Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 April 1

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

April 1

Question or Query

This question is from an IP who is suspected of being a recurring troll

Dear Wikipedia, Me and my friend got in a fight about religion. My teacher told me to write an essay about it, so I need some answers from you guys. Should I sue him for punching me? What is the best cure for a black eye? Do you think we will be friends again in the future? What is the one true religion? Thanks for your help. Feel free to debate the answers and then get back to me. My number is (redacted). Your friend, A. Foole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.51.204 (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC) It's not our place to tell you It's also not our place to tell you (but I would recommend an ice pack) We don't know you or your friend, so that is something for you guys to decide That's like asking what is the greatest rock band ever or who is the most beautiful actress ever. It's purely subjective. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Wait, "A.Foole"? Is this guy/girl a troll? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Our first April Fool's Day post. StuRat (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty good, though, and harmless - a non-subtle summary of the types of questions we're not supposed to answer. It could maybe serve as an example. I could think of additional items, like "What's the answer to the following question my teacher asked today? [Quantity of bricks in the Great Wall of China.] I need to know by tomorrow, so hustle it!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

How many molecules are in Leonard Nimoy's butt? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

About tree fiddy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.66.128 (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"What's the question if the answer is 'no'?" --Jubilee♫clipman 12:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The question is, "What does N-O spell?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Will there ever be a boy born, who can swim faster than a shark?

Will there ever be a boy born, who can swim faster than a shark? --92.244.158.105 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This question is a quote from The Office. Do you really want an answer? --Cam (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems rather dubious, for the simple reason that men are adapted for pedestrian locomotion, while sharks are at home in the sea. Vranak (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be crystal balling to say "never", but I could ask a similar question: Will there ever be a shark born that could outrun a normal human being on dry land? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If the shark were at the point of death and the boy were Michael Phelps, yes to the original question. Wrad (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hence my qualification about a "normal" human being. Not that Stephen Hawking isn't "normal" necessarily, but if his wheelchair's batteries failed, a shark on land could probably catch him - just as a disabled shark might well be outswum. So we're presuming physically fit participants. "Now, for my next impression... Jesse Owens!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

According to this site:

Sharks typically swim with the even, liquid grace of a creature completely at home with its place in the Universe. Large sharks generally cruise at a leisurely 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometres) per hour. Because most species fare poorly in captivity, the maximum swimming speed of a shark has seldom been measured. The Blue Shark (Prionace glauca) is an open ocean glider, planing on wing-like pectoral fins and flattened belly. There exists a dubious record of a small Blue Shark about 2 feet (0.6 metres) in length which was found to swim steadily against a current at 17.7 miles (28.5 kilometres) per hour and was reported to achieve 43 miles (69 kilometres) per hour in short bursts. The most reliable record of a Blue Shark at speed is 24.5 miles (39.4 kilometres) per hour for a 6.5-foot- (2-metre-) long individual.

And according to this site:

Top swimming athletes are said to average 5.25 mph. But in the case of Phelps, let’s round up to 6 mph.

So that means that depending on the shark, there are some swimmers who can outpace them at cruising speed. However it seems that in most case swimmers would have to quadruple their current top speeds which seems unlikely without either serious physical, genetic, or robotic assistance. And even then it is still likely that the sharks will be able to consistently outpace them both sprints and across long distances (unlike, say, horses, which have a more spotty record). --Mr.98 (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It all depends on the shark; Phelps could likely swim faster than a shark that has been severely injured and is near death. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably,if it's one of the Pathetic Sharks..hotclaws 20:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Bellic reasons

[1]

Why did the maharashti navy sink these ships if they were not in bellum?174.3.113.245 (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Finding the names of my grandfather's parents

Hi, I was wondering where you guys think I should look to find out the names of my great grandparents (the parents of my father's father). My grandfather was in WWII, and I found his listing in the Social Security Death Index, but what shows children or parents that is in the public record? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.66.128 (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Depends where you are, and where your great grandparents were from. If you know the name of your father's father, and he was born in the UK, you can search online on FreeBMD [www.freebmd.co.uk] and find his birth record. This gives you the reference you need to order his birth certificate from the GRO (General Register Office) [2]. This will have the names of his mother and father. Sorry I can't help with anywhere else - maybe someone else will be along shortly who can. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The original poster's IP address geolocates to Illinois. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This website could probably help you, as I have used it for the same kind of thing with success. After searching the name, if there are results in the WorldConnect database (which stores a large number of geneological data points), the entries contain birth/death dates and locations, names of parents, and spouse names. Then you can filter by more specific criteria, or further search for the parents' names, and see their information, and so on. There are additional resources at the external links of our Geneology article. —Akrabbim^talk 18:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

[3] This is another good site and is completely free. Wrad (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I found out the names of my great grandparents. Is there a way to find out someone's maiden name? The problem is she was born in the austro-hungarian empire, she might have gotten married there too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.66.128 (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

About my grandmother

She could be, if you are an aphid.

