Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 12

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

April 12

how much would a train ride cost from budapest to paris

one-way. i cant seem to find the proper sites :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.50.125 (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this site seems to let you book trains across Europe, but when I filled in the form for Budapest-Paris I couldn't find a date that actually had trains going. It was £166.50 for Paris-Budapest, though, so I guess it's going to be pretty expensive. Perhaps you should hitch-hike? Europe is really good fun to hitch-hike through, and you'll get to see way more places than just the two cities you mentioned. If I find anywhere that does have trains running though, I'll let you know. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

166.50 seems very cheap to me considering it costs me more than that to get the train to travel the 100 miles or so to London from here! Nanonic (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

thank you for your help and kind suggestion! what about ride-share sites, do you know of any big ones for europe? maybe someone is going my way anyway and we can just split fuel costs or sth... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.50.125 (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is a matter of price, probably the cheapest way of moving around Europe is flying. Try some low-cost carrier like Ryanair or Easyjet. Mr.K. (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no direct low-cost flights on this route. He will need to connect by train to Munich or Vienna first. Cambrasa 10:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You could also consider a Eurail or InterRail pass depending on your location. Nanonic (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Seek advice from The Man in Seat 61. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If you make use of special offers, Munich-Paris will cost you €29 [1], Vienna-Munich €29 [2] and Budapest-Vienna another €20 or so. So in total is should cost about €80, or £50. Don't use Raileurope to buy the ticket. They are a travel agent and charge you a big markup. Get the tickets directly from the rail operators on the liks above. Cambrasa 10:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cambrasa, actually he will not have to connect to Munich or Vienna first. Ryanair flights from Budapest to Frankfurt, Dublin, Glasgow... In total it should cost you less than €80. Mr.K. (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Whichever way he does it, he will need to do at least one leg of the journey by train. Whether Frankfurt-Paris or Budapest-Munich. Or book two budget flights. And that will cost more than €80. Cambrasa 12:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Czech Railways' international tariff calculator quotes a price of CZK5340 (€209.40) 2nd class 1 way, routed via Budapest - Hegyeshalom - Vienna - Buchs (SG) - Disentis - Brig - Lausanne - Le Locle - Paris, though why it defaults to a route involving a private railway in southern Switzerland rather than via Germany I can't say! -- Arwel (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cambrasa, indeed I found a ticket Budapest-Dublin for €39 (taxes and fees included). Dublin-Paris should not be much more expensive. It seems possible to fly Budapest-Dublin-Paris for less than 80€. Mr.K. (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cherry tree and Washington

Why did Washington cut down the cherry tree? 71.100.160.37 (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's a myth. There's no evidence that he ever cut down a cherry tree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paragon12321 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To get to the other side. More seriously, there was no cherry tree, and no one chopped it down; that's a pious invention (i.e., lie) told by one of George Washington's biographers, Parson Weems. We cover this in some detail in both the linked articles. Weems's explanation of the (fictional) behavior: "[Washington] was made the wealthy master of a hatchet! of which, like most little boys, he was immoderately fond, and was constantly going about chopping everything that came in his way". More rain on the parade: Washington also never threw a silver dollar across the Potomac River. - Nunh-huh 00:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm aware he didn't actually cut down the cherry tree, I always thought that the reason he was supposed to have done it was that as a child he was given an axe and just went a bit crazy, as children will. The real moral of story is "don't give weapons to your children, they'll just destroy something you love". Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Given Weems' propensity for making things up, it's very likely this story is in the same category. But I suppose it's actually possible that he really did hear it from the cousin, the cousin was telling the truth, and Weems happened to be the first person to write about it. Stranger things have happened. Vegetarians sometimes eat meat without ceasing to be vegetarians, and boys who cry "wolf" sometimes actually have a wolf at their heels. But I wouldn't bet money on it. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Weems was the sort that - if he said the sky was blue - you'd have to double check to be sure. And even Weems didn't claim Washington "chopped down" his neighbor's cherry tree. He said he "barked" it. - Nunh-huh 06:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting... the context I remember it being told to me under was that George Washington could not tell a lie about chopping down the cherry tree. In other words it was an admission. So all these years I've been admitting things I've done wrong on the basis of a false story intended to get people to tell on themselves. No wounder we needed a fifth amendment. 71.100.160.37 (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He should have claimed "executive privilege". - Nunh-huh 06:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bogus surnames on the Census list

