Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 April 20

= April 20 =

The Great Game
I have a question regarding the name, but I wasn't sure whether to ask it here or the language desk. Is the name referring to "Game" as in the play thing, or Game as in hunting for game? I often see the political cartoons of the time using hunted animals to represent countries, so that is where my question arises. China = dragon, America = eagle, Britannia = lion, Russia = Bear, etc. --Kirby♥time 00:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am fairly certain that the word does not refer to game in the sense of a hunted animal. Rather, in this term, the word "game" means a strategic contest (not quite a "plaything"), as in a chess game, but with much greater stakes.  Marco polo 01:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Marco is absolutely correct; the Great Game refers to the strategic contest played out in the nineteenth century between Britain and Tsarist Russia for political control of Central Asia, particularly Afghanistan and the north-west frontier of India. The term was supposedly coined by Arthur Conolly, a captain in the Bengal Lancers and an employee of the East India Company. It was later popularised by Rudyard Kipling, the great poet of British Imperialism, in his novel Kim. The expression itself is uniquely English (is there a Russian equivalent?), and should really be viewed in terms of the national habit of trivialising quite serious affairs by the use of sporting analogies. Such delights as It's not cricket, old boy, and ''And England's far and Honour a name, But the voice of the schoolboy rallies the ranks; 'Play up!, play up! and play the game!''' come to mind; but the most famous of all is the Duke of Wellington's alleged observation that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. But we'll row forever! Clio the Muse 07:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Russian page is at ru:Большая Игра, which Google translate renders as "The Great Game". Don't know how much weight to give that, though. jnestorius(talk) 23:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Fixed the interwiki link above to be an inline one!). 'Большая Игра' does indeed translate as 'Great Game', and it seems to describe the same thing as The Great Game - and doesn't say anything about the term not being a Russian one. --ColinFine 23:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

List of animals commonly associated with nations?
Continuing from my previous question, is there a list of the animal metaphors for countries?--Kirby♥time 00:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The List of national animals may fit the bill. - Eron Talk 00:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never seen China represented as a Panda in a political cartoon.--Kirby♥time 01:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. China is usually represented as a dragon.  Marco polo 01:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I recall an old cartoon wherein a panda represented China... it's been probably 20 years though so I don't recall where it was that I saw it. Dismas |(talk) 09:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The dragon appears in our list of national emblems. Characters such as Uncle Sam and John Bull appear in our list of national personifications.  Marco polo 01:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I said may fit the bill... look, I'm perfectly fine with the Canadian beaver, alright? - Eron Talk 02:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, more than you'd think are perfectly fine with Canadian beaver beaver! ~ hydnjo talk   08:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Off the top of my head: lions, elephants, or gazelle from Kenya, moose or wolves from Canada, badgers from the UK, eagles from the US, cobras or tigers from India, foxes or raccoon dogs from Japan, pandas from China, mongoose from Bangledesh, crocs from Australia, kiwis from New Zealand, penguins from Antarctica, polar bears from the Arctic, pirhana or anacondas from Brazil, yak from Mongolia... Vranak

In the political cartoons of the nineteenth century-many appearing in Punch, the satirical magazine-Great Britain is variously depicted as a Lion or as the figure of Britannia or John Bull. Russia is usually in the form of a Bear, though occasionally a Cossack. France is sometimes depicted in the form of a cockerel, but more often in the shape of Marianne, the personification of revolution. Clio the Muse 09:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Prior to that, in Punch, and, of course, since then everywhere, the King would often be the nation. George Cruikshank and Isaac Cruikshank had some remarkable drawings where the King (Geo III) was drawn in the same outline as the UK on the map.  This form of political metonymy is commonplace, of course (Bush looking like Alfred E. Newman standing in for the entire nation is a fixture of political cartoons).  Utgard Loki 14:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Partisan politics in Canada
New at this, not sure how it works.