Is my grandmother a virgin? I asked but she refuses to answer. 122.107.207.98 (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

She probably considered the source. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this another case of a troll having fun on April Fool's day? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ya think? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This may be asked for laughs, but depending on the circumstances, a grandmother could indeed still be a virgin. For example, if all her children (including your parent) were adopted, there is a possibility that she could have remained a virgin. Or if your parent came from your grandfather's first marriage (so she is technically your step-grandmother). Depending on your/her definitions of "sex" and "virgin", there are other ways too. e.g. artificial insemination. There's a question later down on this page WP:RD/M#Pregnancy_without_sex which is related. During sex education courses I was told that it is indeed technically possible for a woman to get pregnant during non-penetrative sex, as long as there is an unblocked route to the fallopian tubes. -- 174.31.194.126 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Who was the first US president to refer to the USA as a democracy?

Who was the first US president to refer to the USA as a democracy? --Gary123 (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would think Washington. Do you have reason to suspect otherwise? --Cybercobra (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the rhetorical use of the phrase is probably very old. I doubt anyone has ever seriously argued that the U.S. government is a direct democracy. However, it's perfectly reasonable to categorize the U.S. as a representative democracy, and in that sense it is a "democracy". Blurring the distinction between direct and representative democracy is a standard sort of technique in rhetoric, that can be used to make arguments more persuasive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Weren't there leaders before Washington that were elected as "President of the Council" or something? I am British, BTW and they don't teach us this stuff: I just saw it on telly sometime back :) --Jubilee♫clipman 11:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not know who (if anyone) was in charge before Washington, but they would not have been a President, so they could not impact this particular question. Googlemeister (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Articles of Confederation (1777-1787) had the office of the President of the United States in Congress Assembled, of which there were 10, plus some Presidents of the Continental Congress during the early revolution. There's not much common between those and the present office, though, save the use of the term "President". The early office was legislative rather than executive, but even then doesn't approach something like a Prime Minister. Rather, the President of the Congress was a role more akin to a Speaker of the House (in both the present US and British systems). — Lomn 13:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC

But the articles of Confederation are not the US Constitution, which is the document that creates the office of POTUS. President of Congress would be an entirely different office and trying to include something like that is simply arguing semantics. If you can show a reference where the POTCC describing the US as a democracy I will concede the point. Googlemeister (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Any question that refers to President of the US necessarily must be from Washington onward. As noted by Lomn, the guys preceding Washington were not chief executives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed generally, but the question is looking for (generally) early attestations that the US is a democracy. That's not a Presidential function, and as such, a restriction to Chief Executives may be unnecessarily narrow -- any of the Founding Fathers (several of whom were POTCCs) might well be just as persuasive. As such, I largely object to the statement that "they could not impact this particular question". — Lomn 17:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be interesting information, it's just not what the OP asked. He asked who was the first American president to call us a democracy. And the point being that Washington was the first American president as the term is understood in the US. It would certainly be interesting if one or more of the "presidents" under the Articles of Confederation used the term, but it wouldn't count as "Who was the first president to use..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well lately there has been a controversy that the USA is a republic not a democracy and how none of the founders favored democracy. So I wanted to know when the USA began to be officially described as a democracy. --Gary123 (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no controversy. I always used to hear us referred to as a "representative democracy". Obviously, you can't have a true democracy on a large scale, with the public voting on everything. It would be nuts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC

It's not obvious to me that it wouldn't work. Since the average voter wouldn't vote for large number of laws so complex they can't understand them, I'd expect that we would end up with simpler laws which would rarely change, which would be a good thing. The closest thing the US has to direct democracy is binding referendums/propositions in some states, such as California, and those states haven't been destroyed by it yet. StuRat (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't speak too soon. They turned down all the tax proposals, putting their selfish personal interests ahead of the larger interests of education. Regardless, those are secret ballots. The voting record of Congressmen is public. If the people were allowed to vote on every issue, their voting record would also need to be made public, to ensure some accountability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. The reason for public votes by representatives is accountability to the voters, that is, to ensure that they vote the way they promised they would when we elected them. In direct democracy, who would the voters be accountable to, other than themselves ? StuRat (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's suppose the proposed legislation is to make possession of marijuana punishable by a mandatory life sentence. Such a law would never be proposed in Congress except maybe by someone who doesn't want to get re-elected next time. But if the vote were anonymous, it might get a lot more support. If you switch to a "pure democracy", the voters are accountable to the public just as Congress is - i.e. accountable to each other. If you're going to have pure democracy, you have to know where everyone stands, otherwise you'll quickly end up with anonymous majority tyranny. Which, by the way, is the reason pure democracy wouldn't work on a large scale. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If the member of Congress who proposed that legislation would be voted out of office, that means that the majority of voters in his district are opposed to that (actually a super-majority, since incumbents have inherent advantages in fund-raising and name recognition). So, why then, would they vote for the same unpopular law under direct democracy ? And, since, in direct democracy, you can't be voted out of office, what's the point in knowing how everyone else voted ? I don't see any reason to think that absurdly strict drug enforcement would be more common in direct democracy. After all, under representative democracy, possession of drugs can be punishable by life in prison, and even the death penalty, in some countries. Then there was Prohibition, in the US, providing enough money for criminals to build Mafia empires. It's hard to see how direct democracy could do any worse than that. StuRat (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As admirably noted by CBM above, the US government under the present constitution has always been reasonably described as a representative democracy, which can be alternately phrased as a republican democracy. Suggesting that a state may be only one or the other is a false dichotomy and a bad rhetorical tactic, not a "controversy". As for the founders, US representatives have always been directly democratically elected, though it's true that the original methods of electing senators and the President reflect a wariness of direct democracy. That's not the same as claiming that all the founders opposed direct democracy -- rather they collectively compromised on a system that isn't entirely directly democratic (and living in a state that emphasizes too many stupid referendums, I agree with them). — Lomn 15:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC

The Senators represented the states, not the individual citizens as such, so it was appropriate for the state legislatures to elect them. Of course, that's really just filtering the process through an extra layer or two, as the people elected the state legislators. And the point of the electoral college is, again, that the states elect the President. Both of those situations are a result of the Great Compromise, without which the Constitution would not have been approved. The principle was then as it is now - to give the smaller states some leverage against the larger ones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The closest find on wikiquote is 'Democratical States must always feel before they can see: it is this that makes their Governments slow, but the people will be right at last. George Washington

Letter to Marquis de Lafayette (25 July 1785) Rmhermen (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That quote is four years before he became President (great find, though!). Wrad (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a pretty interesting question. Most of the Founding Fathers of the US did not think that they were founding a democracy. (Men like John Adams would have been horrified at the idea.) To them, the word "democracy" had the negative connotations of "mob rule". (It's been said that Thomas Paine was the only Founder who was an advocate of democracy as we now define the term.) They were creating a republic, which had important democratic aspects but was not simply a democracy. But they unleashed forces that eventually produced a white male democracy by the age of Jackson. The work of historian Gordon S. Wood often refers to this process.

One would think that Andrew Jackson would have been the first to refer unambiguously to the US as a democracy, although the word had a peculiar usage in his time. His followers in fact usually called themselves "the Democracy" (not "the Democratic party") to rhetorically distinguish themselves from who they viewed as "the aristocracy"—the old New England elites like JQ Adams. After Jackson and creation of the popular party system by Van Buren, it probably became politically routine, even necessary, for presidents to call the US a democracy. I don't have references to support this impression, but I'd start my research with Jackson and Tocqueville. —Kevin Myers 20:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, the Federalist Papers are available for download at Project Gutenberg. The only papers to use the word "democracy" or "democratic" are #10, #14, #43, #48, and #58, all by James Madison, and #63, which was either by Madison or Alexander Hamilton. And in most of the places where the term is used, it is indeed contrasted with "republic" or "republican" -- the latter term is used specifically to mean what we now call a representative democracy. For example, the first mention is in #10, where Madison writes:

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

And a bit later:

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union. The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

(There are also a couple of places in the papers where Madison uses the term "democratic" in a less absolute sense, describing a government as more democratic or less democratic.)

