Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 May 30

Humanities desk
< May 29	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 31 >

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 30

Myrna Colley-Lee

Myma Colley lee is Morgan Freeman's second wife marry in 1984. Then what year would Myma Colley-Lee be born. She looks like she would be born in 1960s between 20 and 30 years younger than morgan while she looks much younger.--69.229.240.187 (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This says 1941. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Earth's Other Satellite

Apparently (according to QI), the Earth has another 'moon', which orbits the Earth every 770 years. Unfortunately, I can't catch the name of it. 'Cruithni' or something, it sounds like. Does anyone know the correct spelling so I can look it up? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

3753 Cruithne. It's not really a moon, it orbits the Sun, just in an odd way because of how it interacts with the Earth. That article explains the details. --Tango (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Someone's been watching Dave. Bah, someone beat me to it. Even though I have The Book of General Ignorance to hand. Vimescarrot (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A later episode of QI claims there are now five moons. The book claims at least seven: 2000 PH₅, 2000 WN₁₀, 2002 AA₂₉, 2003 YN₁₀₇, 2004 GU₉ are the others. Vimescarrot (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, folks! Very enlightening links. I always trust everything said on QI, especially when Alan Davies speaks! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Any other famous latin phrases like "carpe diem"?

I'm looking for famous Latin sayings or quotes like "carpe diem." A plus if it's from a poem, but it's not necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Latin sayings will give you plenty of examples to be getting on with. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

For a couple of famous examples taken from Latin poetry: "Odi et amo" from Catullus, "Nil desperandum" and "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" from the Odes by Horace, "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" from Juvenal, or "Omnia vincit amor; et nos cedamus amori" from Virgil's Eclogues. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've always been a fan of In vino veritas, especially the in vino part 83.250.236.75 (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've always been fond of Nil carborundum and Sic biscuit disintegratus. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There is "res ipsa loquitur," but the thing speaks for itself. Also De gustibus non est disputandum which involves Sputum and a fellow named Gus. Occam's razor says "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem."Edison (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There's lots of good stuff from Latin poems. "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes", etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And also, the apparent (at least for Americans) E pluribus unum. bibliomaniac15 04:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Also Francis Bacon's Scientia potentia est. bibliomaniac15 04:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Dulce et decorum est / Pro patria mori. Tempshill (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Or if you ever work in a marketing/design type job you'll constantly see Lorem ipsum which is oft used Placeholder text. ny156uk (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Caveat emptor or Cogito ergo sum or quid pro quo are classics as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe et cetera (etc.) is also Latin, though I am not certain. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as well as etc, i.e., ibid. Americans during the "War on Terror" have survived eight years of Inter arma enim silent leges.--Wetman (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Canada GM Car Clearance

I heard that General Motors is getting rid of their new cars and selling them at very very low prices. Is this true? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Find out all GM Canada offers for your area here. Google hits for "Canada Wide Clearance" bring up several past events. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Section 3 of the 25th Amendment under VP absence

I've seen this happen on both The West Wing and Commander in Chief and it bothers me. If there is no Vice President (nominated nor appointed), can the President still invoke section 3 of the 25th Amendment and have power defer to whoever's next in the succession line?

Second question, assuming this is the Speaker of the House, are they required to resign as Speaker and serve as Acting President or can they refuse (not resigning and thereby "failing to qualify" for the position) and have the President pro tem do it (who can in turn refuse, etc.)? Would their resignations "stick" after the President becomes capable again and they're removed as Acting Presidents? 82.95.254.249 (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The deal with ANY questions of presidential succession, is there is no legal precedence and thus no way to accurately predict how the law will play out. Sure, there is what is written on the paper; but the devil is in the details here, and the details aren't always clear. Even the current idea that the Vice President actually becomes the new President upon the death of the old President is not entirely clear from the original consitution, the text could easily be read to indicate that the VP becomes "Acting President" or "Interim President" or simply does some of the work of the office, while still remaining the Vice President. There was something of a constitutional crisis when the first sitting president to die, William Henry Harrison , died in office. When Vice President John Tyler took the office, it was only through sheer force of his own personality that he insisted on being the full President, with no qualifications, and had to fight tooth-and-nail for the idea. It was not easily accepted at the time that the VP would just become the new President, as it is today. Since no more complex succession issues have ever come up, then it is unclear what would happen if the succession law actually had to be invoked; if for example both the President and the Vice President were killed at the same time, or if one or the other or both was incapacitated and a temporary solution needed to be worked out. Likely, there would be some sort of constitutional crisis again as the courts tried to figure out exactly how it should work. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any crisis; this situation has been provided for. The 6th clause of Article II, Section 1 specifies that "the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected", and the relevant law is the Presidential Succession Act.

