HS7 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco deaths

When did people first become aware of tobacco related illnesses? Do we know who the first person was to die of a smoke related disease? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.9.137 (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the "custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse" ? James 1 A Counterblaste to Tobacco 1604 although I imagine the first health effects were a long time earlier among the first users in South America. See tobacco and take the links from there, also be aware of differences between smoking and chewing Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is of interest as well [1] although I would be very careful of the objectivity of anything on the net, tobacco-wise Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the effect of smoking in causing cancer was first discovered by a scientist in Britain called Sir Richard Doll in the 50's or 60's. Even forty or fifty years later, some people continue to smoke. 80.0.98.253 (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first public campaigns against smoking are from the sixties; see e.g. this newspaper clipping. --Lambiam 21:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lung-cancer, of course, comes with the cigarette, but as early as the seventeenth century medical specialists who claimed that tobacco was harmful focused specifically on the increase of cancers of the nose, mouth and throat, perhaps brought on by the pipe-smoking and the consumption of snuff. The first recorded death from a tobacco-related illness is generally given as that of Sir Thomas Harriot, who accompanied Sir Walter Raleigh to Virginia in the mid-1580s, and was one of those to popularise pipe-smoking in England. Harriot died of a cancerous tumor of the nose in 1621. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history of tobacco is quite contentious, in part because in the US it has become part of the legal strategy on the part of the tobacco industries. Robert N. Proctor, an historian of science, has done some interesting work on how historians (and other academics) have long been in the pay of the tobacco lobby as well, and the specific historical strategies used to create the tobacco industry's case in court (here's an article about Proctor's work, in case you can't get access to the above article). All of which to say is that it is a controversial minefield, even within the historical profession, as to what the answers to these sorts of apparently simple questions should be. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources of unknown reliability have alleged that many modern and 'liberal" notions like the anti-smoking crusade originated with Hitler or the Nazis. See [2] , [3]. In the U.S. at that era there were lots of ads showing popular athletes smoking or chewing tobacco, (like Babe Ruth, who died of cancer [4] or with doctors endorsing some brand of cigarette [5]. Edison (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's definitely true that the Nazis were really the first one to push for state action against tobacco. The same historian who worked the most on that is the aforementioned Robert N. Proctor, who, by-the-by, was not making the argument that "Hitler was a leftist" like the second webpage you linked to claims (the author of that particular rant seems to find it unbearable that Proctor doesn't believe that a total lack of regulation of tobacco is a bad idea, even though the Nazis wanted to regulate it, as if one proposition was supported by the other; he also seems to find the fact that the Nazis believed tobacco was harmful to one is somehow good evidence that tobacco is not harmful to one, another wonderfully foolish use of logical faculties). But the question of whether the National Socialists were among the first to call for any sort of systematic "war on cancer" is uncontroversial. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Slave Ships

Do we know what life was like aboard the Atlantic slave ships?217.43.9.137 (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you've looked at Slave ships and the links at the bottom. I seem to remember "Roots (TV miniseries)" had a bit on a ship. --Lisa4edit (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read The Slave Ship: A Human History by Marcus Rediker (John Murray, 2007), as good an account as any. Rediker focuses not only on the experience of the human cargo, dreadful as it was, but also on the crews, whose own lives were nasty, brutish and often short. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RAF

This year is the 90th anniversary of the founding of the Royal Air Force. For a school project I am writing a history. I have all of the main details but I'm looking for stories of some of the early pilots and their experiences. Anything unusual would be a help, anything a little bit out of the ordinary connected with flying. Some people here know so much. Thank you for your time. Billy Newton —Preceding unsigned comment added by B T Newton (talk • contribs) 10:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlucky (but inherent in your question!) that the Royal Air Force wasn't formed until April 1918, as many of the interesting flyers of the First World War, such as Albert Ball, Richard Maybery, Donald Cunnell and Arthur Rhys Davids served only in the Royal Flying Corps or the Royal Naval Air Service. But see James McCudden, Christopher Draper, Edward Mannock, Tom F. Hazell, George McElroy, and Philip F. Fullard. Xn4 10:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget it all started here in a lonely outpost of Empire despite what those upstart Yanks say. Oh, and this young man on his O E helped out during WW2. Mhicaoidh (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, here is a story for you, Billy. Among the first of the few was a man called Grahame Donald. While still a member of the Royal Naval Air Service he attempted a new manoeuvre in his Sopwith Camel, turning a loop. While at the top, and now completely upside down, his safety belt broke and he fell out of the open cockpit at a height of 6000 feet. This was the time before British pilots were issued with parachutes, in the belief that they would 'impair' their fighting spirit. Yes, it's crazy, but it's also true. Anyway, Donald was falling through the air, as he believed, to his death. Interviewed fifty-five years after the event he said "The first 2000 feet passed very quickly and terra firma looked damnably 'firma'" But the Camel continued on its loop. As it reached the bottom Donald landed on its top wing, managing to scramble back into the cockpit from there, going on to make a safe landing. It sounds absolutely unbelievable, I know, but I read about it in today's edition of The Sunday Telegraph, so it must be true! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lovely story, and Se non è vero, è ben trovato. (I've found it online here under the title Those magnificent men of the RAF...) Alas, dating from 1917, it rather makes my point that the adventures of the RFC and the RNAS can't be credited to the RAF. Clearly, the Telegraph's Joshua Levine came up against this problem and decided to rise above it! Xn4 00:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epicurus