Does the U.S. Census Bureau add nonexistent surnames into their surname frequency lists so that they can catch people who plagiarize their lists? On their list at http://www.census.gov/genealogy/names/dist.all.last the 39,652_th_ surname is Pantojz. However, typing in Pantojz at http://www.ancestry.com gives you a page that shows there are no records of the name on the site. Although it has the form of a Polish surname, there are no immigration records for any surname anything like Pantojz at www.ellisislandrecords.org. If it were a real name that had been in the United States as of 1990, a few people by that name would have died and they would have been recorded by Social Security, but a search at www.familysearch.org show no records, not even in the Social Security Death Index. A Google search returns not a single real person with this name. So do you think this was made up to catch list duplicators? 67.164.59.98 (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Pantojz: I see many people by that name. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Candace Pantojz, Dr. Kizzie Pantojz and Dr. Willia Pantojz all appear on spam sites that use the same three-asterisk convention in their titles. A name that appears thrice on such sites but not on any real person is almost certainly made from a random name generator (like the spammers who send you emails with a random first and last name for the sender). At first glance, the baseball player Leon Pantojz looked real, but a closer inspection reveals that that site is fantasy baseball. Fantasy baseball makes fictional names from huge first name and surname databases, and the Census Bureau's surname list would seem a likely place to gather them. 67.164.59.98 (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Many census records are illegible, illiterate scrawls which misspell the name the person gave them. Some persons giving info to the census taker just make up a name. Some entries are based on misinformation and gossip provided by a neighbor. I would attribute the appearance of a name lacking real-world corroboration to error rather than cleverness. 24.13.255.212 (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Pantojz is the 39652nd most popular last name (surname) in the United States; frequency is 0.000%....

The frequency thus still could be as high as 0.0004%, giving >1,000 people called Pantojz.

There appear to be some South American folks named Pantojz, so I assume it to be a Hispanic surname. There is also an entry on a Portuguese genealogy site, which may indicate that it is a Portuguese / Brasilian spelling. Of course, it could be of Slavic origin, as you have speculated.

http://record2008.net/index.html (needs a membership, 35 USD / 20odd EUR) has Pantojz on their list. This need not be a reference to a US citizen but it is likely to be so. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that US census data, like all data created by the federal government, is not copyrighted, so they should hardly care about plagiarism. It's not illegal to reprint census data in any way, shape, or form. I find it very unlikely that they would add copyright traps, since there is no copyright to be had. (That has no bearing on whether there is inaccurate data in the census. But it does argue strongly against it being purposefully added for that purpose.) --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Census keeps personal information unreleased, for privacy reasons, until 70 or 80 years after a given census. Then personal information is released, mainly, as I understand it, for genealogical use. I see no reason why they would purposefully degrade the data. Pfly (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Pantojz doesn't sound even remotely Polish to me. On second thought, I'm Polish and my family name doesn't sound very Polish either. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Heraldic question

Arms of Danderyd Municipality in Sweden

My last question on the reference desk did not get a single reply. :-(

I remember that question, and I tried to find out at the time, but I came up with zilch. Hope this helps. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope I have better luck this time...

How would one describe the arms to the right in the correct Frenglish heraldic terminology? These are the arms of Danderyd Municipality, north of Stockholm. They incorporate (in the part below the chief with the roses) the arms of the Banér family that once possessed Djursholm Castle, which is located in the municipality and serves as the town house. Olaus (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't seem to find how to say that one on wikipedia, as we don't have the terms for that grey or for the three roses above. I'm sure the roses are quite a common motif though, so something will turn up. Cendrée is a darker grey than that in your coat of arms. Blazon might be helpful. This site says that in Swedish the blazon is "En silverspets i rött fält och däröver en chef av silver, belagd med tre röda rosor.", and in English "Gules a Pile Argent issuant from dexter pointing to sinister and on a Chief of the second three Roses of the first.". But that site seems tohave the coat of arms on a white background rather than grey. Hope that helps. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The color in question is "argent", or silver: I think the difference can be accounted for by assuming one site has rendered silver as white (as is usual), and the other has rendered silver as grey. - Nunh-huh 12:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The blazon in English given by Michael Clarke sounds all right, if a little awkward. In French heraldry there's the word embrassé for the main feature, but we don't seem to have it because it isn't used much in English heraldry. "Gules and argent embrassy on a chief of the second three roses of the first" would be much neater! Xn4 13:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all of you! "a Pile Argent issuant from dexter" sounds good. I saw the "pile" in the charts in the heraldry article, but from those it would appear that what looks like a pile from below would be called "party per chevron", so I wasn't sure if it could be a pile from any direction. (Or perhaps a pile "issuant from below", or whatever it would be called, would be more "pointed"?) Olaus (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter Stuyvesant

Can it be confirmed that some family members of Peter Stuyvesant, because of his reputation, changed their sirname (last name) to Sturtevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.188.229 (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems unlikely; no such name changes are mentioned in the standard genealogical work on Stuyvesant; Sturtevant was a British name, while Stuyvesant is Dutch; if one is changing one's name to avoid being associated with someone, a more radical name change might be expected; and Peter Stuyvesant's reputation was perfectly reasonable. If someone has said that one of his descendants changed their surname from Stuyvesant to Sturtevant, he owes you the details. - Nunh-huh 12:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

On the last part, I guess it depends where you live. Not being an American, I'd never heard of Peter Stuyvesant the person before in my life (as far as I'm aware). So the first thing I though of when I read the anon's post was cigarettes, a fairly common brand in both Malaysia and New Zealand (and from the article, Australia, Greece and South Africa as well). While these may have nothing to do with Peter Stuyvesant the person's reputation, it doesn't change the problem I guess although I agree with the rest of your post Nil Einne (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? What is the problem with the reputation of Peter Stuyvesant? I would imagine most people would be delighted to claim descent from him. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't he a tyrrant, ruling with an iron fist and wooden leg!! Supposedly, he was mean and not very well liked according to some family history. Is this not so?? How do we know that Sturtevant is British? My family, the Sturtevants, are supposed to be Dutch.

