Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 November 3

= November 3 =

Clothes of Jews in Spain in the 13th century
What clothes would Jews have worn in Spain in the 13th century? What laws forcing Jews to wear distinctive hats, badges, or other types of clothing were in effect there at that time? Mo-Al 00:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Have a look at the History of the Jews in Spain and see if your questions are answered there. You have to remember that Spain at the time you mention was divided between a Christian north and a Muslim south, with widely different practices in these matters.  Clio the Muse 00:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see much about clothing. I figure that the average Jew would have worn what the non-Jews did (which I would like to know), but I don't know what laws were under effect. Mo-Al 01:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council decreed that the Jews had to distinguish themselves from their Christian neighbours by wearing either a coloured badge, a different style of robe or a long pointed hat, known as a Judenhut, a practice adopted from earlier Muslim rulings on the same subject.  How far this was practiced in Spain, and if it was observed with equal effect in the Christian and Muslim areas, is an open question.  Jewish communities would clearly have been keen to avoid any form of stigma, and for a good bit of their history in Spain enjoyed reasonably good relations with their Muslim and Christian neighbours.  In Christian Spain the general mood began to change towards the end of the fourteenth century.  After the Cortes of Soria in 1380 Jews no longer dared to appear in public without the Lateran Council badge, which suggests that they may have been able to escape wearing this in earlier periods. Clio the Muse 02:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See also Yellow badge. As for the general style of dress in 13th-century Spain, I don't have any expertise, but after searching Google Images for art from that period, it seems that both men and women tended to wear various gowns. Marco polo 02:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article on Yellow badge is rather odd in that it appears to make a notable distinction between "anti-semitism" and "humiliating Jews". I'm not sure what to make of that apparent distinction. Loomis 03:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For the Muslim areas, see: Dhimmi, although it doesn't directly adress the situation in Al-Andalus. (Which I think was probably more liberal than in the Maghreb, if for no other reason than the fact that the population of dhimmi was much larger.) It also says: "Regulations on dhimmi clothing varied frequently to please the whims of the ruler." So the best bet might be "something yellow". The Judenhut was being used in France in the 13th century, so that's my guess for for the northern Christian kingdom. --BluePlatypus 03:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that in the 13th century there were in fact four distinct northern Christian kingdoms in the area now considered Spain: the Kingdoms of León, Castile, Navarre, and Aragón. The first two were united in 1230 as the Crown of Castile. --Lambiam Talk  08:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

History of Party Control of U.S. House & Senate
Hello, I am looking for the history of when various parties controlled the two houses of the U.S. Congress. Something like "Senate: Democrats 1881-1892, Republicans 1893-1901", etc. Pointers appreciated. &mdash; Arbogop 02:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Have a look at History of the United States Congress. There is a comprehensive breakdown of House and Senate membership. Clio the Muse 03:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Senate: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm
 * House: http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/partyDiv.html -- Mwalcoff 04:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Question on the House numbers: The total of 435 members has been the case since 1913. However, haven't states been admitted to the Union since then, such as Alaska and Hawaii ? StuRat 17:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In 1911 they capped the number at 435, I guess they felt it was in danger of getting even more unwieldy than it is. In 1941 they worked out the census math for determining how many reps each state gets . So unless they change it the house will always have 435 but they number each state has will vary according to population. So Alaska and Hawaii just stole some from other states. Nowimnthing 19:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I imagine those states to lose Reps voted against adding the 49th and 50th states. StuRat 22:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One would so imagine, but, in fact, no state lost a representative immediately upon the induction of Alaska and Hawai'i into the Union; in 1959, a new seat, as is observed, inter al., here, was crafted for each state, such that, until 1963 (that is, across the 86th and 87th Congresses), the House of Representatives comprised 437 members. Reapportionment in view of the 1960 census gave Hawai'i a second seat, but a representative of another state would not likely have opposed statehood in view of the prospective loss of one or more seats at the expense of Alaska and Hawai'i inasmuch as the net loss by the other forty-eight states was just three seats and inasmuch as it would have been exceedingly difficult to determine out from what states populations might have flowed (one might, I suppose, have had success approximating population change by region, but the calculation of the individual effects of any particular population changes [and of the redistricting such changes might entail] would have remained exceedingly hard).  In any event, there was much opposition to the admission of Alaska and, to a lesser extent, to that of Hawai'i, but the reasons were several and varied; this offers a brief summary of the reasons as regards Alaska.  Joe 04:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears that Alaska and Hawaii were considered together, and that many Southern congressmen opposed statehood for Alaska because they opposed statehood for liberal, multiracial Hawaii. -- Mwalcoff 00:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A famous quote
I need to know who wrote this piece and also the entire text of the quote that is so famous from the WWII era where the speaker talks about how the Nazis kept taking away people from different groups and when they came for him, there was no one to save him---I have always loved that passage but I never have known the title of that piece, its author and the entire text--

