Humanities desk
< October 13	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 15 >

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.

October 14

Meaning of BYAWATHA

What is the meaning of the word BYAWATHA. It is the name of a house in Balgowlah NSW Australia and also a region in Victoria? HJSY (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the Tourism Board for the relevant region doesn't include the name in the relevant page on its website (which is here). It will probably need a direct enquiry to the Board itself, or perhaps to a nearby University's Linguistics Department, which the OP might find an interesting excercise. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

damnation in Judaism

Is there damnation in Judaism? The article on damnation talks about it according to Christianity and Islam, but doesn't mention about it according to Judaism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 02:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Ancient Judaism, it did not have a viewpoint on the afterlife, it had viewpoints (plural), see e.g. [1]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afterlife#Judaism has some information. Whether or not there is damnation in Judaism really comes down to which period of Jewish theology you're asking about. If you mean modern Judaism, you can find some who believe in reincarnation, some who believe that God will just not resurrect the wicked in Olam Haba (the world to come), and some who believe that the only difference between heaven and "hell" is closeness or distance to God (otherwise, the same place).

If you're asking about Second Temple Judaism (from which Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism split off), the most common view was that everyone who died went to Sheol (even Abraham and Moses) but that particularly nice people might be neighbors and even best buds with Abraham, and that on judgement day God will resurrect at least the righteous. As that link discusses, some pseudepigraphical literature (no longer accepted by mainstream Judaism) further suggested that some evil people God will resurrect on judgement day to send to Gehenna (an idea that survived in the Christian Bible but was not so popular in Judaism), and that there are some people so evil that God isn't going to bother bringing them back at all.

Some later Rabbinical and Kabbalistic literature mentions Gehenna, when ideas of Gilgul also start to be more openly articulated. Between modern and Second Temple Judaism, it depends on which rabbi you ask.

Overall, while there appears to be room for belief in damnation in Judaism, it's certainly not a key doctrine or even a coherent one. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Judaism doesn't really have a concept of damnation, or "Hell" in the way that many other religions/sects do. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An answer from the perspective of Orthodox Judaism in the 21st century. Our article on damnation defines it as "divine punishment and torment in an afterlife". Judaism doesn't really go for that kind of concept, although I've heard and read comments about it that I'd mostly put to hyperbole. There is an emphasis on eligibility for Olam Haba (a fairly low bar in Judaism's view, including for non-Jews) and "enlarging one's share" in Olam Haba, whatever that means. There is very little emphasis put on what the alternative to Olam Haba is, but see Gehinnom, which hasn't been linked to yet. There's an idea that this is a temporary place even for the most wicked, see this article for example.

To help you navigate through the morass of different opinions at different times, bear this in mind: to my knowledge, there's never been a strong tradition in Jewish philosophy of an emphasis on eternal + punishment in the afterlife. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan's Nobel Prize for Literature