Of course, what all this shows is not that countries like the US are "republics and not democracies", but that the meaning of both words has changed since the 18th century. Today both terms apply to the US, while dictatorships like North Korea may be called republics, simply because they are not monarchies. And, as Kevin said, this means that the original question is indeed interesting.

Transcriptions of the inaugural addresses of all the presidents are available at the bartleby text archive, so it's easy to determine that the first present to refer to the US as a democracy in his inaugural address was John Quincy Adams in 1825. Specifically, he called it a "confederated representative democracy". But this is not to say that some or all of the five previous presidents might not have used the word with the same meaning as well, at other times. --Anonymous, 05:24 UTC, April 2, 2010.

Racial comment

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

The Hardball TV show on July 17, 2009 had a well known political analyst as a guest who commented that,"This is White mans Country,our fathers fought for it and we do not intend for anyone to take it away from us." I was dumbfounded viewing this but the TV host said absolutely nothing about this inciteful remark. Question:

Do you think an apology is in order to the nation?

A concerned voter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.228.22 (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't place to ask that (petition the channel or go to the newspapers) but, FWIW, yes --Jubilee♫clipman 11:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the guy's parents owe him an apology, for having raised him to be an idiot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The thing about spouting some patently absurd piece of idiocy in a public forum is that people will rush to correct your errant thinking. It's an inadvertent cry for help. Vranak (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

"Do you think an apology is in order to the nation?" - Does it really matter what a bunch of strangers on the intertubes think? Do YOU want an apology? If so, go get one. Don't ask an encyclopedia. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to assume the TV show is Hardball with Chris Matthews and the country is the USA. In which case the guy is a complete fruit loop. The group with the greatest right to live there are the Native Americans, not "White man". If he's willing to accept the Native Americans being supplanted by "White man" then he has to accept that "White man" in turn could be supplanted by other ethnic/racial groups. Exxolon (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Are we referring to [4] (look at ~8:00)? If so, the show wasn't Hardball but The Rachel Maddow Show (TV series) and the host fiercely challenged most of what he said. It's true she didn't challenge that specific comment but it was part of a wider comment and the issue being discussed was affirmative action, Sotomayor and Buchanan's suggestion that Republicans should have more vigirously contested her nomination in particularly arguing that she was only there because of affirmative action and they (the Republicans) should have made the point that it would be white people particularly white males who suffer. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sitting US Presidents as field commanders

Our article on George Washington notes with regard to the Whiskey Rebellion that Washington was one of two sitting US Presidents to command the military in the field. Who was the other (and under what circumstances)? — Lomn 14:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Whiskey Rebellion article says: "President James Madison was present at the Battle of Bladensburg during the War of 1812 and may have commanded some troops." --Mr.98 (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd perused Madison's article but didn't think to check the Whiskey Rebellion for details. — Lomn 15:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that both claims are bogus. Neither are cited to reliable sources. Washington would have commanded troops in the field during the Whiskey Rebellion had it been necessary, but resistance collapsed before the army marched west. He simply reviewed the troops and went back to the capitol. The idea of Madison directing troops in combat seems pretty far fetched. —Kevin Myers 20:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not far-fetched at all. Madison was on the field with a brace of pistols and Secretary of State Monroe was personally conducting his own reconnaisance and contermanded orders from the commanding general to the militia. Commodore Joshua Barney appears to say that he changed positions after getting a visit from the president and the cabinet [5], probably during the 'short turn' to the marine barracks that the President mentions [6]. Rmhermen (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Madison (and Monroe's) actions on those days (years ago, I think I was the first Wikipedian to write about Monroe's role in the battle), but it may be a stretch to claim that Madison "personally command[ed] the military in the field" on that occasion, as our George Washington article claims. Madison did, as Garry Wills's biography notes, make an effective choice in sending Barney to Bladensburg. Perhaps this does qualify as commanding troops in action. Certainly Madison was in a much more serious military situation than Washington was in the Whiskey Rebellion. I think it's possible that someone has overstated Madison's case by, perhaps, confusing his actions with that of Monroe, who did reposition troops, albeit incompetently.

No matter how we interpret these events, our real challenge is to find reliable citations for the claim these were the "only two times that a sitting President would personally command the military in the field." —Kevin Myers 21:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln came under fire at the Battle of Fort Stevens. See http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=901. Woogee (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a difference between didactics and pedagogy?

