Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 August 11

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.

August 11

Jeremy Bamber

The whole world knows Jeremy Bamber is innocent and he will be released, but how can UK repay him for 25 years of his life that he has lost? Is there a similiar case anywhere in the world, an innocent man spending 25 years in jail for the murder he didnt commit? And what does the state do to compensate for the lost years? Apology, money or both? Thanks --92.244.158.225 (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Steven Truscott (48 years in prison from conviction to acquittal), it was both. The payment was 6.5 million dollars (Canadian). Bielle (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt the "whole world knows Jeremy Bamber is innocent". While Jeremy Bamber has always claimed he is innocent, he has twice lost appeals, most recently in 2009. That said, there is some suggestion of new evidence that could lead to another appeal - and that is a long, long way from everyone knowing he is innocent. Astronaut (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And an answer to your question about compensation: In the UK, Stefan Kiszko had his murder conviction overturned after spending 16 years in prison. The Home Office told him "he would receive £500,000 in compensation for the years he spent in prison". Astronaut (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Was that before or after hefty deductions for board and lodging? (Which, by the way, the Home Office has levied or attempted to levy in similar cases!) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

When the news broke yesterday tht Sion Jenkins had his compensation claim refused for 6 years of false imprisonment, the reason given was that the criteria was that it must have been proven in court that he did not commit the member. As he was finally acquitted because two juries could not agree on his guilt, he did not meet the criterion and so his claim was refused. Bamber would, unless evidence proving his innocence emerges in the meantime, therefore not be entitled to any form of compensation. See this report.--TammyMoet (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Does the whole world know that O. J. Simpson is innocent? Is there a person in the USA that thinks so? MacOfJesus (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It all depends if he is "innocent" or "not guilty" which are quite different beasts. In criminal law (in the UK and Commonwealth, at least) the burden of proof in a criminal trial lies on the prosecution's side: they must prove someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If there is doubt in the case, then someone should be deemed 'not guilty' (which, as noted above, is not at all the same as innocent); if reasons for doubt occur after conviction, this could result in the verdict being overturned and the person being released from prison, or possibly tried again Neither course automatically provides exoneration (ie. declaration of innocence). Since compensation is generally tied to innocence, then the burden of proof now shifts to the defence, who must prove that the individual in question IS innocent. Gwinva (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Gwinva, yours is the answer the OP is looking for, I think. My answer was merely to throw light on the reasonableness of the question. MacOfJesus (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Perpetual virginity of Mary

The "it's known that Mary never had sex" statement in the Ockham's razor discussion above led me to read the Perpetual virginity of Mary article which mentions her virginity "before, during and after giving birth". Why would it be necessary to consider the "during birth" part? Has it ever been a common practice for women in labor to engage in sex? Prostaglandin, which is used to induce childbirth, is present in seminal fluid. -- 119.31.121.87 (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's most likely rhetoric to emphasize the extent of her alleged virginity. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that "during birth" was added by a devout editor who might have pondered objections to the notion of a virgin giving birth. (Whatever the circumstances of Mary's labor and deliver, I'm pretty sure no one at Bethlehem Stable and Gynecological Hospital was administering prostaglandin. Fructose, also a component of seminal fluid, may have been around somewhere, though.) You could always boldly rework the article. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A rather crude way of explaining it is that little baby Jesus didn't break Mary's hymen on the way out. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If Mary's miraculous hymen survived giving birth then it could well have survived intercourse. -- 110.49.193.42 (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did this idea come from that Mary was a virgin forever? She produced a half-brother for Jesus, for one thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's a great big article linked up there which might tell you all about that! Adam Bishop (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's based on the notion that sex is evil, therefore Mary remained a virgin. Never mind that there's nothing in the Bible to support those crazy theories. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, there is. Of course, there is also material supporting the opposite. And if you then get to chose your sequence of mistranslations from Sumerian to ancient Hebrew to Aramaic to Koine Greek to Vulgar Latin to English, you can support whatever you like. The whole virginity story first appeared in the Greek, of course, when someone translated "girl" with "virgin". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Prophets were originally written in Sumerian? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, but I suggest that parts of the Pentateuch go back to to Sumerian roots. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Contradictions? Shazam! Well, the fact He had brothers pretty well wipes out the idea, even though the sex-hating Catholics wanted to keep her "pure" forever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't the girl/virgin mistranslation from Hebrew? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes -- (עלמה) almah means maiden, while (בתולה) betulah means virgin. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Hebrew words "בְּתוּלָה" ("betulah") and "עַלְמָה" ("almah") and the Greek word "παρθενος" ("parthenos") are discussed at Isaiah 7:14. See also http://www.multilingualbible.com/isaiah/7-14.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Start with the understanding that the hymen has nothing to do with medical virginity. Proceed from there. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Extreme Perpetual Virginity of Mary was attested (per [some Catholic sources) by a midwife who witnessed that even as Jesus was being delivered, Mary's hymen retained only a tiny opening, so it must have been similar to expanding foam sealant coming out of an aerosol can. Or it might have been "Birth By Teleportation" or a "Magical C Section." Edison (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Religionists are perfectly willing to cite non-canonical sources when it suits their purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