Question: What is "partisan politics" - specific to Canada

Please email response to [email removed]

Thanks,


 * I have removed the email, and started a new section for this question.--Kirby♥time 02:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are getting at... partisan politics in Canada is (depressingly) similar to partisan politics the world over. If you are looking for a quick overview, there are four major parties: the Conservatives (right of centre), the Liberals (centrist, leaning left and right as the electorate dictates), the New Democratic Party (left of centre), and the Bloc Québécois (French-canadian nationalists, and mostly left of centre). The right-left axis is similar to most Western democracies, although the "centre" is more akin to what you would find in a European country than in the US - that is to say, even the right-wing Conservatives espouse some positions that would make all but the bluest American Democrat quite uneasy. The most unique feature is probably the issue of Quebecois nationalism, which cuts across the political spectrum - although the federal Bloc and provincial Parti Québécois do skew left. - Eron Talk 03:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing like the level of contempt and recrimination in Canada that there is in the US, so you could argue that 'partisan politics' is less prominent, even non-existant in the northern state. Vranak


 * "Even non-existent"? I think that would be a tough argument to make. The fact that the partisan environment is not as poisoned as in the U.S. does not mean it isn't there. Books could be written (and have been) on the changes in Canadian conservatism - through the rise of the Reform Party of Canada, its evolution into the Canadian Alliance, and it's marginalization and absorption of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada - over the last fifteen years alone. - Eron Talk 10:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A tough argument to make -- back in 1993. I believe we are what... 14 years past that now? As for changing names and associations in Canadian politics, what could be more trite and inconsequential?Vranak


 * I think there are a few Red Tories who might disagree with you on the "trite and inconsequential" nature of changing names and associations. It can be disorienting to have one's party scoot to the right from under one's feet. I could also raise more current topics, such as recent flirtations between the Stéphane Dion and Elizabeth May of the Green Party of Canada, or discuss the rise of the Action démocratique du Québec and its implications for both the provincial and federal Liberal parties... but apparently it's all irrelevant. - Eron Talk 15:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I know a few Red Tories who are trite and inconsequential themselves. Come to think of it, I can't think of many politicians in 1st world countries that aren't trite and inconsequential.Vranak

On a constitutional level, I believe we are speaking of part of the Westminster System, which Britain spread to a range of countries, including Canada and Australia, for example. The advarsarial style is what these have in common. Regardless of party composition, the idea of govt v opposition doesn't really exist in the EU parliament, or US Congress, for example.martianlostinspace 16:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What is CopyFree?
Does anyone know what "CopyFree" means? I think it might mean without copyright, or perhaps it is a copyleft license. The reason I ask is to upload this image, or probably this cropped version to our Harvest Moon article. The image says "CopyFree", (Fins Eirexas is the photographer according to the Science@NASA site). Ideally, I would love to upload the image found here, but it is copyrighted. Who wants to ask the photographer himself to release that one under the GFDL? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

India, a Republic since 1947
I am a regular user of your website and find the material very informative and concise. I was reading the article on Royal House. Found that my country of origin India, is listed as part of the British Commonwealth and shows the Union Jack. I wish to raise an objection to this. India has been an Independent republic since 1947, and has its own National flag. i am not computer savvy enough to be able to make the changes, please comply. thanks


 * The India page looks good to me. I don't see much about India on the Royal House page.  Could you be more specific about where you found this? Pfly 03:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The page in question is most likely: List of Royal Houses, with House of Windsor listed as pretender.&mdash;eric 04:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is the aforesaid list. Quite frankly, I do not understand this either, and therefore sympathise with the questioner's confusion and annoyance.  As it stands it looks as if the House of Windsor has a claim to the throne of India-and other Commonwealth republics-which is manifestly untrue.  The last Emperor of India was George VI, and the House of Windsor neither rules nor pretends to rule India.  For consistency one would also have to include the United States in the 'non-regnant' list!  I realise that this page is probably for historical purposes only; but it is still misleading.  Clio the Muse 05:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is definitely confusing. I think the United States predates the House of Windsor, so that may be off the hook.. but some obvious cases are missing, like Australia and New Zealand. If nothing else, the page could be a little more clear on just what it means to be a "pretender". I'm guessing it means something like "this royal house used to be the monarch of this place, but isn't now, but were the issue ever to come up again, we'd have a claim!" But that's just a guess... and an uneducated one at that. Thanks to the poster for pointing out this issue! Pfly 06:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Pfly, but Windsor was only a change of name, not change of dynasty, and our own dear Queen is a direct decendant of George III, with all of his titles, privileges and claims. If she is the 'pretender' to India she has every right to make a similar claim to the Colonies! Who knows-perhaps the real pretender is your own George IV? Clio the Muse 07:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Clio, I think that the correct styling is George II. His father (George I was the founder of that dynasty and would surely not submit to being part of the British succession.  I think that you are right that George II is a pretender to the British throne, rather than the other way around.  He has Tony Blair serving as his loyal prime minister.  Marco polo 12:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha! Ha! Ha! Yes, you are quite right, Marco, and I am happy to give way to your superior wisdom!  Since George III was the last official 'King of America', I was thinking of Dubya as the fourth in the line; but if we include Le Père Bush, then I suppose our collective monarch is more properly entitled George V.  Clio the Muse 13:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, India is independant, but isn't it still part of the Commonwealth? How else can they be in the commonwealth games (or am I imagining they participated?)
 * "A Pretender is a claimant to an abolished throne or to a throne already occupied by somebody else." Britain at some point in the past ruled India so they are claimant to the throne. The list doesn't appear to contradict the fact they're a republic now per this definition. - Mgm|(talk) 12:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The top of the list states it lists royal houses that are ruling and have ruled in the past. The "non-regnant" note in the table means the Windsor's no longer rule India. I think you misunderstood what it said. - Mgm|(talk) 12:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is possible to be a member of the Commonwealth and to be a republic at the same time (that is, not to accept the current monarch of England as head of state). India is such a republic.  According to the accepted definition, "a pretender is a claimant".  As Clio has pointed out, the monarchs of England are not claimants to the throne of India (which in any case no longer exists), so they are not pretenders.  It is wrong  to label them as such.  Marco polo 12:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put a note on the article's discussion (talk) page calling for it to be reorganized. (Really, that would have been a better place to raise the issue in the first place.) --Anonymous, April 20, 2007, 22:13 (UTC).