I noticed a college offering teacher training courses in didactics? Is there something specific that I should understand by that, or is it simply the study of teaching? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Didactics - a teaching method that follows a consistent scientific approach or educational style to engage the student’s mind
• Pedagogy - the study of being a teacher

Read into this what you may. Vranak (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If that unreferenced Wikipedia article is right, I guess the students should expect a scientific approach to teaching from those modules. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

'Unreferenced' as a pejorative really is a sticking point with me. I mean, I understand the desire for corroboration, but the mere fact that a Wikipedia article has been around for many years suggests that it's fairly sound. This does not apply to obscure topics that get few people looking at them, of course. Vranak (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Pedagogy is the discipline of study of teaching itself. Didactics is a specific kind of pedagogy; that is a specific method of teaching. The relationship between didactics and pedagogy is like the relationship between "biology" and "science" or between "18th century American Lit" and "English". --Jayron32 20:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Jayron, please expand. Which specific method of pedagogy? Further reading? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is music from the Baroque period so good?

Whenever I hear a particularly engaging piece off the CBC Classical station and look up the composer, it invariably comes back as being a man from the so-called Baroque period. Can anyone offer some insight into the social and intellectual climate of that period, as to figure out why such poignant and lively music was the mainstay of regents' courts in that day? Vranak (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is really a matter of taste. I happen to share your taste, but not everyone does. Baroque music originated in Italy, largely under the patronage of the Catholic Church, in the context of the Counter-Reformation, an effort to enhance the appeal of the Catholic Church, aesthetically and otherwise, to counter the threat posed by Protestantism. Baroque music operated on a more emotional plane and had more ornamentation than earlier, more ascetic forms of music. It benefited from the wealth of the Church, swollen by Spain's collection of treasure from the New World, and from the wealth of Italy's merchant aristocracy, particularly that of Venice. Baroque music developed further at the time when nation-states were asserting their power over the regional nobility in Europe. This was the era of absolutism. France's Louis XIV and his court at Versailles became a model for other European courts. Louis centralized tax collection and required the French nobility to attend court at Versailles rather than threaten his power from their regional fiefs. Other monarchs followed suit. This concentration of money and people of status in royal courts led to a new sophistication and to higher status and income for court musicians. Freed from the need to govern feudal demi-states, the aristocracy may have had more time and inclination to cultivate aesthetic tastes that could enhance their status in the court milieu. With a more stable income and larger ensembles of musicians, composers may have been able to undertake more ambitious compositions. This process happened somewhat in parallel with the intellectual flowering we know as the Age of Enlightenment, which overlapped the second half of the baroque period of music. Marco polo (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

applause Brilliant answer, thank you. Vranak (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a good read [7] and see also this page[8] which tells the story of the rediscovery of Vivaldi who was almost forgotten until the Festival of Britain in 1951. Alansplodge (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

All the Baroque arts were designed to please, not shock, traumatize and enlighten. Baroque music exudes clear Major-Minor tonality, remaining clearly within its key signature, and is expressed in clear forms that are instinctively recognizable: when the theme returns, you recognize it: ha! And baroque instrumentation is clean: that's the oboe!. After a few mouthfuls of Bartok or Mahler, Baroque music clears the palate.--Wetman (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, excellent answer – cheers! Vranak (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

But the above answers don't explain the difference between the baroque and classical periods. If of any interest, David Cope has written computer programs that compose relatively convincing-surrounding Baroque-like music. There are midi files on his site for hundreds of these "compositions" (artificial Bach cantatas). I've listened to a few and IMO they sound nice, like someone doing a good job improvising in that style, but they don't really sound "composed". Also, some actual baroque music sounds quite violent, e.g. some works of Couperin and of Monteverdi (if the latter counts as baroque) 66.127.52.47 (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There were some other principles that contribute here. One aspect of the Baroque era, particularly within the arts, is the use of principles and rules. There were rules for all aspects of composition - if this, then that, so much so that one can start with a simple principle and extrapolate much of the rest of the piece. These principles led to the ability two write and improvise pretty music. But, one further principle is also important. A piece that followed all the rules would be considered uninspired and dull. An educated musician knew the rules, so they would recognise something like that and find it wanting. Instead, the beauty of a piece would be in its moments of breaking the rules. So a great Baroque piece would be one that follows the rules for the most part, but has occasional surprising moments where there are unexpected slight disharmony. Obviously it could be taken to the extreme (resulting, perhaps, in Modernism), but some simple rules broken within an otherwise well-composed piece keeps it interesting. Steewi (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea that the beauty of a piece would be in its moments of breaking the rules is a Romantic idea not a Baroque one: the Wikipedia article on decorum could use some help, but it's well started...--Wetman (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Da Pope