no surprise here 200.144.37.3 (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

? Catholics have never claimed to be sola scriptura: they hold that Holy Tradition is just as valid as the Bible, given that Christianity predates the Bible. When discussing a Catholic belief, if seems odd to expect them to only consider the Protestant canon as canonical. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Their retrofitting of Mary as being forever a virgin directly relates to their hatred of sex. They decided to keep her in a perpetual chastity belt, and they cherry-picked passages from scripture and elsewhere to support that theory, and ignored anything that contradicted it - including logic and reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

But that raises further questions: Where did this hatred of sex come from? Was there a pre-existing tradition of hatred of sex? It seems quite unnatural to hate something that is both intensely pleasurable and necessary for the continuation of the species. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It reflects a kind of quasi-"Gnostic" asceticism/dualism which was kind of "in the air" ca. 200 A.D., and widely influential on a number of differing religious movements and/or philosophical schools (which otherwise really didn't have much in common) in the middle east / Mediterranean region during that period. The various versions of Gnosticism ended up having no real influence on the actual theological doctrines of "mainstream" or traditionally-orthodox Christianity -- but Gnosticism or quasi-Gnosticism did have an impact on the attitudes of a number of early church fathers, who felt that marriage was a poor second-best to remaining a virgin, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Does it not go back further? After all, 1 Corinthians 7 has Paul discussing marriage as a necessary evil, given that people cannot control their sexual urges. He says that it would be better if everyone could be celibate, but that not everyone has the gift for it, so it's better that they get married! That's first century, and our article says it appears in the earliest canons, so it isn't even just a case of being included later when the mood matched. Or are you specifically referring to perpetual virginity of Mary? 82.24.248.137 (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul did not discuss marriage as a necessary evil, but he portrayed it as an extra challenge for Christians living in the current world. (1 Corinthians 7:29–35)—Wavelength (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems quite unnatural to hate something that is both intensely pleasurable and necessary for the continuation of the species. --That's quite a leap; preventing STD transmission and preventing overpopulation (given the scarcity of food) are two particularly righteous causes, especially during a time when humanity was so fragile. There are a lot of *very* practical downsides to sex. I would bet there is a PHD paper or two on the fitness of a society of prudes vs those that, ah, do "what comes naturally"... --144.191.148.3 (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The downside of "no sex", on the other side, is that humanity dies out within one generation. That may not be that bad an idea, but I find the result somewhat boring. Of course, for early apocalyptic Christianity, that was not a problem - indeed, if you look at Paul's letters, you can see him flailing at an explanation why the apocalypse still has not happened, and what to do with granny, who died yesterday, thus just about missing the kingdom to come ("any second now, or maybe tomorrow, but no later than the day after that"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You can continue to say that (over and over again), but it doesn't change the fact that Catholic canon is broader than Protestant canon, and so this is a belief supported by (Catholic) canon. And since when were logic and reason supposed to dictate people's beliefs in an all-powerful God and his fully-human, fully-God son who rose from the dead? 82.24.248.137 (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic canon does not include any more 'New Testament' texts than the Protestant/Reformed canon. The texts cited above with regard to Our Lady's virginity are regarded as non-canonical even by Catholics; but just because a thing is non-canonical does not mean it is treated as false. Mind you, I'd always understood reason to be a teaching principle of the Church, and the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary seems contrary to reason, as well as to the claims of the evangelists and the early church that Jesus had natural siblings - James the Just, not least. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't contain any more 'New Testament' texts, but the Biblical canon is not the only source of canonical 'truth' in Catholicism: there is Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. Mixed up in this are the writings of the Church Fathers and other sacred texts that found their way into the liturgy: things like the Gloria. In short, there are more canonical texts in Catholicism than just the Bible, and there is more canon than just canonical texts. If you want to understand that point of view, you could look at this page from the Catechism: 82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." 86.164.66.83 (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Bible does not promote hatred of sex, but it speaks of it respectfully. (http://www.multilingualbible.com/proverbs/5-18.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/proverbs/5-19.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/proverbs/5-20.htm)