We may observe that that Act provides the legal precedence. What's absent is precedent. "There is no precedent for anything until it is done for the first time" (Lord Mildew: Doggett v Port of London Authority). —Tamfang (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This act says specifically that one of the situations where it takes effect is if no one is able to discharge the powers of the presidency due to "inability", and that upon the "removal" of this disability, the real president resumes power. And hence the scenario we saw on TV.

The 25th Amendment affects that clause in Article II, but only slightly; basically it sets rules for who gets to determine whether the president is unable to exercise his powers, and, of course, provides a way for a new vice president to be chosen. But it doesn't repeal the clause altogether, and the rule in interpreting the Constitution is always that an older provision remains in effect if it is isn't contradicted by a later amendment. So Congress still has the authority to address cases not covered by the 25th Amendment, and the Presidential Succession Act does that. --Anonymous Canadian, 03:05 UTC, May 31, 2009.

There is still a question about whether the Speaker can remain Speaker while acting as President and, if not, whether they can take back their position as Speaker once the President recovers or if they opt out of acting as President in order to keep their seat as Speaker. --Tango (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually (to respond to anonymous canadian) since it has never been tested, there would be a crisis. Anyone can read what the words say; it doesn't mean that we all agree on the meaning of those words. That was what happened to Tyler; it required someone to actually put the text of the constitution into practice before there was a sound procedure. It wasn't the words of the constitution that established the current practice of having the V.P. become the president once the old one died, it was Tyler interpreting the words to say that they meant he could do just that. Many at the time disagreed with him; but it ultimately worked out for the system we have now. The idea of what would happen in the case of simultaneous death/illness/temporary incapacitation of a president AND vice president is, of course, written down in the constitution. However, until the actual situation happens no one can be sure exactly how it will work; and you can be sure there are differing opinions on how it should work, and that whatever does happen, someone will object and say that we are reading the constitution incorrectly. That is what a constitutional crisis is. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Someone will object" is too loose a requirement for the term "crisis". It would have to be someone with enough power to actually cause trouble, e.g. through court cases that are more than nuisance suits. Which means there would have to be some solid grounds for a variant interpretation. The appointment of Gerald Ford as VP was an unprecedented situation, but nobody called that a constitutional crisis or caused trouble on constitutional grounds. --Anon (Can), edited 00:58 UTC, June 1, 2009.

My question wasn't if there would be a constitutional crisis. Maybe there would be, but then all bets are off anyway, so who cares? I was sorta hoping for anyone with experience reading this kind of law to come up with the most reasonable interpretation (ignoring the fact that it might be challenged if it occurred in real life). Just throwing up our hands and saying "well who knows how the law might be interpreted" is tantamount to saying the laws still aren't good enough to cover the tough situations that they were expressly written to cover, which seems a bit desperate to me. Reading between the lines of the discussion, I gather the answer to my first question (could the President still invoke section 3 and would power defer to the Speaker) is "yes", while the answer to the second (what exactly happens to the Speaker) is still in the air. 82.95.254.249 (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any references for this, but I think that in the case you mention with the Speaker, that they would be re-elected to the chair after such time as the POTUS is freed of their "inability". Given the extremely special circumstances surrounding their resignation, and the fact that they did the "patriotic thing", I can't see that there would be public support for the House not re-installing the Speaker. If, on the other hand, the Speaker refused to resign, they would be turning their back on their Constitutionally prescribed duty. To punish someone in this way when faced with that choice is ostensibly not "The American Way", right?--Rixxin (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Check this out [1]. It's a paper on the unconstitutionality of members of the legislature being potential successors to the Presidency, but it (briefly) mentions the example of the Speaker refusing to resign and the implications on the Incompatibility Clause that has, in addition to the possibility of another Speaker being elected in the incumbant's absence. --Rixxin (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't they have to resign as a member of the House, not just as Speaker? --Tango (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I reckon so. I did forget to mention how I think that would pan out, didn't I? Well, I think when a Congressperson or Senator resigns mid-term, the Governor of the relevant state can pick someone to replace them. I think most Governers would put this person back as they were, once the POTUS is back on stage. --Rixxin (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If the time period was short enough that they could leave the seat vacant, that ought to work. If it were a longer period, there might be more of a problem. --Tango (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruben's "History of Constantine the Great" series

i) I'm wondering if this image ("Constantine Directing the Building of Constantinople") might be a sketch for tapestry (sketches are usually drawn, not painted though). Or is this image done by or after Rubens (Rubens follower)? It was on display at a temporary exhibition in Trier. The image is "copyrighted" by Staatliche Kunsthalle Karlsruhe, Germany. Where is it usually displayed?

