Humanities desk
< July 29	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 31 >

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

July 30

Former Location of Conservatoire de Paris

After reading the historical sections of both the Paris Conservatory (CNSMDP) site and the Wikipedia page on the same subject matter, I'm still uncertain of where the music conservatory was located between 1911 and 1990. Was it housed in a former Jesuit College (Rue de Madrid)? If so, is that building (or set of buildings) still standing and what is the exact address? I appreciate any assistance that can be offered.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnsmdp.fr%2F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatoire_de_Paris 98.242.77.225 (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the French WP about the Rue de Madrid, it is said that the conservatory was located from 1911 to 1990 at the number 16 of this street. But in the page about the Conservatoire à rayonnement régional de Paris, it is said that the Paris Conservatory was settled at number 14 of the rue de Madrid. I checked with Google Street, the correct address is 14; a shop called Le temps industriel is located at the number 16. — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politic worms

Hello, can you please tell me the meaning of the word politic in shakespeare's expression "a certain convocation of politic worms" ? 41.141.77.160 (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This book glosses the word as "shrewd" or "scheming". Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it means people who manipulate others to get what they want. StuRat (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This brings up a point. I saw once a claim that the word policy in the phrase honesty is the best policy does not mean "framework for behavior" as it would today, but something more like "diplomatic manipulation". In other words, the phrase is not a pious platitude, but more of an ironic paradox, something like "the most effective way to lie is to do it without saying anything untrue" or something along those lines. Maybe this should be a question at the language desk, but as long as we're here, can anyone give evidence to support or refute this idea? --Trovatore (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or "Honesty is critically important...once you've fooled everyone into thinking you're honest, you've got it made". StuRat (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

gold versus bonds

Doesn't the US government have gold it can sell instead of bonds? --DeeperQA (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite how it works. Start with United States Bullion Depository. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have to add hot water to the bullion to turn it back into gold ? :-) StuRat (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I think you're thinking of bouillon. I wasn't aware of the spelling difference, either, until quite recently. --Trovatore (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Puns don't respect spelling. However, your link doesn't go to either the gold or soup base, but rather a region of Belgium. StuRat (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

...and I suppose you are one of those who would say the price of gold and inflation are not related. --DeeperQA (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an actual question or are you trying to foment an argument? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of those who believe the price of gold is independent of inflation. At least, regarding the data of the last years, when we got 300% inflation on gold price and a much, much lower inflation. 193.153.125.105 (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though selling more bonds (increasing the debt limit) is the traditional way of raising cash to cover expenditures, that even though not traditional, selling grandmother's heirlooms to pay off debt if when the credit card gets maxed out will provide the necessary cash for expenditures to be paid. --DeeperQA (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to gold reserve, the US official reserves are about 8,000 tonnes and the price per tonne is about $50m (and that would drop if the US started selling off its reserves, due to simple supply and demand). That means the total reserves are worth about $0.4tn, but couldn't be sold for even that much. The US deficit is currently over $1tn a year and the total debt is over $14tn. As you can see, selling the gold reserves would hardly make a dent in the debt. It could buy the government a few months longer to get the debt ceiling raised, but at the cost of seriously damaging confidence in the ability of the US to pay its bills. --Tango (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The screwy part is that the U.S. supposedly doesn't want to "look bad" by selling gold, and the Russians apparently were even buying it. I suppose if our countries understood the whole "buy low sell high" thing, they wouldn't be in debt up the eyebrows... Wnt (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makes one wonder what was really behind the fall of Ancient Rome. --DeeperQA (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin and Stalin

