Humanities desk
< December 6	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 8 >

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

December 7

What happened to the Hitler Diaries?

I'm interested in the eventual location of the diaries themselves, the ones forged by Konrad Kujau that were bought by Stern magazine in 1983 for about ten million Deutschmarks. Where did the forgeries wind up in the end?

Any information is helpful. Thanks in advance.

pmooney78 01:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmooney78 (talk • contribs)

The article on Hitler Diaries indicates that the German magazine Stern was the original purchaser of the actual diaries. It does not say what they did with them after they discovered them to be a hoax. There was a 1986 book account (cited in the Hitler Diaries article]] which may contain some initial clues, but then again, a lot may have happened in 23 years. Even really important documents go missing for a long time (the original rules of Basketball as written by James Naismith, sat mouldering in a desk drawer for the better part of a century, for example) So it could be that the original documents are in a warehouse somewhere long forgotten. Or maybe not... --Jayron32 02:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Jeschke, Greve & Hauff" "hitler diaries".—eric 04:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I've checked the relevant Wikipedia articles, done a google search, etc. and read the relevant English-language books available ... was hoping that someone would point me toward something I hadn't seen. Probably should have mentioned that in the original post, though. I appreciate your input. pmooney78 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmooney78 (talk • contribs)

Shakespeare's non-masterpieces according to Bloom

In the article on Harold Bloom, it says that he's stated that twenty-four of William Shakespeare's plays are masterpieces. Has he ever indicated which plays he feels are not masterpieces, and if so, which were they and what were his justifications for not including them in this category?--99.251.239.89 (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Bloom, but to get an idea of popularity go to the any major Shakespeare festival or company (e.g. Royal Shakespeare Company or Stratford Festival of Canada). Look back at past programmes and you'll find that the same plays get performed again and again, whereas others hardly ever are. Henry VIII and King John are examples of the latter. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is purely speculation (having not tread the book) but I was bored.

I'm fairly confident on at least 22 of these. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article may be misquoting Bloom, i think the correct quote should be: "Shakespeare has some two dozen masterpieces among his thirty-nine plays..." rather than ""twenty-four of which are masterpieces."—eric 20:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that Coriolanus isn't on the list. It's a good drama, however rarely it's played. I read it in tenth grade; it was a favorite of a teacher I disliked at the time, but who sneakily taught me more about writing than any dozen others. PhGustaf (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) With respect, Amory, that was a total waste of time. How can you have any confidence at all without reading whatever Bloom wrote? The OP wants to know specifically about Harold Bloom's division of the plays into masterpieces and others, and not the general view. Without reading Bloom, we cannot know whether his division was mainstream or quite peculiar. And please let's not now have a general discussion of the best and worst in Shakespeare. (pace PhGustaf). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed it was anything else, specifically noting it was out of boredom. That being said, I can show that Bloom thinks The Tempest and The Winter's Tale are masterpieces and that Cymbeline is not. Moreover, I'd say a fair portion are undeniably masterpieces (Hamlet, Lear, etc.) and since the author has noted a (perhaps vague) target number, a simple process of elimination can give a rough idea. I did not mean for it to be definitive, but it is better than nothing (a random selection). Although perhaps 20 would have been better than 22. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're still talking about what you think are masterpieces, or what are generally considered masterpieces. That is not what the question is about. It's about what Harold Bloom considers to be masterpieces. Guesses for this type of question are as good as useless, because for any particular play apart from the 2 you've identified, there's no way of knowing whether Bloom would classify it as a masterpiece or not. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is often how the Ref Desk works. The questioner asked about Bloom's writings. The first response was "I don't know about Bloom, but...." Here at the Ref Desk, you'll always get an answer, though not necessarily to the question you asked. But we mean well. —Kevin Myers 04:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As PhGustaf noted, Bloom's statement was a vaguish "some two dozen" rather than an "exactly 24". I don't recall that he made an actual list; one can infer from his presentation that certain plays are included, but there is, I think, no way to make an exact list. For example, he says "As You Like It" Is "not the least" of the masterpieces. - Nunh-huh 20:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the original Bloom quote was correct: Bloom has stated more than once that twenty-four of Shakespeare's plays are masterpieces (see for example The Western Canon, p. 37), although perhaps he has been more vague on other occassions. Presumably he has made a list, though perhaps it has not been published in list form. If not, one would likely be able to create a fair approximation of Bloom's list after a couple hours at a good library going through his writings, if one were so inclined. Richard III is not one of Bloom's masterpieces; the villain is too cartoonish for Bloom, who says that the Bard had not yet risen above the level of Marlowe. According to Bloom, Shakespeare's first great play was Love's Labour's Lost; he therefore excludes Titus Andronicus, The Taming of the Shrew and The Comedy of Errors, among other early works, from the list of masterpieces. See his Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human for more. —Kevin Myers 04:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has to say, "Little note nor long remember", and let this bit die. PhGustaf (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Kevin gave a good answer based on Bloom's own views in Bloom's published work. Based on this example, other people might bring similar evidence from Bloom's work to identify or rule out other plays. 86.166.148.95 (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prayer