Would the Pope have diplomatic immunity, same as leaders of other countries? Googlemeister (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Pope is considered a head of state when travelling outside the Vatican, and as such benefits from diplomatic immunity. --207.236.147.118 (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Communism

My friend and I are having a debate and need something settled: is North Korea communist or not? Furthermore, are there any communist countries left in the world? TIA, Ζρς ιβ' ^¡hábleme! 21:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Communism in Korea says they're socialist. The leading part in China is the Communist Party of China...but just because they call themselves that, doesn't mean they are; I don't know. I'll do more searchery. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Aha, Politics of the People's Republic of China says it's a "single-party socialist republic". I am assuming here that "socialist" means they can't be communist - I could be wrong - I know nothing about politics. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Socialism is a very broad term, it basically means that the government partakes in social intervention. Countries with stuff like universal health care are often called socialist, even though they're basically completely capitalist, while the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was the first and most well-known communist country in the world. Heck every country in the world could be possibly considered socialist due to unemployment payments etc. In the case of North Korea I think socialist means communist.--92.251.164.176 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) This depends a bit on your definition of communism. North Korea has a somewhat peculiar form of socialist single-party rule: many of the institutions are socialist (in the old Soviet sense of the word), but the leadership is dynastic (handed down through a family line) rather than appointed (chosen from within the party), and there are certain elements (such as Juche) that derive more from Korean social/political history than mainstream socialist doctrine. It is certainly not communist, however, by any reasonable definition.

Cuba is probably the closest you will find to a communist nation in the modern world (there are NGO organizations and groups that run on more sincere communist principles, but nothing large). China is probably next, though communism in china is regional (rural regions are much more strongly organized around communist principles, urban regions have been developing strong capitalistic trends, and the government itself still carries imperial-bureaucratic tendencies). after that, you have a few nations that are more or less socialist republics (single-party republics or junta-type systems that organize the nation on socialist economic principles.

On the other hand, you could look at Sweden, which (despite being considered an industrialized democracy) has very, very strong socialist conventions built into the system. --Ludwigs2 21:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Cuba, Laos, China, Vietnam, North Korea. (PS See Category:Communist_states.) BrainyBabe (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

North Korea is called a communist country by the Western world. Technically, The Communist Manifesto said that the USSR, Mao's People's Republic of China, and North Korea would all be called socialist states, because they had not ascended to true communism yet. All those communist countries adhered to the practice of calling themselves "socialist" countries, and aspired to one day be real communist states. (This has led to a lot of confusion, because lots of Western European democratic states consider themselves "socialist" as well; the word "socialist" obviously has a lot of meanings.) So, if you and your friend are using the definition of "communist" as defined by Marx and Engels, then no, North Korea isn't communist, and there are 0 communist states currently; but if you use the word "communist" as is commonly used by ~99% of people in the non-communist countries, then yes, it's a communist country. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you have some kind of world survey to back up your claim that almost everyone in the entire world uses the word in this way. Algebraist 00:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify what Algebraist means: The number 99% is grossly inaccurate, even if the scope was reduced from non-communist countries to just the US with their comparably right-shifted political spectrum. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

B. R. Myers, who knows a thing or two about North Korea, makes an interesting argument here.--Rallette (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

---

North Korea has certainly been diplomatically aligned with Communist states during its history (and China is still its main semi-remaining "ally"), but internally Juche has been replacing Marxism-Leninism as the main official ideology for a long time, and now "Song-un" or "Military first" is supplementing (possibly eventually supplanting) Juche. It's been reported that most recently-adopted version of the North Korean constitution makes no mention of Communism... AnonMoos (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Did Wikipedia pull an April Fools?