Is there any evidence or clue that Lenin tried to get Stalin killed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.137.28 (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can start by reading about Lenin and Stalin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not a very helpful answer, to just echo back the names contained in a question.~~ Neither article appears to address the question. The Stalin article says Lenin had a "rift" with Stalin in 1921 or 1922, but also transferred more power to him. Edison (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon ! I know Wiki has articles on both chaps, I wanted if someone has something special... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.137.28 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If any of us had 'something special' it would no doubt be on Google. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and probably for sale. --DeeperQA (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~So none of the RefDesk regulars here have a clue about the topic, or any time to do research, but just wanted to post something?~~ Several of the early revolutionary leaders were accused of plotting to kill Stalin, and Stalin had several other leaders killed after show trials. Stalin was accused of plotting to kill Lenin, or of taking steps to speed his death. Lenin was not known for killing other revolutionary leaders, though he had lots of others killed. Lenin conferred power on Stalin, whose brutal methods aided him in his rivalry with Leon Trotsky and is said to have had doubts about Stalin on his deathbed,such as a writing in January 1923 where he said Stalin was "too brutal" to be the leader. See Rise of Joseph Stalin#Lenin's retirement and death for more on Lenin's doubts about Stalin, during a period after Lenin had had a stroke and when Stalin was his intermediary with the Party. Maybe Lenin whispered in someone's ear a desire to be rid of Stalin, but I could not find a reliable source which said Lenin sought to have Stalin killed. See [1]. There has been much propaganda and disinformation published about Stalin and Lenin, and some questionable memoirs were published as by Trotsky, years after the death of Lenin. Edison (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Apologies, Edison, as I myself did actually search Google specifically for 'stalin assassination attempts lenin' and found nothing which I deemed ~~related specifically to~~ would answer the OP's question. My answer was a recommendation for the OP to use Google, as I had done. Maybe I should have said that more clearly. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of reliable sources talk about death plots against Stalin. They also say Lenin wanted Stalin removed as General Secretary, and did not want him to be the big boss after Lenin's departure. At the same time, Stalin was in charge of Lenin's personal guard, and found out about Lenin's criticism of him shortly before Lenin's death. There have been accounts that say Stalin took steps to hasten Lenin's death. It would not be a huge leap for Lenin to have said something on some occasion comparable to King Henry saying ""Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", which led to the murder of Thomas Becket. But I could not find that the various plotters against Stalin said that Lenin had uttered even such an indirect request for Stalin's assassination. Edison (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to that "Stalin is too brutal" thing, for which you've linked a reference from Michael Charlton's book: that word "brutal" doesn't seem to be the way it's universally translated into English. Our own Lenin's Testament quotes a translation that has it as "Stalin is too rude". In his ongoing series Russia: The Wild East, Martin Sixsmith also used "rude". A quick survey of Google Books finds the same ("rude") translation used by Alan Wood's Stalin and Stalinism, Adam Ulam's Stalin, the man and his era, and many others. Looking at the text in the context of the paragraph that follows it, it's a complaint about Stalin's bad manners - suggesting the communists replace him with someone who is more "polite" and "tolerant" and less "capricious". In that context the "rude" translation is much more consonant than "brutal". So Lenin isn't saying "watch out for Stalin, he's a brutal psycho", he's saying "Stalin is too rough and crude for a high political office requiring people skills and finesse". Lenin is suggesting a modest re-org, not a hit. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The EDL leader's lament

In the wake of the Breivik shootings, an anti-Islamic group he praised called the English Defence League has been getting lots of publicity.^[2] Its leader presented some of his grievances in a news article, which I think concern the town of Luton. How much of this stuff is actually true? (Feel free to respond under any individual point below:)

Millions of Muslims obey "Saudi Arabian-funded “command-and-control” mosques".

"We are eating halal meat. I’m Catholic, I don’t want to eat meat blessed by another God, but I am eating it on a daily basis without even being told about it." (Is halal anything more than a description of fairly common meat preparation practices? If you don't know meat is halal is it treated in any way differently than non-halal meat?)

"My kids are having to visit mosques as part of the national curriculum in school."

"If you want to go swimming on a Tuesday you can’t because it is the Muslim swimming day. It is just renamed women-only days" (???)

"Icknield High School, last St. George's Day, completely banned the emblem of St. George. If anyone brought in a pin badge they were suspended." (Why?)

"Muslims who ... protested against the Iraq war “recruiting for, and promoting jihad” ... without police hindrance. However, his counter-protest was met with ... police on horseback with coshes out.”