The German Wikipedia describes the sketches as "Konstantingeschichte, Sieben Entwürfe zu Tapisserien, 1622–1623, Editio princeps, Philadelphia Museum of Art".

a) This is the "tapestry showing Constantine Directing the Building of Constantinople" of that series, on display at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. The museums states "Figural composition designed in 1622 by Peter Paul Rubens woven at the Comans-La Planche tapestry factory, Paris. Workshop of Filippe Maëcht and Hans Taye, Flemish".

b) This is the tapestry depicting the Triumph of Constantine over Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. The museum states that the tapestries were woven at the Comans-La Planche tapestry factory, Paris. Workshop of Filippe Maëcht and Hans Taye.

ii) What about the tapestries made by Philippe Maecht and Hans Taye being located at Mobilier National (Paris, France): are theses copies or originals or look-alikes?[2] [3]

iii) The Philadelphia Museum of Art finally brings in Pietro da Cortona who made (other?) such tapestries[4]

Seems like a diffcult subject. It also seems, that there's no further information about the subject in the internet. --Scriberius (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Tapestry-weaving is a slow process. More than one set of tapestry are generally woven from a set of cartoons without being considered "copies". "Weavings" is the usual expression. "Originals" might apply to the first weaving made expressly for the original commission that resulted in the cartoons. Oil sketches provide color guides. Tapestry cartoons, full-size, are usually used up in the workshops and rarely survive. --Wetman (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruben painted the foreground figures, the backgrounds were executed by his students. [5]—eric 03:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Giveaways and antitrust

According to the Wall Street Journal, the EU is headed toward using antitrust law to challenge Microsoft again on its bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows. My question: Other than Internet Explorer, has there ever been another antitrust case in which the product in question has been free-of-charge to consumers? To anticipate and avoid a certain unwanted derailing of the question, I realize that Microsoft's distribution of IE probably results in indirect costs to consumers of other sorts — but it's a free-of-charge download from their website, and I am not looking for responses in that vein, but am looking for other products that consumers have not had to pay money to obtain. I'm crossposting to the Computing desk to ask for responses here. Tempshill (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't AT&T originally lend telephone handset and receiver units to its customers? This necessary hardware was permanently owned by the telephone company and "borrowed" by the subscriber. Though the phone unit was was required to use the phone service (which was billed), I think the actual hardware did not have any associated costs. Nimur (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Good lead, but I think the phones were leased. I remember hearing a year ago that some of the Baby Bells were being pilloried for still, to this day, leasing a phone to elderly confused customers for $6.95 per month or whatever. Tempshill (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What a great question. I'm not 100% sure about this answer, but I'm going to assume we're talking about Section 1 cases, which is the typical example. For a while "tying" was an antitrust violation, and I guarantee you many of those tying cases involved "giving" away a particular product, so in a technical sense I wouldn't doubt it. See International Salt Co. v. United States. In fact, the Microsoft case might have involved tying, although I have no idea. I would note too, that tying is (I think) no longer a per se violation, although could be. It's been widely attacked as an inefficient antitrust feature. Shadowjams (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually International Salt's a bad example of giving products away, so I guess your question still stands. But I'd first look towards the tying cases to find something similar. Shadowjams (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

See Dumping (pricing policy) and Predatory pricing. The concept of giving something away at less than it is worth simply to drive your competitors out of the market is seen as "against the rules" in most jurisdictions. Forget the whole "free" thing; its the motivation. If you are using your position as a market leader to dump product on the market for the express purpose of driving your competitors out of business; thats usually a classic sign of an illegal trust. It's OK to give something away for free, its NOT OK to give something away for free in such a way as to force all of your competitors to go out of business. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

All very interesting; however, I am looking for specifics of freebie giveaways being the center of an antitrust case. BTW, undercutting your rivals while you're merely a 'market leader' isn't sufficient to trigger an antitrust claim. Tempshill (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a little bit of an oversimplification. While price ceilings were once illegal per se, that's no longer the case.^{State Oil Co. v. Khan} Shadowjams (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've looked for predatory pricing cases and I haven't found any that have given away the product for free. Predatory pricing cases are pretty out of vogue too since the economics behind them rarely make sense. I will note though that I haven't even looked at lower court cases, so I'm sure somewhere someday there was an example of this. Shadowjams (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a tying case where one of the products was given away for free. Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc., 448 F.2d 43 (9th Cir. 1971). Shadowjams (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty funny - the "freebie" was a chicken restaurant franchise; you just had to buy their fryers and bags of their ingredients to get it. But in that case, the consumers did have to buy something from the company. (Sounds expensive in this case, too.) Tempshill (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What is right and what is left?

So, jumping in the middle of a, maybe controversial question, why is Nazism referred as right wing, when it was in fact leftist? It seems to me, that a lot of people, even in the media, who have no idea about politics and history, present the political spectrum as a line from the far left (Stalin) to the far right (Hitler) with everyone else inbetween. What are the causes of this? Can the political spectrum be represented as simple as this line?