Thank you


 * The author is Martin Niemöller; there have been lots of versions, which are discussed at First they came.... (Note that though our article calls it a "poem", it wasn't. - Nunh-huh 05:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny how that has been mutilated. I thought it was much longer, but it's only about communists, socialists and unionists. Then the communists were dropped (we can't feel sorry for them having been slaughtered, can we?) and the Jews and catholics were added to the list. Eh? Were catholics prosecuted by the nazis? DirkvdM 08:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I recall, Hitler didn't look favorably on the Pope. P.S. see Pope Pius XI for how Hitler viewed the church.  Dismas|(talk) 09:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's always best to try to trace quotations and statements as close to the original source as possible, disregarding later adaptations. And yes, the Nazis did persecute-and prosecute- Catholics.  The life expectancy of a Catholic priest in Poland under German occupation, to take but one example, tended to be somewhat brief.  I would also like to underline the point being made by Nunh-huh: Niemöller's statement was not written as a poem, and it certainly does not read like one. Clio the Muse 09:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Dirk, one can certainly be glad that communism and communist ways are on the wane, but being glad that individuals were slaughtered is not something I would recommend. JackofOz 01:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear secrets
Would United States citizens responsible for making nuclear secrets publicly available on the internet most likely face charges of treason, espionage, or criminal negligence? What sentencing might be considered?  &mdash;24.54.89.149 09:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In general, revealing state secrets would be construed as treason, if the culprit was a citizen, and espionage if he or she was an alien. People have in the past been executed for both crimes in the US; but I suppose it would depend on the circumstances in which the information was revealed.  The manner you have described would, I imagine, be treated less seriously than if the information had been given in secret to a foreign government  Clio the Muse 09:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And if the person were a government employee acting on the direct orders of Congress, I doubt any criminal penalties would be applicable at all. (Edit: I know you included this link, just making it more obvious.) Tesseran 12:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While people have been executed for espionage and treason, none have been recently. The last execution for treason was 1862 and the last for espionage were Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (U.S. citizens executed for espionage, not treason.) We do have one "American al-Qaeda", Adam Yahiye Gadahn, currently indicted for treason but he "remains at large". Ryan G. Anderson recently received life in prison for attempted espionage. Rmhermen 14:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly, the U.S. government went through a big effort some years back to prevent "plans for making a hydrogen bomb" from being published in newspapers, and it was all public domain stuff, like a Worldbook Encyclopedia article and documents in libraries. They figured that little countries and bad guys were not clever or resourceful enough to do their own library research. Was it treason to print it? Or just stupid "making a point"? Edison 16:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The case was United States v. The Progressive. In the end the government dropped the case because it looked like it was going to get the born secret clause thrown out; it was becoming very hard to claim that information assembled in the open literature could constitute something classified. In any case it is a lot harder to make a hydrogen bomb than just having a schematic (and probably only half-accurate) blueprint. --Fastfission 13:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there are different levels of accessibility to public records. My usual example of this is the price I paid for my home.  It was always available to anyone who wanted to go to the county registrar and page through books of records, however, when they made it available to anybody, worldwide, on the Internet just by typing in my address, I considered that to be a bit rude.  In the case of "how to build a nuclear bomb", if portions of that info are available in various US libraries, that would take a lot more effort for a terrorist in Pakistan to access than if it was all organized and posted online.  Also note that, under the USA PATRIOT Act, US library customers who check out such books can be closely scrutinized. StuRat 17:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly sure, but if the president 'approved' the site's creation, ultimately he is responsible. So, he couldn't be charged with anything, only impeached.  If he were impeached, then he could be charged, but any acting president would probably grant him immunity.  Plus, these things really aren't that secret, so I don't think you could make a case for any charges. --Cody.Pope 18:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a number of laws which regulate this. Technically all nuclear information is born secret until officially declassified, though attempts to enforce this in court are rare (see the link to the Progressive case above). So a lot of it comes down to whether or not the "secrets" were created within the nuclear laboratory system or not. If you released secret information which had been created by the U.S. government then you could possibly be charged with espionage or other violations of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. If you found your own way to make "nuclear secrets" they would probably not charge you — it is better for them to just say nothing when people claim to be releasing "secrets" than it is for them to try and crack down on them which draws attention and would also "validate" the secrets. There are also other statutes that could come into play as well (and if the government itself released the secrets it could be cited as a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). --Fastfission 13:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources for Acts of the Apostles
Over at Acts of the Apostles, we trying to find a good cite that talks about what influence (if any) The Gospel of Mark and the Q Source had upon Acts. Most scholars look at the issue like this:


 * Mark and Q were the used as the sources for The Gospel of Luke.
 * Luke and Acts were written by the same author.
 * The Gospel of Luke was, in some ways a 'source' for Acts, i.e. the author drew upon his earlier research in Luke to then go on to creat Acts.

So, it seems reasonable to assume that Mark and Q had some, albeit indirect, influence on Acts. The problem is-- that's original research unless we can find a good cite talking about the fact that Mark and Q were used as a source for Acts.

Scavenger hunt! can anyone find one? --Alecmconroy 09:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have one at hand, although I might find something at the library, but I never thought that Luke was so closely associated with Paul. That's just my ignorance, I suppose, but I had always had it that Acts relies upon a first-hand Pauline and Petrine account.  Geogre 17:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of work in Pauline Christianity to tie the Gospels to the works of Paul. At the same time, anti-Pauline Christianity tries to separate them. --Kainaw (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have only been able to find negative information for you, e.g.:"In spite of the massive work accomplished by M. E. Boismard and A. Lamouille (Actes des deux apôtres, I–III, 1990), I can only agree with the position put forward by their predecessor in the same collection in 1926: 'We must conclude that all of the attempts to determine the exact sources of Acts from a literary point of view have failed. It is useless to go into the details and try to identify a source document for one part or another, because the writer has not literally reproduced his sources; he has reworked them with his own vocabulary and style' (E. Jacquier,Actes des apôtres, 1926, p. cxliv; my translation)."
 * I found an author which calls Mark a "major source" for the two volume Luke-Acts, yet when comparing the two:"But the major difference between Mark and Luke-Acts is, of course, the sheer existence of the Acts of the Apostles itself. Ibid, p. 326"
 * I wasn't able to find any support for you third bullet point (Luke as a source for Acts), rather, everything i saw described Luke and Acts as the same work.EricR 03:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Internecine conflict
I'm looking for a list of case studies or examples of internecine conflict where one group could be characterised as the 'freedom fighters' or 'liberation movement', and the other group could be characterised as 'state-sponsored' or 'government aligned'. In particular, I would like to find a few examples where the conflicts have been 'resolved' both between the liberation movement and the 'state', and therefore between the anti- and pro- government factions themselves. I'm thinking about the ANC and Inkatha in South Africa; the Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA) and the Bougainville Resistance Force (BRF) in Bougainville; perhaps the RUF and the Kamajors in Sierra Leone (if that reconciliation has happened yet?). I know there are more examples, and I'll appreciate any brief list someone could provide or point me towards, or any other specific examples that could be posted here. Thanks if you can help.


 * Other examples from Africa could include the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the past 5 years, and Angola a few years ago. Such a process may now be underway in Côte d'Ivoire. Examples from Central America in the early 1990s include Guatemala and El Salvador. Marco polo 15:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Would Ireland and the IRA qualify? Anchoress 15:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We were thinking the same thing, Anchoress! I was adding to my comment the participation of the IRA and the Unionists in the Northern Ireland peace process at the same time you were typing your comment. (I backed out of the edit conflict because I am not sure how that would end up displaying.) Marco polo 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