Dylan's music is certainly the music of my generation. But I'm not familiar enough with all of it to fully appreciate how it represents Nobel-worthy literature. I'm sure it does. I'd like to study it a little bit. I don't normally ask questions to Wikipedia that are more about opinions than 'facts' - but here I'd like to know what people think are the essential Dylan songs with poetic lyrics that illustrate his art as literature. Of course, the award recognizes his entire canon, but if there is consensus on 6-10 songs, I'll then look them up, read the lyrics, listen to the songs with the lyrics, and I'll know him better. Anyone who offers a short list, with or without comment on 'why' this or that song - thanks for your kind contribution. Congrats Bob Dylan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.155.173 (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I'd go with Love Minus Zero/No Limit (lyrics), Desolation Row (lyrics), Like a Rolling Stone (lyrics) and "Jokerman" (lyrics) for starters. --Viennese Waltz 09:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also find journalists and critics on this very topic. For example: "Our Favorite Dylan Lyrics" (The New Yorker), "The most powerful and poignant lyrics from the Nobel Prize for Literature winner" (The Independent), "Are these the lyrics that won Bob Dylan a Nobel prize?" (The Guardian), ... ---Sluzzelin talk 09:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I forgot about Mr. Tambourine Man (lyrics). That would certainly be considered one of his best. --Viennese Waltz 09:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subterranean Homesick Blues is a good example of lyrics as poetry - the "video" even features Allen Ginsburg cameos. Rmhermen (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we restrict ourselves to Dylan's "classic" period (say up to the mid 1970s), though, his lyrics are all over the map. Some songs like those mentioned, as well as Tombstone Blues or Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues are very poetic in nature; others like Lay Lady Lay are fairly straightforward pop songs. There's a wide range to choose from. Here is one recent review of Dylan's best lyrics by The New Yorker, and Here is one by the BBC. --Jayron 32 13:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, here are now two recent reviews of Dylan's best lyrics by The New Yorker :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 13:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I was reviewing these myself, I note how many of these lists of his best lyrics show up on the album Highway 61 Revisited. There are a few earlier protest songs that a few people in those lists name. But the bulk of them, including "Like a Rolling Stone", "It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes a Train to Cry", "Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues", "Desolation Row", are ALL from Highway 61 Revisited. --Jayron 32 13:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't overlook Blood on the Tracks, by common consent Dylan's best album since the '60s. Pretty much every tune on that album has the kind of lyrics that would have made the Nobel committee sit up and take notice. --Viennese Waltz 13:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Atwood was interviewed on the BBC yesterday, and her view is that the Dylan prize is a protest against the turn to the right in the US Presidential Election. [2] If so, I'm not sure that the intended target is likely to take the hint. Alansplodge (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the most appropriate response. Tevildo (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the day of the Nobel announcement, our sister-site Wikiquote chose lyrics from The Times They Are a-Changin' for their main page:

Come gather ’round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown.
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’.

And that seems a reasonable enough choice. Matt Deres (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is well-said:

Advertising signs that con you
Into thinking you're the one
That can do what's never been done
That can win what's never been won
Meantime life outside goes on
All around you.

It is from the Bob Dylan song It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding). Bus stop (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transit routes from West Berlin to West Germany

West Berlin#Road traffic explains the special transit routes used by West Germans driving between West Berlin and West Germany: "The transit routes were also used for East German domestic traffic. This meant that transit passengers could potentially meet with East Germans and East Berliners at restaurants at motorway rest stops. Since such meetings were deemed illegal by the East German government, border guards would calculate the travel duration from the time of entry and exit of the transit route. Excessive time spent for transit travel could arouse their suspicion and prompt questioning or additional checking by the border guards. Western coaches could stop only at dedicated service areas, since the East German government was concerned that East Germans might potentially use coaches to escape into the West."

Are there any documented cases of East Germans escaping (or attempting to escape) to the West via these transit routes, perhaps by stowing away in a car boot or coach? --Viennese Waltz 09:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A brief Google search hasn't brought anything up, but don't forget that vehicles would have to pass through Checkpoint Alpha to get into West Germany, or Checkpoint Bravo to pass into West Berlin, so hiding inside a vehicle would be liable to discovery. One woman hid inside a stuffed cow inside a lorry, but was discovered at Checkpoint Bravo (presumably heading west). [3] Another man hid his mother in the boot of his Austin-Healey open-top sports car, and having previously removed his windscreen, was able to drive under the barrier at Checkpoint Charlie. [4] However, neither of these escapes started in the road corridor, which you were asking about. Alansplodge (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth googling the name Kay-Uwe Mierendorff. Helping people escape via Transitstrecke was good business for him for a while. He also hired drivers as escape helpers. In one report I found, the driver was to pick up the fugitives at "Kilometerstein 144.2" between Lauenburg and Berlin (and stow them away in the sealed van). I found little in English, but here are two Spiegel articles from 1978 and 2015. I'm certain there are more and later examples, but I remember having read about Mierendorff (sometimes portrayed as heroic, sometimes as someone who merely exploited people desperate enough to pay him a lot of money for their escape). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

de:Hartmut Richter is also known for helping 33 people escape via the transit route. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, Ppp! Thanks to that link I finally found Kay Mierendorff (without "Uwe") in the category de:Kategorie:Fluchthelfer (Deutsche Teilung) (unfortunately no corresponding category here). Maybe there are more examples via transit route in that category. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La Vandeana