As for my historical knowledge and understanding: Nazism was just another form of socialism (but instead of internationalism it promotes the interest of their own nation), so it should be part of the left wing. Actually the WW2 was not between political views but national interests: The USA and Britain, one of them a republic, another a monarchy; Germany and Italy, one of them national-socialist, the other fascist (which is actually part of the right wing, why do people think the two are synonyms?) - It was even a surprise for the Allies that the two countries formed an alliance, they thought Germany and Italy would eat each other because of the radically different political systems. So why is national-socialism referred to as part of the right wing? Or as synonymous with fascism? Yes, I know, it was part of Soviet propaganda, that if they are our mortal enemies, than we can not say they are on the same side of the political spectrum as we. But why is this view still common today?

(it seems for the first sight as a call for debate, but it isn't. If you understand what I was trying to formulate, you will see the question) --131.188.3.21 (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the answer is yes, the spectrum is as easy as that, if that's how you define the spectrum. The scale is designed upon Nazi-style fascism (as opposed to other types) being right-wing and Stalinist (or Leninist) communism being left-wing. The reason they're thought of like that, IMO, is because they define the scale itself. I also think they make a good scale because they are extremes. And, a lot of historians would argue with Nazi intentions after coming to power ever being socialist (despite the name). I've seen many sources, for example, that say they moved right, particularly in the context of the Night of the Long Knives. FTR, Italy was a monarchy too. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

On the latter points, fascism is a arbitrary definition. It makes sense to call Nazi policies fascist because a) they were extreme and b) they certainly weren't communist. Historians don't really argue about this; they use terms like Spanish fascism, Italian fascism etc. That's why I think they consider them fascists. If Nazism is a type of fascism, then it's sort of synonymous. Depending of the context. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, our fascism article gives what is considered 'core' policies for fascism, so it may help on why/whether the Nazis were right-wing. Or you could consider that fascism defines the right wing (as above) and the Nazis were fascists (see article). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

And was Stalin's communism even remotely related to communism? As for an all black and white "everything we do is good, everything else is evil so it must belong to the right wing", I don't think it should be used for a sane sociological debate, it belongs to a political campaign. "they were extreme" and "they certainly weren't communist". I don't think the definition of fascism means extreme and not communism (it means a certain structural composition of government). I'd like to ask about the ideologies themself, and not the swear words their names became today. Yes, the national-socialism as implemented by the Third Reich was extreme, but checking the dictionary I don't see the extreme == right wing automatic association. --131.188.3.20 (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I was picking up on another point rather than it being right-wing at all, that it was far-right (the far- bit). With the former reply bit, what I'm saying is the media likes to have distinct groupings, here there are two, so that's why I was suggesting that extreme + away from communism = fascist (the media label). I wasn't saying that's correct. Is your question Was Nazism fascist? or Was Nazism right-wing? I was more answering the why it is referred to in the media etc. sort of question. If either of those was your question, my answer (since I don't actually know that much about exact ideology) is that perhaps it has become the definition? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I'm going to stop talking. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Our fascism article leaves me more confused each time I read it. It seems as if there is no consensus for what philosophy or philosophies are "fascist", and that the term is merely a pejorative thrown at any "oppressive" state. I find it hard to believe that the politics of Nazi Germany are similar to the politics of most of the other so-called "fascist" states. I have even heard intelligent political scientists call Stalin a "fascist." I can only conclude that this term is useless. Intelligent discourse on politics should instead detail and critique specific policies of a particular government, rather than its "overlying ideology." As to the original question, pretending that all forms of government lie on a single-dimensional spectrum can be nothing less than idiotic. The space of possibilities for collective decision-making is multi-dimensional and I'm still baffled that anyone can get far into the study of political science and contend that there is such a thing as a single spectrum. Nimur (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason there's a one-dimensional spectrum is that no-one has come up with any close to being accurate. I've seen quite a few and all of them have been some way away from making any sense whatsoever. It's because people like to do that sort of thing that they like to try. And I agree that as soon as you start to define the word fascist you realise you can't. It's only useful for defining specific periods for example. Like I say, 'Fascist Italy' and immediately my audience will think of Mussolini - that sort of thing. You might as well say 'Italy under Mussolini' for all the term actually helps define what happened in the period; it does, however, label the period. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I stumbled upon this political compass [6] which is two-dimensional. It was interesting that by searching on forums, a lot of national radicals were surprisingly ended up mostly in the "authoritarian left" part. --131.188.3.20 (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done many like that. I think the point is that there are many things that historians would argue (I've read, any way) that the groups people consider 'far-left' and 'far-right' are inseparable. One example would be state censorship, from what I know. But that's not really the question (?). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This was the first question I asked in my first politics lecture. (I only ever went to two.) The answer I got was that the political spectrum is not, in fact a spectrum in the sense of an open-ended continuum: it is, in fact, more like the colour wheel, in which extremes of left and right blend imperceptibly into one. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