I have three questions about Epicurus. Can his philosophy be in any way compared to pragmatism? How were his ideas received in the Christian middle ages? When can it be said that a proper understanding of Epicurean doctrines began to emerge? Jet Eldridge (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Epicurus article and the pragmatism article. Come back here if you have specific questions, and we may be able to help. If this is homework, we can even review your answers fro you, but you must first formulate them. -Arch dude (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a pragmatic quality to the system of Epicurus. In the Principal Doctrines, for example, he defines justice as a system of mutual advantage, something that can be changed in accordance with circumstances. Human conduct, moreover, should be motivated, he argued, not by fear of omnipotent deities, but by correct reasoning over which actions to pursue and which to avoid.

Medieval thinkers, as you my not be surprised to discover, had a generally poor opinion of the Epicurus. John of Salisbury condemned him as a materialist and a sensualist, while Dante in the Inferno consigned him to the sixth circle of hell for denying the immortality of the soul. His reputation began to revive with the Renaissance. Lorenzo Valla was among the first to extol the virtues of Epicureanism, though with an understanding no greater than that of John of Salisbury. Erasmus, focusing on Epicurus' life of quiet simplicity, saw him as a precursor of the Christian ascetics. At the other extreme Michel de Montaigne and Giordano Bruno championed his doctrine of pleasure, together with his revolt against religions that deny the significance of earthly life in favour of some ethereal paradise.

But the real revival does not come until the seventeenth century, in the work of Pierre Gassendi, who published his Eight Books on the Life and Manners of Epicurus in 1647. This enjoyed considerable success in England, influencing the likes of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Walter Charleton, author of Epicurus' Morals, and Sir William Temple, who wrote Upon the Garden of Epicurus, or Of Gardening. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timing of start of working day around the world

How did the customary times for the start of the working day in various countries become formalised? I ask because while in Britain it is customary for white-collar workers to work "nine to five" with a hour off for lunch (although I knew of some office workers who had to do 9 to 6), or for children to do nine or eight-thirty to three or even two-thirty at school or to 4pm at college, when I did the American GMAT test it felt very unusual to have to start it at about 7am (I forget the exact time). I understand Americans often start work at 8am rather than 9am - is this true for office workers? In Britain builders tend to start at 8am and finsh at 4pm - this is probably due to the fact that it is dark by 4pm in Britain in mid-winter, but I suspect it may also be due to reducing the number of hours being pissed after drinking at lunch time. In mediaeval times I imagine that the working day started at dawn, in tropical countries it may still do so because of the 12 hours of night at the equator and the wish to avoid the midday heat. 80.0.98.253 (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your question implies that the standard white-collar working day is seven rather than eight hours in the UK. Is that the case? Or does the lunch hour count as a work hour? /85.194.44.18 (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working hours are much shorter in the UK than in the USA, and in the rest of europe hours are even less. The last time I worked in an office we did 35 hours a week (not including lunchtime) and got six weeks holiday. That was and probably still is average for office workers. On the other hand, I've heard that UK office staff work at a faster pace than those in the US. 80.0.104.81 (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the working hours for most office jobs in the UK are supposed to be 9-5, a large proportion of people seem to work considerably longer, either skipping lunch or putting in unpaid overtime eiher before 9am or after 5pm. According to often mentioned research in the press, British workers work the longest hours in Europe.

In my experience, most other places in Europe tend to start the working day earlier (8am or even 7am) either to make room for a longer lunch break or to leave earlier to pick up children from school. In hotter countries I get the impression that many people shift their working day to the cooler times. As a holiday maker in Egypt for example, many stores seemed to be closed in the morning, but were open until 9pm or 10pm.