 * Yes, indeed. The Commonwealth of Nations contains 53 member states.  The Queen is regarded as Head of the Commonwwealth by all 53 states, but she is the Head of State (= monarch) to only 16 of them.  JackofOz 00:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

List of online news agencies
Where can I find a list of online news agencies that offer reader feedback or reader comment page following every published story and of these which are interactive like the discussion or "talk" pages on the Wikipedia? Nebraska Bob 03:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

explorations
i have a question?i began my famous expedition on the eighteenth.who am i?my journey was from where to where.


 * Listen, my children, and you shall hear
 * Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
 * On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-Five;
 * Hardly a man is now alive
 * Who remembers that famous day and year
 * On the midnight ride of Paul Revere

Or, choose your own. hydnjo talk   08:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Boston to Lexington and Concord Mass.-Czmtzc 19:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

John Mill
Hello, but stuck on something im trying to research, How does John Mill argue that Liberty maximises utility? Does he mean that by allowing indiiduals freedom to amke their own choices they will on the whole pick 'good choices'?? What about people who choose sadism for example?? Or is he arguing that people simply wont pick this? Oh and is this a refution of the idea that utilitarianism leads to bad consequences??

Sorry, a lot of questions really!


 * Have a look at my talk page, the section headed Utilitarianism-item number 50-,which deals, in part, with the very problem you have touched on here. You should also consult the Wikipedia pages on Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham.  Clio the Muse 13:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, how do i access the talkpage??


 * Follow this link ... which gives me an excuse to quote the one and only Philosophers Song : John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill ... Gandalf61 13:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And David Hume could out-consume William Friedrich Hegel! Clio the Muse 23:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm still dont really understand. Why is it that liberty will increase overall utility??


 * I'm not surprised by your bafflement, but you will find the answers you are looking for on the pages and links indicated. Alternatively, you should consider looking into On Liberty and Utilitarianism, by John Stuart Mill.  However, here is the argument at the most basic level.  According to Mill, each person acts to maximise his or her own happiness.  The sum of these individual acts then constitutes to the 'general happiness', the one goal that is desired by each of the participants. In response to this, James Martineau, another nineteenth century English philosopher, wrote that "As well might you argue that because of a hundred men each one's hunger is satisfied by his dinner, the hunger of all must be satisfied by the dinner of each."  Happiness and satisfaction, in other words, cannot be deduced from the general to the particular.  Even in a condition of perfect liberty, it is impossible to achieve a uniform standard of happiness.  Mill tries to distinguish between the 'quality' and the 'quantity' of pleasures.  The problem then is the assumption that virtue is desired for its own sake, as an end in itself.  But there is simply no basis in the Utilitarian system for making such arbitrary value judgements.  The world is not made up of university dons in a common room, or priests in a seminary, but of all sorts of people, with all sorts of ends.  There is no basis in logic for putting to one side all of the evil, perverse, malicious and egotistical ends that may be variously desired by individuals, and a utilitarian system of values could quite conceivably justify slavery as serving the good of the many at the expense of the few.  As I have said, human rights and personal responsibilities cannot be reduced to a utilitarian calculus, which stands, at the most basic level, in opposition to all of our fundamental notions of justice.  Clio the Muse 18:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No article exists on the Ottoman-Safavid Wars
I would like to request an article on the Ottoman-Safavid Wars. I hope I'm in the right place.Whistleblower1881 14:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You can place a request at the Requested Articles page.  --LarryMac 14:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help LarryMac. Whistleblower1881 15:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There's Treaty of Zuhab and a very small stub Persian-Ottoman relations. AnonMoos 15:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Whistleblower, do you have some knowledge or expertise in this area? If so, you might care to write an article yourself on this important subject. I would be more than happy to give you my opinion of such a piece in draft, if you wish. Clio the Muse 18:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Further existing articulettes and sections: Battle of Chaldiran, Ottoman wars in Near East and, as a possible point for forking off the newly created article, Safavid. ---Sluzzelin talk  18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of portals. Maybe Portal:Military history of the Ottoman Empire can be helped and helpful as well. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to help draft this article as I'm keenly interested in the subject. I doubt such a specific topic qualifies for a project, so I'm not sure how I should go about finding people to help me in creating it--I haven't the time nor the experience to finish such article on my own. Any suggections?