Quite to the contrary, "Stuyvesant" remains a name to be conjured with among Old New Yorkers. How many generations of Stuyvesant Fish can you count? Bad reputations don't get carried forward in names: how many Americans do you know named Adolf? --Wetman (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Geneology.com has a Stuyvesant and a Sturtevant coming from Holland. It also says that Sturtevant is a derivitive of Stuyvesant. Can it be trusted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.188.229 (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean "genealogy.com". Online genealogy sites should really only be used as guides to further research. Genealogy.com can be trusted as much as you trust its sources. If none are provided, you can't say how much to trust it. - Nunh-huh 02:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Theyness

Sartre borrowed the concept of 'theyness' from Heidegger, as I understand it. How did he adapt it within his general existential theory? To what degree does he use it in his literary work? F Hebert (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The concept of 'Theyness' is, of course, derived from Martin Heidegger's Being and Time. For Heidegger the essential problem of being is that people are preoccupied with a practical world, a world of doing, and lose sight of the wider problems of existence. It is because of this that we fall into forms of inauthenticity he calls Theyness-"We take pleasure and enjoy ourselves as they take pleasure; we read, we see and judge about literature and art as they see and judge; we find shocking what they find shocking. The 'they', which we all are, prescribes the kind of being in everydayness." If you find this difficult to comprehend-and I know most people will-just be mindful of your own usage of language, of the habitual formulas one tends to sink into in everyday usage, with references to an anonymous collective simply known as 'they' or 'them.'

It was from this that Sartre concluded pessimistically that Theyness and absurdity are insuperable. You will find this nowhere better expressed, F, than in his play, No Exit. The dramatic structure is wonderfully simple, cutting the theory-and the characters-mercilessly down to the most basic levels. It is set in Hell, but the tortures are not physical; they are mental.

Just imagine; three mutually incompatible people, destined to exist together, forever in the same room: a coward, a lesbian and a child-murderess. They seek in each other forms of validation, of reassurance, that they will never attain. Each tries to force the other to look at her or him, in the case of the coward, in the way that they would like to be seen. In other words, they each want to see their vision of themselves reflected back by the other, as if it was a mirror. What happens instead is a clash of egotistical self-visions in permanent conflict. Mutual deception or bad-faith, the confirmation of a lie, could work, might work, if there were only two characters; but the triad makes it impossible, because the third person is there to explode all illusions by a critical glance. It would, of course, been possible for each of these individuals to remake or reform themselves if still alive; but they are dead; the game is over; they are judged solely by what they did in life.

This, for Sartre, is the very thing that characterises all human relationships: we are all judged not by what we have done, but what we have done wrong. Noble intentions are not enough; they are bogus; they are second-hand; they are inauthentic. The road to Hell is, indeed, paved with good intentions.

Read the play. Better still, see it performed. It's incredibly uncomfortable, like a surgeon, cutting away at illusions and self-deception as if they were cancers. Now, ask yourself how terrible this vision of Hell is, far worse than the depictions of Bosch or Michelangelo; far worse than all the Medieval horrors. Picture yourself, if you can, in a room with two other people, people with whom you have nothing in common, sharing the same space, never sleeping, forever, and ever and ever. Aaargh! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Once (for me) it was one kind of family, another time, one kind of workplace, then again people I travelled with; did Sartre model his characters on anyone he knew? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If he did he must have really hated them! It's a superb piece of theatre, simple and demanding at one and the same time. It requires a lot of emotional maturity and insight on the part of the actors to bring out the three characters in all of their shabby depths. It's better to see or hear the play performed than simply to read it. I first came across it in an old recording, with Glenda Jackson in the role of Inès. Really savage stuff. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Kant and Religion

How and in what manner did Kant develop and refine his views on religion and morality after the completion of the Critique of Pure Reason? F Hebert (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am impressed by your dedication...and by your persistence! The important text here is Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, published in 1793, in which Kant takes up some of the themes touched on in the three Critiques. He concludes that Christian worship is no more important than any other form of religious belief;

Whether the hypocrite makes his legalistic visit to a church or a pilgrimage to the shrines of Loretto or Palestine, whether he brings his prayer formulas to the heavenly authorities by his lips or, like the Tibetan...does it by a prayer wheel, or whatever kind of surrogate for the moral service of God it may be, it is all worth just the same.