With (at least in Europe) the current leftists supporting strongly capitalist economies and free trade, and the current rightists fighting against big corporations I am no longer sure who to call leftist and rightist. --131.188.3.20 (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Left/Right distinctions are always somewhat arbitrary, and always contextual. Nevertheless, the spectrum analysis hold some validity, and most contemporary party systems can be divided along left/right lines. Some things should be stated though:

• adding 'extra dimensions' is usually done with the intention to prove a point. I don't subscribe to the notion that adding a 'authoritarian-libertarian axis' is particularily relevant, such models are usually constructed by the self-proclaimed 'libertarians' to position themselves in a better light.
• every political movements share some common traits with other political movements. Depending on what emphasis you chose (arbitrarily), you can always claim that 'ideology x' and 'ideology y' are related since they both say Z about W.
• So then, what are the core definition of leftwing or rightwing? The truth is that it doesn't exist. A position identified as 'leftist' in one country might be a typical 'rightwing' position in another. Rather the left/right spectrum depends on the interrelation between political forces. Nazism is rightly located as 'far right' in terms of its uncompromising opposition to Socialists and Communists (and, although in different terms, liberalism), whilst the movement had a far more concilitory position to rightwing nationalist and conservative groups in Germany. Communists are generally seen as further to the left than Social Democrats, since the latter generally position themselves closer to bourgeois forces.

--Soman (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, this question is in itself questionable, as it seems that at least three erronous statements of the original poster, has to be accepted as facts in order to reply to his liking. All I can say is that it would be very superficial to view nazism as a communist ideology. Try instead and look at it as an example of a (very successful and ingenous) attempt of an extremist far-right nationalist ideology in embracing some (at the time) popular ideals of the communist ideology, without compromising the ideas of the former. I can recommend reading up on the history of Germany in the 1920s and 1930s as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you might have misunderstood what I wrote. I never talked about communism. I hope you know the differences between communism and socialism. The only thing I was expecting to be accepted is to view these ideologies as ideologies, and not as loaded swearwords which got thrown around in hot electoral debates. What were the other two statements you consider erroneous? --131.188.3.20 (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

My point still stands. Beside you stating as fact that nazism was "leftist" my other two objections is your view that Germany and Italy had "radically different political systems". While they were different in many aspects they had even more similarities compared to any other systems at the time. The third being that you make it sound like the general view of WWII is that it was an ideological struggle, when you would hardly find a proper historian that would make such a simplified statement. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

By radically different political systems, I used the original definition of left and right, as rightist meant a supporter of a hierarchical society, aristocracy, etc. About he third, I think you misread what I've written. The whole point was that the WW2 was not an ideological struggle. --131.188.3.20 (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My goal was not to state that nazism was leftist, my goal was to find an answer to the question "why is it considered rightist despite of, as I think, it was based on leftist ideologies?" --131.188.3.20 (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the basic right/left split can USUALLY be thought of as "right=backwards looking" and "left=forwards looking" or, if you prefer, the rightists support a return to a better time, while leftists support the creation of a new paradigm. Ultimately, the Nazis are rightists, because at their heart is a philosophy of returning Germany to its glory. It was primarily a Germany-first, and the "original" idea of Germany-first, Großdeutschland. It is ultimately a backwards-looking philosophy. The Nazi's, despite being named a "worker's party" were primarily concerned with returning to a state of glory, not in creating a "new world order" out of whole cloth. The Stalinists, OTOH, were clearly looking to create a here-to-fore unknown system, a communist nation, and weren't really concerned with recreating or recapturing any past ideals. The same is true for other Facist and/or Communist states. The Spanish Fascists (rightists) were ultimately monarchists who wanted a restoration of the monarchy and an end to republicanism. The Maoists (leftist) gave us the Cultural Revolution which sought to erase traditional Chinese culture and replace it with a new Communist culture. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow thanks, this was a very helpful explanation. I was a bit confused by the two dimensional spectrum, where the left-right is explicitly economical and would place them to the left wing. So, as I understand, their kind of nostalgic view of the past is what causes most people to place them to the right wing. I remember now the mid 19th century debates, where indeed, the right wing was the conservative party, and the leftist were who tried to change everything and build a brand new society. Hm, does that place those current socialists who look back nostalgic to the Soviet era to the right-wing? I see the political spectrum is very complicated, it's not that black and white as it seems at the first look :) --131.188.3.21 (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Soviet-style socialism is and always will be about building a new economic and social order. That they miss the old Soviet Union doesn't make the right wing, it just makes them wish the leftist of the past had done a better job in establishing that new order.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