Though the topic may seem very specific it is by no means isolated or irrelevant. Infact, the current events in Iraq and Lebanon, specifically those related to the Sunni-Shia tension are what sparked my interest in these wars. Whistleblower1881 05:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly does qualify! I will help.  Never mind about expertise.  Just put down what you have, and we will take it from there.  Clio the Muse 11:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It does not matter how specific the topic is, it is by no means isolated or irrelevant. One only has to consider the single example of the Battle of Chaldiran.  But for the Turkish victory the Kurds might very well have remained within a single defined national territory.  In the aftermath of their defeat, moreover, the Safavids embraced Shia Islam as the religion of the Empire Clio the Muse 05:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Attorney Client Privilege
Under what conditions, if any, may the IDENTITY of the client be held privelaged? I.e. if a client would like an attorney to represent him/her on a transaction, but remain annonymous through that transaction, to what extent can that annonymity be legally upheld?


 * Check out Attorney-client privilege or Solicitor-client privilege. Clarityfiend 17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the context, the nature of the transaction, and the jurisdiction(s) involved. For example, some jurisdictions in the USA: "A lawyer shall not reveal (client) information ... unless the client gives informed consent ..." Rule 1.6 MRPC. There is also case law supporting Rule 1.6 as protecting client anonymity. As always, there are exceptions, and there may be other rules or laws governing confidentiality in any given case (see e.g., Whistleblower). Also, a client is always well advised to ask such matters be specifically enumerated in the written agreement of representation.

(In addition to the refs from Clarityfiend, see also: Legal_disclaimer, Category:Legal_ethics, Bar association, ABA, MCPR and MRPC). dr.ef.tymac 18:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, that's right. We're not lawyers and are not qualified to give legal advice. (Those who are wouldn't be dumb enough to do so.) Clarityfiend 20:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Brave New World
What are the different types of humans in Brave New World? Nick 20:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)nicholassayshi


 * Nick, this is your second bite at a Brave New World question in a very short space of time. Did you not read the page that was linked for you, because all of the relevant information is there?  Anyway, there are five classes, identified, from top to bottom, by letters of the Greek alphabet: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Epsilon.  Epsilon, the lowest of them all, is subdivided into plus, minus and moron.  Do read the page; better still, read the novel.  Clio the Muse 22:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nick! This book is a touchstone of English literature.  If you don't read it, you're going to spend the next 70 years of your life faking it at parties whenever people reference it.  Your classmates who have interesting lives of non-drudgery ahead are all reading it.  Just ask your mom to get you some Ritalin and buckle down and *do it*.  Trust me, it will be worth it.  --TotoBaggins 00:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I daresay that one could live quite happily without reading Brave New World. Nineteen Eighty-Four, on the other hand... Vranak