Does the phrase, "Pray as if you were dying," register with anyone as ever having been used in any definite context? Thanks --71.111.194.50 (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like part of the "Dance like no one is watching, sing like no one is listening, love like you've never been hurt, etc. etc." aphorism which has been misattributed to about 100 different people, from Satchel Paige to Mark Twain to about every witty commentator of the past 250 years. this cite attributes a similar quote "Pray as if you were to die tomorrow" to Benjamin Franklin, but again, about 99% of the things attributed to Franklin on the web, he never actually said. --Jayron32 06:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99%, eh? That's even worse than Yogi Berra, who merely said, "I never said half the things I said." In this case, Yogi might say, "Pray as if you were talking to God." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism encourages its adherents to repent just before you die, which leads inevitably (if you think about it) to the need for an ongoing process. Hence, many traditions of Jewish prayerbooks include Viduy at the end of morning prayers. --Dweller (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. In this case, I heard it from am imam, in the U.S., in English (unless I misunderstood what he was saying, which I feel was probably not the case). I was trying to see if anyone knew if that was identifiable to Islam or any other religious tradition or other context. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't sound particularly Islamic, since Muslims are supposed to pray at least 5 times a day anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but what I think he was implying -- but was I trying to see if anyone here had a deeper source of knowledge in the area -- was that he was exhorting the members of the prayer congregation to approach their prayer on that particular day and and that particular moment with the same fervor and seriousness as if they were in danger of meeting imminent death. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a common exhortation among all religions where prayer is important; even if it isn't used in the same words, the sentiment is present in Christianity as well, see Matthew 24:36-44 which certainly exhorts people to act as though it were your last day on earth. --Jayron32 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US Supreme Court case temporal overlap

Sorry for the subject line, couldn't think of a better way to concisely get my idea across... On average, how many cases are open before the Supreme Court at one time? I know that oral arguments do not lead immediately to a ruling. My personal feeling is that handling multiple cases at once would diminish the quality of the work. Lower branches of the Judiciary take it one at a time, don't they? Is this practice at all controversial, or is it just the way it is? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There will be multiple cases going on at all levels. A given judge will probably only have one trial going on at a time, but they will have other cases are various stages of the judicial process (some of which do include hearings in court). The Supreme Court is similar - they'll probably only be hearing oral arguments in one case at a time, but there will be cases are various other stages at the same time (initial application, written arguments, writing up a final ruling, etc.). --Tango (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I was in Washington, I picked up a brochure about attending the Supreme Court as a spectator. They basically have an annual cycle -- they have a series of sessions starting in October when they hear oral arguments, then the following spring they have a series of sessions when they release their rulings. So with the exception of matters requiring a specially expedited schedule, all of their cases are going on in parallel. --Anonymous, 21:20 UTC, December 7, 2009.

Copenhagen climate change conference

COP15 starts today. It seems there are more coverage of this COP when compared to the previous ones. Is this true? Why? Also, it is reported that the COP15 area at the Bella Center ceases to be on sovereign Danish territory and is officially United Nations territory. What is the significance of this move? F (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one is much bigger than previous ones and has lots of national leaders attending rather than just ministers and civil servants. I don't know what it means for it to be UN territory and I'm sceptical that it is true. The UN may be in charge of security, etc., but there is no such thing as UN jurisdiction - any crimes committed would have to be tried under Danish law (although lots of attendees will have diplomatic immunity), since there is no UN law and no UN courts. The only significance I know of this being a UN event rather than a Danish event is that people banned from travelling to Europe (Robert Mugabe, for example) are allowed to attend UN events, even if they are geographically within Europe. --Tango (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original reason why it received so much attention is AFAIK because as mentioned in our article that 'The overall goal for the COP 15/MOP 5 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Denmark was to establish an ambitious global climate agreement for the period from 2012 when the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol expires'. As our article also mentions, but not very well, this was effectively abandonded at the APEC summit when several key players including the US & China annouced they no longer thought of it as an achievable goal. However interested remained strong and once many world leaders started to annouce they would attend (some had said they may not attend after its importance was downgraded) picked up again. Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol identification?