—Wavelength (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus had at least six siblings (four brothers and two sisters).—http://www.multilingualbible.com/matthew/13-55.htm and http://www.multilingualbible.com/mark/6-3.htm and Mark 3:31–35—Wavelength (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To my mind, the whole "Virgin/pure maiden" thing is a blending of Roman mythology into the Christian rhetoric. there are numerous cases of Greek/Roman gods impregnating women to produce god-like offspring, and in the Roman mindset gods only hankered after the pure and beautiful maidens. In other words, Jesus said something that his followers interpreted to mean he was the son of god, 'son of god' to the romans meant literal procreation, and literal procreation carried all sorts of presumptions about whom a god would procreate with. but what do I know. --Ludwigs2 00:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Something like Netflix for books

Is there a site where one can enter authors and books he likes, and the site then recommends more authors and books the reader will likely enjoy, like Netflix does for movies, or like a kindly and knowledgeable librarian or bookseller might do? I seem to recall hearing of some site like "Visual library" or Virtual librarian" but could not find it via Google. Thanks. Edison (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Amazon.com does that. You just click on books and add them to your shopping cart and it recommends other books that purchasers of the one you chose have also ordered. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

LibraryThing does that too. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Amazon does this but not very well. When buying books for my brother, from his own wishlist, Amazon will then recommend books for me based on what I bought for him. I haven't bothered looking at their recommendations in a while but they also used to recommend other books to me because I simply looked at the description of an initial book. Dismas|^(talk) 04:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Amazon is not unique with this problem. I've studied a lot of recommender systems. They tend to use singular value decomposition (SVD) to group users and products into similarity groups. Then, you are recommended products that are highly similar to products you bought (or viewed) as well as products users who are similar to you bought (or viewed). The biggest problem with SVD is that it has absolutely no sense of order. So, you purchase something like the 6th book in a series, it will suggest the first 5 books - even though most people won't purchase the 6th book without already having read the first 5 books. The reason they continue to use SVD is because the other common option is the hidden Markov model. That has a sense of order and is far more accurate. For order and accuracy, you end up trading a fast SVD calculation for an extremely time-consuming Markov model construction and traversal. So... what does Netflix use that makes it so good? According to their published work and the Netflix prize papers, they are using SVD and don't worry about order since a rather small percentage of movies need to be seen in order. -- kainaw™ 04:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note: Amazon allows you to exclude items you bought from being used for suggestions, and it allows you to indicate items you already own. It does, however, do a lousy job of distinguishing good bad science fiction from bad bad science fiction ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you actually buy The Eye of Argon from Amazon? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course! Amazon is, like, the Wikipedia of commerce. Paul (Stansifer) 19:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ranked 741,584th in the Amazon Bestseller List, I notice. I'm astonished it's that popular. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

But paying attention to order can cause overfitting in the cases (most of them) where order isn't relevant. Also, if I remember correctly from the one time that I've done this kind of stuff, SVD doesn't do clustering at all: it simplifies the huge lots-of-people-by-lots-of-books matrix into a lots-of-people-by-a-few-abstract-factors matrix so the clusters are easier to pick out (and clustering runs faster). Paul (Stansifer) 19:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in that SVD is not itself used for clustering. They tend to use something like vector cosine to measure similarity. SVD makes the vector cosine calculation much faster and covers missing data. -- kainaw™ 20:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

We have Online general-interest book databases... AnonMoos (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not quite it,but I find it useful for recommendations.http://www.shelfari.com/..hotclaws 16:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You could also ask a Librarian. Our local library website has links to "What should I read next?" type pages that have books grouped together by author and genre as well as by actual people who have read the books listed and know if they are similar or not.63.146.74.132 (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Did Hiltler do anything good?

Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime are rightly reviled for the murder of the Jews, their agressive warmongering and bestial treatment of subject peoples. However, did they do anything which could reasonably be regarded as good or worthwhile? For example, they were ahead of their time in promoting animal rights, for which legislation was introduced shortly after they came to power. Many people these days would see that as a positive - though little enough to set against the massive negatives, to be sure. Are there any other examples of good or worthwhile policy. I am not suggesting that any such policies would in any way alleviate or counterbalance the dreadful inhumanity of the regime but I am interested in peoples' opinion as to whether they were irredeemably 100% evil or whether there was some miniscule part of their makup which could be said to be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossdeep (talk • contribs) 01:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to do a project for Social Studies class in Grade 10 on exactly this. I found that it was ultimately not worth the hassle of defending myself against accusations any perceived sympathy for Hitler or the Nazis, given their rather obvious and overwhelming evil-ness. That said, see volkswagen and the autobahns. I personally believe that the only conceivable reason that they accomplished anything that could be remotely considered good was only because they were in government and had to do something to gain support of the German people in general at the time, and hating Jews and Catholics wasn't enough initially. So even the "good stuff" was done to serve their evil purposes. Aaronite (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

They built a nice stadium which is still in use. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Along with the Autobahns they built rest stops along the way, just like we still have on big highways now. They had some nice architecture courtesy Albert Speer, although Speer was fond of using Jewish slave labour. Ah well. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The research behind the V-2 rocket was the basis of basically all 20th century rocket technology, which enabled both the US and USSR space programs. Staecker (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If mere technological advances count, the Messerschmitt Me 262 was the first operational jet fighter, and it was pretty effective, too. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of things that happened in Germany during the Hitler regime, that have had some benefit. Staecker notes the rocket technology. Methadone also came out of German research around 1937, originally as an analgesic. Its principal use in North America until recently, however, has been in drug addiction treatments. Whether the political regime can take credit is a matter for those more knowledgeable than I am. Bielle (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, unemployment was extremely low during Nazi rule. Dismas|^(talk) 04:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but on the whole the Nazi economy was not sound. They bankrupted the country in ten years, but the war tends to obscure that. They were basically financing their lavish public spending through conquest. It could not have gone on much longer. But it did buy them popularity.--Rallette (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, he killed himself. A lot of people consider that a good thing. Astronaut (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Unemployment was low because he created projects like building autobahns in order to employ people. They weren't particularly good jobs (in terms of pay and conditions - a lot of people would have rather stayed unemployed, but weren't allowed), but from an economics point of view it was certainly better than the people being unproductive. Hitler's other method of reducing unemployment wasn't so admirable, though: he crossed all the Jews off the list and threw those Jews that were working out of their jobs (and, towards the end, killed them) and gave them to non-Jewish Germans. --Tango (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything Hitler did was good for Germany with the single exception of killing/interning etc people, where killing is to include his warfare in attempting to expand Germany. The German people who were not on Hitler's shit list never had it so good, before or in all the time since. His fatal flaw was that he was not ecumenical; firstly, he did not include the whole of his population within his vision, instead wishing to exterminate some. and secondly, he did not expand his region with oration and a talented interpreter, but by force. Germany could have been the leader and creator of the European Union nigh on seventy years ago. 92.230.232.58 (talk) Trace that IP. 92.230.232.58 (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, lavish public spending that bankrupted the country, financed by looting neighbouring countries and jews. It's easy to daydream that if not for the war, it could have been just sweet. Not so. If not for the early successes in the war, Germany would have had to shut down the Volks-welfare-state even sooner, for simple lack of cash. There are many people with fond memories of those happy days, but it could not last. The Nazis were a bunch of gangsters with a gangster's narrow and superficial understanding of economic matters.--Rallette (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, such happy, golden days! But what a price was paid, and is still being paid. It was not a good deal. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that "The German people who were not on Hitler's shit list never had it so good". He instituted a totalitarian one-party state ripe with neighbour spying on neighbours, informers and an over-all demand for 100% loyalty to the state no matter what. The average German would experience this as more of a nuisance that an advantage, but of course by then it was too late to go back. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