Vranak, I couldn't agree more.Whistleblower1881 09:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four are not really comparable as novels, beyond the bare fact that they are both dystopian. Orwell and Huxley had quite different points of departure. For Orwell, the imagined future was built on a totalitarian present, with the examples of Fascism and, above all, Stalinism before his mind. It was a brutal vision, based on the manipulation of memory, constant warfare and the deliberate creation of shortages. Huxley, in contrast, was less interested in the deleterious effects of contemporary ideologies, and much more in the soulless nature of mass consumerism, based on the creation and control of artificial desires. It is a vision of a future based on contrived happiness, without depth or real moral purpose, a one-dimensional future of the kind later explored in the theoretical work of Herbert Marcuse. Of the two visions, Huxley's is far closer to our truth, the 'future' at this particular point in history. To judge them purely as works of literature I would say, in expressing a personal opinion, they are both of considerable value; but as a craftsman Huxley had a far better command of literary technique, a greater understanding of character and language than Orwell. Nineteen Eighty-Four at some points breaks down as a novel, especially in the long and undigested extracts from Emmanuel Goldstein's 'Book.' There is another dystopian novel which is often overlooked, though in some ways it is better than either Huxley or Orwell-We by the Russian writer Yevgeny Zamyatin, which combines elements of Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four. Clio the Muse 10:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * They are the two most well-known and acclaimed dystopian novels: I would hardly dismiss that as a 'bare fact'. Vranak


 * Fun all around. Since you're an History graduate who has, apparently, a strong command of the English language, would you  consider helping out with the Ottoman-Safavid thing? Whistleblower1881 10:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course I would. Did you not see what I wrote above?  Put something together and I will gladly have a look at it.  Clio the Muse 10:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well then. I will let you know as soon as I complete the skeleton.Whistleblower1881 11:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Why are my words "boxed"?Whistleblower1881 11:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Because you are moving away from the margin! To do this without 'boxing' use a colon thus : depending how deep you want to go.  Good luck!  Clio the Muse 11:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers! Whistleblower1881 11:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose so: but much depends on your definition of fun! Clio the Muse 10:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As in learning-something-new fun. Whistleblower1881 10:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Other similar names for "Yeshua of Nazareth"
I understand these are possible spellings for name of Jesus of Nazareth. Is there other spellings for Jesus that have the letters "esous" or "ous" or "ou" in them? --Doug talk 20:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * German: Jesus
 * Middle English: Jhesus or Jhesu
 * Modern English: Jesus Christ
 * Latin: Iesus or Eesho or Iesu
 * Hebrew: Yeshua or Yehoshua
 * Arabic: Yeshua or Yasu
 * Greek: Iesou or Iēsous or Iēsoun


 * I don't know but "Eesho" is not Latin, and in Arabic his name is `Isa. A possible transliteration of the Wyandot language spells his name as "Jesous" (as in the Huron Carol). Adam Bishop 01:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In Arabic his name is both. In Islam, his name is `Isa. For Arab Christians, his name is Yasu.--Kirby♥time 01:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Hebrew above looks questionable, and I suggest you check your sources for those putative forms. (In particular: "Yehoshua" is a transliteration of the Hebrew name יהושע that's come into English as "Joshua".) [added: corresponds to historical but not modern language; see reply by AnonMoos, below, and pages on Yeshua and Yeshu.] In two leading Hebrew-to-English dictionaries (R. Alcalay's Complete English-Hebrew Dictionary and Kernerman/Kahn's Oxford English-Hebrew, Hebrew-English Dictionary), the name is given as ישו (transliterated 'Yeshu') and parenthetically, 'הנוצרי' (ha-notzri; lit. "the Nazarene"). -- Deborahjay 13:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC); amended to reflect info in subsequent edits, 23:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Actually ישו is a derogatory variant, while ישוע is the same name which appears in the Hebrew Bible at Ezra 2:2, 2:6, 2:36, 2:40, 3:2, 3:8, 3:9, 3:10, 3:18, 4:3, 8:33; Nehemiah 3:19, 7:7, 7:11, 7:39, 7:43, 8:7, 8:17, 9:4, 9:5, 11:26, 12:1, 12:7, 12:8, 12:10, 12:24, 12:26; 1 Chronicles 24:11; and 2 Chronicles 31:15 -- and also in Aramaic at Ezra 5:2. AnonMoos 14:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In stating that ישוע (Yeshua) "is the same name" – would that be, and are all those biblical citations, in reference to "Jesus of Nazareth"? Or just a name? -- Deborahjay 16:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hebrew/Aramaic ישוע as found in those Old Testament passages is the same name as Greek Iêsous (&#921;&#951;&#963;&#959;&#965;&#962;) found in the New Testament. This name ישוע [yēšū`] is a post-500-B.C. shortened version of earlier Hebrew יהושע [yehōšū`] -- so in Nehemiah 8:17 in the Old Testament, Joshua son of Nun is referred to as ישוע [yēšū`], and in the ancient Greek of Josephus and the New Testament Joshua son of Nun appears as &#921;&#951;&#963;&#959;&#965;&#962; (I&ecirc;sous); see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. AnonMoos