I just moved a bunch of images to Commons, and one of them was a photo of an unknown symbol in Pittsburgh's Hill District. The uploader was unsure of its meaning and speculated that it was a Jewish symbol, possibly some for of the Star of David. I'm not convinced. Is anyone here familiar with this symbol?--Blargh29 (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of building is this on? What sort of neighborhood is it in? Having a social context may help. --Jayron32 16:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is purely intuition I'm going off of here, but my guess is that it's mere decoration; the horizontal lines aline with the rows of bricks and perhaps the architect or builder or owner just wanted something a little aesthetically pleasing and added the extra elements to create a star-like pattern. . . Seems kind of late 19th century American in appearance. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's suggestive of, but not sufficiently accurate to actually be, the outline of the Sephiroth diagram from the Kabbalah: I imagine this is pure coincidence, but it might explain the suspicion of a Jewish connection. It might well be a Masonic symbol, in which case we probably need the input of someone with specialist knowledge in that area. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this is a photo of a building in the Hill District of Pittsburgh. The user who took the photo seemed to have a preoccupation with documenting the Jewish influences in the Hill District. See Talk:Jews Hill (Pittsburgh) and the now redirected Jews Hill (Pittsburgh) article. In that article, this image (and other less ambiguous pictures) were offered as proof of that influence. See commons:Category:Files by User:HeyYallYo from en.wikipedia for a category of related pictures from this user that I moved to Commons. --Blargh29 (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are my rights? What would most likely happen?

I know someone who has illegal precription drugs and illegal drugs in the glove compartment in his car. I saw him last week trying to sell some of it to some college kids. If I call the police, will they have to know my name? And If I call anyway, would they even bother to search his car? --JBikeride (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we can't give legal advice. However, I will note a number of police tip lines do allow you to remain anonymous. If that's the case where you are, we can't say. -- 128.104.112.95 (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the above, they can't really force you to give a name. You can just call (from a pay phone, even) and tell them the info. Whether they will take it seriously is a different issue, but if they have a strong reason to suspect the tip is actionable, they would get a warrant. You may be interested in Illinois v. Gates. Also, I do not consider this legal advice. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how is this a request for legal advice? . If you are concerned that criminal activity is occuring you can contact the police. As noted, many will allow you to make anonymous tip-offs, but I really don't see why you'd necessarily want to be anonymous - the police are not going to say "we want to search your car because Jim Jimmini said you've got drugs in your car." They can just use you as witness if things go further or potentially come back to you for more information if necessary. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the competency of the police in question and the potential danger posed by appearing to be a witness against criminal activity, there can be good reasons to want to tip anonymously. See e.g. the examples of violent recrimination discussed in the Stop Snitchin'. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can call the police station (from a pay phone, if you are feeling paranoid), and say, "I'd like to submit a tip anonymously—is that possible?" They'll tell you what the local policy is on that. As for whether they would search his car... the relevant legal question is whether anonymous tips can constitute probable cause. This is a legally contentious issue; my understanding is that on the whole they are considered insufficient (in part because it could just be one police officer telling another, which would pretty much get rid of the concept of probable cause) by themselves. They'd probably have to put the suspect under some kind of surveillance and look for illegal activity independently. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You probably have a Crimestoppers system. In Canada, at least, people are urged to give anonymous tips. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in Britain, many Crimestoppers calls can generate cash rewards for the caller if the information is good - and you still don't have to give your name even to get that. Been described as just about the only legitimate circumstances in which you can walk into a bank, and pick up an unmarked brown envelope with cash in it --Saalstin (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would you get that money without identifying yourself? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You never have to identify yourself or testify in court. If the tip leads to an arrest, you may earn a cash reward of up to $2,000. People providing information get a secret code number. Calls are not recorded and no one involved with Crime Stoppers knows the identity of the callers. Crime Stoppers doesn’t have call display." (According to [http://www.222tips.com/aboutus.php the Toronto Crime Stoppers site.) Adam Bishop (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beware though, that if you do identify yourself to police you may be forced to testify under a subpoena 203.217.43.224 (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Graf Lambsdorff

Could somebody please explain what the "related to Tsarist Russia" claim on Otto Graf Lambsdorff means? I put a {{template:huh}} tag on it, which got instantly deleted and I was warned for vandalism. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the German obituaries, "connected" seems to be a better word. I can't see an indication of kinship. --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the Welt obituary is that a member of the family served as foreign minister to the Tsar. That seems to be a reference to Vladimir Lambsdorff, who wasn't alive in Tsarist Russia (which we say ended in 1721) but served in the Russian Empire under Emperor Nicholas II of Russia (making him the Tsar referred to in the obituary).