How come La Vandeana is a song in Italian? 2A02:587:2901:9200:DCBC:3B83:525D:F9BB (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is used by a a far-right, anti-liberal group in Italy; the song commemorates an event in which anti-liberal groups in The Vendee rose up against the leftist Jacobins during the French Revolution. --Jayron 32 17:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem a bit strange that Italians would choose an event in a foreign country to symbolise their political ideals. I can't immediately think of a similar example. Alansplodge (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge and Jayron32: Moreover, our article implies that the song existed in Italy long before its use by the group. 78.87.221.199 (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was a cause célèbre in the Italian states at the time, being fellow Catholics it would be understandable; all we need now is a reference.... Alansplodge (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for West Berlin

West Berlin notes that the Potsdam Agreement created the plan for dividing Berlin into sectors similar to the division of the country as a whole, but neither that article nor Potsdam Agreement specifies the rationale. Why was it deemed important to divide the capital into sectors, instead of merely leaving all of it in the Soviet sector of Germany as a whole, just like every other city in that part of the country? Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Potsdam Agreement created the legal framework, but the actual plan was set by the 1944 London Protocol. That article is a minimal stub, unfortunately. The German version of the article goes into much greater detail, but still doesn't explain why the Western Allies wanted a piece of Berlin that I can tell. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth thinking about "Four Powers" too, and why there were four. With four of them, Berlin, as we saw it develop, tends to emerge quite naturally. But why four? Why include France, but not Poland? Why not include other occupied countries? Why not even Italy (by 1944)? In particular, why did negotiations between the three major powers wielding military power cede some ground to France, but not Poland? Was this (sheer OR) because the Soviets wouldn't give an inch to Poland, but knew that France was outside their grasp? Otherwise there's little moral authority for treating those two so differently. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be asking for a logical explanation. Politics’s does not follow a logical path but is rather a battle between the strongest competing alphas. One only has to look across to the other side of the pond at to see this in action as the US election time draws near. --Aspro (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The division was similar for Vienna, but even more complicated, for there were five sectors in Vienna. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Five sectors, but still the same four powers (they shared the centre). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think the issue over the the division of Germany into West and East as a semi-permanent state of being was never the initial goal of the Potsdam Conference, as noted both Germany and Berlin were each divided into four districts so that each of the major allied powers was granted a sector to manage until such time as a responsible German government could be established. As noted at Allied-occupied Germany in the section titled "Governance and the emergence of two German states "The original Allied plan to govern Germany as a single unit through the Allied Control Council broke down in 1946–1947 due to growing tensions between the Allies, with Britain and the US wishing cooperation, France obstructing any collaboration in order to unwind Germany into many independent states, and the Soviet Union unilaterally implementing from early on elements of its political-economic system". Basically, the "Two Germanies" situation was not the plan at either Yalta or Potsdam; but after a year or two of peace, it became clear that a unified Germany was not in the works. West Berlin was thus not a well thought out plan, but an accident of history born out by the refusal of the parties involved to stick to the original plans. There is no rationale because it was not planned to be (thus, there is no rational explanation for it except "it just sorta worked out that way".) --Jayron 32 23:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another (edit conflict): Zhukov by Otto Preston Chaney (p. 307) says that the 1944 London Protocol had agreed on Germany being divided into three zones, (US, British and Soviet) with a jointly administered Berlin as a fourth zone. At the Yalta Conference, it was agreed that France be given a fourth zone with Berlin as a fifth. There was Soviet suspicion that the Germans might open the way for the Western Allies to take Berlin before the Soviets arrived, or that a US airborne force might take the city in a surprise attack. At any rate, it seems that everybody thought that one power being in control of the capital would be a bad thing. Following the German surrender, there was an attempt at unified governance through the Allied Control Council, but the Soviets were reluctant participants and finally walked out in March 1948. Alansplodge (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding Poland, see Yalta_Conference#Poland_and_the_Eastern_Bloc and Operation Unthinkable. The mistreatment of Poland during the peace that ended WWII was one of the great disappointments of Churchill's career, and he basically acknowledged they got fucked. The best deal Poland got was the so-called Recovered Territories, mostly Germanic lands granted to Poland which acted as a sort of consolation prize for losing the lands of the Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union. --Jayron32 23:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Churchill put it a bit more eloquently, as you would imagine. He wrote in 1946: "The fate of Poland seems to be an unending tragedy, and we, who went to war, all ill-prepared, on her behalf, watch with sorrow the strange outcome of our endeavours." --69.159.61.230 (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]