all right, you guys have me. I just posted that because I, too, see that some people have fond memories of that time (I'm just 29 and an American myself, living in Bavaria), and I wanted to know if that was a reasonable idea. Your responses prove that it isn't. Thanks, especially Rallette. 92.230.232.58 (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw a book recently that suggested the Nazis were ahead of the curve on cancer research, but I have no way of knowing if this is true. GreatManTheory (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

He organized the first antismoking campaign: Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. German soldiers and civilians were discouraged from smoking, while the US sent large supplies of ciggies to the soldiers to get them hooked while they were young and in a stressful situation. Edison (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

He also made the trains to the death camps run on time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Technically it was Adolf Eichmann who did that.--Saddhiyama (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Making the trains run on time was typically credited to Mussolini, but some amiable drudge long before Wikipedia or the internet checked actual paper records of train arrivals in Il Duce's Italy and found that his record was no improvement on the previous administration's. Eventually allied bombers made the trains run late or not at all (not soon enough, sadly, for many bound for the death camps). When the European Economic Community recently set up a system of chartered jumbo jets to hop from EUC country to country picking up captured illegal immigrants and delivering them back to their third world countries, ironically they put Germany in charge of organizing the transportation. Presumably they put the British in charge of policing and the French in charge of meals. Edison (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Unfortunately, as opposed to passenger trains, in Germany the trains to the extermination camps ran pretty much on schedual right up to the very end. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In WW1 and WW2, German submarines were excellent and served as a model for the next generation of non-German subs. Germany also made progress in television broadcasting during WW2. Germany developed high fidelity magnetic tape recording during WW2, appropriated and widely used worldwide after the war. Edison (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Nazis had all sorts of nice qualities. They were pro-technology. They were pro-animal. They were environmentalists, and lovers of classical arts. They were anti-cigarette, pro-public health. Unfortunately nearly every one of these qualities came with a dark side. They were anti-science when it didn't conform to "German" standards (and when it wasn't done by "true" Germans), and many of their great technological advances were done in the service of their conquest plans. They considered dogs to have more dignity than most sub-groups of humans. They managed human populations with the same fervor that they managed insect populations — even with the same chemicals. They loved certain arts and persecuted those which didn't fit their ideological stripes. Their public health zeal was applied equally to genetic cleansing. So, sure, there were some good things, I suppose. But nearly every one of them came with some sort of horror. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It is valid to point out that without A. Hitler none of us (well, those who are less than 65 or so) would be alive. History would have followed a different course, our parents may not have met, there would have been a different sperm coming first, etc. For all practical purposes the vast majority of Europeans, US Americans, Japanese, etc owe their existence to the late Führer. The thought seems rather revolting. If you consider it to be "good" is a personal evaluation. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe we do owe everything to Hitler, but fundamentally no more so than to Chaos Butterfly. Someone, and I forget who, once pointed out that people do indeed have a curious tendency to feel somehow glad history turned out the way it did. History before them, that is, not of course their own lives.--Rallette (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hitler kept out communism. It is well known there were some sympathies for Hitler in Britain during the early years (certainly not for the Holocaust) mainly for this reason. I've got a copy of The Times from November 11, 1917, echoing this message: "Red Flag Flies Over Berlin" (worries of a Russian-style takeover). Of course, it's a matter of opinion whether first-stage commumism is a good thing or not, but I think it would be fair to say that the majority of people in the west see keeping out communism as a good thing. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not very effectively. When he came to power, there was one communist State; after the war he launched, there were ten - including the one in Germany. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