In other words the servile worship of God is no substitute, in Kant's mind, for the transcendental critique. The corollary is that morality does not need religion for its own service, "...but in virtue in pure practical Reason it is sufficient unto itself."

He also takes the Biblical figure of Job as a kind of forerunner of the Enlightenment, a man who speaks the way he thinks, caring nothing for false flattery. In the 1791 On the Failure of All Philosophical Attemps at Theodicy, Kant says that Job "...would most probably have experienced a nasty fate at the hands of any tribunal of dogmatic theologians, a synod, an inquisition, a pack of reverends, or any conspiracy of our day." Clio the Muse (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Clio, I do not agree with you on the religious disinterestedness you claim to find in the Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der Blossen Vernunft. In part three, Kant claims explicitly that 1. the formation of an 'ethischen gemeinen Wesen' is necessary 2. the formation of an ethical commonwealth is only possible in the form of a (visible) church and 3. the church must be founded by a document/revelation (i.e. christian).

And, 4. It can only be realized as a "Volk Gottes unter ethischen Gesetzen" (a people of God under ethical laws).

This reasoning leads me to the conclusion that Kant was in fact still a "christian". His claim, however, is not about christianity in particular, but about worship. Real ethical conduct is more important then symbolic piety, is his prime statement. (But perhaps this was what you meant). --Mcknol (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mcknol. Yes, indeed so. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mussolini and Hitler

Why did Hitler become an ally of Hitler? Was it simply because of they saw the world in the same way?Lewis Cifer (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably: Why did Mussolini become an ally of Hitler? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Lewis Cifer...hmm; could this possibly be Lucifer? Sorry, I could not resist the joke! Hitler as an ally of Hitler? I wonder just how that would have worked out!

So, Mussolini and Hitler? It comes down to one thing, and one thing alone, Lewis-the war in Abyssinia. Prior to that Mussolini had aligned his foreign policy closely with Britain and France, Italy's wartime partners, most recently in the Stresa Front, a mutual declaration against any future revisions of the Treaty of Versailles. Mussolini, despite some ideological similarities between Fascism and National Socialism, had no time for Hitler; he disliked him personally and despised his anti-Semitism. At the time of the Night of the Long Knives he described the Germans as a 'nation of pederasts.' Later that same year, following the assassination of Engelbert Dollfuss by Austrian Nazis, Mussolini ordered several divisions to take up a position on the Brenner Pass, to preempt any German move into Austria.

When the British, acting on a League of Nations initiative, took the lead in imposing sanctions on Italy, Mussolini was surprised and antagonised, especially as nothing had been done to halt the earlier Japanese move on Manchuria. Snubbed by those he regarded as his friends, he was open to sympathetic noises from his enemy. Thus it was that the Rome-Berlin Axis was born.

It is important to understand, though, that the Axis at this stage was an 'understanding', not an alliance. There were those in the British Foreign Office who believed that Mussolini could be brought back into the Stresa Front. It might just have happened but for Stanley Baldwin and Anthony Eden, the Foreign Secretary, both of whom were keen to work with Hitler. According to Eden an agreement with Hitler "...might have a chance of a reasonable life whereas...Mussolini is a complete gangster." Eden, it has to be said, was a man of extraordinarily poor judgement, a 'bear of very little brain', amply demonstrated later in his career. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

BBC Radio 4

Radio 4 transmits different output on FM and Long wave. Which of them is carried on DAB? - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The FM output is carried on DAB. Samilong (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Eichmann

What was it specifically about Adolf Eichmann that turned him into the Nazi expert on Jewish affairs?Lewis Cifer (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure he was seen as an expert. The Nazis thought they knew everything there was to know about the Jews. Eichmann's page says that "his organizational talents and ideological reliability" lead to him being tasked with "facilitating and managing the logistics of mass deportation of Jews to ghettos and extermination camps". So it's more because he was a reliable Nazi and efficeint bureaucrat that he was chosen, than any expertise on Jewish people. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Lewis, he was indeed the Nazi expert on Jewish issues. A member of the Sicherheitsdienst, he was an early recruit to a section set up to examine Judaism, Department II/112, then run by Elder von Mildenstein. It was under Mildenstein's guidance that Eichmann was encouraged to learn about Zionism, at a time when emigration was the favoured solution to the 'Jewish problem'. Eichmann was ordered to summarise the history, structure and activity of the Zionist movement, reading Theodor Herzl's Der Judenstaat, the founding text, and Adolf Böhm's Die Zionistische Bewegung, a work of 1921 analysing the movement up until the foundation of the British Mandate of Palestine. He did such a good job that his findings were printed and distributed to other SD departments, as well as more widely among the Allgemeine SS.