Today's featured article (April 1) was "wife selling" I'm reasonably well educated and I had never heard of it and the article sounds a little weird to me. Is this an April Fools? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.145.88 (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wife selling presumably has references that could be checked. The April 1 articles are about obscure facts that are all true (or so it's claimed), the appearance of being a hoax is the actual hoax. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the article has a ton of references and was begun in October of 2006. One perhaps unintentionally amusing fact is the last recorded such sale being in 1913 for one British pound. If you're dropping the price that low, you might as well just give her away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's about £85 in today's money. Enough to pay for the celebratory drinks after you get rid of your wife! ;) --Tango (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the practice came to an end with women's liberation, specifically with the discovery that a good portion of the wives would not only be willing to sell their husbands, but would even pay someone to take them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Although that probably cuts both ways. Maybe that's where Henny Youngman got his famous catchphrase, "Take my wife... Please!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This happens every April Fools Day. The main page gets changed to something that looks like a complete fabrication but is actually not. Dismas|^(talk) 23:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The sale of a wife is a significant plot event in Thomas Hardy's well-known novel The Mayor of Casterbridge. It seems not unlikely (though I haven't a reference) that Hardy based this on an actual incident known to him. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As the article notes, it was a fairly common practice. Sharpe's Waterloo is another literary example. Algebraist 00:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, wife renting was always frowned upon. —Kevin Myers 07:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine why. We pay for drivers' and other licences for fixed periods; and house rent; and many other things. Why shouldn't marriage licences also expire at the end of a certain period, to be renewable only by mutual consent and the payment of a nominal fee to cover the paperwork. We'd eliminate the divorce problem in one fell swoop. Of course, it would put a lot of lawyers out of work, and it would sort of change the concept of marriage being for life. But that's changed anyway, what with pre-nuptial agreements. "Rent a spouse" is the way of the future, I say. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree! Could do with one myself. Anyone got the contact details for Dragon's Den? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Too late, this is prior art. Algebraist 11:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw a documentary about an Islamic practice where one could get married for a specified period of time, even as short as a few hours (very handy for prostitution). Is there an article? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday I read this discussion, thought a link to the institution of temporary marriage under Islamic law would be a useful addition, looked up what it was called, pressed "edit", and discovered that someone had beaten me to it, albeit with an Easter egg (of the non-chocolate variety). As Algebraist discreetly pointed out, these contracts are called Nikah mut‘ah ("marriage for pleasure"); you can read more context under Islamic marital jurisprudence. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Not relevant to the OPs question but whatever; I found the use of that article very distasteful. Yeah Wikipedia isn't censored bla bla but surely there was other "funny" articles they could of used instead of that misogynistic shit for April fools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.207 (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Many cultural practices and attitudes of diverse cultures in bygone centuries are unacceptable to modern sensibilities. That doesn't mean we have to pretend they never existed, but neither need we get worked up about them so long as they are not revived. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand; I'm not getting worked up that the practice existed years ago or that Wikipedia has an article on it. I just found it very distasteful that the article was used as an april fools "joke" which readers of Wikipeida were apparently supposed to find funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.207 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As a member of the April Fools team, i feel like i should chime in here. We do not chose articles for the featured article because of "funniness." We chose it first and foremost by "unbelievable-ness." No one was saying that wife selling is a joke. What were were saying is kind of a meta-joke. We were pointing out that wife selling is so unbelievable that some visitors will assume that it is not true, and the joke is on them. Nothing on the main page on April Fools is a lie, nor are we making fun of the subject of the article. We are trying to confuse people into thinking that everything is one giant joke, when in fact, nothing is.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Work has already begun n next years April Fools page! if you want to help, all the information and links can be found here.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, you know, we need to be reminded of how far our society has come from barbaric practices, and how recently such practices were commonplace, in order for us to truly understand how lucky we are to live in 2010. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

And, I would add, so that we can maintain vigilance against such practices creeping back. As someone once said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with F5d, TM, 87 here. I don't see anything wrong with that article being chosen. The fact that so many people apparently really thought it was false or a hoax is a good sign it was a decent choice, some of them sadly didn't learn I'm sure but hopefully many did. Personally as a wikipedian and with some experience with how we handle April Fool's day I was never at risk of thinking it was a hoax or untrue but I would like to think I would never have been at risk because I full understand that a lot of stuff we find unacceptable nowadays was common in the past and wouldn't have much of a problem accepting that what that article described was true. The fact so many people do have a problem accepting such things are true I would consider unfortunate (87's point and all that). You may argue it would have been better to have featured the article on some other day for that reason and in some ways you have a point however the article probably wouldn't have been a FA in such a case anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)