1) 'Communist state' is a bit of a misnomer, 2) there were two established socialist states by the time the war was initiated (USSR & Mongolia). --Soman (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly the single most embarrassing discussion that I have ever come across anywhere in Wikipedia. Have you guys ever thought for a second about the intention that may lie behind this question? Nazi Germany was a brutal and inhumane totalitarian regime and everything that anyone has had the naivety to call "good qualities" of the Nazis has to do with the efficiency of planned action that is possible in a totalitarian regime. Are you tired of living in a democracy? --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Only the Sith deal in absolutes ;) Pretending that absolutely everything about everything done by a given government in a given country was evil, helps nobody. We need to be able to talk about it as a system made up of people, many of them idealistic, which had among its goals many that sounded noble or sensible to people at the time. Pretending that there was nothing good there at all, or that it was just about evil people doing evil things, renders it inhuman and impossible to learn from. It encourages the view that we would never be caught up in such a thing, we would never let such things happen, that it was a unique aberration. And that is dangerous. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything that was mentioned as being "good" under the Nazis could have and has happened under democratic governments (pro-technology, pro-environment, "lovers of classical arts", oh dear). In connection with the Nazis these things are simply unremarkable and searching for "good" aspects about them is a futile exercise. In fact, asking such a question all too often simply promotes a hidden agenda (before accusing the original poster of an agenda I'll just stick with "naive"). I have occasionally that often enough: "...but they built the autobahn." So what? Doesn't take a f***ing Nazi to build an autobahn. The Nazis obviously had an appeal to people in the distress of the economic crisis of the early thirties, but that does not mean that any part of their politics really was "good". In fact, their rise to power had more to do with the complete failure of the democratic politicians of the late Weimar Republic than even the Nazis' appeal for the electorate (they never obtained an absolute majority in a national election). --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone claimed that any of the 'good' things mentioned could only have happened under the Nazis? Everything said above has been carefully swathed in 'but the downside was...'/'but obviously this doesn't count for much against...'/'but this was heavily biased by...' etc. You are looking at the word good as meaning morally good, when almost none of the answers above have done so. For example, advances in submarine and rocket technology are 'good' from the point of view of advancing technology, but do not have a moral value. Try rereading the answers above, bearing in mind that good has other meanings. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Like most forms of state socialism, the Nazis started out on the right foot and rapidly went wrong. In a matter of a few years (prior to the war) the Nazis brought Germany from a state of desperate economic collapse back to a 'world power' status. as time went on, however, the inner circle became increasingly detached from the public, power-hungry, and paranoid. The Nazi experience is actually very typical - if you look you can see the same pattern repeated in countless banana republics and 'president-for-life' totalitarianisms over the 20th century. the only difference is that Germany was not a third-world nation but a major European power, and the country had the informational and technological resources to indulge their paranoid delusions on a scale tin-pot groups like Iraqi Ba'ath party or the Khmer Rouge couldn't dream of. Even Russia under Stalin was a backwater by comparison.

Hitler was just a politician, who probably started out (like most politicians) as a charismatic jerk. While I expect he deserves every vilification that he gets, I also suspect that after a certain point in time he was no longer in control. that's also typical of state socialisms - they encourage an ambiguity about authority which makes it impossible to trace 'bad acts' back to policy makers (think Abu Graib), but also makes it impossible for policy makers to have the kind of information or clear authority chains they would need to control behavior at lower echelons. --Ludwigs2 00:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I would seriously dispute your premises. There is pretty much nothing in common between e.g. early Nazism and the early Soviet Union or Cuba. The last two could be conveniently grouped as "state socialism" (although that is clearly a matter of debate), but extending the group to include the Nazis makes it completely meaningless. If all you're talking about is achieving power, you could claim that the Nazis started off on the right foot, but beyond that, their fevered anti-semitism (and anti-many other things) was already obvious - the Stab-in-the-back legend was a core part of their ideology. Within a month of Hitler's appointment as Chancellor, they started the Reichstag Fire. Finally, was Hitler really not in control? Sure, complete and unchallenged control is unattainable, but he championed the scorched earth policy of the final days of the Reich - still taking the lead on policy. Nazism was exceptional; there were certainly some achievements (as discussed by other posters), and there were similarities with regimes elsewhere, but the differences with a group like the Iraqi Ba'athist, awful as they were, are far greater than you claim. Warofdreams talk 17:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

England's National Day?