For a small scale conflict, how about Oka Crisis in Canada ? StuRat 17:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are many small scale conflicts in Nigeria. A very brief overview explained to me by a doctor from South Nigeria: It used to be that Islamic Northern Nigeria was the profit center with peanut crops.  The Christian Southern Nigeria were seen as poor criminals living off the charity of the north.  Then, oil changed it around.  The south is the profit center and the north has largely abandoned any industry and lives off the profits from the south.  The quick shift still erupts in small scale conflicts between the Islamic north and Christian south.  This history was explained to me by a Christian from the south.  I don't know anyone from Northern Nigeria to get an opposing view on the conflicts. --Kainaw (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Derail. Yes, I've heard similar things, also from a sourthern perspective. They say that the only reason that the Islamic Northerners don't secede (and being the majority, they wouldn't have too much trouble) is because they depend on the south's oil. But that isn't to say that all parts of the south get the oil revenue they deserve; consider the inhabitants of the Niger Delta area, who regularly seize wells because they get plenty of pollution, but little money. Picaroon9288 21:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Colombia. -THB 01:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Old Testament
Philistine = Canaan? Neighboring areas? --Patchouli 15:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, Canaan is an area, and any people in it were called Canaanites (with the possible exception of Jews). Philistines, on the other hand, were a specific ethnic group, likely of Greek origin, which lived in that region.  Thus, the Philistines were Canaanites, but not all Canaanites were Philistines. StuRat 17:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, yes and no. Canaan was (roughly) the territory of modern Israel. The Philistines lived in what is (roughly) today's Gaza Strip. Although the two groups were neighbors, they had distinct cultural identities. It is speculated that the Philistines were, in the time of the Judges, fairly recent colonizers from, perhaps, Cyprus. Not much is known about the Philistines due to a lack of their cultural artifacts, not surprising as they were, after all, Philistines. :-) B00P 18:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally, the Arabic word for Palestine is Philistine. This is how I have heard Arabs talk about Palestinians, Philistines.--Patchouli 18:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ancient Philistia was a small coastal region within Canaan. It included what is now the Gaza Strip and a territory extending farther north, to the present day area of Tel Aviv.  Canaan covered an area somewhat larger than present-day Israel.  It also included Gaza, the West Bank, Golan, and adjacent parts of Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.  The southern part of the region was later known as Judah, and much of former Palestine was still later known as Judaea (or Iudaia) under the Hellenistic Greeks and Romans.  The region first acquired the name Palaestina after the First Jewish-Roman War.  After this war, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and changed the name of the province from "Judaea" to "Syria Palaestina"  (i.e. Philistine Syria) after the Philistines, so as to deny the Jews' claim to the land.  From that time until the 20th century, the area was known as Palestina (or Palestine in English).  The Arabic name for the region (Falastin) is taken not from the word "Philistine" but from the name of the Roman province.  Marco polo 18:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The explanations are great. Thank you.--Patchouli 19:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I know quite a few philistines, but none of them are Canaanites to my knowledge. :) JackofOz 01:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Student Council Help
Where can I find some ideas and slogans for elementary type elections. He needs to find a slogan for his election posters. Thank You

PS: Make sure that the slogans are age approriate. G and PG only --Devol4 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Rhyming is usually important if you're in elementary school (or if you're Jesse Jackson). What's his first name (so we can suggest a nice rhyming slogan) ? StuRat 23:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You might find some ideas at slogan.--Shantavira 10:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

His first name is Daniel and he is running for 5th grade represenative


 * ''Vote for Daniel
 * ''(he's our Willie Stark)
 * ''in this an'ual
 * schoolteacher's lark.
 * Lowerarchy 03:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Congress Meets
How many times does congress meet in one year?


 * Assuming you mean the US Congress, they're only constitutionally required to meet once per year, but never actually meet that rarely. See United States Congress for more info. -Elmer Clark 22:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Can Wilkipedia handle extremely pointed accurate statements?..
I deleted my ceilings to thought-processing, 30-years ago, and connected to various cosmic anomalies... I am writing an encyclopedia and dictionary, essentially from the near the year 45,000AD...  My work freaks people out...  Seems this Species fears New more than they fear death... plus it seems that religious design, has established a religious conditioning that causes the thinker a migraine when the mind accesses thought beyond the Faithful's permitted 7% mind-usage...  My writings give people serious migraines, in forcing them to try to "think out of the box"...  at which time, they too often defend themselves by acting as mindless psychotic apes...

I would publish this following truth-piece, and pieces like it.. if you people tell me that your project can handle my literary artistry and levels of insight...

"If "democracy" were truly Democracy.. then instead of spending a billion dollars, every four years, of the nation's money, for a pompous election.. the guy who knows he can't do the job, simply offers the job to the Best one who CAN do it...   The EXPERIMENT that we called "DEMOCRACY", has not worked...   It failed to provide honest human governance...   Democracy has become a modified ("state of the art") form of Slavery... For the sake of the survival of the Human Species, Democracy must be flushed from Humanity, and replaced with a state of the art form of governance that Does work, is relatively viably crime-proof, is life-based, not religion and money based...  Or humanity will be 100% extinct by the year 145,732AD...  and near the year 155,000AD the planet will not be able to support even the life of a hardy beetle.".. That you can bank-on... Anyone with an open mind, who has a basic grasp of "time-travel", can view DNA's molecular memories of the last human, in the time-period of near the year 145,730AD, cracking the marrow out of the bones of the second last human..."