Astronaut (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many Americans start work at 8 so they can take an hour lunch and still leave at 5. Others start work at 8:30 or 9 -- it really varies. I'd guess only a minority of workers still do the traditional "9 to 5" day, largely because few employers are willing to pay them for their lunch break. Czechs often start work at 7 or 8 and leave at 4. This probably has a lot to do with the Czech Republic's placement in the far east of its time zone, but one person told me it's because that's the way the miners worked, and the Communists set miners out as heroes of labour. (When they weren't being forced to mine uranium for political offenses.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 8 AM work starting time is actually generally confied to the East and West Coasts of the United States. People who live in the Central Time Zone tend to start work at 7 AM. I don't know about those in the Mountain Time Zone. Corvus cornix_talk 20:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "Colloquial Croatian", Celia Hawkesworth, Routledge, 2006: Traditionally, in most Balkan countries the working day starts very early: at 7 or 8 am. This means that people finish work at 2 or 3 pm. ... Nowadays, however, Croatian working hours are becoming more and more similar to Western European ones. Spanish working hours : Many companies in the south of Spain now work a normal 10am to 6pm day, particularly on the Costa del Sol. The majority of Spanish businesses will still work from 10 am till 2 pm then 4 pm till 7 pm. However Spain and Croatia use the same (Central European) time, so the strange (early or late) working days work out rather similar to a 9-5 pattern when the local time by the sun is taken into consideration. SaundersW (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starting times vary considerably not only regionally, but from workplace to workplace in the United States. For example, Corvus cornix states that people in the Central Time Zone tend to start work at 7 a.m., but when I lived in Chicago, most white-collar workers started work between 8 and 9, just as they do on the east and west coasts. What I have found, living in different parts of the United States, is that blue-collar workers tend to start work earlier than white-collar workers. Construction workers, for example, often start at 7:00 or 7:30 anywhere in the United States, probably to take maximum advantage of daylight. A lot of service workers start work early so that they can serve white-collar workers on their way to work. I have noticed that many white-collar workers in Boston start work at 8:00 or 8:30, whereas in New York City, most start at 9:00. I am speculating here, but I think that businesses may begin their day later in New York because workers face longer commutes there. Marco polo (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry this is not completely relevant) I once heard that the Germans have the earliest rush hour...sorry, I just found it rather interesting and couldnt resist posting it here! = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(To the OP) You're confusing two different groups: blue collar & white collar workers. Blue collar workers, traditionally, worked long days, almost every day of the week (depending on how religious their employer was, Sunday could be just another day of work) -- think about the hours & conditions illegal immigrants labor under in your country -- until unions & class solidarity won them better conditions. On the other hand, white collar workers -- who made their living from their brains or personal contacts -- were usually treated better. The point of unionization was to enable the blue collar workers to enjoy white collar working conditions. Of course, many white collar workers work long hours, but this is simply proof of the old truism that the self-employed have the most demanding boss.

However, none of this applies to Asian countries -- their thinking about work is far different than Euro-American conceptions. -- llywrch (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction novels with the word "Maze" in the title

I've just finished reading The Man In The Maze by Robert Silverberg. I'm now reading Lady Of Mazes by Karl Schroeder. What other science fiction novels have the word 'maze' in the title please? Or for that matter, non-SF novels? 80.0.98.253 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may have to eliminate a couple of these, but it should give you a reading list for a while [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa4edit (talk • contribs) 13:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Maze of Death, classic SF novel by Philip K. Dick. Excellent reading. Rhinoracer (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can it include books with the word 'amaze' in the title?HS7 (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it qualifies perfectly as "science fiction" but I recall reading a young adult novel called The Maze in the Heart of the Castle by Dorothy Gilman, and I think it might go along the lines of what you're seeking. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pot Bouille

to what degree does zola expose the hypocrisy of middle class society using the apartment block in the rue de choiseul as a metaphor?81.129.86.45 (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, 81.129, the only answer is for me to recite Pot-Bouille verbatim! Zola's book is a sustained, and biting, criticism of forms of bourgeois hypocrisy. The apartment on the Rue de Choiseul is a pleasant façade, covering a rotten core, where "The servants, in their hatred, had no sympathy for the masters. This was what it had come to-fornication beneath a downpour of rotten vegetables and putrid meat." You will discover all of this yourself...if you can be troubled to read the book! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander I and universities