 * What's meant by [the name] ישו (Yeshu) being "a derogatory variant"? Perhaps the intention is "corrupted," i.e. from some earlier source. Or is it that there's some confusion with an abbreviation formed by those letters, of the phrase "שמו וזכרו" (yemach sh'mo ve-zichro), "[may] his name and [the] memory of him be obliterated" (per A. Even-Shoshan's New Dictionary). All the dictionaries I've cited, above and here, are of Modern Hebrew. -- Deborahjay 16:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ישו is an intentionally and deliberately altered form of ישוע . It was the most common form used by Jews writing in an Aramaic or Hebrew context from Talmudic times to the 19th century when referring to Jesus of Nazareth, but Christians knowledgeable in Hebrew can consider it to be offensive, and you won't find it in religious literature translated into Hebrew by Christians. AnonMoos 17:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I now see that both Yeshua and Yeshu have extensive pages of their own, and am providing them here for other interested readers seeking further explanations of these variant names. -- Deborahjay 23:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I could very well be wrong on my spellings of Jesus and what language they associate with. Thanks for any corrections! Mostly just looking for other spellings that have "esous" or "ous" or "ou" in them. Thanks again to all of you for this help and corrections. --Doug talk 15:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "ou" was the ancient Hellenistic Greek spelling of an ordinary long [ū] vowel, and so was used in ancient Hellenistic Greek to transcribe the long [ū] vowel of the Hebrew/Aramaic name ישוע [yēšū`] (ending in a voiced pharyngeal conosnant - this name wasn't pronounced [yēšūă`] in Aramaic/Hebrew until a later period). AnonMoos 16:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the Middle English of this spelling, if I am not mistaken wouldn't it be more likely spelled Ihesu since the letter "J" was not yet used (or in wide use). This then to me looks a lot like Hebrew/Aramaic name ישוע [yēšū`], since the letter "i" and "y" seem to be interchangable (many times). This then would be "Ihesu" (or "Iesu") being very similar to "yesu". Would that be a good assumption and conclusion? Perhaps this is where John Wycliffe got his spelling of "Jesus" for his New Testament translation? Taking this further and placing the letters "ou" back in on Wycliffe's interpretation it could be then Iesou or Greek Iesous(as in above), being the same thing as today's "Jesus". Is this a correct conclusion? In Greek could the letters "ies" or "ie" or "es" be equivalent to (or be similar to) the letter "n" (something like just the letter "u" could replace the letters "ou")? --Doug talk 23:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't that 'J' wasn't used, it was the same letter as 'I', rather in the same way that a printed 'a' and a script 'a' have very different shapes, but we read them as the same letter without even noticing. In any mediaeval language in Europe 'Ihesu' and 'Jhesu' were the same spelling. But don't assume that the 'h' was necessarily pronounced in that word in English - it might have been, but it might equally have been a spelling variant of 'Iesu'. I would think that the spelling 'Iesus' was adopted directly from the Greek, but I don't know for shure.
 * I don't understand your last question. The letter 'u' could replace Greek 'ου' because it represented the same sound. The Greek letter 'υ' had already become fronted (like modern French 'u') even in hellenistic times. But no Greek sequence with a 'σ' (i.e. 's') is going to sound like 'n'. --ColinFine 00:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for these great answers and corrections. Excellent info. --Doug talk 11:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The H might come from the medieval Latin scribal abbreviation "IHS", which was actually borrowed from Greek (where the H is of course an eta). Adam Bishop 07:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

US House of Representatives - 2006 results - Incumbents vs 'New' Candidates?
Hello
 * I'm going nuts trying to locate specific results for the 2006 US House election -I am looking for the incumbent win/loss ratio.  I know that records may have been set by the last election  - I can find WHO won, what party, etc., however,  I can't find out how many 'new' candidates won opposed to the incumbents.  Hope I'm clear on what I'm looking for - I already looked on the Wikipedia US House 2006 election page and while there is a great deal of information I don't see what I'm searching for there ..  unless I missed it.

thank you, Aim4Stars 21:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a list of incumbents who lost or didn't run for re-election: . You can subtract the total number of House members on the page by 435 to find the number of incumbents who ran again and won. -- Mwalcoff 23:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)