What is the English equivalent of the American Independence Day in terms of celebration? I was told by an English friend of mine that St. George's Day is the official one but that it's not really celebrated. Rather the Last Night of the Proms is the most nationalist celebration atmosphere he could think of. Is this really the case or is there a holiday I'm unaware of? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, as an Englishman born and bred, St. George's day is celebrated a little, but not very much. In terms of regular occasions, the Last Night of the Proms is certainly a very patriotic (I wouldn't say "nationalist", per se) event for those there / who watch and listen to it; equally one could argue that there are similar outbursts at Royal events (jubilees, deaths, coronations), some events related to the military, and England football matches. But in terms of regular patriotic days we are a little lacking in my experience. (I'm fairly young, it may be that I've simply forgotten / never noticed other such outpourings.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that Americans tend to associate fireworks with the Fourth of July, it's also worth noting that our pyrotechnic counterpart is the Fifth of November. It's not equivalent in any other way, however. 87.112.158.100 (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, "Bonfire Night". To clarify for the benefit of those unfamiliar with the event, it doesn't carry (in my experience, again) any patriotic overtones, even though it sounds (from the article) like it might. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 22:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I'm astonished that our article on Guy Fawkes Night does not mention its relationship to the old pagan ceremony of Samhain, held around the same time of year, which long predates 1605. The supposed difference of a few days between the two is easily accounted by past calendar changes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And neither does the article about Samhain mention such a link. Possibly this is because Samhain is Hallowe'en, not Guy Fawkes night. Or are you suggesting that Fawkes and his co-conspirators attempted to blow up Parliament in order to celebrate a pagan festival? 87.112.158.100 (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Several pre/non-Christian cultures had/have a celebration or ceremony around this time of year involving fireworks or other manifestations of light, perhaps because of the approaching darkest season of the year. The assumption in neo-Pagan circles (Heh!) is that with Samhain and related folk celebrations suppressed, the adjacent 5th of November commemoration provided an agreeable emotional substitute, though it has no direct doctrinal connection. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No "national" celebration day, as such, exists. There is no equivalent - perhaps because England never had to fight to acquire its independence from anyone, or to overthrow a dictatorial monarchy or regime. The relationships between "English nationalism" (such as it is), the other parts of the UK, and "Britishness", are hugely complex matters (and, incidentally, the subject of much discussion between WP editors on other pages). Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Battle of Hastings is the last time (other than the Cromwell situation) where an English king was overthrown. Is anything done in reference to 1066? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we be celebrating a victory or mourning a defeat? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, and you're wrong anyway about 1066. Have a look at the Battle of Bosworth Field and the Glorious Revolution, for example. 87.112.158.100 (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

So maybe the British "independence day" should be the day the Romans left, whenever that was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In any discussion about this, please try not to confuse "English" and "British". They are very different concepts. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no specific day for that. There is a traditional year (410), but even that is not exactly accurate. (Would you believe we have a whole article about this?) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Curiously, the Fifth of November is also celebrated in New Zealand. Alansplodge (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither Britain nor England existed then :)

ALR (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In sum, then, there isn't one. Moves to promote St George's day do include proposals that come around every so often to make it a bank holiday. I'm not holding my breath. Apparently, England has fewer bank holidays than most of our European partners. It's also tied into the English nationalism issue - particularly agitation by a few regarding the apparent inequity - no English parliament, versus the West Lothian question. There's no huge English agitation on any of these matters, just a few grumbles. How very English. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. None of the four Saints days really get much recognition. Mind you there is a ocmpletely different rationale, none of the four constituents have really had that clear point in history that justifies that level of recognition. ALR (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is no English equivalent of the US Independence Day. There have been various proposals for an English, British or United Kingdom national day holiday - see British Day - but none of these proposals has widespread acceptance, and all of them generate significant opposition from different quarters. Maybe national days are the equivalent of birthdays - an important celebration when you are young, but less significant when you are older and more mature (as a person or as a country). Gandalf61 (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest May Day as the nearest we get? In some parts of the country pagan fertility rituals are still observed (maypoles, morris dancing and the like). I'd also put forwards the idea that the English don't go in for overt displays of emotion and affection, and so celebrating a "national day" is somehow infra dig. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the Queen's Official Birthday is closer to the mark. That's when knighthoods and other honours are dished out, and the Trooping the Colour takes place. Plus, it's in keeping with the National Anthem being God Save the Queen. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A Jubilee Street Party, 1977