Tsar Alexander I instituted major changes in Russian higher education. But how did his later reactionary policy effect this sector? Yermelov (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badly, in the main, especially at the University of Kazan, where the new emphasis on religious orthodoxy hit hard. The policy of obscurantism was most closely associated with Michael Magnitsky, who called for a battle against 'godless rationalism', turning Kazan into a kind of monastic barracks. The library was purged of all of the pernicious influences of the Age of Reason; the university was flooded with Bibles; and the students made to attend compulsory religious services. The measure of Magnitsky's reactionary mind can be taken from the fact that he accused the Grand Duke Nicholas, Tsar Alexander's eventual successor, of being a free thinker! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

archaeology

I think I remember some archaeological work, I think it was in Iraq, or somewhere around there, where they found a thin layer of deposited sediment, which they claimed was deposited during the mythical flood. There were also various ancient artifacts, probably mostly pottery, that were noticeably better made and more technologically advanced below the layer of sediment. Did they really find this, or am I imagining it? And is it realy evidence of a huge flood around there a while ago? And, can anyone point me to a website about it? I read the article on supposed evidence of mythical floods, and didn't see anything like it there, but I might have missed it.HS7 (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Flood geology? Some of the references and further reading might point you in the right direction. This area of geology is, however, highly dubious because it does not use the same scientific principles of other geological disciplines. Perhaps you were thinking of the Black Sea deluge theory? Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did read that article, but not the links, which I will now go and do. I am quite sure it wasn't the Black sea flood, as the area excavated is now dry land rather than still under the sea.HS7 (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question regarding EU and provinces

First off,sorry for my bad english.

Of course,Kosovo is part of Serbia by international law and it will always stay part of Serbia.

But,as 30 or so countries recognized,if we imagine that one day Russia and Serbia recognize it and it becomes UN member(which will,of course,never happen).

My question is this: EU has demands that Serbia give more autonomy to the province of Vojvodina before joining EU,but some of EU countries recognize Kosovo. If Kosovo becomes independent,how can a country have only 1 province? I mean,without Kosovo,80 precent of Serbian population lives in central Serbia...Right now,Serbia is composed of central Serbia,and 2 provinces: Kosovo and Vojvodina....If Kosovo becomes independent,how can Vojvodina remain a province? Isnt it unfair to the 80 precent of people who dont live in Vojvodina? How can this province have bigger powers then the rest of the country?

So the main question that I wanted to ask,and I cant find the answer on the internet: Is there any country in the world that has only 1 province? And wouldnt it be unfair to the rest of the country that this province has its own parlament and autonomy+plus everything else that central Serbia has? Wouldnt,in the unlikely case of Kosovo legal independence,Vojvodina cease to exist?

Thanks for the answer

89.216.101.61 (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If by "province" you mean an autonomous area, then yes, there are several countries each of which has only one autonomous area. This is not something that is highly unusual. See List of autonomous areas by country to find some examples. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finland and Åland is one example. Jørgen (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a case of one province, but the West Lothian Question also deals with the problems of what happens to the "remainder" of a state when power is devoluted to regions/provinces/countries with various levels of autonomy. /Kriko (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a question, Kriko, that is beginning to demand an immediate answer, especially as we poor English are getting restive under the control of the Scottish Sopranos, in the shape of Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Kosovo is part of Serbia by international law and it will always stay part of Serbia", but your only basis for clinging onto that rash notion lies in the United Nations Charter principle of territorial integrity. Kosovo is a classic instance of the need for that principle to have some flexibility. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1674 of 28 April 2006 reaffirmed paragraphs 138 and 139 of the World Summit Outcome Document, 2005, on the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Frankly, one of the lessons of history is that no territorial possession can be considered to be a possession for ever, and especially not when its population has such strong reasons for rejecting the supposed mother country. We can add that one of the lessons of the second half of the twentieth century is that no one should put any faith in the UN or in its Charter. In the wise words of Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein, "The attempt to freeze human evolution has in the past been a futile undertaking and has probably brought about more violence than if such a process had been controlled peacefully. Restrictions on self-determination threaten not only democracy itself but the state which seeks its legitimation in democracy." Xn4 23:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, 89.216, I recognise a cri de coeur when I see it, but the one thing you should understand about history is that one should never say never! Things change. On the assumption that you are youreslf a Serb I would ask you to look at the fluctutations of your country over time, particularly the fluctuations of its borders, which have come in and out like a tide. If one thing was almost certain to destroy Greater Serbia it was narrow Serb nationalism. But never mind. The Balkanization that you have seen in Yugoslavia (how apt that word is for once) is proceeding right across Europe. Soon the provincial will be the only meaningful basis for identity! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jorgen and Kriko,your answers are very helpfull.

