Humanities desk
< February 3	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 5 >

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

February 4

Killer kings

British historical kings were well known for killing people, for example Henry the Eighth, Richard III and Elizabeth I and many more. 1) What was the most recent known murder or killing by or at the direct command of a King? 2) Were there any historical kings who never killed anyone? 3) Who killed the most? Thanks 92.24.190.211 (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English kings have never, at least since the Norman conquest, had the legal authority simply to order somebody to be killed, except perhaps on the field of battle for disobeying a direct order. There have of course been cases where a king has commanded his servants to secretly murder somebody, but the number of cases of that wouldn't be very large, and in most such cases the commands were given in somewhat ambiguous language. The more usual way to have somebody killed was to accuse them of treason or some other capital crime. Looie496 (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George VI is probably a safe bet for a king who never killed anyone. A thoroughly decent man. Broody Mary may not have killed anyone with here bare hands, but killings she instigated are still commemorated every year here in Sussex. DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I would say that none of the three above examples count unequivocally as murder. Henry VIII's "killings" were the executions of two of his wives for adultery, which was considered treason because of the clear constitutional crisis the adultery of the Kings wife could cause (since it raises into doubt the legitimacy of the succession). To be fair, there is considerable belief that, at least in the case of Anne Boleyn, the charges may have been trumped up. Catherine Howard's adultery was most likely genuine. But, at least officially, execution for treason was a legitimate reason to kill someone (though, as noted, the charges against Anne Boleyn were spurious at best). Richard II's alleged murders of the Princes in the Tower isn't proven by any means; the fact that we believe it to be true is likely because of William Shakespeares characterization of Richard II, and not because of any hard evidence. Elizabeth's ordered execution was of Mary, Queen of Scots was likewise probably justified as treason given her involvement in the Catholic uprisings in England against her cousin, as well as at least three plots to assasinate Elizabeth herself. Elizabeth likely didn't want to execute her cousin (she had ample opportunity given that she was under arrest for 19 years!). The most famous muderous King was likely Henry II who is reported to have ordered the murder of Thomas Becket. --Jayron32 01:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction - Richard III, not Richard II, was fingered by his (possibly actually guilty) successor for the Princes in the Tower job. I recommend Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time for an entertaining and thorough, though perhaps not unbiased, examination of the matter. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Various species of murdering scum are likely to justify their deeds by specious definition: "She betrayed me!" Etc. Still considered murder by most of rational humanity. Edison (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the entire governmental stability of your country depends on your wife keeping away from other men's penises. There's a valid point to be made if there's a likely civil war that would result from your wife's pecadillos... --Jayron32 04:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder being the unlawful taking of life, it's questionable whether very many British monarchs were out-and-out murderers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard I prdered the wholesale slaughter of captured Muslim prisoners which included women and children. His brother King John left a trail of blood leading up to and beyond his throne. His crimes include blinding and killing his nephew Arthur, walling Maud de Braose and her son alive in a dungeon. The hero of Agincourt gave orders for captured French soldiers to be killed. Henry VIII ordered executions like we order take-away pizzas. Richard III has been accused of killing the Princes in the Tower, but there is compelling evidence which lays the deed at the door of the usurper Henry VII (father of Henry VIII, so go figure). I have read that some of the horrific torture devices were put into use during the reign of Edward IV who became cruel towards the end of his reign. Then there was Edward I, who treated the Scots with pitiless barbarity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Henry V of England, the execution of prisoners was in retaliation for the French sneaking round to the rear of the English line and capturing the baggage train. Shakespeare shows him upset at the women and children that were killed in the process but this, more contemporary report suggests it was the loss of horses that vexed him so. Alansplodge (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Henry ordered the executions out of fear that they might rearm, and being such a large number completely overpower the battle-fatigued English soldiers who wouldn't have been able to put up much of a defence. That vexed many of the English who were hoping to take French nobles for ransoms.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To question 2, I strongly doubt Edward V of England ever killed anyone or had anyone killed. Pais (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind supreme monarchs with titles that nobody translates to "king", you may want Ivan VI of Russia — his reign ended when he was still an infant, and he was a prisoner the rest of his short life. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World population pyramid

Where can I find a population pyramid of the entire planet? (Not a country) 76.69.186.194 (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right here (Third page), courtesy of the US Census Bureau. APL (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primer to List of Philosophies?