In response to charges ranging from "racially aggravated abuse to criminal damage of property", as he put it the court "put a restraint order on me so that I can only have £250 a week" [leading to loss of his business]. (Can this be done to someone in Britain before a trial?)

Please note that I'm not asking this to endorse his opinions; but these claims are interesting because radical groups generally seem good at identifying problems even if they offer the wrong solutions. Wnt (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what political groups often do is to distort and invent facts to support their viewpoints. And the farther out they are, the farther out the distortions and inventions are. You can start with the false claim that the Islamic God is not the Christian God. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly possible to answer the question as stated. I'm not quite sure what the last bit means. ("I can only have"?) The last-but-one is one of these things which is spin. EDL marches (in Luton and elsewhere) have been met with a heavy police presence, and I'm sure some would have had horseback police. Their marches have a history of violence both by them and against them (by UAF, for example). This is not unusual for any rally of this sort and almost every time how 'fair' the presence was is looked at in the press, usually because one or both of UAF/EDL complains. Most of the Iraq war marches were police mandated, whether they were by Muslims or not. It would be impossible to police every street corner, maybe some weren't. In general, though, police fairness is always questioned, but never found guilty (other aspects of procedure are). On the Saint George's day thing, it's a case of pulling the one example that suits your cause. If you're a Muslim extremist, you pick the girl who was made to take her burka off; in EDL's case, it maybe happened, it's just the hasty generalisation that's false. I can't find any press of it, so maybe not. (You'd think maybe the Daily Mail or their website had something.) It would seem cause for a large backlash and it does not appear that it even happened. On the halal meat thing, it's prepared differently to usual. There was some press some time ago about fast food restuaruants in Muslim-dominated areas not bothering to offer two separate versions of everything, and giving everyone halal. This took people months to notice, as I recall the coverage was late in the day, and mentioned a handful of places (halal's more expensive, so you can see why). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "I can only have" presumably refers to a withdrawal limit on a frozen account, which as I understand is fairly usual - what seems less common to me is that this would be done pretrial to an individual not accused of a drug or other lucrative offense. Wnt (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are background articles about islamophobia in Luton here and here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this fascinating for some reason, so let's get started.

Millions of UK citizens are indeed followers of the Islamic faith, and attend mosques. I have no idea whose control those mosques are under, but if some of them are instructing their worshippers to do things that break UK law, then it's easy enough for the UK authorities to infiltrate such mosques and then take action against them. (Some controversial Muslim preachers in the UK have indeed had legal action taken against them.) Is it true that some rich Saudi Arabians are donating vast amounts of their petro-dollars to provide mosques and community centres and daycare and such in the UK, all for free? Gosh, I hope so.

Halal meat is relatively unremarkable for anyone whose religion does not forbid its consumption - the main difference is a requirement for the killing to be done with a sharp knife to the jugular, and usually death by electrocution is not permitted (but stunning with electrocution is permitted). I believe some slaughterhouses are jointly run so that both halal and kosher meat can be produced there, actually by the same staff. In fact, our article on the process, states that Islamic law permits the slaughtering to be carried out by a Jew or Christian, and the meat still qualifies as halal. It's entirely possible that some halal meat was served to people that weren't informed it was halal, just as it's possible kosher meat has been. (When I go to an Indian restaurant run by muslims, I assume I am eating halal food, but they very rarely specifically tell me so, and I don't care.) Catholicism does not forbid the consumption of halal meat (as far as I know).

I believe the National Curriculum requires pupils to be taught about the major world religions, of which Islam would be one, and Christianity another. It seems extremely unlikely that the National Curriculum requires pupils to be taken to visit a mosque specifically. Some schools might take pupils to visit a mosque (or a church, or a buddhist temple) as part of teaching about religion. One assumes parents would have the right to opt their children out of such a visit.

I can well believe that some municipal swimming pools in the UK have women-only days; a bit sexist, but it happens. What the person is presumably trying to imply is that the women-only day is a cover story for a day when muslims can swim and others are excluded. This seems wildly implausible, but is easy to claim because people will believe it easily. All it would take would be for the Daily Mail to send along a female reporter, and then they could plaster the scandal all over their pages. This hasn't happened. Why? Because it's nonsense.