According to our article, the political term right-wing originates from the French Revolution. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32 is right about the basic idea behind right versus left. As DOR (HK) points out, it goes back to times when right-wingers where monarchists (wanted to go back to the old society) and left-wingers were republicans (wanted to create a new society). Concerning the Nazis: not only were they very much oriented towards the past (Germany's supposedly heroic history in the Middle Ages and the 1871 Empire), but they were also supported by more traditional right-wingers. The Nazis received donations from industry, the banks, and the nobility, and their most reliable voters were farmers and small business owners. On the other hand, the ones who opposed the Nazis were socialists and communists, and the Nazis never obtained many votes from workers and the poor (there was never any serious opposition to the Nazis from other right-wing parties). In conclusion -- while the Nazis certainly incorporated leftist ideas into their ideology (such as government control of the markets), overall and especially when looking at the political spectrum in Germany at the time, they were definitely right-wingers. --Chl (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm no political scientist or anything, but the right-left scheme barely even works for regular parties that generally do align one way or the other. The Nazis don't really fit anywhere...they're not right or left, they're Nazis. What use is it to put them in one slot or the other? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Before the Nazis were the Nazis, they were just a regular political party. At that time, they fit into the spectrum just fine. With respect to the time after they took power and all other parties were outlawed, I agree -- it doesn't make much sense to classify them at that point. --Chl (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The more useful way of looking at the problem is "power from above" (i.e., power naturally belongs to the state and whatever power individuals have is granted by the state) and "power from below" (i.e., power naturally belongs to individuals and whatever power the state has is granted by individuals). In American politics, "the left" tend to believe in power-from-below in the social sphere, but "power-from-above" in the economic sphere, while "the right" tend to believe in the reverse. Neither is logically consistent and so you get weird positions like, the right to do what one wants with one's own body is OK if the choice is social (e.g., gay marriage) but not when the choice is economic (e.g., selling labor for less than the legislated minimum), or vice-versa. Wikiant (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Right" and "Left" are constructs - we develop our notions of what are "right" and "left" based on the parties which we classify as "right" or "left". It's all a bit circular, and it's pointless trying to apply strict logic to it. Whenever anyone says "the Nazis aren't right-wing!", what they mean is "the Nazis aren't what I in my preconceived notions thought was right wing!".

Clearly a lot of political ideologies on different parts of the spectrum will share certain policies or principles. For example, all mainstream parties in the UK might support a democratic system of government. Does that mean "there is no right or left in UK politics"? Of course not.

"Right" and "left" is just one (useful but) generalising way to classify political parties and there are plenty of finer distinctions. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

But Wikiant, don't most leftists claim to believe that state power is "power from below", and private choice is "power from above" because there is no equality in the wild? —Tamfang (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. Wikiant (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I don't reckon the point is worth the effort of elaborating. —Tamfang (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

To the extent that they have any consistent meaning, I think the 'right' is for stability and the 'left' for equality – in some sense or other. I once had an Esperanto calendar with a chart of European political parties (long before there was an EU Parliament!) arranged in a triangle whose corners represented stability, equality and freedom; pace Soman above, I have no reason to think this was cooked up by a libertarian. —Tamfang (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

communion faux pas?

I'm non-religious, but I recently attended a Catholic funeral as a friend of the deceased's family. Most of the other attendees (family members, relatives, etc.) were Catholic. At one point in the service, everyone got out of their seats and got in line to receive a communion wafer from the priest. Not wanting to be awkward, I did the same thing. The priest gave me a wafer but he also gave me sort of a funny look. I think he figured out what was going on, and gave me the wafer anyway to avoid creating an embarassment. My question is whether I committed either a social faux pas and/or theological error. Also, did this even count as a communion since there wasn't wine involved, there wasn't a transsubstantiation ritual that I noticed, etc.? As a nonbeliever I'm not worried about theological consequences for me personally, but I'm wondering the proper thing to do in this situation in general. It also occurs to me that the priest might now consider himself in trouble "upstairs" for giving me the wafer, for which he might have to do some annoying penance on account of me, which I'd rather have not caused.