Is there a crash course, or primer to List of philosophies? Short of reading every single article or partaking in undergraduate studies in philosophy? Something that traces the history, evolution and relationships of at least the "main ones". I'm not after a primer to philosophy it self, I've got that mostly covered. just the reading I've been doing recently someone will bring up Libertarianism, or Utilitarianism, or Post-structuralism or something and I have to go away and read up on it, and that's ok, i'm not against doing that, neither am expecting an "easy answer," I understand people devote an entire life of scholarly study to each one of those, so I'm not expecting to learn about all of them in one sitting, but I've never even come across anything like an "origins of" or time line or how they relate to each other, which is a subset, which is a moral stance etc… Even if it takes a text book to get the basics, I'm open to any suggestions. Thanks. Vespine (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my English class, we had to read (an English Translation of) Sophie's World. It's a novel, but pretty explicitly written as an introduction to the history of (Western) philosophy, for kids or young adults. Buddy431 (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every philosophy class is a primer to some set of philosophies. There are too many to cover in some "Intro to philosophy" class. They are divided according to subject matter ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, etcetera. Greg Bard (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right! Of course, so i should just read what's linked in the Branches of philosophy section and i just noticed each does seem to have an introduction to its main theories. Thanks, seems obvious now I've seen those sections.. Vespine (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. Very well written. DuncanHill (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is well written, but not a primer as it's doorstop size as far as I recall. And it has been criticised by philosophers, dont remember why. 92.24.180.229 (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a primer because you don't need any prior knowledge of the subject to read and benefit from it. It's been criticised for missing out certain areas (e.g. Kierkegaard), and for partisanship, but as Russell said "I was sometimes accused by reviewers of writing not a true history but a biased account of the events that I arbitrarily chose to write of. But to my mind, a man without bias cannot write interesting history — if, indeed, such a man exists." If you confine yourself to works which have not been criticised by philosophers, you won't actually read anything. DuncanHill (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore, one should only read well-written books. DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to second that recommendation for Bertrand Russell's magnificent book. For a reasonably comprehensive introduction to the subject (note it's Western philosophy) it's not really very long (800+ pages). One of my favorite bits is his introduction to Spinoza -- "Spinoza (1634-77) is the noblest and most loveable of the major philosophers. Intellectually, some others have surpassed him, but ethically he is supreme. As a natural consequence, he was considered, during his lifetime and for a century after his death, a man of appalling wickedness." I find this book to be so readable that every time I pick it up I have trouble putting it back down. Antandrus (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation for Senior Sergeant

Is there any abbreviation for the Senior Sergeant rank? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.224.253 (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian police section in our article on Sergeant suggests "SENSGT", but "Sen-Sgt" or "Sen Sgt" seem to be used quite a bit more frequently. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian protesters

what are the motives of these troublemakers? --Cow Goat Hybrid (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the Wikipedia article 2011 Egyptian protests for the answer to your question. --Jayron32 16:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troublemakers? Corvus cornix_talk 19:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to those who are pro-Mubarak, the Anti-Mubarak protesters are indeed "troublemakers"... and of course, to those who have an Anti-Mubarak POV, the pro-Mubarak counter-protesters are the "troublemakers"... I strongly suggest that we not get get into arguments over labels and language here. If we are going to answer questions about the conflict on this board, we need to ignore any POV language that may be placed in the question... and focus on making sure that our replies remain neutral. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if taken literally, any protester (in pretty much any context) is a "troublemaker", though of course the term has a negative connotation beyond its literal meaning. Buddy431 (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Geography question