Eichmann also used his expertise to make contact with Zionist groups in both Germany and Palestine. He met one Feivel Polkes, a Palestinian Jew, who proposed that the Nazis and the Zionists should work together to increase Jewish emigration. Eichmann's continuing work in D II/112 was the basis of his war-time career, including his participation in the Wannsee Conference, though by this time the priorities had changed from emigration to extermination. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The Character of Eichmann

A supplement, if I may, to the above. Is there a key to understanding the character of Eichmann? Did his trial in Jerusalem serve the ends intended? Lewis Cifer (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not well-versed on the topic, interesting though it is, but The banality of evil is often said to be the key to his behaviour. And then there were the Milgram experiments, which threw up some interesting conclusions. Hope that helps. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As always the key to understanding Eichmann, or any other like him, lies in history, ideology and politics; in a system of beliefs that served to dehumanise a whole group of human beings; to render them problematic. It has nothing at all to do with the silly Milgram experiment!

Your second question is, perhaps, a little more problematic. It certainly served some purpose, revealing ever more detail about the bureaucratic mechanics of the Holocaust. But there were those, like Harold Rosenberg and Elie Wiesel, for whom the trial was not just a disappointment, but a failure. Imagine, if you will, an announcement that the Devil himself was to stand trial; people would expect a manifestation of evil in its most lurid forms. Instead, what they got with Eichmann was a colourless little bureaucrat, a tiresome, self-pitying mediocrity. Evil was not grand; it was banal. Eichmann's very ordinariness seemed for some to defuse the impact of his crimes. In his frustration Elie Wiesel noted "It irritated me to think of Eichmann as human. I would have preferred him to have a murderous countenance." Clio the Muse (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that he may have been genuinely interested. I seem to remember reading that he applied to his superiors for permission to learn Hebrew (how very German!) but they turned him down on the grounds that that was a bit too far. A lot of the Nazis were very well-educated and cultured; it may suit to paint Eichmann as a mediocrity, but that is a belittling judgment of his enemies and which, perhaps, his trial was intended to promote. I'm afraid that he wouldn't have got as far as he did had he been a nonentity. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the Hebrew language story was invented by the makers of the TV drama Conspiracy. At least I can find no mention of it in Eichmann's biography. Yes, a lot of Nazis were well-educated (though not Eichmann), just as a lot of Nazis were mediocrities, including Heinrich Himmler, Wilhelm Frick and Walther Funk, much more senior than Eichmann. Eichmann's progress up the ranks of the SD, for all his acquired expertise, was surprisingly slow; he was still only an Untersturmführer (2nd lieutenant) at the outbreak of the war.

It did not suit anyone to paint Eichmann as a mediocrity; he was a mediocrity, which was the very thing that frustrated Wiesel and others, who expected something altogether grander. I'm not at all sure why it would be in the interest of the Israeli prosecutors to create a false impression of the man. It might aid your understanding somewhat, Major, if you read his plodding, machine-like replies to the questions put to him in during the trial. Or, if you have not the time for that, you might care to have a look over Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem. It serves no purpose, as I have made clear in discussions with others (see my talk page for some thoughts on Magda Goebbels), to belittle the things and the people we do not like. But Eichmann is impossible to magnify; a little man with all the imagination of a lower-grade civil servant. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, just to cover my fundament here, I want to make it quite clear that I thoroughly disapprove of Nazi-ism and that I've no particular knowledge of Eichmann. Having said that, I can quite see that people such as Hans Frank and Hermann Goering, in a social context, were probably both very good company and no fools. Regarding Eichmann's trial, it must have been obvious to him that he was heading for an inevitable death sentence; taking a transcript of his cross-examination under those circumstances and drawing conclusions as to his character seems a bit dubious to me. Anyone who has undergone a hostile cross-examination will recognise it as a highly stressful and artifical environment; it's an example of extrapolating from the specific to the general. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan, North Korea and Iran

Although apparently Pakistan has never stated any desire to wipe Israel off the globe while Iran has repeatedly stated such intent, how were Pakistan and North Korea able to fund and build nuclear weapons and what about places like Cuba and Venezuela and other countries which lack but want them? 71.100.160.37 (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan's program to develop weapons of mass destruction came as a reply to India (they don't get along well). The program was started sometime during the 1960s, only recently official. Our article on Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction isn't too shabby, if you want to have a look at that. All country-WMD articles on Wikipedia are standardized to follow that formatting, so you can quickly reach North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. I'm sure NSA or FBI will have you flagged for googling "building a nuclear bomb", but nuclear weapon design should save you this inconvenience. All honour to the contributors of those articles, but I remain somewhat unsure of how to answer your question. This and this state that Venezuela are receiving help to build a nuclear reactor, made plausible by this source. In order to build a nuclear bomb, one first needs a nuclear reactor to produce enriched uranium, a major component in the further construction of the bomb. The expertise is normally the most difficult thing to get a hold of, since you need people with a know-how for all the different stages of construction. Nuclear proliferation is also something to take a look at, and deals a bit with resource trading. What I find most likely is that the expertise in North Korea comes from the former Soviet Union. Seeing as the country is as poor as it is, the actual production is humble to nothing. Scaller (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You've got a few errors there. The NSA and FBI don't care if people google about nuclear weapon design—it's all over the internet and being curious doesn't mean you have the will or means to build one. A reactor does not produce enriched uranium, it produces plutonium. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