Many UK schools have uniforms, and sometimes strict rules about what adornments pupils can wear with them. I imagine it's possible that a school (or even an individual teacher) forbade the wearing of St. George badges (just as they might forbid the wearing of Islamic badges or Hezbollah badges), but for pupils to be suspended for it seems implausible. Schools suspend or expel for serious misbehaviour, or where it's unavoidable. If a pupil comes to school wearing jeans and t-shirt in defiance of a uniform policy, and doesn't have a change of clothes, then sending them home is the only option. But if a pupil comes to school wearing a forbidden badge, then they can merely be told to remove it. If they refuse to remove it, then that's a different matter - they're being suspended for refusing to follow the uniform policy, not for wearing the badge. Most UK schools, however, wouldn't care about a reasonably unobtrusive badge. It's worth pointing out that St George's Day was pretty much ignored for the whole of the 19th and 20th centuries, and the recent trend towards observing it is rather manufactured. Most people in England probably couldn't even tell you what date it is, and you see 1000x more flags of St George during the World Cup, than on St George's Day itself. So I think the idea of swarms of patriotic schoolchildren being suspended for celebrating it, is a fairy story.

Right-wing marches produce left-wing counter-demonstrations, and any sensible police officer merely wants to keep the two apart, because when they meet, they usually fight. The majority of UK police officers are white Anglo-Saxon Christians, so a pro-minority bias seems unlikely. Reality does have a liberal bias though, and if individual police officers or commanders feel that the cause of the disorder is the right-wing people being there in the first place, that might affect how they react. For a historical example of British police "taking sides" in a similar sort of confrontation, see Battle of Cable Street.

Restraining orders can be arranged for all sorts of things in the UK, just like in the USA. No idea about the details of the case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that there's a lot of Christian discussion regarding whether halal meat counts as "meat offered to idols".^[3] It appears that the Catholic view in particular is laid-back on this, because Christianity in general (under Paul) made huge strides toward eating anything available.^[4] However, various fundamentalist groups put a lot more emphasis on Old Testament views (though in this case the change was even later than that). In general, if halal meat requires some actual religious action, and doesn't just describe a means of preparation (which seems to be what I'm getting here and from the article) it is easy enough to see why a devoted believer would not want such a ritual said on his behalf, when he rejects the religion. Wnt (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article Islam in England, some 1.5 million Muslims lived in England and Wales in 2001. It is possible that some more millions (as per the posting above) are adherents of Islam. A reference to support such a statement ("Millions of UK citizens are indeed followers of the Islamic faith...") would be useful. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could go with "a seven figure number of Muslims" or "between one and two million Muslims", or "more than a million Muslims". Whichever causes you least stress. In the meantime, a Wikipedia article stating that 1.5 million Muslims lived in England and Wales in 2001, doesn't really say much with certainty about how many Muslims live in the entirety of the UK, in total, in 2011. So yeah, references would be great, especially if they include estimates for those who might not be registered in official statistics. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If you want to go swimming on a Tuesday you can’t because it is the Muslim swimming day. It is just renamed women-only days" (???)

This one is not exactly fantasy, more spin. My local swimming pool in a middling-sized market town in the south of England used to offer occasional 'women only' swim sessions, simply because there were some women who felt uncomfortable or unsafe wearing revealing clothes and swimming in the presence of men, and women made up a good proportion of the customers, and it was felt reasonable. This would only be a session or two a week, since I don't know any swimming pools open most of the year that have 'whole day' sessions. More recently, this was discontinued because the number of women only swimming in those sessions dropped: women felt safer and more comfortable swimming with men than previously, so there was no need. Interestingly, they also used to offer nude swimming sessions, which seemed to vanish about the same time as the women-only ones.