Rather than me, you, and readers, getting into flame-fights and troubles, for something too-extreme I posted.. I request an open-minded editor's email address, for me to send what I intend to post.. so to have you post it, or to receive your approval for posting the entry(s)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.178.67 (talk • contribs)


 * People, I am new to this, so can I ask if the above nonsense-which shows clear signs of mental imbalance-can de deleted? Clio the Muse 23:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Its your POV that it is mental imbalance. However, I think the weight of argument against this post show that it does NOt require deletion. The thought has already been killed many times over.--Light current 23:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a place for original research, regardless of how extreme the research is. --Kainaw (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Get your book published, then we can TALK ABOUT IT! 8-)--Light current 21:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I, and most editors, would delete something like that immediately, if posted to an article. StuRat 21:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do we still have speedy article deletion?--Light current 22:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Read WP:V and WP:NOR. -Elmer Clark 22:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also NPOV. | A ndonic O   Talk  22:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what you've written is something that most people would never be able to understand. Trying to get people to understand your ideas in this way will be a great struggle for you. If you talk to a psychiatrist, however, he or she might be able to help you. Best of luck. --Grace 23:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * His butt must be his calculator, cause whereas most people pull data from a calculator.... --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to me the question asked is completely valid if only asked in a very esthetised way. 1.Is there a post-democratic form of social organization that could be found more efficient that our democratic regimes? 2.What kind of outlook might our descendants have on the way we manage our political life today? Although our friend from the future seems to have poor grasp of human psychology (so do i) and power relationship in societies, maybe all psychological problems having been solved our g-g-g-g-g-g-grand-children wont be able to understand why we were such a hieratic bunch. It seems the questioner is mostly critisizing democracy's efficiency but doesn't propose an alternative idea. Especially the assumption that it is democracy that is ruining our direct environment seems a bit too quick. And all this off course can only happen on the desk not in any article ... or maybe in a article about post democratic regimes.Keria 10:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the failures in the original statement is that it jumps to conclusions. Some parts are feasible, sure, but saying failed democracy becomes slavery is utter cruft. And the election doesn't cost billions every four years. It's their policies that might cost billions. And the op confuses government with economics, such as confusing communism and socialism. Democratic probably isn't causing much of the resources to be depleted. It's more likely the booming population as well as -maybe- capitalism. Scientifically, Earth can only support so many humans. And our DNA doesn't hold events in history, so you can't analyze it that way. And what the op is asking for is an utopia, which everyone knows can't exist because one rotten apple will spoil the entire thing. That's hardly government, and is all but a dream. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the views of the writer. The democracy that is being imposed is of the western form. It is a manifestation of impatience for desires. The east is being subjected to western imperialism till date. There is no doubt about the double standards perpetrated by the west. The west is imposing its way of materialistic life and freedom and no consideration for the poor. It stems from the sheer imperialistic dominant attitude on part of the west. Kjvenus 19:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Alternate German lyrics for Silent Night
The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, whose member were German speakers in the 19th century, had a different set of lyrics, which are used today in some of their churches at Christmas, even though services are in English. They were printed in a Youth Hymnal in the 1890s. I believe all the verses were different, but remember only the first one, which goes "Stille nacht, heilige nacht, alles schlaft, Einsam wacht, nur das Heilige Eltern Paar, das im Stalle zu Bethlehem war, bei dem himmlischen Kind, bei dem himmlischen kind." How did it happen that those Germans brought a variant version over to the U.S. in the 19th century? The article Silent Night has no mention of these other lyrics. Edison 21:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought that both that song, and Oh Christmas Tree (Oh Tannenbaum), were originally in German, and were then translated into English. StuRat 23:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, but the lyrics he's quoted are not those original German lyrics, but a variant. I don't know their origin, but I don't think it's all that odd that there are two versions (at least) of the lyrics in German. - Nunh-huh 23:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Most likely the German Lutheran immigrants during the 1830s and 1840s who founded the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod did not bring any version of Silent Night with them. The carol from 1818 was almost certainly not yet widely known and popular then, and certainly not among German Lutherans: the song has an Austrian Catholic pedigree. When the members of the congregation came into contact with it, it was most likely the English version they heard, and the variant German version is probably a free translation of the English lyrics, themselves a rather free translation of the original German text. Some other languages also have several rather different versions based on free translations. --Lambiam Talk  01:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

history of physics
what year did William Gilbert investigate magnetism and electricity?
 * The article you linked to indicates that he published his book on the subject in 1600. dpotter 23:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If it says so!--Light current 00:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)