For other two answers,I really dont want to get into the disscusion on that topic.You say:"things change",but it reads "DOUBLE STANDARDS"....When Republika Srpska gets the right for independence,when Krajna,where 300.000. Serbs got ethnicaly clensed get independence,when north part of Montenegro gets independence,when Abhazia,Chechenia,Tibet and all the other regions that want it get the independence,then Kosovo will also be allowed to become a real state...Until then,they are never going to become member of UN(Security Council-China and Russia will block it),EU(Spian,Greece,Slovakia,Cyprus and Romania will block it),MMF(Serbia will block it) and so on...

Kosovo is heart of Serbia for 1000 years,Serbian Jerusalem...It was under the Turks for 500 years though,but it became Serbia again...Jerusalem was not Jewish for 2000 years,but it became Jewish once again...There is justice in this world,even if it takes centuries...

"Restrictions on self-determination threaten not only democracy itself but the state which seeks its legitimation in democracy."

Kosovo can only get legal recognition when Serb Republic in Bosnia and other regions around the world get the self-determination right for them selves...Untill then,Kosovo will remain integral part of Serbia...Otherwise,its double standards...BECAUSE ALL CROATIA AND BOSNIA WARS WERE BECAUSE WEST DID NOT ALLOW SERBS THE RIGHT ON SELF-DETERMINATION....So,now how can you expect us to allow someone else what wasnt not granted to us? Thats why Kosovo will never become independent

Anyway,thanks for your help everyone 89.216.101.61 (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I have said, a cri de coeur. I would suggest that you stand back a little, but how can you? I understand just how important certain events are in your national martyrology. My very best wishes. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, the "Serbian Jerusalem" argument sets an awful lot of hares running. We can pause for a moment and look at the fate of Jerusalem. Xn4 11:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the double standards in international politcs, 89.216.101.61. But I'm afraid there's little the Wikipedia Reference Desk can do about it. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help. Do you now think that it's OK if Vojvodina retains some autonomy? Jørgen (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paris, 1968

I'm old enough (just!) to remember the riots of 1968 in Paris. It seemed almost as if there was about to be a full scale revolution, perhaps a little like that of 1848. Is this an accurate impression, or was the whole thing somewhat tamer?ZZT9 (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too young to remember this, but I know it wasn't just Paris. In 1968, there was wave of unrest that swept through the First, Second and Third worlds. Alas, for now, we don't seem to have a good article that would sum up the events in France, the US, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Mexico, Brazil and elsewhere. We only have something between a start-class article and a messy list at Protests of 1968. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the 1968 article. I remember the situation in the United States that year. The 1968 Democratic National Convention, two assassinations, and sundry other nastiness. -Arch dude (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, 1968-the Revolution of the Poster! As far as a possible comparison with 1848 is concerned, ZZT9, the words of Charles Baudelaire come to mind-"The Revolution was charming only because of the very excess of its ridiculousness." Never mind, though; the Poster lives! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's far too glib.

For the French, 1968 was a watershed year i n many more ways than elsewhere, because cultural change that elsewhere took much of the 1960s and 1970s to be implemented happened there - at least in national memory - in the course of a few months. For an interesting take on this, the very good John Lichfield in the Independent.

That's in France: Germany and the US had their own problems. It is useful to remember that the English had it easy that year. It is difficult to appreciate the stresses that the civil rights movement was putting on American society, not to mention young Germany's confrontation of older Germany's Nazi past. --Relata refero (disp.) 01:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more quote, then, of genuine ’68 vintage, this time from Jean-Jacques Lebel, an antique guru of the left, speaking at the Sorbonne;

We are for the total destruction of categories. We want everyone to use the university for whatever they want. Not only for education, but to eat, sleep, fuck and get high...We want to demolish the structure of the consumer society-and that includes culture.

How could this be bettered? For the Revolution of the Poster must, indeed, be accompanied by perfect forms of egoism, the very Ideology of the Poster! Perhaps another revolutionary was present in spirit?! Ha-ha! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Clio, if you knew what French culture of the 1950s was like you would have cheered Lebel as he said that. The stodginess of the French mainstream, especially as compared to Italy, was a large part of the reason for that contempt for the dominant culture - one shared, as it happens, with the filmmakers of the nouvelle vague. The link between that lot and the students on the streets was nicely summed up by an Italian who happened to be in France at the time and made a film about it thirty-five years later.