I have certainly heard of Muslim women being unable to go swimming because it would involve being immodestly dressed around men. Combining this, it would be completely reasonable for a local authority or swimming pool owner in an area with a high Muslim population to offer women-only swims, either because they were asked to or because they were smart. So, these women-only sessions would be offered because of the Muslim population, and might even mostly be full of Muslim women (because other women might not seek out a women-only session), but they wouldn't be 'disguised' Muslim-only sessions: they would genuinely be women-only. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been my guess (especially if the Muslim women all only come on the women-only day) but it's nice to see it confirmed. If so, this is a highly useful example of a logical fallacy: public resources are made available for everyone; group X tends to use the public resource in a manner that is segregated by location or time; therefore public resources are being specially earmarked for group X. Wnt (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me me a bit of how some people in the US were complaining about Six Flags some sort of theme park having a 'Muslim family day' with many saying they never had a Christian family day except that a simple search showed they'd done so many times in the past possibly even more then once a year (and quite a few of the results appeared to be from before the controversy i.e. it's not like it was something you wouldn't have found before it blew up). In fact I think it wasn't even their first Muslim family day Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I think the questioner meant the EDL not EDF leader. Sussexonian (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes - header corrected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

value of gold

Can anyone verify that the total value of all the gold ever refined in the world throughout history at today's price of $1,625 per ounce would come to only $11.07 trillion dollars. --DeeperQA (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This website, which seems respectable, says 166,600 tonnes have been mined in world history. I won't work it out, though, as I'm unsure of the units (is the gold price in troy ounces?). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 tonne = 1000 kg = 1000 * 32.1507466 troy ounces. So 166,600 tonnes = 8.6726639 × 10¹² dollars. Which is more than I would have thought... Wnt (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's $8.7 trillion. Even less than the OP's estimate. --Tango (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would just point out that a trillion is a very, very, very large number — saying something is "only" $11 trillion is kind of like saying that the Earth is "only" 4.5 billion years old. Yes, we become accustomed to bandying about large numbers, but they're still pretty large from a human point of view (if you distributed $11 trillion dollars equally amongst the Earth's current population, every human being would get $1800 or so, which is more than the annual income of 80% of the world population.[5] Total worldwide wealth is something like $192 trillion.[6] So having gold being worth 5% of all total wealth is still kind of impressive, given how many other forms of resources and value there are. More interesting I suppose would be to know how much mineral wealth is in the world, and what percentage of that is gold. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only part of that knowledge which would be meaningful in context of the budget is the part that is revenue of the US government at this moment in time. --DeeperQA (talk) 03:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about the budget? --Mr.98 (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop of Arezzo

How many Bishops were there in Arezzo before Guido Tarlati?

Here's a list. Looks like 21 by my count. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North America without First Nations

I read somewhere that the reason most colonies in North America survived was because of the Natives. What are some instances that could have caused the hardship in North American colonies (and possibly lead to their demise) without Native Americans? (For example, without Natives, Jacques Cartier's crew of men would have died of scurvy.) Any help would be appreciated. 64.229.153.236 (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Squanto taught the Pilgrims how to grow maize, which kept them alive after they almost all starved to death. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Squanto did a LOT more for the Pilgrims than just show them how to grow maize. He and Samoset brokered a treaty with Massasoit, who was the most powerful sachem in the region; without Massasoits protection it is possible that they would have been massacred by hostile tribes. It was well past colonial times, but Sacagawea was a vital member of the Lewis and Clark expedition in the early 19th century. --Jayron32 02:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question was whether the colonists could survive without the Native Americans. If there were no Native Americans, there would be no "hostile tribes" in the first place. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While some colonies might not have survived, in the long run Europeans would have figured out which foods grow well in the Americas and made a go of it. Perhaps more supplies would have been needed to have been brought there, initially, though, to allow for the time it would take to adapt to the New World.

Another thought, though, is that without any previous humans in the Americas to wipe them out, saber-toothed tigers might still have been running around, chasing Pilgrims about. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without natives to have selectively bred maize that grows extremely well in the conditions present there, colonists would have had to make do with European crops that weren't specialised to quite the same conditions. They wouldn't be impossible, by any means (there are plenty of formerly European crops being grown in North America today), but it would have made things much harder. --Tango (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]