Also, after receiving the wafer, what are the faithful supposed to do with it? I took it back to my seat, held onto it for a little while, and finally ate it unobtrusively. I couldn't tell what anyone else did. 67.122.209.126 (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Communion is restricted to Catholics, and not just any Catholics but those in the state of grace. I wouldn't worry too much about the fate of the priest. They get strangers turning up every day of the week, and they're in no position to question or challenge them. Maybe in some rare cases they have very good reason to know that the person is not a Catholic (e.g. if the Archbishop of Canterbury stood in line), but in general they don't know, and have to take the person on trust. Even Catholics who've just murdered their mother and have not yet repented could take Communion but they're not supposed to, and the priest would not know that person A is ready for the Pearly Gates but person B is ready for Hell. For the future, simply let those who want to partake in Communion do so, and you should remain in your seat. If you're the only person in the entire church not participating, I appreciate it could feel really awkward to be the odd person out, but just grit your teeth and stay put. Re the wine and transsubstantiation ritual, I can't imagine a priest giving out unconsecrated hosts (they would be, as far as the priest is concerned, mere bread), so there would have to have been something going on that you didn't notice. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been to various religious services, including a Catholic funeral, where they took Holy Communion and I just sat quietly in my seat and nobody minded. I doubt anyone will mind too much that you took communion when you shouldn't have done, as long as you did so in a respectful manner (had you taken the bread and then thrown it away, that would have offended some people, almost certainly). As for there only being bread, you can receive communion with only one of the two (either is fine), I'm not sure under what circumstances they use one, other or both (I think both will have been present during the consecration, even if they weren't both handed out). --Tango (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I know about Catholic priests who have an ecumenical point of view. Myself a Protestant, I've been at a Catholic ceremony where the priest, knowing that there are some protestants present, explicitly said that they we can take part as well. Of course, sitting there and doing nothing is perfectly acceptable. Another good example is the sign of the cross. Catholics do it on a Protestant liturgy, Protestants or nonreligious people don't do it on a Catholic Mass, and nobody is offended. --131.188.3.20 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I was last at a Catholic mass, but my memory is that there are always people in the congregation who don't partake of Communion. I can't remember ever seeing literally every person get up and stand in line. It's obviously possible, but if I were a priest, I'd be thinking "Hmm, I bet some of these people shouldn't be here, but I'm going to have to pretend that I'm overjoyed everyone's coming to the party". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Or, in his next sermon, he could subtly (or not so subtly) remind his flock about the rules. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what they said. The wafer (the 'host') will have been consecrated. Either there will have been a mass during the service (in which case there will have been a part where the priest was at the altar retelling part of The Last Supper, "Take this all of you and eat it." etc), or the consecrated host will have been stored carefully from previous masses to be used in services like this one. Either way, this was communion and you accidentally took part.

Communion nearly always includes the wafer (host) and often includes the wine. Receiving either counts as receiving communion. The thing people are supposed to do on being handed the wafer is to put it straight in their mouth and respectfully eat it (while crossing themselves). Given that the accepted way of disposing of excess consecrated host and wine is to consume them respectfully, that you disposed of the wafer by respectfully eating it was probably the best thing you could have done.

If you were in that situation again, as someone who didn't believe the host was the body of Christ, the respectful thing to do would be to stay sitting (as many people do) or go up with your arms crossed across your chest (right hand on left shoulder, left hand on right shoulder) and receive a blessing instead of communion. Ideally, the Catholic people who knew you should have given you a hint, but obviously people have other things on their minds at funerals.

The priest won't be in any trouble. You don't need to worry yourself about that. Receiving communion is largely a matter of individual consciences, and priests generally just have to leave it to those. He can't know whether every given individual is in an appropriate state to receive communion, and is not expected to. 80.41.31.27 (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The bread would have become the body of Christ, per Catholic belief, and that is what you consumed. Feel any different? Edison (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Did it taste like pork? —Tamfang (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. Yes, now that I think of it, I believe the priest did do something with some wine before the communion; it just wasn't dispensed to the congregation, so I didn't realize that it "counted". I wasn't paying very close attention to the priest at that point, because of the surrounding commotion of everyone getting out of their seats to stand in line. Yes, it was everyone, or anyway nearly everyone. I checked to see if anyone was going to remain sitting down, and I was going to do the same if anyone else did, but since everyone got up, I felt it would have been disrespectful for me to do otherwise--oops. I like the idea of approaching with hands crossed on shoulders. The whole thing was much less portentous than I imagined it being from movies and novels. The priest was a relaxed young Irish guy who mentioned that he had been ordained just 4 years ago, and he acknowledged the presence of non-Catholics and no-longer-practicing Catholics in the room. To Edison--yes I do feel different, but I'm not sure I can attribute that to the communion or the other ceremonies. I tried to get into the meditative aspect of the praying of the Rosary (done the previous evening) but it didn't do much for me, partly because I didn't know it would be repeated so many times, and I was trying to understand the words, which were a bit garbled from so many people saying them at once. The most "religious" part of the event for me was the hymns, some of which I had heard before. The priest mentioned that the Catholic version of "Amazing Grace" had altered lyrics from the version more familiar to non-Catholics. The only difference I noticed was they changed "wretch" to "soul" in the first verse, but I wasn't that familiar with the "usual" version so I may have missed some other changes.