Since the de:Lambsdorff line has been around for centuries, it's possible they were connected to pre-1721 Tsarist Russia, but the obituary doesn't say that. I think perhaps "connected to Tsarist and Imperial Russia" might be better, but the Tsarist bit still isn't supported by this source. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decimus Junius Silanus (Consul 62 BC)

Is there any record as to when Silanus died?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is "magisterial Protestantism"?

And why is it called "magisterial"? Google is only mildly helpful, and there's no article on it in WP. --Atemperman (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it sought to stay in a working relationsip with the government (magistrates). See magisterial Reformation, radical reformation and Christianity in the 16th century. Rmhermen (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Atemperman (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dark side of the magisterial Reformation was "Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God guiding people

How does God guide people according to Christian tradition?Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.228.34 (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this depends totally on which religious teaching you subscribe to, but you might start with our Prophet article. I added a section header (or question title) for your question — next time please click the "new section" tab at the top of this page to ask your next question, and the section header will be created automatically.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, check out Holy Spirit. Not sure about Catholicism, but Protestants believe that God, being omnipresent, indwells believers who have received salvation through Jesus Christ and His death for their sins and resurrectrion. The Spirit thus guides people in numerous ways, which are consistent with the attributes of God. (In other words, God wouldn't direct a person to go against Hi Word.) The person still has free choice, however, they can choose to ignore the indwelling Spirit, but they can lose blessings, rewards, and opportunities.209.244.187.155 (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

How is one guided by truth?Pollinosisss (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking that as a real question, and not trying to sound deep and significant with a God=Truth metaphor, our Truth article will be of interest (e.g. "what is it?"). Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to sound deep or significant; I was trying to help the original poster. Asking how one is guided by truth could lead to a better understanding of divine guidance. Pollinosisss (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster may also wish to see discernment.--Dpr 71.111.194.50 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the humanitarian imperative

the core belief of humanitarianism is said to be assistance on the basis of need and it seems that this is considered to be some sort of objective moral principle. is it possible for humanitarian aid to in fact be determined by such principles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.240.93 (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a homework question?--71.111.194.50 (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure some would claim that human rights are the objective principles that should guide humanitarian aid. Pollinosisss (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we don't do your homework for you. But I recommend you start by looking up the terms Humanitarianism, Humanitarian Aid and Objective Morality. Prokhorovka (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like somebody's extrapolation of Kant's Categorical Imperative... AnonMoos (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Koch

Ed Koch (mayor of New York from 1978-1989) made a statement to the effect of "If you cannot afford to live in New York City, then MOVE OUT!" Does anyone have a CITATION for this? Or at least the context in which it was spoken? Anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.184.50 (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some possible leads: here, here and here --Dpr 71.111.194.50 (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I remember that statement in a different context. Koch, defensive about the charge of NY's being unaffordable, pointed out that Brooklyn and Queens had plenty og affordable housing. I think he meant "move out of Manhattan". Rhinoracer (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be consistent with a practice among residents of NYC's other boroughs (e.g. the aforementioned Brooklyn and Queens)referring to or calling Manhattan "New York." -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before 1874, when part of the Bronx was annexed, New York really was just Manhattan and a couple of much smaller islands. The Five Boroughs were consolidated in 1898. (See the City of Greater New York and History of New York City.) Until the New York State Legislature established Bronx County in April 1912, New York County included the Bronx as well as Manhattan, but since the operational launch of Bronx County 95 years ago, in January 1914, New York County's turf has been identical to that of the Borough of Manhattan. (Robert M. Morgenthau is just retiring as District Attorney of New York County, in succession to Frank Hogan and Thomas Dewey. In the television series Law & Order, Steven Hill, Sam Waterston and Fred Thompson have portrayed the D.A. of New York County. See List of Law & Order characters#District Attorneys for an ironic note about TV vs real-life longevity.) —— Shakescene (talk) 07:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]