Which place name is shared by many cities ,many creeks, many lakes, a glacier , some hills , two islands and one knob?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, Spruce? Is there a prize? Mikenorton (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Boston Glacier on Boston Peak and the unrelated Boston Mountains. There is also a Boston Knob and many cities named Boston. I presume that there are also many creeks and lakes as well. I'm going with Boston. --Jayron32 17:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: These google searches also confirm that there are many creeks and many lakes with the name as well. --Jayron32 17:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to the addendum. There are also (at least) 2 Boston Islands: One in Maine: [1] and one in South Australia: [2]. --Jayron32 17:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the many cities called Boston - only the one in Massachusetts is a real city plus a 'rural-city' in Ontario and a 'city' in Georgia (population 1,417). Mikenorton (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it IS Boston, they forgot to mention The Stump! Alansplodge (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The specificness of the last two makes me think this is a quiz or a riddle. Anyway, there is a Fox for all but the last of them (although the various "Fox Hill"s are are townships, not prominences). 17:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csmiller (talk • contribs)

There's a Fox's Knob in Shropshire. Mikenorton (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many names that are used many times. Some very common names off the top of my head are Victoria, Washington, Columbia, York, King's, Queen's, Devil's, Land's End, Paris, Saint John, Bay, Pine, Fox. The limiting factors are the glacier and having only two islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.96.10 (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is another World Atlas quiz... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

? Pfly (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, no knob. Two islands and one glacier though. Anyway, ref desk isn't for answering these quiz questions. But if anyone cares to think about it, the quiz indicates the place is a "southern" city--presumably the US south. Pfly (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South Boston, Virginia is doubly southern... --Jayron32 23:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try Birmingham. That sound possible. Googlemeister (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, the question's already been answered. Apparently the answer was Sherman. I must say, "Sherman's knob" sounds like the title of a British softcore porno comedy. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem and Thailand/Cambodian border

Is there any precedent for the United Nations taking possession of areas whose rightful possession is under dispute in order to eliminate military conflict over the area... err... except for the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea? --Inning (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea sounds sort of close? Not really "taking possession", of course. By the way, the UN also has not "taken possession" of the Korean DMZ. (I found that page at Category:United Nations Security Council mandates.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my mistake but the UN is somewhere in there preventing all out war between North Korea and South Korea over who has the right to occupy that strip of land. --Inning (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus. Also, the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force Zone between Israel and Syria. There are some more listed under Demilitarized zone, but I lack the will to check how many of them are/were UN-imposed. Rimush (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DMZ between North and South Korea is not nor has ever been administered by the United Nations. The Korean War was between North Korea (and allies) and South Korea, 'backed by the United Nations'. The DMZ is a voluntary exclusion zone drawn up along the front line shortly after the cease fire was declared. Inside this zone are two villages: Taeseong-dong and Kijong-dong; and one of these is protected by the United Nations Command - not the United Nations per se, and the other is used by North Korea. Also, there is no issue of 'all out war between North Korea and South Korea over who has the right to occupy that strip of land', because it was stipulated in the original cease fire that neither side shall do so. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the United Nations Trust Territories? Are they a precedent for the kind of thing you're thinking of?

He might be a motherfucker, but he's our motherfucker.

I remember reading a quote which ressembles this sentence, althrough I am not sure of the exact formulation, which was attritubed to numerous U.S political figures, including FDR and Robert McNamara. I am pretty sure it alluded to a South or Central American dictator. Does anyone have any ideas?

I think it was William Casey, speaking of a Central American dictator (Here's an example). Antandrus (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is attributed to FDR (as "son of a bitch"): [3] Antandrus (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is covered further in Anastasio_Somoza_García#.22Our_son_of_a_bitch.22.

Is an attritubion an attribution made on YouTube? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]