I have one other question--the priest seemed to signal the start of communion by holding an enormous book over his head and walking forward. The book didn't appear to be a Bible. What was it, and what is the significance of the gesture? 67.122.209.126 (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If I understand which part you are describing, that big book will have been a missal. It contains all the words for different versions of different services on different days. This is important because there are different versions even of the parts that don't change from week to week, and you don't want to risk mixing them up. On top of that, some of the prayers have particular versions depending on the week, the year, the special day, or other occasion. The priest usually has it open on the altar while performing the central part of the Mass (as in, the bit recreating the last supper). Since the service starts with the altar bare apart from the cloth and candles, the missal has to be carried up and put on the altar. Because the service, particularly the Liturgy of the Eucharist(the bit recreating the last supper) is sacred, everything in it is carried out in a reverent, careful fashion. So the missal is carefully placed on the altar, as are the other things (such as the chalice) used in the liturgy. 80.41.31.27 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if you wanted to know what the words were in the rosary, it will mostly have been the Our Father, Hail Mary and Glory Be, probably with some words to meditate on said occasionally by an individual. 80.41.31.27 (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I can see that might have made the priest look at you funny was taking the host back to your seat. In my parish (when I was a kid), the priest always put it directly into our mouths. Times may have changed since then, for hygiene reasons, but that is the only thing I can think of. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it (and our article suggests similarly), it is usually up to the person receiving the host whether they want it put in their hand or their mouth. I think you would generally eat it straight away even if it was put in your hand, but I thinking taking it back to your seat would be odd, at worst, not offensive or "wrong". --Tango (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, straight-in-the-mouth is pretty old school. Apart from the more 'traditional' churches and individuals, most people (in my experience) go for receiving it in the hand. They would still eat it straight away. 80.41.123.51 (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that you are one of the Elect. Edison (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's also quite possible (probable?) that you put out a bit of body language that said "I'm not at all sure what I'm supposed to do with this thing", and the priest picked up on it. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The priest gave me the funny look and hesitated slightly before giving me the wafer, so it couldn't have been due to my taking it back to my seat afterwards. But JackofOz is correct, I was very obviously looking at other people and trying to do what they were doing, which the priest surely noticed (that's why I felt it might have been obvious to him that I wasn't supposed to receive communion, causing him a conflict which he resolved by giving me the wafer anyway). I remember now that I took the wafer back to my seat because I had the notion that the communion was supposed to also involve wine, which I guessed would be passed around afterwards, so I was going to wait and see what to do once that happened. Thanks to 80.* for the explanation about the missal. The thing with the missal was quite impressive, much more than a reverent transport of the book from one place to another. The book was held overhead like Moses holding the Ten Commandments, or as if the priest were summoning lightning to shoot out of the book and fry any vampires (or whatever) that might have been present in the room (fortunately I guess there were none) before going on with the ceremony. 67.122.209.126 (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything seems pretty well covered, so I won't go over the ceremony again... but... someone (I didn't want to scan the whole thing again) mentioned that anything left over should be consumed in a respectful manner. I thought I'd just point something out for you, 67.* and anyone else who is curious. If there is only a little blood or a couple of hosts left, the priest will often just consume these at the end of communion. If there is more, then the leftovers are stored in a tabernacle. There will be a candle of some sort burning next to the tabernacle. When empty, the dishes that were used for the wafers and wine/body and blood will be washed out in special sinks. The drains go directly into the ground, like a greywater system, instead of going into a septic/sewer system. Dismas|^(talk) 04:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I had the wine in an Anglican church once, but never at a Catholic church. At the churches I went to, only the priests and whoever was helping hand out the wafers drank the wine. (Also, although I probably shouldn't say this publically, one time I took the wafer home with me, and nothing happened. But then I felt bad so I ate it anyway. Hooray Catholic guilt!) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

While altar boys, my friends and I used to eat the wafers if we were hungry. They hadn't been blessed yet, of course. Dismas|^(talk) 08:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Then, theologically speaking, you were just eating bread, indistinguishable from a loaf you can buy at the bakery. Just count yourself lucky you didn't live in 18th century England, where the theft of a loaf of bread could have got you transported to New South Wales for the term of your natural life. Corollary: There's nothing stopping a priest using a loaf of bread for communion instead of ready-prepared wafers. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there something about the bread being unleavened? This article says: "The bread is unleavened in the Latin, Armenian and Ethiopic Rites, but is leavened in most Eastern Catholic churches." --Tango (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have seen both, although the leavened bread was at a Lutheran service, not Catholic. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You must distinguish between ordinary and unusual circumstances. If unleavened bread is available, you should use it in a Catholic mass; if not, any kind of bread will do. I used to eat unconsecrated wafers like Dismas did when I was in Catholic school and wonder why they didn't come in different flavors. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Re the wine, there should always be wine at the consecration, which should be consumed by the priest. --Joe^Talk_Work 03:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)