According to our article Enriched_uranium, reactors can indeed produce enriched uranium, although I'm sure other reactors can produce plutonium as well. GreatManTheory (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

First the US thought that Germany was going to make a bomb, so they made a bomb first. So then the USSR wanted one. After the US threatened PR China fairly explicitly with the bomb (First Taiwan Strait Crisis), China wanted one too. At first the USSR helped out, but China had to finish it up on their own after they had a falling out with the USSR (and thus had another reason to want one). Then India and China had a war, and India wanted a bomb. After India got the bomb, then Pakistan felt it needed a bomb. In the meantime, Israel had gotten a bomb. North Korea felt isolated and insecure, so it wanted a bomb. Iran probably wants a bomb both to stand up to the US and to Israel, as well as be the biggest non-Israeli power in the region. Countries want bombs because they fear attacks from others (who have the bomb), and because a certain amount of political power and prestige comes from having the bomb (even though in real terms they can limit the types of interactions you can have with other countries that have the bomb).

Pakistan got their bomb material by using Dutch enrichment technology. Then they sold some of that knowledge to North Korea, Iran, and Libya. They may have bought designs from China. But it's worth noting that North Korea, in the end, seems to have had much more success with producing plutonium that they did with enriching uranium, which they did by operating a reactor they originally got from the USSR.

Bomb design is easier for uranium, harder for plutonium. In both cases, though, a country with sufficient technical resources can accomplish it if they work at it long enough. The hardest part about getting a nuclear weapon is getting the materials for it, in either case. Production of either enriched uranium or plutonium requires rather large facilities with specialized staff and specialized machinery. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Captain Ref Desk for laying out the sequence of motivations. I would assume then that even if Israel did not exist Iran would still want the bomb if for no other reason than Iran is probably next in line to have some kind of secular trouble with its neighbors and since Iran can't just buy a bomb (or can it?) then what other choice than to make their own. However, I do not think anyone is going to let Iran buy the bomb or make one, even if at this juncture they fully recanted their desire to eliminate Israel. In fact, if Iran is to blame for the continued fighting in Iraq then I would expect to see more and more of what is being sown in Iraq, being reaped in Iran. 71.100.160.37 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the assumptions need looking at. Regarding Iran's desire to "wipe Israel off the globe" - this may be coming from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements, the most famous of which was officially translated similarly, but about which there was a translation controversy, see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. There is no doubt that he has said many idiotic and reprehensible things. On the other hand, Iran has endorsed the Arab Peace Initiative toward Israel, which is arguably more important. I think few neutral observers (opposed to propgandists) think that Iran has much if anything to do with fighting in Iraq. The effect of the American invasion was to create a friendly Shi'ite state, why would Iran have a problem with that? The very respected Israeli military theorist Martin van Creveld's remark that "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy" is worth noting.John Z (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I for one, believe that if Iran is foolish enough to be behind bombings in Iraq that after a certain while Iraqis will catch on and you will begin to see bombing inside Iran. Although teh Golden rule is not Islamic it is still a very valid rule. 71.100.164.179 (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cuba and Venezuela. What don't they have? is sort of the wrong question—it's not technical issues that are keeping them from trying to develop nuclear arms. They're both members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which means that their nuclear facilities are all monitored by the IAEA. That doesn't mean that they can't secretly try to built weapons, but it means there will be immediate and serious economic and political consequences, and potentially even military consequences, should they do so. Cuba is far too close to the USA to possibly risk trying to develop nuclear weapons (esp. after the tension caused by the Cuban Missile Crisis) and it wouldn't have been in anyone's interest to let them try to do so. Venezuela, on the other hand, has been threatened by the US lately, but the likelihood of military conflict is low, IMO. Additionally, both countries are also parties to the Treaty of Tlatelolco and would face harsh retributions for developing nuclear weapons.

Could they technically build them? Any country with reactors could, if they devoted the resources to it and worked hard enough. The science of basic nuclear weapons is well-known. What keeps nations of any wealth and scientific standing from having them is almost entirely political. Fortunately the resources needed for weapons are at the moment outside of the reach of non-state entities, without taking into consideration the real possibility of theft of special nuclear materials. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I heard a story once about Castro that he was told a certain button would fire a nuclear missile at America and he pushed it and all of the sudden support for missile technology and nuclear technology and even airplane technology began to evaporate. I do not know if the story is true or not but on the other hand if you can not buy nuclear missiles from the former Soviet Union or anyone else then back to square one. 71.100.160.37 (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Unincluded holy scriptures Jewish/Christian