Yes but unlike some parts of the Commonwealth, we don't get a day off, and there's no general celebrations apart from those who go and cheer in The Mall. We do have Coronations, Jubilees and Royal Weddings, when people decorate their houses, put out the flags and sit down to a party tea in the middle of the road with their neighbours, but these are not annual events. As Ghmyrtle says, these are British celebrations rather than English ones, but we English embrace them a bit more enthusiastically than our fellow Brits from the "Celtic Fringe". Alansplodge (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, as a minor additional thought - we don't tend to do 'flag-waving' and being obviously nationalistic. It just isn't in our makeup. 194.223.35.225 (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I England we have a tendency to be just a little bit ashamed of being English. The st Georges cross is rarely used and even the union flag is fairly rare in comparison to the welsh or Scottish (and even Cornish). I would suggest that possibly there's just a little hereditary guilt over the empire. Abergabe (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Scotland and Wales (and to some extent Cornwall) essentially define themselves in terms of being "not England". England doesn't really define itself in contradistinction to another area in quite the same way (except, sometimes, "not Germany"). And, it is, both historically and now, a very diverse area which in many ways lacks a clear sense of its own identity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Historically, England defined itself for quite a while as "not French" (which is ironic, considering 1066 and All That and the fact that the French aristocratic refugees from the French revolution had a major role in forming English society) and in particular "not Catholic". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree about the flag waving. When we do do flag waving, we do (at events named above). It's just that it's not an all-day, every day thing. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We wave flags at sporting events. That's about it. --Tango (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a big part of it is the age of the country. England has been around in its present form since 1066, pretty much (things like Magna Carta and the Act of Union 1707 changed things a bit, but not to anywhere the extent that it could be considered a new country - even when we became part of the United Kingdom, it was really just Scotland becoming part of England for most purposes). That means we have built up lots of (now very obscure) traditions that we are very attached to (eg. the use of Norman French in the Royal Assent) but we've got used to the country being here so don't make a big deal about it in any direct way. --Tango (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Last Night of the Proms and sporting events tend to be the only shows of patriotism, and many of us look on these shows with amusement rather than any feelings of patriotism. The "nationalistic" cause I would support most fervently would be Home rule for Yorkshire! (Why don't we have an article?) Dbfirs 09:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Freedom for Tooting! Abergabe (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that the age of the country has anything to do with it. A lot of European countries that are as old or even older have national days. The concept of a national day is quite new, usually linked with the origin of the concept of the nation state that sprung up in the 19th century. I guess the reason why the UK doesn't have a particular national day may be sought in that period in history. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sculpture identification

Near the UN Headquarters in New York, there is a sculpture with several stone columns. One of the columns has a gleaming blue ball on top of it. I read the plaque on it but now can't recall who it's dedicated to. Can anyone help? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 22:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If you know exactly where it is perhaps you could find it on Google Street View to help with identification. --Sean 15:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought of that too, but funnily enough I tried looking at UN HQ once on Street View and it didn't come up, perhaps for security reasons which is a bit odd as thousands of people walk past it every day. I haven't tried it lately though. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 15:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's in a park, it might be on this page[1]. I've never been to NY so it needs a more expert eye. Alansplodge (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not in a park. It's in the middle of 1st Ave. just north of the intersection of 1st and 46th. If you look on Google Maps, you'll see the shadows of the pillars. Maybe I'll just upload my picture of it. That might help with identification. Then I can get that image deleted and upload it again with a better file name... Dismas|^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a picture of it: http://i.imgur.com/T7YDZ.jpg --Sean 18:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Here we are: Raoul Wallenberg, article about sculpture. Found answer on Google Earth. --Sean 18:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 01:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)