And the "university" comment is actually quite on-point: the riots started as a demand for co-ed housing... --Relata refero (disp.) 06:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I confess I have no direct experience of French culture of the day, but the whole event, the personalities it attracted, and the causes it embraced, just seems so terribly ephemeral, an example on the role of silliness in history; or Revolution not as the carnival of the people, but just a carnival! Some Revolutions might indeed be said to be tragic; others verge on farce! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trust you, Clio, to dismiss the events of May '68 with reference to ephemerality and silliness. I, on the other hand, dearly wish I had been there, that I might have felt part of a rare period of history that was bold enough to question and ultimately reject the repressive traditions that you hold so dear. Never mind Cohn-Bendit, the true philosopher of 1968 was Guy Debord, whose searing analysis of the Society of the Spectacle has never been bettered as a diagnosis of the terminal sickness of both western and east European societies. Debord wanted to "wake up the spectator who has been drugged by spectacular images"; a call to arms that is as relevant as it is radical. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 00:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, how right you are, sweetie; I simply love oppressive traditions! After all, what more could a girl ask for?! Boring old Debord and reification? I'd much rather be drugged by the spectacular! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 00:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

people who became famous later in life (ie after 50)

I'm looking for a recognizable list of people who got famous as senior citizens. I already have Grandma Moses, Colonel Sanders, Luara Ingalls Wilder. Need this for a motivational presentation to a group of unemployed seniors on Wed May 7. Can you help??? 66.45.202.194 (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Karen Wright[reply]

Immanuel Kant, among the world's greatest thinkers, did not achieve widespread recognition until the publication of the second edition of his Critique of Pure Reason, by which time he was in his sixties! A more down-to-earth example is Francis Chichester, the first person to sail single-handed round the world while he was in his mid-sixties. For this achievement he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth, using the same sword with which Sir Francis Drake was knighted by Elizabeth I all those centuries before. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Freeman Tomgreeny (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Fitzgerald wrote her novels in her sixties. Addere (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalie Gascoigne Her first serious exhibition was when she was 57; it was an instant success, and four years later in her 60s she had become a major figure in the Australian art world. Mhicaoidh (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about Granny D, who became famous at 88-90 by walking across America to promote campaign-finance reform (and collected keys to 13 cities along the way)? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might not be good for a motivational speech to seniors, but Emily Dickinson wasn't famous until after she died. I wouldn't tell them this. Paragon12321 (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about James Tiptree, Jr (Alice Bradley Sheldon)? Hugely respected within her field for her insight and originality, she embarked on her writing career at the age of 52, and her success lasted until her death at 71, in which year she was still winning awards for her work. -- Ka renjc 07:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's another question about him above, odd that no one mentioned Miguel de Cervantes, who had little success until Don Quixote in 1605 at age 58.John Z (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although she had published books for children in her 50s, Mary Wesley became a best-selling author for adults in her 70s, and published her last book in the year before she died at 90. SaundersW (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Fritzl became internationally known at age 73. Maybe the wrong motivations to promote. Edison (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also might want to look at the page late bloomer. WikiJedits (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Marie Mikalsen Jørgen (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly - at least to me and the beneficiaries of the charities I intend to leave my money to upon death - what about people who became multi-millionaires after 50, when previously they did not have much wealth?

Side note - one hundred years ago when age expectations were largely set, people rarely lived beyond fifty or sixty. Now with a healthy lifestyle people may live on average to above eighty or ninety. So being fifty now is like being 10 or 20 years old 100 years ago. Am I wrong? 80.0.98.216 (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partly. A significant part of the lower life expectancies back then is infant mortality. Once you grew to a certain age, your chance of being sixty, while of course lower than today, was far from zero. (Of course the original poster doesn't have to mention that in his/her motivational speech...) Jørgen (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at US Presidents. One might argue that some of them were already famous before they became president, but it is a peak for most. Lisa4edit (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grandma Moses. Corvus cornix_talk 21:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Masters (had seven children (in order): rugby league coach and journalist Roy Masters, radio broadcaster Ian Masters, film maker Quentin Masters, investigative journalist Chris Masters, media producers Sue Masters and Deb Masters, and Michael) but her own career only started when she was about 58 or 59; and Aboriginal artist Emily Kame Kngwarreye started at 80 and became a major world artist. Not that being the top gun is the main thing, but if they didn't express themselves, who would they be? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help thinking of Jeanne Calment, the oldest human ever (122 years) - although she really only became famous because of her record-breaking age rather than any active achievement. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]