I am unable to find a complete list of the unincluded scriptures in the bible, and also their cathegory. The following are written wrongly probably, but I am able to find my way within them: the apocrypha, the deuterocanonical, the pseudopedigrapha. Some are mentioned as included in some churches like Enoch in etiopian, and some scriptures are listed in the gnostic church. However, I can not for the life of me for instance find Bartholomew. References like to jewish legends appear without giving me much about where they come from, trying links get just more confusing. By cathegories I refer to where they are to be found, the natural reference. Like "unknown found script" to "the dead sea scroll". I hoped for a list included all the scriptures, complete and incomplete, that have a reference to these holy scriptures. I can not even find Bartholomew's scripture under Bartholomew. I would at least like a general listing more than the official christian. Any general place or cathegory to look more than apocrypha, deuterocanonical and pseudopedigrapha would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jestorebo (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There has never been any document attributed to Bartholomew on any canonical list of New Testament books, and the Dead Sea scrolls wouldn't contain anything about him either, since they're non-Christian. The terms Deuterocanon/Apocrypha are most often used to refer to works which are accepted as authoritatively scriptural by some Christian church bodies, but not by others, so that there are a fixed and limited number of books which can be included under those terms. By contrast, "Pseudepigrapha" is kind of a left-over category for all works with quasi-scriptural pretensions which have never been highly valued by any quasi-mainstream form of Christianity or Judaism -- so that membership in the Pseudepigrapha is indefinite and open-ended, including hundreds of works, some of which are known only in fragmentary form. However, we do have an article Gospel_of_Bartholomew... AnonMoos (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Roccasecca: To which territory did it belong in 1225

I have been looking at Thomas Aquinas's birthtown of Roccasecca on modern maps of Italy and comparing its location to this map of the Kingdom of Sicily. To me, it almost looks like Roccasecca was not part of the green area marked as Kingdom of Sicily, but rather part of the yellow area marked as Papal States. WP's map shows the boundaries of 1154 and states that they would remain virtually unchanged for 700 years. The map may not be completely accurate. Either way, Roccasecca lies near the boundary, but on which side? Thank you in advance for maps or other references showing exactly to which territory Roccasecca belonged in 1225, the year Thomas Aquinas was born. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Italian page for the city has it more definitely placed in Lazio. But another problem is that in 1225, the Kingdom of Sicily was supposed to be a papal fief; it wasn't, because it was ruled by the Holy Roman Emperor (as Frederick II was both king of Sicily and emperor), who was constantly at odds, or in outright war, with the Pope, so the boundaries were not very stable. In fact in 1225 Frederick well on his way to being excommunicated. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia names the place "The Kingdom of Naples" [3]. The same page also states that the birthdate is not certain; it may have been 1225 or 1227. ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The abbot of Monte Cassino had settled a junior line of the counts of Aquino there in the tenth century. Though under contention, Roccasecca was part of the lands of the abbey of Monte Cassino. It didn't become effectively a papal fief until it was purchased in the sixteenth century. In between, it was the current allegiance of the conti d'Aquino that really mattered. I've added some translation from Italian Wikipedia to offer a history sub-section. --Wetman (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! That leaves me with two questions regarding the article on Thomas Aquinas:

• The current text says that Aquinas was born "at his father Count Landulph's castle of Roccasecca in the Kingdom of Sicily, in the present-day Regione Lazio." What should replace the Kingdom of Sicily? I can't think of an adequate way of putting it, please help.
• Bielle makes a good point. The article's lead sentence says Aquinas was born "c. 1225", the biography section's first sentence says he was "born in 1224", the box on the left says "Birth c. 28 January 1225". He is a member of Category:1225 births, and his birth is also featured in the articles on 1225 and January 28. The TA article also says "The Roman Catholic Church today celebrates his feast on January 28, the date of publication of the Summa." Would it be right to remove all references to Jan 28 as his DOB? And would it be best to set all year-of-birth references to "c. 1225", or can something be said for 1227 or another year? Bielle's reference states: "From Tolomeo of Lucca . . . we learn that at the time of the saint's death there was a doubt about his exact age (Prümmer, op. cit., 45). The end of 1225 is usually assigned as the time of his birth. Father Prümmer, on the authority of Calo, thinks 1227 is the more probable date (op. cit., 28). All agree that he died in 1274." If there is doubt, should both years be mentioned? Should TA still remain a member of the 1225 article and category?

I realize these questions might belong on the articles' and categories' talk pages. Well, I asked here and very soon saw informed, and referenced answers, and the encyclopedia saw an expansion of another article! (I will post this thread on the talk page eventually.) ---Sluzzelin talk 11:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the birthdate, January 25 was (probably) still 1224 at the time, since the new year (probably) didn't start until March or Easter or some other date, but we retroactively say it was 1225. (But if the date is disputed between 1225 and 1227 then this explanation doesn't work!) I would say that if Roccasecca was part of the territory of Monte Cassino, then it is more likely in the Papal States than in Sicily, even if Monte Cassino was effectively independent. Or perhaps we can just say it was in "Italy" and link to Italy in the Middle Ages. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Kemal and 1914 war

did Kemal Pasha think it good that Turkey join war? Enver M (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Kinross's biography, pp. 65 - 67, he opposed it, especially joining on the German side. He thought the outcome uncertain, foreseeing a future as a German satellite in victory and catastrophe in defeat. He preferred neutrality and waiting to see what happened in the war, and "lobbied his friends in Constantinople insistently" for that.John Z (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are his precise thoughts in his very own words, Enver;

Looking at Germany's position from a military point of view, I am by no means certain that it shall win this war. True, the Germans have overrun strong fortifications at lightning speed and are advancing towards Paris. But the Russians are pushing to the Carpathians and are pressing hard the Germans' Austrian allies. The Germans will this have to set aside part of their forces to aid the Austrians. Seeing this the French will counter-attack and put pressure on the Germans. The Germans will then have to recall their troops from the Austrian front. It is because an army which zigzags to and fro must come to a sad end that I do not feel certain about the outcome of this war. (Atatürk, by Andrew Mango, 1999, pp. 136-7) Clio the Muse (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

CSA a one-party state?

Since the secessionists were uniformly Democrats, and the states which seceded had previously been dominated by the Democratic Party to the point of one-party rule, was the resulting Confederacy therefore a one-party state? I've never heard of any formal partisan structure in Confederate politics, i.e. a "Democratic Party of the Confederate States of America" distinct from the U.S. party. Was there one? If not, would it be more accurate to describe CSA politics as non-partisan? Furthermore, were there any well-defined political cliques or currents which operated as de facto parties and which might have developed into parties had the Confederacy persisted? I'm not looking for anything definitive, I'm just curious. Lantzy ^talk 22:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Factions or parties never developed within the CSA, although there were those for and in opposition to the administration. As to what could have been, I recommend Harry Turtledove's Timeline-191 series. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Or for a more traditional history, see this source: [4]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

With 'friends' like Governor Joe Brown I imagine that Jefferson Davis might have welcomed some honest partisan politics! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Where parties do not exist, criticism of the administration is likely to remain purely an individual matter; therefore the tone of the criticism is likely to be negative, carping, and petty, as it certainly was in the Confederacy. But where there are parties, the opposition group is strongly impelled to formulater real alternative policies and to press for the adoption of these policies on a constructive basis. ... But the absence of a two-party system meant the absence of any available alternative leadership, and the protest votes which were cast in the [1863 Confederate mid-term] election became more expressions of futile and frustrated dissatisfaction rather than implements of a decision to adopt new and different policies for the Confederacy." -- David M. Potter

AnonMoos (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses, everyone. Lantzy ^talk 22:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Queen Christina's sexuality

Is it true that Christina Augusta of Sweden was a hemaphrodite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Hacket (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

From the article on Kristina of Sweden: "Her unusual attire caused her to later become an icon of the transgendered community, even though Christina herself was not transgendered. During the 20th century, her grave was opened so that her death mask could be examined, and her bones were examined to see if sex abnormalities could be identified, but none identified."

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the article. It has almost no references. I think you would be ill-advised to draw any conclusions from this specific text, however fascinating the statements may appear to be. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Veronica Buckley touches on this topic in her book Christina Queen of Sweden: the Restless Life of a European Eccentric (Fourth Estate, 2004) Apparently Christina's gender could not be immediately determined at birth. Even after she was declared to be a girl there were all sorts of ambiguities attached to her later career. She later announced her aversion to having sexual relations with a man, and was fond of bawdy jokes and course language. There was also some suggestion of lesbianism. Even those trying to arrange a marriage eventually conceded that this was never going to happen. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Think of the temptation for an intellectual and energetic C17 woman to take on a masculine personality, with the freedoms and privileges that went with maleness, in the way of Julie d'Aubigny, and the prurient fascination of men: witness Théophile Gautier's highly colored version of Julie d'Aubigny's career in Mademoiselle Maupin. --Wetman (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Colin Powell, Torture, and Ambien

Colin Powell who has been implicated foreign-departmental approval of the torture memo.[5] It seems that he was also given a prescription for Ambien at about the same time[6][7]. I would like to know whether Powell was regularly using Ambien while the torture memo was being discussed?

If so, I would like to know the name of the M.D. who prescribed it.Dream Academy (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason why Colin Powell would broadcast the name of his prescribing physician, but then I can't think why he might have told a journalist that he sometimes took (takes) the drug to ensure his sleep when travelling through multiple time zones. I am curious, however, as to why the name of the physician is of any significance at all. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I also wonder why the M.D. matters—it's a standard drug. But it's interesting to think about how many government officials are taking medication which is now known to have quite a list of side-effects. I know of at least one person who apparently resumed a previously fractured relationship while on Ambien and had no memory of it at the time. Gives one the chills! --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you be seeking or trying to avoid the same physician or asking in regard to ascertaining possible abuse, i.e., as in the case of Anna Nicole Smith? 71.100.160.37 (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)